2015 (1) TMI 1467 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - dowry - Homicidal death - Chargeability and punishment - case of the prosecution is that two months prior to her death on one of her visits to her parental home the deceased informed her two brothers of cruelty connected with dowry demands meted out to her by her husband and his family members - HELD THAT - It is already empirically evident that the prosecution ubiquitously and in dereliction of duty in the case of an abnormal death if a young bride confines its charges to Section 304B because the obligation to provide proof becomes least burdensome for it; this is the significance that attaches to a deeming provision. But in any death other than in normal circumstances we see no justification for not citing either Section 302 or Section 306 as the circumstances of the case call for. Otherwise the death would logically fall in the category of an accidental one. It is not sufficient to include only Section 498A as the punishment is relatively light. Homicidal death is chargeable and punishable under Sections 302 and 304B if circumstances prevail triggering these provisions. Some doubts remain on the aspect of presumption of innocence deemed culpability and burden of proof - Even though there may not be any Constitutional protection to the concept of presumption of innocence this is so deeply ingrained in all Common Law legal systems so as to render it ineradicable even in India such that the departure or deviation from this presumption demands statutory sanction. This is what the trilogy of dowry legislation has endeavoured to ordain. The two prosecution witnesses on whom the entire episode is predicated are PW 4 and PW 7. The Complainant/PW 4-Angrez Singh appears to be the eldest in the family as he has stated that his brother i.e. the father of the deceased had already died. He has stated that sufficient kanyadan was given at the time of marriage; that two months prior to her death the deceased had on one of her visits to their home conveyed to her brothers that her husband and his family were harassing her for dowry especially a motorcycle and fridge - The Complainant has admitted that there were no demands for dowry either at the betrothal or at the time of marriage. Her maternal uncle Gurdip Singh avowedly fixed/mediated/arranged the unfortunate marriage yet he was not apprised of the dowry demands by Angrez Singh. He has also denied that any panchayat was convened regarding these dowry demands whereas Sukhwant Singh PW 7 the real brother of the deceased has categorically stated in cross-examination that a panchayat comprising both Angrez Singh and Gurdip Singh and several others had held deliberations. The fundamental and vital question that the Court has to ask itself and find a solid answer to is whether this evidence even preponderantly proves that the Appellant had treated the deceased with cruelty connected with dowry demands. It is only if the answer is in the affirmative will the Court have to weigh the evidence produced by the Appellant to discharge beyond reasonable doubt the assumption of his deemed guilt. We have not lost sight of the fact that the deceased was pregnant at the time of her suicide and that only extraordinary and overwhelming factors would have driven her to take her life along with that of her unborn child. The fact remains that she did so - Added to this are the inconsistencies and contradictions between the statements of PW 4 and PW 7 with regard to the panchayat and the presence of and knowledge of Gurdip Singh. It is for these reasons that we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not shown/presented and or proved even by preponderance of probabilities that the deceased had been treated with cruelty emanating from or founded on dowry demands. It is in the realm of a possibility that the ingestion of aluminium phosphate may have been accidental. In his examination under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure the accused has proffered details of his defence. This is not a case where he has merely denied all the questions put by the Court to him. As already stated above because of the insufficiency or the unsatisfactory nature of the facts or circumstances shown by the prosecution the burden of proving his innocence has not shifted to the Appellant in the present case - the impugned judgment convicting and punishing the Appellant is set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Interpretation of the term "shown" in Section 304B.
3. Presumption of innocence and burden of proof.
4. Delay in lodging the FIR.
5. Acquittal of co-accused and its implications on the appellant.
6. Evidence of cruelty and dowry demands.
7. Legislative intent and statutory interpretation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code:
The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 304B and 498A IPC, which was affirmed by the High Court. The marriage took place on 22.2.1997, and the deceased committed suicide on 7.2.1998. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty related to dowry demands for a motorcycle and fridge. The Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304B and three years under Section 498A, along with a fine.

2. Interpretation of the Term "Shown" in Section 304B:
The High Court interpreted that the prosecution must "prove" beyond reasonable doubt the participative role of the husband's relatives under Section 304B. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that the term "shown" should be construed as synonymous with "prove," meaning the prosecution must establish a dowry death by proving the elements listed in Section 304B, including cruelty or harassment related to dowry demands soon before the death.

3. Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof:
The Court discussed the presumption of innocence, stating that it is a deeply ingrained principle in Common Law systems. However, statutory provisions like Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act shift the burden of proof to the accused once the prosecution shows the occurrence of a dowry death. The Court held that the husband must disprove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt once the prosecution establishes the basic facts.

4. Delay in Lodging the FIR:
The FIR was lodged ten hours after the incident, which the appellant argued constituted an inordinate delay. The Court found no perversity in the concurrent views of the lower courts that the delay was justified given the circumstances, including the need to travel to another village and come to terms with the tragedy.

5. Acquittal of Co-accused and Its Implications on the Appellant:
The High Court acquitted the co-accused (brother-in-law and father-in-law) due to insufficient evidence of their involvement in the cruelty or dowry demands. The appellant argued that he should also be acquitted on the same grounds. The Court held that the appellant's case was distinct as he was not living with his parents and brother, requiring stronger proof to implicate family members.

6. Evidence of Cruelty and Dowry Demands:
The prosecution relied on testimonies of PW 4 (Complainant/uncle) and PW 7 (deceased's brother). PW 4 stated that the deceased mentioned dowry demands two months before her death. However, inconsistencies in their testimonies, such as the occurrence of a panchayat, weakened the prosecution's case. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove cruelty related to dowry demands beyond a preponderance of evidence.

7. Legislative Intent and Statutory Interpretation:
The Court analyzed the legislative intent behind the amendments to the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the need to combat dowry deaths and cruelty effectively. It reiterated that the prosecution must prove the elements of Section 304B to shift the burden of proof to the accused. The Court also highlighted the importance of interpreting statutory terms like "shown" and "deemed" to align with legislative intent and ensure justice.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of Section 304B IPC, including cruelty related to dowry demands, beyond a preponderance of evidence. The appellant was acquitted of all charges.