Penal Code, 1860 – ss.304-B and 498-A – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – s.2 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113-B – Appellant married to victim-deceased on 25.06.1996 – On 02.04.1998, the deceased committed suicide – The Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable u/ss.304-B and 498A of IPC – By the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence – Correctness: Held: There were three main witnesses: PW-6 (the mother of the deceased), PW-7 (brother of the deceased) and PW-8 (maternal uncle of the deceased) – Both the Courts have believed the testimony of PW-6 and PW-7 – PW-6 was confronted by showing her prior statements at exhibit PD and DA recorded by the police – All the demands of dowry stated by her in her examination-in-chief are omissions as far as both the statements are concerned – These omissions are significant and relevant and, therefore, by virtue of explanation to s.162 of the CrPC, the same amounts to contradictions – The version of PW-6 in her statements recorded on 02.04.1998 and 06.04.1998 regarding providing dowry and regarding demands of dowry are omissions – There is something fundamental which goes to the root of the matter – While deposing about the demand of dowry, she has not deposed to any particular act of cruelty or harassment by the appellant – This is an essential ingredient of s.304-B – It is not made out from the evidence of PW-6 – In the cross-examination, PW-7 stated that police had recorded his statements, which were marked as exhibits DG and DH – PW-7 accepted that the allegation that the accused used to maltreat his sister on account of insufficient dowry given in the marriage and having brought broken furniture is not found in both the police statements – He also stated that the demand for a refrigerator, a motorcycle, and a mixi does not find place in both statements – Therefore, the version of PW-7 in his examination-in-chief about the demands of dowry is a significant and relevant omission – Hence, this amounts to a contradiction – The statement of PW-8 was recorded more than two and half months from the date of the incident – Moreover, he had no personal knowledge whether the appellant had subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment – Therefore, the prosecution did not prove the material ingredients of the offence punishable u/s.304-B – Not a single incident of cruelty covered by s.498-A was proved by the prosecution – Therefore, both the offences alleged against the appellant were not proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt – Hence, the impugned judgments dated 09.11.2010 and 24.01.2002 are hereby quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offences alleged against him. [Paras 2, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.304-B – Essential ingredients: Held: The following are the essential ingredients of Section 304-B: a) The death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury, or must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; b) The death must have been caused within seven years of her marriage; c) Soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of her husband; and d) Cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. [Para 6]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.