Presumption U/S.113A Of Indian Evidence Act Would Stand Attracted Only When Prosecution Can Show That Person Was Subjected To Cruelty: Delhi High Court

The appellant-State approached the High Court challenging a judgment of the Trial Court whereby the accused respondent was acquitted.

The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain held, “Mere fact that the death was by drowning would not, ipso facto, make it a case of dowry-death, particularly when there is no such charge, even. Merely because her dead body was recovered from a drain and the death was on account of antemortem drowning, it cannot be, automatically, presumed that it was a case of abetment of suicide. The statutory presumption under Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 117 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) cannot be pressed into service, without establishing the foundational facts. The presumption would stand attracted only when the prosecution is able to show that such person was subjected to cruelty.”

Assistant Public Prosecutor Yudhvir Singh Chauhan represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Pranav Yadav represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Accused got married in the year 2006. The marriage was as per Hindu rites and customs. The woman’s father lodged a missing report. Her dead body was later found in the Najafgarh pond/drain. Since the death had taken place within two months of marriage, the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) was requested to record statements of the parents of the deceased. Since there was an apprehension that there was a demand for dowry, an FIR was recommended to be registered for commission of offences under Section 498-A, 304-B of the IPC. Further investigation was carried out, and supplementary statements of the parents of the deceased were also recorded.

The accused, along with his two brothers and their respective wives, was charge-sheeted. Since the offence under Section 304-B IPC was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed. The Trial Court directed the accused to be charged for the commission of offences under Section 498-A and Section 306 IPC only. The Trial Court, after taking note of the various improvements made by the material prosecution witnesses, came to the conclusion that the offence under Section 498-A IPC was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. As regards offence under Section 306 IPC, it was observed that even if the alleged instances of demand were presumed to be true, those were not in the nature of abetment.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the death was within two months of the marriage and was otherwise than under normal circumstances. The cause of death, as per the autopsy surgeon, was asphyxia consequent to antemortem drowning. The Doctor had also observed that the possibility of the deceased having been knocked down by someone could not be ruled out.

The Bench found that the prosecution did not know how, or in what manner, the woman fell into the drain. There was also no ocular evidence with respect to the above-mentioned incident. “There is no one who might have seen the alleged incident of drowning of deceased and, therefore, it is at all not clear as to how did she die – whether she committed suicide or someone pushed her or it was merely an accidental fall in the drain. It was incumbent on the part of prosecution to have clarified all such doubts while eliminating the possibility of someone pushing her or it being an accidental death”, it added.

The Bench held, “We also need not remind ourselves that mere demand, even if it is presumed to be there, would not be sufficient unless prosecution is able to show and establish that there was harassment and cruelty, on account of non-fulfillment of such demand. Section 107 of IPC would come into play only when there is some positive or overt act of such a nature which instigates any person to such an extent that there is no other option left, except to commit suicide. There has to be, thus, presence of mens rea and a specific act, compelling any such person to take such an extreme decision, seeing no other option. Here such element of instigation or abetment is, visibly, missing.”

The Bench further took note of the fact that the father of the deceased had not suspected the involvement of anyone when his daughter had gone missing. “In an appeal against acquittal, the scope of interference is constricted and order of acquittal cannot be upset merely for the reason that another view is also possible. The appellant-State is mandated to demonstrate and establish that there is illegality or perversity in the findings or that conclusion has been given, ignoring material evidence”, the Bench stated while dismissing the appeal.

Cause Title: State v. Kamal (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:11937-DB)

Appearance

Appellant: Assistant Public Prosecutor Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, Inspr. Kuldeep Singh, SI Johny Kumar

Respondent: Advocate Pranav Yadav

Click here to read/download Order