Humble reply to the qurey posted by Hon’ble Justice: As per the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as enumerated above. The satisfaction of the ingredients of Section 304B is sufficient for conviction under the same and does not require further finding by the Court and unnatural death within the circumstances as provided by Section 304B is sufficient.

[5/31, 07:09] Sekarreporter1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT*

*Crl.A. 1735-1736/2010*
Satbir Singh Vs. St. of Haryana
Dated: 28.05.2021

*Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana* , partly allowed the Criminal Appeal with respect to setting aside the conviction under Section 306, IPC, whereas upheld the conviction under Section 304-B, IPC by the High Court and Trial Court in the matter of *“Dowry Death”* and further held the following:

i) Section 304B, IPC must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand.
ii) A strict interpretation of Section 304B would defeat the very object for which it was enacted. The words of the provision, “soon before” does not mean “immediately before” and rather it is left to the discretion of the Courts. The same is emphasized in the findings of the Supreme Court in Khans Raj Vs. St. of Punjab [(2000) 5 SCC 207].
iii) 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”. Therefore, the establishment of a “proximate and live link” between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim is paramount to determine the same.
iv) Once the Trial Court decides that the accused is not eligible to be acquitted as per the provisions of Section 232, Cr.P.C., it must move on and fix hearings specifically for ‘defence evidence’, calling upon the accused to present his defence as per the procedure provided under Section 233, Cr.P.C.
v) If all the other ingredients of Section 304B IPC are fulfilled, any death 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” unless proved otherwise.
[5/31, 07:47] Sekarreporter1: [5/31, 07:46] Sekarreporter1: [5/31, 07:18] Judge Suthantheram: In the Satbir Singh vs. State of Haryanana judgment of Supreme Court a doubt arises on different aspect.
I will send the full judgment and anyone may clarify my doubt
[5/31, 07:18] Judge Suthantheram: Acquitted under 306, but convicted under 304B IPC.
Reason for acquittal is suicide not estsblished. No charge under 302 as homicide. Defence version accidental death. As per 304 B Un natural death which includes homicide, suicide, accidental death. If ,no suicide, no homicide then whether conviction under 304 B for accidental death is proper? Can it be taken as prosecution neither proving suicide nor homicide, but proving unnatural death which is enough and as such not necessary for court to give finding that it is not accidental death.
Please clarify
[5/31, 07:47] Sekarreporter1: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1735­1736 OF 2010
SATBIR SINGH & ANOTHER                 …APPELLANTS
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA              …RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
N. V. RAMANA, CJI.
1. The present appeals arise out of the impugned judgment dated
06.11.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3­SB of 1998 and 16­SB of
1998, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals preferred
by   the   appellants   and   upheld   the   order   of   conviction   and
sentence passed by the Trial Court on 11.12.1997.
1
REPORTABLE
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
LL 2021 SC 260
[5/31, 07:53] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1399189546823081985?s=1006
[5/31, 07:57] Sekarreporter1: [5/31, 07:56] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1399190526742568962?s=1006
[5/31, 07:57] Sekarreporter1: [5/31, 07:46] Sekarreporter1: [5/31, 07:18] Judge Suthantheram: In the Satbir Singh vs. State of Haryanana judgment of Supreme Court a doubt arises on different aspect.
I will send the full judgment and anyone may clarify my doubt
[5/31, 07:18] Judge Suthantheram: Acquitted under 306, but convicted under 304B IPC.
Reason for acquittal is suicide not estsblished. No charge under 302 as homicide. Defence version accidental death. As per 304 B Un natural death which includes homicide, suicide, accidental death. If ,no suicide, no homicide then whether conviction under 304 B for accidental death is proper? Can it be taken as prosecution neither proving suicide nor homicide, but proving unnatural death which is enough and as such not necessary for court to give finding that it is not accidental death.
Please clarify
[5/31, 07:47] Sekarreporter1: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1735­1736 OF 2010
SATBIR SINGH & ANOTHER                 …APPELLANTS
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA              …RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
N. V. RAMANA, CJI.
1. The present appeals arise out of the impugned judgment dated
06.11.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3­SB of 1998 and 16­SB of
1998, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals preferred
by   the   appellants   and   upheld   the   order   of   conviction   and
sentence passed by the Trial Court on 11.12.1997.
1
REPORTABLE
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
LL 2021 SC 260
[5/31, 09:31] Sekarreporter1: Section 304-B of IPC – “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. ”

According to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: Since the ingredients of Section 304B, IPC stand satisfied, the presumption under 113B, Evidence Act operates against the appellants, who are deemed to have caused the offence specified under Section 304B of IPC. Here, the burden shifts on the accused to rebut the above presumption, and the accused herein failed to place any evidence to prove that the death was accidental or unconnected. Further, according to the evidence of the doctor, the entire body of the deceased was doused with kerosene oil. Therefore, the possibility of an accident can be safely ruled out.

Section 304B of IPC does not take a pigeon hole approach of categorisation of death. The reason for the same is that such death that *”occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances”* is *inclusive* of deaths that can be categorised as homicide, suicide or accident and is not to be considered as pigeonholes or ingredients of the provision. Therefore, the accused are convicted under Section 304-B.

Humble reply to the qurey posted by Hon’ble Justice:

As per the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as enumerated above. The satisfaction of the ingredients of Section 304B is sufficient for conviction under the same and does not require further finding by the Court and unnatural death within the circumstances as provided by Section 304B is sufficient.