IMPORTANT POINT
Presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and presumption under Section 304B of IPC are aimed at giving relief to a woman subjected to cruelty routinely in an Indian household.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 498A-Cruelty-Forms and shades- Physical cruelty could be actual beating or causing pain and harm to person of a woman-Every such instance of cruelty and related harassment has a different impact on mind of a woman-Cruelty or harassment differs from case to case-It relates to mindset of people which varies from person to person-Cruelty can be mental or it can be physical-Mental cruelty is also of different shades-It can be verbal or emotional like insulting or ridiculing or humiliating a woman-It can be giving threats of injury to her or her near and dear ones-It can be depriving her of economic resources or essential amenities of life. (Para 13)
        (B) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 304B-Dowry death-Ingredients- Demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough-There must be a nexus between demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment, based upon such demand and date of death-Test of proximity will have to be applied-But, it is not a rigid test-It depends on facts and circumstances of each case and calls for a pragmatic and sensitive approach of Court within confines of law. (Para 14)
        (C) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 304B and 498A-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 113B-Dowry death-Cruelty-Conviction-Sufficient quantity of dowry was not given and that transaction was sought to be completed by asking for Rs.60,000/- after marriage for business of appellant-This demand has connection with marriage-Deceased consumed poison and died in house of accused-Ever since marriage deceased was subjected to physical and mental torture by appellant and others for not getting sufficient dowry-Prosecution has successfully proved its case against appellant-Appeal dismissed. (Paras 16 to 20, 25 and 26)
        (D) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 304B-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 113B-Dowry death-Presumption-Penal statute, even if it has to be strictly construed, must be so construed as not to defeat its purport-Harassment of a married woman in an Indian household is a peculiar phenomenon-In most cases it is seen that husband or members of his family are never satisfied with what they get as dowry-Wife's family is expected to keep fulfilling this insatiable demand in some form or other for some period of time after marriage-Such demands are also fulfilled by parents of wife for fear of their daughter being ill-treated-Courts of law cannot lose sight of these realities-Presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and presumption under Section 304B of IPC have a purpose-These are beneficent provisions aimed at giving relief to a woman subjected to cruelty routinely in an Indian household-Meaning to be applied to each word of these provisions has to be in accord with legislative intent-Even while construing these provisions strictly care will have to be taken to see that their object is not frustrated. (Para 19)
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

Judgment :-

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. In this appeal judgment and order dated 01/11/2007 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court is under challenge.

2. The appellant is original accused no. 1. He was tried along with Hazura Singh-original accused no. 2, Narata Singh-original accused no. 3and Kaushalya - original accused no. 4 for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge Yamuna Nagar in Sessions Case No. 60 of 1994. Appellant is the husband of deceased Anita ("the deceased" or "Anita"). Accused no. 2 is his father, accused no. 3 is his uncle and accused no. 4 is his mother.

3. The deceased was daughter of Ram Lal. Admittedly, she was married to the appellant on 24/04/1994. According to the prosecution, the accused were not satisfied with the quality and quantity of the dowry given at the time of marriage. They used to taunt and beat the deceased. At times, they used to keep her hungry. She had informed her brothers and father about this ill-treatment and harassment. Her brother Ashok Kumar and his brother-in-law Pawan Kumar went to the house of the accused and protested. At that time the accused told Ashok Kumar that if he had so much affection for his sister he should give Rs.60,000/- for the business of the appellant. Ashok Kumar expressed his helplessness to meet the demand.

Ashok Kumar sent his younger brother Satish Kumar to bring the deceased home, but, the accused told him that he should take the deceased home after some days. On 22/07/1994 the uncle of the appellant i.e. accused no. 3 -Narata Singh went to the house of the parents of the deceased and told them that Anita-the deceased had committed suicide by burning herself. Ashok Kumar accompanied by his father, brother Satish Kumar and brother-in-law Pawan Kumar went to the house of the accused. The burnt dead body of Anita was found kept on a cot in the verandah. Ashok Kumar, then, went to P.S. Yamunanagar and lodged FIR Exhibit-PK. On completion of investigation the accused came to be charged as aforesaid.

4. The prosecution examined, inter alia, PW-6 Satish Kumar and PW-7Ashok Kumar, who unfolded the prosecution story about the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased. PW-9 Dr. V.K. Nagpal conducted the post-mortem and gave report Exhibit-PH. PW-11 Maharaj Singh, DSP, who conducted the investigation, gave details of investigation.

5. The accused denied the allegations of demand of dowry and harassment to the deceased. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313of the Cr.P.C. stated that the deceased was well looked after. Lot of affection was shown to her. When she was carrying, proper medical treatment was given to her. She developed complications and pregnancy had to be terminated. The doctors told her that whenever she conceives she will have problem of bleeding. The deceased was last examined on19/07/1994. After her abortion the deceased was in depression and, therefore, she committed suicide. The accused examined three doctors. They are DW-1 Dr. Mrs. Iqbal Kaur, DW-2 Dr. Fitu Mago and DW-3 Dr. C. Vijayendra. DW-4 Anil Kumar, the brother-in-law produced letter Exhibit-DF received by him from the deceased.

6. The trial court by its judgment and order dated 01/08/1998 convicted the appellant and other accused for offence punishable under Section 304-Bof the IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for seven years each. The accused were also convicted for offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for two years each. They were ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, they were directed to undergo RI for six months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

7. The accused carried an appeal to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court acquitted accused nos. 2 to 4 on the ground that allegations made against them were vague and that they were living separately from the appellant. The High Court, however, confirmed the conviction an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(SC) 1033

SUPREME COURT OF INDIARanjana Prakash Desai, Madan B. Lokur, JJ.Surinder Singh – AppellantVs.State of Haryana – Respondent[Criminal Appeal No. 1791 of 2008]Decided On : 13-11-2013

IMPORTANT POINT Presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and presumption under Section 304B of IPC are aimed at giving relief to a woman subjected to cruelty routinely in an Indian household.

Cases Referred (9)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjana Prakash Desai, Madan B. Lokur, JJ.
Surinder Singh – Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No. 1791 of 2008]
Decided On : 13-11-2013

IMPORTANT POINT
Presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and presumption under Section 304B of IPC are aimed at giving relief to a woman subjected to cruelty routinely in an Indian household.