Dowry Death Shall Be Presumed If It Is Shown That Wife Was Harassed For Dowry Soon Before Death
Case: Parvati Devi V. The State Of Bihar Now State Of Jharkhand & Ors.
Coram: CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 574 Of 2012
Court Observation: “Section 304B IPC read in conjunction with Section 113B of the Evidence Act leaves no manner of doubt that once the prosecution has been able to demonstrate that a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry, soon before her death, the Court shall proceed on a presumption that the persons who have subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry, have caused a dowry death within the meaning of Section 304B IPC. The said presumption is, however, rebuttable and can be dispelled on the accused being able to demonstrate through cogent evidence that all the ingredients of Section 304B IPC have not been satisfied.”
“In the instant case, despite the shoddy investigation conducted by the prosecution, we are of the view that the circumstances set out in Section 304B of the IPC have been established in the light of the fact that the deceased, Fulwa Devi had gone missing from her matrimonial home within a few months of her marriage and immediately after demands of dowry were made on her and that her death had occurred under abnormal circumstances, such a death would have to be characterized as a “dowry death”.
“In our view, the impugned judgment and order of sentence imposed on A-1 does not deserve interference and is maintained. Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 2012 filed by A-1 is accordingly dismissed. The said appellant who is presently on bail, is directed to surrender before the Trial Court/Superintendent of Jail within four weeks to undergo the remaining period of his sentence.” “In fact, in the only direct evidence before the Court, PW-3 (informant and father of the victim) mentions that A-2 threatened to harm the deceased. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that it is necessary to interfere with the findings of the Courts below convicting A-3 (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 574 of 2012) for the offence under Sections 304B and 201 read with Section 34, IPC. The said appeal filed by A-3 is accordingly allowed. She is directed to be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.”
Previous Posts
Document’s Author Need Not Be Examined If Signature Is Not Denied: Supreme Court
NCDRC Can’t Direct To Amend Pleadings As Complainant Is The ‘Dominus Litis’: Supreme Court
2019 Amendment To Section 31 IBC Has Retrospective Operation Download Judgement
