Presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act Not Automatic – Dowry Death Must Be Proved With Cogent Evidence: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal in Alleged Dowry Death Case

"Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Take the Place of Legal Proof": Gujarat High Court upheld the acquittal of three surviving accused in a dowry death and murder case, firmly rejecting the State's appeal and holding that the prosecution failed to prove essential ingredients of Sections 304-B and 302 IPC. The Bench of Justice Nisha M. Thakore and Justice Utkarsh Thakorbhai Desai delivered a detailed oral judgment affirming the 1996 acquittal of the accused by the Sessions Court, Gondal, in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1995.

The case pertained to the mysterious death of Prabhaben, who was found dead near a bridge allegedly after being thrown from a bullock cart. While the original FIR treated it as a road accident, the investigation later turned towards murder and dowry harassment, leading to charges under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Court Holds: “Presumption Under Section 113B Cannot Be Raised in Absence of Evidence of Dowry Demand”

The High Court categorically held that Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows courts to presume dowry death, was not applicable in this case as the prosecution failed to establish the necessary foundation.

“In absence of the essential ingredient of cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry being established by the prosecution, this Court would not be in a position to apply the provisions of Section 113(B) of the Evidence Act.”

Though the marriage had lasted less than seven years—a threshold for invoking Section 113B—the Bench clarified that mere proximity in time is not sufficient:

“The testimonies of the relevant witnesses... do not lead the case of the prosecution in this regard. The presumption under Section 113B... would not come to the rescue of the prosecution.”

“Heavy Burden on Prosecution to Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt”

Turning to the alternative charge of murder, the Court found that the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and failed to prove that the death was not accidental. The prosecution’s claim that the accused husband tried to portray a murder as an accident was not supported by medical or forensic evidence.

“We are of the view that, as opined by the Medical Officer... such injuries are possible when a person falls from 8 to 10 feet from the pull and is met with the stone.”

The Court further held:

“The Doctor has clearly stated in his cross-examination that it is not possible to confirm that the deceased had died due to homicidal death or due to the accident.”

“Section 106 Evidence Act Does Not Relieve the Prosecution of Its Burden”

Rejecting the State’s argument invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Bench clarified that mere suspicious conduct of the husband does not relieve the prosecution from establishing a complete chain of circumstances to prove guilt:

“It is not adequate material to prove the case of the serious offence like murder. The accused in such circumstances owes an explanation... However, the burden still remains on prosecution to establish a chain of circumstances by corroborative evidence.”

“It is settled legal position that if there is any doubt or break in the chain of circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.”

No Conviction for Dowry Harassment or Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Either

Even as the prosecution alleged consistent harassment of the deceased, the Court found that no witness testified to dowry demand by the husband, and any cruelty alleged was vague or directed at in-laws. The Court emphasized:

“There is absence of essential ingredient of cruelty or harassment by the accused in connection with the demand of dowry.”

“None of the witnesses... brings on record cruelty meted to the deceased in connection with demand of dowry.”

The Court also criticized the prosecution’s failure to examine community leaders allegedly involved in earlier reconciliations and to produce concrete documentary evidence about dowry demands.

"Trial Court’s View is a Plausible One": No Grounds to Interfere with Acquittal

Upholding the trial court’s verdict, the Bench concluded:

“We are in complete agreement with the findings and reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge in recording acquittal of the respondents-accused.”

“Considering the scope of Section 378 of the Code, in absence of any perversity being pointed out... we are not inclined to interfere.”

Accordingly, the criminal appeal was dismissed, and the bail bonds of the respondents were cancelled.

Date of Decision: 20 May 2025