2014 (12) TMI 1375 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - dowry demands - death within four months of marriage - offences punishable Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code Section 304B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and Section 201 of Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT - Since the victim in the case is a married woman and the death being within seven years of marriage apparently the court has gone only on one tangent to treat the same as a dowry death. No doubt the death is in unnatural circumstances but if there are definite indications of the death being homicide the first approach of the prosecution and the court should be to find out as to who caused that murder. Section 304B of Indian Penal Code is not a substitute for Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The genesis of Section 304B of Indian Penal Code introduced w.e.f. 19.11.1986 as per Act 43 of 1986 relates back to the 91st Report of the Law Commission of India - However it is generally seen that in cases where a married woman dies within seven years of marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances no inquiry is usually conducted to see whether there is evidence direct or circumstantial as to whether the offence falls Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Sometimes Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is put as an alternate charge. In cases where there is evidence direct or circumstantial to show that the offence falls Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code the trial court should frame the charge Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code even if the police has not expressed any opinion in that regard in the report Under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Section 304B of Indian Penal Code can be put as an alternate charge if the trial court so feels. In the instant case the prosecution has not made any attempt to explain the ante-mortem injuries which conclusively point to the cause of death as asphyxia caused by strangulation. Yet no serious attempt it is disturbing to note was done to connect the murder to its author(s). Now the question as to why the High Court having entered a conclusion that it is a case of murder at the hands of the Appellants yet chose to convict them only Under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code. As we have already indicated it could have been a case for the High Court or for that matter this Court for issuing notice for enhancement of punishment to those against whom there is evidence to connect them with the murder. The incident being of 1991 the prosecution having not chosen to link all the circumstances in a chain with no missing links to reach the irresistible and conclusive finding on involvement of the accused the High Court would have thought it more prudent to convict the accused only Under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code. No doubt in such a case the High Court should not have entered a categoric finding on murder since once the court enters such a finding the punishment can only be Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Having regard to the circumstances which we have referred to above we are of the view that though this case could have been dealt with Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code at this distance of time and in view of the lack of evidence on the chain of circumstances it will not be proper for this Court to proceed Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for enhancement of punishment. Now the last question as to whether the case should be remitted back to the High Court for the purpose of Section 235 of Code of Criminal Procedure we are of the view that in the present case it is not necessary. The conviction is Under Section 304B Indian Penal Code. The mandatory minimum punishment is seven years. of course there is no such minimum punishment Under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code or Section 201 of Indian Penal Code. Since the sentence in respect of offence Under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code for two years rigorous imprisonment and one year Under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code are to run concurrently no prejudice whatsoever is caused to the two Appellants. Therefore this is not a fit case for following the procedure Under Section 235 of Code of Criminal Procedure by this Court or for remand in that regard to the High Court. The conviction and sentence against the third and fourth accused/Appellants Rakesh Singh and Gyan Chandra respectively are set aside. The conviction and sentence as against first and second Appellants Vijay Pal Singh and Narendra Singh respectively Under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and Section 201 of Indian Penal Code are upheld - Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Acquittal by the Sessions Court.
2. Conviction by the High Court under Sections 304B, 498A, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. Identification of the deceased.
4. Evidence of dowry demands and harassment.
5. Applicability of Section 302 IPC.
6. Rebuttal of presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.
7. Involvement of the younger brother and brother-in-law of the husband.
8. Remand for compliance with Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Acquittal by the Sessions Court:
The Sessions Court acquitted the accused on two main grounds: (i) the dead body was not in an identifiable condition, and (ii) there was no evidence of cruelty or harassment for dowry.

2. Conviction by the High Court:
The High Court reversed the acquittal, convicting the accused under Sections 304B read with Section 34 IPC, Section 498A IPC, and Section 201 IPC. The High Court concluded that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the deceased had died due to asphyxia caused by strangulation and that the accused had attempted to destroy evidence by burning the body.

3. Identification of the Deceased:
The trial court questioned the identification of the deceased. However, the High Court found that the father of the deceased, PW-1, had identified the body based on half-burnt clothes and jewelry. The court noted that the face of the dead body was identifiable by those who knew the deceased.

4. Evidence of Dowry Demands and Harassment:
The prosecution presented evidence from PW-1 (father of the deceased), PW-5 (a local medical practitioner), and PW-6 (Gram Pradhan), who testified about the dowry demands and threats made by the accused. The evidence showed that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty related to dowry demands.

5. Applicability of Section 302 IPC:
The High Court noted that the case involved murder, but chose not to convict under Section 302 IPC, focusing instead on dowry death under Section 304B IPC. The court discussed that Section 304B IPC is not a substitute for Section 302 IPC and that the primary inquiry should be to determine who caused the murder.

6. Rebuttal of Presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act:
The court explained that once the ingredients of Section 304B IPC are established, a presumption arises under Section 113B of the Evidence Act that the husband or his relatives caused the death. The court found no evidence to rebut this presumption in the present case.

7. Involvement of the Younger Brother and Brother-in-law of the Husband:
The court found insufficient evidence to convict the younger brother (Rakesh Singh) and brother-in-law (Gyan Chandra) of the husband. Independent witnesses did not recognize them as involved in the dowry demands or harassment, leading to their acquittal.

8. Remand for Compliance with Section 235 of the CrPC:
The court considered whether the case should be remitted back to the High Court for compliance with Section 235 CrPC. The court concluded that it was unnecessary, as the mandatory minimum punishment for Section 304B IPC is seven years, and the sentences for Sections 498A and 201 IPC were to run concurrently, causing no prejudice to the appellants.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the first and second appellants (Vijay Pal Singh and Narendra Singh) under Sections 304B read with Section 34 IPC, Section 498A IPC, and Section 201 IPC. The court set aside the conviction and sentence of the third and fourth appellants (Rakesh Singh and Gyan Chandra), finding insufficient evidence against them. The appeal was thus partly allowed.