LexBAIJNATH & OTHERS versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2016] 11 S.C.R. 764 BAIJNATH & OTHERS v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No.I 097 of 2016) NOVEMBER 18,2016 [DIPAK MISRA AND AMITAVAROY, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss. 304-B, 498-A and ss. 302, 201 and 34 - Dowry death - Statutory presumption of, u/s.113-B, Evidence Act, 1872 - When cannot be invoked - Deceased died in matrimonial home by hanging from the fan -Appellant-in laws acquitted by trial court-Acquittal reversed by High Court placing reliance on statutory presumption u/s. J J 3B - Held: The presumption as to dowry death gets activated D only upon the proof of the fact that the deceased lady was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the accused and that too in the reasonable contiguity of death -If the prosecution fails to prove such fact by cogent, coherent and persuasive evidence, the person accused u/ss. 304-B, 498-A E F cannot be held guilty by taking refuge only of the presumption u/ s.113-B to cover up the shortfall in proof- On facts, prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, cruelty or harassment to the deceased, for or in connection with any demand for dow1y - The alleged demand centered around a motorcycle, which even as per prosecution witnesses did not surface at the time of the marriage - To the contrary, the evidence of defence witnesses was consistent to the effect that no demand as imputed was ever made as the family of the husband was adequately well-off - Further, the prosecution also failed to prove the precise cause of the death of the deceased - It is not clear as to whether the death was suicidal G or homicidal - Appellants entitled to benefit of doubt - Dow1y Prohibition Act, 1961 - s.2 - CrPC-s. 313. ss.304-B, 498-A - Offences under - Common ingredients - Held: Cruelty or harassment of the lady by her husband or his relative for or in connection with any demand for dow1y is the H 764 BAIJNATH & OTHERS v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 765 common constituent of both the offences - The factum of unnatural A death in matrimonial home within seven years of marriage is ipso facto not sufficient to bring home the charges ulss. 304B and 498A - Prosecution has to prove cruelty or harassment by the husband or his relative or the person charged, to invoke the statutory presumption u!s.113-B, Evidence Act- Evidence Act, 1872-s. JJ 3-B. B Criminal Law-ss.304-B, !PC and 113-B, Evidence Act, 1872- Scope and purport of - "soon before death" - Reiterated. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Cruelty or harassment of the lady by her husband or his relative for or in connection with any demand for any property or valuable security as a demand for dowry or in connection therewith is the common constituent of the offences under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC. The expression "dowry" is ordained to have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The expression "cruelty", contains in its expanse, apart from the conduct of the tormentor, the consequences precipitated thereby qua the lady subjected thereto. [Paras 29, 30] [775-G-H, 776-A] 1.2 Noticeably, the presumption under Section 113-B as well is founded on the proof of cruelty or harassment of the woman dead for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the person charged with the offence. The presumption as to dowry death thus would get activated only upon the proof of the fact that the deceased lady had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the accused and that too in the reasonable contiguity of death. Such a proof is thus the legislatively mandated prerequisite to invoke the otherwise statutorily ordained presumption of commission of the offence of dowry death by the person charged therewith.[Para 32] [776-E-F] 1.3 A conjoint reading of Sections 304-B, 498-A, IPC and 113-B, Evidence Act thus predicate the burden of the prosecution to unassailably substantiate the ingredients of the two offences by direct and convincing evidence so as to avail the presumption engrafted in Section 113B against the accused. Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or his relative or the person charged c D E F G H 766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS r20l6l 11 S.C.R. A is thus the sine qua non to inspirit the statutory presumption, to draw the person charged within the coils thereof. If the prosecution fails to demonstrate by cogent, coherent and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.