Introduction
Today we will discuss another judicial
pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satbir
Singh & Another v. State of Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 404,
wherein the law relating to Dowry Death under Section 304B of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”), and Section 113B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, was discussed.
Provisions of Law
Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Dowry death. —(1) Where the
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 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 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 purpose of this
subsection, ‘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.”
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
“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 has been
subjected 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.
Explanation. - For the purpose of this section,
“dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860).”
Interpretative Observations of the Court
1. In the case of Major Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2015) 5 SCC 201, essential ingredients of S.304B were laid
down: -
A. Death should be caused by burns or bodily
injury or otherwise than under a ‘normal circumstance’.
B. Death should have occurred within seven years
of marriage.
C. Woman must have been subjected to cruelty or
harassment by husband or husband’s relatives.
D. Cruelty or harassment should have a connection
with demand of dowry.
E. Cruelty or harassment should have meted out
soon before the woman’s death.
2. The phrase “soon before” used in S.304B does
not mean “immediately before” rather the determination of the same has
been left to the Courts and “the factum of cruelty or harassment differs
from case to case.” It was further observed that “what is pivotal
to the above determination, is the establishment of a “proximate and live link”
between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim.”
3. When all the above-stated ingredients are
satisfied, then “a presumption of causation arises against the accused
under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. Thereafter, the accused has to rebut
this statutory presumption.”
4. In such cases, in exercise of the powers under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “CrPC”)
that talks about the powers of the Court to examine the accused, the Court must
question the accused putting incriminating circumstances in front of him and
seek his response. According to Section 313 of CrPC, the Court may put such
questions to the accused as it considers necessary, and the answers given by
the accused may be taken into consideration in the Trial. The Court may even
permit the accused to file a written statement in response to its questions.
5. The Court also discussed the rights of the
accused that are provided under Section 233 of CrPC when the Trial Court
decides that the accused is not eligible to be acquitted in terms of Section
232 of CrPC. Section 233 provides certain rights to the accused such as he may
file a written statement, seek attendance of any witness or production of any
document etc.
6. Apart from the above, upon cumulative
consideration of the situation, the Court laid down certain guidelines of which
the pertinent ones are as follows: -
a. S.304B must be interpreted keeping in mind
the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand.
b. S.304B 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.
c. Section 313 of CrPC “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.”
d. 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.
e. Other important considerations such as right to
speedy trial, adopting a cautious approach in not roping the relatives of the
husband unnecessarily and appropriate sentencing and punishment, must be taken
into account.
Concluding Remarks
In this case, the Court made an attempt to
distinguish S.304B from homicidal or suicidal or accidental deaths. It also
explained the connection between S.304B of IPC and S.113B of the Indian
Evidence Act. The purpose of the Court was to sensitize the Courts below, the
Advocates and the public in general, about the importance of the provisions
relating to Dowry Death.
The Court also clarified the meaning of the “soon
before” and explained that the discretion has been left to the Courts to
ascertain the time period depending upon the facts and circumstances of each
case. Further, the Court also made efforts to secure the rights of the accused
under Section 233 of CrPC so that a fair Trial takes place.
The Court also passed an interesting guideline in
relation to Section 313 of CrPC wherein it stated that the Trial Courts must
question the accused confronting him with the evidence available on record. I
think this is very important and the Court rightly pointed out that this
exercise is often skipped by many Courts, and this leads to confusion at the
later stages of the Trial. Overall, I find it be a welcome judgment that
beautifully interprets Section 304B keeping in mind the legislative objectives,
the needs of the society and the literal meaning of its text.
No comments:
Post a Comment