Penal Code, 1860: ss. 304B and 201 r/w s. 34 – Dowry death – Prosecution case was that the victim-deceased daughter of informant (PW-3) was married to A-1 – Within few months of marriage, A-1, his father (A-2) and his mother (A-3) started harassing her for cash and motor cycle – They threatened the victim that if the demand was not fulfilled then they would throw her out of matrimonial home and get A-1 married to someone else – Similar message was conveyed to PW-3 by his son-in-law (PW-2) with whom A-1 had raised the issue of insufficient dowry – It was within 15 days of this incident that PW-3 received information from PW-2 about his daughter having gone missing from matrimonial home – A missing complaint was lodged with local police after making futile search – Five days after the complaint, a dead body was recovered from the banks of the river – PW-3 identified the body as that of his daughter – Doctor who conducted autopsy deposed that there was no evidence of any ante-mortem injury – Trial Court convicted all the accused under ss.304 B and 201 r/w s.34 on the basis of circumstantial evidence – High Court upheld conviction – Appeal against conviction – A-2 died during pendency of appeal – Held: The circumstances set out in s.304B were established in the light of the fact that the deceased, had gone missing from her matrimonial home within a few months of her marriage and immediately after demands of dowry were made on her and that her death had occurred under abnormal circumstances – Such a death has to be charactarized as a “dowry death” – There was sufficient evidence to inculpate A-1 (husband of the deceased) – The circumstances put together, unerringly pointed to his guilt in extinguishing the life of his wife within a few months of the marriage on her failing to satisfy the demands of dowry – The impugned judgment and order of sentence imposed on A-1 is maintained – However, against A-3 (Mother-in-law), evidence showed only omnibus allegations against her with respect to dowry demands – Prosecution was not able to indicate any specific allegations, nor pointed to any specific evidence or testimony against her – Conviction order against her is set aside.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1 Section 304B IPC read in conjunction with Section 113B of the Evidence Act leaves no manner of doubt that once the prosecution has been able to demonstrate that a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry, soon before her death, the Court shall proceed on a presumption that the persons who have subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry, have caused a dowry death within the meaning of Section 304B IPC. The said presumption is, however, rebuttable and can be dispelled on the accused being able to demonstrate through cogent evidence that all the ingredients of Section 304B IPC have not been satisfied. [Para 17][722-C-E] Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana (2011) 11 SCC 359 : [2011] 1 SCR 724; Maya Devi and Anr. v. State of Haryana (2015) 17 SCC 405 : [2015] 11 SCR 903 – relied on .
1.2 In the instant case, despite the shoddy investigation conducted by the prosecution, the circumstances set out in Section 304B of the IPC have been established in the light of the fact that the deceased, had gone missing from her matrimonial home within a few months of her marriage and immediately after demands of dowry were made on her and that her death had occurred under abnormal circumstances, such a death would have to be charactarized as a “dowry death”. [Para 18][722-E-F]
2. Recovery of the body from the banks of the river clearly indicates that the deceased woman had died under abnormal circumstances that could only be explained by her husband and in-laws, as she was residing at her matrimonial home when she suddenly disappeared and no plausible explanation was offered for her disappearance. The plea raised on behalf of the accused that the body recovered from the banks of Barakar river was unidentifiable, is devoid of merits when PW-3, father of the deceased testified that he could recognize the dead body as that of the deceased, from a part of the face that had remained intact and from the clothes that were found on the body. As regards A1, the High Court and the trial Court have rightly raised a presumption against him under Section 113B of the Evidence Act which prescribes that the Court shall presume that a person has caused a dowry death of a woman if it is shown that soon before her death, she had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry. [Para 19][722-F-H; 723-A-B]
3.1. The case of the prosecution rests solely on circumstantial evidence. No eye witness was produced who could testify as to how the body of the deceased was found on the banks of river Barakar. From the circumstances, there can be two hypothesis. One is that the deceased was done away with within the four walls of her matrimonial home, her dead body was smuggled out and dumped into the river. The second presupposition would be that the deceased was alive when she was taken to the river-side under some pretext and pushed in, leading to her death by drowning. If the first assumption is taken to be correct, then surely, some villager would have seen the accused persons carrying the dead body to the river where it was finally dumped. However, the prosecution has not produced any villager who was a witness to the body of the deceased being taken out of the matrimonial home and carried to the river. Therefore, this version would have to be discarded in favour of the second one which is that the deceased was alive, when she was accompanied to the river and then she was forcibly pushed in and could not emerge alive from the watery grave. The latter assumption also gains strength from the post mortem report which records that there were no signs of any ante mortem injury on the body. If the deceased was killed in the house, then the body would certainly have revealed some signs of struggle. [Para 21][723-E-H; 724-A-B]
3.2 There is sufficient evidence brought on record to inculpate A-1 (husband of the deceased). The circumstances put together, unerringly point to his guilt in extinguishing the life of his wife within a few months of the marriage on her failing to satisfy the demands of dowry. The impugned judgment and order of sentence imposed on A-1 does not deserve interference and is maintained. [Para 22][724-B-C]
3.3 As for A-3 (Mother-in-law), from the evidence on record only certain omnibus allegations have been made against her with respect to dowry demands. The respondent-State has not been able to indicate any specific allegations, nor point to any specific evidence or testimony against her. In fact, in the only direct evidence before the Court, PW-3 (informant and father of the victim) mentions that A-2 threatened to harm the deceased. The findings of the Courts below convicting A-3 for the offence under Sections 304B and 201 read with Section 34, IPC is interfered with. She is directed to be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. [Para 23][724-D-F]
G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka (2010) 3 SCC
152 : [2010] 2 SCR 380; Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana (2010) 12 SCC 350 : [2010] 7 SCR 1119 – referred to.
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.