Mere death within seven years of marriage will not be sufficient to convict under Section 304B and 498A IPC: Supreme Court

Background:

• The appellant, who was husband of the deceased, has filed the present appeal challenging his conviction and sentence under sections 304B, 498A and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The Trial Court had sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 304B, 2 years under Section 498A and 2 years under Section 201 IPC. However, the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital had reduced the sentence of the appellant under Section 304B IPC from ten years to seven years.

Facts:

• The appellant and deceased Chhilo Kaur got married in the year 1993, and residing in her matrimonial home. On 24.6.1995, father of the deceased filed complaint that his daughter Chhilo Kaur was married to the appellant and given dowry as per status. Few months later, daughter came back and told parents that there is persistent demand of dowry. On 23.6.1995, parents were informed that daughter was murdered on previous day. Cremation took place without informing the complainant.
• The Trial Court, after evaluating the evidence, convicted Charan Singh (appellant), Gurmeet Singh and Santo Kaur under Sections 304B, 498A and 201 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years u/s 304B IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years u/s 498A IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years u/s 201 IPC.
• In appeal filed by the convicts before the High Court, the conviction and sentence of Gurmeet Singh (brother-in-law) and Santo Kaur (mother-in-law) under Section 304B, 498A and 201 IPC were set aside and they were acquitted of the charges, whereas the conviction of the appellant was upheld. However, sentence reduced to seven years.

Arguments:

Amicus curiae submitted that the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be legally sustained either under Sections 304B or 498A IPC. The prerequisites for raising presumption under Section 304B IPC is that soon before the death, the deceased had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry.

The presumption in regard to dowry death can be raised in terms of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘IEA’) only if it is shown that soon before death, such woman had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with the demand of dowry.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that it is a case in which a young woman was killed by her in-laws in lust for dowry. The marriage was merely two years old and the death was unnatural.

The death occurred in the matrimonial home, hence onus lies heavily on the appellant to dislodge the presumption. There is sufficient material on record in the form of statements of witnesses produced by the prosecution that there was repeated demand for dowry by the appellant. There is no error in the judgment of the High Court.

It was observed that none of the witnesses stated about the cruelty or harassment to the deceased by the appellant or any of his family members on account of demand of dowry soon before the death or otherwise. Rather harassment has not been narrated by anyone.

Further, the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution does not fulfil the pre-requisites to invoke presumption under Section 304B IPC or Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. Even the ingredients of Section 498A IPC are not made out for the same reason as there is no evidence of cruelty and harassment to the deceased soon before her death.

The Hon’ble Court finally taken the view that, “the prerequisites to raise presumption under Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act having not been fulfilled, the conviction of the appellant cannot be justified…mere death of the deceased being unnatural in the matrimonial home within seven years of marriage will not be sufficient to convict the accused under Section 304B and 498A IPC. The cause of death as such is not known.”

For the above reasons, the appeal is accordingly allowed.

 Case Details:

In The Supreme Court of India

Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Criminal Appeal No. 447 Of 2012

Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh …Appellant

                      Versus

The State of Uttarakhand …Respondent

Rajesh Bindal, J.