Supreme Court Upholds Dowry Death Conviction of Husband, Acquits In-Laws: Devender Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand (21 April 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 21 April 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 421

Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna, J., Hima Kohli, J.

Can a conviction for dowry death be upheld when the victim’s death occurred within seven years of marriage and there’s evidence of dowry-related harassment? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Devender Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Uttarakhand. This judgment examines the legal nuances of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, concerning dowry death and the burden of proof on the accused. The bench comprised Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Hima Kohli.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Sushila, who married Devender Singh (Appellant No. 1) on 20th October, 2007. Sushila went missing from her matrimonial home on 24th April, 2008. Her family was informed by Jagdish Singh (Appellant No. 2), Devender’s brother, on 25th April, 2008. The complainant, Sushila’s brother, suspected foul play due to repeated dowry demands. Sushila’s body was later found in the Ganga River. A case was registered against Devender Singh, his mother Smt. Kunja Devi (Appellant No. 3), and Jagdish Singh under Sections 498A, 304B, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court acquitted the appellants on 17th April, 2010. The State of Uttarakhand appealed to the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The High Court, after re-evaluating the evidence, reversed the trial court’s decision and convicted the appellants under Sections 498A, 304B, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following key legal provisions:

• Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines dowry death. It states that if a woman dies due to burns or bodily injury or under abnormal circumstances within seven years of her marriage, and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry demands, her death is considered a dowry death. The punishment for dowry death can range from a minimum of seven years to life imprisonment. The explanation to this section defines “dowry” as having the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

“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.
Explanation.—For the purposes 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.”

• Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the presumption as to dowry death. If it is proven 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 caused her dowry death. The explanation to this section states that “dowry death” has the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

“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.
Explanation – For the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”

These provisions work together to establish a legal framework where the prosecution must show that the death was unnatural, occurred within seven years of marriage, and was preceded by dowry-related cruelty or harassment. Once these conditions are met, a presumption of dowry death arises against the accused, who then have the burden to rebut this presumption.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants:

• The High Court erred in noting a delay in registering the missing complaint, as the Patwari was informed on 26th April, 2008, and the mother of the deceased was informed on 25th April, 2008.
• The High Court wrongly concluded that there was harassment for insufficient dowry. The deceased stayed at her parental home to continue her studies, not due to harassment.
• DW-3, who was present during marriage talks, testified that no dowry was demanded, and marriage expenses were shared.
• Appellant No. 1 opened a bank account for the deceased and deposited money, indicating no monetary demands.
• The cause of death, according to PW-10, could be due to a fall from a rock, not murder.
• The High Court’s judicial notice of villagers going in groups to the forest is unwarranted without evidence.
• The trial court correctly analyzed the evidence, and the High Court should not have disturbed its findings.

Arguments by the State:

• The trial court analyzed the evidence as if it were a murder case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, instead of dowry death under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which has different presumptions.
• The death occurred within a few months of marriage and was unnatural; therefore, the appellants needed to explain the circumstances.
• The High Court correctly re-evaluated the evidence and found the trial court’s judgment to be erroneous.
• The prosecution successfully proved the basic ingredients of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the burden shifted to the accused to rebut the presumption.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s judgment of acquittal.
2. Whether the prosecution had successfully established the ingredients of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Whether the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was correctly applied.
4. Whether the High Court was correct in convicting all the accused or whether the in-laws deserved to be given the benefit of doubt.

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 Supreme Court referred to Bansi Lal vs. State of Haryana [2011] 11 SCC 359*, Maya Devi and Anr. vs. State of Haryana [2015] 17 SCC 405*, G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka [2010] 3 SCC 152* and Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana [2010] 12 SCC 350* to reiterate that the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, can be rebutted by the accused, but in this case, the appellants failed to do so.
• The Court explained the provisions of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, emphasizing their combined effect in dowry death cases.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The unnatural nature of Sushila’s death, which occurred within six months of her marriage.
• The consistent testimonies of PW-1 to PW-4, who spoke about dowry demands.
• The fact that the death occurred in the matrimonial home.
• The failure of the appellants to provide a reasonable explanation for the death.
• The medical evidence indicating that the death was not due to drowning.

The court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual findings and legal interpretations, with a slightly higher emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered various interpretations but ultimately concluded that the evidence and legal framework pointed towards the guilt of the husband (Appellant No. 1) while the in-laws deserved the benefit of doubt due to lack of specific evidence against them.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to convict the husband (Appellant No. 1) under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while setting aside the conviction of the in-laws (Appellants No. 2 and 3).

The Court’s reasoning was based on a thorough examination of the evidence, including the testimonies of witnesses, medical reports, and the circumstances surrounding Sushila’s death. The court emphasized that the prosecution had successfully established the essential ingredients of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the appellants had failed to rebut the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

“A perusal of the above provision would indicate that the main ingredients of the offence required to be established are :- (i)that soon before the death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry; (ii)the death of the deceased was caused by any burn or bodily injury or some other circumstance which was not normal; (iii)such a death has occurred within 7 years from the date of her marriage; (iv)that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (v)such a cruelty or harassment should be for, or in connection with the demand of dowry; and (vi)it should be established that such cruelty and harassment were made soon before her death.”

“Section 304B IPC read along with Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that once the prosecution has succeeded in demonstrating that a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon after her death, a presumption shall be drawn against the said persons that they have caused dowry death as contemplated under Section 304B IPC.”

“In the above backdrop and keeping in view the fact that the deceased was residing at the matrimonial home and had gone missing in circumstances where all the ingredients of Section 304B stood satisfied, the evidence of Dr. Digvijay Singh (PW-10) becomes relevant.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the husband for dowry death under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, emphasizing the importance of proving dowry-related cruelty or harassment soon before the unnatural death of a woman within seven years of marriage.
• The court clarified that the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, shifts the burden of proof to the accused, who must rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the ingredients of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, have not been satisfied.
• The judgment highlights the need for a thorough and holistic assessment of evidence in dowry death cases, considering the circumstances of the death, witness testimonies, and medical evidence.
• The decision also underscores that general assertions of dowry harassment are not sufficient to convict all family members, and specific roles and evidence of conspiracy are necessary to hold in-laws accountable.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that Appellant No. 1 (husband) surrender within two weeks to serve the remaining part of his sentence. Appellants No. 2 and 3 (in-laws) were set free, and their bail bonds were canceled.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a woman dies an unnatural death within seven years of marriage, and there is evidence of dowry-related harassment, a presumption arises that the husband has committed dowry death. The burden is then on the husband to prove otherwise. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position on dowry death and clarifies the application of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It also emphasizes the need for specific evidence against each accused, especially in cases involving multiple family members.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Devender Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand upholds the conviction of the husband for dowry death while acquitting the in-laws, underscoring the legal principles surrounding dowry death and the importance of specific evidence and circumstances in such cases. The court’s decision reinforces the need to protect women from dowry-related violence and ensures that those responsible are held accountable while also ensuring that those without a specific role in the crime are not wrongly convicted.