1.

WHETHER SURAJ IS PUNISHABLE FOR THE DOWRY DEATH OF

BABITA?
2. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused, Sunil Kumar and
Ranjna
3. are guilty of offences of dowry death and cruelty under Section 304B, Section 498A
and
4. Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860
5. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused, Sunil Kumar and
Ranjna
6. are guilty of offences of dowry death and cruelty under Section 304B, Section 498A
and
7. Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860
8. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused, Sunil Kumar and
Ranjna
9. are guilty of offences of dowry death and cruelty under Section 304B, Section 498A
and
10. Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860
11. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused, Sunil Kumar and
Ranjna
12. are guilty of offences of dowry death and cruelty under Section 304B, Section 498A
and
13. Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860
14. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused, Sunil Kumar and
Ranjna
15. are guilty of offences of dowry death and cruelty under Section 304B, Section 498A
and
16. Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused, Sunil Kumar and Ranjna
are guilty of offences of dowry death and cruelty under Section 304B, Section 498A and
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the accused, Suraj is guilty of offences
of cruelty and dowry death under section 498A and 304B of The Indian penal code, 1860.

2.2 THAT THE ACCUSED IS PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304B OF IPC

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the accused in guilty of offence of dowry
death under section 304B of IPC, Which reads “Where the death of a woman is caused by
any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven
years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty
or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative
shall be deemed to have caused her death.”

2.2.1 EXISTENCE OF THE NECESSARY INGREDIENTS FOR CONSTITUTING

AN OFFENCE OF DOWRY DEATH

In order to constitute an offence under section 304B of IPC, the following ingredients must
be proved –

- the death of a woman should be caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs
otherwise than under normal circumstances
- Death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage
- she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative
of her husband soon before her death
- such cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband should be
for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry

The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwiseunder normal
cir
In the Instant case all the ingredients of dowry death are fulfilled, the death of the wife had
occurred in otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of marriage. Babita
was constantly subjected to harassment by her husband for dowry.

In the case of Ramesh Panjiyar vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 2 SCC 388, this Court held that
the prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or incidental death so as to bring it
within the purview of “Death occurring otherwise than in the normal circumstances”.

In the case at hand, The suicide is not incidental death, but the one which occurred in an
unnatural circumstance as in, a well educated women like babita having no other external
issue either in profession or personal life cannot end her life by committing suicide.
In the case of Shanti And Anr vs State Of Haryana, The court observed that either homicidal
or suicidal, it was an unnatural death. Even assuming that it is a case of suicide even then it
would be death which had occurred in unnatural circumstances. Court further held that even
in such a case, Section 304-B is attracted.

In the case of Maya devi & Anr vs State of Haryana, it was held that, if all the other
ingredients of Section 304B IPC are fulfilled, any death (homicidal or suicidal or accidental)
whether caused by burns or by bodily injury or occurring otherwise than under normal
circumstances shall, as per the legislative mandate, be called a “dowry death” and the
woman’s husband or his relative “shall be deemed to have caused her death”.

In the Instant case, the factum clearly elucidates that the suicide of Babita occurred otherwise
than in normal circumstances. She was constantly assaulted for dowry. Giving her not just a
physical but also a mental agony. The harassment for dowry was of that grave and severe
nature that even a brave and an educated women like Babita was compelled to commit
suicide.

It is undeniable that the death in the present case has occurred within seven years of marriage,
under suspicious circumstances i.e., death by suicide . Moreover, she constantly reported the
harassment and cruelty to her parents.

The prosecution has ruled out the possibility of a natural or incidental death to bring the death
within the purview of death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances.

Further, to understand cruelty and harassment, the explanation to Section 498-A gives the
meaning of "cruelty". In Section 304-B there is no such explanation about the meaning of
"cruelty" but having regard to the common background to these offences, the meaning of
"cruelty or harassment" will be the same as found in the explanation to Section 498-A
under which "cruelty" by itself mounts to an offence and is punishable.1

For the purposes of this section, cruelty means –

(a) anywilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or
physical) of the woman; or

1
Shanti And Anr vs State Of Haryana
 (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security
or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand

In the light of the facts of the present case, Babita was constantly subjected to harassment for
dowry. Her silence and marks of assault on her body show nothing but the physical and the
mental agony she underwent. The statements of PW1, PW2, and PW3 clearly indicate the
assault on the deceased in connection with dowry demand.2

PW1 deposed that his daughter was constantly assaulted by the accused. The statements of
PW1 can be corroborated with the P.W 2 statement and also the report of the I.O. Further, the
investigation officer after stated that the deceased was seen with marks of assault on her
body. Which cannot be ignored at any instance.
The presence of demand for dowry can be proved through all the transactions taken place
during the marriage. Which include giving furniture, clothes, old house hold items and also a
5 crore cash to the accused.

In the factum of the case, the Accused(1) suraj had aspirations to build his own gym and the
same was tried to fulfilled by seeking dowry from the wife. The Supreme court had in several
judgements held that agreement is not an essential element. Subsequent to the marriage is
also considered to be dowry.

The deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death, the expression ‘soon before her
death’ is not to be construed in a narrow as laid down.
It was held in the case of  Sher Singh @ Partapa v. State of Haryana, that Days or months
are not what is to be seen. What must be borne in mind is that the word “soon” does not mean
“immediate”. A fair and pragmatic construction keeping in mind the great social evil that has
led to the enactment of Section 304-B would make it clear that the expression is a relative
expression. Time-lags may differ from case to case. All that is necessary is that the demand
for dowry should not be stale but should be the continuing cause for the death of the married
woman under Section 304-B.

2
498A
 In the case of Kanas Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors3, it was held that in case of dowry death
the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not
restricted to a particular instances but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct
may be spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or harassment or demand of dowry is
shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be “soon before death”.

Also in the case of Gurmeet singh vs state of Punjab, the supreme court while reiterating
detailed guidelines held that the phrase “soon before” as appearing in Section 304-
B, IPC cannot be construed to mean ‘immediately before’. The prosecution must establish
existence of “proximate and live link” between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for
dowry demand by the husband or his relatives.

The unfortunate incident took place where in the constant

…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………

It was held Pawan Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana, In cases of dowry deaths and
suicides, circumstantial evidence plays an important role and inferences can be drawn on the
basis of such evidence that could be either direct on indirect.
Owing to the statements made by PW1 and PW2 and also the Investigation officers and the
transactions made during the marriage the prosecution clearly established that the cruelty and
harassment for or in connection with demand for dowry had proximate link with the
unfortunate death of Babita.
With that ingredients of 304B being fulfilled, The presumption casted upon the accused by
113B of The Evidence Act, 1872 comes into play.

STATUTORY PRESUMPTION UNDER 113B OF EVIDENCE ACT –

Section 113B of The evidence Act casts a rebutable presumption on the accused. Section
113B reads as under :

3
., (2000) 5 SCC 207
“When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is
shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty
or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that
such person had caused the dowry death.”
In the case of sabir singh vs state of Haryana,It was held that Once these ingredients of
304B are satisfied, the rebuttable presumption of causality, provided under Section 113-
B, Evidence Act operates against the accused.

Thus there is presumption that such death is on account of dowry death. Thus the burden, if at
all, was on the accused to prove otherwise.

It was held in the case of satbir singh that, When the prosecution shows that ‘soon before her
death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry’, a presumption of causation arises against the
accused under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. Thereafter, the accused has  to rebut this
statutory presumption.4

The Court, in the case of Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana, (2011) 11 SCC 359, emphasized
the mandatory application of the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act once
the ingredients of Section 304B of IPC stood proved. Wherein the court noted thus:

“It may be mentioned herein that the legislature in its wisdom has used the word ‘shall’
thus, making a mandatory application on the part of the court to presume that death had
been committed by the person who had subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection
with any demand of dowry.  Therefore, in view of the above, onus lies on the accused to rebut
the presumption and in case of  Section 113B relatable to Section 304B IPC, the onus to
prove shifts exclusively and heavily on the accused.”

Since the essential ingredients of dowry death have been established by the prosecution
presumption under Section 113B, Evidence Act mandatorily operates against the accused.
Presumption under 113B uses the word ‘shall’ which mandates the court to draw the

4
Ibid.
presumption. However the court can exercise discretion, when trying for abetment of suicide
and drawing presumption under 113 A of the evidence Act.

However in the case of satbir singh, court held that  Section 306 IPC when read with Section
113A of the Evidence Act has only enabled the court to punish a husband or his relative who
subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged in Section 498A IPC) if such woman committed
suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 IPC whether the
cruelty or harassment was caused soon before her death or earlier. If it was caused soon
before her death the special provision in Section 304B IPC would be invokable, otherwise
resort can be made to Section 306 IPC.

It is humbly submitted that, In the present case all the ingredients of 304B are satisfied and
that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death It attracts the presumption
under 113B of The Evidence Act and hence forth it is the duty of the court to mandatorily
cast such presumption upon the accused.

It is henceforth submitted before this hon’ble court that, since all the ingredients of 304B are
satisfied, Accused(1) Suraj is liable for Punishment for dowry death of Babita.