1. Unnatural death of a woman within seven years of marriage — Allegations of cruelty and dowry demands — Prosecution under Sections 498A, 304B, and 120B, IPC. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 337
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., A.S. BOPANNA, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
Devender Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.383 OF 2018
Decided On : 21-04-2022
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Dowry death – Once prosecution has succeeded in demonstrating that a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon after her death, presumption shall be drawn against said persons that they have caused dowry death as contemplated under Section 304B IPC.
Dowry death – Once prosecution has succeeded in demonstrating that a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon after her death, presumption shall be drawn against said persons that they have caused dowry death as contemplated under Section 304B IPC.
Subject
Criminal Law - Dowry Death
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A, 304B and 120B – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 113B – Cruelty, dowry death and conspiracy – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – Once prosecution has succeeded in demonstrating that a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon after her death, presumption shall be drawn against said persons that they have caused dowry death as contemplated under Section 304B IPC – In instant case death which did not take place in normal circumstances, had occurred within just about 6 months from date of marriage – She went missing from matrimonial home and body was recovered from river in vicinity of matrimonial home – High Court has appreciated evidence in correct perspective – Death had occurred due to shock and blood flow from injuries received before death – Doctor was categorical that cause of death was not from drowning as there was no water inside lungs and abdomen – Appellants have not brought any material on record to demonstrate that it was a normal practice for deceased to go to hills for cutting grass – Appellants have miserably failed to rebut presumption drawn against them under Section 113B of Evidence Act, in a matter relating to offence under Section 304B of IPC – However, in a circumstance where charge was also under Section 120B IPC, there is no specific evidence led by prosecution relating to conspiracy allegedly hatched by appellants – Conviction and sentence partly affirmed. (Paras 11, 13, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Appellants have assailed the judgment dated 14th September, 2017, passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Government Appeal No.57 of 2010, whereby the judgment dated 17th April, 2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag acquitting them from the charges under Sections 498A, 304B and 120B of the Indian Penal Code has been reversed and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven year with a fine of ?10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 304B IPC. The appellants have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 120B IPC and two years under Section 498A IPC.
Findings of Court:
Appellant No.2 and 3 who were released on bail on 12th March, 2008, be set free. The bail bonds executed by the appellants No.2 and 3 are, accordingly, cancelled. Appellant No.1 shall, however, surrender within two weeks and serve the remaining part of the sentence imposed on him.
Result : Appeal Partly allowed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Robin R.David, Dhiraj Abraham Philip, Febin Mathew Vargeshe, Samuel David, Amit Negi, Saurabh Sachdeva, Aftab Ali Khan, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Krishaam Mishra, Advocates
For the Appellant(s) :Robin R.David, Dhiraj Abraham Philip, Febin Mathew Vargeshe, Samuel David, Amit Negi, Saurabh Sachdeva, Aftab Ali Khan, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Krishaam Mishra, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Appellants challenge conviction citing lack of dowry demands and accidental death — State contends trial court ignored statutory presumptions regarding dowry death. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Evidence established dowry harassment soon before death — Medical findings rule out accidental drowning — Appellants failed to rebut statutory presumption of dowry death. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
4. Once prosecution proves unnatural death within seven years and dowry-related cruelty soon before death, Section 113B, Evidence Act mandates a presumption of dowry death. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
5. Conviction and sentence of husband upheld — Conviction and sentence of in-laws set aside due to lack of specific evidence. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 )
6. What are the essential ingredients to establish an offence of dowry death under Section 304B, IPC?
The ingredients include unnatural death caused by burns, bodily injury, or other abnormal circumstances within seven years of marriage, where the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband or his relatives in connection with dowry demands soon before death. (Para 8 , 9 )
7. How does the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act operate in dowry death cases?
Once the prosecution demonstrates that a woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death, the court shall presume the accused caused the dowry death, unless the accused rebuts the presumption during the trial. (Para 10 , 11 )
8. How should the phrase soon before her death be interpreted in the context of Section 304B, IPC?
The phrase is interpreted to mean that the cruelty or harassment must be proximate and linked to the death, but it is not understood to mean that it must have occurred immediately prior to the death. (Para 12 )
9. What constitutes a failure to rebut the presumption of dowry death?
A failure occurs when the accused provides only bald statements or unreliable evidence that does not logically explain the unnatural death or disprove the established dowry-related cruelty, especially when medical evidence rules out accidental causes. (Para 21 , 22 )
JUDGMENT :
HIMA KOHLI, J.
1. The appellants have assailed the judgment dated 14th September, 2017, passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Government Appeal No. 57 of 2010, whereby the judgment dated 17th April, 2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag acquitting them from the charges under Section 498A, 304B and 120B of the Indian Penal Code1 [for short “IPC”] has been reversed and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven year with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 304B IPC. The appellants have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 120B IPC and two years under Section 498A IPC. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, the appellants are before this Court, in this appeal by way of special leave.
2. The brief facts leading to the case are that the appellant No. 1, Devender Singh, son of appellant No. 3, Smt. Kunja Devi and Bhawan Singh was married to the deceased, Sushila, the wedding having been solemnized on 20th October, 2007. Sushila is stated to have gone missing from her matrimonial home since 24th April, 2008. This came to the knowledge of the mother of the deceased when the appellant No. 2 herein, Jagdish Singh, brother of the appellant No. 1 called her on 25th April, 2008, at 7.00 p.m. to inform her and enquire as to whether Sushila had gone to the parental home. The mother of the deceased in turn informed her son, the complainant, who resided at Haridwar. On returning to his house, the complainant went to the matrimonial home of the deceased on 28th April, 2008. It has been alleged by the complainant that keeping in view the fact that there were repeated demands for dowry made by the appellants and the manner in which they had behaved with him when he had gone to visit them, made him suspect that his sister had been killed by the appellants but they were feigning ignorance and acting as if his sister had gone missing.
3. Based on the complaint, investigation was carried out by the local police and the body of Sushila was subsequently found in Ganga river. Having regard to the fact that an unnatural death had taken place within about six months of the marriage and since there was an allegation of cruelty relating to demand of dowry, a case was registered against the appellants under Sections 498A, 304B and 120B of IPC. The appellants having denied the allegations levelled against them, trial was conducted in Sessions Trial No. 18/2008 before the District and Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag. In support of their case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses arrayed as PW-1 to PW-14. Besides denying their role while recording their statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellants/accused also examined DW-1 to DW-3 as their witnesses. On considering the evidence, the trial Court recorded findings in favour of the appellants and acquitted all of them vide judgment dated 17th April, 2010.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17th April, 2010, State of Uttarakhand preferred an appeal before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital vide Government Appeal No. 57 of 2010. On re-appreciating the entire evidence exhaustively and on applying the legal principles, the High Court has allowed the said appeal. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 17th April, 2010 passed by the Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2018 was set aside. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 498A, 304B and 120B of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) and in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment under Section 304B IPC. The appellants have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 120B IPC and two years under Section 498A IPC. The sentence
