“Judicial Passivity In Face Of Such Atrocities Would Embolden Perpetrators”: Supreme Court Cancels Bail In Dowry Death Case

Holding that such cases strike at the “collective conscience of society”, the Court emphasised that statutory presumptions under Section 113B of the Evidence Act must be given full effect when the foundational facts for a dowry death are established.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the deceased woman’s father challenging the grant of bail by the Allahabad High Court to the accused husband.

A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan, while setting aside the bail order, observed that “the dying declarations to the father and elder sister, coupled with consistent testimony of relatives and post-mortem noting of an abrasion suggestive of restraint, satisfy the foundational requirements of Section 304B IPC”, therefore attracting the “presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act inexorably.”

Upon making these observations, the Bench emphatically remarked that “judicial passivity or misplaced leniency in the face of such atrocities would only embolden perpetrators and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice”, while further emphasising that “a firm and deterrent judicial response is, therefore, imperative – not only to uphold the majesty of law and do justice in the present case, but also to send an unequivocal message that neither law nor society will countenance barbarities born out of the evil of dowry”.

Senior Advocate Ruchi Kohli represented the appellants, while Advocate Gaurav AOR represented the respondents.

Background

The deceased was married to the respondent-accused on 22 February 2023. The appellant, the Victim’s father, alleged that soon after marriage, the woman was subjected to cruelty and demands for additional dowry, including a Fortuner car, despite substantial money and articles already given at the time of marriage.

On 5 June 2023, the victim died under highly suspicious circumstances after allegedly being forcibly administered a poisonous substance during a family function. Her dying declarations to her father and sister pointed to the active involvement of her husband. The viscera report confirmed aluminium phosphide poisoning, and the post-mortem revealed an ante-mortem abrasion suggestive of restraint.

The husband was later charge-sheeted under Sections 498A, 304B, and 328 of the IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. His bail rejection by the Sessions Court was overturned by the High Court, prompting the present appeal.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court began by underscoring the statutory framework governing dowry-related crimes, noting that Sections 304B and 498A IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act collectively reveal the “legislature’s firm resolve to combat the social evil of dowry”. It reiterated that where a woman’s death occurs in unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage and is preceded by dowry-related harassment, the law mandates a presumption of dowry death against the husband.

In the present case, the death occurred within four months of marriage. The Court found that the dying declarations, relatives’ testimonies, and medical evidence “satisfy the foundational requirements of Section 304B IPC”, triggering the presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act.

Relying on Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2005), the Court elaborated upon the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, reiterating that “once the ingredients of Section 304B IPC are established, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act becomes mandatory, and the proximity between harassment and death is a decisive factor in its application.”

Criticising the High Court for failing to apply this mandatory presumption, the Bench observed that “the High Court’s omission to consider the gravity of the offence, the corroborated dying declarations and the post-mortem evidence renders the impugned order perverse and unsustainable”.

The Bench further contextualised the issue of “dowry deaths” as a grave crime against society, noting that dowry demands turn marriage into a commercial transaction and that dowry deaths represent “abhorrent manifestations” of gender-based oppression, violating dignity and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21.

“The social evil of dowry not only corrodes the sanctity of marriage but also perpetuates systemic oppression and subjugation of women. When such demands transgress the bounds of reason and culminate in cruelty – or worse, in the untimely death of a young bride – the offence transcends the private sphere of the family and assumes the character of a grave social crime”, the Court remarked.

The Court further stressed that dowry death cases demand heightened judicial vigilance, referring to the broader societal ramifications. It warned that allowing the accused to remain free would risk witness intimidation and weaken efforts to eradicate dowry-driven violence against women.

Conclusion

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and cancelled the bail granted to the accused husband. He was directed to surrender forthwith, failing which, the authorities must secure his custody immediately.

Cause Title: Yogendra Pal Singh v. Raghvendra Singh @ Prince & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1367)

Appearances

Appellant: Senior Advocate Ruchi Kohli with Advocates Shyam Singh Chauhan, A.Dayl, Rishabha Panchal, Vijay Kumar Pandey, and others

Respondents: Advocates Gaurav, AOR, Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Ajay Singh, Pallavi Kumari, Shashank Pachauri, Ankur Agnihotri and others

Click here to read/download Judgment