The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is mandatory in cases where a woman dies within seven years of marriage under suspicious circumstances and was subjected to cruelty for dowry. The Bench, comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan, set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court that had granted bail to a husband accused of dowry death, holding that the High Court failed to consider this crucial statutory provision.
Case Background
The appeal was filed by Yogendra Pal Singh, the father of the deceased, Aastha @ Saarika, challenging the order dated January 9, 2025, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court had granted bail to the accused husband, Raghvendra Singh @ Prince, in connection with Case Crime No. 415 of 2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur, under Sections 498A, 304B, and 328 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The deceased was married to the accused on February 22, 2023. The prosecution alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for insufficient dowry, specifically a demand for a Fortuner car. On June 5, 2023, within four months of marriage, she died under highly suspicious circumstances. The appellant alleged that the deceased had called her sister in a distressed state the night before, claiming she had been forcibly administered a “foul-smelling substance.” The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report subsequently confirmed the presence of aluminium phosphide poison.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned senior counsel for the appellant argued that the High Court ignored the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, which squarely applies to dowry deaths occurring within seven years of marriage. It was submitted that the investigation was initially biased, leading to the transfer of the case to the CB-CID. The counsel highlighted that the deceased suffered an ante-mortem injury, and the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution’s case of homicidal poisoning.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-accused contended that the FIR was lodged with a delay of ten days and that the allegations of dowry demand were absent in the initial report. The defence argued that the co-accused (in-laws) had been exonerated during the investigation, suggesting the improbability of the husband acting alone. It was further submitted that the accused had been incarcerated for over 15 months and that the cause of death—whether suicidal or homicidal—was a matter for trial.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court observed that the death occurred within four months of marriage and that statements of witnesses prima facie indicated persistent dowry demands. The Court noted that the “dying declarations to the father and elder sister, coupled with consistent testimony of relatives and post-mortem noting of an abrasion suggestive of restraint, satisfy the foundational requirements of Section 304B IPC.”
Mandatory Presumption Under Section 113B
The Bench emphasized that once the ingredients of Section 304B IPC are established, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act “arises inexorably” against the accused. The Court cited Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000) and Baijnath v. State of M.P. (2017), reiterating that the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption.
The Court observed:
“The High Court, however, failed to take this statutory presumption into account, and instead relied solely on general bail principles. This approach contradicts the law laid down in State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, which requires courts to evaluate the gravity of the offence, the nature of accusations and the prima facie evidence while considering bail.”
On Dowry Death and Societal Impact
The judgment delivered a stern observation regarding the social evil of dowry. The Court stated:
“The social evil of dowry not only corrodes the sanctity of marriage but also perpetuates systemic oppression and subjugation of women… It ceases to remain a mere personal tragedy and becomes an affront to the collective conscience of society.”
Referring to the judiciary’s role, the Bench remarked:
“In this backdrop, this Court is constrained to observe that judicial passivity or misplaced leniency in the face of such atrocities would only embolden perpetrators and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.”
The Court relied on its recent decision in Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2025), noting that “liberty must yield where it poses a threat to the collective interest of society.”
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Allahabad High Court. The bail granted to the respondent-husband was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender to custody forthwith.
The Court clarified that the observations in the judgment are confined to the issue of cancellation of bail and that the trial shall proceed independently on its own merits.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Yogendra Pal Singh v. Raghvendra Singh Alias Prince And Another
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8075 of 2025
- Coram: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
