Case Brief: Satbir Singh v. The state of Haryana

Introduction

This article will tell you about the facts, the issue involved, the judgement given and also the various guidelines provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for the trial of dowry death cases.

Case name- Satbir Singh v. the State of Haryana

Citation: Criminal Appeals nos. 1735-1735 of 2010

Court- Hon’ble Supreme court

Date of judgement- 28 May 2021

Facts of Satbir Singh v. The state of Haryana

On 1st July 1994 accused ( satbir) was married. After 1 year of marriage, the girl dies. On 31 July 1995 around 4:00 pm- 4:30 pm, the father of the girl received the news on a phone call that her daughter is admitted to the hospital and is fighting between life and death. As soon as he comes to know about this he immediately with his wife and son reaches the hospital and sees that her daughter is dead due to fire burning. After that he files a case on the accused satbir and his brother of IPC section 304b dowry death and 306 abetments of suicide. He did this because after marriage her daughter many times told him and his son that because she brought less dowry she was facing a lot of harassment and cruelty in her matrimonial home.

The case went to the court and trial court on 11 Dec 1997 convicted the accused satbir and his brother under IPC sec 304b and sec 306 and was punished for 7year of rigorous imprisonment under section 304b and 5 years of rigorous imprisonment under section 306.

After that, the accused persons in 1998 filed the appeal against the trial court judgement in Punjab and Haryana High court.

Punjab and Haryana high court after 10years in 2008 dismissed the appeal of the accused persons and upheld the judgement of the trial court. After that satbir and his brother according to article 136 of the Indian constitution through special leave petition approached the supreme court.

On 28 may 2021 supreme court passed a judgement under which the supreme court mentions 12 guidelines related to dowry death stated below

1)the supreme court explained the word “soon before death”. It gave the guidelines to the trial court that “soon before her death” does not mean just before the death of a women the court will have to keep in mind that there should be a proper connection between dowry death and cruelty for dowry demanded by the husband or relatives.

2) the second guideline was that whenever courts use section 304b of IPC and while interpreting it they should keep in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of burning of the bride and dowry death

3) the prosecution should first establish the necessary ingredients of section 304b. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the rebuttable presumption of section 113b of the evidence act will also operate against the accused.

In this guideline section, 113b of the evidence act is discussed which states about the presumption of dowry death. Where the question arises that whether a person has committed the dowry death of a women and it was shown that just before her death she has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for the demand of dowry then the court will presume that such person is responsible for the dowry death and the burden of proof will be on the accused itself. He has to prove that he did not cause such dowry deaths.

4) supreme court held that section 304b of IPC is not the same as the “Pigeon Hole Approach”. This concept was given by Salmond and the strict rule were to be followed in this theory. But the supreme court held that such strict application is not needed while interpreting section 304b and should be interpreted in a wider sense.

5) the supreme court said that whenever the trial court uses section 304b of IPC along with section 113b of the evidence act they should be more careful during the trial because these sections are precarious. So trial court should be very careful in such matters.

6) supreme court discussed about section 313 of CRPC which states that the court has the power to examine the accused person. The examination of the accused can not be treated as a mere procedural formality as it is based on a fundamental principle of fairness and incorporates the valuable principle of natural justice” Audi alteram partem” through which the accused person can explain the allegations against itself, therefore, is the duty of the court to ask questions to the accused fairly.

7) Supreme Court said that the trial court should ask for answers by considering the incriminating circumstances in front of the accused person that he is at fault and seek his response.

8) supreme court talks about Section 232 of CPC. This section states that if after taking the evidence from the prosecution side and why after examining the same and after hearing both prosecution and defence if the judge finds that there is no evidence as to why he has now made an offence then the judge will record the order of a quite. So supreme court further said that judges should use this discretionary power very carefully and with their best efforts.

9) Supreme court said that if the trial court feels that it should the accused should not be acquittal then without any delay the defence side evidence should be considered which provides invaluable rights to the accused person.

10) Trial courts need to do the trials on balance for example right to a speedy trial. In this regard, the courts should take care the above-stated provisions should not be misused as delay tactics. If justice will not be on time then there would be no value in it.

11) Supreme court said that the presiding judge should follow the guidelines laid down by the supreme court while sentencing and imposing punishment

12) the menace of dowry death is increasing day by day and sometimes it is also so mote that the members of husband are accused even though they do not have an active role in the commission of the offence. In this case, the court needs to be cautious in its approach.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the chances of accidental fire are not ruled out in the present case and the prosecution even failed to prove that there was even a demand for dowry. And at last, the prosecution also failed to prove that the demand assuming there was one was made proximate to the death of the deceased victim.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent state submitted that the appellants had not been able to show any material which would merit the interference of this Court in the concurrent findings of the   Courts below.   The counsel especially emphasized upon the fact that the suspicious death of the deceased victim occurred within almost   1   year of marriage.   Moreover,   the   witnesses   have   stated   the   specific instances of demand for dowry with consistency.”

Issues raised and decisions

Whether the Trial Court and the   High   Court,   was correct in convicting the accused on the charge under Section 304B, IPC?

The court analysed section 304b for dowry death which states that where the death of women is caused by any burns or bodily injuries or occurs otherwise under normal circumstances with 7years of marriage and is shown that soon before the death she was subjected to any kind of harassment or cruelty by her husband or any other relatives for dowry or anything in relation to dowry such death would be called as the dowry death and the husband and such relatives would be responsible for such death.

Subsection (2) states that whoever is responsible for the dowry death shall be punished for a minimum of 7 years which may also extend to life imprisonment.

The court referred to the case Major Singh v. The state of Punjab wherein the judgement was passed based on the following essential ingredients:-

1) the cause of the death should be burns or bodily injuries or otherwise under normal circumstances

2) death of a woman must occur within 7years of her marriage

3) there should be cruelty or harassment by her husband or any other relatives

4) the harassment and cruelty must be in connection with the dowry

5) harassment and cruelty should take place soon before her death

If these ingredients are fulfilled then section 304b of IPC is applicable. Court also referred to the case Bansi Lal v. the State of Haryana where it was gelt that once all the ingredients of section 304b stand proved the presumption under 113b section shall be applicable.

Whether the Trial Court and the   High   Court,   was correct in convicting the accused on the charge under Section 306, IPC?

Section 306 of IPC i.e abetment of suicide states that if any person commits suicide or whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 10years and also be liable for the fine.

This indicates that prosecution first needs to be established that suicide has been committed and second it must also prove that the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide has an active role in it.

The conclusion was as the prosecution failed to establish that the death occurred due to suicide as there was no evidence to prove the same. So the court held as the fact of commission of suicide was not proved under section 306b of IPC.

Judgement in Satbir Singh v. The state of Haryana

The submission made by the appellants was rejected by the supreme court and held that

1) the first essential ingredient of offence stands proved as the fact states that the accused and deceased were married on 1st July 1994 and died ( deceased) on 31 July 1995.

2) the second essential ingredient of offence stands proved as the death of the deceased was due to burn injuries on her body and that too within 7 years of her marriage.

3) some evidence also proved that within 1 month of the marriage the deceased was came back to her paternal house as she was being harassed by her husband and family because she brought less dowry.

4) even before 1week of her death she was complaining about the harassment and cruelty she is facing by her husband and inlaws and later on 31 July 1995 she was admitted to the hospital and later died due to burn injuries on her body.

5) the further court held that all these chains prove that there is definately a link between death and demand for dowry.

6) the supreme court held that the two below courts have properly examined all the shreds of evidence.

7) the supreme court held that all the essential ingredients for dowry death has been proved by the prosecution and presumption under 113b section shall apply

8) the appellants failed to show any evidence to prove that the occurrence of death was an accident because according to the doctor there was kerosene oil on the body and thus the possibility of an accident does not occur.

Conclusion

From the above findings, the evidence available and the relevant material it is concluded that the judgement made by the trial court and high court was justified and there was no error in convicting the appellants under section 304b of IPC.

However, about the offence under section 306 of IPC, the prosecution was not able to provide enough shreds of evidence to prove that the deceased committed suicide therefore section 306 was set aside.

Therefore the supreme court held them convicted only for an offence under section 304b of IPC.

Related Posts

• Consumer Education and Research Society vs. Union of India & Ors.
• Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India
• Rajlaxmi Multistate Credit v. Gajanan Vasant Shribhate & Ors.
• Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
• Satyam Infoway Ltd v. Sifynet Solutions (P) Ltd

Author: Simran Verma [Delhi Metropolitan Education ( GGSIPU)]