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 |
| Concurring Judges | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Trial Court conviction; overrules Allahabad High Court acquittal |
| Type of Law | Criminal law – dowry death & cruelty provisions |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court erred in disbelieving consistent witness testimony of repeated dowry demands and harassment soon before death, thereby ignoring the statutory presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act. Once cruelty in connection with a dowry demand is proved, a dowry‐death presumption arises under Section 304-B IPC. Peripheral inconsistencies in secondary details cannot override core facts which satisfy the essentials of Section 304-B. Appellate courts may not set aside convictions absent perverse or legally unsustainable fact‐findings. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Married just over one year; respondents repeatedly demanded a colour television, motorcycle and ₹15,000; persistent harassment for dowry; deceased set on fire by pouring kerosene and died. Trial Court convicted under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and Sections 3/4 DPA; Allahabad High Court acquitted by discrediting eyewitnesses and doubting demands; matter restored on appeal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
| Overrules | Allahabad High Court’s acquittal in Criminal Appeal Nos. 5109-5110 of 2003 under Section 374 CrPC |
| Follows | Pawan Kumar (1998), Ashok Kumar (2010), Devender Singh (2022), Surajdeo Mahto (2022) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- High Court cannot set aside dowry‐death convictions by selectively disbelieving secondary inconsistencies in witness statements.
- Once harassment for dowry demand “soon before death” is proved, presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act is inevitable and requires positive rebuttal.
- Peripheral omissions (e.g., no prior police statement, differing witness recollections) do not negate core evidence of repeated dowry demands.
- Supreme Court restores Trial Court convictions under Sections 304-B & 498-A IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, reaffirming evidentiary standards.
- Elderly convict (94 years old) granted non‐custodial sentence on humanitarian grounds, illustrating sentencing discretion.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Essentials of Section 304-B IPC (Pawan Kumar): death within seven years, “otherwise than under normal circumstances,” cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand “soon before” death.
- Meaning of “soon before her death” (Ashok Kumar): requires reasonable nexus between dowry‐related cruelty and death.
- Statutory presumption (Section 113B Evidence Act): once cruelty connected to dowry demand proved, court must presume accused caused death unless rebutted.
- Cruelty definition (Section 498-A IPC): includes mental or physical harassment linked to unlawful dowry demands.
- Dowry scope (Sections 3/4 DPA): any property or valuable security given before, at, or after marriage in connection with marriage.
- Appellate interference standard: SC will not reappraise evidence where concurrent fact‐findings exist, but reversal justified when lower court makes perverse or unsustainable findings (Surajdeo Mahto).
- Evaluation of witness evidence: core consistent testimony on demands and threats unaffected by peripheral inconsistencies (Sohrab; Radha Mohan Singh).
- High Court error: misdirected rejection of PW2’s testimony, improper reliance on improbability of demand and “happiness” of victim, and failure to record reasons for perverse fact‐finding.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (State of U.P.)
- High Court wrongly disbelieved consistent witness accounts.
- Section 113B presumption and Section 304-B essentials clearly attracted.
- Appellate court overstepped by reversing conviction without perverse‐finding threshold.
Respondents (Accused)
- Witnesses were not direct eyewitnesses; testimony was hearsay.
- No statement recorded before police; demands were improbable given their poverty.
- Victim lived “happily” in matrimonial home; no dowry demand at marriage.
Factual Background
Nasrin, married to Ajmal Beg for just over a year, allegedly faced repeated demands for a colour television, a motorcycle and ₹15,000. When her father could not comply, she was threatened. On 5 June 2001 she was set on fire at her marital home by pouring kerosene; she died of 100% burns. An FIR under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 DPA, 1961 led to conviction by the Trial Court, acquittal by the Allahabad High Court, and restoration of conviction by the Supreme Court on appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 304-B IPC: Dowry death; death by burns or bodily injury within seven years of marriage, cruelty or harassment soon before death for dowry demand → minimum seven years to life.
- Section 113B Evidence Act: Presumption of dowry‐death when cruelty for dowry demand soon before death is proved.
- Section 498-A IPC: Cruelty by husband or relatives includes mental/physical harassment for unlawful dowry demands.
- Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: Prohibits giving, taking, demanding dowry → five years’ imprisonment (Section 3) and six months–two years for demanding (Section 4).
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions were filed; both Judges signed the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Directives for inclusion of anti‐dowry education in school and university curricula.
- Mandate effective deputation and publicity of Dowry Prohibition Officers at district level.
- Regular training for police and judicial officers on social and psychological dimensions of dowry harassment.
- High Courts to audit and expedite pendency of Section 304-B & 498-A IPC cases.
- District administrations and Legal Services Authorities to conduct grassroots awareness workshops engaging civil society.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed