Dowry Death | Prosecution Must First Show All Ingredients Of S.304-B IPC To Attract Presumption Of Guilt Against Accused: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has clarified that once all the ingredients of an offence under Section 304-B are shown by the prosecution, only then the presumption of innocence fades, shifting the burden of proof to the accused under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.

The Division bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava observed, “Being a mandatory presumption on the guilty conduct of an accused under Section 304-B, it is for the prosecution to first show the availability of all the ingredients of the offence so as to shift the burden of proof in terms of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. Once all the ingredients are present, the presumption of innocence fades away.”

“In view of the mandatory presumption of law under Section 304-B IPC/113-B of the Evidence Act, it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to establish that the death occurred within seven years of marriage. Section 304-B IPC permits presumption of law only in a given set of facts and not presumption of fact. Fact is to be proved and then only, law will presume,” the division bench added.

According to the prosecution, informant's daughter Sangita Devi, was married to Sanjay Sao who at the time of marriage took Rs. 60,000 in cash and other articles. However, his demand for motorcycle couldn't be fulfilled. A month later, Sangita Devi was found dead in a well. The trial court convicted the appellant, sentencing them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304(B)/34 of IPC. The present appeal was filed against this decision.

The Appellant argued that no eyewitnesses were present during the incident. Furthermore, it was asserted that the Appellant's conduct indicated their innocence regarding the murder of their wife, especially considering that she was reported missing on the same day from her parental home.

Additionally, it was argued that the judgment of conviction solely relied on the application of Section 113(B) of the Evidence Act, which was not sustainable in the eyes of the law.

Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent-State submitted that Section 113(B) of the Evidence Act will be well applicable in the case. Additionally, it was argued that at the time of death, the deceased was in their marital home, and the accused failed to provide a credible explanation for the circumstances surrounding the death.

The Court, based on the evidence at hand, delineated the following issues:

1. Whether Section 113(B) of the Evidence Act is applicable when a death occurs in the matrimonial home and the deceased's body is found in the nearby well.

2. Whether a conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), relying on Section 113(B) of the Evidence Act, can be considered justified in the absence of eyewitness testimony, as raised in this case.

To address these issues, the Court referred to Section 304-B of the IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The Court underscored that Section 304-B, pertaining to dowry death, was introduced into the Penal Code in 1986, carrying a minimum sentence of seven years, extendable to life imprisonment, and is tried by a Court of Session.

The Court also highlighted the corresponding amendments in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act concerning the trial and proof of this offence. It noted that Section 498-A, introduced in 1983, pertains to a lesser offence, triable by a Magistrate of the First Class and punishable by a shorter prison term.

The Court further noted that the expression 'soon before her death' used in the substantive section 304B, I.P.C. and section 113B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity text, and no definite period has been indicated and the expression 'soon before her death' is not defined. It said that the determination of the period which can come within the term 'soon before' is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case.

“Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression 'soon before would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live-link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death,” the Court added.

Upon examination of the facts, the Court determined that the demand for dowry occurred within seven years and was corroborated by witness testimony, thus satisfying the criteria of Section 304B of the IPC.

The Court noted, “when the ingredient of Section 304B of IPC is well attracted and the death admittedly has occurred in the matrimonial house since the body of the deceased has been found in the well which is adjacent to the house and it is not that the death has taken place due to falling in the well rather the cause of death has been shown to be Asphyxia which has been found to be antemortem by the doctor in its opinion.”

In light of these findings, the Court reasoned, “This Court, therefore, is of the view that if in such circumstances the Section 113B has been applied while passing the judgment of conviction, the same cannot be said to suffer from error. The ingredient of Section 113B is only said to be applicable if the demand of dowry is attributed individually by the members of the matrimonial house,”

Considering the comprehensive analysis of the trial court, which evaluated prosecution witness testimony and established the applicability of all ingredients of Section 304B, the Court found no error in the impugned judgment and dismissed the appeals.

Furthermore, acknowledging the advanced age of the deceased's parents-in-law, aged 63 and 70, the Court reduced their sentence under Section 304(B)/34 of the IPC from 10 years to 7 years, aligning with the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 304(B).

Case title: Sanjay Sao Vs The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 62

Click here to Read Judgment