Penal Code, 1860 – s.304-B – Dowry death – When not – PW-3-father of the deceased stated that the appellant got married to his daughter on 26.05.91 – Soon after the marriage, she was illtreated by the appellant, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sisterin-law, as they demanded dowry – As per PW-3, on 08.02.94, he received information that his daughter expired in the Hospital and alleges that the same was caused by the administration of poison by the accused persons – Trial court concluded that the prosecution proved its case only against the appellant and the mother-in-law of the deceased whereas in respect of accused father-in-law and sisterin-law, no specific role was assigned and therefore, they were acquitted – High Court, while granting benefit of doubt to the motherin-law, allowed her appeal and acquitted her, whereas sentence of the appellant was reduced to seven years – On appeal, held: Prosecution relied upon the statement of PW3 and PW4-brother of the deceased, which was made basis of conviction by courts below – However, such statements are not sufficient to prove that the deceased was treated with cruelty relating to demand of dowry soon before her death, in the absence of independent evidence though available but not examined – Further, the documentary evidence in the shape of letters written by the deceased does not support the story of the prosecution – Prosecution failed to prove either the demand of dowry or that any such demand was raised soon before her death – Essential ingredients of offence u/s.304-B, IPC not proved – Prosecution has even failed to prove the initial presumption u/s.113-B of the Evidence Act – Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations levelled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction of the appellant, set aside – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113-B.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1 In the present case, the prosecution relies upon the statement of PW3-father and PW4-brother of the deceased which has been made basis of conviction by courts below. However, such statements are not sufficient to prove that the deceased was treated with cruelty relating to demand of dowry soon before her death in the absence of independent evidence though available but not examined. A memorandum Ex.PE/1 dt. 25.01.1992 was relied upon and said to be executed by the inlaws of the deceased in the presence of members of Panchayat. But none of the Panchayat Members have been examined to prove the settlement arrived at. Therefore, the oral statements cannot be relied upon in view of the letters produced by the prosecution. The prosecution also relies upon letter Ex. PF/1 written by the deceased to her father. The letter is to the effect that her in-laws have started hating and suspecting the deceased’s father, therefore, he should not give them the gold chain but only cash. Such letter does not show that anything was demanded by the appellant. The date of sending such letter has not been proved by the prosecution, therefore, it cannot be said that such letter was written soon before her death. Similarly, another letter produced by the prosecution is Ex. PK/1 which is a letter of the deceased to her brother-in-law(sisters-husband) stating that she has no problem with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law but her husband beats her daily. The date of this letter has not been proved nor does such letter lead to any inference for the demand of dowry by the husband of the deceased. Further, an additional letter relied upon by the prosecution is Ex. PG/1 dated 25.05.1992, wherein the deceased has written that she is unhappy and harassed by her in-laws in as much as her mother-in-law does not like the food she cooks. Again, there is no inference of any demand of dowry in such letter as well. Therefore, the documentary evidence in the shape of letters does not support the story of the prosecution. [Paras 14, 15] [595-E-G; 596-A-C]
1.2 The prosecution has failed to prove either the demand of dowry or that any such demand was raised soon before her death. Therefore, the essential ingredients of offence under Section 304-B of IPC are not proved by the prosecution. The prosecution has even failed to prove the initial presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872. Prosecution has failed to prove the allegations levelled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant is set aside and he is set at liberty as long as he is not involved in any other case. [Paras 16, 17] [596 D-F]
Satvir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2001) 8 SCC 633 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 353 ; Hira Lal & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi (2003) 8 SCC 80 : [2003]
1 Suppl. SCR 734 ; Sakatar Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2004) 11 SCC 291 ; Major Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab (2015) 5 SCC 201 : [2015] 5 SCR 777 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. 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.