Case title:
Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhand
Date of Order:
April 20, 2023
Bench:
Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal
Parties:
Appellant: Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh
Respondent: The State of Uttarakhand
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
The appellant’s conviction is under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code,1860 raising presumption regarding dowry death within seven years of marriage.
To appreciate the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, a perusal of Section 304B and 498A IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act would be required.
The same are extracted hereinbelow:-
“304B. Dowry death .—
(1) Where any burns or bodily injury causes the death of a woman or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. 498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty — Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means —
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
113B. Presumption as to dowry death. — When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)”.
OVERVIEW:
- In the year 1993, the appellant and the deceased were legally wed. She passed away on 22.6.1995. On 24.6.1995, the deceased’s father filed a complaint against Charan Singh, the appellant here, his brother-in-law Gurmeet Singh, and his mother-in-law Santo Kaur.
- Brother-in-law Gurmeet Singh and mother-in-law Santo Kaur were, however, freed after an appeal by the defendants before the High Court, although the appellant's conviction was upheld.
- The punishment imposed on the appellant following with Section 304B of the IPC was decreased from ten years of hard labor to seven years of hard labor.
- The sentences of two years in solitary confinement with hard labor imposed in accordance with Sections 498A and 201 of the IPC were upheld.
ISSUES RAISED:
Whether the presumption can be raised against the appellant relieving the prosecution from proving its case and putting the onus on the accused/appellant.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT:
- Due to the absence of the attorney who filed the appeal, learned counsel was asked to serve as an amicus curiae and made the argument that the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be upheld lawfully under either Sections 304B or 498A IPC.
- The deceased required to have experienced cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry shortly before death in order to raise the presumption under Section 304B IPC.
- According to Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the dowry death presumption can only be increased if it can be proven that the lady was cruelly treated or harassed because of or in connection with the demand for dowry shortly before she passed away.
- However, the appellant's ten-year term of hard imprisonment under Section 304B IPC was reduced to seven years. The High Court's aforementioned decision is the one that is being contested in this appeal.
- On the other hand, knowledgeable counsel for the State argued that the case involved the murder of a young woman by her in-laws out of dowry lust.
- The death was unnatural, and the marriage had only been together for two years. The dead weren’t even allowed to tell her parents before being cremated.
- The broken tooth and injury marks on the deceased's body were visible to the maternal grandmother and the two uncles who were present during the cremation.
- They were threatened, so they were unable to file the complaint. The onus is squarely on the appellant to overturn the assumption because the death happened in the marital residence.
- There is enough evidence in the form of witness testimony provided by the prosecution to prove that the appellant repeatedly demanded dowry. The decision of the High Court is error-free.
- The High Court already demonstrated enough leniency when it reduced the appellant's sentence from 10 years to a minimum of seven years as required by Section 304B of the IPC.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:
- Jagir Singh, a crucial witness mentioned by the complainant in the FIR, was also alleged to have been absent from the prosecution's case.
- He is the individual who the complaint claims is a local of the village of Bhogpur Dam, where the dead used to reside in her matrimonial home. He had told the complainant that his daughter had passed away.
- Why did the prosecution withhold this crucial witness? According to the I.O. Babban Singh, who testified as PW-6, Jagir Singh's statement was recorded throughout the investigation. No presumption of dowry death can be raised once the requirements of Sections 304B, 498A IPC, and Section 113B of IEA have not been met.
- The claims against the appellant, his brother, and mother were further said to be identical.
- However, the State has not filed an appeal against the conviction of his mother and brother, and the appellant's wife's death was not an unexpected event given that she was having fits at the time.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:
- In the case of Baijnath (supra), the interpretation of Sections 304B and 498A IPC was under discussion. It was believed that the common element of both offenses was the cruelty or harassment of the woman by her husband or a member of his family in exchange for or in connection with any demand for any property or valuable security as a demand for dowry.
- Both the defense and the prosecution cross-examined witnesses. The Trial Court found Charan Singh (appellant), Gurmeet Singh, and Santo Kaur guilty under Sections 304B, 498A, and 201 IPC. It sentenced them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304B IPC, two years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A IPC, and two years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 IPC.
- In an appeal brought by the defendants before the High Court, the appellant's conviction was upheld. Still, Gurmeet Singh's (the appellant's brother-in-law) and Santo Kaur's (the appellant's mother-in-law) conviction and punishment under Sections 304B, 498A, and 201 IPC were overturned.
- However, the appellant's ten-year term of hard imprisonment under Section 304B IPC was reduced to seven years. The High Court's aforementioned decision is the one that is being contested in this appeal.
- No case for conviction under Sections 304B or 498A of the IPC can be brought out based on the prosecution's evidence, as none of the witnesses have indicated that the deceased was subjected to any harassment, cruelty, or dowry demand just moments before she passed away.
- The deceased passed away on February 22, 1995, and the marriage took place in 1993.
- None of the dead's relatives, including her father, maternal grandmother, or maternal uncle, have spoken out about the dowry-related harassment the deceased experienced right before her passing. In actuality, the maternal grandmother and two distant maternal uncles were present.
- They didn't bring up any problems by calling the police or in any other way. In reality, the deceased's maternal grandmother and uncles revealed that they had gathered all the dowry items after the cremation with the panchayat’s help.
- Additionally, it was claimed that notice was also sent to the deceased's father, who in reality lived nearly 290 kilometers away.However, because of the need to wait for the deceased's father to arrive, the cremation could not be postponed.
- In the case of Baijnath (supra), the interpretation of Sections 304B and 498A IPC was under discussion. The opinion was encapsulated in paragraphs 25 to 27 of that document, which are excerpted below:-
- " Whereas the elements of the crime of dowry death as defined by Section 304-B of the Code are:
- (i)The death of the woman concerned occurs within seven years of her marriage;
- (ii) she dies as a result of any bodily injury or burns; and
- (iii) she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
- If she experiences cruelty, her husband or a relative is implicated in the crime listed in Section 498-A of the Code.
- The Explanation to this Section defines "cruelty" as: (i) any wilful conduct that is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health (whether mental or physical); or (ii) harassment of the woman when such harassment is intended to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is as a result of her or any person related to her failing to comply with such.
- The definition of "dowry" as stated in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 is mandated. According to the explanation, the term "cruelty" encompasses both the actions of the tormentor and the effects on the woman who is being subjected to them.
- However, the core of the two offenses, to underline, is cruelty or harassment committed by the spouse or any of his relatives in response to or in connection with any dowry demand.
- The aforementioned ruling examined a joint reading of Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act with reference to the presumption established.
- The deceased's passing occurred on 22.6.1995. The same day, she was cremated. The appellant claimed that the deceased's parents, who lived around 290 kilometers distant, were informed.
- They were unable to arrive in time, though. Additionally, it was said that the deceased's maternal grandmother and two maternal uncles, who were residing about a furlong away from her marital home when she passed away, were present when she was cremated.
- They didn't bring up any problems and kept the cops in the dark. They had only taken all of the dowry items thanks to the panchayat's involvement.
CONCLUSION:
- According to Pratap Singh (PW-1), the deceased's father, in his testimony, his daughter visited the family home two months after the wedding and claimed the appellant was demanding a motorcycle; however, she was sent away.
- After that, she returned and informed him that the appellant was pressing for a motorcycle. In addition to motorcycles, land was also desired.
- Nothing in the statement suggests that a demand of this nature was made just prior to the death because the instances requested to be brought up are rather old.
- He acknowledged during his cross-examination that his mother-in-law and two in-laws were there during the funeral. They were, however, intimidated into not filing the lawsuit.
- The deceased's maternal uncle, Balbir Singh (PW-2), just indicated that the deceased's father provided a sufficient dowry at the time of the marriage.
- Later on, he learned that the appellant had made a demand for the motorcycle, nevertheless. He acknowledged during his cross-examination that he lived about a furlong away from the appellant's home.
- When the dead was married, no dowry was required. Despite the fact that he lived close to the deceased's matrimonial home, he denied that the dead ever mentioned the demand for dowry to him or any harassment that resulted from it not being paid.
- There is nothing to suggest that the deceased was treated cruelly or harassed by the appellant or his family members prior to the death, not even in the maternal grandmother's account. The demand is the only thing that is mentioned.
- Although this witness, who is the deceased's maternal grandmother, lived roughly a kilometer from her home, there are no details of any mistreatment or harassment.
- None of the witnesses in the aforementioned evidence presented by the prosecution spoke about the appellant or any of his family members abusing the deceased because they demanded dowry just before the death or for any other reason. Instead, no one has reported any instances of harassment.
- There are only a few verbal claims involving the demand for property and motorcycles, which were made far before than the incident.
- The aforementioned evidence presented by the prosecution does not meet the requirements of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code or Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act to invoke presumption.
- Due to the lack of proof of cruelty and harassment against the deceased, even the requirements of Section 498A IPC are not met.
- Supreme Court opined that the appellant’s conviction cannot be supported based on our collective evaluation of the prosecution's evidence, as the requirements to raise a presumption under Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act were not met.
- Under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, mere unnatural death of the deceased in the matrimonial house within seven years of marriage will not be enough to condemn the accused. There is no established cause of death per se.
- The appellant's conviction and punishment under Sections 304B, 498A, and 201 of the IPC cannot be upheld legally.
- Therefore, the appeal is granted. The High Court's contested decision is reversed. Bail bonds are still invalid.
