The Supreme Court recently comprising of a bench of Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice Aniruddha Bose expressed concern on the “casual” and “cursory” attitude adopted by trial courts while recording the statements of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in dowry death cases. (Satvir Singh vs State of Haryana)
The bench said, “It is a matter of grave concern that, often, trial courts record the statement under Section 313, CrPC in a very casual and cursory manner, without specifically questioning the accused as to his defence.”
Facts of the Case
The present appeals arise out of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellants and upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court for the offences under Sections 304B and 306, IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304B, IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC.
Issue before the Court
Whether the Trial Court, and the High Court, was correct in convicting the accused on the charge under Section 304B, IPC?
Whether the Trial Court, and the High Court, was correct in convicting the accused on the charge under Section 306, IPC?
Contention of the Parties
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the possibility of accidental fire has not been ruled out in the present case. Moreover, most importantly, the prosecution failed to prove that there was a demand for dowry. Lastly, the prosecution has failed to prove that the demand, assuming there was one, was made proximate to the death of the deceasedvictim.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent- State submitted that the appellants had not been able to show any material which would merit the interference of this Court in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The counsel especially emphasized upon the fact that the suspicious death of the deceased victim occurred within almost 1 year of marriage. Moreover, the witnesses have stated the specific instances of demand for dowry with consistency.
Courts Observation & Judgment
Undoubtedly, the menace of dowry death is increasing day by day, the bench said, but also observed that sometimes, family members of the husband were roped in, even though they have no active role in commission of the offence and are residing at distant places. “In these cases, the court need to be cautious in its approach,” the bench noted.
The bench noted that "examination of an accused under Section 313, CrPC cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, as it based on the fundamental principle of fairness."
The Court said, "Section 313 CrPC incorporates the valuable principle of natural justice “audi alteram partem” as it enables the accused to offer an explanation for the incriminatory material appearing against him. Therefore, it imposes an obligation on the court to question the accused fairly, with care and caution. The Court must put incriminating circumstance."
It observed that once trial court decides the accused is not eligible to be acquitted, it must move on and fix hearings specifically for ‘defence evidence’, calling upon the accused to present his defence as per the procedure, which is also an invaluable right provided to the accused.
The bench noted, “In the same breath, trial courts need to balance other important considerations such as the right to a speedy trial. In this regard, we may caution that the above provisions should not be allowed to be misused as delay tactics.”
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, it added.
The top court convicted the accused in Section 304-B (dowry death) but set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court convicting and sentencing the accused under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide).
The bench said, “We find that the High Court and the trial court have not committed any error in convicting the appellants under Section 304B, IPC as the appellants failed to discharge the burden under Section 113B, Evidence Act. However, upon appreciation of facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that the offence under Section 306, IPC is not made out.”
The bench issued the following guidelines:
i. Section 304B, IPC must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand.
ii. The prosecution must at first establish the existence of the necessary ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 304B, IPC. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the rebuttable presumption of causality, provided under Section 113B, Evidence Act operates against the accused.
iii. The phrase "soon before" as appearing in Section 304B, IPC 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.
iv. Section 304B, IPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental. 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.
v. Due to the precarious nature of Section 304B, IPC read with 113B, Evidence Act, Judges, prosecution and defence should be careful during conduction of trial.
vi. It is a matter of grave concern that, often, Trial Courts record the statement under Section 313, CrPC in a very casual and cursory manner, without specifically questioning the accused as to his defense. It ought to be noted that the examination of an accused under Section 313, CrPC cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, as it based on the fundamental principle of fairness. This aforesaid provision incorporates the valuable principle of natural justice "audi alteram partem" as it enables the accused to offer an explanation for the incriminatory material appearing against him. Therefore, it imposes an obligation on the court to question the accused fairly, with care and caution.
vii. The Court must put incriminating circumstances before the accused and seek his response. A duty is also cast on the counsel of the accused to prepare his defense since the inception of the Trial with due caution, keeping in consideration the peculiarities of Section 304B, IPC read with Section 113B, Evidence Act.
viii. Section 232, CrPC provides that, "If, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal". Such discretion must be utilized by the Trial Courts as an obligation of best efforts.
ix. Once the Trial Court decides that the accused is not eligible to be acquitted as per the provisions of Section 232, CrPC, it must move on and fix hearings specifically for 'defence evidence', calling upon the accused to present his defense as per the procedure provided under Section 233, CrPC, which is also an invaluable right provided to the accused.
x. In the same breath, Trial Courts need to balance other important considerations such as the right to a speedy trial. In this regard, we may caution that the above provisions should not be allowed to be misused as delay tactics.
xi. Apart from the above, the presiding Judge should follow the guidelines laid down by this Court while sentencing and imposing appropriate punishment.
xii. Undoubtedly, as discussed above, the menace of dowry death is increasing day by day. However, it is also observed that sometimes family members of the husband are roped in, even though they have no active role in commission of the offence and are residing at distant places. In these cases, the Court need to be cautious in its approach.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
