Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Rahul Chaturvedi*, J. and Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi, J. while dealing with similar appeals related to dowry deaths, addressed the issue of the application of Section of the , (‘IPC’) in dowry-related cases, as a result of the misuse of murder charges in cases primarily revolving around dowry harassment and deaths.
The Court said that ideally the charges under Sections 498A and of the , along with provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, were designed to combat the menace of dowry-related violence, however, the blanket addition of murder charges had become a troubling trend in Trial Courts, often lacking the requisite evidence.
In this regard the Court formulated the following issues:
Whether the Trial Courts were justified in framing the charge under Sections , 304B and Section 3 read with Section of (‘Dowry Prohibition Act’) with alternative charge under Section simpliciter or Section 302 read with Section ;
Whether the Trial Courts were justified while exonerating the accused persons from the primary charges of Sections , and Section 3 read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, but convicting them under Section302 read with Section taking recourse of Section 106 of the Evidence Act?
The Court noted that Trial Courts had been applying this routinely and mechanically, escalating the seriousness of the situation without specific documentation or allegations, and said that this legal issue would have significant implications for pending trials in the Sessions Courts.
The accused in one of the cases before the Court contended that Trial Courts were misinterpreting legal precedents, particularly the judgment rendered in Rajbir v. State of Haryana, which dealt with stringent actions against dowry-related crimes, saying further that the interpretation of this judgment often led to an almost automatic addition of Section 302 IPC in chargesheets, without careful consideration of the facts of each case.
However, the Court noted that the decision in Rajbir (Supra) did not advocate for a one-size-fits-all approach, and that subsequent clarifications, especially in Jasvinder Saini v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), ( , reinforced that additional charges must have arisen from compelling evidence presented during trial proceedings, not as a default prosecutorial strategy.
The Court further noted how there was an over reliance by Trial Courts on Section 106 of the Evidence Act, a section which placed the burden of proof on the accused for facts within their knowledge, was frequently invoked in light of concrete evidence from the prosecution.
The Court said that this practice not only undermines the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proof, but also led to scenarios where the accused were convicted of murder based on presumptive rather than cogent evidence.
The Court noted that in the present scenario before the Trial Courts, the mere presence of dowry harassment allegations seemed to suffice for escalating charges to murder, disregarding the differences between various types of culpable homicide.
The Court noted that repercussions of this misapplication were manifold, leading to numerous wrongful convictions where individuals were held guilty of murder in the absence of direct or circumstantial evidence substantiating such charges.
The Court noted that the mechanical addition of Section 302 charges diluted the gravity of murder as an offense, as cases with insufficient evidence were treated on a par with those involving clear homicidal intent.
With regard to the issue of addition of offences under Section , the Court noted that the offense under Section , related to dowry death, is distinct from murder under Section and should not be considered a lesser offense, however, when a person is charged with both Section (murder) and Section (cruelty to a woman), alleging harassment leading to dowry demands and the bride’s death within seven years of marriage, there may be cases where murder is not proven but all conditions for Section are met.
Here the Court referred to the judgment in Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka, , wherein it was held that if the Court found that murder under Section was not proven but the conditions for Section were satisfied, it must allow the accused to defend against this charge, and that even if not initially charged under Section , the Court can inform the accused of its view and proceed with conviction if the accused fails to disprove the presumption.
The Court referred to Vijay Pal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, , wherein it was held that in cases where there is evidence, either direct or circumstantial, indicating that the offense falls under Section 302 of IPC, the Trial Court should frame charges under Section 302, regardless of whether the police report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC expresses an opinion to that effect, and further Section of may be included as an alternative charge at the discretion of the Trial Court.
The Court further said that during the trial, if the Court determined that there was insufficient direct or circumstantial evidence to establish the offense as homicide beyond reasonable doubt, but the elements of Section of the were present, the Trial Court should proceed under that provision.
The Court noted that the Trial Courts in all the cases had exonerated the accused persons from the charge under Section , but with the help of Section 106 of Evidence Act convicted the accused persons in a most casual and cursory manner under Section .
The Court further noted that the principle underlying Section 106 applies only to such matters of defence which are supposed to be especially within the knowledge of the defendant and cannot be applied when the fact is known also by a person other than the defendant.
The Court remarked, “the word “especially” means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge of the accused. The ordinary rule that applies to the criminal trials that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is not in any way modified by the rule of facts embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act.”
The Court, therefore, in all the appeals before it, quashed the convictions under Section and ordered retrials, explicitly mandating adherence to the guidelines set forth in Jasvinder Saini (Supra) and Vijay Pal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, .
The Court emphasized the need for comprehensive investigations that thoroughly explore all charges—dowry death, abetment to suicide, and murder—only when supported by substantial evidence.
Additionally, the Court instituted some measures including the release of accused persons on bail, saying that re-trials should aim at rectifying injustices rather than perpetuating them. The Court also mandated that investigations be exhaustive, directing the Director General of Police to train officers in distinguishing between different legal provisions applicable in dowry death cases, thereby preventing the indiscriminate addition of severe charges without merit.
Lastly, the Court emphasized the need for timely retrials to alleviate the prolonged legal burdens on the accused, thus upholding the fundamental right to a fair and expeditious trial.
[Rammilan Bunker v. State of UP, Criminal Appeal No. 1667 of 2021, decided on 30-05-2024]
Judgment Authored by Justice Rahul Chaturvedi
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocates for the Appellants: Shiv Babu Dubey, S.P.S. Chauhan, Sukhendra Singh, Mohd Aamir A.C., Atharva Dixit, Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Vinod Kumar Yadav, Dr. Arun Srivastav, Advocates
Advocates for the State: AGA, GA, Arun Kumar Srivastava
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .