The Kerala High Court has reiterated that under Section- 113B of the Evidence Act, that once the prosecution is successful in establishing that the death of the lady was the outcome of cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband soon before her death or within a period of 7 years of marriage if the accused wants protection then, the burden is on him to disprove and if he fails to rebut the presumption under section 113B of the Evidence act, the court is bound to act on it.
The single-judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen of the Kerala High Court in the case of Ajay Kumar V. State of Kerala held that it is the bounden duty of the accused to disprove the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, no convincing evidence is forthcoming to rebut the presumption.
Brief Facts of the Case
The factual matrix of the case is that it was promised to pay a sum of ₹ 2,50,000as a dowry within a period of 2 years from the date of marriage. Further, it was alleged that the Suja had been tormented and treated cruelly by the accused in exchange for the promised dowry, which had still not been given even a year after the marriage. After that, the accused No. 1 asked her to go to her home and bring the dowry and was told by her mother-in-law that if she fails to bring the dowry then, she should commit suicide. This consistent nagging and demand for dowry had driven Suja to commit suicide.
The Counsel for the appellant appearing on behalf of the accused contended that the trial court convicted the appellant without relying on sufficient evidence. He also contended that dairy in which it was alleged that the suicide note has been written was suggested by the expert that there is a probability to write the diary by the deceased.
The Counsel for the public prosecutor contended that the prosecution successfully established the commission of an offense under sections 304B and 306 IPC and feverishly supported the conviction.
High Court's Observation
The court stated the four essentials to prove the offense under Section 304B, i.e
(i) death of a woman should have occurred otherwise than normal circumstances,
(ii) within 7 Years of her marriage,
(iii) soon before her death she should have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused, and
(iv) in connection with any demand for dowry to presume that the accused has committed dowry death.
The hon’ble court, in this case, explained the concept of reverse burden and held that once the prosecution is successful in establishing that the death of the lady was the outcome of cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband soon before her death or within a period of 7 years of marriage if the accused wants protection then, the burden is on him to disprove and if he fails to rebut the presumption under section 113B of the Evidence act, the court is bound to act on it. The court while explaining the concept of reverse burden relied on the Apex Court’s judgment titled, ‘Noor Aga vs. state of Punjab’.
The court held that the Trial Court rightly convicted the accused No. 1 under Sections 304B and 306 of the IPC in accordance with the law as it is the bounden duty of the accused to disprove the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, no convincing evidence is forthcoming to rebut the presumption and the court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the 2 nd accused. Further, accused no. 1 will undergo the punishment of 7 years for the offense under section 304B of the Indian penal code and one year with a fine of ₹ 20,000 for the offense under Section 306 of the Indian penal code.
CASE NAME- Ajay Kumar V. State of Kerala
CORAM- Justice A. Badharudeen
CITATION- CRL.A NO. 500 OF 2007
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :