READ ORDER | “Some Sort Of Matrimonial Discord” Cannot Hold Husband, In-Laws Guilty Of Dowry Death: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in its recent order held that charging a person under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (Dowry Death) without a reason, falls short of the premise for a conviction. 

The reason given by victim’s family was that a young married woman would not end her life without any rhyme and reason and some sort of matrimonial discord was there, cannot justify that the husband and in-laws were guilty of dowry death.

A bench of Justices KM Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha in their order noted,

In a prosecution for the commission of an offence and that too, a serious offence like section 304B IPC to hold that some sort of matrimonial discord was there, clearly does not, in any manner, advance the case of the prosecution.

Case:

Ajay Kumar got married with in the year 1999. His wife died by suicide on December 11, 2001. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged on December 19, 2001, accusing husband and his family of pressurising the victim for more dowry. It was also alleged that Ajay was in an illicit relationship with his brother’s wife. 

Trial Court:

The appellant was prosecuted for having committed the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with his mother, brother and sister-in-law. The trial Court convicted the appellant as also his relatives.

Punjab & Haryana High Court:

An appeal was carried out against the conviction before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment has allowed the appeal qua others but sustained the conviction as far as the appellant is concerned. Hence the appeal.

Arguments by Husband:

Senior Advocate Brijendra Chahar, appearing for the appellant, told the bench that the appellant had gone for a marriage along with his friends. However, he did not take his wife along since she had to look after their 10-month-old child. Upset by this, the wife then ended her life. 

Husband further submitted that the parents of the deceased did not file any complaint immediately, and it was only after a considerable delay, they lodged this FIR. Chahar argued that the High Court had not dealt with the case of the appellant and the prosecution had not succeeded in establishing a case under section 304-B IPC. He quoted,

What is more significant is that the parents of the deceased did not have any complaint, whatsoever, at that point of time. They gave a statement indicating that there was no complaint as such. It is, thereafter, with considerable delay, the statement which led to the FIR came to be made.

Supreme Court:

A perusal of the impugned judgment showed that while the High Court had dealt with the criminal appeal filed on behalf of the relatives of the appellant and proceeded to find that they were wrongly convicted, there was no discussion as such of the case of the appellant. The bench held,

What is inter alia indicated is that a young married woman blessed with a son would not have ended her life without any rhyme and reason; some sort of matrimonial discord was there.

We must pause here and indicate that in a prosecution for the commission of an offence and that too, a serious offence like section 304B IPC to hold that some sort of matrimonial discord was there clearly does not, in any manner, advance the case of the prosecution. Such reasoning clearly falls short of the premise on which a person can be convicted under section 304B IPC.

The bench was further of the view that an appellant court is duty bound to appreciate the evidence and apply the law after finding facts based on evidence. The court remarked,

This necessarily means that the High Court must discuss the evidence threadbare and also apply the correct principles of law. We do not think that in this case, the impugned judgment of the High Court has dealt with the matter as is required in law.

In fact, the learned senior counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the High Court has found that the delay with which the FIR was lodged was unexplained and the relatives who had given the statements were not produced before the Court.

Accordingly, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment, the Supreme Court directed the High Court to hear the matter qua the appellant alone and decide the same at the earliest.

ALSO READ –

Lok Sabha Winter Session 2021 | Government Refrains From Commenting On Uniform Civil Code

Woman Shoots Herself Mistakenly While Clicking Selfie | Family Lodges Dowry Death Case

Section 304B IPC | Supreme Court Issues New Guidelines For Trial In Dowry Death Cases

READ ORDER | Supreme Court Acquits Husband In Dowry Death Case | Entitled To Benefit Of Doubt

READ ORDER | Supreme Court Acquits Relatives Of Husband Who Were Falsely Implicated In Dowry Death Case

ALSO WATCH –

Former Congress MP Sushmita Dev On Criminalization Of Triple Talaq | We Question What About 498A?

Join our Facebook Group or follow us on social media by clicking on the icons below

Join our Facebook Group or follow us on social media by clicking on the icons below