Refusal to Take Deceased to Temple Is Not Abetment; No Evidence of Cruelty or Dowry Demand Proven: Gujarat High Court

"Presumption Under Section 113A Cannot Be Invoked Without Proof of Cruelty", Gujarat High Court upheld the acquittal of all accused in a dowry death case, emphatically holding that a woman’s suicide within seven years of marriage does not automatically attract penal consequences under Sections 498A, 304B, or 306 of the Indian Penal Code unless supported by specific and credible evidence of cruelty or dowry harassment.

Division Bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 457 of 2002 filed by the State of Gujarat. The appeal challenged the 2002 acquittal of the husband and in-laws of deceased Nehaben, who had died by suicide within two years of marriage.

The Court ruled, “The incident that immediately preceded the deceased consuming poison was trivial and formed part of the ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life. Refusal to allow the deceased to accompany her husband and mother-in-law to the temple cannot by any stretch be considered cruelty or instigation to suicide.”

The High Court reiterated that the discretionary presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act can arise only when cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC is proven. It observed, “Unless the foundational fact of cruelty is first established, the Court cannot draw any presumption under Section 113A. It is not automatic merely because the death occurred within seven years of marriage.”

Advocate Ms. Maithili Mehta Argues Presumption Must Apply; But Court Says Presumption Fails Without Proof of Cruelty

Appearing for the State of Gujarat, Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili Mehta strongly urged that the trial court erred in not applying the statutory presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. She contended that the suicide took place within seven years of marriage and that the evidence of the mother (PW-4) and sister (PW-7) of the deceased clearly suggested that the deceased was subjected to mental and physical harassment by the accused, allegedly for dowry demands routed through the sister-in-law.

She submitted, “The learned Sessions Court has failed to appreciate the facts in totality. There was ample circumstantial and indirect evidence to show that the deceased was harassed and instigated to take the extreme step.” Referring to the attempted dying declaration and various panchanamas, she submitted that the accused had failed to inform police and tried to bury the deceased without post-mortem, thereby attracting offences under Sections 201 and 176 IPC as well.

However, the Court found that the evidence did not meet the legal threshold for cruelty or harassment. It pointed out that even the FIR did not contain any specific allegations of dowry demand and that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were general, inconsistent, and riddled with contradictions.

The Court noted, “Mere general allegations of quarrels, beatings, and ill-treatment without specific dates, incidents, or corroborative proof do not establish cruelty under Section 498A IPC. The prosecution has failed to establish any specific act of dowry demand or harassment soon before the death.”

Advocate Mr. Nitin M. Amin Defends Acquittal, Argues No Proximate Acts of Instigation Proven

Defending the acquittal, learned Advocate Mr. Nitin M. Amin appeared for the accused persons. He forcefully argued that the trial court's finding was based on correct appreciation of evidence and could not be termed perverse or contrary to law.

He submitted, “This is a case where the prosecution relied on presumptions without satisfying the basic ingredients of the alleged offences. There is no proximate act of instigation or aiding by any of the accused that could be linked to the act of suicide.”

Mr. Amin highlighted that the scene of offence panchnama did not reveal any signs of violence or struggle, and the post-mortem report confirmed absence of injuries. He argued, “Even if the deceased consumed Celphos out of frustration or emotional distress, that by itself cannot make the accused liable for abetment.”

He also submitted that no offence under Section 304B IPC was made out as there was no evidence of “dowry demand soon before death”, a mandatory requirement under law. “There is not a whisper in the FIR about specific dowry demands. Allegations surfaced only during cross-examination and appeared to be afterthoughts,” he argued.

The Court agreed, stating, “In the absence of specific and consistent evidence regarding demand of dowry or cruelty, the presumption under Section 113B cannot be invoked. The deceased’s death, while unfortunate, does not attract penal liability against the accused.”

"Double Presumption of Innocence Applies in Acquittal Appeals": High Court Cites Supreme Court Precedents

The High Court, in a detailed analysis of the law governing appeals against acquittal, underscored that unless the trial court’s view is shown to be perverse or demonstrably illegal, the High Court must not interfere merely because a different view is possible.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022) 3 SCC 471 and H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 581, the Court reiterated, “In case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused – one, under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, and second, because the accused has already been acquitted. Unless the finding is perverse or wholly unreasonable, appellate interference is unwarranted.”

The Court held, “The finding of the trial court is plausible, based on appreciation of the evidence. The prosecution has not been able to demolish or displace it. The evidence does not inspire confidence to convict the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”

No Proof of Dowry Demand or Cruelty: Court Holds Offences under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 IPC Not Made Out

Summing up the evidence and the law, the Court held that:

“There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry soon before her death. The only incident cited is a disagreement about accompanying the in-laws to a temple, which cannot constitute cruelty.”

The Court added, “In the absence of wilful conduct or harassment with intent to coerce for dowry, Section 498A is not attracted. In absence of such cruelty, Section 113A cannot be invoked. And in the absence of instigation or aiding, Section 306 is also not applicable.”

Refusing to interfere with the Sessions Court’s acquittal, the Court concluded, “The appeal is devoid of merits. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court’s judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity.”

Date of Decision: 19 November 2025