Image Courtesy:siasat.com
The Supreme Court has expressed concerns about the manner in which trial courts adopt “a casual and cursory manner, without specifically questioning the accused as to his defense under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in dowry death cases.”
While hearing the appeal filed by the appellant who was charged under Section 304B (punishment for dowry death) of the Indian Penal Code, the Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, and Justice Aniruddha Bose said that many times such statements are recorded without specifically questioning the accused as to his defense.
The court noted that “examination of an accused under section 313 CrPC cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, as it is based on the fundamental principle of fairness.” The court elaborated on this provision and said, “Section 313 CrPC incorporates the valuable principle of natural justice “audi alteram partem” as it 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 fairly, with care and caution. The Court must put in incriminating circumstances.”
The court accepted that dowry death is a menace in society and that “there is no denying that such social evil is persisting even today”. Even though such cases are increasing day by day, the court observed that “sometimes family members of the husband are roped in, even though they have no active role in commission of the offence and are residing at distant places”.
But the Bench maintained that section 304B must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand.
Facts of the case
The case before the Supreme Court is an appeal against the order of Punjab and Haryana High Court that upheld the conviction of the appellant. The prosecution’s story states that the appellant and the deceased woman were married in 1994 and a year later, the woman’s family was informed that she was ailing and has been admitted in the hospital.
Once they reached the hospital, they found that the deceased woman and appellant’s wife had passed away due to burn injuries. It was alleged that dowry harassment and cruelty led her to die by suicide by setting herself ablaze.
Court issues guidelines
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant husband based on the evidence on record. It noted that when the deceased’s brother had visited her at her in-law’s house one month after marriage, she had disclosed to him that the accused husband and the mother-in-law used to physically harass her on account of insufficient dowry.
A month prior to her death, she had shifted back to her matrimonial house after staying with her parents for a while. Once she was back to her husband’s house, she was continuously harassed as disclosed to her father. “The aforesaid chain of circumstances proves that there existed a live and proximate link between the instances of demand of dowry and the death of the deceased”, said the court.
The doctor also confirmed that she died as she had suffered 85 percent burn injuries. Her entire body was doused with Kerosene oil and hence the possibility of an accident was ruled out.
The Court, then, reaffirmed the following points with respect to the law under Section 304B read with Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act:
1. Section 304-B of IPC must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand.
2. The prosecution must at first establish the existence of the necessary ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 304-B. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the rebuttable presumption of causality, provided under Section 113-B operates against the accused.
3. Section 304B states that where the 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 relative of her husband for any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”.
The phrase “soon before”, the court said, cannot be construed to mean ‘immediately before’. The prosecution must establish the existence of “proximate and live link” between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the husband or his relatives.
4. Section 304-B does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental. The reason for such non categorization is due to the fact that death occurring “otherwise than under normal circumstances” can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental.
5. Due to the precarious nature of Section 304-B read with 113-B of the Evidence Act, Judges, prosecution and defence should be careful during conduction of trial.
6. It is a matter of grave concern that, often, Trial Courts record the statement under Section 313, CrPC in a very casual and cursory manner, without specifically questioning the accused as to his defense. It ought to be noted that the examination of an accused under Section 313 CrPC cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, as it is based on the fundamental principle of fairness. This aforesaid enables the accused to offer an explanation for the incriminatory material appearing against him.
7. The Court must put incriminating circumstances before the accused and seek his response.
8. Section 232 of CrPC provides that, “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 accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal”. Such discretion must be utilized by the Trial Courts as an obligation of best efforts.
9. Once the Trial Court decides that the accused is not eligible to be acquitted as per the provisions of Section 232 of 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 which is also an invaluable right provided to the accused.
10. In the same breath, Trial Courts need to balance other important considerations such as the right to a speedy trial. In this regard, we may caution that the above provisions should not be allowed to be misused as delay tactics.
The court urged the courts and lawyers to follow these guidelines while conducting a dowry death trial.
The judgment may be read here:
Related:
SC on Dowry Death: No conviction if unnatural death not established
Not residing with woman does not absolve in-laws of liability in dowry-death cases: Madras HC
Bombay HC acquits husband accused of cruelty and abetment to suicide of wife