Trial Courts Wrongly Convicting Persons For Dowry Death Misapplying S.304B IPC; Time For Judicial Academies To Step In : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court (today on January 31), while overturning the appellant/ accused's conviction under Section 304-B (Dowry death) of the IPC, noted that while the Court has repeatedly laid down this provision's ingredients, the Trial Courts were committing the same mistakes repeatedly. It is for the State Judicial Academies to step in., the Court said.

Essentially, the allegations against the appellant were for committing dowry death and cruelty to his wife who died by suicide. As a result, he was convicted for these offences and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for eight years in total. The High Court confirmed this sentence. Challenging these judgments, he approached the Apex Court.

The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, at the outset, discussed the essential ingredients of Section 304-B. Firstly, the death must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. The same must have been within seven years of her marriage. Further, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment, for dowry's demand, soon before her death.

It further noted that even to invoke presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, it is essential to prove that the appellant was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death.

“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.”

Building on this, the Court went on to peruse the evidence. Examining the statement of the deceased mother before the Trial Court, it opined that there were significant and relevant omissions in the three statements recorded by the police. Further, she also did not mention any particular act of cruelty or harassment.

“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.”

Adverting to the deceased brother's statement, recorded by the police, the Court pointed out that there was no mention of maltreatment caused to his sister due to insufficient dowry.

“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.''

The Court also dismissed his allegation of the appellant beating the deceased as a “very vague allegation.” The Court opined that, even if this allegation is assumed, the same did not happen soon before the deceased's death.

Thus, apart from observing that the prosecution failed to prove the requirements under Section 304-B, the Court also opined that not a single incident of cruelty was proved. In view of this, the Court held:

“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.”

Thus, while allowing the appeal, the Court quashed the impugned judgments.

Appearances:

Appellant(s): Mr. Sanchar Anand, Adv. Mr. Devendra Singh, AOR Mr. Shiv Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aman Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj, Adv.

Respondent(s): Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Mr. Amit Ojha, Adv. Mr. Azeem A. Dost, Adv. Mr. Prashant Sharma, Adv.

Case Name: KARAN SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1076 OF 2014

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 135

Click here to read/ download the judgment