Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Dowry Death Case Due to Lack of Evidence of Demand of Dowry Soon Before Death. Conviction under Section 304B IPC set aside as prosecution failed to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand 'soon before her death'.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Mangesh Deorao Kannake, was convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code for the dowry death of his wife, Shefali. The marriage was a love marriage performed secretly on 05.06.2016. The informant, Suresh Khobragade, father of the deceased, lodged a report on 19.06.2016 alleging that after 4-5 months of marriage, the appellant and his family members started ill-treating the deceased and demanded five to six lakh rupees as dowry, claiming that the love marriage had saved the father's expenses. The deceased died on 18.06.2016. The trial court convicted the appellant but acquitted accused nos.2, 3, and 5 (brother, brother-in-law, and sister of the appellant). Accused no.4 (mother) died during trial. The appellant appealed against his conviction. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry 'soon before her death'. The informant's testimony was inconsistent and lacked credibility. The alleged demand was made 4-5 months after marriage, and there was no evidence of any demand or harassment in the period immediately preceding the death. The court held that the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act could not be invoked as the foundational facts were not established. The acquittal of the co-accused also weakened the prosecution's case. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Section 304B IPC - Presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act - The prosecution must prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry 'soon before her death'. In this case, the evidence of the informant (father) and other witnesses did not establish any demand of dowry or harassment soon before the death. The alleged demand of five to six lakh rupees was made 4-5 months after marriage, and there was no evidence of any such demand or cruelty in the period immediately preceding the death. The presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked unless the foundational facts are proved. (Paras 1-15)

B) Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Love Marriage - Absence of Demand of Dowry - The marriage was a love marriage performed secretly. The father of the deceased had severed ties with her. The prosecution's case that the appellant and his family demanded dowry because the love marriage saved the father's expenses was not supported by credible evidence. The informant's testimony was inconsistent and did not inspire confidence. The acquittal of co-accused (brother, brother-in-law, sister) further weakened the prosecution's case against the appellant. (Paras 2-12)

C) Criminal Law - Dowry Death - 'Soon Before Death' - Interpretation - The phrase 'soon before her death' is a relative term and depends on the facts of each case. However, there must be a proximate and live link between the cruelty/harassment and the death. In this case, the alleged demand was made 4-5 months after marriage, and the death occurred about 10 months after marriage. There was no evidence of any cruelty or harassment in the intervening period. Therefore, the requirement of 'soon before death' was not satisfied. (Paras 13-15)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code for dowry death is sustainable in law, particularly when the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry 'soon before her death'.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 01.04.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, in Sessions Case No.87 of 2016, and acquitted the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC. The appellant was directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Law Points

  • Dowry death
  • Section 304B IPC
  • presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act
  • 'soon before death'
  • demand of dowry
  • cruelty
  • harassment
  • love marriage
  • acquittal of co-accused
  • benefit of doubt
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (BOM) (11) 109

Criminal Appeal No. 260 of 2021

2022-11-17

G.A. Sanap, J.

Shri Abdul Subhan (for appellant), Shri M.J. Khan, APP (for respondent/State)

Mangesh s/o Deorao Kannake

State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for dowry death under Section 304B IPC.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal by challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli.

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted for the dowry death of his wife Shefali, and he appealed against the conviction.

Previous Decisions

The Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, convicted the appellant under Section 304B IPC and sentenced him to ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Accused nos.2, 3, and 5 were acquitted. Accused no.4 died during trial.

Issues

Whether the prosecution proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry 'soon before her death'? Whether the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act can be invoked in this case? Whether the conviction under Section 304B IPC is sustainable?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of dowry and cruelty soon before death. The marriage was a love marriage, and the father had severed ties. The evidence of the informant was inconsistent and unreliable. The acquittal of co-accused weakened the case. Respondent/State argued that the evidence of the informant and other witnesses established the demand of dowry and harassment. The death occurred within seven years of marriage, and the presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act should apply.

Ratio Decidendi

For a conviction under Section 304B IPC, the prosecution must prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry 'soon before her death'. The phrase 'soon before her death' requires a proximate and live link between the cruelty/harassment and the death. In this case, the alleged demand was made 4-5 months after marriage, and there was no evidence of any cruelty or harassment in the period immediately preceding the death. Therefore, the foundational facts for invoking the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act were not established. The acquittal of the co-accused also indicated that the prosecution case was not credible. Hence, the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

Judgment Excerpts

The prosecution case, in short, is as follow: Informant-Suresh Khobragade, who is father of deceased Shefali lodged report on 19.06.2016 against the appellant and remaining four accused. It is the case of the prosecution that after 4 to 5 months of the marriage, the appellant and the acquitted accused started ill-treating deceased Shefali. The appellant and his family members told the deceased that if her father had performed her marriage, he would have spent near about five to six lakh rupees. The love marriage has saved the money of the father of deceased Shefali. Therefore, they insisted deceased Shefali to bring five to six lakh rupees from her father as dowry.

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, on 01.04.2021 in Sessions Case No.87 of 2016 for the offence under Section 304B IPC and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.260 of 2021 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging the conviction and sentence. The appeal was reserved on 08.09.2022 and pronounced on 17.11.2022.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 304B
  • Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 113B
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Proceedings Due to Violation of Natural Justice and Non-Compliance with Court Directions. Reassessment Orders Set Aside as Department Failed to Supply Requested Information and Issued Fresh Notice Contrary t...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Dowry Death Case Due to Lack of Evidence of Demand of Dowry Soon Before Death. Conviction under Section 304B IPC set aside as prosecution failed to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment ...