Presumption Of Guilt U/S 113B Evidence Act Inapplicable When All Ingredients Of Dowry Death U/S 304B IPC Not Proved By Prosecution: Jharkhand HC
The Jharkhand High Court has emphasized that for the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act to apply, the prosecution must establish through evidence that the deceased faced cruelty or harassment related to dowry shortly before her unnatural death in her marital home. This presumption, the Court stated, is only triggered when all the elements of the offense...
The Jharkhand High Court has emphasized that for the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act to apply, the prosecution must establish through evidence that the deceased faced cruelty or harassment related to dowry shortly before her unnatural death in her marital home. This presumption, the Court stated, is only triggered when all the elements of the offense under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code are proven by the prosecution.
The division bench comprising Justices Subhash Chand and Ananda Sen, observed, “The conjoined reading of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 also shows that there must be material to show that soon before death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment based on demand of dowry.”
“Since the prosecution has not proved from the evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before her unnatural death in her matrimonial house within seven years of marriage. The statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be applicable. This presumption will arise only when the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offence of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Court has wrongly raised the presumption against the appellant convict without giving its finding in regard to the commission of offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code,” the bench added.
The above ruling came in two Criminal Appeals which were preferred against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad in a Sessions Trial whereby the trial Court had convicted the appellants under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo RI for ten years for the charge under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution's case leading to these Criminal Appeals revolved around the marriage of the informant's sister to Raja Ram Mandal about four years ago.
According to the informant, after six months of marriage, the sister was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws and husband, for dowry demands which were not met. On 2nd May 2009, the informant was told that his sister had died at her in-laws' house. Upon investigation, it was alleged that she had been killed due to a dispute over dowry demands.
The accused were charged under Sections 304(B)/34 of the IPC by the Trial Court and were found guilty. The Criminal Appeals were filed on behalf of the accused, contending that the judgment of conviction and sentence were not based on a proper assessment of evidence.
The High Court in its ruling elucidated on Section 304B IPC which places the burden on the prosecution to establish several key points: firstly, that the woman's death resulted from burns, bodily injury, or occurred under abnormal circumstances; secondly, that the death happened within seven years of her marriage; thirdly, that the deceased faced cruelty or harassment from her husband or his relatives; fourthly, that such cruelty or harassment was connected to dowry demands; and fifthly, that this mistreatment occurred shortly before her death.
The Court noted, “There is no evidence in regard to any harassment based on demand of dowry made on behalf of the appellants-convicts. The death of the deceased, which was caused on 02.05.2009 is certainly unnatural; but no evidence is adduced on behalf of prosecution to show the nexus or proximate cause of this unnatural death having connection with the harassment made for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.”
Thus, the Court was of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is based on perverse finding and the same needs interference and both Criminal Appeals deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, both Criminal Appeals were allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the Sessions Court were set aside.
Case Title: Raja Ram Mandal vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 77