Penal Code, 1860: s. 304B – Dowry death – Conviction under – Prosecution case that the victim committed suicide by setting herself ablaze just after one year of her marriage and that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for bringing less dowry by the accused – Conviction of the accused for the offences u/s. 304B and 306 with 7 years and 5 years rigorous imprisonment respectively – High Court upheld the order of the trial court – On appeal, held: Prosecution was able to successfully prove that the death of the victim due to burn injuries took place within one year of her marriage – It has been proved that soon before her death she was subjected to harassment and cruelty pursuant to demands of dowry – Chain of circumstances proves that there existed a live and proximate link between the instances of demand of dowry and the death of the victim – Statements of the witnesses were corroborative, consistent and reliable – However, presumption in s. 113B not rebutted by the accused – Thus, the High Court and trial court rightly convicted the accused u/s. 304-B – As regards offence u/s. 306, the prosecution failed to establish that the death occurred due to suicide, thus, the conviction and sentence u/s. 306 is set aside – Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 113B, 113A. s. 304B – Phrase ‘soon before’ – Interpretation of – Held: Phrase ‘soon before’ in s. 304B cannot be construed to mean immediately before – Strict interpretation would defeat the very object of enactment – No straitjacket formulae can be laid down by this Court to define what eXacts the phrase soon before entails – Thus, the Courts should use their discretion to determine if the period between the cruelty or harassment and the death of the victim would come within the term soon before – Establishment of a proximate and live link between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim, is pivotal to the said determination. s. 304B – Dowry death – Categorization death, as homicidal or suicidal or accidental – Pigeonhole approach – Held: s.304 B does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental – Reason for such noncategorization is due to the fact that death occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental.
s. 304B – Inclusion of, in the Code – Legislative history – Explained.
Evidence Act, 1872: s. 113-B – Presumption as to dowry death – Rebuttal of – Held: When the prosecution shows that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, a presumption of causation arises against the accused u/s. 113B – Thereafter, the accused has to rebut this statutory presumption – Usage of rebuttable presumption of causality, u/s. 113B creates a greater responsibility on Judges, defense and prosecution – They need to be extra careful during conducting criminal trials relating to s. 304-B.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss. 233, 232 – Entering upon defence – Right to accused u/s. 233 – Held: Under s. 232 if, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal – Once the trial court decides that the accused is not eligible to be acquitted as per the provisions of s. 232, it must move on and fix hearings specifically for defence evidence, calling upon the accused to present his defense as per the procedure provided u/s. 233, which is also an invaluable right provided to the accused – Existence of such procedural right cohesively sits with the rebuttable presumption as provided u/s. 113B, Evidence Act.
Judicial guidelines: Dowry death cases – Trial of – Held: Guidelines have been laid down for the trial of dowry death cases. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Considering the significance of s. 304-B IPC, a strict interpretation would defeat the very object for which it was enacted. Therefore, it is safe to deduce that when the legislature used the words, ‘soon before’ they did not mean immediately before. Rather, they left its determination in the hands of the courts. The factum of cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. Even the spectrum of cruelty is quite varied, as it can range from physical, verbal or even emotional. This list is certainly not eXhaustive. No straitjacket formulae can therefore be laid down by this Court to define what eXacts the phrase soon before entails. Therefore, Courts should use their discretion to determine if the period between the cruelty or harassment and the death of the victim would come within the term soon before. What is pivotal to the above determination, is the establishment of a proximate and live link between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim. [Paras 14, 15][282-C-E; 283-A-B]
Major Singh v. State of Punjab (2015) 5 SCC 201 : [2015] 5 SCR 777; Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company (2018) 9 SCC 1 : [2018] 7 SCR 1191; [State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah 2020 SCC OnLine SC 412]; Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 207 : [2000] 3 SCR 662; Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015) 6 SCC
477 : [2015] 2 SCR 835 – Referred to
1.2 When the prosecution shows that “soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry”, a presumption of causation arises against the accused under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. Thereafter, the accused has to rebut this statutory presumption. The usage of rebuttable presumption of causality, under Section 113B, Evidence Act, creates a greater responsibility on Judges, defense and prosecution. They need to be extra careful during conducting criminal trials relating to Section 304B, IPC. In order to address this precarious situation, procedural law has some safeguards. [Paras 16, 19][283-B-C; 284-A-C]
Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana (2011) 11 SCC 359 : [2011] 1 SCR 724 – referred to
1.3 It is a matter of grave concern that, often, Trial Courts record the statement of an accused under Section 313, CrPC in a very casual and cursory manner, without specifically questioning the accused as to his defense. The examination of an accused under Section 313, CrPC cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, as it is based on the fundamental principle of fairness. This provision incorporates the valuable principle of natural justice” “audi alteram partem”, as it enables the accused to offer an explanation for the incriminatory material appearing against him. Therefore, it imposes an obligation on the part of the Court to question the accused fairly, with care and caution. The Court must put incriminating circumstances before the accused and seek his response. A duty is also cast on the counsel of the accused to prepare his defense, since the inception of the trial, with due caution, keeping in consideration the peculiarities of Section 304B, IPC read with Section 113B, Evidence Act. [Para 20] [284-C-F]
1.4 Section 232, CrPC assumes importance, which reads as, “if, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal”. Once the trial court decides that the accused is not eligible to be acquitted as per the provisions of Section 232 it must move on and fix hearings specifically for defence evidence, calling upon the accused to present his defense as per the procedure provided u/s. 233 which is also an invaluable right provided to the accused. Existence of such procedural right cohesively sits with the rebuttable presumption as provided under Section 113B Evidence Act. [Para 21][284-E-H]
1.5 The second contentious part relating to Section 304B, IPC is that it does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental, as was done earlier. The reason for such non categorization is due to the fact that death occurring “otherwise than under normal circumstances” can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. However, Section 304B endeavors to also address those situations wherein murders or suicide are masqueraded as accidents. Thus, if all the other ingredients of Section 304B IPC are fulfilled, any death whether caused by burns or by bodily injury or occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances shall, as per the legislative mandate, be called a “dowry death” and the woman’s husband or his relative “shall be deemed to have caused her death” unless proved otherwise. The section clearly specifies what constitutes the offence of dowry death and also identifies the single offender or multiple offenders who has or have caused the dowry death. [Paras 22, 23][284-H; 285-A-D]
Maya Devi v. State of Haryana (2015) 17 SCC 405:[ 2015] 11 SCR 903; Shanti v. State of Haryana (1991)
1 SCC 371: [1990] 2 Suppl. SCR 675 – referred to.
1.6 In the instant case, the deceased victim succumbed to burns. As the death was relatable to burn injuries within seven years of marriage, it clearly satisfies the first two ingredients of the offence. [Para 25][285-E-F]
1.7 The chain of circumstances proves that there existed a live and proximate link between the instances of demand of dowry and the death of the deceased. The trial court, and the High Court, upon a close appreciation of the said witnesses came to the conclusion that the statements were corroborative and consistent. They found the witnesses to be reliable and on the basis of the same held that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death as she failed to bring sufficient dowry. The said finding of the trial court and the High Court is accepted. [Para 27] [286-B-D]
1.8 It is clear that the prosecution was able to successfully prove that the death of the deceased due to burn injuries took place within approximately one year of her marriage. It has further been proved that soon before her death she was subjected to harassment and cruelty pursuant to demands of dowry. Since the ingredients of Section 304B, IPC stand satisfied, the presumption under section 113B, Evidence Act operates against the appellants, who are deemed to have caused the offence specified under Section 304B IPC. [Para 28][286-D-F]
1.9 The burden therefore shifts on the accused to rebut the presumption u/s. 113-B. However, the accused persons failed to place any evidence on record to prove that the death was accidental or unconnected with the accused persons. It ought to be noted that, according to the evidence of the doctor, the entire body of the deceased was doused with kerosene oil. Therefore, the possibility of an accident can be safely ruled out. Therefore, the presumption adumbrated in Section 113B, Evidence Act takes full effect in this particular case, which has not been rebutted by the accused-appellants. The appellants have failed to make out a case for this Court to interfere in the concurrent opinions of the Courts below, convicting the accused-appellants under Section 304B, IPC. [Paras 29-31][286-F-H; 287-B-C]
1.10 For the offence under Section 306, IPC the prosecution needs to first establish that a suicide has been committed. Secondly, the prosecution must also prove that the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide, has played an active role in the same. With respect to this latter requirement, Section 113A, Evidence Act creates a presumption against the husband and/or his relative with respect to the abetment of suicide of a married woman, under certain conditions. A perusal of the provision indicates that such presumption shall be attracted only if the factum of suicide has been established by the prosecution first. [Para 33][287-E-G]
Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana (1989) 1 SCC 244 – Referred to
1.11 In the instant case, the Trial Court and the High Court have concluded that the deceased committed suicide. However, the conclusion reached by the Courts below is based on assumptions, as there is no evidence on record to support the same. There was insufficient evidence to prove the factum of suicide beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption u/s 113-A, Evidence Act, is not of much help for the prosecution. The essential ingredient of deceased committing suicide has not been proved by the prosecution by adducing sufficient evidence. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish that the death occurred due to suicide. [Paras 34, 35][288-B-C, D-F]
1.12 The law under Section 304B, IPC read with Section 113B, Evidence Act can be summarized below:
i. Section 304B, IPC must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand.
ii. The prosecution must at first establish the existence of the necessary ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 304B, IPC. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the rebuttable presumption of causality, provided under Section 113B, Evidence Act operates against the accused.
iii. The phrase “soon before” as appearing in Section 304"B, IPC cannot be construed to mean immediately before. The prosecution must establish existence of “proximate and live link” between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the husband or his relatives.
iv. Section 304B, IPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental. The reason for such non categorization is due to the fact that death occurring “otherwise than under normal circumstances” can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental.
v. Due to the precarious nature of Section 304B, IPC read with 113B, Evidence Act, judges, prosecution and defence should be careful during conduct of trial.
vi. It is a matter of grave concern that, often, trial courts record the statement under Section 313, CrPC in a very casual and cursory manner, without specifically questioning the accused as to his defense. It ought to be noted that the examination of an accused under Section 313, CrPC cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, as it based on the fundamental principle of fairness. The said provision incorporates the valuable principle of natural justice “audi alteram partem” as it enables the accused to offer an explanation for the incriminatory material appearing against him. Therefore, it imposes an obligation on the court to question the accused fairly, with care and caution.
vii. The Court must put incriminating circumstances before the accused and seek his response. A duty is also cast on the counsel of the accused to prepare his defense since the inception of the trial with due caution, keeping in consideration the peculiarities of Section 304B, IPC read with Section 113B, Evidence Act.
viii. Section 232, CrPC provides that, “if, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal”. Such discretion must be utilized by the trial courts as an obligation of best efforts.
ix. Once the trial court decides that the accused is not eligible to be acquitted as per the provisions of Section 232, CrPC, it must move on and fix hearings specifically for defence evidence, calling upon the accused to present his defense as per the procedure provided under Section 233, CrPC, which is also an invaluable right provided to the accused.
x. In the same breath, trial courts need to balance other important considerations such as the right to a speedy trial. In this regard, the provisions should not be allowed to be misused as delay tactics.
xi. The presiding Judge should follow the guidelines laid down by this Court while sentencing and imposing appropriate punishment.
xii. Undoubtedly, the menace of dowry death is increasing day by day. However, it is also observed that sometimes family members of the husband are roped in, even though they have no active role in commission of the offence and are residing at distant places. In these cases, the Court need to be cautious in its approach. [Para 36][288-F-H; 289-A-H; 290-A-E]
1.13 After perusing the relevant material and the evidence available, it is found that the High Court and trial court have not committed any error in convicting the appellants under Section 304B, IPC as the appellants failed to discharge the burden under Section 113B, Evidence Act. However, upon appreciation of facts and circumstances the offence under Section 306, IPC is not made out. Therefore, the conviction and sentence under Section 306, IPC is set aside. [Para 37][290-E-G]
Global study on Homicide: Gender-related killing of women and girls, published by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime – 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.