Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Dowry Death Case: “Demand for Dowry Not Proved, and Suicidal Death Cannot Be Equated to Murder,” Confirms Prosecution Failed to Establish Essential Ingredients Under Section 304B IPC

1. Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court confirmed the acquittal of the husband, dismissing the State of Uttarakhand’s appeal against the High Court’s judgment. The Court ruled that the essential ingredients required for a conviction under Section 304B IPC (Dowry Death) were not proven. It observed that:

• The prosecution could not establish a proximate link between dowry harassment and the deceased’s suicide.
• A suicidal death, though unnatural, cannot be equated to murder under Section 304B IPC unless the harassment and demand for dowry are substantiated.

The Supreme Court also held that the contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence raised significant doubt about the alleged dowry demand and cruelty.

2. Facts:

• The deceased, a young bride, had been married for six months and was living with her husband in a separate household. On the day of the incident, her father and brother found her hanging in the matrimonial home.
• The father alleged that the husband demanded ₹4,00,000 and a house plot as dowry and harassed the deceased for it.
• Following the filing of the FIR, the husband and his relatives were implicated. The Trial Court acquitted the relatives but convicted the husband based on the scratches on the deceased’s body, which it interpreted as evidence of physical violence and cruelty.

3. Issues:

1. Was there sufficient evidence to prove cruelty or harassment related to dowry demands as required under Section 304B IPC?
2. Did the High Court err in reversing the Trial Court’s conviction of the husband?

4. Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the deceased was subjected to persistent cruelty and harassment by her husband and his family over dowry demands.
• It contended that the evidence, including the father and brother’s testimony, was sufficient to establish a direct connection between dowry harassment and the deceased’s unnatural death.
• The State claimed that the High Court overlooked significant findings of the Trial Court.

5. Respondent’s Arguments:

• The husband argued that there was no evidence of dowry harassment, and the prosecution’s case was based on contradictions and omissions.
• He contended that the injuries on the deceased’s body were not conclusively linked to any cruelty or harassment by him.
• The defense emphasized that the evidence from independent witnesses, such as the landlord, did not corroborate the prosecution’s allegations.

6. Analysis of the Law:

The Supreme Court reviewed the requirements under Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act, which presumes the involvement of the husband or his relatives in dowry deaths if the following conditions are met:

1. The death of a woman is caused by burns, bodily injury, or occurs under unnatural circumstances.
2. The death occurs within seven years of marriage.
3. The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.
4. Such cruelty or harassment was in connection with dowry demands, and it occurred soon before her death.

The Court noted:

• If any of these elements is absent, the presumption under Section 113B cannot apply.
• The burden of proof shifts to the accused only after the prosecution establishes a prima facie case.

7. Precedent Analysis:

The Court relied on the following judgments:

1. Surender Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.: Held that all elements of Section 304B IPC must be satisfied for the presumption of dowry death.
2. Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab: Established that omissions or contradictions in witness statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are material and undermine the prosecution’s case.
3. Additional references include cases that emphasized the importance of consistent and credible evidence for dowry death convictions.

8. Court’s Reasoning:

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and found:

1. Contradictions in Testimony:
   • The father and brother of the deceased alleged dowry demands in court but had not mentioned this in their Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements. These omissions were deemed material contradictions.
   • Their claim of physical violence by the husband and his relatives was not corroborated by independent witnesses or the deceased’s neighbors.
2. Injuries on the Deceased:
   • The Trial Court inferred cruelty from scratches on the deceased’s body. However, the Supreme Court noted that the doctor did not provide any expert opinion linking the injuries to violence.
3. Independent Witnesses:
   • The landlord, an independent witness, turned hostile and denied any knowledge of dowry demands. He testified that the deceased had quarreled with her husband and locked him out of the house before committing suicide.
4. Improbability of Dowry Demand:
   • The father admitted his financial incapacity to meet the alleged demand of ₹4,00,000 and a house plot. This undermined the prosecution’s claim of harassment for dowry.

The Court concluded that the essential ingredient of cruelty or harassment “soon before death” was absent, and the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case under Section 304B IPC.

9. Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s acquittal, but for additional reasons. It held that:

• The contradictions and omissions in the prosecution’s evidence undermined the credibility of the allegations.
• The prosecution failed to establish a proximate connection between dowry harassment and the deceased’s death.
• The presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act did not apply as the essential ingredients for invoking Section 304B IPC were not met.

The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.

10. Implications:

This judgment highlights the following:

1. Protection Against Misuse of Dowry Laws: It underscores the importance of scrutinizing evidence in dowry death cases to prevent misuse of anti-dowry laws.
2. Preservation of Procedural Fairness: The judgment reinforces the principle that the presumption of innocence cannot be overridden without substantive evidence.
3. Need for Credible Evidence: Courts must rely on consistent and corroborated evidence to convict under Section 304B IPC.

By upholding the acquittal, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the necessity of adhering to the principles of criminal jurisprudence, including the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof on the prosecution.

Also Read – Supreme Court Acquits Appellant in Abduction Case Under Section 366-A IPC: Prosecution Fails to Prove Victim’s Minority and Coercion Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Emphasizes Need for Reliable Evidence in Age Determination