IMPORTANT POINT
In dowry death cases, the burden of proof shifts to the accused if prima facie evidence of cruelty or harassment is established within seven years of marriage.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner is lugged and locked in F.I.R No. 174/2024 of Police Station Shrinathji Mandir District Nathdwara, for the offence under Section(s) 498-A, 304-B and 323 of the I.P.C. He has filed this application for restoration of liberty under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 483 of new Code).

2. Shri Shambhoo Singh Rathore, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently urged that marriage between the petitioner and the deceased Bhavna took place in a mass marriage ceremony, where neither dowry was exchanged nor any issue of dowry demand arose. This case is simply one of suicide by the deceased, which her parents have attempted to portray as a dowry-death. The deceased did not wish to live at her in-laws' house, even though her parents were forcing her to do so. There is no evidence on record of harassment or dowry demands immediately before the deceased’s death.

3. It is further argued that deceased was known to be quarrelsome. During the postmortem, no external injuries were found on her body, which rules out any assault or beating by the petitioner. The parents of the deceased have not made any specific allegations of dowry demands by the petitioner or his relatives. Statements of the petitioner's neighbors, recorded during the investigation, reveal that the deceased was living happily at her in-laws' house. Lastly, it is argued that entire allegations so leveled by the police against the petitioner is totally false and baseless. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances the petitioner may be released on bail.

4. From the other side, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency, rather needs to be dealt with severely. He thus, prayed that it is expedient that accused be kept in the custody.

5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

6. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, I am clearly of the view that although the chargesheet has been presented in this case, yet the statements of the blood relations of the deceased's maternal relatives are yet to be recorded during trial. Ingredients of offence punishable under section 304B of the IPC have been primarily fulfilled in statements of maternal relatives of deceased recorded under section 161 of CrPC.

7. Petitioner is the husband of the deceased. In this case, the deceased was married into a joint family of her in-laws. In a joint family setup, the husband's responsibilities towards his wife are crucial to ensuring a harmonious environment where she feels respected, valued and comfortable. This includes standing up for her in situations where she might face unfair treatment. Being empathetic and understanding can help reduce any stress she might experience in a joint family setting. Petitioner was required to try to prevent feelings of neglect or resentment. But in the present case, the petitioner, being the husband, has failed to fulfill his “Vevahic Dharma” (marital duty) towards his wife.

8. Deceased Bhavna died, otherwise than under normal circumstances just within 3 years of her marriage. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act creates a presumption of guilt against the husband if the death of the woman occurred within seven years of marriage and there is prima-facie evidence of cruelty or harassment related to dowry demands soon before her death. This shifts the burden onto the accused to prove innocence.

9. Dowry-related offence is seen as a serious societal issue and this court is mindful of the fact that granting bail in a dowry death case, at an initial stage of a trial when prima facie evidence is available on record, could undermine the bringing-in of special la