Appeal
Appeal against high court judgment confirmed the conviction
1. The appellant and his parents were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’). While his parents were acquitted, the Sessions Court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. For the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence.
Deceased committed suicide and the death due to asphyxia
2. Appellant married to deceased Asha Rani on 25th June 1996. On 2nd April 1998, the deceased committed suicide. After the postmortem, the doctors opined that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. There were three main witnesses. PW-6 – Inder Kala (the mother of the deceased), PW-7 – Parvinder Kumar (brother of the deceased) and PW-8 – Ram Singh (maternal uncle of the deceased). Both the Courts have believed the testimony of PW-6 and PW-7.
Analysis
Consideration of submissions
5. Sections 498-A and 304-B read thus:
“Section 497A IPC” and
“Section 304B IPC”
Section 304-B IPC essential ingredients
6. 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.
Section 2 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
7. If the aforesaid four ingredients are established, the death can be called a dowry death, and the husband and/or husband’s relative, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have caused the dowry death. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to the other party to the marriage or to any other person. The dowry must be given or agreed to be given at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties. The term valuable security used in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has the same meaning as in Section 30 of IPC.
Presumption under section113-B IEA explained
8. In this case, there is no dispute that the death of the appellant’s wife occurred within seven years of the marriage. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act reads thus:
“113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.-When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”
The presumption under Section 113-B will apply when it is established that soon before her death, the woman has been subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Therefore, even for attracting Section 113-B, the prosecution must establish that the deceased was subjected by the appellant to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death. Unless these facts are proved, the presumptions under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked.
Demands stated in PW-6 chief-examination are significant omissions amounts to contradictions
10. PW-6 was confronted by showing her prior statements at exhibit PD and DA. All the aforesaid demands stated by her in her examination-in-chief are omissions as far as both the statements are concerned. Even the payment of Rs.10,000/- is an omission. These omissions are significant and relevant and, therefore, by virtue of explanation to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’), the same amounts to contradictions.
Omissions are afterthought
13. Therefore, the version of PW-6 in her statements recorded on 2nd April 1998 and 6th April 1998 regarding providing dowry and regarding demands of dowry are omissions. She also stated that she told the police that the accused had fled from their house. However, she admitted that even this fact is not mentioned in any of the three statements. She claimed that she has stated some of the instances of demand of dowry in her statement dated 23rd June 1998. The statement was recorded more than two and half months after the incident; and therefore, what is stated therein is an afterthought.
16. In the cross-examination, PW-7 stated that police had recorded his statements on 3rd April 1998 and 7th April 1998, which were marked as exhibits DG and DH, respectively. He 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 public prosecutor claimed that the demand for a refrigerator, a motorcycle, and a mixi was mentioned in his third statement, which was recorded on 23rd June 1998. The third statement, recorded belatedly, obviously appears to be an afterthought. As regards his statement that the accused used to give a beating to his sister, it seems that he got this information when he visited the matrimonial home of his sister three months after the marriage. It is a very vague allegation. Moreover, the witness has not stated that this was disclosed to him by his deceased sister. Assuming that what he has said is correct, this incident of beating must have taken place between 25th June 1996 till end of September 1996. Therefore, this incident did not happen soon before the death. It is not his case that when the deceased allegedly visited his house nine to ten days before the incident, she complained about any cruelty or any harassment. Thus, none of the three statements of the witnesses contain any specific instances of cruelty or harassment.
Direction to State Judicial Academies to enlighten trial courts
17. Now, coming to evidence of PW-8, Ram Singh. PW-6 has not deposed that any demand of dowry was made to PW-8 or in his presence. She claimed in the cross-examination that PW-8 had told her about the maltreatment and the demand of dowry by the accused three to four months after the marriage. She stated that before 23rd June 1998, the police did not record the statement of PW- 8. She stated that PW-8 had come to her house after the death of the deceased but she did not tell her brother to make a statement before the police. 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 under Section 304-B. Not a single incident of cruelty covered by Section 498-A was proved by the prosecution. Section 304-B of the IPC was brought on the statute book in 1986. This Court has repeatedly laid down and explained the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B. But, the Trial Courts are committing the same mistakes repeatedly. It is for the State Judicial Academies to step in. Perhaps this is a case of moral conviction.
Conclusion
Appellant acquitted
18. Therefore, both the offences alleged against the appellant were not proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the impugned judgments dated 9th November 2010 and 24th January 2002 are hereby quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offences alleged against him. The appellant was enlarged on bail pending this appeal. Hence, his bail bonds are cancelled.
Party
Karan Singh and the State of Haryana – Criminal Appeal No. 1076 of 2014 – 2025 INSC 133 – January 31, 2025
