NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

CRIMINAL LAW II PROJECT- Vth SEMESTER

ACQUITTAL UNDER 304B OF IPC : ANALYSIS OF
JUDICIAL TRENDS

SUBMITTED TO:

Dr KUNTIRANI PADHAN
Dr ANUP KUMAR PATTNAIK

SUBMITTED BY:
BIPIN PUNIA (2018/B.A.LL.B./027)
 ACQUITTAL UNDER 304B OF IPC : ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL
TRENDS

The term “Dowry” has never been perceived from positive perspective due to several cases
of violence; the term itself has become blacklisted. Dating it to several years ago, dowry was
given voluntarily to the bride from her family, so that the bride’s lifestyle in respect to the
past of how she has been lived, will not be compromised. She would be able to receive some
assistance from the gifts/property given to her as dowry. However with the passage of time,
the act of giving dowry has been changed. Nowadays, there is a factor of malicious intention
to acquire more property through the means of dowry and pursuant to it, acts of bodily and
mental harm is inflicted to the bride. In order to prevent cases of Dowry where women are
put into extreme harming situations later resulting in death, different acts have been enacted
by the legislation, such as Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. The section 304B is the one which
prescibes punishment of imprisonment not less than 7 years to whosoever who might have a
role for the commission of death. The essential elements to prove that dowry death has
occurred are: Bodily injury, death under abnormal circumstances, within 7 years, soon before
death subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or
in connection with, any demand for dowry. If the contrary of the allegation imposed on the
husband or his relatives is proved, then acquittal is awarded. However, critically analysing
the section, there are certain parts of it which are not fitting, for example, “within 7
years”and “soon before death”. It can be observed that dowry demands are streched after the
period of 7 years as well and in cases where death occurs, the prepetrator does not get any
imposition of charges. “Soon before death” is also dynamic in nature as the definition itself is
variable as to time, event, etc. For instance, the physical injury sustained might be on an
earlier date and its impact on the emotional mind might be just before commission of death
and the reason goes unnoticed. This mental aspect might not be detectable and fall under the
ambit of “soon before death”. Hence the person involved bears no charge. The mental
condition of the woman needs to be included with the provision of proximity and reasonable
nexus in the section 304B of Indian Penal Code so that the appropriate people get the due
punishment. Charges under 304B are at most times attached with 498A under cruelty.

A growing trend has come to light that nowadays, if the bride encounters death under normal
circumstances and within the ambit of 304B, the parents of the bride forcefully goes to the
court to file a false report against the husband and the in-laws just because their daughter has
died. They do not seek any background facts or reasoning and additionaly in that enraged
state they drag the husband into the court under Sec 304B. The mentality of the bride’s
parent misuse the provision made for dowry death cases. Another similar situation arises
when the bride bears suicidal tendency. Suicide is a known phenomenon of human nature.
“

Suicides are committed by living human beings for various reasons; some are not able to bear
the normal stresses which are common in life. Some are not able to cope up with the
circumstances in which they are placed. Some commit suicide because of frustration of not
achieving the desired goals. There is no presumption that every suicide committed by a
” “

married woman in her in-laws’ house or at her parents’ house has to be because she was
suffering harassment at the hands of her husband or her in-laws. These statements were
”

announced from the case of Narender Singh Arora v State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi) & Ors.
Where the judges addressed the ongoing increase of false cases of dowry death and cruelty.
According to High Court’s observation, “parents of deceased wants, whatever be the cause of
death, the in-laws must be charged against some offence”.

Case registration from the deceased party becomes stronger when charged under 304B as the
pressumption of innocence is not present. The accused has to prove that he is guilty free and
hence prove the case that he is indeed innocent. The “deemed fiction” introduces a rebuttable
presumption and it is open to the husband or his relatives to rebut it by contrary evidence.
Section 304B has remained a non-bailable offence but when the judgment of Rajesh Kumar v
State of Uttar Pradesh, it was stated that, keeping in view of the increasing false cases, the
provison of the bail can be filed and decided within 24 hours of lodging the case. With the
passage of time, in the case of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v Union of India, the
provison of bail was later removed in entirety because the gravity of the seriousness of death
caused by dowry was getting diminished. Question of women rights and empowerment was
highlighted and hence was abrogated. In the recent case of Savitri Agarwal & Ors v State of
Maharastra, the judgment allowed the ad-interim anticipatory bail to the appeallants who
were accused under Section 304B, 498A read with 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The supreme court stated “After hearing both sides and upon
taking into consideration the said two dying declarations made by the deceased - Laxmi,
statements of the complainant and witnesses and after perusing the case diary, the learned
Sessions Judge confirmed the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants.” Firstly, the ambit
of Section 438 is wide enough to be interpreted by the court; Section 438 of the Code of
“

Criminal Procedure confers on the High Court and the Court of Session, the power to grant
`anticipatory bail' if the applicant has `reason to believe' that he may be arrested on
accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. When a competent court grants
” “

`anticipatory bail', it makes an order that in the event of arrest, a person shall be released on
bail. There is no question of release on bail unless a person is arrested and, therefore, it is
only on arrest that the order granting anticipatory bail becomes operative. The Court went on
” “

to observe that the power of granting `anticipatory bail' is somewhat extraordinary in

character and it is only in `exceptional cases' where it appears that a person might be falsely
implicated, or a frivolous case might be launched against him. Secondly, their orders are not
”

final but are open to appellate or revisional scrutiny so that if justice is not served properly
then recourse will be still available. Allowing anticipatory bails are indeed a positive
mechanism for the men who are falsely accused and charged. As anticipatory bail appeals go
through proper scrutinization and upon the discretion of competent judges who apply their
judicial, reasonable mind to cases at hand, the probability of improper decisions or wrongful
accuses will be reduced.

It is indeed true that acquittal of accused has increased but seeing that the cases regarding
false accusations has also increased, it is kind of justified that the former is anticipated. To
overcome the issue of unecessary acquittal, intensive investigation is required which will the
relate the previous state of condions of the case as well as the future’s to derive the
authencity of the case and its fact. The behaviour of the parties concerned matters a great
deal to know their intention regarding the bride’s death: does any benefit would come in
from her passing away or do they actually bear no ill intention. The investigating officer who
registered the case and who investigated the case should be held responsible for false cases.
Another case of Vipin Jaiswal v State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Public Prosecutor,
it was adjudicated that “In any case, to hold an accused guilty of both the offences under
Sections 304B ad 498A of IPC, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the deceased was subject to cruelty or harassment by the accused.” In the present case,
general allegation of harrasment were bought forward and no specific acts of cruelty. On the
other hand, the accused managed to produce documents that stated that he and his family
members were far off from the commission of the act and no such similar harassment was
ever done on the deceased and it was verified from the neighbors as well. Hence a clear,
admission of cruelty has to be proved against the accused.

The National Crime Records Bureau’s (NCRB) data, the bench said that nearly 200,000
people were arrested over dowry offences in 2012, but only 14.4% of the accused were
convicted. “We are conscious of the object for which the provision was brought into the
statute but at the same time, violation of human rights of (the) innocent cannot be brushed
aside," the bench had said.

In Kirti Abrol v State (NCT of Delhi) also had a judgment where in Conviction in a dowry
“

death case was set aside for being based on “inherently contradictory approach”. The High
” “

Court perused the impugned judgment and noted that “it was unfair on the part of the trial
court to evidence of the same witnesses against the appellant even while the same had been
rejected qua the other accused.” It was stated that “the judgment was vitiated by an
”

inherently contradictory approach”. The Court was of the view that the case of the
“

prosecution on a version which had come after 4 days of the suicide, was quite apparently an
afterthought. It was observed, while other ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B
” “

IPC are made out (the marriage being less than seven years old and the death of the married
woman being for unnatural causes), credible evidence providing link as to she being
subjected to ill-treatment, leave alone connection with demand or expectation of dowry, are
missing.  Holding that the prosecution failed to cover the long journey from suspicion to
” “

conclusion inherent in a criminal trial, the Court set aside the trial court’s judgment and
acquitted the husband.
”

Another latest and significant decision in Girish Singh v The State Of Uttarakhand, by
Justice KM Joseph and Justice SK Kaul makes it amply clear that it is not any cruelty that
becomes the subject matter of the provision but it is the cruelty or harassment for or in
connection with demand for dowry. Cruelty not related to dowry cannot be basis for
conviction under Section 304B IPC.

From all the judicial decisions pronounced, it has become quite evident that legislature and
judiciary are working in order to curb the false cases of dowry deaths under Section 304B
and to rightly serve justice to the parties involved.