Read Time: 15 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on September 20, 2024, set aside the conviction of a man and his wife in the dowry death case of their daughter-in-law, stating that if the essential elements of dowry death are not established beyond a reasonable doubt, the presumption outlined in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be used by the prosecution.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra emphasized the need to differentiate between the admissibility of evidence and its acceptability or reliability.

"Merely because a piece of evidence is admissible does not mean that it must be accepted. Before accepting the evidence to hold that the fact in issue stands proved beyond reasonable doubt, the court must evaluate the same against the weight of surrounding circumstances and other facts proven on record," the bench said.

The bench pointed out that to constitute a ‘dowry death’, punishable under Section 304-B IPC, the ingredients must be satisfied like the death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or it must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage; soon before such death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with any demand for dowry.

The phrase ‘otherwise than under normal circumstances’ is wide enough to encompass a suicidal death, the court said.

It pointed out that when all the ingredients of ‘dowry death’ are proved, the presumption under Section 113-B8 of the Evidence Act is to be raised against the accused that he has committed the offence of ‘dowry death’. 

"What is important is that the presumption under Section 113-B is not in respect of commission of an act of cruelty, or harassment, in connection with any demand for dowry, which is one of the essential ingredients of the offence of ‘dowry death’. The presumption, however, is in respect of commission of the offence of ‘dowry death’ by the accused when all the essential ingredients of ‘dowry death’ are proved beyond reasonable doubt by ordinary rule of evidence, which means that to prove the essential ingredients of an offence of ‘dowry death’ the burden is on the prosecution," the bench said.

The court acquitted one Shoor Singh and his wife in the case for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC with regard to the death of their daughter-in-law.

In the instant case, the bench noted it was not in dispute that the deceased died otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage. However, the issue between the parties was about her being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative, soon before her death, in connection with any demand for dowry.

Going by the testimonies of father, mother, and uncle of the deceased, the bench found that those did not indicate that any demand for dowry was made by the accused-appellants either before or at the time of the marriage of the deceased with their son. 

The court also noted that further, there was no evidence that the accused appellants directly demanded a motorcycle or cash from any of the above witnesses. In fact, evidence is to the effect that the deceased had informed her father and mother on January 4, 2007 and January 11, 2007 about the demand for a motorcycle and cash, court noted.

From their deposition, it appears that the demand was not in connection with marriage but as a mark of celebration on birth of a male child, the court recorded.

Court also pointed out that when the parents of the deceased were asked whether they took up the issue of motorcycle /cash demand with the accused, their reply was that they did not, because they took it as a joke.

"We fail to understand how parents could treat their daughter’s multiple reporting of apprehension to her life, on account of demand being not met, as a joke. This creates a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the allegation more so when there is no allegation that any such demand was ever raised either before or at the time of marriage," the bench said.

The court opined this doubt was fortified by a change in the stance of the father of the deceased from what was taken in the FIR. 

Notably, in the FIR it was alleged that the accused-appellants including their elder son, and his wife, had directly raised a demand for a motorcycle and cash but this allegation was not supported by the deposition of the parents of the deceased while admitting that appellant’s elder son was a doctor serving in another district. 

"Thus, there appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to the unnatural death of their daughter to make out a case of dowry death. Besides that, no independent witness of the vicinity was examined. In our considered view, therefore, one of the essential ingredients of dowry death, namely, any demand for dowry, was not proved beyond reasonable doubt," the bench said.

In the case, the bench said the accused had not been convicted of murder, and rightly so, because there was no worthwhile evidence to show that except for the burn injuries, which could be self-inflicted, the accused suffered any other antemortem injury. 

Moreover, the presence of the accused in the house at the time of occurrence is not proved, court highlighted.

In such circumstances, the death was most probably suicidal though this would not make a difference for commission of an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC if all the other ingredients of dowry death stand proved, the bench said.

But, here harassment/ cruelty at the instance of the appellants in connection with any demand for dowry has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the court emphasised.

With regard to reason to commit suicide, the bench said, though it is not necessary for us to dwell upon, suffice it to say that husband of the deceased was in service and stayed away from the deceased.

It also noted that suggestion was given to the prosecution witnesses, and a statement was also made under Section 313 CrPC, that the deceased used to remain depressed for being unable to join her husband at the place of his posting due to lack of residential quarter. That apart, a photograph of the deceased, regarding which no dispute was raised by the prosecution witnesses, showing her alone with a male stranger had surfaced. In the statement under Section 313 CrPC, a stand was taken that this photograph had shamed her. 

"Be that as it may, once all the necessary ingredients of dowry death have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act would not be available to the prosecution. Hence, in our considered view, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted of the charge of offences punishable under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC," the bench said.

Accordingly, court allowed the appeal against the conviction and sentence of seven years. Notably, the husband of the deceased had not filed the appeal as he had served out the sentence in the case.

Case Title: Shoor Singh & Anr Vs State of Uttarakhand