2004 (2) TMI 737 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
2. Proof of demand for dowry and harassment.
3. Establishment of the date of marriage within seven years of death.
4. Validity of delayed complaint and its implications on the case.
5. Role of the appellant in the alleged harassment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act:
The courts below heavily relied on the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, shifting the onus of proof to the accused without the prosecution proving the basic requirements under the section. Section 304B IPC defines "Dowry death" and requires that the death occur within seven years of marriage and be accompanied by cruelty or harassment related to dowry demands. The presumption under Section 113B is only applicable if these prerequisites are met. The Supreme Court emphasized that the prosecution must first establish these facts before any presumption can be drawn against the accused. Both the trial court and the High Court erred in shifting the burden of proof to the accused without the prosecution proving the date of marriage and the related harassment.

2. Proof of demand for dowry and harassment:
The prosecution's evidence, primarily from PW-4 (the father of the deceased), alleged that the appellant demanded dowry and harassed the deceased. However, the Supreme Court found inconsistencies and lack of credibility in the prosecution's witnesses. The complaint was filed eight days after the incident and appeared to be well-drafted with legal consultation, raising doubts about its spontaneity and truthfulness. The evidence from close relatives (PWs 4 to 7) was not considered reliable due to their vested interests and the delayed complaint.

3. Establishment of the date of marriage within seven years of death:
The prosecution failed to conclusively establish that the marriage occurred within seven years of Darshana's death. PW-4's testimony regarding the date of marriage was vague and unsupported by documentary evidence, despite the existence of a Bahi entry which was not produced in court. The investigating officer also failed to verify the date of marriage from available sources. The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proving the date of marriage, which is crucial for invoking the presumption under Section 113B.

4. Validity of delayed complaint and its implications on the case:
The complaint was filed eight days after Darshana's death, and its detailed and legally precise nature suggested it was prepared with legal advice, casting doubt on its authenticity. The Supreme Court noted that the complaint's delay and the circumstances of its preparation undermined its credibility. The court found that PW-4's claim of not being informed about the death and cremation was false, as evidence showed he had detailed knowledge of the events, indicating his presence.

5. Role of the appellant in the alleged harassment:
The appellant was employed in Jagadhari and not residing in the village, visiting occasionally. This fact was acknowledged but not given due weight by the lower courts. The Supreme Court found that the appellant's limited presence in the village reduced the likelihood of his involvement in the alleged harassment. The courts below primarily based their conviction on the presumption under Section 113B, which the Supreme Court found impermissible due to the prosecution's failure to establish the necessary preliminary facts.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions and sentences imposed by the lower courts. The court emphasized the prosecution's failure to prove the basic facts required to invoke the presumption under Section 113B and the lack of credible evidence of dowry demands and harassment. The appellant was ordered to be released if in custody.