Soni Devrajbhai
Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors [1991] INSC 217 (28 August 1991)
Verma,
Jagdish Saran (J) Verma, Jagdish Saran (J) Sharma, L.M. (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 2173 1991 SCR (3) 812 1991 SCC (4) 298 JT 1991 (3) 542 1991 SCALE
(2)410
ACT:
Indian
Penal Code, 1860: Section 304-B (As inserted by Act 43 of 1986)--Scope and
object of--Dowry death-Death occuring prior to insertion of Section 304-B
Section 304-B held prospective and consequently inapplicable--It contains a
substantive provision creating a new offence and, does not merely effect a
procedural change for trial of pre-existing substantive offence.
Indian
Evidence Act, 1872: Section 113-B. Presumption as to dowry death--Section 113-B
contains rule of evidence to prove the offence of dowry death.
Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961: Purpose of.
Constitution
of India, 1950: Article 20(1) Protection
against conviction for a new offence created subsequent to the commission of
offence.
HEAD NOTE:
Appellant's
daughter was married to respondent No. 2 on 15.12.1984. She died on 13.8.1986.
The appellant filed a criminal comp-. laint against the respondents viz. daugh-
ter's husband and his relatives for an offence under section 498-A, triable by
a Magistrate of First Class, 'read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 alleging that his daughter's death was unnatural resulting from torture by
her husband and his relatives. By Act No. 43 of 1986, the Indian Penal Code was
amended and Section 304-B, offence of dowry death, was inserted in the Code w.e.f.
19.11.1986. Since the newly inserted offence of dowry death was triable. by a
Court of Session, the appellant flied an application before the Magistrate for
committing the case to the Caurt-of Session for trial of offence under section
304-B. 'The Magistrate dismissed his application by holding that the amendment
being prospective was inapplicable'to the case because the death had occurred
prior to the amendment.
Thereafter
the appellant filed an application in the High Court for a direction to Commit
the case of dowry death to the Court of Session. The High Court also dismissed
his application by holding that since the offence was committed prior to the
date of insertion of section 813 304-B, the section was not applicable to the
case. In appeal to this Court on the question whether section 304-B of the
Indian Penal Code was applicable to a case of dowry death where the death has
occurred prior to the insertion of Section 304-B, it was contended on behalf of
the appellant that section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code does not create a new
offence and contains merely a rule of evidence.
Dismissing
the appeal, this Court,
HELD:
1. The offence of dowry death punishable under section 304-B of the Indian
Penal Code is a new offence inserted in the code with effect from .19.11.1986
when Act No. 43 of 1986 came into force The said offence is punisha- ble with a
minimum sentence of seven years which may extend to life imprisonment and is triable
by Court of Session. The corresponding amendments made by Act No. 43 of 1986 in
the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act relate to the trial
and proof of the offence. Section 498-A inserted in the Indian Penal Code by
the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 is an offence triable by a
Magistrate of the First Class and is punishable with impris- onment for a term
which may extend to three years in addi- tion to fine. The offence of dowry
death punishable under section 304-B provides for a more stringent offence than
section 498-A. Section 304-is a substantive provision creat- ing a new offence
and not merely a provision effecting a change in procedure for trial of a
pre-existing substanative offence. The rule of evidence to prove the offence of
dowry death is contained in section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act providing
for presumption as to dowry death which was a simultaneous amendment made in
the Indian Evidence Act for proving 'the offence of dowery death. The fact that
the Indian Evidence Act was so amended simul taneously with the insertion of section
304-B in the Indian Penal code by the same Amendment Act is another pointer in
this direction.
There
fore, it cannot be held that section 304-B. does not create a new offence and
contains merely a rule of evidence. [818D-F, 819C-D]
2. The
respondents are being tried in the Court of Magis- trate of .the First Class
for the offence punishable under section 498-A which was in the statute book on
the date of death of Appellant's daughter Their trial and punishment for the
offence of dowry death provided in section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code 'with
the minimum sentence of seven years' imprisonment for an act done by them prior
to creation of the new offence of dowry death would clearly deny to them the
protection afforded by clause (1) of Article 20 of the Constitution. Accord ingly,
the view taken by the High Court that the respondents cannot be 814 tried and
punished for the offence provided in section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code
which is a new offence created subsequent to the commission of the offence
attributed to the respondents does not suffer from any infirmity. [818E, G,
819E]
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 533of 1991.
From
the Judgment and Order dated 10.1. 1989 of the Gujarat High Court in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 32 of
1989.
H.S. Zaveri
for the Appellant.
Dushayant
Dave, Ashish Verma and Anip Sachthey. for the Respondents.
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by VERMA, J. Petitioner's daughter Chhaya
Was married to Respondent No. 2 Satish on5. 12. 1984 and they started living
together in their marital home at Bagasara. On 13.8.
1986, Chhaya
died at Bagasara. The petitioner and his wife got some vague information about
their daughter Chhaya and went to Bagasara, the same day but were unable to meet
or see their daughter who had died. The petitioner suspected that their
daughter's death was unnatural resulting from torture by her husband and his
relatives. The petitioner filed a criminal complaint against Respondent Nos. 2
to 5, who are the husband, his parents and sister which was trans- ferred to
the Court of. Judicial Magistrate First Class at Dhari and registered as
Criminal Case No. 382 of 1988 for an offence under section 498-A read with
section 34 I.P.C. The petitioner filed an application for committing the case
to the Court of Session for trial for .an offencepunishable under section 304-B
I.P.C. which was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by Act No. 43 of 1986 w.e.f.
19.11.1986. On 29.11.1988, the Learned Magistrate dismissed the petition- er's
application holding that this amendment being prospec- tive was inapplicable to
a death which occurred on 13.8.1986, prior to the amendment. Aggrieved by this
order, the petitioner moved an application (Misc. Criminal Applica- tion No. 32
of 1989) in the High Court of Gujarat .for a direction to commit this case of
dowry death to 'the Court of Session since an 'offence punish-able under
section 304-B is triable by the Court of Session.' By the impugned order dated January 10, 1989, the High Court has dismissed that
application. Hence this special leave petition.
815
Leave is granted.
The
point arising for our decision is the applicability of section 304-B of the
Indian Penal Code to the present case where the death alleged to be a dowry
death occurred prior to insertion of section 304-B in the Indian Penal Code.
This is the only ground on which the. appellant claims trial of the case in the
Court of Session. . .
The reason.given
by the High Court to support its view is that the offence was committed prior
to the date of insertion of section 304-B in the Indian Penal Code on account
of which the section can have no application to the present case. None of the
courts below. has examined the applicability .of any other pre-existing more
stringent provision even if section 304-B does not apply. As such affirmation
of the view that section 304-B does not apply, will not preclude the appellant
from contending that any other more stringent provision is attracted on the accusa-
tion made. If that point is raised, the courts below will have to decide the
same on merits on the basis of accusation made. It is in this background that
the point raised by the appellant regarding applicability of section 304-B is decid-
ed by us.. .
Section
304-B and the cognate provisions are meant for eradication of the social evil
of dowry which has been the bane of Indian society 'and continues unabated in
spite of emanicipation of women and the women's liberation movement.
This
all prevading malady in our society has only a few lucky exception in spite of
equal treatment and opportunity to boys and girls for education and career.
Society contin- ues to perpetuate the difference between them for the pur- pose
of marriage and it is this distinction which makes the dowry system thrive.
Even though for eradication of this social evil, effective steps can be taken
by the society itself and the social sanctions of the community can be more
deterrent, yet legal sanctions in the form of its .prohibi- tion and punishment
are some steps in that direction. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was enacted
for this purpsoe.
The
Report of the Joint Committee of Parliament quoted the observations of
Jawaharlal Nehru to indicate the role of legislation in dealing with the social
evil as under:
"
Legislation .cannot by itself normally solve deep-rooted social problems, One
has to ap- proach them in other ways too, but legislation is necessary and
essential, so that it may give that push and have that educative factor as well
as the legal sanctions behind it which help public opinion to be given a
certain shape." 816 The enactment of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in its
original form was found inadequate. Experience shows that the demand of dowry
and the mode of its recovery takes different forms to achieve the same result
and various indirect and sophisticated methods are being used to 'avoid leaving
any evidence of the offence. Similarly, the conse- quences of non-fulfilment of
the demand of dowry meted out to the unfortunate bride takes different forms to
avoid any apparent causal connection between the demand of dowry and its
prejudicial effect on the bride. This experience has led to several other
legislative measures in the continuing battle to combat this evil.
The
Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (No. 45 of 1983) was an act further
to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 498-A was inserted in the Indian Penal Code
and corresponding amendments were made in the Code of Criminal Procedure which
included section 198A .therein and also inserted section 113A in the Indian
Evidence Act,. 1872. Thereafter, the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986
(No. 43 of 1986) was enacted further to amend the Dowry Prohibition .Act, 1961
and to make certain .necessary changes in the Indian Penal Code, the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Two of the salient
features of the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986 (No. 43 of 1986) stated
in the State- ment of Objects and Reasons of the Bill are as under:
"(e)
Offences under the Act are proposed to be made non-bailable.
"(g)
A new offence of "dowry death" is proposed to be included in the
Indian Penal Code and the necessary consequential amend- ments in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 have also been
proposed." Accordingly by section 7 of the Amendment Act, section 8 of the
Dowry' Prohibition' Act, 1961 was amended to make every Offence under this Act
non-bailable while continuing it to be non-compoundable. By sections 10, 11 and
12, amendments were made in the Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Proce- dure,
1973 and the Indian' Evidence Act, 1872, as part of the same scheme as follows:
817
"10.
In the Indian Penal Code, after, section 304-A, the following section shall be
inserted, namely:
'304-B.
Dowry death. (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily
injury or occurs otherwise then under normal circumstances within seven years
of her marriage and it is shown that .soon before her death she was subjected
to cruelty or harass- ment 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.
Explanation-For
the purposes of this sub-section, ,'dowry". shall have the same meaning as
in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibi- tion Act, 196 1 (28 of 1961).
(2)
Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment
for "11. In the Code of Criminal Proce- dure, 1973, in the First Schedule
after the entries relating to section 304-A, the follow- ing entries shall be
inserted, namely:
Section
Offence Punishment COgnizable Bailable or By what or non- non-bail- Court
cognizable able tribale 1 2 3 4 5 6 "304-B ' Dowry Imprison- Ditto Non-
Court of death ment of not bailable ' Session." lesS' than seven years but
which may extend to imprisonment for life.
'
"12. In the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, after section 818 113-A, the
following section shall be insert- ed, namely:- "11.3-B. Presumption as to
dowry death.-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 has
been subjected by such .person to cruelty Or harassment for, or in connecting
with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused
the dowry death.
Explanation.-For
the purpose of this section', "dowry death" shall have the same
meaning as in section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)." It is
clear from the above historical background that the offence of dowry death
punishable under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code is a new offence
inserted in the Indian Penal Code with effect from 19.11.1986 when Act No. 43
of 1986 came into force. The offence under section 304-B is punishable with a
minimum sentence of seven years which may extend to life imprisonment and is triable
by Court of Session. The corresponding amendments made in the Code of Criminal
Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act relate to the trial and proof of the
offence. Section 498;A inserted in the Indian Penal Code by the Criminal Law
(Second Amendment)Act, 1983 (Act No. 46 of 1983) is an offence triable by a
Magistrate of the First Class and is punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years in addition to fine. It is for the offence
punishable under section 498-A which was in the statute book on the date of
death of Chhaya that the respondents are being tried in the Court of Magistrate
of the First Class.
The
offence punisha- ble under section 304-B, known as. dowry death, was a new
offence created with effect .from 19.11.1986 by insertion of the provision in
the Indian Penal Code providing for a more stringent offence' than section
498-A. Section 304-B is a substantive provision creating a new offence and not
merely a provision effecting a, change in procedure for trial of a pre-existing
substantive offence. Acceptance of the appel- lant's contention would amount to
holding that the respond- ents can be tried and punished for the offence of
dowry death provided in section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code with the minimum
sentence of seven years' imprisonment for an act done by them prior to creation
of the new offence of dowry death. In our opinion, this would clearly deny to
them the protection afforded by clause (1) of Article 20 of the Constitution
which reads as under:
819
"20.. Protection in respect of con- viction for offences. --(1) No person
shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the law in force at
the time of the commis- sion of the act charged as an offence, 'nor be
subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under
the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. ' ' " In
our opinion ,. the protection given by Article 20(1) is a complete answer to
the appellant's contention.
The
contention 'of learned counsel 'for the appellant that section 304-B inserted
in the Indian Penal Code does not create a new offence and' contains merely a
rule of evidence is untenable. The rule of evidence to prove the offence of
dowry death is contained in section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act providing
for presumption as to dowry death which was a simultaneous' amendment made in
the Indian Evidence Act for proving the offence of dowry death. The fact that
the Indian Evidence Act was so amended simultane- ously with the insertion of
section 304-B in the Indian Penal' Code by the same Amendment Act is' another
pointer in this direction. This contention is, therefore, rejected. In follows
that the view taken by the High Court that the respondents cannot be tried and
punished for the offence provided in section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code
which is a new offence created subsequent 'to the commission of the offence
attributed to the respondents does not suffer from any infirmity.
However,
as earlier indicated, in case the accusation against the respondents discloses
commission of any other more stringent pre-existing offence by the re- spondents
than section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant would be entitled to
raise that question and the Court will then consider and decide it on that
basis. No such argument having been advanced before us or any of the courts
below so far, the same does not arise for considera- tion in the present
proceeding. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed.
T.N.A.
Appeal dis- missed.
Back