2006 (11) TMI 679 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction u/s 304B and 498A IPC.
2. Demand for dowry and harassment.
3. Defence of illicit relationship and panchayat interventions.
4. Rebuttal of presumption u/s 113B IPC.

Summary:

1. Conviction u/s 304B and 498A IPC:
The Appellant was convicted by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana for offences u/s 304B and 498A IPC, with sentences of seven years and two years of rigorous imprisonment respectively, to run concurrently.

2. Demand for Dowry and Harassment:
The prosecution alleged that the deceased was harassed and maltreated by the Appellant and his family for not bringing sufficient dowry. Specific demands included a color television, a refrigerator, and Rs. 10,000. The deceased's brother, PW-4, and father, PW-5, testified to these demands and the consequent harassment.

3. Defence of Illicit Relationship and Panchayat Interventions:
The Appellant's defence was that the deceased had an illicit relationship with her brother-in-law, Balwant Rai. This led to objections from the Appellant and his family, resulting in panchayat meetings advising the deceased to cease visiting Balwant Rai. The Appellant claimed that the deceased's insistence on visiting Balwant Rai led to quarrels, and she consumed poison following one such quarrel.

4. Rebuttal of Presumption u/s 113B IPC:
The Court noted that u/s 304B IPC, the prosecution must establish that the death occurred under abnormal circumstances within seven years of marriage and was preceded by cruelty or harassment related to dowry demands. If established, a presumption u/s 113B IPC arises, which the accused can rebut. The Appellant's defence, supported by DW-2 Mohinder Singh, Sarpanch, suggested that the deceased's death was due to her illicit relationship and subsequent quarrels, not dowry demands. The Court found this defence probable, noting the lack of direct evidence of poisoning by the Appellant and the High Court's failure to consider the defence adequately.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found the Appellant's defence probable and sufficient to rebut the presumption against him. Given the principle that if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused should be preferred, the appeal was allowed. The Appellant was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released unless required in another case.