SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
Chabi Karmakar & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1556 of 2013
Decided On : 29-08-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A, 304B and 306 read with Section 34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 85, 80 and 108 read with Section 3(5)] – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 2 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 113B [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 118] – Cruelty and dowry death – Abetment of suicide – Conviction and sentence – Deceased died within seven years of marriage and her death was by suicide in her matrimonial house – There was harassment at hands of her in-laws and particularly by husband – There was marital discord between husband and wife – Prosecution has failed to place any credible evidence for involvement of sister-in-law of deceased – Sister-in-law of deceased is a married woman and at relevant point of time, she was residing with her family at her matrimonial home – There is no specific evidence that has come in form of any of prosecution witnesses that may connect sister-in-law of deceased to commission of crime – Deceased faced cruelty and harassment at hands of her husband which compelled her to commit suicide – However, these witnesses did not state that such cruelty and harassment was in connection with demand for dowry – With respect to demand for dowry, they have just made some general statements which are not sufficient to convict appellants under Section 304B of IPC – It has not been proved by prosecution that deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry – Trial court erred in raising presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act, even though demand for dowry was not established – Case of abetment of suicide under Section 306 and cruelty under Section 498A of IPC is made out against appellant-husband, although offence under Section 304B is not made out – Sister-in-law of deceased acquitted from all offences – Appellant husband convicted for offences under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 25000/- on each count. (Paras 4, 5, 6 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Appellants have been convicted under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Trial Court had convicted sister-in-law (appellant no.1), husband (appellant no.2) and mother-in-law of deceased and sentenced them to suffer life imprisonment, 3 years R.I and 10 years R.I for offences under Sections 304B, 498A and 306 of IPC respectively, along with fine and other default stipulations. Both conviction and sentence of appellants have been upheld in appeal and High Court has dismissed appeal. During pendency of appeal, appellant no. 3 (mother-in-law of deceased) had passed away and case against her stands abated.
Findings of Court:
Both sentences shall run concurrently and in default of fine, he shall undergo further imprisonment of 3 months. Fine payable shall be paid to nearest relative of deceased within a period of 3 months from today. Appellant no.2 shall surrender before concerned Court within four weeks from today and undergo remaining sentence.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
ORDER :
1. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court had convicted sister-in-law (appellant no.1), husband (appellant no.2) and mother-in-law of the deceased and sentenced them to suffer life imprisonment, 3 years R.I and 10 years R.I for offences under Sections 304B, 498A and 306 of IPC respectively, along with fine and other default stipulations. Both the conviction and the sentence of the present appellants have been upheld in appeal and the High Court has dismissed the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, one of the appellants i.e. appellant no. 3 (Sova Rani Karmakar, the mother-in-law of the deceased) had passed away and the case against her stands abated.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:
The deceased, Sonali Karmakar, and the appellant No. 2, Samir Karmarkar were married in March 2003, and out of the wedlock, there is a son who was born on 4.9.2004 (Now 20 years of age). On 2.5.2006 the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself in her matrimonial house. The deceased was alone at the time of the incident and the appellant No. 2, the husband was not even in the house at the time of the incident. The appellant no. 2 was informed and the deceased had been taken to the Krishnanagar hospital where she was declared dead. An inquest report was conducted at the hospital and a post-mortem was conducted on 03.05.2006 by Dr. Ajit Kumar Biswas (PW-15). Post- mortem report shows that there were ligature marks around the neck of the deceased and the nature of the ligature marks shows that it is a case of suicide. Apart from the ligature marks, there were no other ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased. The report also showed that the deceased was 22 years of age at the time of her death.
An FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased at Krishnaganj Police Station, Nadia on 07.05.2006 i.e. after 5 days of the incident, alleging that his sister i.e. the deceased was being harassed by her in-laws on demand of dowry made prior to her death. A case was registered under sections 498A/304B/34 and a chargesheet was filed. Thereafter, Trial Court vide order and judgment dated 5.6.2009 convicted the present appellants and mother-in-law under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is that there was a harassment of deceased which was connected to the demand of dowry, which led the deceased to commit suicide.
3. Prosecution witnesses PW-1, 3 and 16 have all deposed that there was a demand of dowry about which they were informed when the deceased had come to her maternal house soon before her death. The learned counsel for the State would argue that there is evidence in the form of PW-4 that appellant no. 2 was also having an extramarital affair with another woman which led to frequent discord between the deceased and appellant no. 2 and this was another cause of her harassment.
The learned counsel for the appellants would, however, argue that this cannot be construed as a demand for dowry and would not come within the definition of dowry as defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 which reads as under:
“Definition of ‘dowry’ – In this Act, “dowry” means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly –
(a) By one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) By the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person,
At or before [or any time after the marriage] [in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include] dowry or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.”
The point which is made by learned counsel for the appellants would be that although a demand can be made either before or “any time after the marriage”, it should be in connection with the marriage of the sa
Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2015) 6 SCC 477 – Distinguished. [Para 8]
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra & Anr.(2022) 5 SCC 401 – Distinguished. [Para 8]
Cruelty and dowry death – Court must guard against false implication of relatives of husband of victim.
The court affirmed that a conviction for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC is established when a woman dies shortly after marriage due to cruelty for dowry demands, while simultaneous conviction un....
Dowry death and cruelty – For attracting Section 113-B of Evidence Act, prosecution must establish that deceased was subjected by appellant to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any dema....
The prosecution must prove cruelty or harassment for dowry demand soon before death to sustain a conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
(1) Dowry death – “Soon before” cannot be interpreted to mean “immediately before”, rather prosecution has to show that there existed a “proximate and live link” between cruelty and consequential dea....
(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 determinati....
Prosecution must establish all ingredients of Section 304(B) IPC for conviction; failure to prove demand for dowry soon before death results in acquittal.
The prosecution must establish all ingredients of Section 304B IPC, including demand for dowry soon before death, to invoke presumption of guilt under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 304-B IPC, establishing that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for dowry demands, leading to her suicide, thus satisfying the legal requirements fo....
Point of Law : For offence Under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code, punishment is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.