In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the necessity of clear evidence of continuous harassment to invoke the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. The court acquitted the appellant, Ram Pyarey, in the case of Ram Pyarey v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 2015), setting aside his conviction for abetment to suicide and cruelty under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Case
The case arose from the tragic death of Kusum Devi, who reportedly died by self-immolation on September 27, 1990, at her matrimonial home in Unnao, Uttar Pradesh. Her father filed a First Information Report (FIR) the same day, alleging that she was harassed for dowry by her husband, Ram Sajeevan, her in-laws, and her brother-in-law, Ram Pyarey. The dowry demands included a buffalo and a gold chain.
Initially, the trial court acquitted the accused of dowry death under Section 304-B of the IPC but convicted them under Sections 306 (abetment to suicide) and 498-A (cruelty) of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The conviction was upheld by the Allahabad High Court. However, the Supreme Court, in its judgment, overturned the lower courts’ findings against the appellant.
Key Legal Issues
1. Application of Section 113B of the Evidence Act: The provision allows a court to presume dowry death if it is shown that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands shortly before her death. However, the Supreme Court clarified that such a presumption requires cogent evidence of harassment or abetment.
2. Distinction Between Sections 113A and 113B: The court noted that under Section 113A, a presumption of abetment to suicide is discretionary, whereas under Section 113B, the presumption of dowry death is mandatory, provided certain conditions are met.
3. Standard of Evidence: The court reiterated that mere allegations or suspicion are insufficient to sustain a conviction. Clear and convincing evidence of harassment is essential.
Court’s Observations
The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan held that the lower courts erred in applying Section 113B without substantive evidence of harassment. The court observed:
“When the courts below want to apply Section 113B of the Evidence Act, the condition precedent is that there has to be first some cogent evidence as regards incessant harassment. In the absence of any cogent evidence as regards harassment or abetment in any form like aiding or instigating, the court cannot straightaway invoke Section 113B and presume that the accused abetted the commission of suicide.”
The court further remarked that the presumption under Section 113B is not absolute and must be supported by credible evidence.
Decision
The Supreme Court acquitted Ram Pyarey, concluding that there was no material evidence to prove his involvement in the alleged harassment or abetment. It observed that the presumption of abetment could not replace the requirement for evidence.
The appellant, who was out on bail, was exonerated, and his bail bonds were discharged.
Representation
– For the Appellant: Advocate Bharat Bhushan, assisted by Keshav Bansal.
– For the Respondent (State of Uttar Pradesh): Senior Advocate K. Parmeshwar, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shaurya Sahay, Aditya Kumar, and Ruchil Raj.
