The Jharkhand High Court has underscored that for the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act to be applicable, the prosecution must establish through evidence that the deceased experienced cruelty or harassment related to dowry shortly before her unnatural death in her marital home. The Court clarified that this presumption is triggered only 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, noted, “The combined reading of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, also indicates that there must be evidence to demonstrate that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment due to dowry demands shortly before her death.”
The bench added, “Since the prosecution has not proven from the evidence that the deceased suffered cruelty or harassment related to dowry shortly 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 apply. This presumption arises only when the prosecution has established all the elements of the offense under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court erred in raising the presumption against the appellant convict without determining whether the offense under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code was committed.”
This ruling was delivered in two Criminal Appeals filed against the conviction judgment and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad, in a Sessions Trial where the appellants were convicted under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment.
The prosecution’s case centered around the informant’s sister’s marriage to Raja Ram Mandal approximately four years prior. According to the informant, six months after the marriage, his sister was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws and husband over unmet dowry demands. On May 2, 2009, the informant was informed of his sister’s death at her in-laws’ house, allegedly due to a dispute over dowry demands.
The accused were charged under Sections 304(B)/34 of the IPC by the Trial Court and found guilty. The Criminal Appeals were filed on behalf of the accused, arguing that the conviction and sentence were not based on a proper evaluation of evidence.
In its ruling, the High Court elucidated on Section 304B IPC, emphasizing the prosecution’s burden to establish several key points: the nature of the woman’s death, the timing of her death in relation to her marriage, the cruelty or harassment she faced related to dowry demands, and the proximity of such mistreatment to her death.
The Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence of harassment due to dowry demands on behalf of the appellant convicts. While acknowledging the unnatural death of the deceased, the Court noted the absence of evidence linking this death to dowry-related mistreatment.
Therefore, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the conviction and sentence by the Trial Court were based on erroneous findings. Accordingly, both Criminal Appeals were allowed, and the conviction judgment and sentence were set aside.
