Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has set aside conviction of a man and his sister in a case of dowry death, holding that the trial court erred in raising a presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, even though the demand for dowry was not established. 

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and JB Pardiwala said after going through the evidence of the brother, father, mother and cousin of the deceased, it becomes clear that she faced cruelty and harassment at the hands of her husband which compelled her to commit suicide. 

However, these witnesses did not state that such cruelty and harassment was in connection with the demand for dowry, the court noted. 

With respect to the demand for dowry, they have just made some general statements which are not sufficient to convict the appellants under section 304B of IPC, the court said.

"Trial Court raised a presumption under section 113B of Evidence Act to convict the appellants under section 304B of IPC. The High Court did not go into the question of whether the trial court was right in relying upon section 113B of the Evidence Act," the bench said.

According to the prosecution, the deceased, Sonali Karmakar, and Samir Karmarkar were married in March 2003, and out of the wedlock, there is a son who was born on September 4, 2004. On May 2, 2006 the deceased, who was alone at the time of incident, committed suicide by hanging herself in her matrimonial house. 

An FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased at Krishnaganj Police Station, Nadia on May 07, 2006 i.e. after 5 days of the incident, alleging that his sister i.e. the deceased was being harassed by her in-laws on demand of dowry made prior to her death. 

A case was registered under sections 498A/304B/34 and a charge sheet was filed. Thereafter, Trial Court by order and judgment of June 5, 2009 convicted the appellants -husband and sister-in-law and mother-in-law under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 

The case of the prosecution was that there was a harassment of deceased which was connected to the demand of dowry, which led the deceased to commit suicide.

The State counsel argued that there was evidence that the husband was also having an extramarital affair with another woman which led to frequent discord between the deceased and him and this was another cause of her harassment. 

The counsel for the appellants, however, argued that this cannot be construed as a demand for dowry and would not come within the definition of dowry as defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The appellants also argued although a demand can be made either before or “any time after the marriage”, it should be in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Their counsel further submitted that the demand for dowry has not been fully established by the prosecution hence the death cannot be termed as a dowry death. 

As far as sister-in-law of deceased was concerned, the bench said, "We are of the view that the prosecution has failed to place any credible evidence for the involvement of the sister of husband and sister-in-law of the deceased. Moreover, sister-in-law is a married woman and at the relevant point of time, admittedly, she was residing with her family at her matrimonial home."

The court also noted there is no specific evidence that has come in the form of any of the prosecution witnesses that may connect her to the commission of the crime and the trial court as well as the appellate court have not considered this aspect as it should have been considered on the weight of the evidence which was placed by the prosecution.

However, the bench opined, it has not been proved by the prosecution that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry.

The court noted the brother and father had only stated that deceased used to tell them about her torture. The mother of the deceased did not speak about any demand of dowry after marriage. Moreover, this witness had said that husband used to assault her deceased daughter as the deceased had objections to his illicit relation with another woman. 

The cousin of the deceased had deposed in court almost a year after the testimony of other witnesses and his deposition regarding the physical assault of the deceased in connection with the demand of dowry is also not believable, the bench said.

The court thus held thee trial court erred in raising a presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, even though the demand for dowry was not established.

The State counsel relied upon three-judge bench judgements in Rajinder Singh Vs State of Punjab (2015) and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Jogendra & Anr (2022) seeking appellants’ conviction under Section 304B of IPC.

The bench, however, said, "The evidence placed before us, in the case at hand, is not sufficient to prove the fourth ingredient i.e. cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry, as laid down by the two cases".

Considering all aspects of the matter and the evidence, the bench said a case of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC and cruelty under Section 498A of IPC is made out against the husband although the offence under Section 304B is not made out.

The bench went on to convict the husband under Section 306 and 498A and sentenced him to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 25000 on each count.

The court directed that the fine should be paid to the nearest relative within a period of three months. It ordered the husband to surrender to undergo the sentence.