When Dowry Demand Isn't Established, Conviction For Dowry Death Under S.304B IPC Unsustainable : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction for dowry death (under Section 304-B of IPC) after noting that the prosecution was not able to prove that the deceased wife was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry.The Court set aside the convictions of the husband, sister-in-law and the mother-in-law of the deceased. The trial court had sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment, which the High Court also approved.Setting aside the conviction, the Supreme Court stated that unless it was proved that the alleged cruelty or harassment faced by the deceased wife from her husband and in-laws was in connection with the demand of dowry, then conviction under Section 304-B of IPC would not be sustainable.The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and JB Pardiwala relied on the judgment in the case of Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2015), where the Court had discussed the ingredients of Section 304B of IPC as follows:"There are four such ingredients and they are said to be: (a) death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or her death must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances;(b) such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;(c) soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and(d) such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand for dowry.”Upon perusing the material placed on record especially the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the Court found that "these witnesses did not state that such cruelty and harassment was in connection with the demand for dowry.""With respect to the demand for dowry, they have just made some general statements which are not sufficient to convict the appellants under section 304B of IPC.", the court added.The court said that the trial court and High Court committed an error while raising a presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1982."Trial Court raised a presumption under section 113B of Evidence Act to convict the appellants under section 304B of IPC. The High Court did not go into the question of whether the trial court was right in relying upon section 113B of the Evidence Act."The Court stated that the 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 of IPC unless the prosecution has not proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry. (Reference was made to Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw SC 341)"hence, we are of the opinion that this is not a case of dowry death under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. PW-1 and PW-3 had only stated that deceased used to tell them about her torture. PW-4 (mother of the deceased) did not speak about any demand of dowry after marriage. Moreover, this witness had said that appellant no.2 used to assault her deceased daughter as the deceased had objections to the illicit relation of appellant no.2 with another woman. PW-16, who is the cousin of the deceased, had deposed in court almost a year after the testimony of PW-1, 3 & 4 and his deposition regarding the physical assault of the deceased in connection with the demand of dowry is also not believable. Considering the aforesaid, in our view, the trial court erred in raising a presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, even though the demand for dowry was not established.", the Court held.Since the case of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC and cruelty under Section 498A of IPC was made out against the husband, therefore the conviction under these two provisions was upheld, however, the conviction under Section 304B of IPC was set aside as no case was made out by the prosecution for dowry death. With respect to the offences under Section 306 and 498A, the Court convict the appellant No. 2(husband) and sentenced him to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25000/- on each count.Appearance:For Appellant(s) Ms. Arundhati Katju, Adv. Ms. Shristi Borthakur, Adv. Ms. Ritika Meena, Adv. Ms. Pinki Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Sailesh Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Priya Puri, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Abhijit Pattanaik, Adv.Case Title: CHABI KARMAKAR & ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1556 OF 2013Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 679Click here to read/download the order

When Dowry Demand Isn't Established, Conviction For Dowry Death Under S.304B IPC Unsustainable : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

General statements with respect to dowry demand are not sufficient to convict the appellants in the case, the Court held.

Tags