Date of Judgement:
06th August 1998

Coram/judge:
The Hon’ble Justice G.T. Nanavati
The Hon’ble Justice S.P. Kurdukar

Parties to the Case:
Appellants- Prem Singh & Anr.
Respondents– State of Haryana;

Subject

The criminal appeal was filed by the appellants challenging the legality of the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana where by both the appellants were convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years, along with a fine.

Legal Provisions

• Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – it lays down punishment for dowry death.;

Overview

• The High Court had analysed the circumstances and the evidence on record and found that the order of by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat was unsustainable. The trial Court and the High Court differed in their conclusions as regards the guilt of the appellants.
• Sumitra was married to appellant no.1. Within a few days of marriage, Sumitra had complained that the appellants were ill-treating and harassing her on the ground of insufficient dowry.;
• Sumitra’s father met the appellants and pleaded that whatever he could give, he had given and any further demand would be beyond his means.
• The demand for money from the appellants continued even after a son was born to Sumitra. Mr. Tek Chand, a common friend, tried to mediate and asked Appellants to take back his wife and treat her properly. However, there was no change in the attitude of the appellants.
• On 3rd August, 1990 during night Sumitra suffered burn injuries in the house of her husband and then was moved to Civil Hospital. Her parents were informed about the injury.
• In the hospital, Sumitra told her parents that unless Rs. 5,000/- were paid to the appellants, they would not allow her to live peacefully.;
• Sumitra died in the hospital. On being asked about the reason for her death, none of the family members of the appellant could give an explanation.
• Sumitra’s father met ASI Ram Parkash and told him that death of Sumitra was caused by the appellants as he was unable to meet their demand of dowry. The complaint was forwarded to the appropriate police station. ASI Ram Parkash completed the investigation and the appellants were put up for trial before the Session Court for an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC.
• Appellant no.1 in his statement denied that he had ever demanded any money from the parents of Sumitra or ill-treated her physically or mentally and caused any harassment to her on the ground of insufficient dowry. As per his statement, on sustaining accidental burns, she was taken to the hospital and was given every possible medical treatment to save her. Sumitra’s death was either suicidal or accidental. She might had consumed poison due to which there was froth in her mouth. He pleaded that he was innocent and had been falsely charged.
• The defence of Appellant no.2 (mother of appellant no.1) was that she had been residing separately from his son. she had no clue as to how Sumitra sustained the burns and died. She never demanded any dowry.

Arguments Advanced by The Appellant;

• The defence examined Dr.Satyawati Sharma to show that the husband had taken her to Civil Hospital for treatment. A neighbour was examined by the defence to indicate that no ill-treatment was given to Sumitra. Dr.Sharda Arora was also examined by the defence to show that Shanti was admitted in her nursing home from 6th August, 1990 to 14th August, 1990.
• Learned counsel submitted that the evidence of expert Dr. R.N. Tehlam was inconclusive as he should have preserved the viscera and forwarded the same to the chemical analyses for an opinion to rule out the possibility of Sumitra having consumed a poisonous substance.
• Learned counsel contended that if Appellant had no love and affection for his wife, he would not have bothered to take Sumitra for treatment to Civil Hospital.;

Arguments Advanced by The Respondent

• The prosecution in support of its case and as regards the cause of death, relied upon the evidence of Dr. R.N. Tehlan and the post mortem report submitted by him. Reliance was also placed on various circumstances to show that the death of Sumitra was homicidal and not suicidal or accidental.

Issue

Whether the decision by Honourable High Court to overturn the Decision of Learned Trial Court was tenable in light of the present circumstances?;

Judgement Analysis

• The trial court had observed that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand of dowry beyond any reasonable doubt as none of the prosecution witnesses could consistently put forward the evidence as to what point of time such demands were made. In the light of the same, the cause of ill-treatment of harassment caused to Sumitra could not be accepted.
• It was also observed that Dr. R.N. Tehlan had failed to preserve the viscera and also failed to get the opinion of chemical analyzer to rule out the possibility of poisonous substance having been swallowed by Sumitra. It could not be held, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellants had caused the death of Sumitra.
• The High Court highlighted some of the features of the case and dealt with the prosecution evidence in detail and formed an opinion that the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court was contrary to the evidence on record and, therefore, legally unsustainable.
• The Apex Court observed that the judgment and order of conviction rendered by the High court suffered from no inconsistency with regard to appellant no.1.
• The prosecution had failed to bring on record any evidence to show that Appellant no.2 was present at the time of incident in question at the house of Appellant no.1.
• The witnesses failed to narrate any specific instance wherein Appellant no.2 had caused any ill-treatment or harassment to Sumitra on the issue of additional dowry. She was residing separately from her son and when there was no positive evidence on the record to show that either she was instigating her son to demand of additional amount of dowry and for that purpose telling him to cause ill-treatment or harassment to Sumitra. It would not be tenable to hold Appellant no.2 responsible for an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. Hence, she was acquitted.
• In the light of the evidence, the court had no doubt that Appellant no.1caused ill-treatment and harassment to Sumitra including beating on various occasions for not getting additional dowry. The High Court very carefully examined the evidence of all these witnesses. The Apex court observed that the findings recorded by the High Court on this behalf suffers from no infirmity. The High court had given very good reasons and pointed out as to how the findings recorded by the trial court were unsustainable.
• The cause of death, reported by Dr. R.N. Tehlam, was that Sumitra died due to Suffocation as a result of choking which was ante mortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Dr. Tehlan also found that there were reddish brown contusions all over the body.
• No explanation had been offered by Appellant no.1 as to how Sumitra sustained several abrasions and contusions on her body.
• The explanation given by him was that Sumitra swallowed some poisonous substance. It was far from truth and was rightly rejected by the High Court.;
• Submission of Learned counsel for the Appellant that any additional demand of dowry would not be covered by the definition of dowry under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was rejected. This argument completely overlooked the amended definition in section 2 of the act.
• The conviction of Appellant no.1 under Section 304-B IPC was upheld. The quantum of sentence was not interfered by the High Court. Hence the appeal was dismissed.;

Conclusion

The Honourable Apex Court construed the provision of the punishment for dowry death in light of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. On scrutiny of evidence on record it was found that the Learned trial Court erred in acquitting the Accused (the husband) and the decision of High Court to modify such decision was held as tenable.;

Learn practical aspects of IPC HERE

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement