Latest News
Back
Document:
Suicide in 7 Years of Marriage Does Not Always Constitute Dowry Death: Karnataka HC
Dowry death is one of the growing atrocities against women, where thousands of young women are being done to death due to failure to pay up the dowry demanded and meet the greediness of their in-laws.
In a recent case of Manjunatha v. The State of Karnataka, a criminal petition is filed by the accused, husband of the deceased wife under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting bail for committing the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 498(A) and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Facts of the Case:
A complaint has been filed by the father of the deceased, named Kavya. Kavya was married to the accused-petitioner about four years before the incident and at the time of marriage, the petitioner and his parents were gifted with golden ornaments and another household article as a dowry.
In a happily married life, the couple gave birth to a girl child and subsequently, the petitioner and his parents started harassing the deceased for the demand of more dowry. After a few days, the complainant got information that his daughter was injured due to the burst of gas stove and the body of the deceased was kept in Diwan Cot. It was suspected that the petitioner and his parents might have committed murder and hence, the FIR was registered by Police, and the accused was arrested.
Issue of the Case:
- Whether the accused to be charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC?
- Whether the presumption as to dowry death lies on the prosecution to prove?
Observations of the Court:
It was observed by the Court that after alleging by the father of the victim that the petitioner might have murdered his daughter, the Police have registered a case for the offence punishable Under Section 302 of IPC. However, after the subsequent investigation, it was revealed that the victim had committed suicide by pouring kerosene and lit the fire and the incident has occurred within seven years of marriage.
Therefore, the Police have filed a charge-sheet under Section 304B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The court is of the view that Section 304B imposes a statutory obligation on a court to presume that the accused has committed the dowry death when the prosecution proves that,
“death of his wife has occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage; soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or her relatives in connection with demand for dowry. If any accused wants to escape from the said catch, the burden is on him to disprove it. If he fails to rebut the presumption, the court is bound to act upon it(Shanti v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC).”
However, irrespective of the seven years’ time factor, there has to have cogent evidence on record before a court to apply the presumption(Venugopal v. State of Kerala, (1999) 2 SCC 216). It was also observed by the court that at the time of introducing the offence of dowry death in the IPC, the legislature had simultaneously brought in amendments to the Evidence Act.
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 provides for presumption as to dowry death as it states, “When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused such dowry death”.
Therefore, at this stage, the Court cannot presume that the petitioner has committed the alleged offences.
Judgment:
After all the observations, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail for committing the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 498(A) and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioner shall also execute a personal bond with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court.
Document:
