Ignoring Statutory Presumption U/S 113B Evidence Act in Dowry Death Cases Renders Bail Order Perverse: Supreme Court - 2025-11-28

Supreme Court Cancels Husband's Bail in Dowry Death Case, Cites 'Perverse' High Court Order

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has cancelled the bail granted to a man accused of murdering his wife for dowry just four months after their wedding, ruling that the Allahabad High Court's order was "perverse" and "unsustainable." A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan held that the High Court gravely erred by ignoring the mandatory statutory presumption against the accused in dowry death cases.

The Court underscored that dowry death is not merely a crime against an individual but an "affront to the collective conscience of society," necessitating a firm judicial response.

Case Background

The case involves the tragic death of Aastha @ Saarika on June 5, 2023, within four months of her marriage to Raghvendra Singh @ Prince. The deceased's father, Yogendra Pal Singh, filed an appeal in the Supreme Court after the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the husband.

The prosecution's case is that soon after the marriage on February 22, 2023, Aastha was subjected to relentless cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws for additional dowry, specifically a Fortuner car. On the night of her death, Aastha made a distressed phone call to her sister, claiming her husband and his relatives had forcibly administered a "foul-smelling substance" to her. A post-mortem examination revealed an abrasion on her forearm, and a forensic report later confirmed the cause of death as poisoning from aluminium phosphide.

Summary of Arguments

Appellant's Counsel (Deceased's Father):

- Argued that the High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offence, where a young woman died unnaturally within months of marriage.

- Pointed to strong prima facie evidence, including the dying declaration made to her family, witness testimonies corroborating dowry demands, and the forensic report confirming poison.

- Emphasized that the High Court completely overlooked the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, which is triggered in dowry death cases under Section 304B of the IPC.

- Raised concerns about the accused's influential family potentially tampering with evidence, noting that other family members named in the FIR were dropped from the chargesheet.

Respondent's Counsel (Accused Husband):

- Contended that the FIR was lodged after a 10-day delay, casting doubt on its authenticity.

- Claimed the allegations of dowry harassment were uncorroborated and introduced later by "interested witnesses."

- Argued that the exoneration of other family members weakened the prosecution's case.

- Stated that the accused had already been incarcerated for over 15 months and was willing to cooperate with the trial.

Supreme Court's Rationale: Annulment of a Flawed Order

The Supreme Court found that the High Court's decision to grant bail was legally untenable and amounted to an "annulment" of a flawed order, rather than a cancellation due to post-bail misconduct.

The Ignored Statutory Presumption

The bench held that the High Court's primary error was its failure to apply the mandatory legal presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. This section presumes that a husband or his relatives caused a "dowry death" if it is shown that the woman was subjected to dowry-related cruelty "soon before her death," which occurred within seven years of marriage.

The Court observed:

> "In the present case, the marriage took place on 22.02.2023, and the death occurred on 05.06.2023 i.e. within four months of marriage... Consequently, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act arises inexorably against Respondent No. 1."

The judgment criticized the High Court's mechanical approach:

> "The High Court, however, failed to take this statutory presumption into account, and instead relied solely on general bail principles. This approach contradicts the law... which requires courts to evaluate the gravity of the offence, the nature of accusations and the prima facie evidence while considering bail."

Dowry Death: A Crime Against Society

The Court made powerful observations on the social evil of dowry, describing it as a practice that "corrodes the sanctity of marriage" and reduces the "pious bond" to a "mere commercial transaction."

In a stern message, the bench stated:

> "The phenomenon of dowry deaths represents one of the most abhorrent manifestations of this social malaise... In this backdrop, this Court is constrained to observe that judicial passivity or misplaced leniency in the face of such atrocities would only embolden perpetrators and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice."

Final Decision and Implications

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Allahabad High Court's order, and cancelled the bail granted to Raghvendra Singh. He has been directed to surrender to custody forthwith.

This judgment serves as a crucial reminder to lower courts that in cases of heinous social crimes like dowry death, bail cannot be granted mechanically. The specific statutory provisions and the mandatory presumptions enacted by the legislature to combat such evils must be given due weight and cannot be overlooked in favour of general principles of bail.