2015 (7) TMI 1409 - SC - Indian Laws

Demand of Dowry - suspected case of death caused due to poisoning - allegation of suicide, correct or not - Sections 304B, 498A Indian Penal Code and Under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - HELD THAT - In the case at hand, PW-1 was not confronted with his statement recorded by the police Under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure to prove the contradiction nor his statement marked for the purpose of contradiction was read out to the investigating officer. When neither PW-1 nor the investigating officer were confronted with the statement and questioned about it, PW-1's statement recorded Under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be looked into for any purpose much less to discredit the testimony of PW-1 and the prosecution version. PW-1 in his evidence clearly stated that one year before the marriage he had sold his land for Rs. 2,50,000/- and he has stated that he withdrew the money from the banks three-four months prior to marriage. PW-1 further stated that he withdrew Rs. 1,00,000/- from his G.P.F. account one year before the marriage and deposited the money in his Central Bank Account, D.B.S. College Branch and whenever he needed, he used to withdraw money from his account. In his evidence, PW-1 has clearly narrated about the details of money paid to the Appellants i.e. payment of amount of Rs. 11,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- was given on the occasion of 'Tika' ceremony', Rs. 50,000/- each paid on three different dates; fixed deposit amount of Rs. 63,000/- left in the account of Archana which was matured was also withdrawn and paid to the Appellants on 11.07.1997. Evidence of PW-1 regarding making payments to the Appellants is cogent and consistent and is amply strengthened by the bank statements. Non-mention of details of money paid to the Appellants and the demand of dowry and cruelty and harassment meted out to Archana in the statement of PW-1 does not affect the credibility of PW-1. As rightly observed by the High Court, it cannot be expected from a father to narrate everything when he himself was in agony due to death of his own daughter. So far as the suicide note is concerned, Archana is said to have stated that she is taking the step suicide because her mental condition is not good and that nobody should be held responsible for her act. It is pertinent to note that suicide note was not discovered during investigation but it was later produced by the Appellants. When PW-1 (father of Archana) was confronted with the suicide note, PW-1 denied it to be in the hand writing of Archana. Appellants have not taken steps to prove the suicide note to be in the hand writing of Archana. Even assuming the suicide note to be true, the fact remains that the death of Archana was unnatural. The contents of the suicide note does not affect consistent version of PW-1 and PW-2. Where the prosecution has shown that 'soon before her death' the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband or in-laws in connection with demand for dowry, the presumption Under Section 113B of Evidence Act arises and the Court shall presume that such person who had subjected the woman to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry shall be presumed to have caused the dowry death. The presumption that arises in such cases may be rebutted by the accused - Prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubts that 'soon before her death' Archana was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and her in-laws in connection with demand of dowry. The accused were not successful in rebutting the presumption raised Under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. Concurrent findings of the courts below convicting the Appellants Under Section 304B Indian Penal Code is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and convincing reasons. The courts below rightly convicted the Appellants Under Sections 304B and 498A Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act and in exercise of jurisdiction Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, we find no ground warranting interference with the conviction of the Appellants. Bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case and the occurrence was of the year 1997 and that the accused Rahul Mishra is in custody for more than five years, interest of justice would be met if life imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to imprisonment for a period of ten years. Appellants V.K. Mishra and Neelima Mishra, each of them have undergone imprisonment of more than one year. Appellants No. 1 and 2 are aged about seventy and sixty four years and are said to be suffering from various ailments. Considering their age and ailments and facts and circumstances of the case, life imprisonment imposed on Appellants V.K. Mishra and Neelima Mishra is also reduced to imprisonment of seven years each. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 304B IPC (Dowry Death)
2. Conviction under Section 498A IPC (Cruelty)
3. Conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
4. Evaluation of evidence and credibility of witnesses
5. Alleged lapses in investigation
6. Consideration of mitigating factors for sentencing

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 304B IPC (Dowry Death):
The court outlined the essential ingredients for Section 304B IPC: (i) death caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances, (ii) within seven years of marriage, (iii) subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband or his relatives, (iv) cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand, and (v) such cruelty or harassment occurred soon before her death. The court emphasized the need for a "proximate live link" between cruelty and death. The court found sufficient evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment related to dowry demands soon before her death, thus raising a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act that the accused caused the dowry death.

2. Conviction under Section 498A IPC (Cruelty):
The court upheld the conviction under Section 498A IPC, noting the consistent and credible testimony of the deceased's father (PW-1) and brother (PW-2) regarding the harassment and cruelty faced by the deceased due to dowry demands. The court dismissed the defense's argument that the allegations were an afterthought, highlighting that the father was in shock and grief at the time of lodging the FIR, which justified the lack of detailed mention of dowry demands initially.

3. Conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act:
The court confirmed the conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which penalize giving and taking dowry. The evidence of PW-1 regarding the payments made to the accused before and after the marriage was found credible and consistent, supported by bank statements.

4. Evaluation of Evidence and Credibility of Witnesses:
The court found the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 credible, despite minor inconsistencies and the initial lack of detailed mention of dowry demands in the FIR. The court noted that such discrepancies are natural given the circumstances and the mental state of the witnesses. The court rejected the defense's argument that the prosecution's case was based on hearsay and contradictions.

5. Alleged Lapses in Investigation:
The defense argued that the investigation was flawed, particularly regarding the suicide note and an inland letter allegedly written by a dejected lover. The court noted that these documents were produced belatedly by the defense and not during the investigation. The court found no merit in the argument that the investigation was biased or incomplete, emphasizing that any lapses in investigation do not necessarily discredit the prosecution's case if the core evidence is credible.

6. Consideration of Mitigating Factors for Sentencing:
The court considered the age and health of the appellants (V.K. Mishra and Neelima Mishra) and the fact that Rahul Mishra had already served over five years in custody. The court reduced the sentence of life imprisonment for Rahul Mishra to ten years and for V.K. Mishra and Neelima Mishra to seven years each, while upholding the convictions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the convictions under Sections 304B and 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, it modified the sentences, reducing the life imprisonment terms for the appellants to ten years for Rahul Mishra and seven years each for V.K. Mishra and Neelima Mishra. The judgment emphasized the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the sufficiency of evidence to support the convictions, despite alleged lapses in the investigation.