Source: Jharkhand High Court

Why in News?

Recently Jharkhand High Court in case of Raja Ram Mandal v. The State of Jharkhand has stressed that for the presumption prescribed in Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) to come into effect, the prosecution needs to demonstrate with evidence that the deceased experienced cruelty or harassment regarding dowry shortly before her unnatural demise in her marital residence.

What was the background of Raja Ram Mandal vs The State of Jharkhand?

• The Criminal Appeals were filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad, in a Sessions Trial.
• The appellants were convicted under Sections 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment.
• The prosecution's case centered around the marriage of the informant's sister to Raja Ram Mandal approximately four years prior.
  • Within six months of marriage, the sister allegedly suffered cruelty from her in-laws and husband due to unfulfilled dowry demands.
• On 2^nd May 2009, the informant was informed of his sister's death at her in-laws' residence. Allegations arose that she was killed due to a dispute over dowry demands.
• The accused were charged under Sections 304B of the IPC, and the Trial Court found them guilty. The Criminal Appeals were filed on behalf of the accused, asserting that the conviction and sentence were not based on a proper evaluation of evidence.
• The High Court highlighted Section 304B IPC, emphasizing that the prosecution must establish five crucial points:
  • the cause of death,
  • the timeframe of death in relation to marriage
  • the cruelty or harassment faced by the deceased from her husband or his relatives
  • the connection of such mistreatment to dowry demands
  • the occurrence of this mistreatment shortly before her death.

What were the Court Observations?

• The division bench comprising Justices Subhash Chand and Ananda Sen, observed, “The conjoined reading of Section 304B of the IPC and Section 113B of the IEA also shows that there must be material to show that soon before death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment based on demand of dowry.”
  • “Since the prosecution has not proved from the evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before her unnatural death in her matrimonial house within seven years of marriage.
  • The statutory presumption under Section 113B of the IEA cannot be applicable. This presumption will arise only when the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offence of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
• The court said that learned Trial Court has wrongly raised the presumption against the appellant convict without giving its finding in regard to the commission of offence under Section 304B of the IPC,” the bench added.
• The Court observed that there was no evidence indicating any harassment for dowry on behalf of the convicted appellants.
• While the death of the deceased on 2^nd May 2009, was indeed unnatural, the prosecution did not present evidence linking this unnatural death to any harassment for dowry.
• The Court concluded that the prosecution did not sufficiently prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the Trial Court were deemed to be based on flawed findings, warranting intervention, and consequently, both Criminal Appeals were deemed worthy of allowance.

What is Presumption as to Dowry Death?

• Legal Presumption:
  • The law presumes that a woman's death within seven years of marriage, where there's evidence of cruelty or harassment related to dowry demands shortly before her death, is a "dowry death".
• Burden of Proof:
  • The burden of proof shifts to the accused to show that the death wasn't related to dowry demands or harassment. This means the accused must prove their innocence regarding the dowry-related allegations.
• Legal Sections:
  • The presumption as to dowry death is established under Section 113B of the IEA, and Section 304B of the IPC.
• Time Frame:
  • The presumption applies to deaths occurring within seven years of marriage. This time frame is crucial in determining whether the death falls under the legal definition of a "dowry death".
• Objective:
  • The objective of this legal provision is to address the challenges of proving dowry-related crimes, which often occur within the family and are difficult to prosecute.
  • By creating a legal presumption, the law aims to provide better protection to women and deter perpetrators from engaging in dowry-related violence.

What are the Legal Provisions for Presumption as to Dowry Death?

• Dowry Death:
  • Section 304B of IPC deals with dowry death.
  • It states that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called dowry death and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
• Presumption as to Dowry Death
  • Section 113B of IEA deals with presumption as to dowry death
  • It state that when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
• Under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA):
  • Section 118 of BSA covers the provision for presumption as to dowry death.

What are the Essential Conditions to Draw the Presumption as to Dowry Death?

• Death Within Seven Years of Marriage:
  • The death of the woman must occur within seven years of her marriage for the presumption to apply. This time frame is crucial and serves as a guideline for determining the eligibility of the case.
• Evidence of Dowry Harassment:
  • There must be evidence of cruelty or harassment inflicted upon the woman by her husband or in-laws for or in connection with demands for dowry.
  • This evidence typically includes witness testimonies, medical reports, or any other relevant documentation.
• Timing of Harassment:
  • The harassment or cruelty must have occurred "soon before" the woman's death.
  • The law does not specify a precise time frame, but the harassment should be sufficiently close in time to the death to establish a causal connection.
• Circumstantial Evidence:
  • The presumption is drawn based on circumstantial evidence surrounding the death and the circumstances leading up to it.
  • This evidence can include the woman's statements, family testimony, or any other relevant information indicating dowry-related harassment.
• Prosecution's Assertion:
  • It is the responsibility of the prosecution to assert and prove the existence of dowry harassment or cruelty leading to the woman's death.
  • The prosecution must present a compelling case supported by evidence to trigger the presumption as to dowry death.

What is the Nature of Presumption?

• Section 113B of IEA uses the word shall and not may and so it is a presumption of law.
• It becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death.

What are the Landmark Case Laws Related to Presumption under Section 113B of IEA?

• In Shanti v. State of Haryana (1990), the Supreme Court decided that Sections 304B and 498A are not mutually exclusive. The Court has ruled that in order to convict someone accused of causing dowry death, the prosecution must present evidence proving that the dowry demand was accompanied by acts of harassment and cruelty.
• In Satbir Singh & Ors. v. the State of Haryana (2021), the Supreme Court held that the phrase ‘soon before’ as used in Section 304B of IPC cannot be understood to mean ‘exactly before’, the judgement stated.