Dowry Death | S.113B Of Evidence Act Casts A Reverse Burden On Accused To Disprove Prosecution Case: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that in dowry death cases, Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act casts a reverse burden on the accused to disprove the prosecution case. It added that if he fails to rebut the presumption under Section 113B, the court is bound to act on it.

Justice A. Badharudeen ruled that the standard of proof in cases involving reverse burden was on the basis of `preponderance of probabilities' while for the prosecution it was 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

"An initial burden exists upon the prosecution and only when it stands satisfied, the reverse burden would arise and the standard of proof required to prove the guilt of the accused on the prosecution is `beyond all reasonable doubt'. But it is `preponderance of probabilities' on the accused. Thus the law is clear on the point that proof of reverse burden shall be discharged on the basis of `preponderance of probabilities'."

The Court was adjudicating upon an appeal moved by the husband and mother-in-law of a deceased woman, challenging their conviction under Sections 304(B) (dowry death), 306 (abetment of suicide) r/w 34 of IPC by the Sessions Court. 

The prosecution case was that 35 sovereigns of gold were given to the deceased at the time of marriage between the couple. A sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs was also promised to be paid as dowry within 2 years. It was alleged that during her stay at the matrimonial house, the deceased was subjected to consistent nagging and demand for dowry by her husband and mother-in-law. According to the prosecution, this eventually drove her to suicide within a year of their marriage. 

The husband and mother-in-law were soon booked and questioned, after which they were given an opportunity to adduce evidence but no defence evidence was adduced. Accordingly, the Sessions Court convicted them and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment. 

Challenging this conviction and the sentence, the accused moved the High Court. 

Advocates Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, Prabhu Vijayakumar and Renjith B. Marar appearing for the appellants argued that the trial court convicted the appellants without the support of sufficient evidence. 

However, Public Prosecutor Maya M.N vehemently supported the conviction and sentence citing that the prosecution had successfully established the commission of offences under Sections 304B and 306 of IPC. 

Upon appreciating the evidence in the case, the Court examined the essentials required to constitute an offence of dowry death under Section 304B. The Judge relied on several decisions to lay down the four essentials required to prove the offence of dowry death: 

(i) death of a woman should have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances

(ii) within 7 years of her marriage;

(iii) soon before her death she should have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused, and

(iv) in connection with any demand for dowry to presume that the accused has committed dowry death.

It was found that the prosecution evidence categorically established all these ingredients against the husband and hence, the burden was on him to disprove the same. However, no convincing evidence was forthcoming to rebut the presumption. 

Coming to Section 306 IPC, the crucial question to be decided was whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before the occurrence. At this juncture, Justice Badharudeen recalled that Sections 498A (cruelty) and 306 IPC are independent and constitute different offences. 

"Merely because an accused has been held liable to be punished under Section 498A IPC, it does not follow that on the same evidence he must also and necessarily be held guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by the woman concerned."

Nevertheless, the prosecution evidence clearly established that the wife committed suicide within a year of marriage and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and she committed suicide in consequence thereof. Therefore, the Judge held upheld the husband's conviction under Section 304B and 306 of IPC. 

However, the Court found that the evidence did not suggest cruelty and harassment on the part of the mother-in-law in a satisfactory manner. Therefore, finding that the prosecution failed to establish that the mother-in-law committed the offences under Section 304B and 306 of IPC by convincing evidence, the conviction and sentence imposed against her were set aside.

Regarding the sentence imposed on the husband, the Judge found that the Sessions Court imposed rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under Section 306 of I.P.C, without imposing any fine, which was illegal. 

"The said procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal. It is to be borne in mind that when the statute imposes imprisonment and fine, the same shall be read in `conjunctive' and not `disjunctive'. Therefore, both forms of punishment shall be imposed. Since there is no statutory minimum sentence for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C, I am inclined to reduce the said sentence for a period of 2 years and impose a fine of Rs.20,000."

As such, the appeal was allowed in part. 

Case Title: Ajayakumar & Anr. v. State of Kerala 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 405

Click Here To Read/Download The Order