Supreme Court Acquits Husband in Dowry Death Case: Holds Prosecution Failed to Prove Cruelty or Harassment “Soon Before Death,” Presumption Under Section 113-B Evidence Act Not Applicable Due to Contradictory Testimonies

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court quashed the conviction of the appellant under Sections 304-B (Dowry Death) and 498-A (Cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of these offences beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that “none of the three statements of the prosecution witnesses contained specific instances of cruelty or harassment.” The appellant was acquitted, and his bail bonds were cancelled.

Facts of the Case

1. The appellant married the deceased on June 25, 1996.
2. The deceased committed suicide by hanging on April 2, 1998, within seven years of marriage.
3. The appellant and his parents were charged under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, alleging that the deceased was harassed and subjected to cruelty for dowry.
4. Trial Court Conviction:
   • The trial court acquitted the appellant’s parents.
   • The appellant was convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.
   • He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years for 304-B IPC and one year for 498-A IPC, along with a fine of ₹500.
5. High Court Confirmation:
   • The High Court upheld the conviction, rejecting the appellant’s appeal.
6. Supreme Court Appeal:
   • The appellant challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary ingredients of dowry death.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the prosecution proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death—a mandatory condition under Section 304-B IPC.
2. Whether the evidence on record was sufficient to convict the appellant under Section 498-A IPC for cruelty.
3. Whether the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act was applicable in this case.

Petitioner’s (Appellant’s) Arguments

1. No Legal Evidence of Dowry Demand:
   • The appellant’s counsel argued that the prosecution failed to produce any direct evidence of dowry demand.
   • Witnesses did not mention dowry demand in their initial police statements, and such allegations were later added, making them contradictory and unreliable.
2. No Evidence of Cruelty:
   • There was no evidence that the appellant subjected the deceased to cruelty soon before her death.
   • The prosecution witnesses failed to establish any specific act of cruelty or harassment.
3. Reliance on Precedent:
   • The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, which held that for Section 304-B to apply, there must be clear evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before death.
   • The appellant contended that this essential requirement was not met in the present case.

Respondent’s (State’s) Arguments

1. Prosecution Evidence Established Dowry Demand:
   • The prosecution argued that the testimonies of PW-6 (mother of the deceased) and PW-7 (brother of the deceased) clearly showed that the appellant had demanded dowry.
   • The deceased allegedly told her family nine to ten days before her death that the appellant demanded ₹60,000 for purchasing a jeep.
2. Presumption Under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act Should Apply:
   • The prosecution argued that under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, when a woman dies an unnatural death within seven years of marriage and there is evidence of dowry harassment soon before her death, the court must presume that the husband caused the dowry death.
   • It was contended that the burden was on the appellant to disprove the dowry harassment allegations.

Analysis of the Law

1. Section 304-B IPC: Dowry Death

To convict a person under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must prove:

• (a) The woman died due to burns, bodily injury, or unnatural circumstances.
• (b) The death occurred within seven years of marriage.
• (c) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband soon before her death.
• (d) The cruelty or harassment was in connection with a demand for dowry.

2. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act: Presumption of Dowry Death

• When a woman dies an unnatural death within seven years of marriage, and it is shown that she was harassed for dowry, the burden shifts on the accused to disprove his guilt.
• However, this presumption only applies if cruelty or harassment is proven first.

Precedent Analysis

The Supreme Court referred to the Charan Singh case, which held:

• The phrase “soon before her death” in Section 304-B does not mean months or years before but must be proximate to the death.
• If the prosecution fails to prove cruelty or harassment soon before the death, the presumption under Section 113-B cannot be invoked.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Contradictions in Witness Testimonies:
   • The deceased’s mother (PW-6) and brother (PW-7) made statements containing major contradictions.
   • Initial statements did not mention dowry demands, but later statements did, which raised doubts about their credibility.
   • The demand for ₹60,000 for a jeep was not recorded in the initial complaint but was introduced in later testimonies.
2. Failure to Establish Cruelty or Harassment “Soon Before Death”:
   • No specific acts of cruelty were proved against the appellant.
   • Allegations of beatings were vague and unsubstantiated.
   • Even if the deceased was harassed after marriage, there was no evidence that such cruelty continued soon before her death.
3. Failure to Attract Presumption Under Section 113-B:
   • Since the prosecution failed to prove cruelty or harassment soon before the death, the legal presumption under Section 113-B was not applicable.

Conclusion

• The prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death.
• The conviction was based on weak and contradictory evidence, leading to moral conviction rather than legal conviction.
• The Supreme Court quashed the judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court and acquitted the appellant.
• The appellant’s bail bonds were cancelled.

Implications of the Judgment

1. Reinforces the Burden of Proof in Dowry Death Cases:
   • The judgment highlights that mere allegations are not enough; clear evidence of cruelty linked to dowry must be present.
2. Strict Interpretation of “Soon Before Death”:
   • Courts must ensure proximity between cruelty and the woman’s death before applying Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.
3. Judicial Academies Must Train Trial Judges:
   • The Court expressed concern that Trial Courts often convict without properly analyzing the evidence.
   • It urged State Judicial Academies to train judges to avoid convictions based on moral presumptions rather than legal proof.

Also Read – Supreme Court Upholds Divorce on Grounds of Mental Cruelty, Awards ₹10 Lakh as One-Time Settlement: ‘Husband’s Conduct Shows Attempt to Escape Liability by Concealing Income