Summary
The High Court reversed the acquittal of a husband, his brother and his mother in a dowry-death prosecution. The Supreme Court upheld the husband’s conviction: reliable evidence established dowry-related cruelty soon before an unnatural death within months of marriage, and the statutory presumption was not rebutted. It gave the separately residing brother and mother the benefit of doubt because specific participation in demand, cruelty or conspiracy was not proved. The appeal was partly allowed.
Issues
- Whether the evidence established dowry death and the statutory presumption against the husband.
- Whether general allegations sufficed to sustain the convictions of the separately residing relatives.
Provisions considered
- Section 304B, Indian Penal Code, 1860Unnatural death within seven years of marriage and dowry-related cruelty soon before death were established against the husband. (¶¶ 8-12, 17-22)
- Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The proved foundational facts raised a rebuttable presumption of dowry death; the husband’s explanations did not displace it. (¶¶ 10-12, 21-22)
Held
- The prosecution must establish the statutory ingredients, including cruelty or harassment connected with dowry soon before an unnatural death within seven years of marriage. The resulting presumption is rebuttable. Soon before requires a proximate, live connection rather than necessarily an immediately preceding act. (¶ 8-12)
- The mother’s evidence of the monetary or house demand, her recent visit and subsequent distressed calls was supported by other witnesses. Absence of a demand at the marriage negotiations, the deceased’s study-related stays with her parents and small bank deposits by the husband did not negate the proved later demand and harassment. (¶ 13-19)
- The trial court had wrongly approached the matter as requiring proof of murder under Section 302 rather than applying Sections 304B and 498A. Medical evidence of ante-mortem injuries and the unsubstantiated account of the deceased going alone to cut grass did not rebut the dowry-death presumption against the husband. (¶ 20-22)
- The brother and mother lived separately, supported by separate ration-card evidence. The demand chiefly benefited the husband; beyond general assertions, no specific role in demand or cruelty was established against those relatives, and specific conspiracy evidence was lacking. Their convictions could not be sustained on these facts. (¶ 23-24)
Result
Appeal partly allowed. The husband’s conviction and sentence were upheld; he was directed to surrender within two weeks to serve the balance. The brother’s and mother’s convictions and sentences were set aside, they were ordered set free and their bail bonds cancelled. Pending applications disposed of.