Read Time: 08 minutes

Convicting a person under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code while recording a reason that a young married woman would not end her life without any rhyme and reason and some sort of matrimonial discord was there, has been held by the Supreme Court to be a reason which falls short of the premise for a conviction.

".... in a prosecution for the commission of an offence and that too, a serious offence like section 304B IPC to hold that some sort of matrimonial discord was there clearly does not, in any manner, advance the case of the prosecution", noted a bench of Justices KM Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.

One Ajay Kumar had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against an order of conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code along with his mother, brother and sister-in-law by the trial court.

While his relatives were acquitted by the High Court, Kumar's conviction was sustained.

Brief Facts: Marriage between Kumar and his wife took place in 1999. His wife committed suicide on December 11, 2001. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged on December 19, 2001. In the said FIR, an allegation was made about raising of demand for more dowry and also about there being illicit relationship between Kumar and his brother’s wife. 

Senior Advocate Brijendra Chahar, appearing for the appellant, told the bench that the appellant had gone for a marriage along with his friends and since the deceased wife was not taken along because they had a 10 month old child which she had to look after, she committed suicide.

Chahar further submitted that the parents of the deceased did not file any complaint at that point of time and after a considerable delay, the statement which led to the FIR came to be made. He added that the High Court had not dealt with the case of the appellant and the prosecution had not succeeded in establishing a case under section 304-B IPC.

A perusal of the impugned judgment showed that while the High Court had dealt with the criminal appeal filed on behalf of the relatives of the appellant and proceeded to find that they were wrongly convicted, there was no discussion as such of the case of the appellant.

"What is inter alia indicated is that a young married woman blessed with a son would not have ended her life without any rhyme and reason; some sort of matrimonial discord was there. We must pause here and indicate that in a prosecution for the commission of an offence and that too, a serious offence like section 304B IPC to hold that some sort of matrimonial discord was there clearly does not, in any manner, advance the case of the prosecution. Such reasoning clearly falls short of the premise on which a person can be convicted under section 304B IPC....", held the bench.

The bench was further of the view that an appellant Court is duty bound to reappreciate the evidence and apply the law to the facts as are found on such reappreciation.

"This necessarily means that the High Court must discuss the evidence threadbare and also apply the correct principles of law. We do not think that in this case, the impugned judgment of the High Court has dealt with the matter as is required in law. In fact, the learned senior counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the High Court has found that the delay with which the FIR was lodged was unexplained and the relatives who had given the statements were not produced before the Court.", it remarked.

Accordingly, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment, the High Court has been directed to hear the matter qua the appellant alone and decide it as early as possible.

Cause Title: AJAY KUMAR v THE STATE OF PUNJAB