Presumption As To Dowry Death: The Need For Sufficient Evidence

Posted On - 28 January, 2025 • By - Nivedita Bhardwaj

Introduction

Dowry death continues to remain a tragic reality in the Indian familial system. It is one of the ever-persisting societal issues faced by people, especially women in the rural areas of India. This is despite several safeguards in the form of dowry laws and criminal provisions against it. One of the relevant provisions is Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA). This section allows courts to presume the guilt of the husband or his relatives in case of a dowry death. Recently, however, the Supreme Court has clarified that such a presumption must be based on clear and cogent evidence.

Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 defines dowry as any property or valuable security which a party to a marriage gives or agrees to give to the other party, whether directly or indirectly. It also includes situations dowry is given by the parent or other persons to either party. However, it is only applicable if such dowry was given at the time of or after the marriage and in connection with the marriage.

Criminal Provisions relating to Dowry Death

  • Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section applies to situations where a woman dies within seven years of marriage. It comes into play if there is sufficient to prove that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. In such a situation, the law presumes that the husband or relative was responsible for her death. The section provides for a severe punishment, ranging from imprisonment for a minimum of seven years to life.
  • Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023): This section introduces a crucial legal presumption. If it is established that a woman experienced cruelty or harassment related to dowry shortly before her death, the court is bound to presume that the husband or his relatives are responsible for causing her death. However, importantly, this presumption is rebuttable by the accused.

Understanding the essentials of Dowry Death

Key Ingredients of Dowry Death (Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab)[1]

  • Death within seven years of marriage: This is the temporal limit for the applicability of Section 304B.
  • Death caused by unnatural circumstances: This covers direct violence as well as situations where the death was a result of neglect or lack of proper medical care.
  • Cruelty or harassment by the husband or his relatives: This includes systematic abuse, intimidation, or mental and emotional distress inflicted upon the woman. Such behaviour must be proven by sufficient evidence.
  • Link between cruelty/harassment and dowry demands: A direct or indirect connection between the cruelty inflicted and the demands made for dowry must be established. A speculative or remote connection is not sufficient.

Interpretation of “Soon” (Sher Singh v. State of Haryana)[2]

  • The term “soon” in Section 304B does not have a rigid timeframe. It emphasizes that the dowry demands should not be an isolated incident in the distant past.
  • The harassment related to dowry should be a continuing or recurring issue that contributed significantly to the woman’s death.

Distinction between Section 304B and Section 498A IPC (Dinesh Seth v. State of NCT of Delhi)[3]

  • Section 498A of IPC is broader, encompassing all cases of cruelty by the husband or his relatives against the wife.
  • Section 304B is a more specific offense, as it focuses on cases where the cruelty or harassment is linked to dowry demands and results in the woman’s death.

Importance of Evidence (Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand)[4]

  • This case highlights the significance of strong evidence to establish a conviction under Section 304B.
  • Mere oral allegations of dowry demand, especially if they are not recent or directly linked to the woman’s death, may not be sufficient to meet the burden of proof.

Presumption as to Dowry Death

The law presumes that if a woman dies within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances, and evidence of cruelty or harassment related to dowry exists shortly before her death, it constitutes a dowry death.

  • Section 113B of the IEA establishes this presumption.
  • Section 304B of the IPC defines dowry death and its essential elements.

The provision shifts the burden of proof to the accused, and thus, requires them to prove that the death was not linked to demands for dowry and related harassment.

Nature of the Presumption

  • Mandatory Presumption: Section 113B of IEA uses the word “shall.” Thus, if the conditions for dowry death are fulfilled, courts are obligated to presume that the accused caused the such death. This is a presumption of law and not discretion.
  • Once the prosecution establishes the essential elements of dowry death, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption and prove otherwise.

Landmark Case Laws

  • Shanti v. Haryana: The SC ruled that Sections 304B and 498A are not mutually exclusive. To convict someone under Section 304B, the prosecution must prove that dowry demands were accompanied by acts of cruelty or harassment.[5]
  • Sham Lal v. Haryana: The Court observed that while the presumption under Section 113B is mandatory, it does not absolve the prosecution of its duty to establish the essential conditions for invoking the presumption.[6]

The Supreme Court’s Recent Decision and Section 113B IEA

Recently, the SC, in Ram Pyarey v. The State of Uttar Pradesh dealt with a dowry death case and acquitted the accused on the ground of inadequate evidence.[7]

Background of the Case

  • The deceased, Kusum Devi, allegedly faced harassment over dowry demands (buffalo and gold chain) from her husband, in-laws, and the appellant.
  • She died by self-immolation on the night of September 26–27, 1990.

Prosecution’s Allegations

  • The deceased was harassed for dowry and subjected to cruelty by her husband and in-laws, including the appellant.
  • The father of the deceased filed an FIR on the day of her death, naming four accused: the father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband, and appellant.

Trial Court Findings

  • Charges framed under Section 304B (dowry death) were not proved; all accused were acquitted of this charge.
  • The accused, however, were convicted under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC for abetment of suicide and cruelty.

High Court Proceedings

  • During the pendency of the appeal, the parents-in-law passed away.
  • The husband did not appeal and served his sentence.
  • The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant.

Supreme Court Findings

  • The Court observed that there was no concrete evidence against the appellant to establish cruelty or abetment of suicide.
  • The Court laid emphasis on the difference between Sections 113A and 113B of IEA:
    • Section 113A: Under this section, courts may presume abetment of suicide if there is evidence establishing cruelty.
    • Section 113B: Under this section, courts shall presume dowry death if evidence establishes harassment for dowry.
  • The Court highlighted that there was no evidence to sufficiently establish cruelty or harassment by the appellant and held that mere presumption under S. 113A was insufficient without supporting evidence.
  • Thus, the SC allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant. The appellant, who was out on bail, was acquitted, and his bail bonds were discharged.

Conclusion

Multiple laws, like S. 304B of IPC and S. 113B of IEA, address and aim to eradicate the social evil of dowry deaths by providing for a rebuttable presumption of guilt against the wrongdoer. However, as highlighted by the recent Supreme Court decision in Ram Pyarey, it is important to ensure that such presumptions are made only on the basis of sufficient evidence. This is crucial to maintain a balance between the interests of justice and eradicating dowry deaths. Ultimately, eradicating dowry deaths require a collective effort to change societal values and ensure the effective implementation of laws.

[1] Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2015 SC 1359.

[2] Sher Singh @ Partapa v. State of Haryana, 2015 (3) SCC 724.

[3] Dinesh Seth v. State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 1239 of 2003.

[4] Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, [2023] 3 S.C.R. 511.

[5] Smt. Shanti and Anr. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 1226.

[6] Sham Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 1873.

[7] https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2015/26275/26275_2015_14_102_58369_Judgement_09-Jan-2025.pdf.

King Stubb & Kasiva,
Advocates & Attorneys

Click Here to Get in Touch

New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Mangalore | Pune | Kochi
Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: info@ksandk.com