Author Details :-

T.Roshini
III B.A.,LL.B.
Chennai Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College,Pudupakkam.

Case Number: Criminal Appeal no 447 of 2012

Judgement Date: 20th April 2023

Court: Supreme Court of India

Quorum: Abhay S.Oka, Rajesh Bindal

Legal Provisions Involved: Section 304B^[1] ,498A^[2],201^[3] of IPC Section 113A^[4] of IEA.

INTRODUCTION

Indian society is used to demanding dowries prior to marriage, despite significant attempts by civil society organisations and the government to reduce this practice. The causes of dowry have been attributed to a number of variables, including social, economic, and religious ones. The bride’s family is heavily burdened by the dowry system, which can also occasionally result in crimes against women, including emotional abuse, physical harm, and even fatalities. Female infanticide is also mostly caused by it. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh vs. The State of Uttarakhand ruled that a husband cannot be found guilty of dowry death due to an unusual death within seven years of marriage. The father filed a case against her husband and in-laws after the wife’s death, alleging unlawful harassment and dowry demand. The court ruled that the death was reasonably connected to the harassment. The court ruled that the conviction related to dowry death under sections 304B and 498A of the Indian penal code could not be upheld due to insufficient witness statements.

FACTS OF THE CASE

This is the case of Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh v. Uttarakhand. The dead person’s lawful marriage to the appellant began in 1993. On 22.6.1995, she passed away. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the deceased’s mother-in-law Santo Kaur, brother-in-law Gurmeet Singh, and appellant Charan Singh based on the deceased’s father’s concern. But after the defendants filed an appeal with the High Court, brother-in-law Gurmeet Singh and mother-in-law Santo Kaur were let free, even though the appellant’s conviction was affirmed.

ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether the prosecution can be presumed to have waived its burden of proof and placed the burden of proof on the accused or appellant ?

ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY APPELLANT

• Since the lawyer who submitted the appeal was not present, learned counsel was invited to act as an amicus curiae. In this capacity, they argued that the appellant’s conviction and sentence could not be legitimately upheld under Sections 304B or 498A of the IPC.
• To raise the presumption under Section 304B IPC, the deceased had to have been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry shortly before death.
• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113B states that the presumption of dowry death can only be raised if it can be demonstrated that the woman suffered cruel treatment or harassment as a result of or in connection with the dowry demand soon before she died.
• The appellant’s Section 304B IPC sentence of ten years of hard imprisonment was, however, lowered to seven years. The decision under appeal is the one that the High Court noted before.
• The State’s competent attorney, however, contended that the case included the dowry-lust-driven murder of a young woman by her in-laws.
• After only two years of marriage, the death was not natural. Not even her parents could be informed by the deceased before they were cremated.
• The two uncles and the maternal grandmother who were there during the cremation could see the broken tooth and marks from injuries on the deceased’s body.
• They were unable to file the complaint because they were threatened. Given that the death occurred in the marital household, the appellant bears the primary responsibility for refuting the presumption.
• The prosecution’s witness testimony contains sufficient proof that the appellant made repeated demands for dowry. There are no mistakes in the High Court’s ruling.
• The appellant’s sentence was lowered by the High Court from ten years to a minimum of seven years, as mandated by Section 304B of the IPC, exhibiting sufficient leniency.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

• It was also claimed that Jagir Singh, a significant witness who was referenced by the complainant in the FIR, was not included in the prosecution’s case.
• He is the one named in the lawsuit as a resident of Bhogpur Dam village, where the deceased had lived in her married home. He had informed the complainant of his daughter’s passing.
• Why was this important witness not produced by the prosecution? As stated by I.O. Babban Singh, who gave a testimony as PW-6, Jagir Singh’s statement was documented during the course of the inquiry. Once the conditions of Sections 304B, 498A IPC, and Section 113B of IEA have not been fulfilled, no presumption of dowry death can be raised.
• The appellant, his brother, and mother were additionally accused of having the same accusations made against them.
• But the State hasn’t appealed his mother’s and brother’s convictions, and the appellant’s wife’s death wasn’t shocking considering that she was suffering fits at the time.

JUDGEMENT – RATIO DECIDENDI

The petitioner contested the judgement and sentencing by Sections 304B, 498A, and 201 IPC. The defence contended that there was insufficient evidence to establish a presumption of dowry death because the dead had not been imperilled to any abuse or aggravation in the moments leading up to her death. Additionally, the defence claimed that the prosecution had failed to present a relevant witness who could have offered vital evidence.

The prosecution argued that there was enough evidence in the file to back up the appellant’s frequent demands for dowry and acts of brutality. After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court reviewed the available data. The Court found that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction below Section 304B or 498A IPC. The Court noted that none of the witnesses had mentioned that the deceased had been subjected to abuse or harassment, or that she had been asked for a dowry right before she passed away.

The deceased’s uncles and maternal grandmother, who were present during the cremation, did not object or file a complaint, the court further Stated. The prosecution was judged to have failed to meet the requirements essential to cultivate an impertinence of dowry death, according to the court. Below sections 304B and 498A of the IPC, the Court quashed the appellant’s conviction and punishment. The appellant was cleared of all charges after the High Court’s decision was overruled.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

Charan Singh and Chilo Kaur were spouses. Chilo Kaur has been subjected to brutality in her in-law’s home for dowry by her husband and in-laws. Suddenly one day Chilo Kaur passed away. So the parents of Chilo Kaur filed a complaint against Charan Singh below section 304B,498A,201 of IPC. The prosecution side argued that the woman passed away only because of the dowry torture. The trial court, the defence argued that there were no proper witnesses to prove the brutality and gave sentences of “two years below section 498A,2 years below section 201 and 10 years of hard imprisonment below section 304B of IPC. But on appeal the High Court maintained Charan Singh’s sentence from 10 years to 7 years below section 304B. On the challenging of this judgement, they went for an appeal to the Supreme Court as there were no sufficient reasons to make Charan Singh liable below sections 304B,498A and 201 of IPC. Thus the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s verdict.

1. Indian Penal code, 304B of 1860. ↑
2. Indian Penal code, 498A of 1860. ↑
3. Indian Penal code, 201 of 1860. ↑
4. Indian Evidence Act, 113B of 1872. ↑