Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 9827
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Manoj Misra, J
Shoor Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.249/2013
Petitioner's Advocate: A. P. MOHANTY
Respondent's Advocate: AKSHAT KUMAR
For the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act to apply, the prosecution must first prove all essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304-B IPC, including cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands, beyond reasonable doubt, through reliable evidence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304-B and 498-A - Dowry Death - Cruelty - Essential ingredients - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - Presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act only arises when essential ingredients are proved - Mere admissibility of hearsay statement regarding dowry demand is not synonymous with reliability - In the absence of proof of demand for dowry soon before death, conviction cannot be sustained.
(B) Evidence - Hearsay Evidence - Admissibility vs. Reliability - Although statement regarding circumstances of transaction leading to death is admissible under Section 32(1), Court must evaluate its truthfulness against surrounding circumstances - Contradictory behavior of witnesses casting doubt on alleged persistent dowry demands renders evidence unreliable. (Paras 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
Appellants, parents-in-law, were convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC regarding the death of their daughter-in-law due to burn injuries. The prosecution alleged harassment based on demands for a motorcycle and cash made around the child naming ceremony. The defense argued the death was a suicide due to personal depression, noting the absence of any prior police complaints or direct evidence of dowry demands tied to the marriage.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that while the death occurred otherwise than under normal conditions within seven years of marriage, the specific ingredient of cruelty or harassment in connection with a dowry demand soon before death was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence provided by the deceased's parents was inconsistent and their failure to report the incidents earlier created doubt.
Issues: Whether the ingredients required for an offence under Section 304-B IPC were met and whether the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act was applicable.
Ratio Decidendi: To invoke the presumption under Section 113-B, the prosecution must first independently establish all essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Hearsay evidence, while admissible as a circumstance of the transaction under Section 32(1), must pass the test of reliability and consistency with surrounding circumstances. Because the prosecution failed to prove an existing dowry demand connected to the marriage and because the witnesses' testimonies were deemed inconsistent, the conviction could not stand.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of trial court findings and evidentiary background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. appellate contentions regarding dowry demands and suicidal reasons. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. statutory ingredients for dowry death and the burden of proof for the section 113-b presumption. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. distinction between admissibility and reliability of evidence in marital death cases. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. final outcome and reversal of conviction. (Para 19 , 20) |
J U D G M E N T
1. This appeal is against the judgment and order of the High Court, (The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital) dated 26.04.2012, whereby, while affirming the conviction of the appellants under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, (Indian Penal Code, 1860), the appeal, (Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2010) of the appellants was partly allowed thereby reducing the sentence awarded by the Trial Court, (Sessions Judge, Pauri Gharwal) from 10 years to 7 years R.I. under Section 304-B IPC and maintaining the sentence of 1 year R.I. under Section 498-A IPC.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The appellants are father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively, of the deceased (Neelam), who was daughter of Shanker Singh (PW-1) and Sarojini Devi (PW-2). The deceased was married to appellants’ son Jitendra Singh (co-accused) on 1.03.2006. On 30.12.2006, deceased gave birth to a male child. Naming ceremony of the child was performed on 11.01.2007. On 17.01.2007, deceased died at her matrimonial home due to extensive burn injuries. Upon being informed of her death, PW-1 lodged a first information report, (FIR) (Ex. Ka-1) on the same day, inter alia, alleging that,-when he along with PW-2 had visited deceased’s matrimonial home on 4.1.2007, deceased’s father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (i.e., husband’s elder brother – not tried) and sister-in-law (husband’s elder brother’s wife – not tried) had told PW-1 and PW-2 that on the day of naming ceremony of the child they would have to give a motor-cycle and cash of Rs.50,000/-. Besides that, it was alleged that when PW-1 and PW-2 visited deceased’s matrimonial home on 11.01.2007, the deceased inquired from PW-1 and PW-2 whether they had brought motorcycle and cash. However, when PW-1 expressed his inability to meet the demand, the deceased told PW-1 that lot of pressure was being put on her and if the demand is not met, she would be killed. With these allegations, and by stating that accused had killed his daughter on account of the demand being not met, PW-1 lodged the FIR, which was registered as case crime No.1 of 2007 at P.S. Langur Walla 2, district Pauri Garhwal, under Sections 3 04-B , 498-A IPC and Sections 3 / 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against three accused, namely, Jitendra Singh (husband of the deceased) and the appellants, who were all tried together by the Court of Session, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No.25 of 2007.
3. During trial, prosecution examined 7 witnesses. PW-1 (the first informant – father of the deceased); PW-2 (mother of the deceased); and PW-3 (uncle of the deceased) were family members of the deceased who proved the date of marriage and alleged that the deceased was depressed on account of the demand. PW-4 was the doctor who conducted autopsy of the cadaver. He proved that the deceased had suffered extensive ante-mortem burn injuries which resulted in her death. PW-5 is cousin of the deceased who had arrived at the spot along with PW-1 on receipt of information regarding her death. He is also the inquest witness. PW-6 is the Patwari who made GD entry of the FIR and took initial steps of investigation such as preparation of inquest report and dispatch of the cadaver for autopsy. PW-7 completed the investigation and submitted charge-sheet. PW-7, inter alia, stated that at the time of inquest the body of the deceased was lying in the courtyard.
4. In their statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) the accused admitted:
(a) the factum
