Presumption Under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act Validly Invoked—Accused’s Contradictory Defence Rejected as Fabricated Afterthought: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction for Dowry Death

“Demand of ₹5 Lakhs for Job is Dowry If Linked to Marriage—Harassment Soon Before Death Raises Presumption of Guilt”: - Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in Virender Pal @ Vipin v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2015, rejecting the appeal of a husband convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code for the dowry death of his wife, Punita alias Gayatri, who died under unnatural circumstances within one year and four months of marriage.

The Court emphatically held:
“Once the prosecution establishes harassment for dowry and unnatural death soon before the occurrence, the burden shifts upon the accused under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. In the present case, the accused failed to discharge this burden.”

“The Accused Created a Fictional Story to Escape Conviction”: Court Rejects Defence of Accidental Fall and Medical Depression

The Supreme Court condemned the accused's inconsistent defences of suicide due to knee pain and accidental fall, observing:

“The diametrically opposite defence taken by the accused-appellant does not have any legs to stand… this is nothing but a fictional story created by the accused-appellant as an afterthought to escape conviction.”

The Court further held that the theory of suicide arising from knee pain lacked credibility, especially when medical records showed her condition had improved and no major psychological issues were evident. The deceased was under 30 years old, and the so-called depression lacked any credible basis.

“Demand of ₹5 Lakhs for Job is Dowry If Linked to Marriage”: Monetary Demand by Husband Constitutes Dowry under Law

In a crucial finding, the Court treated the demand of ₹5 lakhs by the husband to secure a job as falling squarely within the ambit of ‘dowry’ under Section 304-B IPC:

“The amount demanded, being clearly linked with the marriage, qualifies as dowry under law… Even if the sum was allegedly for securing employment, when demanded from the deceased’s father after marriage, it amounts to dowry.”

The complainant-father had already paid ₹50,000 to the accused after repeated harassment, and the demand continued even after this payment.

“Dead Body Found on Second Floor—Contradicts Suicide Claim”: Forensic & Eyewitness Evidence Exposes Defence Fabrication

The medical and factual evidence decisively dismantled the theory of suicide or accidental fall. The post-mortem revealed multiple injuries, including a massive subdural hematoma due to mechanical violence. The body was found lying on a cot on the second floor—not in a location consistent with a fall from the terrace.

The Court noted: “The explanation offered by the defence is totally a figment of imagination unsubstantiated by the evidence on record… the accused-appellant must have shifted the dead body to mislead the investigation.”

Moreover, a desperate call made by the deceased to her brother minutes before her death, expressing apprehension of being killed, sealed the conclusion that her death was the consequence of continuing dowry-related cruelty.

“Use of Medical Officer's Affidavit Not Ideal, But No Prejudice to Accused”: Procedural Lapse Cured by Cross-Examination

Addressing the use of an affidavit for medical evidence, contrary to Section 296 CrPC, the Court observed:

“Though the post-mortem was tendered via affidavit, and this is technically irregular, the defence cross-examined the Medical Officer and raised no objection. Hence, no prejudice was caused, making it a curable irregularity.”

The Court confirmed the cause of death as “shock and haemorrhage due to injury on the brain”—confirming the unnatural and violent nature of the incident.

“All Ingredients of Section 304-B IPC Established Beyond Doubt”: Conviction Upheld, Accused Directed to Surrender

Dismissing the appeal, the Court held that the prosecution had satisfied all the legal ingredients required under Section 304-B IPC:

• The death occurred within 7 years of marriage.

• The death was unnatural and caused by mechanical violence.

• Harassment for dowry was consistent, severe, and soon before the death.

• The accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.

The Bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, concluded:

“We are not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the accused-appellant… The judgments of the Trial Court and High Court do not suffer from any infirmity.”

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the Court directed the accused to surrender within four weeks to serve the remainder of his sentence.

Date of Decision: May 15, 2025