There Must Be Perceptible Nexus Between Death & Dowry-Related Harassment: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Conviction U/S 304B IPC

The Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), emphasizing that there must a perceptible nexus between the death and dowry-related harassment.

An Appeal was filed against the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge by which the accused persons were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC.

A Single Bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas held, “The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words “soon before her death” is to emphasise the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry-related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her.”

The Bench added that if the interval elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death, the Court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the harassment or cruelty would not have been the immediate cause of her death.

Advocate Niladri Sekhar Ghosh appeared for the Appellants while Advocate Arindam Sen appeared for the Respondent.

Case Background

In 2007, the father of the victim lodged a Complaint against four accused persons stating that his younger daughter was married to the accused husband as per Muslim rites and customs. At the time of marriage, the said accused was a student of high school and it was made clear that after the marriage of his daughter he would have to bear the cost of his son in law’s studies and his daughter would also work as labour and gift her earning to him to meet his cost of study. It was alleged that the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the Complainant’s daughter used to assault her and often said that she was not fit for their son.

One year ago, the father-in-law allegedly assaulted her brutally causing injury on her head and body. The Complainant had at that time given dowry for the sake of his daughter. On May 26, the Complainant came to know that his daughter had allegedly died by hanging in her maternal house and when went there by seeing the attitude of his daughter’s in-laws, he believed that they were behind his daughter’s death. Hence, the chargesheet was submitted and the charge was framed by the Trial Court. The four accused persons were convicted under Sections 304B and 498A IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Being aggrieved by their conviction, they were before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, observed, “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and discussion made above I am constrained to hold that the prosecution has utterly and miserably failed to substantiate that these appellants demanded dowry and subjected the deceased Rohimunnesa to torture over the said dowry demand soon before her death by adducing convincing, trustworthy and worth credence evidence.”

The Court said that the prosecution has failed to substantiate the important ingredients of Section 304B IPC beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt.

“Undoubtedly, Section 113B of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof of innocence of the accused persons shift upon them only on establishing the aforesaid ingredients of demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty or torture soon before her death by the accused persons but as the prosecution has utterly and miserably failed to establish the same, hence, in my considered opinion, the aforesaid burden does not stand shifted upon the shoulder of the appellants and the appellants are not bound to establish their innocence”, it noted.

Moreover, the Court was of the view that the prosecution has utterly and miserably failed to bring home the charge levelled against the Appellants beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts by adducing convincing cogent consistent and worth evidence ocular and documentary.

“Hence, the impugned judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court dated 27.09.2013 and 30.09.2013 passed in connection with Sessions Case No.137 of 2011 (Sessions trial No. 5 of 2012) corresponding to G.R. Case No. 475 of 2010 is set aside”, it ordered.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal and acquitted the accused persons.

Cause Title- Mubarak Ansari & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal (Case Number: C.R.A. 957 of 2013)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocates Niladri Sekhar Ghosh and Shaharayar Alam.

Respondent: Advocates Arindam Sen and Imran Ali.

Click here to read/download the Judgment