[Dowry Death] Presumption Under S.113B Of Evidence Act: Proximity Test Does Not Define Any Particular Time Period: Supreme Court

In the recent judgement, the Supreme Court through a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli upheld an important position of law pertaining to Dowry Death and the presumption of guilt in cases relating to it. The ingredients of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act have been explained. The court also placed reliance in the proximity test laid down in the landmark case of Maya Devi and Anr. V. State of Haryana (2015) 17 SCC 405. The judgement authored by Justice Hima Kohli notes that in order to meet the applicability of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, the following pre-requisites must be met: "(i) that the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstance; (ii) that such a death must have occurred within a period of seven years of her marriage; (iii) that the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment at the hands of her husband, soon before her death; and (iv) that such a cruelty or harassment must have been for or related to any demand for dowry." The court also notes that Section 304B IPC read in conjunction with Section 113B of the Evidence Act leaves no manner of doubt that once the prosecution has been able to demonstrate that a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry, soon before her death, the Court shall proceed on a presumption that the persons who have subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry, have caused a dowry death within the meaning of Section 304B IPC. Factual Background The deceased in this case is contended to have been killed by her in-laws in relation to the demand of dowry. The deceased had been married to the husband accused for a few months and there had been multiple witnesses before the court who testified that she was subject to the demand of dowry and her in-laws even threatened her that if she does not bring the dowry demanded, her husband shall be remarried to someone else. On one day, the deceased went missing and seven days later her body was recovered from a waterbody with no ante mortem injuries. The court heard two appeals together in this case. The first appeal has been brought by the mother-in-law of the deceased and the second appeal has been brought by the husband of the deceased. On September 20, 1999 the Trial Court convicted both the appellants under Sections 304B and 201 read with Section 34 if the IPC and sentenced them to a rigorous imprisonment of ten years and three years respectively on each count with both the sentences running concurrently. The High Court in its impugned judgement upheld the decision of the Trial Court. Arguments by the Counsels The counsel for the appellant failed to provide a plausible explanation as to her disappearance. An argument was made that the body recovered from the waterbody was unidentifiable however the father of the deceased recognized it on the basis of the clothes worn and some part of the face remaining intact. Another argument was made that the accused was working in Kolkata during the time the incident took place, however the same could not be proved before the court. The prosecution's case was well established against the husband accused through the testimony of multiple witnesses. No eye witnessed were produced before the court however the circumstantial evidence had been corroborated to prove the guilt of the accused. The Court after having heard both the parties came to the conclusion that the evidence against the accused had been corroborated to establish the prosecution's case well. The Court referred to the case of Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana (2011) 11 SCC 359 wherein it was stated that- "While considering the case under Section 498-A (Sic. Section 304-B), cruelty has to be proved during the close proximity of time of death and it should be continuous and such continuous harassment, physical or mental, by the accused should make life of the deceased miserable which may force her to commit suicide." The Court also placed reliance on the case of Maya Devi and Anr. V. State of Haryana (2015) 17 SCC 405 where it was held that- "To attract the provisions of Section 304-B, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that "soon before her death" she was subjected to cruelty or harassment "for, or in connection with the demand for dowry". The expression "soon before her death" used in Section 304-IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. However, the said expression would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. In other words, there must be existence of a proximate and ...

[Dowry Death] Presumption Under S.113B Of Evidence Act: Proximity Test Does Not Define Any Particular Time Period: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags