1. Unnatural death of wife within seven years of marriage — Allegations of dowry harassment — Trial for murder and cruelty — Conviction under Section 498A, IPC. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1265
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
State of Karnataka By Gandhinagar P.S. – Appellant
Versus
M.N. Basavaraja & Ors. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 503 of 2013
Decided On : 03-04-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ashwin V. Kotemath, Adv. Ms. K.V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, AOR Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Sabarwal, Adv. Ms. Anusha R, Adv. Ms. Mythili Srinivasmurthy, Adv. Mr. Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Adv. Mr. Shivamm Sharrma, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ashwin V. Kotemath, Adv. Ms. K.V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, AOR Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Sabarwal, Adv. Ms. Anusha R, Adv. Ms. Mythili Srinivasmurthy, Adv. Mr. Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Adv. Mr. Shivamm Sharrma, Adv.
The court emphasized the necessity of framing appropriate charges under section 304B IPC to ensure a fair trial and prevent miscarriage of justice.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 498A, 201 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 3 and 4 - Acquittal of respondents by Sessions Court - High Court confirmed acquittal under sections 302 and 201 IPC, convicted first respondent under section 498A IPC - Incorrect representation of incarceration period led to erroneous sentencing - Court emphasized the need for proper charge framing under section 304B IPC for dowry death presumption - Remand to Sessions Court for trial from defence evidence stage. (Paras 1, 6, 10, 16)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Fair trial - Importance of framing appropriate charges and providing opportunity for defence - Court reiterated that failure to frame charges under section 304B IPC could lead to miscarriage of justice. (Paras 15, 16)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Whether failure to frame charges under Section 304B, IPC precludes remand when evidence suggests dowry death — Reliability of interested witnesses in dowry cases. (Para 6 , 9 )
3. Evidence supports presumption of dowry death — Failure to frame alternative charge under Section 304B, IPC — Family members are reliable witnesses in dowry harassment cases. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Where murder charges fail but dowry death ingredients exist, the accused must be given opportunity to defend against Section 304B, IPC to avoid miscarriage of justice. (Para 7 , 15 )
5. Conviction under Section 498A, IPC sustained; sentence set aside; case remitted to Sessions Court for trial of first respondent under Section 304B, IPC. (Para 16 , 17 )
6. Can an accused be convicted under Section 304B, IPC if no such charge was framed during trial?
Yes, provided the accused is given a fair opportunity to enter a defence and rebut the statutory presumption of dowry death. Convicting without such opportunity, especially when the accused defended a murder charge, would lead to a serious miscarriage of justice. (Para 7 , 15 )
7. Can the testimony of family members be discarded in dowry death cases as being that of interested witnesses?
No. Since victims of dowry harassment and cruelty typically confide in immediate family members, such witnesses are reliable. Discarding their evidence on the ground of being interested witnesses would hinder the prosecution of culprits. (Para 12 )
8. How does Section 106 of the Evidence Act apply when a death occurs in the residence of the accused?
When a death occurs in a house where the accused and the deceased were residing together, it is for the accused to explain the circumstances of the death under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. (Para 11 )
ORDER
1. The first respondent along with the other respondents (second to fifth) stood trial before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II at Davangere, Karnataka for commission of offence punishable under sections 302, 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’, hereafter) read with sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (‘DP Act’, hereafter). Vide judgment and order dated 4th March, 2004, all the respondents were acquitted. The State of Karnataka carried the judgment and order of acquittal in appeal before the High Court. The High Court vide judgment and order dated 27th August, 2010 confirmed the acquittal of the respondents for the offences under sections 302 and 201 of the IPC as well as sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act; however, convicted the first respondent under section 498A, IPC only. On the question of sentence, it was represented on behalf of the first respondent before the High Court that he had been behind bars for four years during the period of trial. Considering that the maximum punishment that could be imposed under section 498A, IPC is three years, the High Court sentenced the first respondent to the period of incarceration already undergone and disposed of the appeal. This judgment and order of the High Court is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal, by special leave, at the instance of the State of Karnataka (‘appellant’, hereafter).
2. At the outset, we are informed by the parties that correct representation had not been made before the High Court by counsel for the first respondent in respect of the period of incarceration suffered by him. He had been behind bars for a little less than seventeen months, and not four years as submitted.
3. The trial stemmed from the unnatural death of Susheelamma within 7 years of her marriage. The first respondent happened to be her husband while the other respondents were her in-laws. After the First Information Report was registered under sections 498A and 304B, IPC read with sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act based on the complaint of Susheelamma’s brother (PW-1), police report under section 173(2), Code of Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr. PC.’, hereafter) was submitted before the relevant Court by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Davangere City, Sub-Division, Davangere, Karnataka. Bare perusal of the police report reveals that materials collected during investigation pointed towards suicidal death of Susheelamma owing to harassment meted out to her by the respondents for not having brought with her requisite dowry at the time of marriage and even thereafter till her death. Despite the police report having been filed, inter alia, under section 304B, IPC and suggesting death of Susheelamma by suicide, charge against the respondents was framed by the Sessions Court on 24th July, 2003, inter alia, under section 302, IPC. This appears to us inexplicable in the absence of any material in the police report suggesting commission of offence under section 302, IPC. Assuming that the Sessions Court had reason to frame a charge under section 302, IPC, it is incomprehensible why no alternative charge under section 304B, IPC was framed.
4. Evidence was led by the prosecution. The Sessions Court did not find adequate material on record to convict the respondents under section 302, IPC or any other relevant provision resulting in an order of acquittal being recorded, as noticed earlier. However, in appeal, only the first respondent was found guilty of the offence under section 498A, IPC by the High Court and erroneously sentenced premised on incorrect representation in respect of the period of incarceration.
5. We have observed on perusal of the impugned judgment brushing aside by the High Court of the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that sufficient materials were available on record for convicting the first respondent as well as the other respondents under section 304B, IPC merely on the ground that no charge in that behalf
