Home  > Recent Judgements >From Flames To Justice: Supreme Court Affirms Dowry Death Conviction

 August 27, 2024

FROM FLAMES TO JUSTICE: SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS DOWRY DEATH CONVICTION

In Damodar & Anr. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court upheld the husband’s conviction in a dowry death case. The two-judge Bench emphasized Sections 113B and 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the “Act”0 highlighting legal presumptions and the burden of proof in dowry-related deaths and reinforcing the judiciary’s role in ensuring justice for victims.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

This case pertains to the conviction of the husband in a dowry death incident that occurred 30 years ago. The wife succumbed to 100% burn injuries within seven years of marriage, allegedly due to harassment and cruelty related to dowry demands. The central legal issue involves the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Act, placing the burden of proof on the accused to rebut this presumption.

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

  1. Whether the prosecution successfully established the presumption of dowry death by proving that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment related to dowry demands shortly before her death.
  2. Whether the husband, who had special knowledge of the incident fulfilled his burden to explain the circumstances of the wife’s death, given that he was present in the same room but escaped unscathed.

KEY LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 113B of the Act establishes the presumption of dowry death. If a woman dies under suspicious circumstances within seven years of marriage, and it is demonstrated that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment related to dowry demands, the court presumes the death to be a dowry death.

Section 106 of the Act places the burden of proof on the person when any fact is specially within the knowledge of that person. In this case, the husband who was present in the same room as the deceased and survived unscathed, bears the burden to explain the circumstances surrounding the death.

CONTENTIONS BY THE PARTIES

  1. Prosecution’s Arguments

     The prosecution contended that the deceased woman was subjected to harassment and cruelty in connection with dowry demands. Her death, which occurred due to burn injuries within seven years of marriage was unnatural. Consequently, the prosecution argued that the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Act should be applied.

  2. Appellant’s Arguments

    The Appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the circumstances under which the woman sustained burn injuries, particularly given that the husband was present in the same room and escaped unscathed. The Accused did not successfully rebut the presumption of dowry death raised under Section 113B of the Act and failed to present evidence under Section 106 of the Act that could suggest an alternative explanation for the incident.

COURT’S INTERPRETATION

The Supreme Court interpreted Section 113B of the Act as establishing a rebuttable presumption of dowry death. This presumption arises when the prosecution demonstrates that a woman died under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage, following harassment or cruelty related to dowry demands.

The Court meticulously evaluated the evidence which indicated that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of any satisfactory explanation or evidence from the husband regarding the incident, despite it being within his special knowledge. This failure to provide an alternative explanation under Section 106 of the Act further reinforced the presumption of dowry death.

APPLICATION OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The Court applied Section 113B of the Act to establish a presumption of dowry death based on the prosecution’s evidence. This evidence demonstrated that the deceased woman died under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage, following harassment related to dowry demands.

Additionally, the Court invoked Section 106 of the Act to emphasize the husband’s obligation to explain the circumstances under which he escaped unscathed while his wife succumbed to burn injuries in the same room. The husband’s failure to provide a satisfactory explanation further reinforced the presumption of dowry death.

JUDGMENT AND REASONING

The Supreme Court upheld the husband’s conviction for dowry death. The Court reasoned that the prosecution had successfully discharged its burden of proof thereby shifting the onus to the husband to rebut the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Act. Additionally, under Section 106 of the Act, it was the husband’s responsibility to explain the circumstances leading to the wife’s death, given that it was within his special knowledge. The husband’s failure to provide a satisfactory explanation resulted in the affirmation of his conviction.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE JUDGMENT

This judgment reinforces the application of Sections 113B and 106 of the Act, particularly in dowry death cases. It emphasizes the burden of proof on the accused to rebut presumptions once the prosecution has established its initial case.

The decision underscores the necessity for the accused to provide credible explanations in cases where death occurs under suspicious circumstances within the matrimonial home, especially when dowry demands are involved. This reinforces the legal framework designed to protect women from dowry-related harassment and violence.

The judgment also highlights the societal and ethical imperatives to safeguard women from dowry-related abuse. It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to addressing and combating dowry harassment and violence, thereby promoting societal change and awareness.

For more information or queries, please email us at

[email protected]

Key Contact

Surendra Singh Chandrawat

Managing Partner

Email: [email protected]