Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Virender Pal @ Vipin, was convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for the dowry death of his wife, Punita alias Gayatri, who died within one year and three months of marriage by jumping from the roof of her matrimonial home. The complainant, Balraj Singh (PW-1), father of the deceased, lodged an FIR alleging that the appellant and his family members subjected the deceased to harassment and taunts for insufficient dowry and demanded Rs.5 lakhs to secure a job for the appellant. Despite the complainant giving Rs.50,000, the harassment continued. On 1st June 2009, the deceased called her brother Satender Kumar (PW-3) informing him of an assault the previous night and apprehending danger. Shortly after, the appellant informed the complainant of her death. The trial court convicted the appellant, acquitting his parents, and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court, hearing the appeal by special leave, examined whether the demand for job money constitutes dowry and whether the prosecution proved the ingredients for presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court held that the demand for money to secure a job is directly related to the marriage and amounts to dowry. The prosecution established that the deceased died unnaturally within seven years of marriage and was subjected to cruelty for dowry soon before death, shifting the burden to the appellant to rebut the presumption. The appellant failed to provide any satisfactory explanation, and the defence that the deceased was depressed due to knee pain was not substantiated. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Section 304-B IPC - Demand for Job Money - The demand of Rs.5 lakhs by the accused-appellant and his relatives from the complainant for securing a job for the appellant constitutes a demand for dowry, as it is directly related to the marriage and made to the father of the deceased. The court held that such demand falls within the ambit of dowry under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. (Paras 4, 9, 11) B) Evidence Act - Presumption under Section 113-B - Burden of Proof - Once the prosecution establishes that the deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage and that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption that he caused the dowry death. The accused failed to provide any satisfactory explanation, leading to confirmation of conviction. (Paras 9, 10) C) Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Ingredients - The essential ingredients for an offence under Section 304-B IPC are: (i) death of a woman occurs within seven years of marriage; (ii) death is otherwise than under normal circumstances; (iii) soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relative; (iv) such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with demand for dowry. All ingredients were satisfied in this case. (Para 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the demand of money for securing a job for the accused-appellant constitutes a demand for dowry under Section 304-B IPC, and whether the prosecution has established the ingredients for raising presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 304-B IPC for 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
Law Points
- Dowry demand includes demand for money to secure job for husband
- Presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act shifts burden on accused once prosecution proves harassment soon before death
- Unnatural death within seven years of marriage raises presumption of dowry death
