Phrase "Soon Before" Section 304B IPC Cannot Mean 'Immediately Before': Supreme Court Issues Guidelines For Trial In Dowry Death Cases

The Supreme Court observed that the phrase "soon before" as appearing in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be construed to mean 'immediately before'.The prosecution must establish existence of "proximate and live link" between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the husband or his relatives, the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana and Aniruddha Bose observed. The court also observed that Section 304B, IPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental.The bench observed thus while dismissing the appeal filed by accused who were convicted under Section 304B IPC. Section 304B (1) provides that 'dowry death' is where death of a woman is caused by burning or bodily injuries or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of marriage, and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with demand for dowry. The accused contention was that the prosecution failed to prove that there was a demand for dowry and assuming there was one, it failed to prove that the demand was made proximate to the death of the deceased-victim.This made the court to look into interpretation of Section 304B, IPC relates to the phrase "soon before"."Being a criminal statute, generally it is to be interpreted strictly. However, where strict interpretation leads to absurdity or goes against the spirit of legislation, the courts may in appropriate cases place reliance upon the genuine import of the words, taken in their usual sense to resolve such ambiguities.", the court said.To determine the intention of the legislature behind the inclusion of Section 304B, IPC, the court discussed the legislative history of this Section and observed:"14. Considering the significance of such a legislation, a strict interpretation would defeat the very object for which it was enacted. Therefore, it is safe to deduce that when the legislature used the words, "soon before" they did not mean "immediately before". Rather, they left its determination in the hands of the courts. The factum of cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. Even the spectrum of cruelty is quite varied, as it can range from physical, verbal or even emotional. This list is certainly not exhaustive. No straitjacket formulae can therefore be laid down by this Court to define what exacts the phrase "soon before" entails."The court noted that similar view has been expressed in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207 and Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477."15. Therefore, Courts should use their discretion to determine if the period between the cruelty or harassment and the death of the victim would come within the term "soon before". What is pivotal to the above determination, is the establishment of a "proximate and live link" between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim.", the court said.Once all the essential ingredients are established by the prosecution, the presumption under Section 113B, Evidence Act mandatorily operates against the accused.The court added that when the prosecution shows that 'soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry', a presumption of causation arises against the accused under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. Thereafter, the accused has to rebut this statutory presumption, it said."18. Therefore, once all the essential ingredients are established by the prosecution, the presumption under Section 113B, Evidence Act mandatorily operates against the accused. This presumption of causality that arises can be rebutted by the accused. 19. The usage of rebuttable presumption of causality, under Section 113B, Evidence Act, creates a greater responsibility on Judges, defense and prosecution. They need to be extra careful during conducting criminal trials relating to Section 304B, IPC. In order to address this precarious situation, procedural law has some safeguards, which merits mentioning herein.", the court observed.Section 304B, IPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental, The court also observed that Section 304B, IPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental, as was done earlier."22...The reason for such non categorization is due to the fact that death occurring "otherwise than under normal circumstances" can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. However, the Section 304B, IPC endeavors to also 16 address those situations wherein murders or ...

Phrase "Soon Before" Section 304B IPC Cannot Mean 'Immediately Before': Supreme Court Issues Guidelines For Trial In Dowry Death Cases

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags