{"id":248929,"date":"2021-05-30T12:00:52","date_gmt":"2021-05-30T06:30:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=248929"},"modified":"2021-06-04T10:59:49","modified_gmt":"2021-06-04T05:29:49","slug":"judges-need-to-be-extra-careful-while-conducting-criminal-trials-relating-to-dowry-deaths-supreme-court-read-guidelines","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/05\/30\/judges-need-to-be-extra-careful-while-conducting-criminal-trials-relating-to-dowry-deaths-supreme-court-read-guidelines\/","title":{"rendered":"Judges need to be extra careful while conducting criminal trials relating to dowry deaths: Supreme Court [Read guidelines]"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court:<\/strong> In a case relating to dowry death, the bench of NV Ramana*<\/strong>, CJ and Aniruddha Bose, J has said that judges need to be extra careful while conducting criminal trials relating to Section 304-B, IPC. The Court went on to summarise the law under Section 304\u00adB, IPC read with Section 113\u00adB, Evidence Act and the guidelines to be followed by the Courts while conducting trials in such cases.<\/p>\n

The Court noticed that, often, Trial Courts record the statement of an accused under Section 313, CrPC in a very casual and cursory manner, without specifically questioning the accused as to his defense.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt ought to be noted that the examination of an accused under Section 313, CrPC cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, as it is based on the fundamental principle of fairness.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Hence, 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\u00acB, IPC read with Section 113-B, Evidence Act.<\/p>\n

Dowry deaths \u2013 Facts and Figures<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

A study titled \u201cGlobal study on Homicide: Gender-related killing of women and girls\u201d, published by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, highlighted that in 2018 female dowry deaths account for 40 to 50 percent of all female homicides recorded annually in India. The dismal truth is that from the period 1999 to 2016, these figures have remained constant.<\/p>\n

The latest data furnished by the National Crime Records Bureau indicates that in 2019 itself, 7115 cases were registered under Section 304-B, IPC alone.<\/p>\n

Law on dowry death \u2013 The trajectory <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Section 304\u00acB, IPC is one among many legislative initiatives undertaken by Parliament to remedy a long-standing social evil of dowry death. The pestiferous nature of dowry harassment, wherein married women\u00a0\u00a0 are\u00a0\u00a0 being\u00a0\u00a0 subjected\u00a0\u00a0 to\u00a0\u00a0 cruelty\u00a0\u00a0 because\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 covetous demands by husband and his relatives has not gone unnoticed. The Parliament enacted the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as a first step to eradicate this social evil. Further, as the measures were\u00a0\u00a0 found\u00a0\u00a0 to\u00a0\u00a0 be\u00a0\u00a0 insufficient,\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 Criminal\u00a0\u00a0 Law\u00a0\u00a0 (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act 46 of 1983) was passed wherein Chapter XX-A was introduced in the IPC, containing Section 498\u00acA.<\/p>\n

The need for a stringent law to curb dowry deaths was suo motu taken up by the Law Commission in its 91st Law Commission Report. The Law Commission recognized that the IPC, as it existed at that relevant time, was insufficient to tackle the issue of dowry deaths due to the nature and modus of the crime.<\/p>\n

The Parliament, then, introduced amendments to the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as the IPC by enacting Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986 (Act 43 of 1986). By way of this amendment, Section 304-B, IPC was specifically introduced in the IPC, as a stringent provision to curb the menace of dowry death in India.<\/p>\n

Margaret Alva, who presented the Amendment Bill before Rajya Sabha observed:<\/p>\n

\u201cYou have never really heard of a girl being burnt while cooking in her mother\u2019s\u00a0 house or her husband\u2019s\u00a0 house. It is always in the mother-in-law\u2019s house that she catches fire and is burnt in the kitchen. Therefore, getting evidence immediately becomes a great bit problem. Therefore, we have brought in a couple of amendments which give certain presumptions where the burden of proof shifts to the husband and to his people to show that it was not a dowry death or that it was not deliberately done.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Dowry Death and Criminal Trial \u2013 Law Summarised <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n
    \n
  1. Section 304\u00acB, IPC must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand.<\/li>\n
  2. 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\u00acB, Evidence Act operates against the accused.<\/li>\n
  3. The phrase \u201csoon before\u201d as appearing in Section 304\u00acB, IPC cannot be construed to mean \u2018immediately before\u2019. The prosecution must establish existence of \u201cproximate and live link\u201d between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the husband or his relatives.<\/li>\n
  4. 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 \u201cotherwise than under normal circumstances\u201d can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental.<\/li>\n
  5. Due to the precarious nature of Section 304-B, IPC read with 113\u00acB, Evidence Act, Judges, prosecution and defence should be careful during conduction of trial.<\/li>\n
  6. 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 \u201caudi alteram partem\u201d<\/em> 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.<\/li>\n
  7. 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\u00a0\u00a0 in consideration the peculiarities of Section 304-B, IPC read with Section 113\u00acB, Evidence Act.<\/li>\n
  8. Section 232, CrPC provides that, \u201cIf, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining\u00a0\u00a0 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\u201d. Such discretion must be utilized by the Trial Courts as an obligation of best efforts.<\/li>\n
  9. 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 \u2018defence evidence\u2019, 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.<\/li>\n
  10. In the same breath, Trial Courts need to balance other important considerations such as the right to a speedy trial.<\/li>\n
  11. The presiding Judge should follow the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court while sentencing and imposing appropriate punishment.<\/li>\n
  12. Undoubtedly, the menace of dowry death is increasing day by day, however, 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.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    [Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 404<\/b><\/a>, decided on 28.05.2021]<\/p>\n

    \n

    Judgment by: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    Know Thy Judge| Justice N.V. Ramana<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n