Supreme Court Upholds Dowry Death Conviction: Jagjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (26 September 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 879

Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J., Navin Sinha, J., and K.M. Joseph, J.

Can a conviction for dowry death under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 be upheld when there is evidence of harassment for dowry soon before the death, or should the court consider the defence evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a criminal appeal, examining the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The case involved a husband convicted for the dowry death of his wife, with the central issue being whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven that the death was linked to dowry harassment. The bench consisted of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha, and K.M. Joseph, with the judgment authored by Justice K.M. Joseph.

Case Background

The appellant, Jagjit Singh, was married to the deceased on January 24, 1998. The deceased died within seven years of marriage, along with her child, by drowning in a river. The prosecution’s case was that the death was a result of cruelty and harassment by the appellant and his family due to dowry demands. The appellant, along with his parents and two brothers, was initially charged under Section 304-B (dowry death) and Section 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 304-B, but acquitted him of Section 406, and did not record separate conviction under Section 498-A (cruelty by husband or his relatives). The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the conviction under Section 304-B, reducing the sentence from 8 years to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellant and his mother under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but acquitted the other accused. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the conviction of the appellant but acquitted his mother. The High Court reduced the sentence of the appellant from 8 years to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment. The appellant then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the case within the framework of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines dowry death as the death of a woman within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances, with evidence of cruelty or harassment for dowry demands.

The section states:

“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 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Establishes a presumption of dowry death if it is shown that soon before her death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry.

The section states:

“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.”

The Court emphasized that for the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to apply, it must be established that soon before her death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry. The Court also noted that the term “soon before” does not mean “immediately” but is a relative expression, with time lags varying from case to case. The demand for dowry should not be stale but should be a continuing cause for the death of the married woman.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the courts did not properly consider the evidence he presented.
• He contended that there was no proof of cruelty or dowry demand.
• The appellant submitted that his wife took her own life along with her daughter because she was constantly taunted by her sister (PW3) who was married to a wealthy industrialist.
• The appellant argued that despite earning only Rs. 3,000 per month, he had supported his wife’s education, and she was pursuing her Post-Graduation at the time of her death.
• He also pointed out that his father had financed the education of his deceased wife.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the evidence of DW6 and DW8, who were neighbors, should not be relied upon as they were likely biased to maintain good relations with their neighbors.
• The State contended that these neighbors could not know what happened within the four walls of the house.
• The State relied on the evidence of PW1 (father of the deceased) and PW3 (sister of the deceased), which indicated a proximity in time between the acts of cruelty and the death of the deceased.
• The State argued that the evidence showed that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty in connection with demands for dowry “soon before her death”.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry “soon before her death.”
3. Whether the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was correctly applied.
4. Whether the defense evidence was properly considered.

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 Court relied on Saravanabhavan and Govindaswamy Vs. State of Madras [AIR 1966 SC 1273]* to define the limits of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, stating that it will not reassess evidence at large.
• Mst. Dalbir Kaur and Others Vs. State of Punjab [1976 (4) SCC 158]* was used to emphasize that the Supreme Court is not an ordinary court of criminal appeal and does not interfere on pure questions of fact.
• The Court cited Pritam Singh v. State [1950 SCR 453]* to reinforce that the Supreme Court will not reopen facts when two courts agree on their conclusion.
• Sushil Ansal v. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation [2014 (6) SCC 173]* was referred to, to show that the Court may reappraise evidence in cases of perversity or failure to consider important evidence.
• The Court used Mohd. Ali alias Guddu v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2015 (7) SCC 272]* to summarize the principles for exercising power under Article 136.
• Major Singh and Another v. State of Punjab [2015 (5) SCC 201]* was used to outline the essential ingredients for conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The Court relied on Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2015 (6) SCC 477]* to interpret the term “soon before” in Section 304-B, stating that it is a relative expression.
• G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka [2010 (3) SCC 152]* was used to explain the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The Court referred to Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana [2010 (12) SCC 350]* to discuss the rebuttable nature of the presumption under Section 304-B.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the troubling aspects of the case, ultimately focused on the evidence of harassment for dowry soon before the death. The Court noted that the deceased had visited her sister, PW3, on 16.02.2001, complaining of cruelty and harassment, and then made a call to her father, PW1, from a PCO, stating that she had been thrown out of the house and would not be allowed back without a car or money. The Court found that this evidence, along with the testimony of PW1 and PW3, was sufficient to invoke the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court also noted that while the father of the appellant had contributed to the deceased’s education, this did not negate the evidence of dowry harassment. The Court emphasized that its jurisdiction under Article 136 is limited and that it would not interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts unless there was a clear error of law or procedure.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The court considered the arguments that the wife was taunted by her sister, PW3, and that the family was supportive of her education. However, the court found that the evidence of dowry harassment soon before death was more compelling. The court also noted that it would not interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts unless there was a clear error of law or procedure.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The trial Court, however, finds solace in rejecting the defence version on the score that it cannot be squared with the deceased visiting the home of PW3 on 16-02-2001, and it takes the view that she would have been the last person for her to visit.”

“The trial Court had the advantage of watching the demeanor of the witnesses. We cannot hold that the view taken by the trial Court as affirmed by the High Court is not warranted as such by the materials on record.”

“Even if we are persuaded to take a different view as canvassed by the appellant we would not be justified in interfering. See the observations in Mst. Dalbir Kaur’s case (supra).”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court upheld the conviction for dowry death under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, emphasizing the importance of evidence of harassment for dowry “soon before” the death.
• The presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, can be invoked if there is evidence of cruelty or harassment for dowry demands near the time of death.
• The term “soon before” is a relative expression and does not mean “immediately.”
• The burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption of dowry death.
• The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless there is a clear error of law or procedure.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles regarding dowry death under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This case clarifies that the term “soon before” is a relative expression and that the courts must consider the evidence of harassment for dowry demands near the time of death. The court also emphasized that it would not interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts unless there was a clear error of law or procedure. This case does not change the previous position of the law, but reaffirms the existing legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Jagjit Singh for dowry death under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court found that the prosecution had successfully established that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry demands soon before her death, and that the defense had not successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The judgment reaffirms the legal principles surrounding dowry deaths and the importance of considering evidence of harassment for dowry demands near the time of death.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories: Dowry Death, Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 113-B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Criminal Appeal

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Parent Category: Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Child Category: Section 113-B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

FAQ

Q: What is dowry death?

A: Dowry death is defined under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as the death of a woman within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances, with evidence of cruelty or harassment for dowry demands.

Q: What is the significance of the term “soon before her death” in dowry death cases?

A: The term “soon before her death” is crucial because it establishes a temporal link between the dowry-related harassment and the death. It doesn’t mean immediately before but is a relative term that depends on the facts of each case. The harassment should be a continuing cause for the death.

Q: What is the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

A: Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states that if it is shown that a woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry demands soon before her death, the court shall presume that the person who subjected her to such cruelty or harassment caused her death. This presumption is rebuttable, meaning the accused can present evidence to prove otherwise.

Q: Can a conviction for dowry death be upheld if there is no direct evidence of physical violence?

A: Yes, a conviction can be upheld if there is evidence of mental cruelty and harassment for dowry demands, even without direct physical violence. The harassment must be connected to dowry demands and must have occurred soon before the death.

Q: What is the role of the Supreme Court in dowry death cases?

A: The Supreme Court, in cases of special leave appeals, does not generally reassess the evidence at large. It primarily examines if the lower courts have committed any error of law or procedure, or if the findings are manifestly perverse. The Court does not interfere on pure questions of fact unless there is a miscarriage of justice.