Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
18. Therefore, once all the essential ingredients are established by the prosecution, the presumption under Section 113-B, Evidence Act mandatorily operates against the accused. This presumption of causality that arises can be rebutted by the accused.
19. The usage of rebuttable presumption of causality, under Section 113-B, Evidence Act,creates a greater responsibility on Judges, defense and prosecution. They need to be extra careful during conducting criminal trials relating to Section 304-B, IPC. In order to address this precarious situation, procedural law has some safeguards, which merits mentioning herein.
20. It is a matter of grave concern that, often, Trial Courts record the statement of an accused under Section 313, CrPC in a very casual and cursory manner, without specifically questioning the accused as to his defense. It ought to be noted that the examination of an accused under Section 313, CrPC cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, as it is based on the fundamental principle of fairness. This provision incorporates the valuable principle of natural justice- “audi alteram partem”, as it enables the accused to offer an explanation for the incriminatory material appearing against him. Therefore, it imposes an obligation on the part of the Court to question the accused fairly, with care and caution. The Court must put incriminating circumstances before the accused and seek his response. A duty is also cast on the counsel of the accused to prepare his defense, since the inception of the trial,with due caution, keeping in consideration the peculiarities of Section 304-B, IPC read with Section 113-B, Evidence Act.
21. Section 232, CrPC assumes importance, which readsas, “If, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal”. Once the Trial Court decides that the accused is not eligible to be acquitted as per the provisions of Section 232,CrPC, it must move on and fix hearings specifically for ‘defence evidence’, calling upon the accused to present his defense as per the procedure provided under Section 233, CrPC, which is also an invaluable right provided to the accused. Existence of such procedural right cohesively sits with the rebuttable presumption as provided under Section 113-B, Evidence Act.
22. The second contentious part relating to Section 304-B, IPC is that it does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental, as was done earlier. The reason for such non categorization is due to the fact that death occurring “otherwise than under normal circumstances” can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. However, the Section 304-B, IPC endeavors to also address those situations wherein murders or suicide are masqueraded as accidents.
23. Therefore, if all the other ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are fulfilled, any death whether caused by burns or by bodily injury or occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances shall, as per the legislative mandate, be called a "dowry death" and the woman's husband or his relative "shall be deemed to have caused her death" unless proved otherwise. The section clearly specifies what constitutes the offence of dowry death and also identifies the single offender or multiple offenders who has or have caused the dowry death. [refer Maya Devi v. State of Haryana, (2015) 17 SCC 405, Shanti v. State of Haryana, (1991) 1 SCC 371]
24. After having observed the law on Section 304-B, IPC, we may now turn to the merits of this case. It is clear that the submissions of the counsel for the appellants must be rejected. It is an admitted fact that the deceased and accused were married on 01.07.1994, and the death of the lady occurred on 31.07.1995.
25. With respect to the cause of death, the doctor (P.W.3) found the smell of kerosene oil on the body of the deceased who had suffered 85% burn injuries. Therefore, in the present case, the deceased victim succumbed to burns. As the death was relatable to burn injuries within seven years of marriage, it clearly satisfies the first two ingredients of the offence.
26. Coming to the issue of dowry demand, the evidence on record indicates that when the brother of the deceased (P.W.7) visited her in the matrimonial house after one month of marriage on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan, the deceased had disclosed that the accused, husband and mother-in-law, used to physically harass her on the account of bringing insufficient dowry. Furthermore, the accused persons had made a specific demand of a scooter. Pursuant to this disclosure, she was brought back to her paternal house where this fact was disclosed to father of the deceased (P.W.6). It is pertinent to note that, only a month prior to her death, the deceased had returned to her matrimonial house.However, the accused still used to harass the deceased for dowry.The aforesaid SATBIR SINGH & ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA [N. V. RAMANA, CJI] fact was revealed by the deceased to her father, when she had come to visit him.
27. It must be emphasized herein that, just a week before the death, on the occasion of Teej festival, another brother of the deceased (P.W.10) had visited her while she was in her matrimonial home. The deceased had reiterated her plight to her brother. Thereafter, on 31.07.1995, the father of the deceased was informed by some villagers that his daughter has been admitted in the hospital. Upon reaching, the father discovered that the deceased succumbed to burn injuries.The aforesaid chain of circumstances proves that there existed a live and proximate link between the instances of demand of dowry and the death of the deceased. The Trial Court, and the High Court, upon a close appreciation of the aforesaid witnesses came to the conclusion that the statements were corroborative and consistent.They found the witnesses to be reliable and on the basis of the same held that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death as she failed to bring sufficient dowry. We are in complete agreement with the aforesaid finding of the Trial Court and the High Court.
28. From the above analysis, it is clear that the prosecution was able to successfully prove that the death of the deceased due to burn injuries took place within approximately one year of her marriage. It has further been proved that soon before her death she was subjected to harassment and cruelty pursuant to demands of dowry. Since the ingredients of Section 304-B, IPC stand satisfied, the presumption under 113-B, Evidence Act operates against the appellants, who are deemed to have caused the offence specified under Section 304-B of IPC.
29. The burden therefore shifts on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption. The counsel for the appellants has canvassed before us that it was a case of accidental death, and hence no liability can be fixed upon them. However, in the present case, the accused persons failed to place any evidence on record to prove that the death was accidental or unconnected with the accused persons.
30. Here, it ought to be noted that, according to the evidence of the doctor, the entire body of the deceased was doused with kerosene oil. Therefore, the possibility of an accident can be safely ruled out. As the Trial Court concluded: “All these circumstances go to prove that either deceased committed suicide by sprinkling kerosene oil on her body or she was burnt by sprinkling kerosene on her body either by the accused or by somebody else and the plea of accident tried to be made out by the learned counsel for the accused, is not at all proved.”
31. Therefore, the presumption adumbrated in Section 113-B, Evidence Act takes full effect in this particular case, which has not been rebutted by the accused-appellants herein. The appellantshave failed to make out a case for us to interfere in the concurrent opinions of the Courts below, convicting the accused-appellants under Section 304-B, IPC. ISSUE II
32. Apart from their conviction under Section 304-B, IPC, the appellantshavealso additionally challenged their conviction under Section 306, IPC. Section 306, IPC relates to the abetment of suicide and is extracted below: “306.Abetment of suicide. —If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
33. A bare reading of the provision indicates that for the offence under Section 306, IPC the prosecution needs to first establish that a suicide has been committed. Secondly, the prosecution must also prove that the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide, has played an active role in the same. With respect to this latter requirement, Section 113-A, Evidence Act creates a presumption against the husband and/or his relative with respect to the abetment of suicide of a married woman, under certain conditions. Not going into the other conditions, a perusal of the provision indicates that such presumption shall be attracted only if the factum of suicide has been established by the prosecution first. The necessary ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306, I.P.C. were considered by this court in Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana, (1989) 1 SCC 244, wherein this Court held that: “5. …Reading Sections 306 and 307 (sic 107) together it is clear that if any person instigates any other person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation the other person commits suicide, the person causing the instigation is liable to be punished under SATBIR SINGH & ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA [N. V. RAMANA, CJI] Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 for abetting the commission of suicide. A plain reading of this provision shows that before a person can be convicted of abetting the suicide of any other person, it must be established that such other person committed suicide.” (emphasis supplied)
34. In the present case, the Trial Court and the High Court have concluded that the deceased committed suicide. However, we are of the considered opinion that the conclusion reached by the Courts below is based on assumptions, as there is no evidence on record to support the same. The reasoning of the Trial Court in this regard is as follows: “Further, there is no direct evidence having been adduced by the prosecution the (sic) any of the accused caused death by sprinkling kerosene on the body of the deceased, the only possibility is that Meena Kumari put an end to her life by sprinkling kerosene on her body.”
35. In light of the fact that there was insufficient evidence to prove the factum of suicide beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption under Section 113-A, Evidence Act, is not of much help for the prosecution.The essential ingredient of deceased committing suicide has not been proved by the prosecution by adducing sufficient evidence. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish that the death occurred due to suicide. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the finding of the Courts below convicting the appellants under Section 306, IPC merits interference by this Court. CONCLUSIONS
36. At the cost of repetition, the law under Section 304-B, IPC read with Section 113-B, Evidence Act can be summarized below: i. Section 304-B, IPC must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand. ii. The prosecution must at first establish the existence of the necessary ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 304-B, IPC.Once these ingredients are satisfied, the rebuttable presumption of causality, provided under Section 113-B, Evidence Act operates against the accused. iii. The phrase “soon before” as appearing in Section 304-B, IPC cannot be construed to mean ‘immediately before’. The prosecution must establish existence of “proximate and live link” between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the husband or his relatives. iv. Section 304-B, IPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental. The reason for such non categorization is due to the fact that death occurring “otherwise than under normal circumstances” can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. v. Due to the precarious nature of Section 304-B, IPC read with 113-B, Evidence Act, Judges, prosecution and defence should be careful during conduction of trial. vi. It is a matter of grave concern that, often, Trial Courts record the statement under Section 313, CrPC in a very casual and cursory manner, without specifically questioning the accused as to his defense. It ought to be noted that the examination of an accused under Section 313, CrPC cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, as it based on the fundamental principle of fairness. This aforesaid provision incorporates the valuable principle of natural justice “audi alteram partem” as it enables the accused to offer an explanation for the incriminatory material appearing against him. Therefore, it imposes an obligation on the court to question the accused fairly, with care and caution. vii. The Court must put incriminating circumstances before the accused and seek his response. A duty is also cast on the counsel of the accused to prepare his defense since the inception of the Trial with due caution, keeping in consideration the peculiarities of Section 304-B, IPC read with Section 113-B, Evidence Act. viii. Section 232, CrPC provides that, “If, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of SATBIR SINGH & ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA [N. V. RAMANA, CJI] acquittal”. Such discretion must be utilized by the Trial Courts as an obligation of best efforts. ix. Once the Trial Court decides that the accused is not eligible to be acquitted as per the provisions of Section 232,CrPC, it must move on and fix hearings specifically for ‘defence evidence’, calling upon the accused to present his defense as per the procedure provided under Section 233, CrPC, which is also an invaluable right provided to the accused. x. In the same breath, Trial Courts need to balance other important considerations such as the right to a speedy trial. In this regard, we may caution that the above provisions should not be allowed to be misused as delay tactics. xi. Apart from the above, the presiding Judge should follow the guidelines laid down by this Court while sentencing and imposing appropriate punishment. xii. Undoubtedly, as discussed above, the menace of dowry death is increasing day by day. However, it is also observed that sometimes family members of the husband are roped in, even though they have no active role in commission of the offence and are residing at distant places. In these cases, the Court need to be cautious in its approach.
37. In light of the above findings, after perusing the relevant material and the evidence available, we find that the High Court and Trial Court have not committed any error in convicting the appellants under Section 304-B, IPC as the appellantsfailed to discharge the burden under Section 113-B, Evidence Act. However, upon appreciation of facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that the offence under Section 306, IPC is not made out. We therefore set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 306, IPC.
38. Appeals allowed to the above extent. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Nidhi Jain Appeals allowed.