The Telangana High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice G. Sri Devi remarked that there must be existence of a proximate and live-link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. The bench noted that Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. (Boddupally Venkanna vs The State Of Telangana)
Facts of the Case
The appellant along with two others, were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498 A, 302, 304-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The trial judge while acquitting the other two accused, convicted and sentenced the appellant under all the above sections.
Assailing the judgment of the Trial Court, the appellant moved the High Court.
Contention of the Parties
Learned Counsel for the appellant/A-1 mainly contended that the evidence let in by the prosecution does not inspire confidence that the appellant committed the alleged offences. According to her, there is absolutely no evidence against the appellant/A-1, who is the husband of the deceased, and as such the trial Court ought not to have convicted him for the charges framed against him. According to the learned Counsel, the alleged offence does not satisfy the requirements of Section 304-B of I.P.C.
According to him, the words used in Section 304-B I.P.C. are that 'soon before her death' the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. In the instant case, according to the learned Counsel, the deceased suffered breathing problem on the alleged date of incident and died while shifting her to the hospital. Therefore, he contended that the appellant/A-1 is not liable to be convicted under Section 304-B I.P.C. In respect of the other charge for dowry harassment, she contended that there is no clinching evidence which would establish that there was any physical or mental harassment by the appellant/A-1 for dowry.
On the contrary, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/complainant contended that the evidence on record would clinchingly establish the case against the appellant and the trial Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the charges framed against him. He also points out that according to Section 113-B of I.P.C. if a woman dies within seven years of her marriage, a presumption under Section 113-B of I.P.C. has to be drawn and if the events as spoken to by the prosecution witnesses are taken into consideration, it clearly satisfies the ingredients of Section 304-B of I.P.C. and thus justifies the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The Court noted, “A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. Prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of the 'death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances'. The expression 'soon before' is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. Prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by prosecution. 'Soon before' is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.
To indicate that the expression 'soon before' would normally implied that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live-link between the affect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.”
The court after analysing the facts of the case and the settled position of law on the subject remarked, “Thus, from a perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the essential ingredient, which is necessary to attract the offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C. i.e., the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellant, soon before her death in demand of dowry is lacking. As such, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt for the offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C.”
The bench alowing the appeal remarked, “Basing upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 the trial Court, while acquitting A-2 and A-3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, convicted the appellant/A-1 only for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. As discussed above, it is clear that the evidence is not wholly reliable with regard to the demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased. If that evidence is eschewed from consideration the appellant cannot be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant/A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 beyond all reasonable doubt and that he is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge, Family Courtcum-VI-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, against the appellant/A-1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, by judgment dated 30.12.2019 in S.C.No.178 of 2016 are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the said offences and he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/A-1, shall be returned to him.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :