Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 304-B, 498-A — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 113-B — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Ss. 2, 3, 4 — Dowry death — “Soon before her death” — Presumption — Appreciation of evidence — Minor contradictions — Interference with acquittal — Article 136, Constitution of India — Married woman dying of burns within one year of marriage — Consistent evidence of demand of colour TV, motorcycle and ₹15,000 — Demand reiterated one day prior to death — Continuous cruelty and threats proved — Trial Court convicting husband and mother-in-law — High Court acquitting on grounds of improbability of demand, poverty of accused, contradictions and alleged happiness of deceased — Supreme Court holding High Court misdirected in law and facts — Demand of dowry not dependent on timing or economic status — “Soon before” a relative concept — Presumption under S.113-B Evidence Act attracted and unrebutted — Minor inconsistencies not fatal — Acquittal set aside — Conviction restored — Sentence of husband affirmed — Incarceration of 94-year-old mother-in-law declined on humanitarian grounds — Appeals allowed.
B. ANALYSIS OF FACTS
-
The deceased Nasrin, aged about 20 years, was married to Ajmal Beg slightly over one year prior to her death. Jamila Beg was her mother-in-law.
-
The prosecution case was that Ajmal Beg, Jamila Beg and other family members repeatedly demanded a colour television, a motorcycle and ₹15,000 in cash from the deceased and her parental family.
-
On 4 June 2001, Ajmal Beg reiterated the demand to PW-1 (father of the deceased), who expressed his inability to meet the demand due to poverty.
-
On 5 June 2001, the deceased was allegedly assaulted, threatened with death, and subsequently set on fire after kerosene was poured, resulting in her death.
-
FIR No. 94/2001 was registered under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
-
The Trial Court, after examining eight prosecution witnesses, convicted Ajmal Beg and Jamila Beg, acquitting the other accused.
-
The High Court, in appeal, reversed the conviction and acquitted both, holding that:
-
witnesses were unreliable,
-
dowry demand was improbable as the accused were poor,
-
contradictions and statements regarding the deceased living “happily” created doubt.
-
-
The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court against the acquittal.
C. ANALYSIS OF LAW
1. Ingredients of Dowry Death — Section 304-B IPC
The Court reiterated the essentials as laid down in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, namely:
-
death otherwise than under normal circumstances,
-
within seven years of marriage,
-
cruelty or harassment soon before her death,
-
such cruelty in connection with demand for dowry.
All ingredients were held to be fully satisfied.
2. Meaning of “Soon Before Her Death”
Relying on Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Court held:
-
“soon before” is a relative and elastic expression,
-
what is required is a reasonable nexus between dowry-related cruelty and death,
-
demand reiterated one day prior to death squarely satisfies the requirement.
3. Presumption under Section 113-B, Evidence Act
The Court held that once dowry-related cruelty soon before death is established:
-
the Court shall presume that the accused caused the dowry death,
-
the presumption is mandatory, though rebuttable,
-
in the present case, no rebuttal evidence was led by the defence.
4. Appreciation of Evidence — Minor Contradictions
The Court reiterated settled law that:
-
minor inconsistencies, omissions or variations do not vitiate the prosecution case,
-
falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not apply,
-
the evidence must be read as a whole, not in fragments.
The High Court was held to have erred in discarding reliable testimony on hyper-technical grounds.
5. Dowry Demand — Timing and Economic Status Irrelevant
The Court categorically held:
-
Under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, dowry can be demanded before, at or after marriage,
-
Poverty or economic incapacity of the accused does not negate the possibility of dowry demand,
-
The High Court’s reasoning that poor persons would not demand dowry was fallacious.
6. Section 498-A IPC — Cruelty
The Court reaffirmed that:
-
cruelty includes mental and physical harassment for dowry,
-
proof of persistent harassment and threats was sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 498-A IPC.
7. Scope of Interference under Article 136
Since:
-
the Trial Court and High Court reached opposite conclusions, and
-
the High Court’s judgment suffered from misreading of evidence and legal misdirection,
the Supreme Court was justified in re-appreciating evidence and restoring conviction.
8. Sentencing — Humanitarian Consideration
While restoring conviction:
-
sentence of Ajmal Beg was fully affirmed,
-
incarceration of Jamila Beg, aged 94 years, was declined on humanitarian grounds, though conviction was maintained.
D. DECISION / OPERATIVE PART
-
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in acquitting Ajmal Beg and Jamila Beg.
-
The judgment of acquittal was set aside, and the conviction recorded by the Trial Court under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was restored.
-
Ajmal Beg was directed to surrender within four weeks to undergo the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
-
Jamila Beg, though convicted, was not directed to undergo imprisonment considering her advanced age.
-
The State’s appeals were allowed.
-
The Court issued systemic directions concerning:
-
education and awareness against dowry,
-
effective appointment and functioning of Dowry Prohibition Officers,
-
training of police and judicial officers,
-
expeditious disposal of dowry-related cases,
-
community-level awareness programs.
-
-
Directions were ordered to be circulated to High Courts and State Governments, with compliance affidavits directed.
No comments:
Post a Comment