Case: A.K. Devaiah Vs. State Of Karnataka

word “shall” thus, making a mandatory application on the part of the court to presume that death had been committed by the person who had subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand of dowry. It is unlike the provisions of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act where a discretion has been conferred upon the court wherein it had been provided that court may presume abetment of suicide by a married woman. Therefore, in view of the above, onus lies on the accused to rebut the presumption and in case of Section 113-B relatable to Section 304-B IPC, the onus to prove shifts exclusively and heavily on the accused. The only requirements are that death of a woman has been caused by means other than any natural circumstances; that death has been caused or occurred within 7 years of her marriage; and such woman had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by [pic]her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand of dowry.” 17. Section 113A of the Evidence Act and Section 107, IPC have also been considered by this Court in the case of Thanu Ram vs. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 353 , this Court held as under:- “25. In our view, the element of instigation as understood within the meaning of Section 107 IPC is duly satisfied in this case in view of the provisions of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872, which provides for a presumption to be arrived at regarding abetment of suicide by a married woman and certain criteria are also laid down therein. The first criterion is that such suicide must have been committed within 7 years from the date of the victim’s marriage. Since Hirabai committed suicide in the 4th year of her marriage, such condition is duly satisfied. The second condition is that the husband or such relative of the husband had subjected the victim to cruelty which led to the commission of suicide by the victim. Section 113-A indicates that in such circumstances, the court may presume, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.” [pic] 18. In the case of Rajesh Bhatnagar vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 7 SCC 91 , this Court held as under:- “15. Before we examine the merit or otherwise of this contention, it will be useful to state the basic ingredients of Section 304-B IPC. The requirement of Section 304-B is that the death of a woman be caused by burns, bodily injury or otherwise than in normal circumstances, within seven years of her marriage. Further, it should be shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or her husband’s family or relatives and thirdly, that such harassment should be in relation to a demand for dowry. Once these three ingredients are satisfied, her death shall be treated as a “dowry death” and once a “dowry death” occurs, such husband or relative shall be presumed to have caused her death. Thus, by fiction of law, the husband or relative would be presumed to have committed the offence of dowry death rendering them liable for punishment unless the presumption is rebutted. It is not only a presumption of law in relation to a death but also a deemed liability fastened upon the husband/relative by operation of law.xxxxxxx34. Furthermore, the entire conduct of the accused is such as to lead to only one plausible conclusion i.e. all the accused together had caused the death of the deceased. The arguments of the defence are strange because if the accused had attempted to save the deceased, then he would have suffered some burn injuries. But as per the above details of injuries, there was not even a single burn injury found on the body of the accused Mukesh. These injuries were such that one could suffer only if he was struggling or fighting with another person, as then alone could he suffer such bruises or minor cuts. [pic]Absence of any cooking material in the kitchen is another very important circumstance which would belie the stand of the accused.” 19. Admittedly, the marriage was solemnized on 16.4.1989 and the incident took place on 16.3.1990 i.e. within a period of eleven months only. From the evidence it reveals that the altercation between the appellant and the deceased started three months before the incident when there was no indication of the deceased becoming pregnant after marriage. According to the prosecution, before the marriage of the deceased with the appellant, negotiations were held with regard to the demand of dowry in the form of cash as well as gold and silver ornaments. It further reveals that part of the dowry amount was given to the appellant before marriage and further amount was given at the time of marriage. The prosecution further led evidence that the appellant was in the habit of consuming liquor and further the deceased had been subjected to physical and mental cruelty over certain issues including demand of balance dowry. The deceased being not in a position to bear more torture and cruelty pertaining to demand of dowry committed suicide by setting herself on fire. The sister, brother and sister’s husband of the deceased along with other witnesses had been examined as PWs 1, 2 and 3, who have consistently deposed about the demand and acceptance of dowry and also about the deceased being subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the appellant in their house.20. We have gone though the evidence both oral and documentary brought on record. We have also analysed and scrutinized the evidence and the material available on record. In our considered opinion, the High Court has correctly recorded the finding based on evidence and found the appellant guilty of commission of offence. The judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is wholly perverse and based on conjecture and surmises.21.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]34. Furthermore, the entire conduct of the accused is such as to lead to only one plausible conclusion i.e. all the accused together had caused the death of the deceased. The arguments of the defence are strange because if the accused had attempted to save the deceased, then he would have suffered some burn injuries. But as per the above details of injuries, there was not even a single burn injury found on the body of the accused Mukesh. These injuries were such that one could suffer only if he was struggling or fighting with another person, as then alone could he suffer such bruises or minor cuts. [pic]Absence of any cooking material in the kitchen is another very important circumstance which would belie the stand of the accused.Admittedly, the marriage was solemnized on 16.4.1989 and the incident took place on 16.3.1990 i.e. within a period of eleven months only. From the evidence it reveals that the altercation between the appellant and the deceased started three months before the incident when there was no indication of the deceased becoming pregnant after marriage. According to the prosecution, before the marriage of the deceased with the appellant, negotiations were held with regard to the demand of dowry in the form of cash as well as gold and silver ornaments. It further reveals that part of the dowry amount was given to the appellant before marriage and further amount was given at the time of marriage. The prosecution further led evidence that the appellant was in the habit of consuming liquor and further the deceased had been subjected to physical and mental cruelty over certain issues including demand of balance dowry. The deceased being not in a position to bear more torture and cruelty pertaining to demand of dowry committed suicide by setting herself on fire. The sister, brother andhusband of the deceased along with other witnesses had been examined as PWs 1, 2 and 3, who have consistently deposed about the demand and acceptance of dowry and also about the deceased being subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the appellant in their house.20. We have gone though the evidence both oral and documentary brought on record. We have also analysed and scrutinized the evidence and the material available on record. In our considered opinion, the High Court has correctly recorded the finding based on evidence and found the appellant guilty of commission of offence. The judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is wholly perverse and based on conjecture and surmises.