Author: SANGAMITHIRAI.V (Chettinad School of Law) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE: In the current case the appellant is the husband of the deceased woman. He has been convicted of rigorous punishment below section 304 B for 10 years below 498A for 2 years and section201 for 2 years below the Indian Penal Code and the appellant is challenging his conviction by an appeal. The husband, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law have allegedly been suspected of killing the deceased for not fulfilling the demand for a motorcycle which was asked on account of dowry. The appellant and two other accused were declared guilty by the trial court however the mother-in-law and brother-in-law were realized not guilt-ridden by the High Court which maintained the appellant’s conviction. But below 304B of IPC the high court lowered the appellant’s verdict from 10 years to 7 years. The respondents contended that there was inadequate proof to prove the appellants’ culpability below sections 304B and 498A of IPC. Keywords: Dowry death, Brutality by husband and relatives, Indian Penal Code, Indian Evidence Act, Section113B of IEA CASE DETAILS Judgement Cause Title Charan Singh @Charanjith Singh V State of Uttarakhand Case Number Criminal Appeal no 447 of 2012 Judgement Date 20th April 2023 Court Supreme Court of India Quorum Abhay S.Oka, Rajesh Bindal   Author Rajesh Bindal Legal Provisions Involved Section 304B ,498A,201 of IPC Section 113A of IEA INTRODUCTION In India, there are many cases relating to dowry death. If a woman dies within 7 years of the commencement of marriage there can be sufficient cause that the death happened due to dowry death. The appellant, Charan Singh also as known as Charanjith Singh has filed a petition stimulating his verdict and sentence below sections 304B,498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The dispute case of Criminal Appeal no.447 of 2012. The appellant, the deceased spouse challenged the trial court verdict and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous labour below section 304B, two years below section 498A and 2 years below section 201 of IPC. The marriage of the appellants and the Chhilo Kaur which happened in 1993 is at the centre of this case. There have been claims that the appellants and his family members tormented the deceased and made demands for the dowry. The trial court found the appellant and the other two accused parties guilty after the trial. However, the mother-in-law and the brother-in-law’s conviction and punishment were quashed upon appeal to the Supreme Court, culminating in their acquittal. On the other hand, below section 304B of IPC, the High Court sustained the appellants’ conviction but decreased his sentence from ten years to seven years. Below sections 304B or 498A IPC, the defence argues that the evidence used in the trial did not support the appellants’ guilt. They assert that there is insufficient proof of brutality or harassment toward the deceased related to dowry demands soon before the death. Essentials of Dowry Death[1] Section 498A of IPC[2]–Brutality by husband or relatives The woman must be exposed to any brutality by their husband or by her relatives and may be punished for 3 years and also liable for a fine. BACKGROUND OF THE JUDGEMENT: The appellant in this case is Charan Singh who is also known as Charanjith Singh. The complaint is the husband of the dead Chilo Kaur. The death of Chilo Kaur took place in the State of Uttarakhand. Chilo Kaur got married to Charan Singh in the year 1993. After two months her in-laws started to demand her motorcycle as a dowry and Chilo Kaur when she visited her parental family informed her father about the dowry which she asked for. Her father pacified her and sent her back to her matrimonial home and promised that he would buy a motorcycle when he became financially capable. This demand was continued for a long time and later in addition, the appellant family also started to demand land from the Chilo Kaur family as dowry. On June 23 a person from that village Jagir Singh informed Chilo Kaur’s father that she had been murdered by her in-laws. They have immolated the body without informing the plaintiff. When the parents of the deceased visited the village, they came to know that their daughter had been strangled to death by her husband Charan Singh, mother-in-law Santo Kaur, and Brother-in-law Gurmeet Singh. Chilo Kaur’s father complained to the police based on this information and a probe was carried out. Below the “Section 304B (dowry death),498A (brutality to the married woman) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code(IPC)” ” the trial court found Charan Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Santo Kaur guilty parties filed an appeal with the Uttarakhand High Court, which maintained Charan Singh’s conviction but cleared Gurmeet Singh and Santo Kaur from conviction. The High Court did, however, shorten Singh’s sentence from 10 years to 7 years under section 304B of IPC. This appeal resulted from a challenge made to the High Court’s decision to reduce Charan Singh’s sentence before the Supreme Court of India. FACTS OF THE CASE: The plaintiff and the dead Chhilo Kaur were married in the year 1993. In the marriage, the dead of the father had given enough dowry to the appellant. But after two months the appellant started asking for a motor vehicle, and the deceased father promised that he would buy him when he was able to buy new a one. The deceased has been repeatedly sent to her parental home demanding dowry. Later the family of the appellant also started demanding land. The previous day on 23/06/1995 in the village of Bhojpuri Dam Jagir told the plaintiff that his daughter had been murdered by her in-laws. After receiving this knowledge the complaint along with his wife came to the Bhojpuri Dam village on 24.06.1995 and were extremely shocked to know that on 22.06.1995 at morning 8.00 am the plaintiff’s daughter was beaten up and garrotted to death by her husband Charan Singh, mother-in-law Santo Kaur, brother-in-law … Continue reading Charan Singh @Charanjith Singh V State of Uttarakhand