The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a man under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (Dowry Death)stating that the accused has to rebut presumption drawn against him under section 113B of the Evidence Act for causing the death of his wife.
A three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli, pronounced its judgment on an appeal filed against conviction for cruelty against woman and dowry death by husband, his brother and mother.
However, the Court acquitted the brother and mother of the convict, giving them the benefit of doubt in the absence of any direct proof that lead to sustain their conviction.
Present case arises from the incident that had occurred in 2008, leading to death of a woman, after she went missing from her matrimonial home.
The brother of the deceased suspected that her sister was killed by her husband and family members and lodged a complaint.
Police carried investigation and found her dead body from Alaknanda river after 10 days. Later, charges were filed against husband, his bother and mother under Section 498A, 304B and 120B of IPC. But the trial court had acquitted the accused by denying their role. Aggrieved by this, the State of Uttarakhand had approached the High Court and after considering evidence on record the Court had convicted and sentenced them for charges levelled against them.
Against the high court order the appellants moved the Supreme Court. After hearing appeal the Top Court on March 21, 2022, had reserved its judgment.
Justice Hima Kohli has pronounced the judgment. She has disbelieved the theory made by accused persons that Sushila (deceased) went to jungle to cut grass where she slipped and fell down in a gorge.
During the hearing of the matter the CJI NV Ramana had also took strong objection and said the theory you have proposed, where is it in your statement. You said, lady has gone to cut grass, and she had slipped and fallen from there. Where is this in your defence? Nothing is there in this.
Justice Hima Kohli had opined, It’s a dead silence on that part by three of you.
The Court has noted that, “Section 304B IPC read along with Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that once the prosecution has succeeded in demonstrating that a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death, a presumption shall be drawn against the said persons that they have caused dowry death as contemplated under Section 304B IPC. The said presumption comes with a rider inasmuch as this presumption can be rebutted by the accused on demonstrating during the trial that all the ingredients of Section 304B IPC have not been satisfied.”
The Bench noted that in background of the facts of this case would disclose that the deceased and the appellant No.1 had got married on 20th October, 2007. Sushila, wife of the appellant No.1 had gone missing from the matrimonial home from 24th April, 2008 and her dead body was fished out on the 10th day from river Alakhnanda near Naragasu. From the basic facts noted above, the basic ingredients of Section 304B IPC such as the death not being normal and such a death having occurred within 7 years from the date of her marriage would stand fully established.
The Court said, “The question, therefore, is as to whether the evidence tendered by the prosecution would be sufficient to establish the remaining ingredients of Section 304B IPC with regard to the demand for dowry and perpetration of cruelty and harassment in connection with such a demand. Further, whether such cruelty and harassment were suffered by the deceased soon before her death so as to constitute a dowry death. As to the phrase ‘soon before her death’, it is well-settled that the same ought to be interpreted to mean proximate and to be linked with but not to be understood to mean immediately prior to the death.”
The Court also noted that the death had occurred within just about 6 months from the date of the marriage and there was a demand for dowry of Rs 2 lac or in alternative to get a house constructed in Haridwar.
The Court further noted that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence from correct perspective which is indicative from the observation made by the trial Court that there was no such evidence available on the file that the murder of the deceased. It will disclose that the trial court was appreciating the evidence from the prism of assessing the charge under Section 302 IPC, when the evidence on record ought to have been analyzed and appreciated keeping in mind the requirements of Section 304B and 498A IPC and the ingredients thereof. And therefore the High Court analysed the evidence from clear perspective leading to establishing the guilt of the accused persons.
“In the above backdrop and keeping in view the fact that the deceased was residing at the matrimonial home and had gone missing in circumstances where all the ingredients of Section 304B stood satisfied, the evidence of Dr. Digvijay Singh (PW-10) becomes relevant. The nature of injuries found on the body of the deceased at the time of the post-mortem was adverted to and PW-10 has deposed that the death had occurred about a week earlier to the examination. He opined that death had occurred due to shock and blood flow from the injuries received before the death. The doctor was categorical that the cause of death was not from drowning as there was no water inside the lungs and abdomen. Though learned counsel for the appellants referred to this aspect to contend that the High Court has erred in not properly considering the same, in our opinion, when it is indicated that the deceased had suffered injuries before her death and there was loss of blood and also when it is medically indicated that the death was not caused due to drowning as there was no water in her lungs and abdomen, the natural corollary and a fair conclusion would be that the said death had occurred even before falling into the river, which would rule out any accidental fall, as sought to be claimed by the appellants. In fact, this would only increase the burden cast upon the appellants to explain the situation,” stated the Court.
Though, the appellants have attempted to set up a story that the deceased had gone to hills to cut grass, as rightly noted by the High Court, she could not have gone alone. Be that as it may, except for a bald statement, the appellants have not brought any material on record to demonstrate that it was a normal practice for the deceased to go to the hills for cutting grass more so in circumstances where she was less than six months at her matrimonial home, pregnant and also during that very period, she had been going to her parental house for continuing her education, as has been contended by the appellants themselves. Therefore, in such a situation, we have no hesitation in observing that the appellants have miserably failed to rebut the presumption drawn against them under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, in a matter relating to an offence under Section 304B of IPC.
37160-2017-1-1501-35040-Judgement-21-Apr-2022