Read Time: 07 minutes

Supreme Court in its judgment on 28.05.2021, upheld conviction for offence of Dowry Death, stating that once ingredients under Section 304 B IPC stands satisfied, a presumption of causation arises under section 113 B Evidence Act which has to be rebutted by the accused.

A Full Bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Aniruddha Bose, while dismissing the appeal, said, “we find that the High Court and Trial Court have not committed any error in convicting the appellant under Section 304-B, IPC as the appellant failed to discharge the burden under Section 113- B, Evidence Act. The appellant has not brought any material on record which merits the interference of this Court in the impugned judgment.”

Guidelines issued in Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 1735-1736 of 2010, were reiterated by the Court.

Counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the Courts below applied presumption under Section 113 B Evidence Act, as a matter of routine, without evaluating if ingredients of Section 304 B IPC were met or not. Just because the death occurred within 7 years of marriage, does not mean that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for the want of dowry. Further, without any charges under Section 498A IPC, conviction under 304 B, cannot be sustained.

Prosecution argued that the death occurred under suspicious circumstances, due to poisoning and right before 15 days of the incident, the deceased had specifically told her father about the latest demand of money for a car.

Court observed;

1. The fact that deceased consumed poison in her matrimonial home, within seven years of marriage satisfy first two conditions of the Section, that is, ‘death in otherwise than normal circumstances’ and ‘within seven years of marriage’
2. Evidence of deceased’s father that the woman had telephonically informed about the consistent demand of a car or equivalent cash, prove proximate link and satisfy the clause ‘soon before death’
3. The fact that deceased had communicated to her mother, who had informed her father of continuing harassment, further substantiate proximity required to establish a case under Section 304 B IPC.

“Both the Trial Court and the High Court found the evidence of the father of the deceased to be reliable and consistent despite a thorough cross-examination. No evidence was produced by the appellant to disregard the aforesaid testimony… Taking into account the evidence on record, particularly the testimony of the father of the deceased, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the necessary ingredients under Section 304-B, IPC against the accused-appellant”, the bench added.

On the argument that conviction under Section 304 B cannot sustain in the absence of 498 A IPC, Court relied on the findings in Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, (2005) 2 SCC 388, where it was held, “Sections 304B and 498A cannot be held to be mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences…”

The present appeal arose out of a judgment dated 15.03.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, wherein conviction by the Trial Court under section 304 B was upheld, and rigorous imprisonment for seven years, fine against the appellant was confirmed. Mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased were however acquitted.

Case Title: Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab | CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1731 of 2010