The Supreme Court recently comprising of a bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, and Justice Aniruddha Bose observed that the phrase "soon before" as under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be construed to mean 'immediately before'. (Satvir Singh vs State of Haryana).
The bench observed that 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.
The bench also observed that Section 304B, IPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental.
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
Section 304B (1) provides that 'dowry death' is where death of a woman is caused by burning or bodily injuries or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of marriage, and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with demand for dowry.
The bench taking the contention of the accused into account went on to look into the interpretation of Section 304B, IPC that relates to the phrase "soon before".
The bench said, "Being a criminal statute, generally it is to be interpreted strictly. However, where strict interpretation leads to absurdity or goes against the spirit of legislation, the courts may in appropriate cases place reliance upon the genuine import of the words, taken in their usual sense to resolve such ambiguities."
The Court in order to determine the intention of the legislature behind the inclusion of Section 304B, IPC, discussed the legislative history of this Section and observed:
"Considering the significance of such a legislation, a strict interpretation would defeat the very object for which it was enacted. Therefore, it is safe to deduce that when the legislature used the words, "soon before" they did not mean "immediately before". Rather, they left its determination in the hands of the courts. The factum of cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. Even the spectrum of cruelty is quite varied, as it can range from physical, verbal or even emotional. This list is certainly not exhaustive. No straitjacket formulae can therefore be laid down by this Court to define what exacts the phrase "soon before" entails."
The court referred to the caes of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207 and Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477, wherein the court expressed a similar view:
The court said, " Therefore, Courts should use their discretion to determine if the period between the cruelty or harassment and the death of the victim would come within the term "soon before". What is pivotal to the above determination, is the establishment of a "proximate and live link" between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim.".
The Court noted that once all the essential ingredients are established by the prosecution, the presumption under Section 113B, Evidence Act mandatorily operates against the accused.
The bench further added that when the prosecution shows that 'soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry', a presumption of causation arises against the accused under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. Thereafter, the accused has to rebut this statutory presumption, it said.
"18. Therefore, once all the essential ingredients are established by the prosecution, the presumption under Section 113B, Evidence Act mandatorily operates against the accused. This presumption of causality that arises can be rebutted by the accused.
19. The usage of rebuttable presumption of causality, under Section 113B, Evidence Act, creates a greater responsibility on Judges, defense and prosecution. They need to be extra careful during conducting criminal trials relating to Section 304B, IPC. In order to address this precarious situation, procedural law has some safeguards, which merits mentioning herein.", the court observed.
The bench also observed that Section 304B, IPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental, as was done earlier.
"22...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. However, the Section 304B, IPC endeavors to also 16 address those situations wherein murders or suicide are masqueraded as accidents. 23. Therefore, if all the other ingredients of Section 304B IPC are fulfilled, any death whether caused by burns or by bodily injury or occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances shall, as per the legislative mandate, be called a "dowry death" and the woman's husband or his relative "shall be deemed to have caused her death" unless proved otherwise. The section clearly specifies what constitutes the offence of dowry death and also identifies the single offender or multiple offenders who has or have caused the dowry death"
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
