[Dowry Death] 'Soon before Death' under Section 304B IPC means proximate, not immediate: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the phrase 'soon before her death' used in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on dowry death must be interpreted to mean proximately before the death of the wife and not immediately prior to such death [Devender Singh and ors. v. State of Uttarakhand]..The bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli held that Section 304B would be attracted in a case where death was caused in suspicious circumstances and it had occurred within 6 months from the date of marriage. "As to the phrase ‘soon before her death’, it is well-settled that the same ought to be interpreted to mean proximate and to be linked with but not to be understood to mean immediately prior to the death. While taking note of the evidence and the other aspects of the matter, what is also to be borne in mind in the instant case is that the death which did not take place in normal circumstances, had occurred within just about 6 months from the date of the marriage," the bench opined..In the case, the appellant was married to the deceased-wife on October 20, 2007 and the wife went missing from the matrimonial home on April 24, 2008. The complainant-brother of the deceased alleged that there were multiple demands of dowry by the appellants and the manner in which the appellants behaved with him when he had gone to visit them made him suspect that his sister had been killed by the appellants. Based on the complaint, investigation was carried out by the local police and the body of the woman was subsequently found in Ganga river..Having regard to the fact that an unnatural death had taken place within about six months of the marriage and since there was an allegation of cruelty relating to demand of dowry, a case was registered against the appellants (husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law) for offences under Sections 304B (dowry death), 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of IPC.The trial court acquitted the appellants but the same was overturned by the Uttarakhand High Court on appeal. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of ₹10,000.This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court..The apex court laid down the following ingredients which have to be established to prove a case under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code:"(i) that soon before the death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry;(ii) the death of the deceased was caused by any burn or bodily injury or some other circumstance which was not normal;(iii) such a death has occurred within 7 years from the date of her marriage; (iv) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;(v) such a cruelty or harassment should be for, or in connection with the demand of dowry; and(vi) it should be established that such cruelty and harassment were made soon before her death.".The Court said that Section 304B IPC read along with Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act made it clear that once the prosecution has succeeded in demonstrating that a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon after her death, a presumption shall be drawn against the said persons that they have caused dowry death as contemplated under Section 304B IPC. The presumption which is created by Section 113A of the Evidence Act can be rebutted by the accused, if he successfully proves that the aforesaid ingredients of the Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code are not met, the Court added. As regards the phrase 'soon before death' in Section 304B, the Court said that it has to be interpreted to mean proximate and to be linked with death but not to be understood to mean immediately prior to the death.."In the present case, the Court said that the appellants have miserably failed to rebut the presumption drawn against them under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, in a matter relating to an offence under Section 304B of IPC," the Court said..The Court, therefore, upheld the conviction of the husband. The apex court, however, partly allowed the appeal and acquitted appellants 2 and 3 (mother-in-law and brother-in-law) because they were residing separately from the house of the victim-wife. Besides, the Court noted that there was no specific role with regard to the demand of dowry and nor has any specific instance of cruelty and harassment been ascribed to the appellants 2 and 3. .Advocate Robin R David appeared for the appellants while Advocate Jatinder Kumar Bhatia appeared for the respondent. .[Read Judgment]