Presumption Under Section 113-B Cannot Arise Without Proof of Dowry Harassment Soon Before Death: Allahabad High Court Upholds Acquittal in Dowry Death Case

Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal appeal under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), challenging the acquittal of a man accused of his wife's dowry death. The Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Misra and Justice Dr. Ajay Kumar-II upheld the acquittal, holding that the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be invoked in the absence of cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before the death.

"Though the death of the woman was unnatural and occurred within seven years of marriage, the prosecution failed to establish the crucial ingredient of dowry-related cruelty or harassment 'soon before her death' — therefore, Section 304-B IPC was not attracted,” the Court ruled.

“Mere Death Within Seven Years of Marriage Is Not Enough – Demand of Dowry Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt”

The deceased, Ankita, died on 18 February 2024, just under three years after her marriage with the accused Ravi Kant on 26 April 2021. The cause of death was aluminium phosphide poisoning. The prosecution alleged that she was harassed for additional dowry of cash and jewellery, and that her husband tried to kill her by poisoning.

However, the Court held that mere proof of unnatural death within seven years of marriage is insufficient under Section 304-B IPC, unless the prosecution can prove specific acts of cruelty or harassment linked to dowry demands occurring “soon before the death.” As per the Court:

“The allegation of post-marriage dowry demand, even if accepted, stood disconnected from the time of death. No instance of cruelty proximate to the death was proved.”

“Contradictions and Absence of Specific Acts of Cruelty Fatally Weaken Prosecution's Case”

Key prosecution witnesses — PW-1 (father) and PW-2 (cousin) — failed to provide a consistent, credible account of harassment or dowry demand.

PW-1 initially claimed that ₹5.5 lakhs and domestic items were given in marriage, and ₹3–4 lakhs worth of jewellery was sent later. But in court, he testified that ₹5 lakhs and jewellery were sent within two months of marriage — a material contradiction.

The Court noted:

“PW-1 gave only vague, general allegations against the in-laws and not a single specific act of cruelty or demand of dowry by the husband. He even admitted no complaint was made during the 32 months of marriage.”

Similarly, PW-2 admitted that the marriage was cordial and performed ‘raji-khushi se’. Though he claimed to have delivered some money after marriage, he couldn’t recall the amount, and failed to establish any instance of harassment “soon before death.”

“Presumption Under Section 113-B Rebutted — No Link Between Death and Alleged Harassment”

The Court analysed the applicability of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, which raises a presumption of dowry death if a woman dies an unnatural death within seven years of marriage and it is shown that she was harassed or subjected to cruelty for dowry “soon before death.”

The Court ruled:

“The prosecution failed to establish this threshold factual foundation. Therefore, the presumption under Section 113-B stood rebutted. The burden never shifted to the defence.”

Citing Karan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine 214, the Court reaffirmed that “the four cumulative ingredients of Section 304-B IPC must be satisfied — any missing link renders the presumption inoperative.”

“No Evidence of Flight or Concealment – Conduct of Husband Supports Acquittal”

The Bench also placed importance on the conduct of the accused, noting that:

• He admitted the deceased to hospital
• Paid medical bills
• Was present throughout the treatment
• Performed the last rites

“This behaviour is inconsistent with guilt. No attempt to abscond or conceal the incident was established by the prosecution,” the Court remarked.

Further, medical witnesses PW-4 (Dr. Jain) and PW-6 (Dr. Devendra Kumar) confirmed that the husband and his sister-in-law brought the deceased to G.G. Nursing Home, where she was treated until her death. There were no ante-mortem injuries, and no evidence that the poisoning was homicidal.

“Trial Court's Acquittal Based on Proper Appreciation of Evidence – No Perversity Shown”

The Court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the principles governing dowry death, and the prosecution's case was rightly disbelieved due to contradictions, lack of specific allegations, and absence of proximate cruelty.

Relying on Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SCC 602 and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561, the Bench held:

“In an appeal against acquittal, where two views are possible and the trial court’s view is not perverse or illegal, the appellate court must not interfere. The presumption of innocence stands reinforced by acquittal.”

The Court categorically held that:

“No perversity or misreading of evidence was demonstrated. The trial court’s findings are based on careful evaluation of witness credibility and material contradictions.”

“Judgments Must Be in One Language – Bilingual Orders in Hindi-English Mix Unacceptable”: High Court Issues Judicial Direction

While dismissing the appeal, the High Court took judicial notice of a disturbing trend in trial courts — passing judgments written partly in Hindi and partly in English, often mixing both in a single sentence.

The Court observed:

“The trial court’s judgment runs to 199 paragraphs — 63 in English, 125 in Hindi, and 11 written in both languages, with several sentences literally split between Hindi and English. This practice undermines clarity, coherence, and accessibility for litigants.”

It further held:

“In a Hindi-speaking State like Uttar Pradesh, the purpose of writing judgments in Hindi is to make them comprehensible to ordinary litigants. Mixing languages in a single paragraph defeats this purpose and is judicially impermissible.”

Referring to the General Rules (Criminal) and earlier circulars issued by the Allahabad High Court in 1951 and 1972, the Bench clarified:

“Judgments must be written entirely either in Hindi or in English. Only limited exceptions — such as quoting judicial precedents or evidence — may be permitted. Even then, translation must be provided.”

The Court directed:

“A copy of this judgment be circulated amongst all Judicial Officers of the State of Uttar Pradesh through Registrar (Compliance). A copy shall also be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for further appropriate action.”

Acquittal Upheld, Presumption Rebutted, Judicial Clarity Mandated

The Allahabad High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal filed by the deceased’s father and upheld the acquittal of Ravi Kant in a dowry death case, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove cruelty or harassment “soon before death”, and thereby failed to attract Section 304-B IPC or invoke Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.

The judgment marks a significant reaffirmation of standards of proof in dowry death cases, emphasizes judicial discipline in drafting, and sends a strong message that convictions cannot be based on vague allegations or linguistic chaos.

Date of Decision: 29 October 2025