Accused in a dowry death case acquitted by Supreme Court as necessary ingredients have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Judgment dated 20th September 2024
Cause title : SHOOR SINGH & ANR. VS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2013
A Bench of Supreme Court Judges Hon'ble Mr. J.B. Pardiwala and Hon'ble Manoj Misra granted acquitted the accused in a dowry death case as all the necessary ingredients of dowry death have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the case, hence the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act would not be available to the prosecution.
Facts of the case are:
The appellants are father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively, of
the deceased, who was daughter of Shanker Singh and Sarojini Devi.
The deceased was married to appellants' son Jitendra Singh on
1.03.2006. On 30.12.2006, deceased gave birth to a male child.
Naming ceremony of the child was performed on 11.01.2007. On
17.01.2007, deceased died at her matrimonial home due to extensive
burn injuries. Upon being informed of her death, PW-1 lodged a first
information report on the same day, inter alia, alleging that,-
when he along with PW-2 had visited deceased's matrimonial home on
4.1.2007, deceased's father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law
(i.e., husband's elder brother - not tried) and sister-in-law
(husband's elder brother's wife - not tried) had told PW-1 and PW-2
that on the day of naming ceremony of the child they would have to
give a motor-cycle and cash of Rs.50,000/-. Besides that, it was
alleged that when PW-1 and PW-2 visited deceased's matrimonial home
on 11.01.2007, the deceased inquired from PW-1 and PW-2 whether they
had brought motorcycle and cash. However, when PW-1 expressed his
inability to meet the demand, the deceased told PW-1 that lot of
pressure was being put on her and if the demand is not met, she
would be killed. With these allegations, and by stating that accused
had killed his daughter on account of the demand being not met, PW-1
lodged the FIR, which was registered as case crime No.1 of 2007 at
P.S. Langur Walla-2, district Pauri Garhwal, under Sections 304-B,
498-A IPC and Sections 3/ 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against
three accused, namely, Jitendra Singh (husband of the deceased) and
the appellants, who were all tried together by the Court of Session,
Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No.25 of 2007.
During trial, prosecution examined 7 witnesses. PW-1 (the first
informant - father of the deceased); PW-2 (mother of the deceased);
and PW-3 (uncle of the deceased) were family members of the deceased
who proved the date of marriage and alleged that the deceased was
depressed on account of the demand. PW-4 was the doctor who
conducted autopsy of the cadaver. He proved that the deceased had
suffered extensive ante-mortem burn injuries which resulted in her
death. PW-5 is cousin of the deceased who had arrived at the spot
along with PW-1 on receipt of information regarding her death. He is
also the inquest witness. PW-6 is the Patwari who made GD entry of
the FIR and took initial steps of investigation such as preparation
of inquest report and dispatch of the cadaver for autopsy. PW-7
completed the investigation and submitted charge-sheet. PW-7, inter
alia, stated that at the time of inquest the body of the deceased
was lying in the courtyard.
The accused, however, denied demand of dowry/ motorcycle/ cash of
Rs.50,000/- as well as harassment of the deceased. Jitendra Singh
(i.e., husband of the deceased) stated that the deceased committed
suicide due to depression on account of staying separate from him as
no quarter was allotted to him, and also because a photograph of her
with a male stranger was found. He had also stated that at the time
of the incident he had gone to collect wood.
Accused Shoor Singh (appellant no.1 herein) added that he had gone
to Lansdowne at the time of incident. Similarly, accused Gangotri
Devi (appellant no.2 herein) stated that she had gone out to wash
clothes.
Observation and direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
"18. Indisputably, the accused have not been convicted for murder,
and rightly so, because there was no worthwhile
evidence to show that except for the burn injuries, which could be
self- inflicted, the accused suffered any other antemortem injury.
Moreover, the presence of the accused in the house at the time of
occurrence is not proved. In such circumstances, the death was most
probably suicidal though this would not make a difference for
commission of an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC if all
the other ingredients of dowry death stand proved. But, as noted
above, here harassment/ cruelty at the instance of the appellants in
connection with any demand for dowry has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt. As regards the reason to commit suicide, though it
is not necessary for us to dwell upon, suffice it to say that
husband of the deceased was in service and stayed away from the
deceased. Suggestion was given to the prosecution witnesses, and
statement was also made under Section 313 CrPC, that the deceased
used to remain depressed for being unable to join her husband at the
place of his posting due to lack of residential quarter. That apart,
a photograph of the deceased (Ex. Kha 1), regarding which no dispute
was raised by the prosecution witnesses, showing her alone with a
male stranger had surfaced. In the statement under Section 313 CrPC
a stand was taken that this photograph had shamed her. Be that as it
may, once all the necessary ingredients of dowry death have not been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption under Section 113-B
of the Evidence Act would not be available to the prosecution.
Hence, in our considered view, the appellants are entitled to be
acquitted of the charge of offences punishable under Section 304-B
and 498-A IPC.
19. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order convicting and
sentencing the appellants under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC is set
aside. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their
bail bond(s) stand discharged."
Download Judgment dated 20th September 2024 in SHOOR SINGH & ANR. VS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND, Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2013.