The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that being a mandatory presumption on the guilty conduct of an accused under Section 304-B, it is for the prosecution to first show the availability of all the ingredients of the offence so as to shift the burden of proof in terms of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. Once all the ingredients are present, the presumption of innocence fades away.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the daughter of the informant was married to Sanjay Sao and at the time of marriage, cash of Rs.60,000/- and other articles worth Rs.50,000/- was given to Sanjay Sao. Thereafter, the inlaws started demanding a motorcycle and the informant could not give a motorcycle. One day, Sanjay Rao told the informant that his daughter had fled away with a boy in the night and the villagers informed the informant dead body of his daughter was lying in a well of Pahra. It was alleged by the informant that Sanjay Sao, Chathu Sao, and Gita Devi had murdered his daughter.
The learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offense punishable under Section 304(B)/34 of IPC as also sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offense punishable under Section 201/34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, have been further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is filed.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant contended that there is no eye witness to the incident. It was furthermore contended that it is clear from the conduct of the Appellant that they had no role in the commission of the crime or murder of the deceased who happens to be his wife as it was informed on the same day at her paternal home when she was traceless. Also, merely by applying the statutory command under Section 113(B) of the Evidence Act, the judgment of conviction has been passed, which is not sustainable in the eyes of the law.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent contended that Section 113(B) of the Evidence Act is very well applicable to the case. It was furthermore contended that when the death occurred, the deceased was in his matrimonial home and no plausible explanation was given by the accused as to for what reason the death occurred.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that under Section 304-B, there is a mandatory presumption of guilt for the accused. Therefore, in order to shift the burden of evidence in accordance with Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the prosecution must first show the existence of all of the ingredients of the offense. The presumption of innocence disappears when all the required ingredients are in existence.
The court referred to Section 304B and held that Section 304-B(1) IPC defines the “dowry death” of a woman. It provides that “dowry death” is where the death of a woman is caused within seven years of marriage by burning or bodily injuries or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with demand for dowry. Further, Section 304-B(2) IPC provides punishment for the aforesaid offense.
It was furthermore observed that the notion of proximity text is included together with the phrase "soon before her death," which is used in substantive sections 304B, I.P.C., and 113B of the Evidence Act. The phrase "soon before her death" is not defined and no specific time frame has been given. The courts will decide the exact time frame that falls under the definition of "soon before," taking into account the particular facts and circumstances of each case.
The court noted from the testimonies of the witnesses that the demand of dowry was there having been demanded by the son-in-law, mother-in-law, and father-in-law of the deceased and when it was not fulfilled then the deceased was subjected to acute torture.
It was furthermore noted that given that the deceased's body was discovered in a well next to her matrimonial home, the appellants must provide the cause of death. Here, the appellants' actions raise serious suspicions because, despite the daughter-in-law's disappearance, no missing report has been found.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that all the ingredients of Section 304B of IPC are well applicable, therefore, the applicability of the provision of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act is sustainable and the impugned judgment of the trial court requires no interference.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the appeal.
Case title: Sanjay Sao Vs The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Case No.: Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1689 of 2017
Advocate for the Appellant: Mrs. Nalini Jha, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Sardhu Mahto, APP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
