Supreme Court Affirms Husband’s Conviction In Dowry Death Case
The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a husband in a dowry death case, while remarking that the defence’s plea is a fictional story created by the accused as an afterthought to escape conviction.
The Court dismissed the Appeal of a husband accused under 304-B of the IPC by the Trial Court, a decision that was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court as well. The father of the victim had alleged that his daughter was subjected to harassment, taunts, and physical abuse soon after the marriage. The prosecution alleged that the victim had jumped down from the roof of the house and ended her life due to persistent harassment and demands of dowry meted out to her by her matrimonial house.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked, “We are of the firm view that if the Public Prosecutor was negligent in performing his duties, the presiding officer of the trial Court should have remained vigilant and the Court questions should have been put to the medical officer regarding the number and nature of injuries caused to the deceased and to seek a clear opinion regarding the cause of death.”
Advocate Rakesh Mishra appeared for the Appellant, while AOR Amar Dave represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The father of the victim had registered an FIR alleging that his daughter was subjected to harassment and cruelty by her husband and his family over dowry demands.
The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 304-B of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The High Court dismissed the accused’s Appeal and upheld the conviction.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court remarked, “The accused has taken alternative defences for explaining the death of Punita. The two defences which are totally divergent are (a) that the deceased accidently fell down from the terrace and received the injuries, or (b) that the deceased-Punita committed suicide by jumping from the terrace as she was perturbed because of the knee issue which was plaguing her. We feel that this diametrically opposite defence taken by the accused-appellant does not have any legs to stand and we have strong reasons to observe so.”
The Court stated that “the plea taken by the defence that deceasedPunita was so perturbed by her knee issues that she ended her life by jumping from the terrace is absolutely flimsy and unbelievable. Rather we find that this is nothing, but a fictional story created by the accused-appellant as an afterthought to escape conviction.”
“At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that the demand of money was being made so that the accused-appellant could secure a job. The deceased called her brother Satender Kumar (PW-3) on the date of incident at 07:45 am and complained that she was being maltreated/beaten by her matrimonial family members including the accused-appellant and expressed a grave danger to her life. Hence, there is ample evidence on record establishing that deceasedPunita was being treated with cruelty in her matrimonial home owing to the demand of dowry soon before her death,” the Bench explained.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “As a result, we are not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the accused-appellant as recorded by the trial Court and later affirmed by the High Court. The impugned judgments and orders i.e., judgment and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Panipat and judgment passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Virender Pal @ Vipin v. The State Of Haryana (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 342 OF 2015)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Shekhar Kumar; Advocates Rakesh Mishra, Mohua Sinha and Rishabh Kumar
Respondent: AOR Samar Vijay Singh; Advocates Sabarni Som, Fateh Singh and Aman Dev Sharma
