Dowry Death and Abetment of Suicide: Supreme Court Modifies Conviction in Paranagouda vs. State of Karnataka (2023)

Date of the Judgment: October 19, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 933
Judges: S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Aravind Kumar, J.
Can a conviction for dowry death be upheld if the dying declaration doesn’t explicitly link the suicide to an immediate dowry demand? The Supreme Court recently addressed this complex issue in a case involving a woman’s suicide due to alleged dowry harassment. The Court analyzed the evidence, particularly the dying declaration, to determine if the accused were guilty of dowry death and abetment of suicide. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Aravind Kumar.

Case Background

Akkamahadevi, the third daughter of the complainant Shri Chandappa Gooli, married the second respondent on May 16, 2010. On December 20, 2010, her father filed a complaint alleging that a dowry of Rs. 31,000 and 1.5 tolas of gold was given at the time of marriage. He further alleged that an additional dowry of Rs. 50,000 and more gold was demanded two months after the marriage. According to the complaint, Akkamahadevi was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband and his parents, ultimately leading her to commit suicide by self-immolation using kerosene. A dying declaration was recorded on December 20, 2010, and she died on December 24, 2010, due to burn injuries.

Initially, an FIR was registered under Sections 323, 498A, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (DP Act). After her death, Section 304B of the IPC was added. The trial court convicted the husband and his parents (the appellants) under Sections 498A, 304B of the IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, relying on the dying declaration. The High Court affirmed this conviction.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, convicted the accused based on the dying declaration (Ex.P.45), sentencing them to 7 years of simple imprisonment under Section 304B of the IPC, 5 years under Section 3 of the DP Act, and 1 year each under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act, along with fines. The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, upheld this conviction, emphasizing that the dying declaration was properly recorded and proved.

The appellants challenged the High Court’s decision, arguing that the deceased was not in a fit state to make a declaration due to severe burn injuries (70-80%) and that the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile. They also contended that the doctor’s testimony was contradictory regarding the deceased’s mental state.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation and application of several key legal provisions:

• Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with dowry death. It states that if a woman dies due to burns or bodily injury, or under abnormal circumstances within seven years of marriage, and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry, the death shall be considered a dowry death.
  “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.”
• Section 498A of the IPC: This section addresses cruelty towards a married woman by her husband or his relatives, which may lead to suicide or cause grave injury.
  “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means— (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”
• Section 306 of the IPC: This section deals with the abetment of suicide.
  “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (DP Act): These sections deal with the giving or taking of dowry and the penalty for demanding dowry, respectively.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The dying declaration was not a true and voluntary statement as the deceased was not physically or mentally fit to make any declaration due to 70-80% burn injuries.
• The parents of the deceased did not support the prosecution’s case.
• The doctor who examined and treated the deceased testified that she was suffering from breathlessness and was not always in a position to talk.

State’s Arguments:

• The dying declaration was properly recorded and proved, and the deceased was mentally fit to make the statement.
• The extent of burn injuries does not automatically invalidate the dying declaration.
• The doctor clearly stated that the deceased was mentally fit to make a statement.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants innovatively argued that the severe physical condition of the deceased, due to extensive burn injuries, rendered her mentally unfit to give a voluntary and true dying declaration. This challenged the prosecution’s reliance on the dying declaration as primary evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the dying declaration (Ex.P-45) was valid and could be relied upon for conviction.
2. Whether the conviction under Section 304B of the IPC was sustainable given the facts of the case.
3. Whether the accused could be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, even though no specific charge was framed for the same.

Additionally, the court also considered the sub-issue of whether the accused could be convicted under Section 498A of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
• Section 498A of the IPC
• Section 306 of the IPC
• Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (DP Act)
• Section 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
• Section 464 of the CrPC
• Section 215 of the CrPC

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

The Court relied on Salim Gulab Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra [CITATION] and Atbir vs. Government [CITATION] to establish that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it inspires confidence and is true and voluntary. The Court cited Kamlavva And Anr Vs. State of Karnataka [CITATION] to support that a dying declaration can be accepted even with 70-80% burn injuries. Bansilal vs. State of Haryana [CITATION] and Sher Singh Alias Partapa vs State of Haryana [CITATION] were used to interpret the requirements of Section 304B, particularly the need for a proximate link between dowry demand and death. The Court relied on Dinesh Seth v State of NCT of Delhi [CITATION] to differentiate between the scope of Section 304B and 498A. Finally, Dalbir Singh vs State of U.P. [CITATION] and K. Prema S. Rao & anr v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and others [CITATION] were cited to justify convicting the accused under Section 306 even without a specific charge.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The Dying Declaration: The Court placed significant emphasis on the dying declaration (Ex.P-45), finding it to be genuine, true, and not tainted with doubt. The deceased’s statement about the torture she endured due to dowry demands was crucial.
• Mental Capacity of the Deceased: The Court considered the testimony of Dr. M.C. Kori (PW-32) and Tahasildar (PW-25) who confirmed that the deceased was conscious and in a fit condition to make a statement. The Court held that the extent of burn injuries did not automatically invalidate the dying declaration.
• Proximate Link for Dowry Death: The Court noted that while there was evidence of harassment related to dowry, there was no proximate link between the immediate demand for dowry and the act of suicide, which was necessary for conviction under Section 304B of the IPC.
• Abetment of Suicide: The Court found that the evidence, particularly the dying declaration, clearly indicated that the accused had abetted the suicide of the deceased by their continuous harassment and torture, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC.
• Scope of Section 498A: The Court clarified that Section 498A has a wider scope than Section 304B, covering all cases of cruelty that may lead to suicide or cause grave injury. The dying declaration clearly indicated cruelty and harassment, which fell under the ambit of Section 498A of the IPC.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the deceased was not in a fit condition to make a statement due to her severe burn injuries, but rejected it based on the medical and witness evidence. The Court also considered the lack of a specific charge under Section 306 IPC but held that the omission was not fatal, as the facts and evidence clearly indicated abetment of suicide. The Court emphasized that the accused were aware of the basic ingredients of the offense and had a fair chance to defend themselves.

The Court’s decision was reached after a comprehensive analysis of the facts, evidence, and relevant legal provisions. The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that a dying declaration, if found to be true and voluntary, can be the sole basis for conviction. The Court also emphasized the importance of establishing a proximate link between the dowry demand and the death for a conviction under Section 304B of the IPC.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Aravind Kumar, with Justice S. Ravindra Bhat concurring.

“The physical disability suffered by her on account of the burn injuries sustained would not disentitle her to make statement, if said statement had been made consciously knowing the consequences thereof and such statement or declaration cannot be brushed aside only on the ground of burn injuries (in the instant case 70% to 80%) having been sustained by her.”

“The contents of the dying declaration Ex.P -45 suggests the possible explanation of the occurrence of the incident and it also appears to be the truthful version of the maker.”

“It is this taunting or mental torture which she could not withstand and forced her to commit suicide by self-immolation.”

Key Takeaways

• A dying declaration, if found to be true and voluntary, can be the sole basis for conviction.
• The extent of burn injuries does not automatically invalidate a dying declaration if the person was conscious and mentally fit to make a statement.
• For a conviction under Section 304B of the IPC, there must be a proximate link between the dowry demand and the death.
• An accused can be convicted for abetment of suicide (Section 306 IPC) even if no specific charge was framed, provided the facts and evidence support such a conviction.
• Section 498A of the IPC has a wider scope than Section 304B, covering all cases of cruelty that may lead to suicide or cause grave injury.

Directions

The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the lower courts. The appellants were acquitted of the offences under Section 304B of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. However, they were convicted under Section 306 and Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC. The sentence was reduced to the period already undergone with a fine of Rs. 5,000 each, and in default, one month simple imprisonment for each offense.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a dying declaration, if found to be true and voluntary, can be the sole basis for conviction, and that the extent of burn injuries does not automatically invalidate a dying declaration if the person was conscious and mentally fit to make a statement. The Court also clarified that while a proximate link between dowry demand and death is necessary for a conviction under Section 304B of the IPC, an accused can be convicted for abetment of suicide (Section 306 IPC) even if no specific charge was framed, provided the facts and evidence support such a conviction. This case also reaffirms the wider scope of Section 498A of the IPC in addressing cruelty towards married women. There is no change in the previous positions of the law, but it clarifies the application of these laws in a case involving dowry death and abetment of suicide.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Paranagouda vs. State of Karnataka modifies the conviction of the accused. While acquitting them of dowry death under Section 304B of the IPC, the Court upheld their conviction for abetment of suicide under Section 306 and cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC. This decision underscores the importance of a genuine and voluntary dying declaration, while also emphasizing the need for a proximate link between dowry demand and death for a conviction under Section 304B of the IPC. The judgment also highlights the broader scope of Section 498A in addressing cruelty towards married women.