Case Name: Virender Pal v. State of Haryana
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No(S). 342 of 2015
Date of Judgment: 15 May, 2025
Quorum: Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The complainant, Balraj Singh (PW-1), filed an FIR on 1st June 2009 in Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat, stating that his daughter Punita alias Gayatri was being harassed with dowry by her husband (the accused-appellant) and his relatives ever since their marriage on 28th February 2008.In spite of giving dowry from his means, the complainant alleged that frequent demands, one for ₹5 lakhs, resulted in constant abuse. In the morning of 1st June 2009, Punita phoned her brother Satender Kumar (PW-3) in fear of her life following the assault by her in-laws. Later, the accused called the complainant to say that Punita had died, having jumped off the roof. FIR No. 335/2009 was lodged on the basis of the complaint under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC. A chargesheet was presented against the accused-appellant and his parents; charges against his uncle and brother were withdrawn. The accused-appellant was convicted and his parents acquitted by the trial court based on family member testimonies and circumstantial evidence. The accused-appellant was awarded 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment. The High Court confirmed the sentence and conviction, giving rise to the instant appeal with the Supreme Court.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether the appellant’s conviction on circumstantial evidence was sustainable ?
- Whether the chain of circumstances proved by the prosecution was complete and led irresistibly to the conclusion of the accused’s guilt ?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 302 and 380 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 27 and 106 Indian Evidence Act, 1872
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
The counsel of the accused-appellant submitted that the deceased, Punita, had a knee ailment which resulted in depression and suicide.He stated that there was no dowry demand because the demand for money to get employment could not be compared to a dowry demand. The prosecution, he alleged, had not established harassment or cruelty regarding dowry shortly before her death, a requirement under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. He raised contradictions in the evidence of the main prosecution witnesses and prayed that the cause of death—suicide or accidental fall—had not been established. On these premises, he requested the Court to set aside the concurrent findings of guilt and acquit the appellant.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
The respondent-State’s senior counsel rebutted the appellant’s arguments, averring that the High Court rightly made the judgment on the basis of cogent and consistent evidence that proved the accused-appellant’s guilt. Dowry products were recovered from Punita’s matrimonial home, and key witnesses testified consistent dowry demands and harassment prior to her premature death. He argued that all the ingredients of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act were fulfilled, placing the burden of proof on the appellant, which he failed to disprove the presumption. The conviction, therefore, was justified and the appeal deserving dismissal.
ANALYSIS
The evidence on hand sets out that the deceased, Punita, succumbed to an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage. There is reliable and consistent evidence of prosecution witnesses that points towards the demand for dowry and consequent harassment by the accused-appellant from the deceased. Dowry items recovered from the matrimonial house also substantiate these facts. The requirements for invoking the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act have been met, thus placing the burden on the accused-appellant to negate the link between the harassment and the death.The appellant was unable to give a satisfactory explanation or evidence to refute this presumption. The defense’s contention that the death was caused by depression secondary to a medical condition, or that it was an accidental fall, is not supported.
JUDGEMENT
The accused-appellant could not overcome the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. Hence, the dowry death conviction under Section 304-B IPC is affirmed, and the sentence passed by the lower courts is upheld.
CONCLUSION
Based on the evidence and the provisions of law, the deceased had undergone cruelty and harassment for dowry demands, which resulted in her unnatural death within seven years of marriage.The prosecution was able to prove the vital elements of dowry death by clear proof beyond reasonable doubt. The accused-appellant was unable to come up with any credible evidence to refute the charges or repel the presumption of guilt contained in the statute.Maintaining the conviction and sentence conveys a powerful message against dowry crimes, affirming the judiciary to keep women safe from such inhuman abuse. Therefore, the appeal is without merit and has to be rejected, affirming justice for the victim and maintaining the rule of law.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY ADI MEHTA
