Section 304B Indian penal code
The term cruelty is indirectly dealt with, in the section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Actually this section explains dowry death of a woman.
It states that if the death of a woman is caused by burning her or by causing any
bodily injury within a period of seven years of marriage. Before the death of the
woman, she should be subjected to cruelty or harassment by her in – laws
including her husband or any relative of the husband.
Thus dowry death means the woman is subjected to such cruelty of which the
consequence is death.
To put it in other words if the women is not subjected to cruelty and if she dies
within a period of seven years of marriage, it will not amount to dowry death and
hence section 304B of the Indian Penal Code will not be attracted.
So it is to be noted that cruelty plays a very vital role in attributing liability for the
commission of the offence of dowry death.
Section 304b ipc dowry death
In order to evoke section 304B of the Indian Penal Code the following essential elements have to be established.
(i) The concerned woman should not only have incurred physical or bodily injury but should also have undergone a mental torture resulting in death.
(ii) The death should have occurred within a stipulated period of seven years of the marital tie.
(iii) The woman should have undergone mental torture or harassment committed by the husband or his relative(s).
(iv) The alleged mental torture or harassment should be in the view to extract
dowry.
(v) Lastly it has to be proved that the mental torture or harassment should have occurred just prior to the death of the woman. To put it in other words, there shall be thorough link between death occurred and cruelty inflicted on the woman.
The term cruelty or harassment plays an important role in imputing liability under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code even if the woman has committed suicide due to the harassment made by her in-laws.
In Raja Lal Singh v. State of Jharkhand the Supreme Court held that even if the death was caused due to suicide, section 304 B of the India Penal Code would be applied even though the suicide occurred after ten to fifteen days of harassment and cruelty to the woman.
The governing line for attributing liability under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is that, the woman should be subjected to harassment or cruelty ‘soon before her death’.
However this expression is not defined in the section and hence the period of harassment or cruelty before the death has to be considered by the court keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case. Even though the period between the harassment and cruelty leading to death would depend upon the facts and the circumstances of every case; this gap should be reasonable and one should be able to draw approximate relation between the cruelties inflicted upon the woman thereby resulting into death.
The prosecution has to establish or prove that the concerned woman was harassed for dowry, and such harassment was caused soon before her death.
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code further lays down the rule of presumption that the death should have occurred within the period of seven years of the marital tie and that too in a suspicious circumstance(s).
304B Related case law-
In Harjeet Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 2006 SC 680,
the Supreme Court held where the prosecution failed to establish case under section 304B of the IPC, the plea that the accused could still be convicted under section 306 was negatived as in all cases where the prosecution fails to establish the charge against the accused under section 304B the accused could not be convicted under section 306 IPC. Moreover, ordinarily such a plea should not be allowed to be raised for the first time before the court unless materials on record were such which would establish said charge against the accused.
In Taiyab Khan v. State of Bihar, AIR 2006 SC 673, the Supreme Court held that if all constituents of section 304B were present and above all the case was of unnatural death, absence of viscera report showing as to whether death was caused on account of consumption of poison did not make any difference and conviction is proper.