CASE COMMENTS
Satbir Singh v/s The State Of
Haryana
In Supreme court of India
APPELLANTS………………………..
SATBIR SINGH & ANOTHER
RESPONDENT……………………….
STATE OF HARYANA
DATE OF JUDGMENT – 28/05/2021
BENCH–
N. V. RAMANA, CJI
Surya Kant
Aniruddh Bose
INTRODUCTION
On 06.11.2008 the judgment was
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court
dismissed the appeals of appellants. The Trial court passed the sentence of conviction and on 11.12.1997 conviction was
upheld by the high court.
The deceased and accused were
married on 01.07.1994. On 31.7.1995, at about 4 or 4.30 P.M, some people informed the complainant that his daughter
was admitted to the hospital. Deceased's
father, along with his son and wife reached the hospital when they received
this information. He discovered that the
deceased died due to burn injuries. The case was that the deceased committed
suicide by setting burning herself and
her death she was caused due to cruelty and harassment for bringing
less dowry by accused person.
On 11.12.1997 appellants were
convicted by trial court for the offenses under Sections 304B and 306 of IPC. Accused were sentenced for seven
years rigorous imprisonment for the commission of offense punishable under Section
304B,
IPC and to five years imprisonment for the offense punishable
under Section 306, IPC.
The appellants appealed in the High
Court so that the order of conviction by the trial court could be set aside. On
06/11/2008 the High Court impugned
judgment, upheld the order of the Trial Court. Appeal filed by the appellants
was dismissed. The appellants filed the
present appeals by way of Special Leave petition under Article 136,Petition
under Article 136 challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
WHAT
COUNSELS CONTENDED?
The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
contended that the prosecution was not able to prove that the accused or his
relative had made a demand for dowry.
On
the other hand, the counsel appearing on the behalf of the respondent submitted that the suspicious
death of the deceased victim occurred just within 1 year of marriage. The witnesses stated the instances of demand for dowry
continously.
ISSUES RAISED
By
hearing both the counsels the Supreme Court needs to answer following
questions:
I.
Whether the Trial Court
and the High Court for convicting the accused
under Section 304B of IPC was
correct or not?
II.
Whether the Trial
Court, and the High Court, in convicting the accused under Section 306, IPC was
correct or not?
ANALYSIS
OF THE CASE
It
is important to analyze the case where death has occurred due to dowry.
Section
304B IPC, defines the punishment for
dowry demand:-
304B.
Dowry death —
(1) Where
the death of a woman is caused due to any burns on her body or bodily injury or
occurs otherwise than under normal
circumstances within 7 years of her marriage and before her death she inflicted cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection
with the demand for dowry, such death if it
is caused then such death shall be caused due to called ‘dowry death’ and such husband or his
relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death.
(2) Whoever
commits the dowry death shall be punishable with at least 7 years imprisonment and it may extend to
imprisonment for life also.
To
put someone in conviction under Section 304B
IPC,
the following essential ingredients shall be satisfied
:
(i)
the death of a woman should be caused by burns on her body or bodily injury or
otherwise than under a ‘normal circumstance’;
(ii)
such death should have occurred within
the period of 7 years of her marriage;
(iii)
she must have been suffered from cruelty
or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(iv)
such cruelty or harassment should caused due to demand of dowry; and
(v)
such cruelty or harassment is shown prior to her death.
Courts
shall look for a “proximate link” between the death of the victim and the
cruelty suffered by her.
The
prosecution shows that ‘soon before her death the deceased had suffered cruelty
or harassment for demanding dowry. A presumption arises against the accused under Section 113B
of the Evidence Act.
The
doctor found the smell of kerosene oil on the body of the deceased and stated
that she had suffered 85% burn injuries
on her body. In the present case, death was relatable to burn injuries within
seven years of marriage, it clearly satisfies the first two ingredients of the
offense.
Later
on it was discovered that when the brother of the deceased visited to see
her after one month of marriage on
Raksha Bandhan, the deceased revealed that her husband and mother in law, used
to physically harass her for bringing less dowry. He also stated that the accused persons made a special demand for
a scooter. When she was brought back to her paternal house where this fact was
disclosed to the father of the deceased. It should be noted that, just before a
month to her death, the deceased had
returned to her matrimonial house. The accused kept harassing her for dowry. This
fact was revealed by the deceased to her father, when she had come to visit
him.
A
week before the death of the deceased, on
Teej festival, another brother of the deceased visited her while she was in her matrimonial
home. On 31.07.1995, the father of the deceased was informed by some villagers
that his daughter had been admitted to the hospital. Her father discovered that the deceased had to
burn injuries on her body. Hence, it is proved that there was a proximate link
between the demand of dowry and the death of the deceased. Court found that all
the witnesses to be reliable and on this ground it was held that the death of deceased was caused
due to cruelty for not bring sufficient dowry.
From
the above line, it is clear that the prosecution successfully proved that the
death of the deceased was caused due to burn injuries on her body and it took
place within one year when she got
married. It was also proved that soon before her death she suffered harassment and cruelty for demands of dowry. Here the essential
elements of Section 304B,
IPC
are satisfied.
According
to the statements given by the doctor, the body of the deceased was burnt with
the help of kerosene oil. The Trial Court concluded:
All
circumstances had proved that-
Either
deceased committed suicide by sprinkling kerosene oil on herself or she was
burnt by sprinkling kerosene on her body either by the accused or by someone
from his relatives and the accident tried to be made out by the learned counsel
for the accused, is not at all proved.”
JUDGMENT
Section 113B,
Evidence Act
sates the presumption and in this case takes it takes place.
The
appellants challenged conviction under Section 306,
IPC.
In
this case, the Trial Court and the High Court concluded that the deceased had
committed suicide. The conclusion reached by the Courts is based on
assumptions, as there is no evidence to
support that deceased had committed suicide.There was no sufficient evidence to
prove the suicide.
The
presumption under Section 113A, Evidence Act was not helpful for the
prosecution.
The
essential ingredient of deceased committing suicide has not been proved by the
prosecution by discoveing sufficient evidence. In this case, the prosecution
was failed to establish that the death occurred due to suicide. Therefore,
Courts convicted the accused under
Section 306, IPC 1860.
CONCLUSIONS
●
The Parliament
introduced amendments to the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as the IPC 1860 by
enacting Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986.
●
Dowry is a social evil,
we are trying to see how much stringent laws we can make to increase the
punishment of such crimes.
●
Women should be
familiar with their rights and laws so that in-laws do not harass her for
bringing less dowry or for not bringing dowry.
0 Comments