'Husband Who Slept In Same Room Escaped Unscathed When Wife Died Due To Burn Injuries' : Supreme Court Affirms Conviction For Dowry Death

Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the husband in a 30-year-old dowry death case after the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act was not discharged by the husband.

The Court said that when the prosecution discharged the initial burden of proof that the death of the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty and had occurred within seven years from the date of her marriage due to 100% burn injuries, then the onus to rebut the presumption raised against the accused under Section 113B of the Evidence Act shifts upon the accused.

The Court noted that the husband who went to sleep with her in the same room escaped unscathed. Hence, it was within his special knowledge to explain as to how the death had occurred. Therefore, an additional burden was cast on him as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which states that the burden to prove things which are within a person's special knowledge is on such person.

If a woman was subjected to cruelty and harassment before the death, and the death occurred in relation to the demand of a dowry then by virtue of Section 113B a presumption is raised against the person that he caused a dowry death.

“When the prosecution had discharged its burden and proved such facts, the onus was on the appellants in terms of the provisions under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act to establish that it was not a dowry death, Section 106 of the Evidence Act also put burden on the first appellant-husband who went to sleep with her in the same room, but escaped unscathed to explain as to how the death had occurred as it was within the special knowledge within the meaning of said Section.”, the bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol said.

The Court said that the Appellants/accused failed to discharge the presumption and offered no explanation when the incriminating materials were put to them during the recording of their Section 313 Cr.P.C. statements.

“In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the evidence brought in by the prosecution, and consequential failure on the part of the appellants to discharge their burden in terms of the provisions under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act and the additional burden cast on the first appellant-husband in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, we are of the considered view that the High Court has arrived at the rightful conclusion based on the evidence on record.”, the Court concluded.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment was upheld and the conviction of the appellants/accused was sustained.

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajbir Bansal, Adv. Mr. Vinay Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Eshu Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Manshi Ahuja, Adv. Ms. Mrinalini Dayal, Adv. Ms. Anu Batra, Adv. Ms. Resha Panwar, Adv. Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR

For Respondent(s) Ms. Srishti Singh, AOR

Case Title: Damodar & Anr. Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 960 of 2018

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 607

Click here to read/download the judgment