Dowry death - proved beyond all reasonable doubts - The statements of the PW-2 and PW-3 are specific as they were eye witnesses. In their statements they specifically stated about the
harassment in connection with demand of dowry. Deceased died within seven months of marriage. She also telephonically complained about harassment. The Prosecution thus proved that there was harassment in connection with dowry soon before death of the victim.=
whether the accused has committed
the dowry death of the woman. (This means that the presumption can be
raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304-
B IPC.)
(2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his
relatives.
(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any demand for
dowry.
(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.”
12. In the present case, from the statements of PW-2 and PW-3 it is clear
that the death took place within seven months of marriage. Admittedly,
death of the deceased was due to burn i.e. not in normal circumstances. We
have to see now whether the remaining ingredients are satisfied looking
into the evidence on record.
13. The statements of the PW-2 and PW-3 are specific as they were eye
witnesses. In their statements they specifically stated about the
harassment in connection with demand of dowry. Deceased died within seven
months of marriage. She also telephonically complained about harassment.
The Prosecution thus proved that there was harassment in connection with
dowry soon before death of the victim.
2 14. In view of the evidence on record, as discussed above, we hold that
the prosecution was successful to prove the ingredients of Section 304-B
IPC. The Trial Court rightly presumed that the accused had caused the dowry
death of the victim.
3 15. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly
dismissed. The appellant is directed to be taken into custody forthwith to
serve remainder period of sentence. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.684 OF 2011
DAVINDER SINGH … APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,J
This appeal is directed against judgment dated 9th December, 2009 passed by
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.
471-SB of 1999 whereby the High Court confirmed the judgment and order
dated 23rd April, 1999 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa in
Sessions Case No.14 of 12th May, 1997. The Sessions Court by the said
judgment convicted the appellant u/s 304-B IPC and sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-
, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of 2 months.
2. Apart from the appellant other family members, namely, Kuldip Singh,
Darshana Devi and Parveen kaur were also accused before the Trial Court.
They were acquitted of the charges leveled against them against which no
appeal was filed by the State. Paramjit Kaur and Swaranjit Kaur were two
other accused who were juvenile therefore their cases were separated.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Amarjit Kaur
(deceased) was married to accused-Davinder Singh (appellant herein) 6/7
months before the date of occurrence i.e. 3rd March, 1997. Teja Singh son
of Bachittar Singh was the mediator in arranging the marriage. At the time
of marriage, sufficient dowry was given by the parents of Amarjit Kaur as
per their status, but after the marriage in-laws of Amarjit Kaur started
torturing/coercing her to bring more dowry. Jaswinder Singh-complainant-
brother of Amarjit Kaur and Teja Singh-mediator had requested the in-laws
of Amarjit Kaur not to harass and torture her for dowry but they continued
to maltreat and harass the deceased.
On 9.2.1997, marriage of Jaswinder Singh, complainant, was solemnized.
Deceased and her husband Davinder Singh had attended the marriage. After
marriage, Davinder Singh demanded Rs.20,000/- from the complainant on the
ground that Jaswinder Singh was given more dowry than him. To settle
deceased in her in-laws’ house, Jaswinder Singh borrowed a sum of
Rs.20,000/- and gave the amount to the appellant. But in-laws of the
deceased were not satisfied and they continued to demand more dowry.
On 2.3.1997, deceased telephonically informed Jaswinder Singh that her in-
laws were torturing and harassing her in connection with dowry. As per
message, Jaswinder Singh and his maternal uncle Bhola Singh went to
Budhlada to enquire about the welfare of deceased. The deceased informed
them that she was being harassed for more dowry by her in-laws. They came
back by saying that on the next day, they will come back with some
respectable person to settle the dispute.
On 3.3.1997 at about 5.30 PM, Jaswinder Singh, his maternal uncle Bhola
Singh and Teja Singh went to the house of accused-Davinder Singh. When they
were near the gate of the house, then they heard shrieks and screams from
the roof. After entering the house when they were going to the roof of the
house, they found Darshana Devi saying that Amarjit Kaur should not be
spared. She should be finished. All of them went to the roof of the house
and then noticed Kuldip Singh, accused-Davinder Singh, Darshana Devi,
Parveen Kaur, Paramjit Kaur and Swaranjit Kaur coming to the ground through
staircase. The dead body of Amarjit Kaur was found in the bathroom in a
burnt condition. Plastic cane and match box were found near the dead body.
It is alleged that in-laws of Amarjit Kaur has murdered her by setting her
on fire. Teja Singh was deputed to guard the dead body, when Jaswinder
Singh and Bhola Singh went to lodge report. Rupinder Singh, Sub Inspector
met the complainant near the crossing of Civil Hospital, Budhalda, where
statement of Jaswinder Singh (Ex.P.D.) was recorded. After making
endorsement, statement was forwarded to the Police Station, on the basis of
which, formal FIR was registered.
On 7.3.1997, accused were arrested. After completion of investigation,
challans was presented. Accused were charged u/s 304-B/149 IPC to which the
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined four witnesses.
Documentary evidences were also exhibited. Defence also examined seven
witnesses. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused
were recoded u/s 313 Cr.PC. Accused denied all the prosecution allegations
and pleaded to be innocent. Defence version of the accused-appellant was
that he is impotent and on account of this reason, Amarjit Kaur was under
depression. Amarjit Kaur was also harassed by her step mother. Because of
these reasons, she has committed suicide. Similar plea has been taken by
the counsel for the appellant to assail the impugned judgment.
5. PW-2 – Jaswinder Singh brother of the deceased stated
that Amarjit Kaur got married with appellant-Davinder Singh in July, 1996.
Kuldeep Singh, Darshana Devi and Parveen are respectively father, mother
and sister of the appellant. Paramjit Kaur and Swaranjit Kaur are also
sisters of the
appellant. Teja Singh was mediator of marriage of Amarjit Kaur with
Davinder Singh. They had spent on marriage of deceased more than their
capacity. The relations of deceased with her husband and in laws remained
cordial for about two months. Thereafter her in-laws started ill-treating
her on one pretext or the other that her parents had not given scooter and
cloths given were not upto mark. The accused were demanding more dowry. He
along with his maternal uncle PW-3 Bhola Singh had gone once or twice to
house of her in-laws and requested them that since they are poor people and
they cannot afford more dowry. But appellant and his family did not agree.
PW-2’s marriage took place on 9.2.1997 Davinder Singh and Amarjit Kaur
attended his marriage. After his marriage accused-Davinder Singh stated
that complainant had been given more dowry than him and demanded money
from complainant. The complainant took Rs.20,000/- from his uncle and gave
it to accused-Davinder Singh. However, the appellant was not satisfied and
again started demanding more dowry. On 2.3.1997, he received telephone
call from his sister that she is being maltreated by her in-laws on account
of dowry. Then PW-2 took his maternal uncle from Goniana and came to
Budhlada in the house of the accused. The accused demanded more money from
the complainant. Then PW-2 told the accused that he will meet them the next
day. On 3.3.1997, PW-2 along with his maternal uncle Bhola Singh and
mediator Teja Singh reached the house of the accused. When they reached at
the gate of the house, they heard shrieks upstairs. When they were just
entering the gate, mother-in-law of the deceased shouted that deceased
should be finished today. Then they went upstairs. When they went on roof
Kuldeep Singh, Davinder Singh, Darshana Devi, Parveen Kaur, Swaranjit Kaur
and Paramjit Kaur came down running. They found Amarjit Kaur lying dead
with burns in bathroom. One plastic cane and match box were lying near to
her dead body. Teja Singh was left to guard dead body he and his uncle
went to the Police Station. Police met them near the Hospital where his
statement Ex.PD was recorded. Thereafter the Police came to the house of
accused and took into possession plastic cane Ex.P3, match box Ex.P4, and
ash wrapped in cloth Ex.P5 vide memo P.E. which was attested by him. During
the cross examination, PW-2 denied the suggestion that after his marriage
he did not visit Budhlada. He stated that visited there twice or thrice.
However, he could not give the exact date of telephone call but stated that
she had given call on 10-11 AM and on the same day of receiving the
telephone he and his uncle went to Budhlada. He denied the suggestion that
the accused had not demanded dowry prior to bhog ceremony of his father.
6. PW-3 Bhola Singh maternal uncle of Amarjit Kaur stated that Amarjit
Kaur was married with accused-Davinder Singh about seven months prior to
her death. Accused-Davinder Singh used to demand motor cycle as dowry. The
in-laws of deceased used to maltreat her. On 2.3.1997 he and his sister’s
son (PW-2- complainant) came to the house of the accused at Budhlada to see
Amarjit Kaur, She told them that her in-laws are maltreating her. They left
the house telling that they will come again with some wise person. They
again went on 3.3.1997 along with Teja Singh to the house of the accused at
Budhlada. At the gate, they heard shrieks from the roof of the house. Then
they went running upstairs. When they went upwards, they saw Amarjit Kaur
lying dead in bathroom with burns all over the body. Plastic cane and
match box were found lying near the dead-body. The matter was reported to
the Police Station. The Police met them in front of Hospital. During the
cross-examination PW-3 was not in a position to given the exact details of
the neighbours of the Devinder Singh. However, for not giving such details
of the neighbours, the statement of PW-3 cannot be held to be
untrustworthy.
7. PW-1 Dr. Kashmir Singh, had conducted the post mortem examination. He
reported that death was due to asphyxia as a result of 95% to 100% burns
which were ante mortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature. The probable duration of time that elapsed
between the injuries and death was immediate and between death and the
postmortem was within 24 hours. The Ex. P.A. is the copy of the Post
Mortem Report.
8. PW-4 Rupinder Kumar, Sub Inspector is the investigating officer. He
also deposed about recovery of plastic cane and match box from the house of
the accused.
9. Section 304B IPC relates to dowry death and reads as follows:
“304B. Dowry death.— (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns
or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within
seven years of her 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 for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death
shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed
to have caused her death.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the
same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of
1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life.”
10. For the purpose of the said Section, a presumption can be raised only
on proof of the following essentials:
Death of woman has been caused by burns or bodily injury or not under
normal circumstances.
The said death have occurred within seven years of her marriage
(c) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or his relatives.
(d) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection
with, any demand for dowry and
(e) She was meted out with such cruelty or harassment was soon
before her death.
In this connection, we may refer this Court decision in Kaliaperumal vs.
State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828.
1 11. In the case of Hira Lal & Others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi,
(2003) 8 SCC 80, this Court considered the expression “before death” used
in the Section 304B IPC and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act which
reads as under:
“8. Section 304-B IPC which deals with dowry death, reads as follows:
“304-B. Dowry death.—(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns
or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within
seven years of her 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 for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death
shall be called ‘dowry death’, and such husband or relative shall be deemed
to have caused her death.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section, ‘dowry’ shall have the
same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of
1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life.”
The provision has application when death of a woman is caused by any burns
or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within
seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of
her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. In order to
attract application of Section 304-B IPC, the essential ingredients are as
follows:
(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or
otherwise than under a normal circumstance.
(ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.
(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband
or any relative of her husband.
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand
of dowry.
(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman
soon before her death.
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the case at hand.
Both Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act were inserted
as noted earlier by Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a
view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths. Section 113-B reads
as follows:
“113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.—When the question is whether a
person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon
before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or
harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court
shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
[pic]Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, ‘dowry death’ shall
have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860).”
The necessity for insertion of the two provisions has been amply analysed
by the Law Commission of India in its 21st Report dated 10-8-1988 on “Dowry
Deaths and Law Reform”. Keeping in view the impediment in the pre-existing
law in securing evidence to prove dowry-related deaths, the legislature
thought it wise to insert a provision relating to presumption of dowry
death on proof of certain essentials. It is in this background that
presumptive Section 113-B in the Evidence Act has been inserted. As per the
definition of “dowry death” in Section 304-B IPC and the wording in the
presumptive Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, one of the essential
ingredients, amongst others, in both the provisions is that the woman
concerned must have been “soon before her death” subjected to cruelty or
harassment “for or in connection with the demand of dowry”. Presumption
under Section 113-B is a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials
mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a
presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. The presumption shall
be raised only on proof of the following essentials:
(1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed
the dowry death of the woman. (This means that the presumption can be
raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304-
B IPC.)
(2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his
relatives.
(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any demand for
dowry.
(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.”
12. In the present case, from the statements of PW-2 and PW-3 it is clear
that the death took place within seven months of marriage. Admittedly,
death of the deceased was due to burn i.e. not in normal circumstances. We
have to see now whether the remaining ingredients are satisfied looking
into the evidence on record.
13. The statements of the PW-2 and PW-3 are specific as they were eye
witnesses. In their statements they specifically stated about the
harassment in connection with demand of dowry. Deceased died within seven
months of marriage. She also telephonically complained about harassment.
The Prosecution thus proved that there was harassment in connection with
dowry soon before death of the victim.
2 14. In view of the evidence on record, as discussed above, we hold that
the prosecution was successful to prove the ingredients of Section 304-B
IPC. The Trial Court rightly presumed that the accused had caused the dowry
death of the victim.
3 15. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly
dismissed. The appellant is directed to be taken into custody forthwith to
serve remainder period of sentence. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
4
………………………………………………………………………J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
………………………………………………………………………J.
(S.A. BOBDE)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 2, 2014.
harassment in connection with demand of dowry. Deceased died within seven months of marriage. She also telephonically complained about harassment. The Prosecution thus proved that there was harassment in connection with dowry soon before death of the victim.=
whether the accused has committed
the dowry death of the woman. (This means that the presumption can be
raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304-
B IPC.)
(2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his
relatives.
(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any demand for
dowry.
(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.”
12. In the present case, from the statements of PW-2 and PW-3 it is clear
that the death took place within seven months of marriage. Admittedly,
death of the deceased was due to burn i.e. not in normal circumstances. We
have to see now whether the remaining ingredients are satisfied looking
into the evidence on record.
13. The statements of the PW-2 and PW-3 are specific as they were eye
witnesses. In their statements they specifically stated about the
harassment in connection with demand of dowry. Deceased died within seven
months of marriage. She also telephonically complained about harassment.
The Prosecution thus proved that there was harassment in connection with
dowry soon before death of the victim.
2 14. In view of the evidence on record, as discussed above, we hold that
the prosecution was successful to prove the ingredients of Section 304-B
IPC. The Trial Court rightly presumed that the accused had caused the dowry
death of the victim.
3 15. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly
dismissed. The appellant is directed to be taken into custody forthwith to
serve remainder period of sentence. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41726
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.684 OF 2011
DAVINDER SINGH … APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,J
This appeal is directed against judgment dated 9th December, 2009 passed by
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.
471-SB of 1999 whereby the High Court confirmed the judgment and order
dated 23rd April, 1999 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa in
Sessions Case No.14 of 12th May, 1997. The Sessions Court by the said
judgment convicted the appellant u/s 304-B IPC and sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-
, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of 2 months.
2. Apart from the appellant other family members, namely, Kuldip Singh,
Darshana Devi and Parveen kaur were also accused before the Trial Court.
They were acquitted of the charges leveled against them against which no
appeal was filed by the State. Paramjit Kaur and Swaranjit Kaur were two
other accused who were juvenile therefore their cases were separated.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Amarjit Kaur
(deceased) was married to accused-Davinder Singh (appellant herein) 6/7
months before the date of occurrence i.e. 3rd March, 1997. Teja Singh son
of Bachittar Singh was the mediator in arranging the marriage. At the time
of marriage, sufficient dowry was given by the parents of Amarjit Kaur as
per their status, but after the marriage in-laws of Amarjit Kaur started
torturing/coercing her to bring more dowry. Jaswinder Singh-complainant-
brother of Amarjit Kaur and Teja Singh-mediator had requested the in-laws
of Amarjit Kaur not to harass and torture her for dowry but they continued
to maltreat and harass the deceased.
On 9.2.1997, marriage of Jaswinder Singh, complainant, was solemnized.
Deceased and her husband Davinder Singh had attended the marriage. After
marriage, Davinder Singh demanded Rs.20,000/- from the complainant on the
ground that Jaswinder Singh was given more dowry than him. To settle
deceased in her in-laws’ house, Jaswinder Singh borrowed a sum of
Rs.20,000/- and gave the amount to the appellant. But in-laws of the
deceased were not satisfied and they continued to demand more dowry.
On 2.3.1997, deceased telephonically informed Jaswinder Singh that her in-
laws were torturing and harassing her in connection with dowry. As per
message, Jaswinder Singh and his maternal uncle Bhola Singh went to
Budhlada to enquire about the welfare of deceased. The deceased informed
them that she was being harassed for more dowry by her in-laws. They came
back by saying that on the next day, they will come back with some
respectable person to settle the dispute.
On 3.3.1997 at about 5.30 PM, Jaswinder Singh, his maternal uncle Bhola
Singh and Teja Singh went to the house of accused-Davinder Singh. When they
were near the gate of the house, then they heard shrieks and screams from
the roof. After entering the house when they were going to the roof of the
house, they found Darshana Devi saying that Amarjit Kaur should not be
spared. She should be finished. All of them went to the roof of the house
and then noticed Kuldip Singh, accused-Davinder Singh, Darshana Devi,
Parveen Kaur, Paramjit Kaur and Swaranjit Kaur coming to the ground through
staircase. The dead body of Amarjit Kaur was found in the bathroom in a
burnt condition. Plastic cane and match box were found near the dead body.
It is alleged that in-laws of Amarjit Kaur has murdered her by setting her
on fire. Teja Singh was deputed to guard the dead body, when Jaswinder
Singh and Bhola Singh went to lodge report. Rupinder Singh, Sub Inspector
met the complainant near the crossing of Civil Hospital, Budhalda, where
statement of Jaswinder Singh (Ex.P.D.) was recorded. After making
endorsement, statement was forwarded to the Police Station, on the basis of
which, formal FIR was registered.
On 7.3.1997, accused were arrested. After completion of investigation,
challans was presented. Accused were charged u/s 304-B/149 IPC to which the
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined four witnesses.
Documentary evidences were also exhibited. Defence also examined seven
witnesses. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused
were recoded u/s 313 Cr.PC. Accused denied all the prosecution allegations
and pleaded to be innocent. Defence version of the accused-appellant was
that he is impotent and on account of this reason, Amarjit Kaur was under
depression. Amarjit Kaur was also harassed by her step mother. Because of
these reasons, she has committed suicide. Similar plea has been taken by
the counsel for the appellant to assail the impugned judgment.
5. PW-2 – Jaswinder Singh brother of the deceased stated
that Amarjit Kaur got married with appellant-Davinder Singh in July, 1996.
Kuldeep Singh, Darshana Devi and Parveen are respectively father, mother
and sister of the appellant. Paramjit Kaur and Swaranjit Kaur are also
sisters of the
appellant. Teja Singh was mediator of marriage of Amarjit Kaur with
Davinder Singh. They had spent on marriage of deceased more than their
capacity. The relations of deceased with her husband and in laws remained
cordial for about two months. Thereafter her in-laws started ill-treating
her on one pretext or the other that her parents had not given scooter and
cloths given were not upto mark. The accused were demanding more dowry. He
along with his maternal uncle PW-3 Bhola Singh had gone once or twice to
house of her in-laws and requested them that since they are poor people and
they cannot afford more dowry. But appellant and his family did not agree.
PW-2’s marriage took place on 9.2.1997 Davinder Singh and Amarjit Kaur
attended his marriage. After his marriage accused-Davinder Singh stated
that complainant had been given more dowry than him and demanded money
from complainant. The complainant took Rs.20,000/- from his uncle and gave
it to accused-Davinder Singh. However, the appellant was not satisfied and
again started demanding more dowry. On 2.3.1997, he received telephone
call from his sister that she is being maltreated by her in-laws on account
of dowry. Then PW-2 took his maternal uncle from Goniana and came to
Budhlada in the house of the accused. The accused demanded more money from
the complainant. Then PW-2 told the accused that he will meet them the next
day. On 3.3.1997, PW-2 along with his maternal uncle Bhola Singh and
mediator Teja Singh reached the house of the accused. When they reached at
the gate of the house, they heard shrieks upstairs. When they were just
entering the gate, mother-in-law of the deceased shouted that deceased
should be finished today. Then they went upstairs. When they went on roof
Kuldeep Singh, Davinder Singh, Darshana Devi, Parveen Kaur, Swaranjit Kaur
and Paramjit Kaur came down running. They found Amarjit Kaur lying dead
with burns in bathroom. One plastic cane and match box were lying near to
her dead body. Teja Singh was left to guard dead body he and his uncle
went to the Police Station. Police met them near the Hospital where his
statement Ex.PD was recorded. Thereafter the Police came to the house of
accused and took into possession plastic cane Ex.P3, match box Ex.P4, and
ash wrapped in cloth Ex.P5 vide memo P.E. which was attested by him. During
the cross examination, PW-2 denied the suggestion that after his marriage
he did not visit Budhlada. He stated that visited there twice or thrice.
However, he could not give the exact date of telephone call but stated that
she had given call on 10-11 AM and on the same day of receiving the
telephone he and his uncle went to Budhlada. He denied the suggestion that
the accused had not demanded dowry prior to bhog ceremony of his father.
6. PW-3 Bhola Singh maternal uncle of Amarjit Kaur stated that Amarjit
Kaur was married with accused-Davinder Singh about seven months prior to
her death. Accused-Davinder Singh used to demand motor cycle as dowry. The
in-laws of deceased used to maltreat her. On 2.3.1997 he and his sister’s
son (PW-2- complainant) came to the house of the accused at Budhlada to see
Amarjit Kaur, She told them that her in-laws are maltreating her. They left
the house telling that they will come again with some wise person. They
again went on 3.3.1997 along with Teja Singh to the house of the accused at
Budhlada. At the gate, they heard shrieks from the roof of the house. Then
they went running upstairs. When they went upwards, they saw Amarjit Kaur
lying dead in bathroom with burns all over the body. Plastic cane and
match box were found lying near the dead-body. The matter was reported to
the Police Station. The Police met them in front of Hospital. During the
cross-examination PW-3 was not in a position to given the exact details of
the neighbours of the Devinder Singh. However, for not giving such details
of the neighbours, the statement of PW-3 cannot be held to be
untrustworthy.
7. PW-1 Dr. Kashmir Singh, had conducted the post mortem examination. He
reported that death was due to asphyxia as a result of 95% to 100% burns
which were ante mortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature. The probable duration of time that elapsed
between the injuries and death was immediate and between death and the
postmortem was within 24 hours. The Ex. P.A. is the copy of the Post
Mortem Report.
8. PW-4 Rupinder Kumar, Sub Inspector is the investigating officer. He
also deposed about recovery of plastic cane and match box from the house of
the accused.
9. Section 304B IPC relates to dowry death and reads as follows:
“304B. Dowry death.— (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns
or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within
seven years of her 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 for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death
shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed
to have caused her death.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the
same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of
1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life.”
10. For the purpose of the said Section, a presumption can be raised only
on proof of the following essentials:
Death of woman has been caused by burns or bodily injury or not under
normal circumstances.
The said death have occurred within seven years of her marriage
(c) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or his relatives.
(d) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection
with, any demand for dowry and
(e) She was meted out with such cruelty or harassment was soon
before her death.
In this connection, we may refer this Court decision in Kaliaperumal vs.
State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828.
1 11. In the case of Hira Lal & Others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi,
(2003) 8 SCC 80, this Court considered the expression “before death” used
in the Section 304B IPC and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act which
reads as under:
“8. Section 304-B IPC which deals with dowry death, reads as follows:
“304-B. Dowry death.—(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns
or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within
seven years of her 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 for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death
shall be called ‘dowry death’, and such husband or relative shall be deemed
to have caused her death.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section, ‘dowry’ shall have the
same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of
1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life.”
The provision has application when death of a woman is caused by any burns
or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within
seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of
her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. In order to
attract application of Section 304-B IPC, the essential ingredients are as
follows:
(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or
otherwise than under a normal circumstance.
(ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.
(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband
or any relative of her husband.
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand
of dowry.
(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman
soon before her death.
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the case at hand.
Both Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act were inserted
as noted earlier by Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a
view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths. Section 113-B reads
as follows:
“113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.—When the question is whether a
person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon
before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or
harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court
shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
[pic]Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, ‘dowry death’ shall
have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860).”
The necessity for insertion of the two provisions has been amply analysed
by the Law Commission of India in its 21st Report dated 10-8-1988 on “Dowry
Deaths and Law Reform”. Keeping in view the impediment in the pre-existing
law in securing evidence to prove dowry-related deaths, the legislature
thought it wise to insert a provision relating to presumption of dowry
death on proof of certain essentials. It is in this background that
presumptive Section 113-B in the Evidence Act has been inserted. As per the
definition of “dowry death” in Section 304-B IPC and the wording in the
presumptive Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, one of the essential
ingredients, amongst others, in both the provisions is that the woman
concerned must have been “soon before her death” subjected to cruelty or
harassment “for or in connection with the demand of dowry”. Presumption
under Section 113-B is a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials
mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a
presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. The presumption shall
be raised only on proof of the following essentials:
(1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed
the dowry death of the woman. (This means that the presumption can be
raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304-
B IPC.)
(2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his
relatives.
(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any demand for
dowry.
(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.”
12. In the present case, from the statements of PW-2 and PW-3 it is clear
that the death took place within seven months of marriage. Admittedly,
death of the deceased was due to burn i.e. not in normal circumstances. We
have to see now whether the remaining ingredients are satisfied looking
into the evidence on record.
13. The statements of the PW-2 and PW-3 are specific as they were eye
witnesses. In their statements they specifically stated about the
harassment in connection with demand of dowry. Deceased died within seven
months of marriage. She also telephonically complained about harassment.
The Prosecution thus proved that there was harassment in connection with
dowry soon before death of the victim.
2 14. In view of the evidence on record, as discussed above, we hold that
the prosecution was successful to prove the ingredients of Section 304-B
IPC. The Trial Court rightly presumed that the accused had caused the dowry
death of the victim.
3 15. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly
dismissed. The appellant is directed to be taken into custody forthwith to
serve remainder period of sentence. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
4
………………………………………………………………………J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
………………………………………………………………………J.
(S.A. BOBDE)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 2, 2014.
