AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Conviction,Sentence
Under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code","Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and fine of
Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation
Appellants were demanding a sum of Rs.20,000/- and they were torturing her therefor. He has further stated that he had asked the in-laws of Nirmala",
Bai to send her with him for 2-4 days, but they refused saying that till the amount of Rs.20,000/- is not given to them, they will not send her back. On",
this, he returned his house. Next day, he came to know that Nirmala Bai died due to drowning in the well. But, in paragraph 8, he has stated that he",
came to know about the death of Nirmala Bai due to her drowning in the well after 3-4 months of his taking her to her matrimonial house.,
Khamhanlal (PW4) has stated that in the year 1997, when father of Nirmala Bai had brought Nirmala Bai to Kasigarh and she had stayed at",
Kasigarh for about 24-25 days, at that time, on being asked, Nirmala Bai had told him that she was being harassed and beaten for demand of",
Rs.20,000/-. He has further stated that on being persuaded, Nirmala Bai had become ready to return to her matrimonial house and thereafter she was",
taken to her matrimonial house. In his police statement (Ex.D-2), he has not stated about the demand of Rs.20,000/- made by the in-laws of deceased",
Nirmala Bai.,
Amritlal (PW5) has stated that when he had visited the matrimonial house of Nirmala Bai, at that time, she had told him that her husband had",
made a demand from her father and on not being fulfilled the demand, she was being harassed. He has further stated that he had revisited the",
matrimonial house of Nirmala Bai. At that time, he had seen a swelling on the cheek of Nirmala Bai. On being asked, mother-in-law of Nirmala Bai",
had told him that she was beaten by husband Ganpat, therefore, the swelling had been suffered by Nirmala Bai. In paragraph 10, he has categorically",
stated that he had asked about the demand from the mother-in-law of Nirmala Bai and she had told him that the same could be explained by the,
husband of Nirmala Bai.,
Dr. Mrs. S.D. Kanwar (PW6), who, along with Dr. J. Singh and Dr. S. Kachchhap conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of",
Nirmala Bai on 2.9.1997 and gave report thereof (Ex.P9), has stated that the cause of death was asphyxia but no definite opinion could be given",
regarding asphyxia. She has further stated that vide Ex.P10, a query regarding cause of death was made against which she had replied vide Ex.P11",
that no definite opinion could be given regarding asphyxia.,
Gangabai (PW8), sister of Appellant No.1, Ganpat has stated that on the occasion of Tija festival, her brother Ganpat had come to take her back.",
She had come to her village along with her brother. At that time, Nirmala Bai was not present at the house. On being searched, she was not found.",
Later on, her dead body was found in the well. She has been declared hostile.",
Assistant Sub-Inspector R.G.S. Goutam (PW11) has stated that he had taken out the dead body of deceased Nirmala Bai from the well and,
prepared inquest (Ex.P2). Along with the dead body of deceased, he had seized one iron bucket and one saree from the spot vide Ex.P7.",
Sub-Inspector N. Kujur (PW12) has stated that he had recorded First Information Report (Ex.P20) on the basis of morgue inquiry. He has stated,
that he further investigated into the matter.,
Head Constable Ram Kumar Sahu (PW13) has stated that he recorded morgue intimation (Ex.P20A) on the basis of the information received,
from Appellant No.1, Ganpat, husband of deceased Nirmala Bai.",
In AIR 2003 SC 2865 [Hira Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi], it has been observed by the Supreme Court as under:",
 “8. Section 304ÂB, I.P.C. deals with dowry death reads as follows:",
 “304ÂB. Dowry deathâ€"(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal,
circumstances withing seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her,
husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death†and such",
husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.â€"For the purpose of this subÂsection 'dowry' shall have same meaning,
as in S. 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).",
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to,
imprisonment for life.â€,
The provision has application when death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances,
within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any,
relatives of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. In order to attract application of S. 304Â B, I.P.C. the essential ingredients",
are as follows:Â,
(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance.,
(ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.,
(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.,
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.,
(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.,
Section 113ÂB of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the case at hand. Both S. 304ÂB, I.P.C. and S. 113ÂB of the Evidence Act were inserted as",
noted earlier by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths. Section 113ÂB,
reads as follows: “113ÂB. Presumption as to dowry death.â€"When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a,
woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with,",
any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.",
Explanation.â€"For the purposes of this section 'dowry death' shall have the same meaning as in S. 304ÂB of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).â€,
The necessity for insertion of the two provisions has been amply analysed by the Law Commission of India in its 21st Report dated 10th August, 1988",
on 'Dowry Deaths and Law Reform.' Keeping in view the impediment in the preÂexisting law in securing evidence to prove dowry related deaths,",
legislature thought it wise to insert a provision relating to presumption of dowry deathon proof of certain essentials. It is in this background presumptive,
S. 113ÂB in the Evidence Act has been inserted. As per the definition of 'dowry death' in S. 304ÂB, I.P.C. and the wording in the presumptive S.",
113ÂB of the Evidence Act, one of the essential ingredients, amongst others, in both the provisions is that the concerned woman must have been",
“soon before her death†subjected to cruelty or harassment “for or in connection with the demand of dowry.†Presumption under S. 113ÂB is,
a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the Court to raise a presumption that the accused caused",
the dowry death. The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials:,
(1) The question before the Court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (This means that the presumption can,
be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under S. 304ÂB, I.P.C.).",
(2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.,
(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry.",
(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.,
A conjoint reading of S. 113ÂB of the Evidence Act and S. 304ÂB, I.P.C. shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death",
the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. Prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the,
purview of the 'death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances.' The expression 'soon before' is very relevant where S. 113ÂB of the,
Evidence Act and S. 304ÂB, I.P.C. are pressed into service. Prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or",
harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by prosecution. 'Soon before' is a relative term and it,
would depend upon circumstances of each case and no straitÂjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the,
occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of",
dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under S. 113ÂB of the Evidence Act. The expression 'soon before her death' used in the substantive,
S. 304ÂB, I.P.C. and S. 113ÂB of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the",
expression 'soon before' is not defined. A reference to expression 'soon before' used in S. 114. Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays,
down that a Court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods 'soon after the theft, is either the thief has received the goods knowing",
them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession.' The determination of the period which can come within the term 'soon before' is left to be",
determined by the Courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression 'soon before' would",
normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence,
of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in,
time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.â€",
Necessary ingredients for invoking the provisions of Sections 302, 304B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 113B of the Indian",
Evidence Act have been discussed by the Supreme Court in (2008) 4 Supreme 228 (Narayanamurthy v. State of Karnataka). In paragraphs 17 and 18,
of the said judgment, it has been observed thus:",
 “17. The basic ingredients to attract the provisions of Section 304B, IPC, are as follows:Â",
 “(1) That the death of the woman was caused by any burns or bodily injury or in some circumstances which were not normal;,
(2) such death occurs within 7 years from the date of her marriage;,
(3) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;,
(4) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and,
(5) it is established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death.â€,
In the case of unnatural death of a married woman as in a case of this nature, the husband could be prosecuted under Sections 302, 304ÂB and",
306 of the Penal Code. The distinction as regards commission of an offence under one or the other provisions as mentioned hereinbefore came up for,
consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, [2001 (8) SCC 633] wherein it was held: (SCC p. 643, paras",
21Â22),
 “21. Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is 'at any time'",
after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are 'in connection with the marriage of the said,
parties'. This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection,
with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example,",
some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not,
enveloped within the ambit of 'dowry'. Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304ÂB should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to,
be given in connection with the marriage. 22. It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some,
time, if Section 304ÂB is to be invoked. But, it should have happened 'soon before her death'. The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and",
can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the,
pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words 'soon before her death' is to,
emphasise the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a",
perceptible nexus between her death and the dowryÂrelated harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval which elapsed between the infliction,
of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide the court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the harassment or cruelty would,
not have been the immediate cause of her death. It is hence for the court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said",
interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept 'soon before her death'.â€,
In the present case, on minute examination of the evidence on record, it is clear that deceased Nirmala Bai was married 2 years prior to her death.",
There is nothing on record which could reveal that any demand of dowry was made on behalf of the Appellants prior to the marriage or at the time of,
marriage of the deceased. Though Jeetram (PW1), father of the deceased has stated that in June-July, 1996, Appellant No.1, Ganpat had come to him",
at his village and made a demand of Rs.20,000/-, which he could not have fulfilled. Sitram (PW2), Tikaram (PW3), Khamhanlal (PW4) and Amritlal",
(PW5) have also supported the above statement of Jeetram (PW1) yet Jeetram (PW1), in paragraphs 7 and 13, has categorically stated that only",
Appellant No.1, Ganpat, husband of deceased Nirmala Bai had made the demand of Rs.20,000/-. Appellants No.2 and 3, father-in-law and mother-in-",
law of the deceased had not made the demand. Appellant No.1, Ganpat had made the demand for opening a shop. From the above, it is also clear that",
the so called demand of Rs.20,000/- was made by Appellant No.1, Ganpat only after about 1 year of the marriage and that demand of Rs.20,000/-",
was not made as a dowry, but was made as a help for opening a shop. As per the statement of Jeetram (PW1) since he did not fulfill the demand, the",
deceased was being harassed. According to his Court statement, on 22.2.1997, i.e., 6 months prior to the date of death of the deceased which took",
place on 31.8.1997, the deceased had come to his house and told him that she was not being given food for the last 11 days due to which she had",
become weak and she had stayed at his house for about 50 days. But, he admits that neither he lodged any report nor did he call any village panchayat",
in this regard or went to the house of the Appellants and made any query from them.,
According to the Court statement of Tikaram (PW3), grandfather of deceased Nirmala Bai, he had gone to the matrimonial house of the deceased",
to take her back to her paternal house on the occasion of Tija festival, but she was not sent back. At that time, the husband and mother-in-law had told",
him that the deceased will be sent back only on being given the amount of Rs.20,000/-. On this, he had returned his house. Next day, Nirmala Bai",
died. But, in paragraph 8, he has categorically stated that he received intimation of death of Nirmala Bai due to her drowning in the well after 3-4",
months of his taking her back to her matrimonial house.,
Even if for the sake of argument this statement of Tikaram (PW3) is considered to be true, from the statement of Jeetram (PW1), it is clear that the",
demand was not a dowry demand but was a demand for help and that was made about 1 year prior to the death of the deceased. In these,
circumstances, it is doubtful that any cruelty was done with the deceased for the said demand. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is not",
proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the Appellants soon before her death. Therefore, the",
offence alleged against the Appellants under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is not made out beyond reasonable doubt. The Appellants are,
entitled to get benefit of doubt.,
Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The Appellants are acquitted of the charges",
framed against them.,
Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.,