Dowry Death: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Husband, Acquits Mother-in-law in Fulwa Devi Case (17 December 2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 17 December 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 748

Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant, J., Hima Kohli, J.

Can a husband be convicted for dowry death even when there is no direct evidence of the murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a woman was found dead after being harassed for dowry. The Court examined the legal provisions related to dowry death and the burden of proof on the accused. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Hima Kohli, with the opinion authored by Justice Hima Kohli.

Case Background

The case involves the death of Fulwa Devi, who was married to Ram Sahay Mahto (A-1) in 1997. Shortly after the marriage, Fulwa Devi was allegedly subjected to harassment for dowry by her husband, Ram Sahay Mahto (A-1), his father Nema Mahto (since deceased), and his mother Parvati Devi (A-3). The demands included ₹20,000 in cash and a Rajdoot motorcycle. When her parents could not meet these demands, Fulwa Devi was reportedly assaulted and threatened. She was later found missing from her matrimonial home. Her father, Bodhi Mahto (PW-3), filed a missing person complaint on 8th August 1997. Five days later, on 13th August 1997, a skeleton was recovered from the banks of the Barakar River and was assumed to be that of Fulwa Devi.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, convicted Ram Sahay Mahto (A-1), his father Nema Mahto, and his mother Parvati Devi (A-3) under Sections 304B and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and three years, respectively, with both sentences running concurrently. The High Court of Jharkhand upheld the trial court’s judgment. Nema Mahto’s appeal abated due to his death during the pendency of the appeal.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following key legal provisions:

• Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines dowry death as the death of a woman within seven years of marriage under abnormal circumstances, where it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry. The section states:

  “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.”

• Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section creates a presumption of dowry death if it is shown that a woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death. The section states:

  “113B. 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 has 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.”

• Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: This section defines dowry as any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage. The section states:

  “2. Definition of ‘dowry’ – In this Act, “dowry” means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly – (a)by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b)by the parents of either party to a marriage by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal law (Shariat) applies.”

Arguments

Prosecution’s Arguments:

• The prosecution argued that Fulwa Devi was harassed for dowry soon after her marriage.
• Witnesses, including Fulwa Devi’s father (PW-3), brother (PW-4), and brother-in-law (PW-2), testified about the dowry demands and the threats made against her.
• The prosecution highlighted that Fulwa Devi went missing from her matrimonial home and her body was found in a river, indicating an unnatural death.
• The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to link the accused to the crime.

Defense’s Arguments:

• The defense argued that Fulwa Devi was not residing with her husband and in-laws but with her brother-in-law (PW-2).
• The defense claimed that the body recovered from the river was unidentifiable.
• The defense presented witnesses to argue that A-1 was not present in the village at the time of the incident.
• The defense argued that there was no proximity between the alleged demand of dowry and the death.

Submissions Categorized by Main Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the death of Fulwa Devi was a dowry death under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Whether the accused were guilty of the offences under Sections 304B and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on Bansi Lal vs. State of Haryana, (2011) 11 SCC 359* to emphasize the need for proving cruelty during the close proximity of time of death. The Court used Maya Devi and Anr. vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 17 SCC 405* to interpret the phrase “soon before her death” as requiring a proximate and live link between the cruelty and death. The court also referred to G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 3 SCC 152* and Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 12 SCC 350* while explaining the concept of dowry death. The Court applied Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860* to define dowry death and its ingredients, and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872* to establish the presumption of dowry death. The court used Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961* to define “dowry”.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, primarily the circumstantial evidence and the legal presumptions. The fact that Fulwa Devi went missing from her matrimonial home soon after dowry demands were made, and her body was found in a river, weighed heavily on the court’s mind. The court also considered the lack of a plausible explanation from the accused about her disappearance.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio

The court gave more weightage to the factual aspects of the case, such as the circumstances of the death and the evidence of harassment, while also applying the relevant legal provisions and presumptions.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative argument that the deceased was taken to the river and pushed in, leading to her death by drowning. This was supported by the post-mortem report, which showed no ante-mortem injuries. The Court rejected the defense’s arguments, stating that they failed to provide a plausible explanation for Fulwa Devi’s disappearance.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Ram Sahay Mahto (A-1), the husband, based on the circumstantial evidence and the legal presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court found that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated that Fulwa Devi was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry soon before her death. The court acquitted Parvati Devi (A-3), the mother-in-law, due to a lack of specific evidence against her. The court emphasized that while omnibus allegations were made against her, there was no specific evidence or testimony to prove her involvement in the dowry harassment.

“The High Court agreed with the view expressed by the trial Court that the accused have miserably failed to explain the circumstances under which the deceased had vanished from her matrimonial home…”

“Recovery of the body from the banks of the river clearly indicates that Fulwa Devi had died under abnormal circumstances that could only be explained by her husband and in-laws…”

“As for Parvati Devi, A-3 (Mother-in-law), from the evidence on record only certain omnibus allegations have been made against her with respect to dowry demands.”

Key Takeaways

• The judgment reinforces the importance of circumstantial evidence in dowry death cases.
• It highlights the legal presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which shifts the burden of proof onto the accused.
• The judgment emphasizes that the term “soon before her death” implies a proximate and live link between the cruelty and the death.
• It clarifies that while omnibus allegations are not sufficient for conviction, specific evidence is required to prove the involvement of each accused person.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed Ram Sahay Mahto (A-1), who was on bail, to surrender before the Trial Court/Superintendent of Jail within four weeks to undergo the remaining period of his sentence. Parvati Devi (A-3) was ordered to be released forthwith.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that in dowry death cases, if the prosecution can establish that the death occurred within seven years of marriage under abnormal circumstances and that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death, the court will presume that the accused caused the dowry death. This presumption can be rebutted by the accused with cogent evidence. The judgment also clarifies that general allegations are not enough to convict all family members, and specific evidence is required for each accused.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the husband, Ram Sahay Mahto (A-1), for dowry death based on circumstantial evidence and the legal presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, the court acquitted the mother-in-law, Parvati Devi (A-3), due to the lack of specific evidence against her. The judgment underscores the importance of circumstantial evidence and the legal presumption in dowry death cases and the need for specific evidence against each accused.