Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the accused challenging his conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for dowry death. The Court held that there was “ample evidence on record establishing that deceased was being treated with cruelty in her matrimonial home owing to the demand of dowry soon before her death.” It upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court and directed the accused to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Facts
The deceased got married to the accused on 28 February 2008. According to her father (the complainant), she was given dowry beyond their financial capacity. However, she was subjected to repeated taunts and harassment by her husband and in-laws, including physical abuse and demands for additional dowry.
A Panchayat was convened where a demand of ₹5 lakhs was made by the accused and his uncle. A partial payment of ₹50,000 was made, after which the deceased returned to her matrimonial home. On 1 June 2009, she telephoned her brother stating that she was beaten the previous night and feared for her life. Within an hour, the accused informed the complainant that his daughter had died. She had allegedly jumped from the roof. The FIR was registered under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC. Charges were framed only against the accused and his parents, while his uncle and brother were discharged.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution had established the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC?
- Whether the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act could be invoked against the accused?
- Whether the accused had rebutted the said presumption?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The accused argued that:
- The deceased suffered from knee problems which led her into depression and eventual suicide.
- The alleged demand of ₹5 lakhs was not dowry but financial assistance for securing employment.
- The prosecution failed to prove that cruelty or harassment occurred “soon before the death.”
- The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and unreliable.
- There was no conclusive evidence that the deceased committed suicide by jumping; it could have been an accidental fall.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State contended that:
- The death occurred within seven years of marriage and was unnatural.
- Multiple injuries were found on the deceased’s body including a massive subdural haematoma.
- The prosecution witnesses consistently testified about dowry demands and harassment.
- The presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act was rightly drawn and the accused failed to rebut it.
- The panchayat and demand of ₹5 lakhs proved the connection between cruelty and dowry demands.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reaffirmed that for the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act to apply, the following conditions must be met:
- The woman’s death must be unnatural and within 7 years of marriage;
- She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment;
- Such cruelty or harassment must be linked to dowry demands;
- It must have occurred soon before her death.
The Court found that all these conditions were fulfilled.
Precedent Analysis
While no external judgments were cited directly, the Court relied on settled principles under Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, which place an evidentiary burden on the accused once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case of dowry-related cruelty prior to unnatural death.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court dismissed the accused’s arguments as untenable:
- The plea that the deceased was depressed due to knee issues was rejected as “absolutely flimsy and unbelievable.”
- The deceased’s call to her brother on the morning of her death, expressing fear for her life, was considered strong corroborative evidence.
- The defence was inconsistent, alternatively claiming accidental fall and suicide.
- There was no explanation why the deceased’s body was seen lying on a cot on the second floor if she had fallen from the terrace.
- The trial court’s procedural irregularity of accepting a medical affidavit was deemed curable since the defence did not object.
The Court held:
“All the ingredients required to prove the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC… are made out from the evidence available on record.”
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 304-B IPC, finding no infirmity in the decisions of the trial court and High Court. The appeal was dismissed, and the accused, who was on bail, was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that once the prosecution establishes the foundational facts of cruelty linked to dowry demands leading to unnatural death, the burden shifts heavily on the accused to rebut the presumption. Vague or contradictory defences such as depression or accidental fall will not suffice. The ruling also serves as a precedent on how trial irregularities like reliance on affidavits may be condoned if no prejudice is shown.