VERY IMPORTANT POINT
This land mark judgment has stressed the need to sensitive Courts to Dowry Death Prohibition Act, 1961 to be able to punish culprits in dowry related cases under Section 304B IPC r/w Section 113B Evidence Act, 1872.

Headnote:(i) Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961-Sections 3, 4 and 6-Offences under-High Court acquitting respondent No. 1 on factum of demand of dowry and payment of dowry-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether High Court was right? (No).
       Held : The High Court did not accept the demand of dowry and the payment of dowry, as according to the High Court, there were discrepancies in the statements of PW 1 brother of the deceased and PW 6 father of the deceased. It may be noted that PW 1 had stated that Rs.7000/- was paid as against the testimony of PW 6 that Rs. 8000/- had been paid. The High Court had considered this discrepancy to be fatal in nature. The High Court was also of the view that as the prosecution had failed to prove that there was an agreement as a consideration for the marriage to pay Rs. 10000/- and three sovereigns of gold and that Rs. 8000/- were paid out of it, the demand of dowry and payment of dowry was not proved. We are of the view that this finding of the High Court is clearly perverse and against the weight of evidence on record. The High Court, in our opinion, has failed to consider the evidence on record in its proper perspective. It must be noticed that the marriage had taken place on 17.5.1987. PW 1 K.P. Manjegowda (brother of the deceased) was examined on 11.9.1989. PW 6 Puttegowda (father of the deceased) was examined on 12.9.1989. PW 7 K.M. Eregowda (an independent witness) was examined on 12.9.1989. PW 12 Bariban was examined on 14.9.1989. PW 15 Sudhama (Priest) who had solemnized the marriage was examined on 15.9.1989. All these witnesses were examined after more than 2 years of the solemnization of the marriage, which had taken place on 17.5.1987. One should not fail to take note that the witnesses are rustic villagers. It is difficult to expect them to remember the events with mathematical precision after a lapse of more than two years. It is a common knowledge that ordinarily human memories are apt to blur with the passage of time. More so in the present case, when witnesses are rustic villagers. In such a situation, there are bound to occur certain discrepancies which are in the form of omission and they cannot be considered as fatal to their evidentiary value, otherwise trustworthy. At the same time, they are unexposed to the technicalities of urban life and they speak plainly what they saw and did. They are straightforward looking people, truthful and trustworthy. Their testimony cannot be thrown out on the ground that it lacks spontaneity. Similarly, the High Court disbelieved the testimony of PWs on the ground that they failed to establish that there was an agreement to pay the dowry. In such a melee and keeping in view the background and the circumstances in which the marriage of the deceased with the accused was solemnized on 17-5-1987, as noticed above, it would be utterly impossible to have a formal agreement, which could be proved by oral evidence. Similarly the amount of dowry referred to by one witness and not mentioned by the other, can be termed to be an omission due to passage of time which, in no case, amounts to major contradiction which would form the basis for impeaching the credibility of witnesses. (Para 9)
       Held further : Looking at the totality of the evidence, as noticed above, we are of the view that there is over-whelming evidence with regard to the factum of demand of dowry and payment of the part of dowry on 17.5.1987. The High Court failed to take note of the totality of the evidence into consideration and took out the minor discrepancies here and there as ground for impeaching the credibility of the witnesses and thereby committed a grave miscarriage of justice. (Para 12)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 304B-Offence of dowry death-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 113B-Presumption as to dowry death-High Court acquitting respondent No. 1-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether offence under Section 304B IPC is found to be established against A1? (Yes).
       Held (on legal position) : The aforesaid legal position, as it stands now, is that in order to establish the offence under Section 304B IPC the prosecution is obliged to prove that the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances and such death occurs within 7 years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. Such harassment and cruelty must be in connection with any demand for dowry. If the prosecution is able to prove the aforesaid circumstances then the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act will operate. It is the rebutable presumption and the onus to rebut shifts on the accused. (Paras 20 and 21)
       Held (on evidence) : The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The defence of the accused was a total denial. Therefore, the presumption as to dowry death envisaged under Section 113B of the Evidence Act remains unrebutted. We have already held that there is over-whelming evidence against the accused with regard to the demand of dowry and acceptance of a part of dowry. In this connection the evidence of PWs 1, 6, 7, 12 and 15 are referred to. The only question remains to be answered is as to whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death or not. To answer this question, it will be profitable to refer to the testimony of PW-1, the brother of the deceased and PW-6, father of the deceased. From the prosecution of evidence on record, it will clearly appear that the remaining balance of dowry was Rs. 2000/- and three sovereigns of gold. PW-1 had stated that four days earlier to Diwali festival she came to the parental house and asked them to clear the dowry due and she also said that she was tortured by her husband and her mother-in-law on the dowry issue. To this, PW-1 replied that he would pay in January after the harvest. But the deceased told him that she would not go back to her husband s house as her husband (accused) and her mother-in-law would torture her if she went back without money and gold. She was persistent that she would not go back after Diwali festival. Then PW-1 also stated that his father PW-6 went along with her sister (deceased) and stayed there over-night and came back the following morning. Thereafter, on 14-11-1987 they received information that his sister had been murdered. PW-6 is the father of the deceased. He stated that his daughter-Kamalamma is married to the accused. He also that stated A-1 demanded that if he gave Rs. ten thousand and three sovereigns of gold as dowry, he would marry the deceased. He further stated that after the marriage there was a due of Rs. 2000/- and three sovereigns of gold. He further stated that his daughter had come to his house four days prior to the Diwali festival and informed that she was being tortured by not bringing the balance amount and gold. She further told him that her husband told her not to come to the house without bringing the balance of dowry amount and gold. PW-6 further stated that after the Diwali festival his daughter refused to go back to her husband s house without the balance amount of dowry and gold apprehending torture and harassment. PW-6 ultimately took his daughter to the house of accused and told them that he would immediately clear the balance amount and gold after harvesting the crops. He stayed overnight in the house of the accused and left the house only the next day. He has stated that on Thursday he had taken his daughter to the house of the accused and stayed for a night there. On Friday, the next day, he came back to his own house. The following day i.e. Saturday at about 8.30 a.m. he received the information that his daughter had died. He stated that Saturday was 14-11-1987. This would clearly show that PW-6 took his daughter to the house of the accused on 12-11-1987 and halted over-night there and returned to his house the next day i.e. 13-11-1987 and the deceased was murdered on 14-11-1987, stated to be early in the morning. There was no evidence on record which would throw some light that in the intervening period of 13-11-1987 and 14-11-1987 there was some settlement or resolution with regard to the balance amount of dowry being paid to the accused. From the testimony of PW-1 and PW-6, it clearly appears that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry by her husband. In the absence of the evidence on record showing any settlement or resolution for payment of balance of dowry amount and gold in the intervening period of 13-11-1987 and 14-11-1987, the cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry as on 12-11-1987 would continue till her death on 14-11-1987. This would constitute cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death. As already noticed, the marriage of the deceased with the accused was solemnized on 17-5-1987 and she died within 7 years of marriage. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances and evidence on record we are of the view that the offence under Section 304B IPC is found to be well established against A-1. (Para 22)
       (iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 304B-Offence of dowry death proved-Question of sentence-Whether deterrent punishment be awarded? (Yes)-Order of acquittal for offence under Section 302 IPC not interfered with.
       Held : The next question to be considered is the quantum of punishment. While considering the quantum of punishment, the Court must keep in view the background and intendment of the legislature so as to eradicate the evil practice of giving and taking dowry by prescribing the deterrent punishment. This was clear from the Objects and Reasons of Amending Act of 1986 (Act 43 of 1986). Consequent upon the aforesaid amendment Section 304B IPC was introduced in which the punishment is, imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. As would reveal from the various amendments as noticed above, despite stringent law, the evil practice of giving and taking of dowry remains unabated. On the contrary, it is menacingly on the increase. In the instant case, the conduct of the accused is of vital importance while considering the quantum of punishment. The marriage of the accused with the deceased on 17.5.1987 is neither an arranged marriage nor a love marriage. As already noticed, it is a marriage by accident and the main consideration was the payment of dowry and not out of love. It also appears from the testimony of PW-9 that a suggestion was put to the witness that accused used to permanently go to one Kallugudde Earegowda s house for work and that Kallugudde Earegowda has three female children. It was also suggested that accused was also having love affair with the first daughter of Kallugudde Earegowda. All this go to show that the main consideration of the accused marrying with the deceased with love of dowry and not love for the girl. So greed of the accused of the dowry, even for a paltry sum of Rs. 2000/- and three sovereigns of gold, would cost the precious life of a human being. Such conduct of the accused is not only abhorrent to the concept of rule of law, but also against the conscience of the entire society. The practice of giving and demanding dowry is a social evil having deleterious effect on the entire civilized society and has to be condemned by the strong hands of judiciary. Despite various amendments providing deterrent punishment with a view to curb the increasing menace of dowry deaths, the evil practice of dowry remains unabated. The Court cannot be oblivion to the intendment of the legislature and the purpose for which the enactment of the law and amendment has been effected. Every court must be sensitized to the enactment of the law and the purpose for which it is made by the legislature, keeping in view the evil practice of giving and taking dowry, which is having a deleterious effect on the civilized society. It must be given a meaningful interpretation so as to advance the cause of interest of the society as a whole. No leniency is warranted to the perpetrator of the crime against the society. Keeping these overall accounts and circumstances in the background, we are of the view that a deterrent punishment is called for. Accused No. 1 (M.V. Manjunathe Gowde) is accordingly convicted under section 304B IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the appeals filed by the State are allowed to the extent indicated. We, however, refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the High Court insofar as the offence under Section 302 IPC is concerned. (Para 23)

JUDGMENT

Sema, J.-When a woman enters into wedlock she has many salutary expectations. She would expect happy conjugal life, she would then expect to be a mother one-day, then she would expect to be mother-in-law and grand-mother and so on. All these expectations are shattered by the cruel hands of dowry related death.

2. The deceased - Kamalamma got married with accused No. 1 on 17.5.1987. On 14.11.1987, she was murdered and her body was found in a dry well. There is no dispute that the death was unnatural. The death of the deceased occurred within 7 years of her marriage with accused No. 1.

3. Accused No. 1 (respondent No. 1 herein) was tried along with accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur, for the offence under Section 302 IPC and in the alternate under Section 304B IPC. They were also charged under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were also charged under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) read with Section 34 IPC. All the accused belong to Manimakki village. They are related to each other. A2 is the mother of A1 and A3. A3 is the younger brother of A1. A1 has also got another younger brother who is married to PW 9 Smt. Girijamma. All of them were residing together in the same house. It is in the evidence on record that the deceased was also residing in the same house along with the accused and other inmates of the house on the intervening night of 13.11.1987 and 14.11.1987.

4. The learned Sessions Judge, after concluding the trial, found that A1 was the sole perpetrator of the crime and convicted A1 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and two years RI respectively. The learned Sessions Judge also found him guilty under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo 5 years RI and a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, six months RI and a fine of Rs. 3000/- and six months RI and a fine of Rs. 5000/- on each count under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, A2 and A3 were acquitted of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC. They were also acquitted of the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Act and were set at liberty. Two appeals have been filed against the said judgment before the High Court. Criminal Appeal No. 493 of 1990 had been filed by the State against the acquittal of A2 and A3. Criminal Appeal No. 300 of 1990 had been filed by accused No. 1 - M.V. Manjunathegowda against him conviction, as aforesaid. By the impugned judgment, the High Court had dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 493 of 1990 filed by the State and allowed Criminal Appeal No. 300 of 1990 preferred by the accused (respondent No. 1 herein) by setting aside the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. It is against the order of the High Court setting aside the sentence and conviction of the respondent - accused, the State has preferred the present appeals. No separate appeal has been preferred by the State against the acquittal recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court in respect of accused Nos. 2 and 3.

5. The peculiar facts and circumstances under which A1 got married with the deceased - Kamalamma on 17.5.1987 may be summarily recited. The marriage of the deceased-Kamalamma was fixed for 17.5.1987 with one Nagesh Gowda - PW 16, son of Bhyregowda of Byragadde. The marriage was to be performed at 10.30 a.m. The elders and relatives of both the sides had gathered to attend the marriage. However, PW 16 Nagesh Gowda with whom the deceased was supposed to marry did not turn up. The elders and relatives who had come to attend the marriage raised serious concern as the father of the bride PW 6 and other relatives were visibly humiliated. At this stage, it appears that to save the family from humiliation, the elders and relatives of PW 6, who had come to at

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 4

VERY IMPORTANT POINTThis land mark judgment has stressed the need to sensitive Courts to Dowry Death Prohibition Act, 1961 to be able to punish culprits in dowry related cases under Section 304B IPC r/w Section 113B Evidence Act, 1872.

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
This land mark judgment has stressed the need to sensitive Courts to Dowry Death Prohibition Act, 1961 to be able to punish culprits in dowry related cases under Section 304B IPC r/w Section 113B Evidence Act, 1872.