Extra-Marital Affair Alone Doesn’t Attract Cruelty or Dowry Death Presumption Under IPC Sections 498A or 304B: Delhi High Court

“The statutory presumption under Section 113B is not automatic… It is contingent upon the establishment of foundational facts” – In a significant ruling granted bail to a man accused of subjecting his wife to dowry-related cruelty and abetment to suicide. The Court ruled that mere allegations of an extra-marital relationship or familial discord are not enough to invoke the reverse presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act unless such allegations are supported by proximate acts of cruelty linked to dowry demands. Emphasising the conditional nature of the statutory presumption, the Court observed, “The prosecution case hinges largely on post-incident statements… the absence of any contemporaneous grievance prima facie dilutes the immediacy and plausibility of the dowry-related harassment claim.”

The petitioner, Anshul, was arrested following the alleged suicide of his wife Shivani Singh, who was found dead in her matrimonial home on the night of 18 March 2024. The death occurred within five years of marriage, which led to the registration of FIR No. 166/2024 under Sections 498A, 304B, and 34 IPC. According to the deceased’s family, Shivani had been facing sustained harassment at the hands of the petitioner due to his alleged extra-marital affair with a colleague and repeated pressure to procure funds for car loan EMIs.

The prosecution relied on the family's post-incident statements, mobile phone evidence, and video clips allegedly depicting instances of verbal abuse and assault. Based on these, the State argued that the case attracted the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, given the suspicious circumstances of death within seven years of marriage.

Anshul, however, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (previously Section 439 CrPC), contending that there was no proximate dowry demand or cruelty and that the accusations were unfounded.

Justice Sanjeev Narula began by reiterating the legal standards governing dowry death under Section 304B IPC, relying on Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab and other precedents, observing: “There are four ingredients: the death must be unnatural; it must occur within seven years of marriage; the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment; and such cruelty must be in connection with the demand for dowry.”

The Court noted that the first two conditions were clearly satisfied, but turned a critical lens to the remaining two. It questioned whether the cruelty was sufficiently proximate to the death and whether it was linked to any dowry demand. The Court found that there were no complaints or reports lodged by the deceased or her family during the marriage to substantiate any such harassment.

Regarding the central allegation that Anshul pressured the deceased to arrange car EMI payments from her family, the Court held: “As per the chargesheet, the car was purchased on 8th November, 2023, and the EMIs of the same have been paid by the Applicant. This has been verified by the Investigating Officer.”

This directly contradicted the prosecution’s claim that Shivani was financially coerced. Additionally, a key prosecution video clip, alleged to show domestic abuse, was found to be over a year old. The Court held that: “Whether it indicates that the alleged harassment was indeed connected to a dowry demand is also a matter that must be examined at trial.”

Turning to the alleged extra-marital relationship, the Court took note of previous judicial pronouncements, particularly K.V. Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka, and held:

“Solely because the husband is involved in an extra-marital relationship and there is some suspicion in the mind of the wife, that cannot be regarded as mental cruelty…”

The Court further remarked that no conduct was presented to show that the alleged affair was pursued with an intent to mentally harass the deceased in a manner that could drive her to suicide.

As for the charge under Section 306 IPC, the Court found the required element of “instigation” to be missing, stating: “Prima facie, there is no indication of affirmative acts, whether by commission or omission, that drove the deceased to a state of desperation immediately preceding her death.”

Granting bail, the Court held that prolonged incarceration was unwarranted, particularly since investigation had concluded, the chargesheet had been filed, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. The Court concluded: “Continued incarceration of the Applicant would serve no fruitful purpose… The object of granting bail is neither punitive nor preventative.”

Anshul was granted regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties, and subject to stringent conditions including monthly reporting, no contact with witnesses, and no attempt to leave the jurisdiction.

The Court made it clear that: “Any observations made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial.”

Date of Decision: May 13, 2025