Supreme Court Quashes Convictions in Dowry-Death Case for Lack of Evidence of 'Soon Before' Cruelty

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan heard an appeal against convictions under Sections 304‑B and 498‑A IPC arising from the death of the appellant’s wife, which was earlier upheld by the High Court. The appeal challenged the Sessions Court conviction and seven‑year sentence for dowry death and one year for cruelty, while the appellant’s parents had been acquitted at trial.

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the judgments of conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredient that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment “soon before her death” in connection with a dowry demand. The Court emphasised the limited scope of the statutory presumption under Section 113‑B of the Evidence Act and observed that the presumption could apply only if the prosecution established that the accused had subjected the woman to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, a demand for dowry shortly before death. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The presumption under Section 113‑B will apply when it is established that soon before her death, the woman has been subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry. Therefore, even for attracting Section 113‑B, the prosecution must establish that the deceased was subjected by the appellant to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death. Unless these facts are proved, the presumptions under Section 113‑B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked.” The Court further noted that “Not a single incident of cruelty covered by Section 498‑A was proved by the prosecution.”

Background

The appellant had married the deceased on June 25, 1996; she died by hanging on April 2, 1998. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant for dowry death (Section 304‑B) and cruelty (Section 498‑A), sentencing him to seven years and one year rigorous imprisonment respectively; the High Court affirmed those convictions. Key prosecution witnesses were the deceased’s mother (PW‑6), brother (PW‑7) and maternal uncle (PW‑8). PW‑6 and PW‑7 gave oral testimony alleging repeated taunts and demands for items and cash, including an asserted demand of Rs.60,000 for a jeep nine to ten days before the incident.

On scrutiny, the Supreme Court found material contradictions and omissions between the witnesses’ in‑court testimony and their earlier statements to police (recorded as exhibits). Several alleged demands and instances of ill‑treatment were either absent from the initial police statements or were first recorded much later (notably statements dated June 23, 1998), which the Court treated as belated and possibly afterthought. The Court analysed the statutory ingredients of Section 304‑B — death within seven years of marriage, occurrence otherwise than under normal circumstances, and that “soon before her death” the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband/relatives for or in connection with a dowry demand — and concluded that the prosecution had not established specific acts of cruelty or harassment occurring soon before death.

The defence relied on precedent, including Charan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, to argue that mere moral conviction without legally admissible evidence of the necessary ingredients could not sustain a conviction. The State relied on the evidence of PW‑6 and PW‑7 and invoked the presumption under Section 113‑B. The Court clarified that invocation of Section 113‑B depended on proof of the antecedent fact of cruelty/harassment and could not be applied where that antecedent was not proved.

Resultantly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellant. The Court recorded that the appellant had been enlarged on bail pending the appeal and stated that his bail bonds were cancelled.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1076 of 2014 (2025 INSC 133) Case Title: Karan Singh v. State of Haryana Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Names not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Names not indicated in the judgment]