2021 Supreme(SC) 271

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.
SATBIR SINGH & ANOTHER - APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1735-1736 OF 2010
Decided on : 28-05-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Dowry death – Courts should use their discretion to determine if period between cruelty or harassment and death of victim would come within term “soon before”. What is pivotal to such determination is establishment of a “proximate and live link” between cruelty and consequential death of victim.
(2) Once all essential ingredients are established by prosecution, presumption under Section 113B, Evidence Act mandatorily operates against accused.
(3) Examination of accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, as it is based on fundamental principle of fairness.
(4) Where strict interpretation leads to absurdity or goes against spirit of legislation, courts may in appropriate cases place reliance upon genuine import of words, taken in their usual sense to resolve such ambiguities.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B – Dowry death – Expression “soon before” – Meaning of – Considering significance of such a legislation, strict interpretation would defeat very object for which it was enacted – It is safe to deduce that when legislature used words, “soon before” they did not mean “immediately before” – Rather, they left its determination in hands of Courts – Factum of cruelty or harassment differs from case to case – Even spectrum of cruelty is quite varied, as it can range from physical, verbal or even emotional – No strait-jacket formulae can be laid down by Court to define what exacts phrase “soon before” entails – Courts should use their discretion to determine if period between cruelty or harassment and death of victim would come within term “soon before” – What is pivotal to such determination is establishment of a “proximate and live link” between cruelty and consequential death of victim – Section 304B, IPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental due to fact that death occurring “otherwise than under normal circumstances” can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. (Paras 14, 15 and 36)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 113-B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 232 and 233 – Presumption as to dowry death – When prosecution shows that ‘soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry’, presumption of causation arises against accused under Section 113B of Evidence Act – Thereafter, accused has to rebut this statutory presumption – Once all essential ingredients are established by prosecution, presumption under Section 113B, Evidence Act mandatorily operates against accused – This presumption of causality that arises can be rebutted by accused – Usage of rebuttable presumption of causality, under Section 113B, Evidence Act, creates a greater responsibility on Judges, defence and prosecution – They need to be extra careful during conducting criminal trials relating to Section 304B, IPC – In order to address this precarious situation, procedural law has some safeguards – Once Trial Court decides that accused is not eligible to be acquitted as per provisions of Section 232, Cr.P.C, it must move on and fix hearings specifically for defence evidence, calling upon accused to present his defence as per the procedure provided under Section 233, Cr.P.C., which is also an invaluable right provided to accused – Existence of such procedural right cohesively sits with rebuttable presumption as provided under Section 113B, Evidence Act. (Paras 16, 18, 19, 21and 36)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B – Examination of accused – Cases of dowry death – Examination of accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, as it is based on fundamental principle of fairness – This provision incorporates valuable principle of natural justice“ audi alteram partem”, as it enables accused to offer an explanation for incriminatory material appearing against him – It imposes an obligation on part of Court to question accused fairly, with care and caution – Court must put incriminating circumstances before accused and seek his response – Duty is also cast on Counsel of accused to prepare his defence, since inception of trial, with due caution, keeping in consideration peculiarities of Section 304B, IPC read with Section 113B, Evidence Act. (Paras 20 and 36)

(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304B and 306 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 113-B – Dowry death – Abetment of suicide – Conviction and sentence – Doctor found smell of kerosene oil on body of deceased who had suffered 85% burn injuries – Death was relatable to burn injuries within seven years of marriage, it clearly satisfies first two ingredients of offence – Deceased had disclosed that accused, husband and mother-in-law, used to physically harass her on account of bringing insufficient dowry – Trial Court and High Court, upon a close appreciation of witnesses came to the conclusion that statements were corroborative and consistent – They found witnesses to be reliable and on the basis of the same held that deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death as she failed to bring sufficient dowry – Prosecution was able to successfully prove that death of deceased due to burn injuries took place within approximately one year of her marriage – Since ingredients of Section 304B, IPC stand satisfied, presumption under 113B, Evidence Act operates against appellants, who are deemed to have caused offence specified under Section 304B of IPC – Entire body of deceased was doused with kerosene oil and possibility of accident can be safely ruled out – Appellants have failed to make out a case to interfere in concurrent opinions of Courts below, convicting accused-appellants under Section 304B, IPC – However, conclusion reached by Courts below that deceased committed suicide, is based on assumptions, as there is no evidence on record to support the same – Prosecution has failed to establish that death occurred due to suicide – Conviction and sentence under Section 306, IPC set aside. (Paras 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 34, 35 and 37)

(E) Interpretation of Statute – Rule of Strict Construction – A criminal statute, generally is to be interpreted strictly – However, where strict interpretation leads to absurdity or goes against spirit of legislation, courts may in appropriate cases place reliance upon genuine import of words, taken in their usual sense to resolve such ambiguities. (Para 9)

Facts of the case:

Appellants were convicted by the Trial Court for the offences under Sections 304B and 306, IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304B, IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for offence punishable under Section 306, IPC. present appeals arise out of the impugned judgment dated 06.11.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3-SB of 1998 and 16-SB of 1998, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellants and upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

Findings of Court:

Menace of dowry death is increasing day by day. However, it is also observed that sometimes family members of the husband are roped in, even though they have no active role in commission of the offence and are residing at distant places. In these cases, the Court need to be cautious in its approach.

Result : Appeals Partly allowed.