Title: This case plays a pivotal role in the interpretation of soon before mentioned in section 304B Of the IPC regarding the dowry death

Case Name: Satbir Singh vs The State Of Haryana

Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1735−1736 OF 2010

Court: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Judge: CJI. N.V. RAMANA, J. ANIRUDDHA BOSE

Decided on: 28 May, 2021

Case Laws:

Case Laws

• Major Singh v. State of Punjab (2015) 5 SCC 201

• Commissioner   of   Customs   (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company (2018) 9 SCC 1

• State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah [2020 SCC OnLine SC 412]

• Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 207

•  Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015) 6 SCC 477

• Bansi   Lal v. State   of Haryana (2011)   11   SCC   359

• Maya Devi v. State of Haryana  (2015) 17 SCC 405,

• Shanti v. State of Haryana, (1991) 1 SCC 371]

• Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana(1989) 1 SCC 244

Brief Facts of The Case

1. This is appeal case against the judgment passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana  on judgment dated 6.11. 2008 Haryana High Court wherein the Court dismissed their appeals and upheld the order of conviction passed by the trial court.

2. Deceased was married to accused no 1 on 1st July 1994

3. On a day complainant was informed by some villagers of his own village that his daughter is admitted in the hospital.

4. When complainant rushed to the hospital with his wife and his son they found out that the deceased  was passed away due severe burns on her body.

5. Then the complainant  filed a case in the trial court that her daughter was facing constant demand of dowry from her in-laws and her death is in relation with the same.

6. The counsel appearing on the behalf of the Accused stated that his wife committed suicide by setting her ablaze

Issue

Ø  What is the interpretation of soon before in section 304B Of the Indian Penal Code 1860

Ø  Appellants challenged their conviction under section 306 that abetment of suicide

 Ratio

·   'Dowry death' is where death of a woman is caused by 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 cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with demand for dowry. Sub-clause (2) provides for punishment for those who cause dowry death.

·   In this regard the court made an attempt to interpret what is soon before. Being a criminal statute it is supposed to be interpreted strictly.

·   However strict interpretation will lead the courts to the absurdity or  will go against the spirit of legislation hence strict interpretation is not possible. So court needs import from such interpretation for resolving all the ambiguities and to to abide by the essence of the legislation.

·   Section 304 B of the IPC has been enacted by the parliament as the remedy a long­standing social evil of dowry harassment.

·   And the Dowry  Prohibition  Act 1961 is a first step to eradicate the evil of cruelty for not meeting the unreasonable demand of Dowry.But still the Dowry harassment is still prevalent in India.

·   Court have also taken into consideration  the results of 91th Law Commission which said that the current status of IPC is unable to Tackle the issues arising of the Dowry Death and because of that The Dowry Amendment Act 1986 was been introduced by the Parliament.

·   The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, highlighted that in 2018 female dowry deaths account for 40 to 50 percent of all female homicides recorded annually in India. The dismal truth is that from the period 1999 to 2016, these figures have remained constant.

·   Hence the strict Interpretation will lead to the lose of the very essence of this social Legislation.

·   Hence “soon before” does not mean “immediately Before” and this interpretation is left with the court as per the facts and circumstances of each case. And they have to establish the a “proximate link between the Act of Cruelty and Death of the Victim.

·   The courts needs to be extra while conducting the proceedings under section 304B of IPC  as section 113 B of the Evidence Act needs that the judges should be more careful while applying the presumption.

·   And the accused is needed to be fairly examined and there should be a fair incorporation of the Principle of Audi Alteram Patrem.

·   And when the relatives of the deceased visited her she was constantly telling them about the demand of the dowry even before one week of her death she reported the demand of dowry, she even died within one year of marriage,and there were 85% burn injuries on the body of the deceased.

·   Hence it satisfy the two ingredients of 304B of the IPC.And it  is enough to satisfy that death of the deceased was in relation to the demand of dowry and it is a dowry death.

·   Apart from this the complainant also challenged their conviction under section 306 of the IPC

·   Hence due to insufficiency of the evidence they cannot be convicted under section 304 B as the ingredients of the section are not been fulfilled.

Held

The complainants will be convicted under section 304B of the IPC not under section 306 of IPC.