1. Unnatural death of a woman within seven years of marriage — Allegations of harassment and dowry demands — Conviction under Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 849
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Virender Pal @ Vipin – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
Decided On : 15-05-2025
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Dowry death - Husband is under a greater obligation, both moral as well as legal, to ensure well-being of his wife.
Dowry death - Husband is under a greater obligation, both moral as well as legal, to ensure well-being of his wife.
Subject
Criminal Law - Dowry Death
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304-B - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 113-B - Dowry death - Conviction and sentence - Flimsy defence taken by accused-appellant is not tenable and version of prosecution witnesses that Panchayat was held to discuss issues of demand of dowry and maltreatment being meted out to deceased is the only acceptable theory - It is well established from evidence available on record that deceased died under circumstances other than natural - Accused has taken alternative defences for explaining death of Punita - Two defences are totally divergent - Explanation offered by defence that deceased fell down from terrace and received injuries or that she committed suicide by jumping off from terrace is totally a figment of imagination unsubstantiated by evidence on record - There is sufficient evidence on record to show that deceased was continuously harassed even before her death in her matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry and money - All ingredients required to prove offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC against accused-appellant are made out from evidence available on record - Appellant, being husband of deceased, was under greater obligation, both moral as well as legal, to ensure well-being of his wife, but he failed to do so - He was primarily responsible for demands of money being made from deceased and her family members - Conviction and sentence affirmed. (Paras 21, 28, 29, 31, 38, 39 and 41)
Facts of the case:
Appellant had assailed judgment and order of sentence dated 26th May, 2011 and 28th May, 2011, rendered by Sessions Judge, Panipat, convicting accused-appellant for offence punishable under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Appeal was dismissed by High Court.
Findings of Court:
Court not inclined to interfere with conviction of accused-appellant as recorded by Trial Court and later affirmed by High Court.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Judgement Key Points
This case highlights the ongoing social issue of dowry harassment and violence against women within Hindu marriages, emphasizing the need for legal safeguards to protect women’s rights. It illustrates how societal norms and cultural practices, such as dowry demands, contribute to cruelty and tragedy in marital relationships. Legally, the case underscores the importance of strict enforcement of laws against dowry-related crimes and the moral responsibilities of spouses to prevent harm. Socially, it reflects the deep-rooted challenges of balancing tradition with modern principles of gender justice, emphasizing the role of law in promoting safe, respectful, and equitable marital life (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shree Prakash Sinha, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Anand Kumar, Adv. Mr. Nawalendra Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shwetam, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Ms. Kanika, Adv. Mr. Makrand Pratap Singh, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shree Prakash Sinha, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Anand Kumar, Adv. Mr. Nawalendra Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shwetam, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Ms. Kanika, Adv. Mr. Makrand Pratap Singh, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether demands for employment funds constitute dowry — Whether medical depression caused suicide — Whether prosecution proved harassment soon before death. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. Rejection of contradictory defense theories — Validation of employment-related money demands as dowry harassment — Application of presumption under Section 113-B, Evidence Act. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 )
4. Presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B, Evidence Act, arises upon proof of unnatural death within seven years of marriage and dowry-related harassment soon before death. (Para 10 , 39 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Conviction and sentence under Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code, upheld. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 )
6. Can a medical officer's evidence be received on affidavit in a criminal trial?
Under Section 296 CrPC, only evidence of a formal character may be received on affidavit. However, if the defense cross-examines the witness and raises no objection to the mode of recording, such an omission is considered a curable irregularity that does not prejudice the accused. (Para 25 , 26 )
7. Does a demand for money to secure employment for the husband constitute a dowry demand under Section 304-B IPC?
Yes, demands for money and valuable articles directly related to the marriage, including funds requested to secure employment for the husband, are treated as dowry demands if they lead to harassment of the woman. (Para 9 , 16 , 30 , 38 )
8. What are the conditions for invoking the presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act?
The presumption is invoked if it is proved that a woman met with an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage and was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands soon before her death. (Para 10 , 11 , 39 )
9. How can an accused rebut the presumption of dowry death under the Evidence Act?
The accused must provide a satisfactory explanation or evidence to disprove that the death was unnatural or that it was related to dowry demands. Contradictory, flimsy, or unsubstantiated defense theories are insufficient to rebut the presumption. (Para 9 , 10 , 28 , 32 , 34 )
JUDGMENT
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. The appellant [Hereinafter, being referred to as “accused-appellant”], through this appeal by special leave, seeks to assail the judgment dated 15th May, 2014, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh [Hereinafter, being referred to as “High Court”], whereby it dismissed Criminal Appeal No. S-2212-SB of 2011 [Hereinafter, being referred to as “criminal appeal”] preferred by the appellant. The appellant, in the said appeal, had assailed the judgment and order of sentence dated 26th May, 2011 and 28th May, 2011, rendered by the Sessions Judge, Panipat [Hereinafter, being referred to as “trial Court”], convicting the accused- appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Hereinafter, being referred to as “IPC”] and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the present appeal are noted hereinbelow.
4. Shri Balraj Singh (PW1-Complainant) [Hereinafter, referred to as “complainant”] lodged a complaint on 1st June, 2009, at the Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat, alleging inter alia that the accused-appellant and his daughter, Punita alias Gayatri [Hereinafter, being referred to as “deceased-Punita”], got married on 28th February, 2008 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. At the time of their marriage, the complainant had given dowry to the accused-appellant and his family beyond his capacity. However, the accused-appellant, along with his mother, father, brother, and uncle, remained dissatisfied with the dowry and started subjecting deceased-Punita to harassment, taunts, and physical abuse soon after the marriage. The complainant further alleged that during her visits to the parental home, his daughter informed him, his wife Rajwati Devi, and his son Pramod Kumar (PW-2) about the ill-treatment meted out by her in-laws, who repeatedly taunted her for bringing insufficient dowry and coming from a poor family. Consequently, the complainant, along with his brother-in-law, Puran Singh and his nephew Jitender Pal (PW-10), visited the matrimonial home of the deceased during which the accused-appellant, his father and his uncle, Sukhbir allegedly demanded Rs.5 lakhs to secure a job for the accused-appellant. The complainant assured them of making arrangements and later sent his daughter back to her matrimonial home after giving her a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Despite this, the accused-appellant and his family members did not relent from subjecting deceased-Punita to cruelty. On 1st June, 2009, at approximately 07:45 am, the deceased-Punita telephonically informed her brother Satender Kumar (PW-3) that on the previous night, her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother- in-law, and uncle-in-law had assaulted her, and she requested him to come down to her matrimonial home immediately, apprehending impending danger to her life. At about 08:00 am, the complainant received a call from the accused-appellant informing him that his daughter had died. Upon reaching Panipat, the maternal family members of deceased- Punita learnt that she had jumped down from the roof of the house and ended her life due to persistent harassment and demands of dowry meted out to her by the matrimonial family.
5. Based on this complaint, an FIR, bearing No. 335 of 2009, came to be registered at the Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat, against the accused- appellant and his family members8 [Harinder Kumar @ Billu (Brother of the appellant), Rajeshwar Dayal (Father of the appellant), Brajesh Rani (Mother of the appellant) and Sukhbir Singh (Uncle of the appellant)] for the offences punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC and subsequently, the investigation commenced. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellant, his father and mother for the offences punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC. However, the police did not fin
