Supreme Court Upholds Dowry-Death Conviction and Sentencing, Directs Convict to Surrender Within Four Weeks

A three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal by special leave challenging the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s dismissal of a criminal appeal that had upheld the conviction of a husband for an offence under Section 304-B IPC (dowry death). The appeal contested the Sessions Court’s finding and sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment imposed on the accused for the death of his wife within the first seven years of marriage.

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgments below, holding that the prosecution had proved the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC and that the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The Court noted medical evidence of ante-mortem injuries and consistent testimony from close relatives of the deceased regarding persistent harassment and dowry demands. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Consequently, all the ingredients required to prove the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC against the accused-appellant are made out from the evidence available on record.” The bench also directed that the accused, who was on bail, surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence.

Background

The dispute arose after Balraj Singh lodged a complaint on June 1, 2009, reporting that his daughter, who had married in February 2008, suffered continuous harassment by her husband and his relatives for bringing inadequate dowry and that she subsequently died after sustaining severe head injuries at her matrimonial home on June 1, 2009. An FIR was registered and a charge sheet was filed against the husband and his parents for offences including Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC; two other relatives were not prosecuted due to lack of evidence. The trial Court convicted the husband for dowry death and sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment while acquitting his parents; the High Court affirmed that decision on May 15, 2014.

The prosecution examined twelve witnesses, including the father and brothers of the deceased and the medical officer who conducted the post-mortem, and produced a post-mortem report describing massive subdural hematoma and multiple contusions. Defence witnesses included neighbours and treating doctors who deposed to a pre-existing knee problem of the deceased. The accused contended that there was no dowry demand and offered alternative explanations  accidental fall or suicide due to depression over a knee ailment. The High Court and this Court found the defence inconsistent and unpersuasive.

The trial and appellate courts relied on the testimonies of close relatives which the Supreme Court found to be consistent on material points and not shaken in cross-examination. As the bench recorded, “This version of Satender Kumar (PW-3) could not be shaken in cross-examination.” The Court addressed procedural irregularities noted in the trial record  including reception of the medical officer’s affidavit evidence but treated those as curable omissions where no prejudice to the accused was shown, since the medical witness was cross-examined on the report. The Court found that the prosecution had discharged its initial burden to invoke the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and that the accused had not satisfactorily rebutted that presumption. Consequently, the appeal failed and the conviction and sentence were maintained. The accused was ordered to surrender within four weeks; pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details:
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2015
Case Title: Virender Pal @ Vipin v. State of Haryana
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment
For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment