2007 JTR(SC) 372
2007 2 AD(Cr) 373 ; 2007 49 AIC 136 ; 2007 2 AICLR 644 ; 2007 AIR(SC) 52 ; 2007 Supp AIR(SC) 52 ; 2007 AIR(SCW) 2189 ; 2007 2 ALD(Cri)(SC) 975 ; 2007 2 ALT(Cri)(SC) 162 ; 2007 1 CalLJ(SC) 286 ; 2007 2 CriCC 803 ; 2007 CriLR 315 ; 2007 2 CriLR(Cal) 19 ; 2007 2 Crimes(SC) 404 ; 2007 CrLJ 2300 ; 2007 1 DMC 539 ; 2007 2 EastCrC(SC) 241 ; 2007 2 GLH 78 ; 2007 5 JT 360 ; 2008 Supp2 KLT 47 ; 2008 2 MhLJ(Cri)(SC) 284 ; 2007 2 MPWN 149 ; 2007 1 MWN(Cri) 369 ; 2007 NCC 444 ; 2007 2 RCR(Cri) 395 ; 2008 1 RLW(Raj) 711 ; 2007 2 Scale 462 ; 2007 4 Scale 462 ; 2008 1 SCC 202 ; 2008 1 SCC(Cri) 172 ; 2007 4 SCR 120 ; 2007 2 WLC 57 ; 2007 KHC 3329 ; 2007 3 Supreme 124
2007(3) Supreme 124
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Calcutta High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder & Ors.—Appellants
versus
State of West Bengal—Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 371 of 2007
(Arising Out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1580 of 2006)
Decided on 19-3-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Pradip Ghosh, Sr. Advocate, Sanjay Sen, Rana S. Biswas, Manish P.S. Chouhar, Vishal Anand, Ms. Ruchi Rathi and Mrs. Sarla Chandra, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ms. Radha Rangaswamy, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to bring in application of Section 304B IPC. It has to be shown in addition that such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with the demand for dowry.
Act
Referred
:EVIDENCE ACT : S.113(b)
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.34, S.304(b)
(A) The Indian Evidence Act, Section 113B, creates a presumption of dowry death when it is shown that a woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with a demand for dowry soon before her death. This presumption operates in conjunction with Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, where Section 304B defines the offence of dowry death and Section 34 addresses acts done by multiple persons with a common intention. The Dowry Prohibition Act, Sections 3 and 4, provides additional punitive provisions for dowry-related offences. These statutory provisions were invoked in this case to assess the liability of the appellants for the death of a married woman under circumstances alleging dowry demands.
(B) Key legal principles include that Section 304B IPC requires the death to be caused by burns or bodily injury or under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage, accompanied by cruelty or harassment linked to a demand for dowry. Section 113B of the Evidence Act allows the court to presume the existence of dowry death if cruelty or harassment for dowry is proven. Mere evidence of cruelty is insufficient without a connection to dowry demand, as established in prior jurisprudence.
Facts of the case:
A woman died by suicide within seven years of marriage at the matrimonial home of her husband. Following an FIR lodged by her brother, the investigation revealed allegations of persistent demands for dowry items and harassment directed at the deceased. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, while the High Court modified the sentence, noting a lack of specific findings on dowry demand.
Findings of Court:
The High Bench observed that there was no finding of cruelty or harassment linked to a demand for dowry, which proved fatal to the prosecution case. The court held that without evidence connecting cruelty to dowry demand, the presumption under Section 113B could not apply and the conviction could not be sustained.
Issues:
Whether the prosecution established the essential ingredient of dowry demand to attract Section 304B IPC read with Section 113B of the Evidence Act, and whether the conviction was legally tenable in the absence of such finding.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court determined that Section 304B IPC cannot be applied in the absence of proof that cruelty or harassment was in connection with a demand for dowry, and that Section 113B of the Evidence Act requires this linkage for a presumption to arise. Consequently, the conviction was set aside due to deficient evidence on this critical element.
Result:
The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted of the dowry death charges.
(A) The Indian Evidence Act, Section 113B, creates a presumption of dowry death when it is shown that a woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with a demand for dowry soon before her death. This presumption operates in conjunction with Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, where Section 304B defines the offence of dowry death and Section 34 addresses acts done by multiple persons with a common intention. The Dowry Prohibition Act, Sections 3 and 4, provides additional punitive provisions for dowry-related offences. These statutory provisions were invoked in this case to assess the liability of the appellants for the death of a married woman under circumstances alleging dowry demands.
(B) Key legal principles include that Section 304B IPC requires the death to be caused by burns or bodily injury or under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage, accompanied by cruelty or harassment linked to a demand for dowry. Section 113B of the Evidence Act allows the court to presume the existence of dowry death if cruelty or harassment for dowry is proven. Mere evidence of cruelty is insufficient without a connection to dowry demand, as established in prior jurisprudence.
Facts of the case:
A woman died by suicide within seven years of marriage at the matrimonial home of her husband. Following an FIR lodged by her brother, the investigation revealed allegations of persistent demands for dowry items and harassment directed at the deceased. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, while the High Court modified the sentence, noting a lack of specific findings on dowry demand.
Findings of Court:
The High Bench observed that there was no finding of cruelty or harassment linked to a demand for dowry, which proved fatal to the prosecution case. The court held that without evidence connecting cruelty to dowry demand, the presumption under Section 113B could not apply and the conviction could not be sustained.
Issues:
Whether the prosecution established the essential ingredient of dowry demand to attract Section 304B IPC read with Section 113B of the Evidence Act, and whether the conviction was legally tenable in the absence of such finding.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court determined that Section 304B IPC cannot be applied in the absence of proof that cruelty or harassment was in connection with a demand for dowry, and that Section 113B of the Evidence Act requires this linkage for a presumption to arise. Consequently, the conviction was set aside due to deficient evidence on this critical element.
Result:
The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted of the dowry death charges.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.
2. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants, but modifying the sentence. Appellants faced trial for commission of offences punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short the ‘DP Act’).
3. The prosecution version in brief is as follows :
Rupali, sister of informant Dilip Patra (PW-1) was married to appellant Biswajit Halder-appellant no. 1 on 6th March, 1992. Appellants Dulal Chandra Halder and Maya Halder are the parents of Biswajit. At the time of marriage dowry i.e. of Rs. 43,000/-, gold ornaments and the household articles were given to the appellants, but they were not satisfied with the dowry items. Since marriage Rupali was put under pressure to bring one colour television, English Khat and VIP bag for her father-in-law and other relatives, Rupali time and again had reported about the persistent demand of the appellants to her father and brothers. Rupali’ brother (PW-1) on different occasions requested the appellants not to harass Rupali for non-payment of those items. On 27th July, 1992 Rupali committed suicide at the house of the appellants by consuming poison and after getting the sad news from his relatives, PW-1, who being a member of Indian Armed Forces was posted at Punjab, came to his native village and lodged the FIR on 6th August, 1992.
4. On receipt of the FIR, police started investigation and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellants for their trial.
5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after framing charges against all the three appellants examined 17 witnesses in all, including PW-1, relatives of the victim, woman, two doctors and the investigating officer.
6. On examination of the prosecution evidence and after hearing both the prosecution and defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found sufficient materials against all the appellants to convict them for offences punishable under Sections 304B/34 and 498A/34 of the IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. Learned trial Judge, after convicting the appellants, sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years each for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the IPC. The appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. In default of the payment rigorous imprisonment for three months was stipulated. Learned trial Judge also sentenced the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- each under Section 3(1) of the DP Act and that apart, the appellants were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence under Section 4 of the DP Act with default stipulation. Learned trial Judge directed that all the sentences were to run concurrently.
7. Questioning correctness of the conviction and the sentences imposed appellants preferred appeal before the Calcutta High Court which held that the appellants were to suffer the minimum sentence as prescribed under Section 304B IPC, but there was no necessity for separately sentencing the appellants on either Section 498A IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act.
8. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was no finding that there was demand for dowry and/or that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment, or that harassment was for on in connection with the demand of dowry.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that Section 304B IPC has to be read in the context of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short ‘Evidence Act’). The court presume the death of the deceased to be dowry death and it was open to the Court to presume further that the appellants being members of the matrimonial home at the relevant were responsible for the dowry death of the deceased. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Smt. Shanti and Anr. v. State of Haryana (AIR 1991 SC 1226).
10. The basic ingredients to attract the provisions of Section 304B are as follows :
(1)The death of a woman should be caused by burns or fatal injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances.
(2)Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
(3)She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and
(4)Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry.
11. Alongwith insertion of Section 304B in IPC, legislature also introduced Section 113B of Evidence Act, which lay down when the question as to 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.
12. Explanation appended to Section 113B lays down that “for the purpose of this section `dowry death’ shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of IPC”.
13. If Section 304 B IPC is read together with Section 113 B of the Evidence Act, a comprehensive picture emerges that if a married woman dies in an unnatural circumstances at her matrimonial home within 7 years from her marriage and there are allegations of cruelty or harassment upon such married woman for or in connection with demand of dowry by the husband or relatives of the husband, the case would squarely come under “dowry death” and there shall be a presumption against the husband and the relatives.
14. In this case we find that there is practically no evidence to show that there was any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry. There is also no finding in that regard. This deficiency in evidence proves fatal for the prosecution case. Even otherwise mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to bring in application of Section 304B IPC. It has to be shown in addition that such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with the demand for dowry. (See : Kanchy Ramchander v. State of A.P. (1996 SCC (Crl.) 31). Since the prosecution failed to prove that aspect, the conviction as recorded cannot be maintained.
15. The appeal is allowed.
Appeal allowed.