Supreme Court overturns dowry death conviction due to lack of evidence: Charan Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand (20 April 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 20 April 2023

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 2012

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a conviction for dowry death be upheld if there is no evidence of cruelty or harassment towards the deceased soon before her death? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where a husband was convicted for dowry death and cruelty. The court examined the necessity of proving that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands shortly before her death. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Rajesh Bindal authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, Charan Singh, married Chhilo Kaur in 1993. The deceased, Chhilo Kaur, lived in her matrimonial home. On June 24, 1995, Pratap Singh (PW-1), the father of the deceased, filed a complaint stating that his daughter was married to the appellant about two years prior. He had given sufficient dowry as per his status. Two months after the marriage, his daughter visited her parental home and told him that her in-laws were demanding a motorcycle as dowry. The complainant pacified his daughter, stating he was not in a position to give a motorcycle at that time. Subsequently, the demand for land was also made. On June 23, 1995, Jagir Singh, from the village where the deceased lived, informed the complainant that his daughter had been murdered by her in-laws. The complainant, along with his wife, went to the village on June 24, 1995, and discovered that his daughter had been beaten and strangled to death on June 22, 1995, by her husband, brother-in-law, and mother-in-law. The body was cremated without informing the complainant. The murder was allegedly due to the non-fulfilment of dowry demands.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Charan Singh (appellant), Gurmeet Singh, and Santo Kaur under Sections 304B, 498A, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment. In an appeal before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, the conviction and sentence of Gurmeet Singh (brother-in-law) and Santo Kaur (mother-in-law) were set aside, and they were acquitted. However, the High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, Charan Singh, but reduced his sentence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 from ten years to seven years.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following legal provisions:

• Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (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.

  This section defines dowry death and specifies the punishment for it.

• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Cruelty by Husband or Relatives):

  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 purposes 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.

  This section defines cruelty towards a married woman and specifies the punishment for it.

• Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (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. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

  This section establishes the presumption of dowry death if cruelty or harassment related to dowry is proven soon before the death.

These provisions are designed to protect women from dowry-related violence and harassment. The legal framework emphasizes that for a dowry death conviction, there must be evidence of cruelty or harassment related to dowry demands shortly before the woman’s death.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Amicus Curiae):

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the conviction under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could not be sustained as there was no evidence of cruelty or harassment of the deceased soon before her death in connection with any dowry demand.
• The presumption under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, could only be raised if it was shown that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry demands immediately before her death.
• The prosecution failed to produce a key witness, Jagir Singh, who had informed the complainant about the death of his daughter.
• The allegations against the appellant, his brother, and mother were the same, but the State did not appeal against the acquittal of the brother and mother.
• The death of the appellant’s wife was not unnatural as she was suffering from fits, as admitted by her maternal grandmother.
• Reliance was placed on Baijnath v. State of M.P. [(2017) 1 SCC 101] to argue that the prosecution must prove cruelty or harassment soon before death to raise a presumption of dowry death.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the deceased was killed by her in-laws for dowry, and her death was unnatural.
• The deceased was cremated without informing her parents, and her maternal grandmother and uncles saw injury marks on her body.
• The death occurred in the matrimonial home, placing the onus on the appellant to disprove the presumption of dowry death.
• There was sufficient evidence of repeated dowry demands by the appellant.
• The High Court had already shown sufficient leniency by reducing the sentence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 304B, 498A, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be legally sustained.
2. Whether the pre-requisites for raising presumption under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, are fulfilled in this case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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 Supreme Court relied heavily on Baijnath v. State of M.P. [(2017) 1 SCC 101]* to emphasize that the prosecution must prove cruelty or harassment soon before death to raise a presumption of dowry death.
• The Court cited Shindo v. State of Punjab [(2011) 11 SCC 517]*, Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2013) 16 SCC 640]*, and K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao [(2003) 1 SCC 217]* to reiterate that the presumption of dowry death is contingent on proving cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands soon before the death.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence of cruelty or harassment soon before the death of the deceased in connection with dowry demands. The court emphasized the necessity of fulfilling the pre-requisites for raising a presumption under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court highlighted that mere unnatural death in the matrimonial home within seven years of marriage is not sufficient for conviction without such evidence.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the interpretation of the law and the evidence presented, with a higher emphasis on the legal requirements for establishing dowry death.

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations, but rejected them based on the lack of evidence and the legal requirements. The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.

The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The prosecution failed to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in connection with any demand for dowry.
• The pre-requisites for raising the presumption of dowry death under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were not met.
• The mere fact that the death was unnatural and occurred in the matrimonial home within seven years of marriage was not sufficient to convict the accused without evidence of cruelty or harassment.

The Supreme Court stated:

• “The cruelty or harassment has to be soon before the death.”
• “On a collective appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution, we are of the considered view that the pre-requisites to raise presumption under Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act having not been fulfilled, the conviction of the appellant cannot be justified.”
• “Mere death of the deceased being unnatural in the matrimonial home within seven years of marriage will not be sufficient to convict the accused under Section 304B and 498A IPC. The cause of death as such is not known.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench was composed of two judges who unanimously agreed on the decision.

The court’s reasoning was based on a strict interpretation of the legal provisions and a thorough assessment of the evidence. The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. The court’s decision underscores the importance of proving the elements of dowry death, particularly the aspect of cruelty or harassment soon before death. This judgment will likely impact future cases by reinforcing the need for concrete evidence of dowry-related cruelty or harassment to secure convictions under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Key Takeaways

• The judgment emphasizes that to secure a conviction for dowry death under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution must prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands soon before her death.
• The mere fact that a woman dies an unnatural death in her matrimonial home within seven years of marriage is not sufficient for a conviction under Section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The judgment highlights the importance of producing all material witnesses and presenting concrete evidence of cruelty or harassment.
• This decision reinforces the need for a strict interpretation of legal provisions and adherence to the burden of proof in criminal cases.

This judgment may lead to a more cautious approach by the prosecution in dowry death cases, ensuring that all legal requirements are met before seeking a conviction. It also provides a safeguard against potential misuse of dowry death laws by ensuring that convictions are based on solid evidence rather than mere suspicion.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not provide any specific directions in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a conviction under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it is essential to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands “soon before her death.” This judgment reinforces the existing legal position that mere unnatural death in the matrimonial home within seven years of marriage is not sufficient for conviction without such evidence. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but it emphasizes the strict interpretation and application of the existing legal provisions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Charan Singh, setting aside the judgment of the High Court and acquitting him of the charges under Sections 304B, 498A, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of dowry death, particularly the cruelty or harassment of the deceased in connection with dowry demands soon before her death. This judgment reinforces the need for concrete evidence and strict adherence to legal requirements in dowry death cases, ensuring that convictions are based on proof rather than presumption.