The Supreme Court Interpreted Section304 IPC And Issued Various Guidelines For Dowry Death Cases

Facts

• The accused contended that the prosecution failed to prove that there was a demand for dowry, and even if there was, that the demand was made proximate to the death of the deceased victim.
• This prompted the court to investigate the interpretation of Section 304B, IPC, which relates to the words "soon before."

Court’s observation

• The court stated that if the prosecution can demonstrate that "shortly before her death, such woman was exposed to cruelty or harassment by such person for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry," a presumption of causation emerges against the accused under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. Following that, the accused must refute the statutory presumption, according to the ruling.
• The Supreme Court stated that the expression "soon before" in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be interpreted to indicate "immediate before."
• The prosecution must demonstrate a "proximate and living relation" between the dowry death and abuse or harassment for dowry demand by the husband or his relatives, according to the bench.
• The court further pointed out that Section 304B of the IPC does not categories death as homicidal, suicide, or accidental.

Guidelines issued by the Court

• The prosecution must first prove the existence of the elements required to constitute an offense under Section 304B of the IPC. Once these conditions are met, the rebuttable presumption of causality, as stated in Section 113B of the Evidence Act, operates against the accused.
• The phrase "soon before," as used in Section 304B of the IPC, cannot be interpreted to indicate "immediately before." The prosecution must show a "proximate and live link" between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the spouse or his kin.
• In defining death as homicidal, suicidal, or accidental, Section 304¬B of the IPC does not employ a pigeonhole approach. The reason for this lack of categorization is because death that occurs "other than under normal circumstances" can be violent, suicidal, or accidental in some cases.
• Due to the precarious character of Section 304B, IPC read with 113B, Evidence Act, judges, prosecutors, and defense should exercise caution during the trial.
• The Court must provide the accused with incriminating circumstances and seek his response
• Once the Trial Court determines that the accused is ineligible for acquittal under Section 232 of the CrPC, it must proceed and schedule hearings particularly for 'defense evidence.'

What do you think about the interpretation given by the court? Do comment in the comment section below!

Read- Dowry prohibition legislation in India