Source: Jharkhand High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Suresh Prasad v. The State of Jharkhand has held that once the basic ingredient of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is proved by the prosecution then the Court will presume the guilt of the accused.

What was the Background of Suresh Prasad v. The State of Jharkhand Case?

• The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of 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.
• After five months from 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^th March 2011, she was found murdered in her matrimonial home.
• After investigation, the police found the occurrence to be true and submitted the chargesheet against the appellant under Section 304B of IPC.
• The Trial Court holding the appellant guilty of offence under Section 304B of IPC and thereby, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
• Against this judgment, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court of Jharkhand.
• Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed with modification of sentence.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench comprising of Justices Ratnaker Bhengra and Ambuj Nath observed that the provision of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) 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.
• It was further held that once the basic ingredient of Section 304B of IPC is proved by the prosecution then the Court will presume the guilt of the accused. At this stage, the burden shifts upon the accused to rebut this presumption of guilt and to prove his innocence.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 304B of IPC

• This Section deals with dowry death. It states that -

(1) 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.

Explanation. —For the purpose of this sub-section, dowry shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprison­ment for a term which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

• In the case of Bansilal v. State of Haryana (2011), the Supreme Court held that, to attract the provision of Section 304B of the IPC, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry.

Section 113B of IEA

• Section 113B of IEA deals with the presumption as to dowry death.
• This section was added by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986 in order to provide speedy justice in case of dowry deaths.
• Whenever there is a question of dowry death and if it is proven that the woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in relation to any demand of dowry. The court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death under Section 304B of IPC.
• In such cases, the prosecution has to prove that dowry death has occurred, and then the burden of proof shifts on the accused to prove his innocence.