'Cruelty' Element Missing: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Dowry Death Conviction Of Husband, Mother-In-Law After 20 Yrs

Observing that, "basic requirement of cruelty or harassment soon before the death to bring the case within the ambit of Section 304-B IPC is absent", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside the conviction for dowry death in a 24 years old case.

The High Court opined that it was a case of suicide as the victim had history of epilepsy and was suffering with depression, the Trial Court erred in convicting the husband and in-laws for dowry death case.

Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan said, "Both the parents of the victim are material witnesses. They have not pointed out any incident soon before the alleged occurrence which could have triggered the victim to commit suicide. Neither any demand of dowry is alleged to have been made soon before the occurrence nor any other such act or omission has been pointed out from which a conclusion can be drawn that the victim was being harassed or driven to such circumstances whereby she had to take such a drastic step of committing suicide."

"There is a substantial dent to the prosecution story and the testimony of the parents of the victim does not inspire confidence that there were any dowry demands or that the victim was abetted by the appellants to commit suicide. As such, the findings arrived at by the trial Court are liable to be set aside. There is no evidence on record to prove beyond the shadow of doubt the guilt of the appellants-accused under Section 304-B IPC," the Court added.

The Court was hearing the appeal against judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, whereby, the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law  were convicted and sentenced under Section 304-B of the IPC in FIR lodges 2000, registered under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC. The appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000.

The father-in-law passed away during the pendency of appeal.

According to the complainant (father of the deceased victim), the victim who was married in 1998, was harassed and tortured by her husband and in-laws for not bringing sufficient dowry at the time of marriage.

In 1999, a son was born out of the wedlock and  it was alleged the complainant had borne all the hospital expenses apart from giving a sum of Rs.11,000 as shagan and clothes as a gift. Despite that the husband and his relatives had been harassing the victim saying that she had brought less gifts at the time of birth of her son.

In 2000, the complainant was informed that the victim has received severe burn injuries and later she scummed to injuries. It was alleged that the deceased was killed by her husband and in-laws by setting her on fire.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that, "the reasons recorded by the trial Court are based on the facts and circumstances of the case."

The Court opined that it is highly improbable that the car would stop on the gate of the hospital and the victim would make a statement in the shape of a dying declaration before the said witnesses when the victim was having about 90% burn injuries and was taken to hospital in a car.

All endeavors are usually made by the relatives to ensure that the injured in such a state reaches to the medical facilities immediately and it is highly improbable that the car carrying the victim could have been stopped at the gate of the hospital, it added.

The judge pointed that, witnesses never reported about any such dying declaration having been made by the victim for more than one month, when their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded in 2000.

" the first theory propounded by the prosecution that a dying declaration was made by the victim before the said witnesses has been rightly discarded by the trial Court," it added.

The Court further observed that, "that there is neither any direct evidence nor any circumstantial evidence to conclude that the victim was killed by setting her on fire. As such, the findings recorded by the trial Court acquitting the appellants under Section 302 IPC is factually and legally correct and requires no interference."

Case Of Suicide

Examining the circumstantial evidences the Court opined that, it was a case of suicide.

It noted that the victim was burnt on the first floor where of the house where she was residing and a match box, a kerosine oil can was also recovered from the same place and the husband and in-laws were not present in the house at the time of the incident.

"The non-presence of the husband and mother-in-law of the victim is corroborated by the fact that the victim was taken to the hospital by her father-in-law Ramesh Kumar (since deceased) and this fact has been further corroborated by...Doctor and by the entry in the bed head ticket/hospital records as Doctor stated that the victim was admitted in the hospital under his supervision."

The Court also took note that there is an indication that the victim was having history of a medical issue and also took treatment for epilepsy at some point of time.

 Justice Jeewan highlighted that, "There is nothing on record to suggest that at any point of time any relative did assemble to discuss the issue of said demands or any panchayat was convened.  mother of the victim has stated in the cross-examination that her daughter was never deserted by the accused. They never took panchayats to the house of in-laws of her daughter."

The father of the victim has stated that during the course of investigation, no dowry articles were recovered, the judge noted.

"The oral testimony of the parents of the victim that the victim was being harassed for demand of dowry is not believable in view of the attending circumstances. The 'Cruelty' of such a grave nature driving a woman to commit suicide has not been proved," the Court observed.

It added that, "The victim used to visit her parental home along with the husband. The victim gave birth to a male child. She was taken back to her matrimonial home. No panchayats were ever convened. No relatives were assembled. The victim used to reside separately on the first floor of the house with the husband, though the kitchen used to be common on the ground floor as per the site plan. In the absence of a strong evidence, reflecting that the victim was subjected to cruelty which drove her to commit suicide in not proved on record."

Stating that "there is no evidence on record to prove beyond the shadow of doubt the guilt of the appellants-accused under Section 304-B IPC," the Court set aside the conviction.

Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate for the appellants.

Ms. Himani Arora, A.A.G., Punjab.

Title: XXXX v. XXXX

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 227