Supreme Court of India
RAMAN KUMARversusSTATE OF PUNJAB
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 605
- Decided
- 24 April 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The conviction was set aside because the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of dowry death, particularly the "soon before" cruelty, and the High Court's judgment was unsatisfactory.
Summary
Raman Kumar was convicted by the High Court for dowry death under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC based on the death of his wife Suman Bala, who allegedly died from burns after being allegedly harassed for dowry. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had proved the essential ingredients of a dowry death, particularly the requirement that the cruelty or harassment occurred "soon before" the death, and whether the evidence, including dying declarations and statements not recorded under Section 161 CrPC, was reliable. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the "soon before" element and that the High Court’s judgment was sketchy and lacked reasoning. Consequently, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act could not be raised, and the conviction could not stand. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was released.
Issues considered
- The prosecution must prove the essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304B IPC and Section 113B Evidence Act, especially the "soon before" requirement.
- Whether statements and dying declarations not recorded under Section 161 CrPC are admissible and reliable for conviction.
- Whether the High Court correctly applied the presumption of law under Section 113B.
- Whether circumstantial evidence alone can sustain a conviction for dowry death.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961s. 2
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 113B
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 304B, s. 498A
Subjects
dowry deathSection 304B IPCSection 498A IPCSection 113B Evidence Actpresumption of lawsoon beforedying declarationevidence admissibilityconviction set aside
Judgment
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 933
RAMAN KUMAR A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 828 of 2009)
APRIL 24, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
•
Penal Code, 1860:
c
ss. 3048 and 498A - Dowry death - Conviction of
) husband by High Court - Justification of - Held: Judgment
of High Court sketchy and devoid of reasons - Prosecution
failed to establish accusations as regards the husband -
Hence, order of High Court set aside. D
s. 3048 - Dowry death - Essential ingredients of offence
- Discussed.
s. 3048 - Essential ingredients to raise presumption u/s.
1138 Evidence Act, 1872. E
Words and phrases 'Soon before' - Meaning of - In the
context of s. 304 B /PC ands. 113-8 of the Evidence Act,
• 1872.
In this appeal, order of High Court convicting the F
appellant-husband for commission of offences
. punishable u/ss. 304 B and 498 A is under challenge.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: 1.1. S. 304-B IPC has application when death
of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or
occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances
within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that
933 H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 6 S.C.R.
~
j
A soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or ...
harassment by her husband or any relatives of her
husband for, or in connection with any demand for
dowry. In order to attract application of Section 304-8 IPC,
the essential ingredients are (i) The death of a woman
B should be caused by burns er bodily injury or otherwise
than under a normal circumstance; (ii) Such a death
should have occurred within seven years of her
marriage; (iii) She must have been subjected to crue.lty
or harassment by her husband or any relative of her •
c husband; (iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for
or in connection with demand of dowry; (v) Such cruelty
or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the (
woman soon before her death. [Para 13] [945-E-H; 946-
A-8]
D 1.2. As per the definition of "dowry death" in Section
304-8 IPC and the wording in the presumptive Section ...
113-B of the Evidence Act, one of the essential
ingredients, amongst others, in both the provisions is that
the woman concerned must have been "soon before her
E death" subjected to cruelty or harassment "for or in
connection with the demand for dowry". Presumption
under Section 113-8 is a presumption of law. On proof
of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes
obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the
F accused caused the dowry death. The presumption shall
be raised only on proof of the following essentials: (1)
The question before the court must be whether the
accused has committed the dowry death of a woman.
(This means that the presumption can be raised only if
G the accused is being tried for the offence under Section
304-B IPC.); (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or "
harassment by her husband or his relatives; (3) Such
cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection w!th any
demand for dowry. (4) Such cruelty or harassment was
H soon before her death. [Para 15) [946-G-H; 947-A-E]
RAMAN KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB 935
1.3. A conjoint reading of Section 113-8 of the A
Evidence Act and Section 304-8 IPC shows that there
must be material to show that soon before her death the
victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The
prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or
accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of B
the "death occurring otherwise than in normal
circumstances". The expression "soon before" is very
relevant where Section 113-8 of the Evidence Act and
Section 304-8 IPC are pressed into service. The
prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the c
occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in
that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard
has to be led in. by the prosecution. "Soon before" is a
relative term and it would depend upon the
circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula
0
can be laid down as to what would constitute a period
of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to
indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the
importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an
offence of dowry death as well as for raising a
presumption under Section 113-8 of the Evidence Act. E
The expression "soon before her death" used in the
substantive Section 304-8 IPC and Section 113-8 of the
Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test.
• No definite period has been indicated and the expression
"soon before" is not defined. A reference to the F
expression "soon before" used in Section 114 Illustration
(a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a
court may presume that a man who is in the possession
of goods soon after the theft, is either the thief who has
received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he G
can account for his possession. The determination of the
period which can come within the term "soon before" is
left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts
and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to
H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
A indicate that the expression "soon before" would .
normally imply that the interval shc;uld not be much
between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the
death in question. There must be existence of a
-
proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based
B on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged
incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale
enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the
woman concerned, it would be of no consequence."
[Para 16) [947-E-H; 948-A-F] ,t'"
c 2.1. In the history sheet of the hospital where the
deceased was treated it has been categorically stated that
while the deceased tried to ignite a gas stove the
deceased suddenly caught fire. The trial court was of the
view that there was no evidence to show as to who
D recorded the statement. It discarded the evidence of the
doctor-PW-11 on the ground that the history sheet did not
make it clear that in whose presence the history sheet
was prepared as it did riot bear the signature of any
doctor and handwriting. It was observed that the evidence
E of a doctor-PW-11 did not make it clear as to who has
written the history sheet. It was also observed that there
was no reason indicated as to how PW-11 was conversant
with the hand writing of doctor who purportedly recorded •
the statement The High Court did not even refer to this
F aspect but in a cryptic manner upheld the conclusions •
of the trial court. It is of significance that doctor PW-1 in
the cross examination had categorically stated that the
history sheet of the patient was written by Dr. 'B'. He also
stated that the treatment was prescribed by him. It was
entered in the bed head ticket made by doctor who was
G on duty on that day. He also stated that though the
patient was in shock but she was not unconscious. He "..
stated that he identified the signatures of the doctor and
hand-writing in the bed head ticket. In the FIR, reference
was made to a letter purportedly to have been written by
H
RAMAN KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB 937
~~
the deceased. This letter has been marked as an exhibit. A
[Para 6] [941-G-H; 942-A-E]
2.2. A bare reading of the letter clearly shows that
there is not even a whisper about demand but the
deceased had categorically stated that she had asked for
the money and the articles on her own. The trial court B
erroneously held that in the letter there was reference to
demand of dowry. Strangely, the High Court held that
~.~
even though the letter was inconsequential but the
evidence of the relatives about the harassment for dowry
cannot be brushed aside. There were improvements in c
the statements recorded in court. The witnesses PWs 6
and 7 introduced certain aspects for the first time.
Significant statement in this regard is that of PW-6; In
Court he stated that the deceased told him in the hospital
that kerosene oil was poured on her by the accused~ He D
... accepted durin~ his examination that no such allegation
was made in his statement recorded in terms of section
161 Cr.P.C. Similarly, PW-7 in Court stated that the
deceased informed her about the demand of Rs.1,00,000/
- by her-in-laws and about her giving Rs.20,000/-. This E
was not stated during investigation under section 161 of
Code. In court PW-7 stated that the deceased was beaten
and mistreated on 14.8.1992 and 15.8.2002 and no such
• statement was made during investigation. Additionally, no
such allegation was made by PW-8. [Para 7] [942-E-H;
F
943-A-C]
I 2.3. In the statement in Court PW-7 stated that the
l deceased had told him that A-1 and A-2 caught hold of
t her and A-1 poured oil over _her body and set her on fire
., by throwing match stick. No such statement was made
during investigation. Similarly, that is not also the version
of PW-6. In court PW-7 stated that all the accused
G
persons i.e. the present appellant and the acquitted
accused persons maltreated her. No such allegation was
made while the witness was examined under section 161.
H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 6 S.C.R.
,.
A [Para 8] [943-C-E] v.,
2.4. The High Court's judgment is not only sketchy
but also devoid of reasons. Various factors highlighted
show that the prosecution squarely failed to establish the
accusations so far as the appellant is concerned. [Para
B 17] [948-F]
Hazarila/ v. State of M.P. 2007 (8) SCALE 555; Harjit
Singh v. State of Punjab (2906) 1 SCC 463 and 1··
Ka/iyaperumal and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu 2004 (9) SCC
c 157, referred to
Case Law Reference:
2007 (8) SCALE 555 Referred to Para 9
2006 (1) sec 463 Referred to Para 10
D
2004 (9) sec 157 Referred to Para 11
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 828 of 2009.
E From the Judgment & Order dated 12.05.2008 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal
No 396-SB of 1998.
Sudhir Walia and Mahinder Singh Dahiya for the
Appellants.
F
Anil Grover, S.P. Singh, Manish Kumar and Kuldip Singh
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
t
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
---
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, dismissing the
appeal filed by the State of Punjab in respect of co-accused
H Satish Kumar, Madan Lal and Asha while upholding the
RAMAN KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB 939
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
_:_,.,...
conviction of the present appellant Raman Kumar. The learned A
Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur had directed acquittal of the
appellant and two co-accused persons who faced trial for
alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections
304B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the
'IPC') B
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
.... ~
Suman Bal (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased')· was
married to the appellant on 11.4.1992. On 13.8.1992 she came
to her maternal home with her husband on Raksha Bandhan c
and stayed there for the night. At 8.00 a.m. while going back
to her husband, she started weeping. Her father Sham Lal PW-
6 gave her a wrist watch and Rs. 300/-. He also separately gave
her Rs.2,000/-. On 16.8.1992 at 8-00 A.M., Surinder Kumar
(husband of sister of Sham Lal) met Sham Lal and told him that D
-1.
he received information from Raman Kumar that Suman Bala
•
was burnt in the night at 2.00 A.M. and was admitted to Muni
Lal Chopra Hospital at Amritsar. Sham Lal went to the hospital
but Suman Bala was unconscious. His statement was recorded
by SI Tirath Ram to the effect that Suman Bala had put E
kerosene on herself and finished her life, fed up with her in-laws.
This led to registration of First Information Report (in short the
'FIR'). SI Tirath Ram PW-9 prepared inquest report and made
application for post-mortem examination. He took .steps for
investigation and after investigation, the accused were sent up F
for trial. PW-3 Dr. R. K. Goria conducted post-mortem
examination on 18.8.1992 at 4.50 P.M. According to him,
cause of death was due to shock and as a result of burns, which
were sufficient to cause death.
Evidence on record shows that PW-1 Dr. Balbir Singh G
~
Randhawa examined Suman Bala on 16.8.1992 at 6.10 A.M.
and found 75% burns. She had four months pregnancy. PW-4
Dr. Gurmanjit Raj had joined PW-3 Dr. R.K. Goria in conducting
the post-mortem examination. PW-2 Satish Chander, Draftsman
H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
.,..,,..,,.
A prepared site plan. PW-5 Surinder Kumar deposed that in-laws
of Suman Bala were not dissatisfied about dowry. He resiled
from statement made during investigation. In cross-examination,
he admitted that the accused were able to give satisfactory reply
as to how Suman Bala was burnt. PW-6 Sham Lal deposed
B that his daughter told him in the hos:iital that she was caught
hold by appellant and Satish, her mother-in-law Asha Rani put
kerosene oil on her and she was set ablaze by the appellant.
She also wrote letter Ex.PF about her being unhappy. Surinder f'-
Kanta (PW-7) mother of the deceased Suman Bala deposed
c that Suman Bala was being harassed for dowry. Manoj Kumar
PW-8, brother of deceased, deposed that Suman Bala was
being harassed for dowry and Raman Kumar had demanded
Rs. 1 lakh and she was burnt in the night intervening 15/
16.8.1992. She died on 17.8.1992. Tirath Ram PW-9 is the
Investigating Officer. He proved the investigation conducted by
D
• him. Harwant Singh PW-10 was a formal witness. Dr. Rajesh
Kumar Mahajan PW-11 deposed that Suman Bala was
admitted in his hospital on 16.8.1992 at 6-00 A.M. She told him
that she was burnt in accidental fire. She was referred to Muni
Lal Chopra Hospital for further treatment.
E
The accused denied the prosecution's allegations. Raman
Kumar stated that he never demanded dowry or maltreated
Suman Bala. She was burnt in accidental fire while igniting the
gas stove. She was treated firstly at Batala and then at Amritsar.
F Satish Kumar stated that he was living separately from Raman
Kumar and he never harassed the deceased. Madan Lal and
Asha Rani also took the same stand. Dass Gobind Singh OW-
1, Driver of the Ambulance, stated that he accompanied
Raman Kumar and Suman Bala from Batala to Amritsar on
G 16.8.1992. He also proved the entry made by Dr. lnderjit Singh •+
at Batala Ex.DC.
The trial Court after considering the evidence on record,
held that case of the prosecution was proved against Raman
Kumar but gave the benefit of doubt to Satish, Madan Lal and
H
RAMAN KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB 941
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
;>·
Asha Rani. A
The High Court after referring to the respective stand of
the parties in an abrupt manner held that the acquittal of the
appellant was not legal and proper. It however held that the trial
Court was right in holding that the so called dying declaration
B
stated by Sham Lal (PW-6), Smt. Surinder Kanta (PW-7) and
Manoj Kumar (PW-8) was not fully reliable. The view taken was
-..i~
a posisble view and no interference was called so far as the
acquittal of Satish, Madan and Asha Rani are concerned. As
regards the present appellant it was held that though the letter
Ex.PF was inconsequential but the evidence of the parents and c
brother of the deceased about her harassment for dowry cannot
be brushed aside. Her death took pla.ce within four months of
the marriage and no other possible reason was put forward why
she died. The plea of accidental fire was not reliable. Reference
was made to the evidence of PW-7 the mother of the deceased D
-j..
who stated that the deceased had complained of demand of
Rs.1,00,000/- and harassment for dowry. Similar version was
given by Manoj Kumar (PW-8) the brother of the deceased.
With this only observation the appeal of the appellant was
dismissed. E
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
High Court has erroneously analysed the evidence of the so
t called witnesses. It did not notice that there were lots of
exaggerations and statements which were not made during F
investigation but were made in Court. The trial Court and the
High Court were not justified in placing reliance on such
evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other
G
...... hand supported the judgment of the High Court .
6. It is of some significance to note that in the history sheet
of the hospital where the deceased was treated it has been
categorically stated that while the deceased tried to ignite a gas
stove the deceased suddenly caught fire. The trial Court was H
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 6 S.C.R.
A of the view that there was no evidence to show as to who ......
recorded the statement. It discarded the evidence of PW-11
on the ground that the history sheet Ex. DA does not make it
clear that in whose presence the history sheet was prepared
as it did not bear the signature of any doctor and handwriting.
B · It was observed that the evidence of a doctor Rajesh Kumar
(PW-11) did not make it clear as to who has written Ex.DA. It
was also observed that there was no reason indicated as to
how PW-11 was conversant with the hand writing of doctor ',_
Bhupinder Kaur who purportedly recorded the statement. The
High Court did not even refer to this aspect but in a cryptic
c manner upheld the conclusions of the trial Court. It is of
significance that Dr. Balbir Singh Randhawa ( PW-1) in the
cross examination had categorically stated that the history
sheet of the patient Ex.DA was written by Dr. Bhupinderjit Kaur
in Ex.PA. He also stated that the treatment was prescribed by
D
him. It was entered in the bed head ticket made by doctor J·
Bhupinderjit Kaur who was on duty on that day. He also stated
that though the patient was in shock but she was not
unconscious. He stated that he identified the signatures of Dr.
Bhupinderjit Kaur and hand-writing in the bed head ticket. In the
E FIR, reference was made to a letter purportedly to have been
written by the deceased. This letter has been marked as an
exhibit.
7. A bare reading of the letter (Ext. PF) clearly shows that
F there is not even a whisper about demand but the deceased
had categorically stated that she had asked for the money and
the articles on her own. The trial Court erroneously held that in
the letter there was reference to demand of dowry. Strangely,
the High Court held that even though the letter Ex.PF was
G inconsequential but the evidence of the relatives about the
harassment for dowry cannot be brushed aside. As rightly •
submitted by learned counsel for the appellant there were
""
improvements in the statements recorded in Court. The
witnesses PWs 6 and 7 introduced certain aspects for the first
H time. Significant statement in this regard is that of Sham Lal
RAMAN KUMAR v. STATE Of PUNJAB 943
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
(PW-6). In Court he stated that the deceased told him in the A
hospital that kerosene oil was poured on her by the accused.
He accepted during his examination that no such allegation
was made in his statement recorded in terms of Section 161
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). . ,~.
Similarly, Surinder Kanta (PW-7) in Court stated that the... " B
deceased informed her about the demand of Rs.1,00,000/- by
her-in-laws and about her giving Rs.20,000/-. This was not
stated during investigation under Secti.on 161 of Code as is
evident from Ex.DA. In Court PW-7 stated that the deceased
was beaten and mistreated on 14.8.1992 and 15.8.2002 and c
no such statement was made during investigation .. Additionally,
no such allegation was made by PW-.8 the complainant about
this aspect in the FIR. ,
8. In the statement in Court PW-7 stated that the deceased
had told him that A-1 and A-2 caught hold of her and A-1 poured D
oil over her body and set her on fire by throwing match stick.
No such statement was made during investigation. Similarly,
that is not also the version of PW-6. In Court PW-7 stated that
all the accused persons i.e. the present appellant and the
acquitted accused persons maltreated her. No such allegation E
was made while the witness was examined under Section 161.
In Hazarilal v. State of M.P. (2007 (8) SCALE 555) it was
inter-alia observed by this Court as follows:
"8. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 show that they F
spoke about the dowry to be the basis for suicide. The
High Court came to the conclusion that because the
deceased had given birth to a child there was no reason
for her to commit suicide. The evidence of the parents of
the deceased PWs 1 and 2 was only relatable to dowry. G
The High Court held that there was no question of demand
of dowry, and in fact, appellant was financing the father of
the deceased PW1. There being no other material to show
as to how the deceased was being harassed or subjected
to cruelty, the conclusion of the High Court that because · H
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
A the deceased committed suicide there must be some
harassment and cruelty is insupportable and indefensible.
There was no material to substantiate this conclusion.
Merely on surmises and conjectures the conviction could
not have recorded. There is a vast difference between
8 "could have been", "must have been" and "has been". In
the absence of any material, the case falls to the first
category. In such a case conviction is impermissible."
10. In Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2006) 1 SCC'463
it was observed as follows:
c
"16. A legal fiction has been crJated in the said provision
to the effect that in the event it is established that soon
before the death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty
or harassment by her husband or any of his relatives; for
D or in connection with any demand of dowry, such death
shall be called ''dowry death", and such husband or relative
shall be deemed to have caused her death. Parliament has
also inserted Section 113-8 of the Evidence Act by Act
43 of 1986 with effect from 1-5-1986 which reads as
E under:
"113-8. 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
F 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.
G Explanation.-For the purpose of this section,
'dowry death' shall have the same meaning as in
Section 304-8 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860)."
11. The scope and ambit of Section 304-8 IPC was
H
.... RAMAN KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB 945
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
y
examined by this Court in Kaliyaperumal and Anr. v. State of A
Tamil Nadu (2004 (9) SCC 157).
12. Section 304-B IPC deals with dowry death which reads
as follows:
"304-B. Dowry death.-(1) Where the death of a woman B
is caused by any burns or bodily injury 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 c
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 purposes of this sub-section, D
-i.- '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." E
13. The provision has application when death of a woman
is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than
T under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage
and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected F
to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her
husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. In
order to attract application of Section 304-B IPC, the essential
ingredients are as follows:
G
~ (i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or
+
bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal
circumstance.
(ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years
of her marriage. H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 6 S.C.R. . _
A (iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment ......
by her husband or any relative of her husband.
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in
connection with demand of dowry.
B (v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been
meted out to the woman soon before her death.
14. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for ~
the case at hand. Both Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B
c of the Evidence Act were inserted as noted earlier by Dowry
Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a view to combat
the increasing menace of dowry deaths. Section 113-B reads
as follows:
"113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.-When the
D
question is whether a person has committed the dowry ..j -
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
E 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 the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
1- ...
F
15. The necessity for insertion of the two provisions has
been amply analysed by the Law Commission of India in its
Twenty-first Report dated 10-8-1988 on "Dowry Deaths and
Law Reform". Keeping in view the impediment in the pre-
existing law in securing evidence to prove dowry-related deaths,
G the legislature thought it wise to insert a provision relating to .
.,..
presumption of dowry death on proof of certain essentials. It is ......
in this background that presumptive Section 113-B in the
Evidence Act has been inserted. As per the definition of "dowry
death" in Section 304-B IPC and the wording in the presumptive
H Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, one of the essential
RAMAN KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB 947
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
,,!"
ingredients, amongst others, in both the provisions is that the A
woman concerned must have been "soon before her death"
subjected to cruelty or harassment "for or in connection with the
demand for dowry". Presumption under Section 113-B is a
presumption of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned
therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a B
presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. The
presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following
essentials:
(1) The question before the court must be whether the
accused has committed the dowry death of a woman.
c
(This means that the presumption can be raised only if the
accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304-
B IPC.)
(2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by D
-]..
her husband or his relatives.
•
(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection
with any demand for dowry.
. (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death. E
16. A conjoint reading of Section 113:.s of the Evidence
Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material
-t
:.. to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected
to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the F
possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within
the purview of the "death occurring otherwise than in normal
circumstances". The expression "soon before" is very relevant
where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B
IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to G
~
-f show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or
harassment and only in that case presumption operates.
Evidence in that regard has to be led in by the prosecution.
"Soon before" is a relative term and it would depend upon the
circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be
H
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
A laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before
the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed
period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both
for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising
a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The
B expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive
Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is
present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has
been indicated and the expression "soon before" is not defined.
A reference to the expression "soon before" used in Section
C 114 Illustration (a} of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down
that a court may presume that a man who is in the possession
of goods soon after the theft, is either the thief who has received
the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account
for his possession. The determination of the period which can
come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by
0
the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each
case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon
before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much
between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in
question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link
E between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the
death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in
time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental
equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no
consequence."
F
17. The High Court's judgment is not only sketchy but also
devoid of reasons. Various factors highlighted above would go
to show that the prosecution has squarely failed to establish the
accusations so far as the appellant is concerned. Therefore,
G the appeal deserves to be allowed which we direct. The
appellant is to be set at liberty forthwith unless to be required
in connection with any other tase.
N.J. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "dowry death"Sign in to search