“Soon before” Under S.304-B IPC does not mean Immediately Before: Supreme Court
On a criminal appeal regarding bail for dowry death, the Supreme court laid down guidelines on how to proceed with the trial in such cases and went into the legislative history of section 304-B IPC to hold that the phrase “soon before” cannot be restricted to mean immediately before; it has to be interpreted in accordance with factum of each case. This judgment was passed in the case of Satbir Singh &amp; Another vs. State of Haryana [Cr.A.No.1735-1736/2010], by a Triple Bench consisting of Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant, and Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Bose. The present appeals arose out of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court Of Punjab and Haryana whereby appeals preferred by the appellants were dismissed and the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court was upheld. The case of the prosecution was that the deceased and appellant no.1 were married in 1994 and in the year 1995 the complainant was informed that his daughter was ailing and admitted to the hospital. By the time he along with wife and son reached the hospital, she had passed away due to burn injuries. The prosecution’s case was the deceased committed suicide just one year after marriage and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of bringing less dowry. On trial the appellants were convicted under sections 304B, 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under section 304B and 5 years rigorous imprisonment under section 306 IPC. Aggrieved by the same the appellants approached the high court, wherein the order of trial court was upheld. Aggrieved by the order, the appellants filed the present appeal by way of Special Leave in the Supreme court. The Supreme court after hearing both the parties observed that the issues to be addressed were whether the Trial Court and high court was correct in convicting the accused under section 304B and 306 IPC. The supreme court observed that the terms “soon before” although should be interpreted strictly when such strict interpretation leads to absurdity, the court may rely on genuine import of the words. Thus the interpretation of “soon before” did not mean immediately before and should be interpreted based on facts and circumstances. 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.” The Supreme Court further observed that when the prosecution establishes such proximate link presumption   of   causation   arises   against   the   accused   under Section 113­B of the Evidence Act. The Court held that the examination of accused under section 313 CrPC incorporates the valuable principle of natural justice­ “audi alteram partem”, as it enabled the accused to offer an explanation for the incriminatory material appearing against him. Therefore the court must question the accused fairly with care and caution. The court held that the prosecution successfully probed that the death was due to burn injuries which took place within one year of marriage and it was proved that soon before her death she was subjected to harassment and cruelty for dowry. Thus on the basis of 113B Evidence Act, the burden shifts to the accused-appellants and they did not rebut the same. The Supreme Court also reiterated that calling upon the accused to present his defense as per the procedure provided under Section 233, CrPC, is an invaluable right provided to the accused. On the offence under section 306 IPC the Supreme Court observed that since there was insufficient evidence to prove suicide beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption under section 113A Evidence Act, cannot be taken  by the prosecution. Therefore the conviction of appellants under section 306 IPC required the court’s interference and the Court set aside the conviction and sentence under section 306 IPC.
by the appellants and upheld the order of conviction and this information he along with his wife and son reached the injuries. The prosecution’s case was that the deceased of her marriage and that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of bringing The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court vide order dated 11.12.1997 for the offences under Sections 304­B and Trial Court. The High Court vide impugned judgment dated present appeals by way of Special Leave challenging the The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the possibility of accidental fire has not been ruled out in the present case. Moreover most importantly the Lastly the prosecution has failed to prove that the demand 6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent­ the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The counsel of the deceased victim occurred within almost 1 year of marriage. Moreover the witnesses have stated the specific 7. Having heard counsel appearing on either side and perusing the material on record this Court needs to answer following I. Whether the Trial Court and the High Court was correct in convicting the accused on the charge under Section 304B IPC II. Whether the Trial Court and the High Court was correct in convicting the accused on the charge under Section 306 IPC Section 304­B IPC which defines and provides the punishment a woman is caused by any burns or bodily circumstances within seven years of her death she was subjected to cruelty or her husband for or in connection with any ‘dowry death’ and such husband or relative Explanation. —For the purpose of this sub­ section ‘dowry’ shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be burning or bodily injuries or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to provides for punishment for those who cause dowry death Accordingly in Major Singh v. State of Punjab 5 SCC 304­B IPC the following essential or harassment by her husband or any v) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon The first contentious part that exists in the interpretation of the Section. Being a criminal statute generally it is to be may in appropriate cases place reliance upon the genuine import of the words taken in their usual sense to resolve such ambiguities. Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company 9 SCC 1 State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah 2020 SCC 10. Section 304­B IPC is one among many legislative initiatives women are being subjected to cruelty because of covetous were found to be insufficient the Criminal Law Act 1983 was passed wherein Chapter XX­A was introduced in the IPC containing Section 11. However despite the above measures the issue of dowry harassment was still prevalent. Additionally there was a growing trend of deaths of young brides in suspicious circumstances following demands of dowry. The need for a stringent law to curb dowry deaths was suo motu taken up by relevant time was insufficient to tackle the issue of dowry deaths due to the nature and modus of the crime. They “1.3 If in a particular incident of dowry death the facts are such as to satisfy the legal ingredients of an offence already the offender to book. IN practice however 12. Taking into consideration the aforesaid Law Commission Report and the continuing issues relating to dowry related Prohibition Act as well as the IPC by enacting Dowry this amendment Section 304­B IPC was specifically introduced in the IPC as a stringent provision to curb the increased the punishment. We have also is generally burnt or the wife is burnt behind closed doors in her in­law’s home You have never really heard of a girl being burnt while cooking in her kitchen. Therefore getting evidence immediately becomes a great bit couple of amendments which give certain presumptions where the burden death or that it was not deliberately 13. There is no denying that such social evil is persisting even killing of women and girls” published by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime highlighted that in 2018 female dowry deaths account for 40 to 50 percent of all female from the period 1999 to 2016 these figures have remained constant. In fact the latest data furnished by the National 14. Considering the significance of such a legislation a strict interpretation would defeat the very object for which it was enacted. Therefore it is safe to deduce that when the legislature case. Even the spectrum of cruelty is quite varied as it can range from physical verbal or even emotional. This list is be laid down by this Court to define what exacts the phrase this Court in the case of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab 11 SCC 359 emphasized the mandatory application of the presumption under Section 113­B of the “19. It may be mentioned herein that the legislature in its wisdom has used the word on the part of the court to presume that connection with any demand of dowry. … Therefore in view of the above onus lies on the Section 113­B relatable to Section 304­B IPC in case the essential ingredients of such death have been 18. Therefore once all the essential ingredients are established by the prosecution the presumption under Section 113­B Evidence Act mandatorily operates against the accused. This presumption of causality that arises can be rebutted by the 19. The usage of rebuttable presumption of causality under Section 113­B Evidence Act creates a greater responsibility on during conducting criminal trials relating to Section 304­B It is a matter of grave concern that often Trial Courts record casual and cursory manner without specifically questioning the accused as to his defense. It ought to be noted that the treated as a mere procedural formality as it is based on the as it enables the accused to offer an explanation for the incriminatory material appearing against him. Therefore it accused fairly with care and caution. The Court must put incriminating circumstances before the accused and seek his prepare his defense since the inception of the trial with due caution keeping in consideration the peculiarities of Section 304­B IPC read with Section 113­B Evidence Act 21. Section 232 CrPC assumes importance which reads as “If after taking the evidence for the prosecution examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the per the procedure provided under Section 233 CrPC which is such procedural right cohesively sits with the rebuttable 22. The second contentious part relating to Section 304­B IPC is that it does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental as was done that death occurring “otherwise than under normal circumstances” can in cases be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. However the Section 304­B IPC endeavors to also address those situations wherein murders or suicide are 23. Therefore if all the other ingredients of Section 304­B IPC are have caused the dowry death. 17 SCC 405 Shanti v. State of Haryana 24. After having observed the law on Section 304­B IPC we may now turn to the merits of this case. It is clear that the It is an admitted fact that the deceased and accused were married on 01.07.1994 and the death of the lady occurred on 25. With respect to the cause of death the doctorfound the smell of kerosene oil on the body of the deceased who had suffered 85% burn injuries. Therefore in the present case the deceased victim succumbed to burns. As the death was relatable to burn injuries within seven years of marriage it 26. Coming to the issue of dowry demand the evidence on record that the accused husband and mother­in­law used to physically harass her on the account of bringing insufficient demand of a scooter. Pursuant to this disclosure she was brought back to her paternal house where this fact was disclosed to father of the deceased had visited her while she was in her matrimonial home. The deceased had reiterated her plight to her brother. Thereafter on 31.07.1995 the father of the been admitted in the hospital. Upon reaching the father Court upon a close appreciation of the aforesaid witnesses 28. From the above analysis it is clear that the prosecution was she was subjected to harassment and cruelty pursuant to stand satisfied the presumption under 113­B Evidence Act operates against the appellants who are deemed to have 29. The burden therefore shifts on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption. The counsel for the appellants has hence no liability can be fixed upon them. However in the on record to prove that the death was accidental or 30. Here it ought to be noted that according to the evidence of the doctor the entire body of the deceased was doused with kerosene oil. Therefore the possibility of an accident can be deceased committed suicide by sprinkling kerosene oil on her body or she was burnt by sprinkling kerosene on her body either by the accused or by somebody else and the plea of accident tried to be made out by the learned 31. Therefore the presumption adumbrated in Section 113­B not been rebutted by the accused­appellants herein. The the concurrent opinions of the Courts below convicting the 32. Apart from their conviction under Section 304­B IPC the appellants have also additionally challenged their conviction under Section 306 IPC. Section 306 IPC relates to the commits suicide whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either 33. A bare reading of the provision indicates that for the offence With respect to this latter requirement Section 113­A Evidence Act creates a presumption against the husband and or his relative with respect to the abetment of suicide of a married woman under certain conditions. Not going into the other conditions a perusal of the provision indicates that such been established by the prosecution first. The necessary were considered by this court in Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana 1 SCC 244 wherein this Court held that “5. …Reading Sections 306 and 307 (sic 107 punished under Section 306 of the Penal Code 1860 for abetting the commission of suicide. A plain reading of this provision shows that before a person can be convicted of abetting the suicide of any other person it must be concluded that the deceased committed suicide. However we the Courts below is based on assumptions as there is no “Further there is no direct evidence having been adduced by the prosecution the (sic any of the accused caused death by sprinkling kerosene on the body of the the factum of suicide beyond reasonable doubt the presumption under Section 113­A Evidence Act is not of much adducing sufficient evidence. In the present case the 36. At the cost of repetition the law under Section 304­B IPC read i. Section 304­B IPC must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and The prosecution must at first establish the existence of the 304­B IPC. Once these ingredients are satisfied the rebuttable presumption of causality provided under Section 113­B The phrase “soon before” as appearing in Section 304­B IPC cannot be construed to mean ‘immediately before’. The prosecution must establish existence of “proximate and live iv. Section 304­B IPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in v. Due to the precarious nature of Section 304­B IPC read with 113­B Evidence Act Judges prosecution and defence should It is a matter of grave concern that often Trial Courts record cursory manner without specifically questioning the accused an accused under Section 313 CrPC cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality as it based on the fundamental enables the accused to offer an explanation for the incriminatory material appearing against him. Therefore it imposes an obligation on the court to question the accused The Court must put incriminating circumstances before the accused and seek his response. 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 viii. Section 232 CrPC provides that “If after taking the evidence for the prosecution examining the accused and hearing the the Judge shall record an order of acquittal”. Such discretion must be utilized by the Trial Courts as an obligation of best ix. Once the Trial Court decides that the accused is not eligible to be acquitted as per the provisions of Section 232 CrPC it must move on and fix hearings specifically for ‘defence evidence’ calling upon the accused to present his defense as per the procedure provided under Section 233 CrPC which is also an In the same breath Trial Courts need to balance other xi. Apart from the above the presiding Judge should follow the guidelines laid down by this Court while sentencing and xii. Undoubtedly as discussed above the menace of dowry death is increasing day by day. However it is also observed that and are residing at distant places. In these cases the Court In light of the above findings after perusing the relevant discharge the burden under Section 113­B Evidence Act 38. Appeals allowed to the above extent. Pending applications if