NDLI: Satbir Singh & Another Vs. State of Haryana

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1860: s 304B Penal Code
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860: s. 304B – Dowry death – Conviction under – Prosecution case that the victim committed suicide by setting herself ablaze just after one year of her marriage and that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for bringing less dowry by the accused – Conviction of the accused for the offences u/s. 304B and 306 with 7 years and 5 years rigorous imprisonment respectively – High Court upheld the order of the trial court – On appeal, held: Prosecution was able to successfully prove that the death of the victim due to burn injuries took place within one year of her marriage – It has been proved that soon before her death she was subjected to harassment and cruelty pursuant to demands of dowry – Chain of circumstances proves that there existed a live and proximate link between the instances of demand of dowry and the death of the victim – Statements of the witnesses were corroborative, consistent and reliable – However, presumption in s. 113B not rebutted by the accused – Thus, the High Court and trial court rightly convicted the accused u/s. 304-B – As regards offence u/s. 306, the prosecution failed to establish that the death occurred due to suicide, thus, the conviction and sentence u/s. 306 is set aside – Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 113B, 113A. s. 304B – Phrase ‘soon before’ – Interpretation of – Held: Phrase ‘soon before’ in s. 304B cannot be construed to mean immediately before – Strict interpretation would defeat the very object of enactment – No straitjacket formulae can be laid down by this Court to define what e X acts the phrase soon before entails – Thus, the Courts should use their discretion to determine if the period between the cruelty or harassment and the death of the victim would come within the term soon before – Establishment of a proximate and live link between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim, is pivotal to the said determination.s. 304B – Dowry death – Categorization death, as homicidal or suicidal or accidental – Pigeonhole approach – Held: s.304 B does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental – Reason for such non- categorization is due to the fact that death occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. s. 304B – Inclusion of, in the Code – Legislative history – Explained.Evidence Act, 1872: s. 113-B – Presumption as to dowry death – Rebuttal of – Held: 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 u/s. 113B – Thereafter, the accused has to rebut this statutory presumption – Usage of rebuttable presumption of causality, u/s. 113B creates a greater responsibility on Judges, defense and prosecution – They need to be extra careful during conducting criminal trials relating to s. 304-B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss. 233, 232 – Entering upon defence – Right to accused u/s. 233 – Held: Under s. 232 if, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal – Once the trial court decides that the accused is not eligible to be acquitted as per the provisions of s. 232, it must move on and fix hearings specifically for defence evidence, calling upon the accused to present his defense as per the procedure provided u/s. 233, which is also an invaluable right provided to the accused – Existence of such procedural right cohesively sits with the rebuttable presumption as provided u/s. 113B, Evidence Act.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana
Neutral Citation	2021 INSC 301
Petitioner	Satbir Singh & Another
Respondent	State Of Haryana
SCR	[2021] 7 S.C.R. 269
Judgement Date	2021-05-28
Case Number	1735-1736

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Satbir Singh & Another Vs. State of Haryana

Please Log-in to view this content

Bibi Parwana Khatoon @ Parwana Khatoon and Another Vs. State of Bihar

Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Devender Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Uttarakhand

Devender Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Kesar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana

Hardeep Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana

Rajesh Pandey Vs. State of U.p.

Pawan @ Rajinder Singh and Another Vs. State of Haryana

Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Satbir Singh & Another Vs. State of Haryana

Satbir Singh & Another Vs. State of Haryana

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Bibi Parwana Khatoon @ Parwana Khatoon and Another Vs. State of Bihar

Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Devender Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Uttarakhand

Devender Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Kesar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana

Hardeep Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana

Rajesh Pandey Vs. State of U.p.

Pawan @ Rajinder Singh and Another Vs. State of Haryana

Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Satbir Singh & Another Vs. State of Haryana