Report 202 â Proposal to amend Section 304-B IPC Dowry ... - Jeywin
Report 202 â Proposal to amend Section 304-B IPC Dowry ... - Jeywin Report 202 â Proposal to amend Section 304-B IPC Dowry ... - Jeywin
86 3.9.5 It may be expedient to reiterate the word of caution sounded by this Commission in its 91 st Report, viz; Given all these circumstances of the usual ‘dowry death’, it will be conceded that even where there is in a particular case, moral certainty that the death is the result of murder, the circumstances would be hostile to an early or easy discovery of the truth. Punitive measures – such that can be pursued with the ambit of the existing law – may be adequate in their formal content. But their successful enforcement is a matter of difficulty. That is why there is need to supplement the punitive measures by appropriate preventive measures. This Report seeks to make a few modest suggestions as to what can be done in this regard. It is possible that the measures recommended here will be regarded as very mild by some persons or as radicals by others. But it is hoped that the discussion will at least give a new stance to the thinking on the subject. Some effective preventive measures whatever be there content and drift, are needed urgently. If this is not done soon, there is a grave risk that the problem of bride burning will grow out of control and a stage will come when one of the two possibilities will become real. Either there will be no enthusiasm left for trying out concrete solutions or there will come to be adopted solutions that might be worse than the problem. It will be the earnest endeavour of this Commission to see that neither of the two possibilities is materialized.
87 3.9.6 Keeping this in view, we are of the considered view that there is no warrant for prescribing death sentence for the offence of dowry death as defined in Section 304B IPC having regard to presumptive character of the offence, absence of direct connection in between the death and the offender and gravity of the culpable conduct as well as the object sought to be achieved thereby. 3.9.7 The reason for this is not for to seek Capital punishment has already been prescribed in Section 302 I.P.C (in a case of murder). There is no necessity to prescribe capital punishment for offence committed under Section 304B (dowry death). There is distinction between section 302 (murder), section 304B (dowry death) and Section 306 (abetment to suicide) of the Indian Penal Code. If charge is framed under Section 304B, but after recording and appreciation of evidence, the case proved to be a case under Section 302, the charge can be altered and the accused can very well be punished under Section 302 and if the court finds that the case under Section 302 to be a rarest of rare cases, then the offender can very well be awarded with capital punishment. 3.9.8 In Panakanti Sampath Rao Vs State of A.P.,(2006) 9 SCC 658 the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the order passed by the High Court converting conviction u/s 304B and 398A to 302 I.P.C. the Hon’ble Supreme court held that:
- Page 35 and 36: 35 hold that a gruesome and cruel i
- Page 37 and 38: 37 302, IPC casts a heavy duty on t
- Page 39 and 40: 39 which the convict is for the tim
- Page 41 and 42: 41 the trial as well as local peopl
- Page 43 and 44: 43 subject to cruelty or harassment
- Page 45 and 46: 45 “222. (2) When a person is cha
- Page 47 and 48: 47 “464. (1) No finding, sentence
- Page 49 and 50: 49 29. At this stage, we may note t
- Page 51 and 52: 51 the previous day or a couple of
- Page 53 and 54: 53 distinct offences. A person char
- Page 55 and 56: 55 Whether such demand has any subs
- Page 57 and 58: 57 aimed at controlling, reducing,
- Page 59 and 60: 59 That may lay down the maximum an
- Page 61 and 62: 61 Timor) and Canada have done away
- Page 63 and 64: 63 3.5.5 Most anti-death penalty or
- Page 65 and 66: 65 capital offence would not be in
- Page 67 and 68: 67 case, the trial Court acquitted
- Page 69 and 70: 69 under Ss. 306 r/w 107 for abetti
- Page 71 and 72: 71 operate as a deterrent to other
- Page 73 and 74: 73 regret “that the Sessions Judg
- Page 75 and 76: 75 The prosecution must keep in min
- Page 77 and 78: 77 commute the sentence of death to
- Page 79 and 80: 79 presumed to have committed the d
- Page 81 and 82: 81 3.9.1 The principle of proportio
- Page 83 and 84: 83 from the principle of proportion
- Page 85: 85 are brought against the accused,
- Page 89: 89 alone. We will, however, refrain
87<br />
3.9.6 Keeping this in view, we are of the considered view that<br />
there is no warrant for prescribing death sentence for the offence<br />
of dowry death as defined in <strong>Section</strong> <strong>304</strong>B <strong>IPC</strong> having regard <strong>to</strong><br />
presumptive character of the offence, absence of direct connection<br />
in between the death and the offender and gravity of the culpable<br />
conduct as well as the object sought <strong>to</strong> be achieved thereby.<br />
3.9.7 The reason for this is not for <strong>to</strong> seek Capital punishment has<br />
already been prescribed in <strong>Section</strong> 302 I.P.C (in a case of<br />
murder). There is no necessity <strong>to</strong> prescribe capital<br />
punishment for offence committed under <strong>Section</strong> <strong>304</strong>B<br />
(dowry death). There is distinction between section 302<br />
(murder), section <strong>304</strong>B (dowry death) and <strong>Section</strong> 306<br />
(abetment <strong>to</strong> suicide) of the Indian Penal Code. If charge is<br />
framed under <strong>Section</strong> <strong>304</strong>B, but after recording and<br />
appreciation of evidence, the case proved <strong>to</strong> be a case under<br />
<strong>Section</strong> 302, the charge can be altered and the accused can<br />
very well be punished under <strong>Section</strong> 302 and if the court<br />
finds that the case under <strong>Section</strong> 302 <strong>to</strong> be a rarest of rare<br />
cases, then the offender can very well be awarded with<br />
capital punishment.<br />
3.9.8 In Panakanti Sampath Rao Vs State of A.P.,(2006) 9 SCC<br />
658 the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the order passed by the<br />
High Court converting conviction u/s <strong>304</strong>B and 398A <strong>to</strong> 302 I.P.C.<br />
the Hon’ble Supreme court held that:
Change language