Brief Facts
- That Sunita, the daughter of Joga Singh, was married to Balwant Singh, son of Trilok Singh, and began residing at her matrimonial home in village. According to the prosecution, after the marriage, Sunita was subjected to harassment and cruelty by her husband and in-laws in connection with alleged demands for dowry, including a motorcycle and gold ornaments. It was claimed that due to these disputes, a panchayat was convened by her parental family, wherein assurances were allegedly given by the accused that Sunita would not be harassed further.
- On 10.05.1994, within about 14–15 months of her marriage, Sunita died at her matrimonial home under suspicious circumstances. The accused persons stated that she suffered a seizure due to pesticide exposure and died naturally, whereas the prosecution alleged that her death amounted to a dowry death.
- Subsequently FIR was registered, and after investigation, the accused—Trilok Singh, Darshan Singh and Balwant Singh—were charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A/34 and 304-B/34 IPC.
- During the trial, the prosecution examined several witnesses, including close relatives of the deceased. However, many material witnesses, including the mother of the deceased, turned hostile and denied any dowry demand or cruelty. Several witnesses deposed that Sunita was living peacefully in her matrimonial home and that her death occurred due to a seizure caused by pesticide exposure. Despite this the trial court convicted the accused by invoking the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
- Hence the present Appeal.
Issues
- In how many phases the demand of dowry may occur?
- Whether, in the absence of consistent, cogent and reliable evidence, the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act could validly be invoked against the accused?
- Whether mere allegations of dowry demand, without proof of proximate cruelty or harassment leading to death, are sufficient to attract offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC?
Held
- High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the sole surviving convict Balwant Singh as most of the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and the demand of dowry could not be proved. The observations of the Court are as under:
- A cursory yet purposeful examination of the statutory definition reveals that dowry is inextricably linked to the institution of marriage, and its demand or transfer may occur in three distinct phases: prior to, at the time of, or subsequent to the marriage, provided it is in connection with the marriage.
- In legal parlance, for any demand or transaction to qualify as “dowry,” there must be a discernible nexus with the solemnization of marriage, whereby such transfer of property or valuable security is a condition or consideration for the marriage taking place. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satvir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., AIR2001 SC 2828, laid down the tripartite test for invoking the presumption of guilt under Section 304-B IPC, namely:
(a) That the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment;
(b) That such cruelty or harassment was in connection with a demand for dowry; and
(c) That such cruelty or harassment occurred “soon before her death.
- It is only upon the successful establishment of these foundational facts that the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can be invoked against the accused.
- In the absence of any credible, cogent, and consistent evidence regarding cruelty qua dowry demand inflicted upon the deceased soon before her unnatural death, the mandatory legal requirements to attract Section 304-B IPC remain unfulfilled. The presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, therefore, cannot be pressed into service in the prosecution’s favour.
Relevant Para No.
- 12, 13, 14 and 16