Authored By: Niket Aman
Citation: MANU/SC/0361/2021 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 1735-1736 of 2010]
Date of Judgement: 28 May 2021
Division Bench: C.J.I. N.V. Ramana, and Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Introduction:
Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana is a landmark judgment on Dowry Death. Dowry is the most immoral and sinful thing that leads to Dowry Death. Section 304 B has been commenced by the Parliament to restrain the facts of dowry death. This section deals with the essence of dowry death and also provides an escape clause by saying “soon before”. So, the accused has to prove beyond reasonable doubt for his innocence. The courts have to follow the principle of Audi Alteram Partem-natural justice, which compels the court to hear the accused fairly and to get his response.
Facts:
On July 31st, 1995, the prosecution has filed a case under sections 304 B and 306 of Indian Penal Code,1860 by the father of the deceased against the husband and his family [Accused]. The deceased is the wife of Satbir Singh, who has died due to burn injuries. The prosecution side has also claimed that this is a suicide case under section 306 Indian Penal Code. These things started when she is unable to get enough dowry from her parents and her in-law’s house is demanding more dowry, as she is unable to fulfill their needs then she has to suffer from harassment, cruelty, and abuse from them just before her death.
After further investigation and autopsy it has been found out that the body has been covered in Kerosene and only 15% of the body remains to identify other than 15%, the body has been destroyed and cannot be identified.
When the case went to Trial Court the court sentenced the accused under sections 304 B and 306 of Indian penal Code, they went to High Court and the court in his discretion upheld the judgment of the Trial Court of Haryana and Punjab and dismissed the appeal on November 11, 2008. The decision that has been passed by the trial Court and High Court, is not based on factual evidence, it is basically based on the assumption. The prosecution is unable to give conclusive evidence to prove that the deceased has committed suicide. So, the court finding under section 306 is not maintainable.
Key Contentions/ Issue Raised:
After hearing the argument from both the parties, there are two issues raised:
I. Whether the Trial Court, and High Court was correct in convicting the accused on the charge Under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code?
II. Whether the Trial Court and High Court, was correct in convicting the accused on the charge Under Section 306, Indian Penal Code?
Arguments:
1. Argument presented by the Appellant:
According to the appellant counsel, the prosecution side has not been able to prove that the dowry has been demanded and by the fact it could be a suicide. The appellant side argued that accidental fire has not been excluded in this case. That means there the court could be in their opinion that this could be an accidental fire.
As the demand has not been proved by the prosecution, immediately before the death of the victim.
2. Argument presented by the Respondent:
According to the prosecution counsel, the deceased has been died within 1 year of her marriage by ablaze his body. Many people have been stating that the accused family has been demanding dowry multiple times and have seen them treating not her in a good manner. The appellant has not been able to provide the correct fact that why the apex court should interfere with the judgment given by Trial Court and High Court.
Judgment:
The judgment is based on section 304B of Indian Penal Code, and the essential factors to prove that there is a dowry death, the court is looking into Major Singh vs. State of Punjab. In which it has been stated that, if within 7 years of the marriage the woman is suffering from cruelty and harassment for dowry, in her in law’s house and by that she is died due to burn injuries and this all happens soon before the women’s death, then it will come under section 304B of Indian Penal Code. But the court has to see through all the factors that “soon before” does not mean immediate before, it has to be determined by the court, there is no straight jacket for it.
Between the death of the victim and cruelty or harassment, the court has to be cautious to find out whether cruelty or harassment has happened soon before the death of the victim or not. To determine the dowry death the link should be established between them. The court has to take into consideration that if the dowry has been demanded and cruelty and harassment took place immediately before her death, then it is mandatory to it into consideration. The prosecution, defense, and judges have the greater responsibility as there is a presumption against the accused. So, the judge should have heard the accused side under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 very carefully and not just a formality.
It creates a responsibility on the Court to question the accused and hear what he says, hearing should be fair and with awareness. The Court should provide the material relating to the case and it should be incriminating and to see the response of the accused. The defense counsel should prepare the defense as it is the responsibility on their side to prepare against the prosecution under section 304B of IPC that reads with section 113B of Indian Evidence Act.
After hearing the argument on both sides, if the court found out the evidence that has been presented by the prosecution and inspecting the accused, the judge should take the statement in written and after all this, the judge is not satisfied by the prosecution then the court can pass the judgment of acquittal under section 232 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In another situation, if the accused is not acquitted, then the accused is to present his defense under section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The facts under section 304B of Indian Penal Code should not be considered as a straightforward approach in determining there is a homicide, accident, or suicide. This type of consideration happens due to the fact that the death other than the natural circumstance could be suicide, homicide, or accident. Another issue is related to section 306 of Indian Penal Code, it is only in existence when the prosecution is able to prove abetment to suicide. To convict someone in this section, first, it has to prove that there is a suicide had taken place.
Precedent Mentioned (Case Laws):
· Major Singh v. State of Punjab
· Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company
· Kans Raj v. State of Punjab
· Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab
· Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana
· Maya Devi v. State of Haryana
· Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana
Case Analysis:
The apex court in his judgment noted that the Trial Court and High Court have given the judgment under section 304B and 306 of Indian Penal Code, which deals with dowry death and abetment of suicide. The court took the case of Major Singh v. State of Punjab into its consideration the necessary ingredients to convict someone under a dowry death case. The court also tells that there should have a liberal approach in the term of soon before as it is a loophole. And if it does not see it in a liberal form then there could be so many ambiguities and it will be hard to follow this section.
The Court after knowing the importance of this section explains the idea of ‘soon before’ in the common and understandable sense as if it has been explained in a harsh manner then the main essence of this section would have been lost. There should be a link established between harassment and the death of the victim, as soon before does not mean immediately before, but there is a causal link in it. In the cases of dowry death, the apex court gave the guidelines regarding examining the accused, it should be the court’s responsibility to take the statement of the accused as it is on the accused to prove his innocence. A speedy trial should be used in these types of cases, as it is of grave importance as the speedy trial will lead to come to the verdict in time, and the trial court should hear both parties fairly. It has also been held by the court that under section 304B of Indian Penal Code, which deals with death under abnormal circumstances for dowry death.
The apex court in his judgment dismiss the prosecution claim under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, as the prosecution is failed to provide conclusive evidence to prove the same. It is only when the prosecution is able to provide the evidence regarding the suicide of the deceased only then it is to be assumed that the husband and his family are involved in the suicide. The decision is given by the divisional bench on the basis of the facts and figures that have been provided in front of them. Both the judges have taken into consideration the evidence by the prosecution in connection with the death of the victim. Is this the evidence that satisfies the court to take such steps.
Conclusion:
The burn injuries satisfy the prosecution claims, as it happens with the one year of the marriage, in considering with the demand of dowry, it also has been proven that there are so many circumstances in which the deceased has to suffer from harassment and cruelty by their in-laws. It is in the discretion of the court, that how they are going to consider soon before in section 304B of Indian Penal Code. The court found out that the evidence provided under section 304B of Indian Penal Code, is correct regarding convicting the accused and it is relevant to the case.
While on the other hand the prosecution is not been able to provide conclusive to convict the accused under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, as it has not been proven that this is a suicide case and if this is not a suicide case then it surely doesn’t come under this section. That’s why the court convicted the accused under section 304B of Indian Penal Code and not under section 306 of Indian Penal Code.
References/ Bibliography:
1. Satbir Singh v State of Haryana, 2021 MANU/SC/0361/2021, manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy (manupatrafast.com) (Accessed 20 December)
2. After one year of marriage, a woman burnt to death over dowry. Supreme Court finds accused guilty; explains the true import of “soon before” under section 304-B IPC https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/05/29/after-one-year-of-marriage-woman-burnt-to-death-over-dowry-supreme-court-finds-accused-guilty-explains-the-true-import-of-soon-before-under-section-304-ipc/ (Accessed 21 December)
3. https://www.soolegal.com/rc/satbir-singh-v-state-of-haryana (Accessed 21 December)
Comments