The Supreme Court observed in a case which turned out to be suicide rather dowry death that conviction under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code can be made only if the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives which must be for or in connection with any demand for dowry, soon before her death.
It emhasised that the subject matter of dowry death is not any type of creutly but cruelty or harrassement in connection with or directed to demand of dowry.
It Is the case of the prosecution in brief that the first accused used to treat his wife with cruelty on account of dowry demand. The same allegation was made against his father-second accused. It is also alleged that his father wanted to fulfil his lust with his daughter-in-law. She did not agree. The accused
tortured her and gave her beating. The daughter-in-law committed suicide by burning herself. After complying with the formalities, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused. Prosecution examined nine witnesses and produced 17 documents. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case against both the accused. They were accordingly acquitted. Reliance is in particular placed on certain letters.
The letter written by the deceased to her family which could have been a solid poof of the cruelty directed to her for dowry said to have been mispaced and coudn't submitted. But the Court observed that the letters written by her father as an answer weren't indicating any sign of that.
It concluded that the offence created by Section 304B requires the following elements to be present in order that it may apply:
I. Within 7 years of the marriage, there must happen the death of a woman (the wife).
II. The death must be caused by any burns or bodily injury. OR The death must occur otherwise than under normal circumstances.
III. It must be established that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment.
IV. The cruelty or harassment may be by her husband or any relative of her husband.
V. The cruelty or harassment by the husband or relative of the husband must be for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
Court said, "Section 304B treats this as a dowry death. Therefore, in such circumstances, it further provides that husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Section 113B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides for presumption as to dowry death. It provides that when the question is whether the dowry death, namely, the death contemplated under Section 304B of the IPC, has been committed by a person, if it is shown that soon before her death, the woman was subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment, for in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. It is no doubt a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the husband and his relatives to show the absence of the elements of Section 304B."
The Court clarified that the allegations levelled against the father of the accussed (second accussed) indicates mental creulty and not cruelty for dowry.
The Court also took out statments of the victim examined which indicated less possible chances of crueltly due to dowry demand.
It said,""The High Court was in clear error in taking into consideration the evidence relating to harassment by the second accused on the basis that he, in the state of intoxication, asked her to sleep with him, and on that basis, she was subjected to mental cruelty. The said evidence is totally irrelevant and foreign to the scope of a trial for the offence under Section 304B of the IPC. It does not relate, at all, to the demand for dowry."
It also highlighted that the Appellate Court was duty bound in the case of an appeal by the accused to reappraise the evidence whie setting aside the concurrent convction.
it said, "A right of appeal is the creature of statue. Unless appellate power is expressly limited by additional conditionalities, the Appellate Court has power or rather is duty bound in the case of an appeal by the accused to reappraise the evidence. Even in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has power of reappraisal of evidence though subject to the limitation that interference would be in a case where the Trial Court's verdict is against the weight of evidence which is the same thing as a perverse verdict. We need not catalogue the circumstances which are well-settled."
The Judgement has been delivered by Bench comprising of Justice SANJAY KISHAN KAUL and Justice K.M. JOSEPH on July 23, 2019.
Read Judgement
