The scourge of dowry-related violence continues to haunt Indian society despite progressive laws enacted to curb this social evil. Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) (now Section 80, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), specifically criminalises dowry deaths and prescribes stringent punishment for the offenders. However, accused persons often resort to creating false narratives, such as illness-induced suicide or accidental death, to escape liability.
The recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Virender Pal @ Vipin v. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2015, decided on May 15, 2025) brings this issue into sharp focus. The case highlights whether an accused husband’s concocted defence can outweigh cogent evidence of harassment and dowry demands.
Factual Background
Punita alias Gayatri married the accused-appellant Virender Pal @ Vipin on 28 February 2008. Within months of the marriage, Punita faced harassment, abuse, and persistent dowry demands from her husband and his family. Her father, Balraj Singh (PW-1), testified that the in-laws were dissatisfied despite giving dowry beyond his means at the time of marriage. The harassment escalated to a demand for ₹5 lakhs to secure a job for the accused.
On 1 June 2009, Punita called her brother, Satender Kumar (PW-3), stating she had been assaulted the previous night and feared for her life. Within minutes, the family received news of her death. Upon reaching the matrimonial home, they were informed that Punita had allegedly jumped off the terrace. However, the medical evidence revealed multiple injuries inconsistent with a mere fall.
Legal Framework: Dowry Death under Section 304-B IPC/Section 80 BNS
Section 304-B IPC (currently Section 80 BNS) lays down that when a woman dies under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage, and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives in connection with dowry demands “soon before her death,” the law presumes the husband or in-laws responsible.
The essential elements under Section 304-B (currently Section 80 BNS) are:
- Death of a woman caused by burns, bodily injury, or occurring under unnatural circumstances.
- Such death must have occurred within seven years of marriage.
- The woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.
- The cruelty or harassment must be in connection with a demand for dowry.
- The cruelty must have occurred “soon before her death”.
Once these ingredients are satisfied, Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) comes into play, raising a presumption of dowry death against the accused.
Defence Narrative: A False Shield?
In Virender Pal @ Vipin, the accused claimed that his wife suffered from a knee ailment, which had led her into depression, causing her to jump from the terrace. As an alternative theory, he also contended that it might have been an accidental fall. These two versions—suicide due to health issues and accidental death—were opposed, thereby weakening the defence’s credibility.
The defence produced multiple witnesses, including neighbours and medical professionals, to support this theory. However, this narrative lacked corroboration on material aspects. For instance:
- No eyewitness or medical record convincingly linked Punita’s knee pain to any psychological distress.
- The post-mortem revealed ante-mortem injuries inconsistent with a typical fall, including massive subdural hematoma and contusions.
- The deceased’s brother, Satender Kumar (PW-3), testified that Punita had made a distress call hours before her death expressing fear for her life due to beatings.
Court’s Analysis and Rejection of False Defence
Trial Court’s Findings
The Sessions Judge, Panipat, after evaluating evidence from 12 prosecution witnesses and 8 defence witnesses, acquitted the co-accused (parents of the appellant) but convicted the husband under Section 304-B IPC. The court found:
- Dowry demands were established through consistent testimony from PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3.
- The demand for ₹5 lakhs and the interim payment of ₹50,000 to bring Punita back to her matrimonial home indicated ongoing dowry-related harassment.
- Punita died an unnatural death within 15 months of marriage at her matrimonial home.
High Court and Supreme Court’s Reasoning
Both the High Court and the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court categorically held that:
- The accused-appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act (now Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023)
- The claim that Punita committed suicide due to knee pain was a fictional story. Notably, medical experts confirmed her treatment was symptomatic, and there was no evidence of psychological distress.
- The body was found on a cot on the second floor, contrary to the claim that she jumped off the terrace.
- The timing and content of Punita’s last call to her brother strongly suggested foul play and confirmed harassment soon before her death.
Key Judicial Observations
Justice Sandeep Mehta, writing for the bench, made several critical observations:
“The diametrically opposite defence that the deceased accidentally fell from the terrace or committed suicide due to knee pain does not have any legs to stand… it is nothing, but a fictional story created by the accused-appellant as an afterthought to escape conviction.”
The Court further noted that:
- The accused, being the husband, bore a moral and legal responsibility to protect his wife.
- There was a clear nexus between the dowry demands and the deceased’s death.
- The accused not only failed to explain the circumstances of the unnatural death but also attempted to mislead the court by shifting narratives.
Presumption Under Section 113-B of IEA/Section 118 of BSA: A Critical Tool
The judgment reiterates the powerful role of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act (Section 118 of BSA). Once the prosecution proves the basic ingredients of dowry death under Section 304-B IPC (now Section 80 of BNS), the burden shifts onto the accused. Mere denial or concocted explanations cannot suffice. The rebuttal must be credible, consistent, and rooted in evidence.
In this case, the husband’s narrative was disjointed, unconvincing, and not supported by credible material. Instead of explaining the circumstances of the death, the accused tried to cast alternative theories, which only served to erode his credibility further.
Broader Implications of the Judgment
1. Affirmation of Dowry Laws
This judgment reinforces the deterrent intent of dowry-related laws and upholds the spirit of Section 304-B IPC (now Section 80 of BNS). It confirms that courts will not be swayed by speculative defences when there is cogent and consistent evidence of cruelty linked to dowry.
2. Need for Responsible Defence
The Court’s censure of contradictory defence narratives sends a strong message. Accused persons must not fabricate facts or mislead courts through uncorroborated and imaginative stories. Such tactics will not only fail but may strengthen the prosecution’s case.
3. Moral Responsibility of Spouses
The Supreme Court emphasised the heightened obligation of husbands in dowry-related offences. A husband’s failure to protect his wife, coupled with active participation in harassment, compounds the gravity of the offence.
Conclusion
The case of Virender Pal @ Vipin v. State of Haryana serves as a landmark reaffirmation of the principles underlying the offence of dowry death. The Supreme Court’s meticulous analysis highlights that false narratives—however cleverly spun—cannot shield a husband from criminal liability when evidence points to sustained cruelty and unnatural death linked to dowry demands.
This ruling should serve as a stern warning to those who believe they can subvert justice through misleading defences. The law, with its built-in presumptions and evidentiary requirements, ensures that victims of dowry harassment are not forgotten and that their suffering is not in vain.
