Back
Supreme Court
Honble DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.
Hari Lal & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi - Respondents
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2002
Decided On : July 25, 2003
Prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of the `death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances. The expression `soon before is very relevant where Sec. 113-B of the Evidence Act and Sec. 304-B IPC are pressed into service. Prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by prosecution. `Soon before is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no strait-Jacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Sec. 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression `soon before her death used in the substantive Sec. 304-B IPC and Sec. 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression ``soon before is not defined. A reference to expression `soon before used in Sec. 114. Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a Court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods `soon after the theft, is either the thief has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. The determination of the period which can come within the term `soon before is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression ``soon before would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live-link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough no to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. (Para 9)
The evidence of PWs. 1,5,10 and 11 shows that at the time of marriage there was no demand for dowry. But subsequently, the demands were made, and ill-treatments were meted out. the crucial question is whether they were soon before the death, PWs 10 and 11 stated that grievances were made before the crime against Women Cell and the authorities brought about reconciliation. It however was candidly admitted that there was no mention about any dowry aspect while the difference were ironed out. The settlement arrived at on 30.11.1998 was essentially for separate residence. Therefore, there is no definite evidence about ill - treatment to the deceased at any time having immediate proximity to the date of death of the deceased on 14.4.1999 about ill-treatment by the accused persons to attach culpability under Sec. 304-B IPC. Therefore, the basic requirement of cruelty or harassment soon before the death to bring application of Sec. 304-B is absent. (Para 10)
(2). With a view to curb the spiraling number of cases where demand for dowry leads to loss of life. Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986 brought about sweeping changes in the penal statutes, and Secs. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 1860 (in short the `IPC) and Sec. 113B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the `Evidence Act) came to be enforced.
(3). One Sarita (hereinafter referred to as `deceased) committed suicide by consuming poison on 14.4.1999. she was married to accused Surender on 26.11.1995. Other appellants Hiralal and Angoori Devi were her father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. Since the death was unnatural, information was lodged with Police and investigation was undertaken.
(4). Grievance was made by the family members of deceased that she was subject to torture for dowry and that led to her suicide. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was placed for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sec. 304-B and 498-A IPC. Trial was conducted by learned Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 11/1999 and the appellants were found guilty under Secs. 304-B and 498-A read with Sec. 34, IPC. they were sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each with default stipulation of SI for one year, and also one year RI with fine of Rs. 5,000/- with stipulation of SI for one month for the two substantive offence respectively. It is relevant to note that for substantiating the accusations twelve witnesses were examined. Bahadur Singh (PW.1), Sobha Rani (PW./5), Rati Ram (PW.10), Manju (PW .11), the father, brother, cousin brother and sister, respectively of the deceased spoke about the dowry demands. The testimony was accepted to be truthful and cogent by the trial Court.
(5). The matter was carried is appeal before the Delhi High Court. By the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge reduced the sentence to 3 years RI instead of 10 years RI in respect of accused-appellants hiralal and Angoori keeping in view their old age. The fine imposed was maintained but the default sentence was reduced to six months custodial sentence and fine for offence punishable under Sec. 498A were maintained. In case of appellant- Surender, the sentence was reduced to 7 years in respect of first offence while for the second offence the sentence was maintained.
(6). In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that ingredients of Sec. 304-B 498-A are not made out. There was not evidence regarding any dowry demand. On the contrary it was confirmed that at the time of marriage there was no demand for dowry. It is of relevance to note that while deceased was married to accused-Surender, her sister, Manju (PW.11) was married to Virender, elder brother of Surender. Both the marriage were solemnized on the same date. it has been accepted by the prosecution witness that there was no demand for valuable articles at any point subsequent to the marriage in case of Manju. If the demand was made for deceased as alleged, there is no reason as to why a departure was made in case of her sister. The evidence of relatives (PW.1, PW. 2, PW. 10 and PW. 11) does not inspire any confidence. Before the alleged suicide, there were difference between the deceased and her husband for which allegations were made with the Polic
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
