In a criminal appeal, the Supreme Court set aside conviction under Section 304-B of the IPC, underscoring that mere general assertions of dowry demand cannot substitute evidence of harassment connected to dowry soon before death.
New Delhi, India: The Supreme Court of India on 10 September 2024 ruled that a conviction for dowry death under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is unsustainable where the prosecution fails to establish that the deceased woman was harassed or subjected to cruelty in connection with a dowry demand.
A Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice J.B. Pardiwala delivered the judgment in Chabi Karmakar v. State of West Bengal (reported at LiveLaw 269133 and AIR 2024 SC 5295), allowing the appeal and setting aside the convictions of the accused.
Background of the Case
The case involved the death of a married woman alleged to be a dowry death within the meaning of Section 304-B IPC, which applies when a woman dies under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives for, or in connection with, a demand for dowry.
The prosecution’s case hinged on general allegations of dowry demands. At trial, the High Court upheld a conviction and sentence for dowry death, applying the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act that linked the alleged cruelty to the dowry demand.
Legal Issue
The principal legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had established the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC, particularly:
- that the woman died an unnatural death, and
- that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in connection with a dowry demand.
Where the prosecution fails to prove these elements beyond reasonable doubt, the statutory presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act does not arise.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court found that the prosecution’s evidence did not establish that the deceased woman was harassed or subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry demands soon before her death.
The Bench observed that general statements regarding dowry demands at any point during the marriage are not sufficient to invoke the statutory presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. There must be clear evidence showing a direct nexus between the alleged dowry demand and harassment immediately preceding the death.
In the absence of such proof, the Court held that the foundational requirements of Section 304-B IPC were not met, rendering the conviction unsustainable. The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused.
Analysis of the Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasised that Section 304-B IPC contains specific elements that must be proven for conviction: the woman’s death must be both unnatural and linked to cruelty or harassment for dowry. Where the prosecution fails to demonstrate both elements, a conviction cannot be sustained merely on circumstantial inference or remote assertions of prior dowry demands.
This approach aligns with prior decisions reiterating that the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act arises only when the evidence clearly shows harassment “soon before death” linked to dowry demands. Mere death under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage, or generalized allegations of a dowry demand earlier in the marriage, do not automatically satisfy the statutory criteria.
The judgment also reflects the Supreme Court’s insistence that criminal liability under dowry death provisions cannot be anchored solely on broad or vague assertions of dowry demand, but must be rooted in evidence establishing the causal chain required by law.
Practical Implications
- The ruling reinforces that proof of dowry demand connected to harassment soon before death is indispensable in dowry death prosecutions under Section 304-B IPC.
- It clarifies that mere unnatural death within seven years of marriage or general allegations of dowry requests earlier in the marriage are insufficient to support a conviction for dowry death.
- Prosecutors must ensure that evidence clearly demonstrates the link between dowry-related abuse and the fatal act to trigger the statutory presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act.
- Defence strategies in similar cases may emphasise gaps in proof regarding dowry demand and its temporal connection to alleged harassment.
The judgment adds clarity on the evidentiary threshold required to sustain convictions for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC, particularly the necessity of proving dowry demand and harassment proximate to the deceased’s death.
