No Person Can Be Charged Merely On Imagination; Prima Facie Dowry Demand Necessary To Invoke Presumption U/S 113B Evidence Act: Allahabad High Court
The Bench noted that unnatural death within 7 years of marriage and harassment was established, but prima facie dowry demand was missing; ordered fresh consideration of parents-in-law's discharge plea.
Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla, Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that the statutory presumption relating to dowry death under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be invoked merely because a woman dies an unnatural death within seven years of marriage and was subjected to harassment. The Court noted that there must be prima facie material showing that the harassment was connected with a demand for dowry.
While acknowledging that the deceased's death was unnatural, occurred within seven years of marriage, and that she had faced harassment shortly before her death, the Court found that the crucial ingredient of dowry demand was not prima facie established. Consequently, the presumption under Section 113-B could not automatically arise.
Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla observed, “…it is crystal clear that the death of deceased was unnatural and had occurred within seven years of marriage and she was subject to harassment soon before her death. However the essential ingredient relating to demand of dowry is lacking. Therefore, the presumption under section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not attracted, and no person can charged merely on the basis of imagination”.
Advocate Kalyan Singh appeared for the revisionist and Dheerendra Kumar, G.A. appeared for the opposite party.
The criminal revision was filed challenging an order of the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, which had rejected their discharge application in a case registered under Sections 85 and 82(2) BNS and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The prosecution alleged that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty and dowry-related harassment by her husband, parents-in-law, and other accused persons. However, the Court closely examined the material collected during the investigation, including an audio recording of a conversation between the deceased and the informant shortly before her death.
The Court noted that in the recorded conversation, the deceased repeatedly blamed two co-accused, Rahul and Sonam, for making her life miserable and engaging in frequent quarrels with her. The recording did not support allegations of dowry demands by the revisionists, who were the deceased's parents-in-law.
The Court also took note of the statement of the landlord, who stated that disputes in the rented accommodation primarily arose due to Rahul and Sonam residing there, rather than on account of any dowry demand.
“Such details of recording falsify the entire allegation regarding demand of dowry, and the motive behind the death appears to be different from motive assigned in FIR as well as earlier statement of informant. In his additional statement, the informant could not reproduce the version as stated in his affidavit, which itself goes against the prosecution story. Apart from this, the statement of owner of the house in which the deceased was residing along with her husband and two other co-accused is also material…”, the Bench said.
According to the prosecution, the deceased's brother alleged that her husband, parents-in-law, and other co-accused had been harassing her for dowry and demanding ₹5 lakh for the husband's business. It was alleged that when the demand remained unmet, the accused subjected her to cruelty and ultimately administered poison, leading to her death within a year of her marriage.
“…According to the statement of Shashi Kant Tiwari, the owner of the house, occurring at page 63 of paper book, there was continuous quarrel between deceased and her husband and two other co-accused namely Rahul and his wife Sonam. The present revisionists were not residing in that house, they used to visit on a few occasions. As per the said statement, the reason for the quarrels between the parties was not on account of demand of dowry but it was on instance of living of two co-accused Rahul and Sonam in the same rented house...”, the Bench further noted.
“The Court, while exercising it's power contained in section 227 Cr.P.C. (Corresponding section 250 of BNSS) must consider entire material & statements recorded in case diary in true and right perspective and reach at the conclusion about accomplicity of accused person. The statement of witnesses based on hearsay must be discarded. The statement of witnesses having corroboration from other material must be given higher weightage than mere statement having no corroborative material. And the Court should proceed further on the basis of statement with corroborative materials disregarding statements having no supportive material”, the Bench observed.
Cause Title: Meena Devi And Another v. State Of U.P Through Principal Secretary( Home) And Another (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:110819)
Appearances:
Revisionist: Kalyan Singh, Karma Singh Yadav, Advocates.
Opposite Party: Dheerendra Kumar, G.A., Vikash Krishna Murti, Advocates.