VERY IMPORTANT POINT
When there is no evidence on record that the woman soon before her death, was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives of husband and that such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with demand of dowry, the trial Court and High Court were in error to convict the appellant u/s. 304B IPC for dowry death simply on finding of suicide by woman within 7 years of her marriage under suspicious circumstances.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 306 and 304B-Offences under-Trial Court convicted Appellant u/s. 304B IPC as his wife Suman committed suicide due to cruelty and demand of dowry within 7 years of her marriage-Confirmed by High Court-Appeal against to Supreme Court-Supreme Court finding-No evidence on two vital ingredients of offence-Result-Concurrent conviction u/s. 304B IPC set aside-Appeal allowed.
       Held : We have given our attention and consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Normally this Court will be slow and reluctant, as it ought to be, to upset the order of conviction of the trial court as confirmed by the High Court appreciating the evidence placed on record. But in cases where both the courts concurrently recorded a finding that the accused was guilty of an offence in the absence of evidence satisfying the necessary ingredients of an offence; in other words, when no offence was made out, it becomes necessary to disturb such an order of conviction and sentence to meet the demand of justice. In order to convict an accused for an offence under Section 304-B IPC, the following essentials must be satisfied:
        (1) The death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
        (2) Such death must have occurred within 7 years of her marriage;
        (3) Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband;
        (4) Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand of dowry.
       It is only when the aforementioned ingredients are established by acceptable evidence such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or his relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. It may be noticed that punishment for the offence of dowry death under Section 304-8 is imprisonment of not less than 7 years, which may extend to imprisonment for life. Unlike under Section 498-A IPC, husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty shall be liable for imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Normally, in a criminal case accused can be punished for an offence on establishment of commission of that offence on the basis of evidence, may be direct or circumstantial or both. But in case of an offence under Section 304-B IPC an exception is made by deeming provision as to nature of death as "dowry death" and that the husband or his relative, as the case may be, is deemed to have caused such death, even in the absence of evidence to prove these aspects but on proving the existence of the ingredients of the said offence by convincing evidence. Hence, there is need for greater care and caution, that too having regard to the gravity of the punishment prescribed for the said offence, in scrutinizing the evidence and in arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the above mentioned ingredients of the offence are proved by the prosecution. In the case on hand, the learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute that the first two ingredients mentioned above are satisfied. We have now to see whether the remaining two ingredients are also satisfied looking to the evidence on record. It is unfortunate that the High Court in the first appeal, as expected of it, did not analyse, evaluate and scrutinize the evidence for reappraisal. The High Court in a summary way without discussing the oral evidence of PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 mainly on the basis of which the appellant was convicted, has stated that the oral evidence of these three witnesses is consistent with the contents of the letter Exbt. P/9. The High Court also observed that immediate cause for Suman to bring an end to her life was the conduct of the husband in bringing the girls of doubtful character to his house. Having said so, the High Court did not discuss and record reasons as to whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty for and in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. It simply concluded that it had been proved that the accused demanded an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as dowry from the parents of Suman through her and subjected her to mental cruelty in connection with that demand. When there was serious challenge as to the demand of an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as dowry without discussing the evidence on this point such as whether the parents of the deceased were capable of arranging for Rs. 20,000/- and whether there was the so-called demand soon before the death of Suman was proved or not, the High Court should not have concluded that Suman was subjected to cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry and that too when there was no evidence to support the said conclusion which resulted in grave consequences. The High Court has simply confirmed the finding of the trial court holding the appellant guilty of the offence. It is under these circumstances, it has become necessary for us to look at the material and relevant evidence brought on record. (Paras 5, 6 & 7)
       After appreciating evidence
       Held : It is unfortunate that trial Court did not properly and objectively consider the evidence to reach a conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offence. It may be also noticed here that the appellant was acquitted for the charge under Section 306 IPC. The High Court, as already stated above, did not re-appreciate the evidence as first court of appeal on criminal side and has disposed the appeal in a summary way, confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. In the light of what is stated above, in our view, both the courts committed serious and manifest error in concluding that the appellant was guilty of the offence when the crucial and necessary ingredient that the deceased Suman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by him soon before her death for or in connection with demand of dowry was not established and also looking to the evidence and circumstances cumulatively. Under these circumstances, the impugned judgment is unsustainable as it suffers from infirmity and illegality as indicated above. In view of what is stated above, this appeal is entitled to succeed. The impugned judgment of the High Court confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is set aside. The appellant is acquitted. He be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case. (Paras 11 & 12)

JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-Leave granted.

2. The appellant has filed this appeal, aggrieved by the order dated 19.8.2000 passed by the High Court confirming the order of conviction passed under Section 304-B IPC and sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years by the trial court. The appellant was tried for offences under Section 304-B and in the alternative under Section 306 IPC. The trial court acquitted the appellant of the charge punishable under Section 306 IPC and convicted him under Section 304-B IPC. The prosecution case in brief was that the appellant married Suman on 19.3.1991 at Saharanpur in U.P. He was asking his wife Suman to bring money from her parents and her parents were giving money to her from time to time. In June, 1995, Suman came to Saharanpur and told her mother that the appellant was demanding an amount of Rs. 20,000/- and she further told that the appellant had illegal relations with the girls of doubtful character and used to bring those girls to his house; those girls had beaten her; the appellant was ill-treating and harassing her; he subjected her to cruelty with the result Suman within a period of seven years of marriage committed suicide after burning herself by sprinkling kerosene oil on her on 28.8.95 in Nanak Complex, New Market, Govindpura at Bhopal. On the information from Dr. Anup Debey about hundred percent burns of Suman Bajaj on telephone, Aishbag Police registered a case and F.I.R. was lodged on 30.8.1995 under Section 304-B IPC. The prosecution in all examined 12 witnesses to prove the case. One defence witness was also examined. The conviction was based upon the evidence of PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW9. PW4, PW5 and PW6 are the mother, father and brother of the deceased respectively and PW9 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body. The appellant pleaded not guilty and his defence was that pecuniary condition of the parents of the deceased was not good; he himself is well off and had advanced money to the father of the deceased on several occasions; he was unable to return the money to the appellant and that he was falsely implicated in the case.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of PW4, PW5 and PW6, being close relatives of the deceased; the evidence given by them as to demand of dowry was too general and vague; their evidence suffered from contradictions on material points and they had motive to speak against the appellant. He further submitted that both the courts have failed to see that the economic condition of the appellant was much better than that of the parents of the deceased and there is no evidence to show as to how the parents raised money and whether they paid money at all to the appellant as dowry. The learned counsel strongly contended that there was no definite evidence to show that Suman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant soon before her death for, or in connection with any demand for dowry to attract offence under Section 304-B IPC; even the letters said to have been written by deceased Suman (Exbt. D/3 and P/9) do not support the case of the prosecution; in the absence of satisfying the ingredients of offence under Section 304-B IPC, order of conviction passed and sentence imposed on the appellant cannot be sustained.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent-State, in opposition, submitted that the trial court as well as the High Court were justified in convicting the appellant on the basis of the evidence brought on record.

5. We have given our attention and consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Normally this Court will be slow and reluctant, as it ought to be, to upset the order of conviction of the trial court as confirmed by the High Court appreciating the evidence placed on record. But in cases where both the courts concurrently recorded a finding that the accused was guilty

Click Here to Read the rest of this document