The Allahabad High Court has held that prior to raising presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, it is the utmost duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court was considering a Bail Application filed by an applicant charged under Sections 498A, 304B, 328 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The bench of Justice Krishan Pahal observed, "The said conversations cast doubt on the case but the defence is not supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable period, it has to put its case on the basis of preponderance and probabilities only. It is true that there is presumption under section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act which may be raised in the case but prior to it, it is the utmost duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt."

The Applicant was represented by Advocate Dharmendra Singh while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Abhilasha Singh.

Facts of the Case

The daughter of the informant was married to the applicant as per Hindu rites and enough pleasantries and gifts were exchanged in it. It was alleged that the applicant along with other family members subjected his daughter to cruelty for demand of a Fortuner car as an additional dowry thereby had forcibly administered her some poisonous material as a result of which she died.

Counsel for the Applicant argued that he has been falsely implicated in the case and he has nothing to do with the said offence. He further submitted that the FIR was delayed by about ten days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused and even the cause of death could not be ascertained. He stressed that it is a clear-cut case of suicide as the victim had consumed aluminium phosphide which is a common pesticide used in the house and she had consumed it herself.

On the other hand, it was argued from the informant's end that WhatsApp chats were deliberately concealed by the Investigating Officer in collusion with the applicant.It was further submitted that in the light of presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the onus lies on the applicant to rebut the said fact as the deceased had expired within a period of four months of her marriage after forcibly administering her poison within the precincts of the house of the applicant.

Reasoning By Court

The Court, at the outset, noted that the well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. It also asserted the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. The Court was of the view that it is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception."

"It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA," the Court observed.

The Court held that the defence is not supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable period, it has to put its case on the basis of preponderance and probabilities only.

The Application was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Raghvendra Singh Alias Prince vs. State of U.P. (2025:AHC:4687)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Dharmendra Singh, Advocate Kunwar Bhaskar Parihar, Advocate Neeja Srivastava, Advocate Surya Bhan Singh, Advocate Veerendra Singh, Advocate Vikas Sharma

Respondent- Advocate Abhilasha Singh, Government Advocate Ashutosh Yadav

Click here to read/ download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Krishan Pahal

Sheetal Joon