Essential Ingredient Of Demand Of Dowry Absent; Suicidal Death Though Unnatural Not Akin To Murder: SC Upholds Husband’s Acquittal
The Apex Court was considering the State’s appeal challenging the order of acquittal in a case of death of a young bride.
The Supreme Court upheld an order of acquittal passed in favour of the husband in a dowry death case after finding that the essential ingredient of a demand of dowry under Section 304B of the IPC was absent in the matter.
The Apex Court was considering the State’s appeal challenging the order of acquittal in a case of the death of a young bride.
The Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran said, “That the death was suicidal is very clear from the expert evidence, which however would not absolve the accused under Section 304B of the I.P.C.”
Advocate Saakshi Singh Rawat represented the Appellant while AOR E. R. Sumathy represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
A young woman, hardly into six months of marriage, was found hanging on the fateful day, by her father and brother who reached the matrimonial home, wherein she resided with her husband. A First Information Report was lodged and the husband, the respondent-herein was arrested. Later, the husband’s relatives i.e., his parents, grandfather and brother were also implicated and joined as accused.
The Trial Court acquitted everyone except the husband primarily on the ground that the scratches on the body of the deceased couldn’t be explained by reason only of the hanging, since the body was at a distance from the walls of the room. The accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C and was sentenced to seven years of Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.). The High Court held that the demand for dowry having led to the death of the deceased was not proved by the prosecution. Thus, an appeal was filed before the Apex Court against this judgment.
Reasoning
“Death, the causation of which is a demand for dowry is akin to murder, even if it is not homicidal, as is evident from Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 . However, the Courts are warranted to be more cautious and circumspect with respect to the allegations under Section 304B of the I.P.C since allegations coming forth often could be motivated by the despair of an abrupt death of a daughter or sibling, at the matrimonial home; especially when there is a history of a marital discord which otherwise would not escalate to this magnitude”, the order read.
Elucidating on the law relating to the reversal of an order of acquittal, the Bench opined that unless there are very substantive and compelling reasons to do so, there cannot be a reversal of an order of acquittal. Unless it is found that the findings are perverse and the only conclusion possible from the compelling evidence is of guilt; Appellate Courts will be slow to reverse an order of acquittal.
The Court noticed that the fact that the death was suicidal was established by the expert opinion of the Doctor who proved the wound certificate issued by him. The Doctor also referred to the slanting ligature mark on both sides of the neck and opined the cause of death to be ‘suffocation due to hanging, prior to death’.The injuries also led the Trial Court to presume that there was physical violence perpetrated on the deceased.
On a perusal of the evidence recorded at trial, the Bench observed that the demand of dowry was not proved by the prosecution. “The omissions in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; which are deemed to be material contradictions put to peril the prosecution story of demand of dowry”, it added.
It was further noticed that both the brother and the father of the deceased admitted in their deposition that they had not personally witnessed any physical violence on the wife. The father also deposed that the son-in-law was quite aware of his financial condition. It was his specific statement that the son-in-law and his family was apprised of this fact at the time of marriage and they had agreed to accept his daughter, as such.
“The essential ingredient of a demand of dowry being absent under Section 304B of the I.P.C., we cannot find the suicidal death; though, categorized as an unnatural one, as one akin to murder inviting a punishment under Section 304B of the I.P.C”, the Bench held while rejecting the appeal & confirming the order of acquittal of the High Court.
Cause Title: The State of Uttarakhand v. Sanjay Ram Tamta @ Sanju@prem Prakash (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 187)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Saakshi Singh Rawat, AOR Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Advocate Ajay Bahuguna
Respondent: AOR E. R. Sumathy, Advocates Nishant Bhardwaj, Betsara Mylliemngap
