Dowry Death Presumption Cannot Be Invoked Without Proof Of Cruelty Soon Before Death: Madras High Court Sets Aside Conviction
The High Court held that unless the prosecution establishes cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before the death of the deceased, the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be raised, and a conviction under Section 304B IPC cannot be sustained.
The High Court of Madras has held that in the absence of cogent evidence establishing cruelty linked to dowry demand soon before the death of the deceased, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked, and consequently, the offence of dowry death under Section 304B IPC would not be attracted.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court for offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
A Bench of Justice G. Arul Murugan observed: “… Unless it is established that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry soon before death, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be raised and the offence under Section 304B IPC will not get attracted. Further, though for an offence under Section 498A IPC, the cruelty in respect of the demand of dowry or harassment is sufficient, still there is no evidence or material available to establish that the deceased was harassed and put to cruelty at the hands of the accused”.
Advocate S. Saravana Kumar appeared for the appellant, while R. Kishore Kumar, Government Advocate, represented the respondent.
Background
The prosecution's case alleged that the deceased was subjected to harassment in connection with dowry demands after marriage and was driven to commit suicide by consuming poison within a short period of the marriage.
It was contended on behalf of the prosecution that there had been repeated demands for additional dowry and that such harassment ultimately led to the death of the deceased.
The defence, on the other hand, contended that there was no credible evidence of dowry demand or cruelty soon before death and that the prosecution had failed to establish the foundational facts necessary to attract the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
Court’s Observation
The Court undertook a reappraisal of the entire evidence on record and found that the prosecution had failed to establish consistent and reliable evidence of dowry demand or harassment. It noted that key witnesses did not support the prosecution's case, and several independent witnesses had turned hostile.
The Court further observed that the testimony of material witnesses suffered from inconsistencies and contradictions, rendering it unreliable. It noted that even the version of events relating to alleged dowry demands and harassment was not corroborated by independent evidence.
Significantly, the Court took note of the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, which had found that there was no prima facie evidence of dowry or dowry-related harassment in connection with the death.
The Court also examined the medical evidence and found discrepancies between the accident register and postmortem findings, observing that no injuries suggestive of assault or harassment were recorded at the relevant time. It further noted that even the medical evidence did not conclusively support the prosecution’s version.
The Court emphasised that the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act is not automatic and can be invoked only upon proof of foundational facts, particularly cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand “soon before death.” It observed that “only when the prosecution proves the foundational facts, and there is evidence to show that the cruelty was meted out to the deceased in respect of the demand of dowry soon before death, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act would arise”.
The Court found that in the present case, there was no evidence of any such cruelty or harassment in the period immediately preceding the death. It further noted that the evidence indicated that the couple had lived peacefully for a substantial period after marriage, and there was no material to establish any proximate link between the alleged dowry demand and the death.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential ingredients required to sustain a conviction under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Cause Title: Das @ Pragalathan v. State (Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:1273)
