Supreme Court acquits in-laws in dowry death case due to lack of evidence: State of Haryana vs. Angoori Devi (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 13 June 2019

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J.

Can a conviction for dowry death be upheld solely on the basis of hearsay evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the High Court had overturned a conviction for dowry death due to lack of direct evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the need for a clear link between dowry demands and the death of the victim. This case underscores the importance of establishing a proximate connection between dowry-related harassment and the death of a woman for a conviction under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Babli, who was married to Kartar Singh. Babli and her sister Neeru were married to two brothers, Kartar and Pawan, sons of Angoori Devi and Akhey Ram. After three and a half years of marriage, Babli died of burn injuries. The prosecution alleged that Babli was harassed for dowry, leading to her death. The complainant, Babli’s father, stated that about a year and a quarter before her death, Babli was asked to leave her in-laws’ house and return only if she brought Rs. 60,000. Babli then stayed with her parents for 5 to 6 months after giving birth to a daughter. The complainant requested the accused to take Babli back but she was again thrown out after living there for 20 days. The in-laws allegedly demanded a gold ring and chain. A village Panchayat was convened, after which Babli was sent back to her in-laws’ house on 29.10.1995. On 3.12.1995, the complainant learned of Babli’s death. He went to the spot and saw her dead body.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajhar, convicted the respondents under Section 498A read with Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. However, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh allowed the appeal filed by the respondents, reversing the conviction and acquitting them. The High Court found the evidence to be weak and insufficient for conviction, particularly noting the lack of direct evidence and the absence of the victim’s sister’s testimony.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with dowry death. This section states that:

“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.”

The prosecution must prove that the death was not under normal circumstances, occurred within seven years of marriage, and that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death. The High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a proximate connection between the demand for dowry and the act of cruelty or harassment and the death.

Arguments

Prosecution’s Arguments:

• The complainant (PW4), the victim’s father, stated that the respondents harassed his daughter for dowry immediately after marriage and also used to beat her.
• The victim was thrown out of the house when she was pregnant for not bringing Rs.60,000 in cash, gold articles and a Refrigerator.
• The victim was set on fire and killed by the accused after she returned to her matrimonial home.
• The complainant claimed that his younger daughter, Neetu, told him that the victim had been killed by the accused and later set on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her body.
• The victim’s brother (PW-5) reiterated the complainant’s statements.

Defense’s Arguments:

• The respondent No.3, Kartar Singh, husband of the victim, stated that his parents did not live with him and that he was not at home when the incident took place.
• The High Court noted that the complainant’s evidence was based on hearsay, as the primary witness, Neetu, was not produced in court.
• There were discrepancies between the complainant’s evidence in court and his statement to the police.
• If the respondents had really harassed or maltreated the victim, her sister, married to another son of the respondents, would not have abstained from giving evidence.
• There was no allegation of harassment of the victim’s sister Neetu.

The High Court found that the prosecution’s evidence was weak and did not establish a direct link between the dowry demand and the victim’s death. The court also noted the absence of key witnesses and discrepancies in the complainant’s statements.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but addressed the core question of whether the High Court was correct in overturning the conviction under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The main issue was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly mention any authorities or cases relied upon. The court primarily focused on the interpretation of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and the evidence presented in the case.

The Court considered Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, which defines dowry death and specifies the conditions that must be met for a conviction, including:

• Death must be caused by burns or bodily injury or occur otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage.
• The deceased must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
• Such cruelty or harassment must have occurred soon before her death.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court primarily focused on the interpretation of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The court emphasized that to attract Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish that soon before the death the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry. The High Court rightly found that the evidence did not show any proximate connection between the demand of dowry and the act of cruelty of harassment and/or the death. The prosecution has not been able to prove that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in connection with any demand for dowry.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of direct evidence and the failure of the prosecution to establish a proximate connection between the dowry demand and the victim’s death. The Court emphasized that hearsay evidence and discrepancies in the complainant’s statements weakened the prosecution’s case. The absence of the victim’s sister’s testimony also weighed against the prosecution’s claims of dowry harassment. The court was also influenced by the fact that the victim’s death was not directly linked to the dowry demand.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the prosecution’s arguments but found them lacking in direct evidence and a clear link to the death. The court also noted the discrepancies in the complainant’s testimony and the absence of key witnesses. The court’s reasoning was grounded in the legal requirement that the prosecution must prove the ingredients of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code beyond a reasonable doubt, which it failed to do in this case.

The court stated, “It is true, that the victim died of burns. The death was otherwise than under normal circumstances and within 7 years of marriage. However, to attract Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish that soon before the death the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry.”

The court also stated, “The High Court rightly found that the evidence did not show any proximate connection between the demand of dowry and the act of cruelty of harassment and or the death. The prosecution has not been able to prove that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in connection with any demand for dowry.”

The court concluded, “Under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution cannot escape from discharging its burden of proving that the harassment or cruelty was related to demand for dowry soon before death.”

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Direct Evidence: Convictions for dowry death require strong, direct evidence linking the harassment to the death. Hearsay evidence is not sufficient.
• Proximate Connection: There must be a clear and proximate connection between the demand for dowry and the act of cruelty or harassment and the death.
• Burden of Proof: The prosecution bears the burden of proving all elements of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Witness Testimony: The absence of key witnesses or discrepancies in witness statements can weaken the prosecution’s case.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a conviction under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must establish a proximate connection between the demand for dowry and the act of cruelty or harassment and the death. The court reiterated that the prosecution must prove all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and that hearsay evidence and discrepancies in witness statements can be detrimental to the prosecution’s case. This judgment reinforces the importance of direct evidence and a clear link between dowry-related harassment and the death of a woman for a conviction under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to acquit the respondents in this dowry death case. The court found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient direct evidence to establish a proximate connection between the demand for dowry and the death of the victim. This case emphasizes the importance of direct evidence and the burden of proof on the prosecution in cases of dowry death under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.