Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-000132-000133 – 2017 |
| Diary Number | 41190/2013 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on criminal courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedents on statutory presumption; overrules Allahabad High Court acquittal |
| Type of Law | Criminal law; evidence law; dowry‐prohibition legislation |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | Once the prosecution proves death by burns within seven years of marriage, demand for dowry and cruelty “soon before” death, Section 113-B mandates presumption of dowry death. Peripheral contradictions in witness statements do not defeat unshaken core evidence. The High Court’s disbelief of PW-2 on immaterial inconsistencies and reliance on speculative reasoning (poverty, single‐word “happiness”) was perverse and legally unsound. Convictions under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and Sections 3/4 DPA, 1961 are hereby restored. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in India |
| Persuasive For | High Courts considering dowry‐death and Section 498-A matters |
| Overrules | Allahabad High Court’s acquittal order in Criminal Appeal Nos. 5109-5110 of 2003 under Section 374 CrPC |
| Distinguishes | High Court’s reasoning on witness credibility based on immaterial contradictions and speculative socioeconomic inferences |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Supreme Court clarifies that once demand for dowry and cruelty “soon before death” are established, the presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act arises, and peripheral inconsistencies cannot defeat core testimony.
- A High Court cannot dismiss material evidence by disbelieving a key witness on immaterial contradictions—such disbelief is perverse if the witness remains unshaken in cross-examination.
- Dowry demands at any time before or after marriage fall within Section 2 DPA, 1961; trial courts must apply statutory definitions strictly.
- A single use of the word “happily” by a witness does not override consistent evidence of harassment and threats.
- Humanitarian sentencing: advanced-age convicts may avoid actual imprisonment, balancing deterrence and dignity.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Identified statutory ingredients of dowry death (Section 304-B IPC): death by burns within seven years, cruelty soon before death, nexus with dowry demand.
- Held that proof of these elements triggers the mandatory rebuttable presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act.
- Reviewed PW-1 and PW-2 depositions: consistent allegation of three-item demand, repeated harassment, threats of death.
- Rejected High Court’s wholesale disbelief of PW-2: inconsistencies (presence of co-witness, secondary reporting) were immaterial; core evidence remained unshaken.
- Found the High Court’s rationale (accused poverty, “no prior dowry demand”, “happy married life”) legally unsound and unsupported by record.
- Restored Trial Court’s convictions and sentences under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and Sections 3/4 DPA, 1961.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (State of Uttar Pradesh):
- Core elements of Section 304-B IPC and statutory presumption under Section 113-B were satisfied.
- High Court misapplied witness‐credibility principles and speculated on poverty and a single word in testimony.
- Acquittal was perverse and warranted reversal under Article 136.
Respondents (Accused):
- PW-2 was not an eyewitness to the act; his evidence was based on second-hand information and lacked police statement.
- PW-6’s statement that the daughter lived “happily” undermined claims of cruelty.
- Contradictions and omissions in prosecution evidence created reasonable doubt.
Factual Background
A young bride died of 100 percent burns on 5 June 2001 in her husband’s village. She and her father had repeatedly resisted demands by her husband and in-laws for a colour television, a motorcycle and ₹15 000. Eyewitnesses reached the scene after she cried for help and saw her ablaze; the accused fled. FIR No. 94/2001 under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 DPA, 1961 led to conviction; the Allahabad High Court reversed, prompting this appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 304-B IPC: specifies dowry-death ingredients; interprets “soon before her death” as reasonable nexus to cruelty.
- Section 113-B Evidence Act: mandates presumption of dowry death once dowry-related cruelty is proved.
- Section 498-A IPC: defines “cruelty” to include physical/mental harm and harassment for unlawful demands.
- Sections 3 & 4 DPA, 1961: penalize giving/taking and demanding dowry at any time before, during or after marriage.
Procedural Innovations
- Directions for curricular reforms to inculcate gender equality and outlaw dowry at school and college levels.
- Mandate designation and publicization of Dowry Prohibition Officers in each district.
- Periodic training for police and judiciary on dowry-death investigation and sensitivity.
- High Courts to monitor and expedite pending Section 304-B and Section 498-A cases.
- District Legal Services Authorities to engage civil society in grass-roots awareness workshops.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court reaffirms established dowry-death jurisprudence.
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Supreme Court overturns Allahabad High Court acquittal.