Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on January 31, 2025 voiced concern over trial courts committing repeated mistakes in convicting accused persons in dowry death and harassment cases.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan acquitted a man in a case related to death of his wife by hanging in 1998 within two years of marriage.

The Court said that in many cases, persons are convicted without ingredients of offences being proved, emphasising on the need for judicial academies to intervene in this regard.

The court has found that the prosecution could not prove the material ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304-B and not a single incident of cruelty covered by Section 498-A IPC was proved by the prosecution.

In its judgment, the bench said, "Section 304-B of the IPC was brought on the statute book in 1986. This court has repeatedly laid down and explained the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B. But, the Trial Courts are committing the same mistakes repeatedly. It is for the State Judicial Academies to step in. Perhaps this is a case of moral conviction."

Appellant Karan Singh along with his parents faced the prosecution under Sections 304 B and 498 A of the IPC. The sessions court acquitted his parents but held him guilty of both the offences and sentenced him to seven and one years of imprisonment respectively.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence against the appellant.

The appellant's counsel submitted that all the allegations made by the witnesses regarding the demand of dowry are omissions. Therefore, there is no legal evidence to show that the appellant demanded dowry. Moreover, there is no evidence that the appellant subjected the deceased to cruelty.

The state counsel on the opposite side contended that the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act will apply in this case and the court will have to presume that the appellant has caused the dowry death of his wife as it was a fact that 9 to 10 days before the incident, the deceased had met with her parents and stated about the demand of Rs 60,000 by the appellant for purchasing a jeep.

The court pointed out that the death can be called a dowry death, and the husband and or his relative, as the case may be, would be deemed to have caused the dowry death, provided ingredients of Section 304 B were proved like the death occurred in other than normal circumstances within seven years of marriage and soon before the death, the victim must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband and or relative in respect of dowry demands.

"In this case, there is no dispute that the death of the appellant's wife occurred within seven years of the marriage. The presumption under Section 113-B will apply when it is established that soon before her death, the woman has been subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Therefore, even for attracting Section 113-B, the prosecution must establish that the deceased was subjected by the appellant to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death," the bench said.

The court highlighted, unless these facts are proved, the presumptions under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked.

Examining the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the court pointed out all the demands stated by the mother of the deceased in her examination-in-chief are omissions. "These omissions are significant and relevant and, therefore, by virtue of explanation to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the same amounts to contradictions," it said.

The court noted in her statements recorded on April 2, 1998 and April 6, 1998 regarding proving dowry and demands of dowry are omissions. She also stated that she told the police that the accused had fled from their house. However, she admitted that even this fact is not mentioned in any of the three statements. She claimed that she has stated some of the instances of demand of dowry in her statement of June 23, 1998. The statement was recorded more than two and half months after the incident; and therefore, what is stated therein is an afterthought, it said.

"There is something fundamental which goes to the root of the matter. While deposing about the demand of dowry, she has not deposed to any particular act of cruelty or harassment by the appellant. This is an essential ingredient of Section 304-B. It is not made out from her evidence," the bench said.

With regard to evidence of the brother of the deceased, the bench noted he made a vague statement about beating of his sister.

"Assuming that what he has said is correct, this incident of beating must have taken place between June 25, 1996 till end of September 1996. Therefore, this incident did not happen soon before the death. It is not his case that when the deceased allegedly visited his house nine to ten days before the incident, she complained about any cruelty or any harassment. Thus, none of the three statements of the witness contain any specific instances of cruelty or harassment," the bench said.

On the statement of another witness Ram Singh, the court pointed out it was recorded more than two and half months from the date of the incident. Moreover, he had no personal knowledge whether the appellant had subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment.

"Therefore, the prosecution did not prove the material ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304-B. Not a single incident of cruelty covered by Section 498-A was proved by the prosecution," the bench said.

Holding that both the offences alleged against the appellant were not proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt, the bench set aside the judgments by the High Court of November 9, 2010 and the trial court of January 24, 2002.

Case Title (Download Judgment): Karan Singh Vs State of Haryana