SATBIR SINGH & ANOTHER versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 269 · Decided: 28-05-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
269
SATBIR SINGH & ANOTHER
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1735-1736 of 2010)
MAY 28, 2021
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI,  AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s. 304B – Dowry death – Conviction under
– Prosecution case that the victim committed suicide by setting herself
ablaze just after one year of her marriage and that soon before
her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for bringing
less dowry by the accused – Conviction of the accused for the
offences u/s. 304B and 306 with 7 years and 5 years rigorous
imprisonment respectively – High Court upheld the order of the
trial court – On appeal, held: Prosecution was able to successfully
prove that the death of the victim due to burn injuries took place
within one year of her marriage – It has been proved that soon
before her death she was subjected to harassment and cruelty
pursuant to demands of dowry – Chain of circumstances proves
that there existed a live and proximate link between the instances of
demand of dowry and the death of the victim – Statements of the
witnesses were corroborative, consistent and reliable – However,
presumption in s. 113B not rebutted by the accused – Thus, the
High Court and trial court rightly convicted the accused u/s. 304-B
– As regards offence u/s. 306, the prosecution failed to establish
that the death occurred due to suicide, thus, the conviction and
sentence u/s. 306 is set aside – Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 113B, 113A.
s. 304B – Phrase ‘soon before’ – Interpretation of – Held:
Phrase ‘soon before’ in s. 304B cannot be construed to mean
immediately before – Strict interpretation would defeat the very
object of enactment – No straitjacket formulae can be laid down by
this Court to define what eXacts the phrase soon before entails –
Thus, the Courts should use their discretion to determine if the period
between the cruelty or harassment and the death of the victim would
come within the term soon before – Establishment of a proximate
and live link between the cruelty and the consequential death of
the victim, is pivotal to the said determination.
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 269
269
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
270
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
s. 304B – Dowry death – Categorization death, as homicidal
or suicidal or accidental – Pigeonhole approach – Held: s.304 B
does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as
homicidal or suicidal or accidental – 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.
s. 304B – Inclusion of, in the Code – Legislative history –
Explained.
Evidence Act, 1872: s. 113-B – Presumption as to dowry death
– Rebuttal of – Held: When the prosecution shows that soon before
her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty
or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, a
presumption of causation arises against the accused u/s. 113B –
Thereafter, the accused has to rebut this statutory presumption –
Usage of rebuttable presumption of causality, u/s. 113B creates a
greater responsibility on Judges, defense and prosecution – They
need to be extra careful during conducting criminal trials relating
to s. 304-B.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss. 233, 232 – Entering upon
defence – Right to accused u/s. 233 – Held: Under s. 232 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 – Once the
trial court decides that the accused is not eligible to be acquitted as
per the provisions of s. 232, it must move on and fix hearings
specifically for defence evidence, calling upon the accused to
present his defense as per the procedure provided u/s. 233, which
is also an invaluable right provided to the accused – Existence of
such procedural right cohesively sits with the rebuttable presumption
as provided u/s. 113B, Evidence Act.
Judicial guidelines: Dowry death cases – Trial of – Held: Guidelines
have been laid down for the trial of dowry death cases.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Considering the significance of s. 304-B IPC, a
strict interpretation would defeat the very object for which it was
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
271
enacted. Therefore, it is safe to deduce that when the legislature
used the words, ‘soon before’ they did not mean imm

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.