[Dowry Death] Court Shall Presume Accused's Guilt If Prosecution Able To Prove Essential Elements Of S.304B IPC: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that when the prosecution establishes the fundamental elements of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, the court can assume the guilt of the accused, and consequently, under the provision of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden shifts to the accused to challenge this presumption of guilt and demonstrate their innocence.

Justices Ratnaker Bhengra and Ambuj Nath observed, “The provision of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 manifests the intention of legislature making mandatory application on the part of the Court to presume that death has been committed by a person who had subjected her to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry. Once the basic ingredient of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code is proved by the prosecution then the Court will presume the guilt of the accused. At this stage, the burden shift upon the accused as per the provision of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to rebut this presumption of guilt and to prove his innocence.”

The above ruling came in an appeal filed by the appellant Suresh Prasad against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in connection with a Sessions Trial Case passed by Ramesh Kumar, the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribag, holding the appellant guilty of offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of a written report of the informant Dwarika Mahto, alleging therein that his daughter Lakhiya Devi was married to the appellant one year ago as per Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that after five months of the date of marriage, the appellant along with his family members started torturing her to enforce the demand of a color television and a motorcycle and on 24.03.2011, she was found murdered in her matrimonial home.

After investigation, it is stated that the police found the occurrence to be true and submitted the chargesheet against the appellant under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The cognizance of the case was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag under the aforesaid Section.

On the basis of the evidence available on record, the Trial Court held the appellant guilty of an offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him accordingly.

Advocate Anil Kumar Jha, the counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no eyewitness to the occurrence and the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.

Advocate Manoj Kumar Mishra, the APP on behalf of the State submitted that the deceased died within one year of the marriage in her matrimonial home in unnatural circumstances. He further submitted that the appellant used to demand dowry and to enforce the demand, the deceased was tortured. He also submitted that the appellant failed to discharge his burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and thus, the appeal be dismissed.

It was to be ascertained by the Court whether the prosecution was able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts, and in order to come to the aforesaid finding, it was to be further ascertained :

I. Whether the appellant died within seven years of marriage ?

II. Whether her death was an unnatural death ?

III. Whether there was demand of dowry, coupled with torture to enforce the demand just before the occurrence ?, and

IV. If the aforesaid facts are proved then it has to be finally ascertained whether the appellant has discharged his burden as imposed under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.

After considering the testimonies of Janki Devi (P.W.3), the deceased's mother, and Dwarika Mahto (P.W.4), the informant, the Court noted that both witnesses confirmed that Lakhiya Devi, the deceased, was strangled to death, and her body was found on a cot in her marital home, with the appellant and other family members having fled.

The Court also considered the testimony of Dr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta (P.W.1), who conducted the postmortem examination. It was noted that according to Dr. Gupta, the cause of death was asphyxia due to smothering over the neck. The Court noted that postmortem report (Exhibit-1) corroborated his oral testimony regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased and the cause of death.

Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Court concluded that the prosecution successfully demonstrated that Lakhiya Devi had been married to the appellant, Suresh Prasad, for about a year before her death, and it was established that the appellant had been demanding a motorcycle and a color television, and had subjected the deceased to torture in attempts to enforce these demands. The Court also noted that the prosecution further proved that the deceased met her homicidal death in her marital home.

Moving ahead the Court asserted that once the aforesaid facts have been proved, Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which deals with presumption as to dowry death, comes into play.

The Court noted that the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., and apart from stating that he had not demanded dowry nor had he committed the murder of the deceased, he had not brought any material on record to rebut the basic presumption of his guilt and to prove his innocence.

The fact that the appellant and his family members fled away from the place of occurrence, leaving behind the dead body of the deceased, further weighs the scale of evidence against the appellant, the Court said.

From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court underscored that it transpired that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant has failed to discharge his burden as envisaged under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Thus, the Court affirmed the Trial Court's decision of finding the appellant guilty under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.

From perusal of the record, the Court noted, “it transpires that the appellant is in custody since 06.12.2012, i.e., he has remained in custody for about eleven years. The offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code is punishable for the period between seven years to imprisonment for life. Learned Trial Court has imposed the maximum sentence on the appellant without discussing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances against him.”

However, considering the entire facts of the case and the period of custody undergone by the appellant, the Court set aside the sentence imposed by the Trial Court directing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life upon noting that the trial court had imposed maximum punishment without discussing the mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

Accordingly, the life sentence was set aside and the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment already undergone since he had already served 11 years, and the sentence for causing dowry death ranges from 7 years to life imprisonment. 

Appearance:

Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Advocate

Advocate for the State: Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Addl.P.P

Case No.: Cr. Appeal (DB) No.774 of 2019

Case Title: Suresh Prasad Vs The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 49

Click Here To Read / Download Judgement