Satbir Singh V. State of Haryana (2021)

Advertisements

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case relates to the prominent death of a woman due to dowry and the fact of the case go as that the deceased and the accused were married on July 1, 1994 and after a year on July 31, 1995, the complainant was informed by few persons that his daughter has been admitted in the hospital around 4 to 4:30 pm. Hearing this information, the father rushed to the hospital in no time along with his wife and son and on reaching he found that his daughter has succumbed to death due to burn injuries.

Aggrieved by his daughter’s death, the case was filed and the accused, that is, the husband and his family were charged with sections 304-B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case was brought before the trial court and they were convicted of the offences under sections 304-B and 306. The appellants dissatisfied with the order of the trial court appealed to the High Court of Punjab and Chandigarh but their appeals were turned down and the judgement of the trial court was upheld by the High court. 

Thereafter, the case was brought before the apex court of India, that is, the Supreme Court through Article 136 of the Constitution of India, that is, the special leave petition that challenged the pronouncements of both the lower courts.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the charge levied on the convict under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 valid?
2. Whether the charge levied on the convict under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 valid?

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS

1. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners firstly stated that the probabilities of occurring of an accidental fire has not been dissolved and there are still chances that there was an accident.
2. Secondly, he appealed that the respondent counsel was unable to prove that there was a dowry demand in the present case.
3. Lastly, the respondent counsel was unable to prove that the death was one that occurred due to dowry and there was a proximate link between the demand and the death.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

1. The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that even the appellants have not been able to prove that there should be interference of the apex court in the present case.
2. The counsel further emphasised that the death did occur within a year of marriage which is one of the ingredients in section 304-B.
3. Lastly, the counsel relied on the witnesses presented that did prove the proximate link between the death and demand of dowry.

RATIO DECIDENDI

The bench of two judges were of the concurring opinion and N.V. Ramana gave the verdict keeping in mind the various previous pronouncements that have been made while clearly observing the circumstances and giving reasonable findings and opinions.

JUDGEMENT

The apex court’s judgement after a lot reasoning and that is the reason it is the guarantor of our fundamental rights protecting each one while listening to both the parties. After hearing both the sides, the court decided to discuss the two issues separately.

The first issue was validity of application of section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and it relied on the words “soon before” wherein it referred to the Commissioner of Customs V. Dilip Kumar Jain and Ors. The court while referring to Kans Raj V. State of Punjab said that soon before did not mean “immediately before” rather the legislature left it in the hands of the courts to determine and decide according to the facts of the case and there is no straightjacket formula to lay down a list what all include “soon before” as the cruelty imposed and harassment range differ from case to case. The court also took to section 113 of the Evidence Act, 1872 that “the accused has to rebut this statutory presumption.” Its application was emphasised in Bansi Lal V. State of Haryana: “It may be mentioned herein that the legislature in its wisdom has used the word ‘shall’ thus, making a mandatory application on the part of the court to presume that death had been committed by the person who had subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand of dowry. … Therefore, in view of the above, onus lies on the accused to rebut the presumption and in case of Section 113B is relatable to Section 304B IPC, the onus to prove shifts exclusively and heavily on the accused. …Therefore, in case the essential ingredients of such death have been established by the prosecution, it is the duty of the court to raise a presumption that the accused has caused the dowry death.”

After referring to various pronouncements, the court came to a conclusion for the first issue that the appeals made by the appellant were dismissed as it noted that the death occurred within a year and the doctor had examined and inferred that 85 percent injuries were due to the burn in kerosene oil and hence the two ingredient stood proved in relation with dowry demand; another was to prove the proximate link and the court took to the evidences made that the brother of the deceased visited her on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan which was a month after marriage and she complained to him about the harassments on her by her mother in law and husband due to insufficient dowry . in addition to this, there was a demand of a scooter and a week before her death she was again subjected to the cruelty of her matrimonial house.  This clearly said about the proximate link between the death of the deceased and the demand of the dowry. Hence the order of the trial court and the high court was upheld by the supreme court of India to convict the accused under section 304- B of the India Penal Code, 1860. It further held that the body of the deceased was doused with kerosene according to the evidence of the doctor hence the accidental fire story was ruled out.

Coming to issue number 2 of the case which was about the conviction under section 306 IPC that relates to abetment of suicide, while the lower courts had convicted the accused under this section but the apex court found it unsuitable and reduced that it was a decision made on mere assumptions as there was no sufficient evidence to prove the abetment of suicide. Hence the conviction under this section was turned down and set aside and convicted the accused under Section 304- B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

CONCLUSION

Dowry is a social practice that had been prevalent since ages and is considered a part and parcel of marriage in our country. Many families end up in debts and commit suicide due to the intolerable disrespect that they have to face. It is not just about gathering dowry but also removing those debts from one’s head. It was due to this reason that the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961was brought and the provisions were added in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 stop the large-scale practice of the dowry and even reach out the courts if the person is being harassed physically, mentally or verbally. “Global study on Homicide: Gender- related killing of women and girls” published by United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime stated that 40 to 50 percent of deaths in 2018 were due to dowry of all the female homicides in the country.

Written by SHRIYANSHI (4th sem) ,AMITY LAW SCHOOL, AMITY UNIVERSITY LUCKNOW

Admin