2015 Supreme(SC) 19

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.
SHER SINGH @ PARTAPA - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1592 OF 2011
Decided On : 09-01-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
If alleged harassment and cruelty by the husband is proved by him to have no casual connection with dowry demand, section 304B and 306 will not be attracted.
In cases of abnormal deaths prosecution, in addition to charges u/s 304B and 498A IPC, should include section 302 and/or 306 IPC.
A word used in a section and/or in sundry segments of a statute, should be attributed the same meaning. Where different words are employed in close proximity, or in the same section, or in the same enactment, they depict disparate situations, and delineate dissimilar and diverse ramifications.
Word ‘shown’ should be taken to be synonymous to ‘prove’ and word ‘presume’ freely interchangeable with the word ‘deemed’.
Use of the words ‘soon before death’ not interpreted not in terms of days or months or years; but as necessarily indicating that the demand for dowry is not stale or an aberration of the past.
Where the husband proves beyond reasonable doubt that he could not have caused the death of his wife by burns or bodily injury or not involved in any manner in her death in abnormal circumstances, he cannot be held guilty u/s 304B.
Cruelty connected with dowry demands can be shown by preponderance of evidence.
When the accused not only denied questions u/s 313 Cr PC, but proffered details of his defence. Burden to prove guilt lies on prosecution. It cannot be shifted on the accused to prove his innocence.

Headnote:(a) Words and Phrases – Death, accidental – A tragedy – No criminal complexion conjured up, unless statutorily so devised as in Section 304A, IPC – Even there the person actually causing the death is held liable for the culpable act, not others. (Para 9)

       (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B and 306 – Contemplating all deaths in ‘otherwise than under normal circumstances’ – An endeavour to cover murders masquerading as accidents – If alleged harassment and cruelty by the husband is proved by him to have no casual connection with dowry demand – Section 304B and 306 not attracted. (Para 9)

       (2007) 11 SCC 205 – Relied upon

       © Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304B, 306, 302 and 498A – Prosecution normally confining its charges to section 304B in case of death in abnormal circumstances – Ostensibly for ease of discharge of burden of proof – Generally section 498A is also added – This is not enough – In case ingredients of section 403B are not fully met with, accused is let off with simpler sentence – Justice remains not done to deceased – Death becomes accidental – Repeatedly held that in such cases sections 302 and/or 306 should also be invoked. (Para 10)

       (1991) 3 SCC 1; (2013) 7 SCC 256 – Relied upon

       (d) Interpretation of statute – A word used in a section and/or in sundry segments of a statute, should be attributed the same meaning – Where different words employed in close proximity, or in the same section, or in the same enactment – Depict disparate situations, and delineate dissimilar and diverse ramifications. (Para 11)

       (e) Interpretation of statute – Presumption of innocence, deemed culpability and burden of proof – ‘Presume’ in section 113A and 113B Evidence Act, 1872 – ‘Shown’ and ‘deemed’ in section 304B IPC – Cruelty or harassment by a person to deceased woman soon before her death if ‘shown’ – That person would be ‘presumed’ u/s 113B to have caused the death – Under section 304B IPC in the event of a wife’s unnatural death, husband and members of his family “deemed” to have caused the death – Word ‘shown’ held, synonymous to ‘prove’ and word ‘presume’ freely interchangeable with the word ‘deemed’. (Para 13, 14, 17)

       (2012) 8 SCC 594; AIR 1953 SC 333; (1997) 1 SCC 326; 1995 Supp (2) SCC 187 – Relied upon

       (f) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B and 306 – Soon before death – Soon – Its use interpreted not in terms of days or months or years – But as necessarily indicating that the demand for dowry is not stale or an aberration of the past – Demand of dowry should be the continuing cause for the death u/s 304B or the suicide u/s 306. (Para 14)

       (g) Constitution of India – Article 20 – Neither affirming the presumption of innocence nor prohibiting it – Leaving it to Parliament to ignore it whenever necessary or expedient – Deeming provision in section 304B, IPC – Therefore the only individual present with the deceased at the time of incident; or the individual last seen with the deceased, is deemed to be guilty of death of the deceased. (Para 15)

       (2009) 14 SCC 415; (2012) 8 SCC 594; (2010) 12 SCC 350; (2004) 10 SCC 769 – Relied upon

       (h) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B – Deemed guilt of husband – Husband proving beyond reasonable doubt that he could not have caused the death of his wife by burns or bodily injury or not involved in any manner in her death in abnormal circumstances – He cannot be held guilty u/s 304B. (Para 17)

       (i) Code of Criminal Procedure, a973 – Section 154 – FIR lodged after ten hours – Time taken explained satisfactorily – No infirmity. ((Para 18)

       (j) Criminal Trial – Acquittal of co-accused – No ground for acquittal of an accused – Moreover, stronger proof required for implicating family members – Plea rejected. (Para 18)

       (2008) 16 SCC 512 – Referred

       (k) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B – ‘Soon before her death’ – Deceased dying within one year of marriage – Cruelty – ‘Soon before’ clause applies. (Para 18)

       (2010) 9 SCC 73 – Referred

       (l) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Cruelty connected with dowry demands – Required to be ‘shown’ and not ‘proved’ – Requirement would stand satisfied by preponderance of evidence. (Para 19)

       (m) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B – Prosecution failing to show/present and/or prove cruelty to deceased emanating from or founded on dowry demands even by preponderance of probabilities – Appellant not only denying questions u/s 313 Cr PC, but proffering details of his defence – Burden to prove guilt lies on prosecution – Does not shift on appellant to prove his innocence. (Para 23)

       

       Facts of the case:

       The marriage between the deceased, Harjinder Kaur and the accused-Appellant took place on 22.2.1997.

       Two months prior to her death the deceased informed her two brothers of cruelty connected with dowry demands meted out to her by her husband and his family members. They, thereafter, conveyed this information to their uncle-Complainant, Angrej Singh viz. that the accused and his family have been harassing her with a demand for a motorcycle and a fridge.

       On 7.2.1998, one Rajwant Singh informed the Complainant that the deceased had committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance at her matrimonial house. The Complainant, after confirming her death, lodged an FIR on the next day i.e., on 8.2.1998.

       In all, four accused persons, namely, Appellant/Sher Singh (husband), Devinder Singh (brother-in-law), Jarnail Singh (father-in-law), and Sukhvinder Kaur (mother-in-law) were tried by the learned Sessions Judge under Sections 304B and 498A IPC. The Sessions Judge had convicted and sentenced all the accused.

       Two separate appeals were filed before the High Court, one by Devinder Singh (brother-in-law) along with Jarnail Singh (father-in-law) and another by the Appellant herein.

       The High Court allowed the appeal filed by Devinder Singh and Jarnail Singh and acquitted them. The Appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed.

       

       Finding of the Court:

       High Court erroneously shifted burden on appellant to prove his innocence.

       Result: Appeal allowed.