1. Conviction for dowry death and cruelty under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC — Appeal against confirmation of conviction and sentence. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 254
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
Karan Singh – Appellant
versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1076 of 2014
Decided On : 31-01-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanchar Anand, Adv. Mr. Devendra Singh, AOR Mr. Shiv Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aman Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Mr. Amit Ojha, Adv. Mr. Azeem A. Dost, Adv. Mr. Prashant Sharma, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanchar Anand, Adv. Mr. Devendra Singh, AOR Mr. Shiv Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aman Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Mr. Amit Ojha, Adv. Mr. Azeem A. Dost, Adv. Mr. Prashant Sharma, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
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 demand of dowry soon before her death – Unless these facts are proved, presumptions under Section 113-B of Evidence Act cannot be invoked.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304-B and 498-A – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 113-B – Dowry death and cruelty – Conviction and sentence – For attracting Section 113-B, prosecution must establish that deceased was subjected by appellant to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death – Unless these facts are proved, presumptions under Section 113-B of Evidence Act cannot be invoked – Version of mother of deceased regarding providing dowry and regarding demands of dowry are omissions – There is something fundamental which goes to root of matter – While deposing about demand of dowry, she has not deposed to any particular act of cruelty or harassment by appellant – This is an essential ingredient of Section 304-B, IPC – It is not made out from evidence of mother of deceased – None of statements of witnesses contain any specific instances of cruelty or harassment – Ingredients of Sections 498A and 304B of IPC not proved – Appellant acquitted of offences alleged against him. (Paras 8, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Appellant and his parents were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. While his parents were acquitted, Sessions Court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC. For offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC, appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. For the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. By impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed conviction and sentence.
Findings of Court:
Impugned Judgments dated 9th November 2010 and 24th January 2002 are hereby quashed and set aside and appellant is acquitted of offences alleged against him. Appellant was enlarged on bail pending this appeal. Hence, his bail bonds are cancelled.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contends lack of legal evidence regarding dowry demands and cruelty — State argues sufficient evidence exists to trigger presumption under Section 113-B, Evidence Act. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Prosecution failed to prove specific instances of cruelty or harassment soon before death; material contradictions and omissions in witness testimonies render evidence unreliable. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
4. Presumption under Section 113-B, Evidence Act, requires prosecution to first establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before death. (Para 8 )
5. Convictions and sentences quashed — Appellant acquitted of all charges. (Para 18 , 19 )
6. What are the essential ingredients to establish a dowry death under Section 304-B, IPC?
Death must occur within seven years of marriage under abnormal circumstances, and it must be shown that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives soon before her death in connection with a dowry demand. (Para 6 )
7. When does the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act apply in dowry death cases?
The presumption applies only when the prosecution establishes that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry soon before her death. (Para 8 )
8. How does the court treat significant omissions in witness statements recorded by police?
Significant and relevant omissions in police statements, when compared to court testimony, amount to contradictions under the explanation to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (Para 10 , 16 )
9. Does a general allegation of dowry demand suffice for conviction under Section 304-B, IPC?
No; the prosecution must prove specific acts of cruelty or harassment linked to the dowry demand occurring soon before the death to satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 304-B. (Para 14 , 16 , 17 )
JUDGMENT
ABHAY S OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The appellant and his parents were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’). While his parents were acquitted, the Sessions Court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. For the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. By impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence.
2. Appellant married to deceased Asha Rani on 25th June 1996. On 2nd April 1998, the deceased committed suicide. After the postmortem, the doctors opined that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. There were three main witnesses. PW-6 - Inder Kala (the mother of the deceased), PW-7 - Parvinder Kumar (brother of the deceased) and PW-8 - Ram Singh (maternal uncle of the deceased). Both the Courts have believed the testimony of PW-6 and PW-7.
SUBMISSIONS
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the notes of evidence of material prosecution witnesses. He submitted that all the allegations made by the witnesses regarding the demand of dowry are omissions. Therefore, there is no legal evidence to show that the appellant demanded dowry. Moreover, there is no evidence that the appellant subjected the deceased to cruelty. Learned counsel relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 454 and submitted that there is no evidence to show that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant for or in connection with demand for dowry. He would, therefore, submit that in the absence of legal evidence against the appellant, the Courts ought to have acquitted him.
4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there is more than sufficient evidence on record in the form of evidence of PW-6 and PW-7 to establish the demand for dowry. In fact, nine to ten days before the incident, the deceased had met PW-6 and PW-7 and stated about the demand of Rs.60,000/- by the appellant for purchasing a jeep. The appellant himself made the said demand to the witnesses. Learned counsel submitted that presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, 'the Evidence Act’) will apply in this case and the Court will have to presume that the appellant has caused the dowry death of his wife.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
5. Sections 498-A and 304-B read thus:
“498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.— Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,
“cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”
“304-B. Dowry death.— (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband
