FACT OF THE CASE
Charan Singh, Charanjit Singh v. The State of Uttarakhand is the matter at hand. In the year 1993, the appellant and the deceased were legally married. She passed away on 22.6.1995. According to the deceased’s father’s complaint, an FIR was filed against the appellant Charan Singh, the deceased’s brother-in-law Gurmeet Singh, and the deceased’s mother-in-law Santo Kaur. Brother-in-law Gurmeet Singh and mother-in-law Santo Kaur were, however, freed after an appeal by the defendants before the High Court, although the appellant’s conviction was upheld.
Whether the accused was convicted under the offence of domestic violence against his wife
ANALYSIS OF COURT DECISION
There were two judges on the Apex court bench Justices Rajesh Bindal and Abhay S.Oka The conviction of the appellant cannot be supported, according to the Supreme Court, because the requirements to generate a presumption under Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act were not met. Under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, mere unnatural death of the deceased in the matrimonial house within seven years of marriage will not be enough to condemn the accused.
As a whole, the reason for death is unknown. The bench further noted that none of the witnesses in the prosecution’s case had mentioned any abuse or harassment meted out to the deceased by the appellant or any of his family members due to dowry demands made just before his passing or for any other reason. The supreme court held that only having a wife die unnaturally in the home within the first seven years of marriage would not be sufficient to convict a husband of dowry death.