Case Title: SHOOR SINGH & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
In this case, the parents of the deceased complained about the dowry death against the husband and parents-in-law of the deceased alleging that her death occurred unnaturally after she suffered burn injuries soon after the marriage. It was alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in relation to a demand for a bike and Rs. 50,000/- cash when the daughter gave birth to a male child.
Invoking the presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and sentenced them (husband and parents-in-law) to 10 years imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction; however, the sentence was reduced to 7 years from 10 years. Following this, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court by the parents-in-law. The husband of the deceased served out the sentence and did not file appeal.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that their conviction for the offence of dowry death could not be sustained because the prosecution failed to prove the demand for dowry which is an essential ingredient to convict the accused of dowry death.
It was argued by the appellants that the alleged demand for a motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- cash from the parents of the deceased was not in connection with marriage but as a mark of celebration on the birth of a male child.
Upon perusing the material evidence placed on record, the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the courts below erred in invoking the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act because unless the factum of demand of dowry in connection with marriage isn’t proved, it would be unjustifiable to convict accused for dowry death merely because other ingredients of the offence are fulfilled.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the order convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC was set aside.
