[Dowry Deaths] Matter of grave concern that trial courts record accused statement in casual, cursory manner: Supreme Court issues guidelines

The Supreme Court on Friday expressed concerns about the manner in which trial courts, more often than not, adopt a casual and cursory attitude while recording the statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in dowry death cases (Satvir Singh vs State of Haryana)..A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, and Justice Aniruddha Bose said that many times such statements are recorded without specifically questioning the accused as to his defense. The Court while acquitting an accused charged under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code in a dowry death case noted that "examination of an accused under Section 313, CrPC cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, as it based on the fundamental principle of fairness."."Section 313 CrPC incorporates the valuable principle of natural justice “audi alteram partem” as it enables the accused to offer an explanation for the incriminatory material appearing against him. Therefore, it imposes an obligation on the court to question the accused fairly, with care and caution. The Court must put incriminating circumstance," the judgment said. .The Bench further stated that though it is alive to the menace of dowry death which is increasing day by day, "sometimes family members of the husband are roped in, even though they have no active role in commission of the offence and are residing at distant places". This requires courts to adopt a cautious approach, the apex court said. .The top court, however, maintained that Section 304B IPC (on dowry death) must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand. .The Court, therefore, reaffirmed the following with respect to the law under Section 304B read with Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act:.i. Section 304-B, IPC must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand.ii. The prosecution must at first establish the existence of the necessary ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 304-B, IPC. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the rebuttable presumption of causality, provided under Section 113-B, Evidence Act operates against the accused.iii. The phrase “soon before” as appearing in Section 304-B, IPC cannot be construed to mean ‘immediately before’. The prosecution must establish existence of “proximate and live link” between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the husband or his relatives.iv. Section 304-B, IPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental. The reason for such non categorization is due to the fact that death occurring “otherwise than under normal circumstances” can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental.v. Due to the precarious nature of Section 304-B, IPC read with 113-B, Evidence Act, Judges, prosecution and defence should be careful during conduction of trial.vi. It is a matter of grave concern that, often, Trial Courts record the statement under Section 313, CrPC in a very casual and cursory manner, without specifically questioning the accused as to his defense. It ought to be noted that the examination of an accused under Section 313, CrPC cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, as it based on the fundamental principle of fairness. This aforesaid provision incorporates the valuable principle of natural justice “audi alteram partem” as it enables the accused to offer an explanation for the incriminatory material appearing against him. Therefore, it imposes an obligation on the court to question the accused fairly, with care and caution.vii. The Court must put incriminating circumstances before the accused and seek his response. A duty is also cast on the counsel of the accused to prepare his defense since the inception of the Trial with due caution, keeping in consideration the peculiarities of Section 304-B, IPC read with Section 113-B, Evidence Act.viii. Section 232, CrPC provides that, “If, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal”. Such discretion must be utilized by the Trial Courts as an obligation of best efforts.ix. Once the Trial Court decides that the accused is not eligible to be acquitted as per the provisions of Section 232, CrPC, it must move on and fix hearings specifically for ‘defence evidence’, calling upon the accused to present his defense as per the procedure provided under Section 233, CrPC, which is also an invaluable right provided to the accused.x. In the same breath, Trial Courts need to balance other important considerations such as the right to a speedy trial. In this regard, we may caution that the above provisions should not be allowed to be misused as delay tactics.xi. Apart from the above, the presiding Judge should follow the guidelines laid down by this Court while sentencing and imposing appropriate punishment.xii. Undoubtedly, as discussed above, the menace of dowry death is increasing day by day. However, it is also observed that sometimes family members of the husband are roped in, even though they have no active role in commission of the offence and are residing at distant places. In these cases, the Court need to be cautious in its approach..Supreme Court has stated that the courts should use their discretion to determine if the period between the cruelty or harassment and the death of the victim would come within the term “soon before”. "What is pivotal to the above determination, is the establishment of a “proximate and live link” between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim," states the top court. .(Read order)