The presumption under sections 113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act is rebuttable and must be drawn in light of all the circumstances of the case.

Headnote:
BAIL - SECTION 439, CR. PC - SECTION 113A, 113B, INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 304B, 302, 306, IPC - DOWRY DEATH - PRESUMPTION - REBUTTABLE - CIRCUMSTANCES - SUICIDAL TENDENCY - CRUELTY - HARASSMENT - TORTURE - BAIL GRANTED.
Fact of the Case:

The case involves the death of Smt. Jyoti, who was allegedly set on fire and died of 100% burns. The petitioners, including her mother-in-law, Jeth, Jethani, and husband, were charged with offenses under sections 498A, 304B, and 302 IPC. The husband, Vishnu Sharma, was initially granted anticipatory bail, but it was rejected by the court. The petitioners were arrested and applied for bail under section 439, Cr. PC.
Finding of the Court:

The court noted that the dying declaration of the deceased did not raise any grievances against her husband and that there was no evidence of dowry demand. The court also considered the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, which ruled out the possibility of an accident in the kitchen-cum-store room where the incident occurred. However, the court observed that it was difficult to determine whether it was a case of suicide or bride burning at that stage.
Issues: 1. Whether the presumption under section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act can be drawn in the absence of evidence of dowry demand? 2. Whether the circumstances of the case rebut the presumption under section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act? 3. Whether the accused-petitioners are entitled to bail under section 439, Cr. PC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the presumption under section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be drawn in the absence of evidence of dowry demand. 2. The court found that the circumstances of the case, including the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and the statements of witnesses, prima facie rebutted the presumption under section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. 3. The court held that the accused-petitioners were entitled to bail under section 439, Cr. PC, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the period of their incarceration.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the accused-petitioners on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties of Rs. 5,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial court.

JUDGMENT

1. - This is an application under Section 439, Cr. PC on behalf of the four petitioners. The case is for offences under section 498A, 304B and 302 IPC. The incident is dated 6-11-91 at about 11.00 O'clock in the day in which Smt. Jyoti @ Munni W/o Shri Vishnu Sharma is alleged to have been set to fire and died of 100% burns on that very day at about 11.00 O'clock in the night. The petitioner No. 1, before me is the mother-in-law, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are Jeth and Jethani and petitioner No. 4, Vishnu Sharma is the husband of deceased Smt. Jyoti. The dying-declaration of deceased Smt. 'Jyoti was recorded by the , .Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, No. 1 Kota at 6.28 P.M., the dying-declaration has been recorded in question answer form and the same is reproduced as under:

T;ksfr iRuh fo".kq 'kekZ] czkgkz.k] 30 o"kZA fuoklh& MMokMk dksVkA iz'u & vkids 'kjhj ij ?kko dSls gks x;s\ mRrj & tyk fn;kA iz'u & fdlus tyk fn;k\ mRrj & esjh lkl] tsB] tsBkuh us rsy fNM+d dj tyk fn;kA iz'u & ;g ?kVuk dc o dgka gqbZ\ mRrj & ;g vkt lqcg djhc 11 cts dh ckr gS] eSa vius llqjky esa FkhA iz'u & vkidks D;ksa tyk fn;k\ mRrj & NksVh&NksVh ckr ij >xM+k gks tkrk FkkA iz'u & vkidh lkl] tsB] tsBkuh dk D;k uke gS\ mRrj & lkl dk 'kdqUryk] tsB dk lrh'k] tsBkuh ohuk gSA iz'u & vkidks dSls tyk;k\ mRrj & eSa lks jgh FkhA eq>s dqN ugha irkA lkl] tsB] tsBkuh dejs esa FksA iz'u & vkids ifr ml le; dgkWa Fks\ mRrj & ?kj esa ugha FksA iz'u & vkx fdlus cq>kbZ\ mRrj & ifr us vkx cq>kbZA iz'u & vkt lkl] tsB] tsBkuh ls >xM+k D;ksa gqvk Fkk\ mRrj & NksVh&NksVh ckr ij gqvk FkkA iz'u & vkidh lkl] tsB] vkfn vkils D;k pkgrs Fks\ mRrj & eq>s ugha j[kuk pkgrs FksA iz'u & vkils D;k ;s yksx :i;k ekaxrs Fks\ mRrj & ughaA NksVh&NksVh ckr ij >xM+k djrs FksA iz'u & vkidks vkSj D;k dguk gS\ mRrj & vkSj dqN ugha dguk pkgrhA

vkj Jh ,.M ,0lh0

,l0Mh0@& 6-28 ih0,e0

U;kf;d eftLV~sV izFke oxZ

de dksVk (jkt0) vkj Vh vkbZ T;ksfr

2. In this case besides the spot inspection report of the scene of the occurrence prepared by the police there is also a report prepared by the team of Forensic Science Laboratory.

3. I have heard the submission made with reference to the report of the team of the Forensic Science Laboratory and have also gone through certain photographs which were taken by the Police, though the photo- graphs taken by the team of the Forensic Science Laboratory have not been produced before me. Prima facie contents of the dying-declaration are not compatible with the report as prepared by the team of Forensic Science Laboratory about the scene of the occurrence. So far as the accused petitioner No. 4, that is the husband is concerned deceased Smt. Joyti has not raised any grievance against him in the dying-declaration rather she has stated that her husband came to her rescue and extinguished the fire. In the dying-declaration a specific question was put to her as to what did the mother-in-law, Jeth and Jethani wanted from her and she answered that they did not want to keep her and in answer to the question as to whether they were demanding money-she gave the answer in negative and said there used to be quarrels on trifles.

4. Mr. Mehrish, further argued that the husband and wife at the time of incident were living in a separate apartment in the same house in which the other petitioners were living but the apartment in which husband and wife were living had a separate opening on the road side, and he has submitted that in the instant case, there is no suicidal note left by deceased Smt. Joyti. Mr. S.K. Gupta, appearing for the complainant has invited my attention towards Section 113 A and Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act as also to the provisions of Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 302 and 306 of IPC.

5. So far as the question of dowry death is concerned, the argument of Mr. Mehrish is that in the dying-declaration of deceased Smt. Joyti she has answered that no money was demanded from her and there used to be quarrels on trifl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1992 Supreme(Raj) 516

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHM.R.Calla, J.Shakuntala Devi & Ors. - AppellantsVersusState of Rajasthan - RespondentS.B. Cri. Misc. Bail Appli. No. 47 of 1992.Decided On : 5-02-1992

The presumption under sections 113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act is rebuttable and must be drawn in light of all the circumstances of the case.

Login now and unlock premium legal research

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.R.Calla, J.
Shakuntala Devi & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cri. Misc. Bail Appli. No. 47 of 1992.
Decided On : 5-02-1992