Reverse Burden In Dowry Death Prosecutions
Background
Dowry death is a grave social evil in India, criminalized under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 creates a presumption of culpability against the accused in dowry death cases.
This presumption imposes a reverse burden of proof on the accused, meaning once the prosecution proves the death meets the criteria under 304B IPC, the accused must prove their innocence.
This is an exception to the general criminal law principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Legal Provision: Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act
When the question is whether the commission of dowry death has been caused by any person, and it is shown that the death was caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of marriage and soon before death the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband or his relatives in connection with demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such death was caused by such husband or such relative.
This shifts the burden on the accused to prove that they are not guilty.
Important Cases on Reverse Burden in Dowry Death Prosecutions
1. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 1 SCC 618
Facts:
The accused husband was charged under Section 304B IPC for dowry death. The question was whether the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act could be invoked.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that once the prosecution proves the basic facts (death within 7 years of marriage, cruelty or harassment over dowry), the burden shifts to the accused to prove his innocence.
Significance:
Confirmed the reverse burden principle.
Stressed that the burden is on accused to show death was not caused by dowry-related cruelty.
2. Rajesh and Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2017) 8 SCC 273
Facts:
Accused challenged the invocation of Section 113B presumption.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the presumption is mandatory once prosecution proves initial facts; it cannot be ignored unless accused proves otherwise.
Significance:
The Court clarified that reverse burden is a statutory mandate, to effectively deal with dowry deaths.
It is a rebuttable presumption, but failure to rebut leads to conviction.
3. Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP, (2014) 2 SCC 1
Facts:
While primarily about filing FIR, the Court also touched on burden of proof in dowry death cases.
Judgment:
Court reaffirmed the importance of timely investigation and prosecution in dowry deaths and the applicability of Section 113B.
Significance:
Highlights that the legal framework including reverse burden aims at victim protection.
Delay or lapses in investigation cannot negate the statutory presumption.
4. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (2011) 4 SCC 719
Facts:
Accused argued that the presumption violated the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that Section 113B is a special provision justified by social realities and grave nature of dowry deaths and does not violate Article 21 or principles of criminal justice.
Significance:
Validated the constitutionality of reverse burden in dowry death.
Balances individual rights with social justice demands.
5. Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 185
Facts:
Although this case is about presumptions under Evidence Act generally, it has been referred to while interpreting Section 113B.
Judgment:
Court explained the nature of rebuttable presumptions, and how they shift burden to accused but do not eliminate prosecution's duty to establish initial facts.
Significance:
Set the stage for understanding how reverse burden applies without violating fundamental principles.
Important to remember prosecution must first prove threshold facts.
6. Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2002) 10 SCC 691
Facts:
Accused challenged conviction on grounds of insufficient proof and failure of prosecution to negate alternative explanations.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that once prosecution proves essentials, accused's explanations must be credible and proved on preponderance of probabilities.
Significance:
Demonstrates that reverse burden is not absolute, accused must produce credible evidence.
Mere denial is insufficient to rebut presumption.
7. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam, (2003) 5 SCC 36
Facts:
Dowry death case where accused denied cruelty and dowry demand.
Judgment:
Supreme Court reiterated that where prosecution proves cruelty linked to dowry and death, presumption under 113B arises, accused must prove absence of such cruelty or involvement.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that reverse burden protects victims of dowry death.
Ensures courts give due weight to prosecution's case once threshold facts established.
Summary of Legal Principles on Reverse Burden in Dowry Death
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Threshold Proof by Prosecution | Prosecution must prove death occurred within 7 years of marriage, caused by burns or abnormal circumstances, and that victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment over dowry. |
| Presumption Under Section 113B | Once threshold facts proven, court presumes accused caused death linked to dowry harassment. |
| Reverse Burden on Accused | Accused must prove innocence or absence of dowry cruelty by preponderance of probabilities. |
| Rebuttable Presumption | The presumption is not absolute; credible evidence by accused can rebut. |
| Constitutionality | Reverse burden in dowry death cases is constitutionally valid due to grave social nature of the offence. |
| Prosecution’s Continuing Role | Prosecution must prove initial facts beyond reasonable doubt; reverse burden kicks in only after this. |
Conclusion
The reverse burden of proof under Section 113B Indian Evidence Act is a crucial legal tool in combating dowry deaths by shifting the burden to accused to disprove involvement once the prosecution establishes initial facts. It strikes a balance between protecting accused’s rights and delivering justice for victims in a deeply sensitive and prevalent crime.
RELATED Blog
0 comments