Woman Died Within 4 Walls Of In-Laws' Home And Was Cremated Hurriedly: Rajasthan HC Overturns 22-Yr-Old Acquittal In Dowry Death Case

Overturning a 22-year old acquittal in a dowry death case, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court cancelled the bail bonds of the accused father-in-law and the mother-in-law, noting that they failed to explain the circumstances leading to the woman's death since the alleged crime took place within the four walls of their home.

The court said that the duo failed to discharge their obligation under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act which lays down that when any fact was especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact was upon him.

A division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas in its order said:

"This Court also observes that in the instant case, the crime in question took place within the four-walls of the victim's matrimonial house and therefore, in such a circumstance the burden is upon the in-laws who were present in the house to explain the facts and the circumstances under which the incident in question has taken place, by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act...This Court observes that in the present case the accused respondents upon the death of the victim, performed her cremation in a hurried manner without informing her family members or police and thereby also preventing the post-mortem of her dead body being conducted which speaks volume of their conduct and manifests intention on their part to concoct the story and to destruct the evidence to shield themselves"

Trial court misread evidence

The bench further observed that the trial court "misread" the evidence and adopted a "hyper-technical approach" while considering the testimonies of the witnesses, which was not desirable in cases relating to social-welfare provision, especially when dowry-deaths was deeply entrenched in Indian society.

The Court was hearing the State's appeal filed against the acquittal order passed by the trial court in 2002 in an alleged case of dowry death that took place in 2001 within 3 years of marriage.

It was the case of the appellants that the victim was continuously harassed by the accused regarding insufficient dowry. Despite many such dowry demands being fulfilled by the victim's family, the harassment continued, and one day, they were informed that the victim was murdered by the accused and cremated in a hurried manner without informing them, to destroy evidence.

It was submitted that even two months before the alleged murder, when the victim visited her maternal family, she mentioned the incessant harassment she was being subjected to. The counsel argued that despite the prosecution story being corroborated by many witnesses, the accused were acquitted on account of benefit of doubt by the trial court.

On the other hand, the counsel for the accused submitted that there was no evidence of any demand soon before the victim's death and hence no alleged charges were proved against the accused.

Ingredients of dowry death met

After hearing contentions from both sides, the Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Chabi Karmakar & Ors. v State of West Bengal (2013) in which the 4 ingredients to prove the offence of dowry death were given. These are:1) Death of the victim to be caused by any burns or bodily injury, 2) within 7 years of marriage, 3) soon before her death she was subjected to harassment, 4) such harassment to be in connection with the demand for dowry

The Court perused the records and ruled that in the present case the first two ingredients were fulfilled. In relation to the third ingredient, the Court made a reference to another Supreme Court case of Satbir Singh and Anr. v State of Haryana (2021) in which it was held that the term “soon after” was relative with no straight-jacket formula and the harassment could also be spread over a period. The requirement was that the demand, harassment based on such demand and the date of death should not be too remote.

In this light, the Court opined that even though the victim visited the family 2 months before her death when she talked about the continued harassment, it was not too long a time to make the claim stale especially in light of the prolonged cruelty. This thereby established a "proximate and live link” between the cruelty and her consequential death.

Hurried and uninformed cremation

With regard to the woman's "hurried and uninformed cremation" the court said that owing to Section 106 of the Act, the burden was upon the accused who were present in the house to explain the facts.

It referred to the Supreme Court case of State of Rajasthan v Jaggu Ram and Birendra Sao, Shankar Sao, Shila Devi v State of Bihar in which it was observed that since the cremation took place in the wee hours without informing the parents of the victim or the police, it clearly established that it was done to conceal the real cause of death and thus, it was considered a fit case of Section 106 of the Act.

Furthermore, reference was made to the Supreme Court's decision in Uma and anr. v. The State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in which it was held that when an offence happens within privacy of a house where the accused was present, firstly, the standard of proof expected to prove such a case based on circumstantial evidence was lesser, and secondly, there was a limited shifting of onus of proof wherein the accused was under a duty to explain the circumstances that led to the victim's death.

If no or false explanation was given, it became an additional link in the chain of circumstances. The Supreme Court had further held that the crimes like dowry deaths were generally committed in complete secrecy, and it was very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence, but that did not mean that the crime committed in complete secrecy or inside the houses shall go unpunished.

In light of this analysis, the Court observed that since the death of the victim took place inside her matrimonial house, following by a hurried cremation without informing the family or the police that prevented post-mortem of the body, reflected the intention of the accused in concocting a story and destructing evidence to shield themselves.

Onus on accused under Section 106 Evidence Act

Furthermore, since the other ingredients of the offence were proved by the prosecution, the onus shifted on the accused to explain the circumstances within which the incident took place as per Section 106 of the Act. However, since the accused remained silent and provided no cogent explanation, the Court tilted in favour of their conviction.

“This Court therefore, in light of the factual matrix and the precedent law cited above observes that in the present case the prosecution has discharged its initial burden and have thereby made out the case in its favour by proving the essential ingredients of the offence in question and at the same time, the accused-respondents have failed to discharge the onus put upon them by virtue of Section 106 Indian Evidence Act, thereby tilting the case towards their conviction.”

Opining that the order of the trial court suffered from illegality, perversity and errors of laws, the acquittal order was set aside, and the accused were sentenced to imprisonment, cancelling their bail bonds.

Case Title: State v Ramdin and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 387

Click Here To Read/Download Order