Money Exchanged 10 Days Before Victim's Death Gives Presumption Of ‘Dowry Death’: Calcutta High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction

The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by a husband (“appellant no 1”) and his brother (“appellant no 2”) who were convicted by the trial court under Section 498A and 304B of the IPC, for causing the ‘dowry death’ of the victim, who poisoned herself and her daughter in her matrimonial home.

In upholding the duo’s conviction, a single-bench of Justice Rai Chattopadhyay held:

The entire incident of transmission of the money as above happened ten days prior to the date of death of both the victims. The proximity of time between the alleged ill-treatment and time of death is a relevant factor so far as applicability of Section 304B is concerned and to raise presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act and is an essential and necessary evidence for proof of a case of dowry death. The law would require the accused person, to come up with adequate rebutting evidence, to prove their innocence or to set the prosecution evidence at naught. Such statutory duty is grossly unfulfilled by the appellants, in the trial. In the considered opinion of this Court, the finding of the trial Court on the point as above renders any reconsideration or setting aside of the same due to alleged illegality or impropriety, unwarranted.

Brief Background

The appellants had been convicted by the trial court under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC for the offences of causing torture and ‘dowry death’ of the victim and her daughter.

The question before the Bench, was whether the trial court had appropriately invoked the aforesaid Sections of the IPC, as well as the presumption in cases of dowry death under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.

The matter began in 2002, when the victim and her daughter died simultaneously from consumption of poison, and a case was registered at the behest of a de-facto complainant.

The complainant alleged that the victim had been subjected to severe physical and mental harassment by the appellants on a continuous basis and that at the time of her marriage three years ago, valuable gifts were paid to the appellant no 1 and his family upon his demand.

It was alleged that in an attempt to seize even more dowry, the victim was pressured and tortured to bring more money from her paternal home, and that due to the unbearable torture, she was forced to return back to her father’s house on 9^th of June 2002.

The complainant reported being told about the torture suffered by the victim and collecting Rs 10,000 for her, to take back to her matrimonial home, within a few days of which she and her daughter passed away on the 16^th of June 2002.

Proceedings before the High Court

Appellants argued that that trial court had erred in bringing in the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, since no offence had been proven under Section 304B and 498A of IPC.

Counsel argued that there were initially four accused, whose examination under Section 313 CrPC was identical, without any variation in the questions asked or answers provided, and that since two had been earlier acquitted by the Court, there was no case for the appellants to suffer.

State on the other hand argued, that the presumption of dowry death would apply to the present case since the victim had died within seven years of her marriage to the appellant no 1.

It was submitted that the grievousness of the incident and the reasonable basis of the prosecutions case came from the fact that the victim had administered poison to her minor child before poisoning herself, and that circumstances surrounding the same had been corroborated witnesses, beyond all reasonable doubt.

In dealing with the opposing cases, the Court established that the victim’s death had occurred within a period of three years of her marriage to the appellant no 1, and that a child was born out of the marriage, whilst the victim resided with the appellant no 1 at their matrimonial home.

In dealing with the Trial courts appreciation of the evidence and facts on record, the Bench was of the opinion that during the course of trial, it surfaced that the victims’ relatives were well aware of her circumstances, which led to the deaths, and that there would be no doubt regarding the truthfulness of the statement given by these witnesses.

It was held that once the trial court was satisfied that a case had been made out for offences under Section 304B and 498A, the presumption of guilt in cases of dowry death under Section 113B of the CrPC had been applied.

In discussing the legislative objective behind bringing in legislation to prevent the menace of dowry death, the Court looked at the concept of presumption of guilt in cases of dowry death and held that in order to “reverse” the burden of proof, the prosecution would have to make out a case that the death of a woman, occurring within seven years of marriage, had been caused by cruelty/harassment by her husband or in-laws in connection to dowry demands.

It was further held that the appellants in the present case had failed to challenge the substantive evidence regarding the source of the Rs 10,000 which had been collected by the deceased and handed over to the appellants, as well as eye-witness statements to the torture meted out to the deceased.

It was held that minor inconsistencies would not rule out the prosecution evidence, and that exploiting the “economic opportunity” by the appellants by imposing dowry demand, through wrongful oppression and torture upon the victim, was proved to the standard required.”

Finally, in holding that 313 CrPC statements not being substantive in nature could not be challenged in isolation, without questioning their credibility, the Court upheld the sentences and conviction and concluded:

The purpose of examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C is to afford them opportunity to face the incriminating evidence against each of them. Incriminating evidence against each of the accused persons may or may not be the same. Therefore the verdict against each of the accused persons in the case has primarily to depend on the scrutiny and analysis of direct evidence of the witnesses, value of which has to be weighed, taking into consideration, their replies against each incriminating evidence.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 268

Case Title: Nitya Gopal Pal & Anr. v The State of West Bengal

Case no: CRA 296 of 2012

Click Here To Read/Download Order