Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that in Uttar Pradesh, trial judges are allegedly adding as a matter of routine and in a most mechanical fashion Section 302 of the IPC, in addition to pre-existing Sections about dowry death and dowry-related inhuman treatment in cases where married women died within 7 years of marriage under otherwise than normal circumstances.

The bench of Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi found that this practice began with a Supreme Court judgment in Rajbir alias Raju vs. State of Haryana (2010), which, referencing prior decisions, directed all trial courts to ordinarily add Section 302 to Section 304-B charges. This allows for the possibility of death sentences in heinous crimes against women. The order was circulated to all trial courts via the Registrars General/Registrars of all High Courts.

However, the high court clarified the erroneous interpretation of Section 216 CrPC that the courts have an unrestricted power to add or alter any charge whenever courts find that erroneous/defective charges have been framed which lately requires an addition or its dropping, had already been rectified and duly explained by the top court in another judgment of Jasvinder Saini and others vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2013) case but it appeared that no Sessions Judge had paid any heed to the clarification/explanation.

The high court opined that the State's lower courts appeared under the commands or in some mistake notion of law that they keep on adding Section 302, IPC as an alternate charge without any cogent material to justify the same, which is bound to lead a disastrous result qua the accused.

Court said that though it's true that in the case of murder and the case of dowry deaths, the death of a person is involved, it is only when the evidence collected during the investigation, direct or circumstantial, prima facie supports and justifies the addition of a charge u/s 302, IPC, then the trial judge can and indeed should frame the charge of murder punishable u/s 302, IPC. "...then only it would be the main charge and not the alternative charge, as erroneously being assumed by the trial courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh while framing the charge of Dowry Death," clarified the court. 

Court emphasised that if the main charge of murder is not proved against the accused at the trial, the court then only can switch over to look into evidence to determine whether the alternative charge of dowry death u/s 304B, IPC is established or not.

The observations were made in a bunch of criminal appeals questioning the trial court's decision to frame charges under Sections 498A, 304B of the Indian Penal Code & Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with alternative charge u/s 302 of the IPC in matters where married ladies had died within 7 years of marriage unnaturally.

In all the appeals, the FIR in the case was registered u/s 498A, 404B I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, but, the trial court while framing the charge had invariably inserted Section 302 IPC as an alternative charge.

Interestingly, in the appeals, the respective Sessions Judges had acquitted the appellants of charges under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, relying on Section 106 of the Evidence Act, they had ultimately convicted them under Section 302, IPC.

Court further highlighted that in all the cases, the police conducted no investigation or inquiry to determine whether any direct or circumstantial evidence justified a charge under Section 302 IPC. The Investigating Officer mechanically proceeded and filed his report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., only under Section 304B and related sections of the IPC.

"It is the duty of I.O. of the case to investigate the matter from every angle of murder u/s 302 or 306 I.P.C. also and the prosecution to proceed in that regard and the court to approach the case in that perspective," court said. 

Court asserted that "merely because the victim was a married woman, who has suffered unnatural death within seven years of her marriage and there is evidence that prior to her death she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of scanty dowry, the prosecution or the court, can not shut their eyes to examine the attending circumstances from the angle of culpable homicide or suicide".

The I.O. of the case is also required to hold a wide spectrum investigation to assess the entirety of facts, examining the case from every other possible angle and then assessing the attending circumstances, so as to satisfy himself that case case in hand may also come within the purview of Section 302 or 306 or 304B IPC, court stressed.

Therefore, court directed the copy of the judgment to circulated to all the Sessions Divisions by the Registrar General of the high court "so that they must frame the charge and hold the trial strictly in accordance with the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Jasvinder Saini and others vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2013) 7 SCC 256 and (ii) Vijay Pal Singh and others vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2014) 15 SCC 163".

Furthermore, court ordered that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Director General of Police, Lucknow, directing that in dowry-related death cases, Investigating Officers must thoroughly investigate to determine if the death falls under Section 302 IPC, Section 304B IPC (dowry death), or Section 306 IPC (suicide due to abutment).

"The I.O. of the case must specify in its report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. about the material collected by him during wide spectrum investigation against the accused persons that the said unnatural death of the lady falls within the realm of Section 302 I.P.C. or falls within the ambit of Section 304B I.P.C. or comes within the scope of Section 306 I.P.C," the high court directed. 

Regarding the appeals, court remitting the matters back for retrial and ordered the accused persons/ convicts to be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (out of which one should be their close relative) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Case Title: Rammilan Bunkar v. State of UP and Connected Matters