IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Dowry death – If one of ingredients of Section 304B of I.P.C. is absent, presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act would not be available to prosecution and onus of proof would not shift to defence.
(2) Appeal against acquittal – Unless there are very substantive and compelling reasons to do so, there cannot be reversal of order of acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

(K. Vinod Chandran, J.)

Death, the causation of which is a demand for dowry is akin to murder, even if it is not homicidal, as is evident from Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860¹[“the I.P.C.”] read with Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872²[“the Evidence Act”]. However, the Courts are warranted to be more cautious and circumspect with respect to the allegations under Section 304B of the I.P.C since allegations coming forth often could be motivated by the despair of an abrupt death of a daughter or sibling, at the matrimonial home; especially when there is a history of a marital discord which otherwise would not escalate to this magnitude. In the present case, a young bride, hardly into six months of marriage, was found hanging on the fateful day, by her father and brother who reached the matrimonial home, wherein she resides with her husband.

2. A First Information Report³[“F.I.R.”] was lodged and the husband, the respondent-herein was arrested. Later, the husband’s relatives i.e., his parents, grandfather and brother were also implicated and joined as accused. The family stood trial in which the prosecution examined nine witnesses. The Trial Court acquitted everyone except the husband, finding that the prosecution could not prove their presence in the separate household in which the couple resided and there was no proof of a proximate allegation of harassment on account of demand of dowry which could be co-related with the death of the deceased. The accused/respondent was convicted primarily on the ground that the scratches on the body of the deceased cannot be explained by reason only of the hanging, since the body was at a distance from the walls of the room. The Court presumed that the scratches were the result of torture perpetrated by the husband. The said fact proved cruelty alleged on the unrequited demand for dowry and together, it brought in the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, and it was the reasoning which led to the accused being found guilty of the offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C. The respondent was sentenced under Section 304B of the I.P.C. for seven years Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.)

3. The High Court after examining the evidence of the witnesses, specifically that of the brother and father found that the financial and social status of the parties; made improbable a demand of Rs.4,00,000/- and a plot for construction of a house and hence, the demand for dowry having led to the death of the deceased was not proved by the prosecution.

4. We have heard Ms. Sakshi Rawat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State and Ms. E.R. Sumathy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. Trite is the principle that the Appellate Courts would be slow in reversing an order of acquittal, especially since the presumption of innocence that is always available to the accused; as a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence, stands reinforced and reaffirmed by the acquittal and unless there are very substantive and compelling reasons to do so, there cannot be a reversal of an order of acquittal. Unless it is found that the findings are perverse and the only conclusion possible from the compelling evidence is of guilt; Appellate Courts will be slow to reverse an order of acquittal. Recently, in Constable 907 Surender Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 INSC 114, one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) referring to various binding precedents of this Court succinctly laid down the principle in the following manner in paragraph 12:

“12. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from