S. 304-B IPC | Factum Of Dowry Demand Not Proved : Supreme Court Acquits Parents-In-Law
The Supreme Court acquitted the parents-in-law of a deceased wife who were charged with committing dowry death since the factum of a dowry demand was not proved.
The Court reiterated that for convicting an accused under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, it must be proved that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in relation to the alleged demand of dowry in connection with marriage.
In this case, the parents of the deceased complained about the dowry death against the husband and parents-in-law of the deceased alleging that her death occurred unnaturally after she suffered burn injuries soon after the marriage. It was alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in relation to a demand for a bike and Rs. 50,000/- cash when the daughter gave birth to a male child.
Invoking the presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and sentenced them (husband and parents-in-law) to 10 years imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction; however, the sentence was reduced to 7 years from 10 years. Following this, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court by the parents-in-law. The husband of the deceased served out the sentence and did not file appeal.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that their conviction for the offence of dowry death could not be sustained because the prosecution failed to prove the demand for dowry which is an essential ingredient to convict the accused of dowry death.
It was argued by the appellants that the alleged demand for a motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- cash from the parents of the deceased was not in connection with marriage but as a mark of celebration on the birth of a male child.
Upon perusing the material evidence placed on record, the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the courts below erred in invoking the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act because unless the factum of demand of dowry in connection with marriage isn't proved, it would be unjustifiable to convict accused for dowry death merely because other ingredients of the offence are fulfilled.
To constitute a 'dowry death', punishable under Section 304- B IPC, the following ingredients must be satisfied:
"i. death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or it must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances;
ii. such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
iii. soon before such death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and
iv. such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with any demand for dowry."
The Court accepted the argument that the alleged demand for a bike and cash was not in connection with marriage but to mark a celebration of the birth of a male child.
“The testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 do not indicate that any demand for dowry was made by the accused-appellants either before or at the time of marriage of the deceased with their son. Further, there is no evidence that the accused appellants directly demanded a motorcycle or cash from any of the above witnesses. In fact, evidence is to the effect that the deceased had informed PW-1 and PW-2 on 4.1.2007 and 11.1.2007 about the demand for a motorcycle and cash. Further, from the deposition of PW-1 and PW-2, it appears that the aforesaid demand was not in connection with marriage but as a mark of celebration on birth of a male child.”, the court observed.
The Court doubted the testimonies of the parents of the deceased as they didn't seriously consider the concern of their daughter and termed it as a joke when asked about “whether they took up the issue of motorcycle /cash demand with the accused.”
“Their (deceased parents) reply was that they did not, because they took it as a joke. We fail to understand how parents could treat their daughter's multiple reporting of apprehension to her life, on account of demand being not met, as a joke. This creates a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the allegation more so when there is no allegation that any such demand was ever raised either before or at the time of marriage.”, the court said.
The Court had termed the allegation labeled by the deceased parents as a knee-jerk reaction to the unnatural death of their daughter to make out a case of dowry death.
“Besides that, no independent witness of the vicinity was examined. In our considered view, therefore, one of the essential ingredients of dowry death, namely, any demand for dowry, was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.”, the court said.
“as noted above, here harassment/ cruelty at the instance of the appellants in connection with any demand for dowry has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt…Be that as it may, once all the necessary ingredients of dowry death have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act would not be available to the prosecution. Hence, in our considered view, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted of the charge of offences punishable under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC.”, the court held.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the order convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC was set aside.
Related Report: When Dowry Demand Isn't Established, Conviction For Dowry Death Under S.304B IPC Unsustainable : Supreme Court
Appearance:
For Appellant(s) Mr. A.P. Mohanty, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Akshat Kumar, AOR Mr. Ajay Bahuguna, Adv.
Case Title: SHOOR SINGH & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 726