Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 206
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. DEVADASS, J.
Dilli
Versus
State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Chennai
Crl.O.P. No. 3062 of 2015
Decided on: 10-02-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:R. Balachandran, Advocate.
For the Respondent:K. Prabakar, Advocate.
The judgment establishes the importance of proving dowry torture 'soon before her death' under Section 304-B of I.P.C. and the rarity of direct evidence in such cases.
Headnote:
Dowry Torture - Bail Petition - Section 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. - Section 2 to 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 113-B of Evidence Act, 1872
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, A-2, seeks bail in a case where she and her son are implicated under Section 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. for the suicide of her daughter-in-law. The court considers the circumstances leading to the suicide and the applicability of dowry torture laws.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that there is no strong evidence to show continuous dowry torture leading to the suicide, and grants bail to the petitioner based on the limited purpose of considering the existence of a prima facie case.
Issues: The main issue is whether there is sufficient evidence of dowry torture under Section 304-B of I.P.C. to deny bail to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the definition of dowry torture and the importance of proving 'soon before her death the victim should have been subjected to dowry torture' under Section 304-B of I.P.C. It also highlights the rarity of direct evidence in dowry torture cases and the inclusion of section 113-B in the Evidence Act, 1872.
Final Decision: Bail is granted to the petitioner with certain conditions.
1. Petition for bail.
2. Offences alleged under Section 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. in Cr. No. 1974/2014.
3. Petitioner is A-2.
4. Jansirani is daughter of defacto complainant Rebakkal. Jansirani and Arun Kumar are lovers. Ultimately, their marriage took place. After marriage, difference of opinion arose between them. No love last between them. They were separated. Jansi came to her mother's house. Within six months of their marriage, matrimonial discordance took place between them.
5. Subsequently, a lawyer's notice, dated 10.12.2013 was issued by Arun to Jansi. On 11.11.2014, in her father's office, Jansi committed suicide. In this connection, a case of suspicious death has been registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C.
6. In the course of investigation, section of law has been altered to Section 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C.
7. In this connection, Arun Kumar and his mother/petitioner/A-2 have been included in this case.
8. A-2 is in jail since 23.1.2015. Now, she seeks bail.
9. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Jansirani took a foolish decision. Petitioner and her son have been implicated as though she had committed suicide because of their dowry demand. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even as per the prosecution version, there is no prima facie case for an offence under section 304-B of I.P.C. as against the petitioner.
10. Learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that the spouses are separated. Earlier, a complaint has been given to All Women Police station. It was enquired into and the parties have decided to go before a competent Civil Court. Under these circumstances, Jansi committed suicide.
11. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused the case-diary.
12. Offence alleged is under section 304-B of I.P.C. It is a new type of offence. Originally, this offence is not in the Indian Penal Code. It is a deemed offence. Under certain circumstances if a married woman commits suicide, suffers unnatural death, within 7 years of her marriage, it will be deemed a dowry death under Section 304-B of I.P.C.
13. For an offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C. the most important aspect is that 'sooner before her death the victim should have been subjected to dowry torture'. The word torture is not defined in section 304-B of I.P.C. In such circumstances, 'dowry' as defined in Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act has to be referred to. Continued harassment, physical or mental, any wilful conduct either towards wife or her relatives with the sole aim of getting dowry is also one form of cruelty. The word 'soon need not be restricted to 'immediate past' nor a 'remote past' but it must refer to 'a reasonable prior period'
14 'Dowry' is a worst form of social evil. It is a motiveless crime against women and womanhood. The source of the crime is one's greediness. It is widely practiced only in India. It does not exist not even in Africa.
15. Dowry arises during three stages. 'Before', 'during' and 'after' the marriage. In this respect, Section 2 to 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 can be referred to. An avaricious married man's wish for his wife's side money, material cannot be limited by passage of time.
16. Once it is established by the prosecution that 'soon before her death the victim has been subjected to dowry torture', thereafter it is duty of the accused to show that he is not guilty. Since in dowry torture cases, direct evidence is very rare, as this type of matrimonial violence mostly took place within four walls of matrimonial home, the Evidence Act, 1872 has been amended and section 113-B has been included.
17. Thus, the established principle of criminal law that the offence alleged against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts has been diluted, tinkered with to some extent. In this way, there is partial departure of common law system of Anglo-Saxonic criminal jurisprudence and partial importation of the continental system of French Criminal into Indian
