SHIFTING OF BURDEN OF PROOF IN CASES OF DOWRY DEATH

ABSTRACT

At the intersection of gender, injustice, culture, society, and women’s laws in India stands the offence of dowry death. Dowry death, as defined in Section 304B of The Indian Penal Code and recently under Section 80 of The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, refers to the death of a woman caused within 7 years of marriage, under suspicious circumstances, and in relation to harassment or demands related to dowry. The offence of dowry symbolizes broader societal attitudes towards women, their rights, and gender inequality in general. Despite various legislative and judicial efforts to address the offence and challenge deep-rooted cultural practices and patriarchal norms, the issue persists. Moreover, the burden of proof, when placed on the prosecution, further hampers the rendering of justice. This article examines the current status of legal provisions regarding dowry death, the historical background, legal provisions, including case laws and recent developments.

Keywords

Gender, Inequality, Presumption, Prosecution, Evidence, Dowry Death, Unnatural Circumstances.

INTRODUCTION

Dowry still persisting as a consideration of marriage is a matter of standing shame and is totally against the gender justice and upliftment of women in a country like India. If murder is a dreadful offence then dowry death is a hundred times worse since a bride walks into a new world of in-laws’ , leaving behind her whole world with the trust and hope of having a new loving, healthy family.

The term “dowry death” is said to be a woman’s unnatural death caused by harassment and abuse by her spouse or/and in-laws to secure dowry or related monetary benefits. Either murder or suicide could have been the cause of death. The custom of giving a dowry to the groom and his family has led to an upsurge in dowry-related fatalities in India. The husband or his family will continue to mistreat the woman in order to obtain more money or items from her family, even after the dowry has been paid.

The concept of the burden of proof is critical to the administration of justice in Indian law. It determines who is accountable for demonstrating or disproving a fact that is in dispute. This idea, defined by the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, is critical in both criminal and civil proceedings. The party that asserts the existence of a fact holds the burden of proof, which determines how the issue is resolved.

The Indian government enacted the Dowry Prohibition Act in 1961 in order to minimize the number of deaths linked to dowries. The number of dowry deaths stayed the same even though there were strict regulations against it. For the dowry’s sake, the women are still being harassed and tortured in their homes. In any dowry killing case, it is essential to prove the defendant’s guilt in front of the court so that they can be punished appropriately. Generally speaking, the presumption of innocence applies unless guilt is shown beyond a reasonable doubt, according to the burden of proof criterion. However, under dubious circumstances, the presumption of guilt may be changed by the law. A shift in the burden of proof is required to address the escalating issue of dowry deaths.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Recognizing the alarming increase in such cases, legislative measures were introduced.

The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961[1] criminalized the giving and taking of dowry. However, it soon became evident that merely prohibiting dowry was insufficient to curb related offences like harassment and deaths.

This led to the introduction of Section 304B in the Indian Penal Code in 1986[2], which specifically addressed dowry deaths. A woman’s death is classified as a dowry death if-

It occurs within 7 years of marriage.
It is caused by burns, bodily injury, or occurs under unnatural circumstances.
It is proven that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives in connection with dowry demands.

Punishment prescribed is Imprisonment for a minimum of 7 years, which may extend to life imprisonment and fine.

Recently, the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 retained and slightly updated these provisions under Section 80[3] to modernize and reinforce legal protections increasing the minimum punishment from 8 to 10 years.

Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act (1872)[4] provides for a presumption of dowry death. If a woman dies within 7 years of marriage under unnatural circumstances and if evidence of cruelty or harassment for dowry exists shortly before her death, this shifts the burden of proof to the accused, helping address evidentiary challenges in such cases.

Section 113 clause B, Indian Evidence Act,1872 and Section 304 clause B, Indian Penal Code has been added by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment), 1986 which came into effect on 19th November 1986.

Same presumption is also stated in Section 8A[5] of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. According to Section 8A, in dowry proceedings, the burden of proof shifts on the accused. This means that if the prosecution proves that there was dowry or a demand for dowry, the accused must demonstrate their innocence. This change in the burden of proof will help victims of dowry harassment, who usually struggle to gather evidence.

GENERAL RULE REGARDING BURDEN OF PROOF

The “burden of proof” is the obligation placed on the party asserting the fact to establish its legitimacy in order for the court to rule in their favor. For instance, in a murder trial, the prosecution has to show each claim made by the prosecution that there are elements of murder. As to Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act[6], “whoever desires any court to give judgement as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist.” Some suggest whomever is needed to prove the existence of any fact bears the burden of evidence.

So, according to the general rule, the burden of proof lies on prosecution. Both CrPC and Indian Evidence Act have provisions supporting the same and certain case laws also reinstate the same.

In “State of U.P. v. Anil Singh[7],” the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution cannot use insufficient and absurd evidence to establish the accused’s guilt and had to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
In the “State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh[8]” decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the prosecution must establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; if they fails to accomplish this, the defendant must be found not guilty.

SHIFTING BURDER OF PROOF IN CASES OF DOWRY DEATH

Initial burden of proof lies on the prosecution as per the general rule. The prosecution has to prove the essentials to dowry death in the court. According to Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, the court would infer the accused is guilty if the prosecution can show that the lady died within seven years of marriage and was harassed and mistreated for dowry by her husband or his family. The prosecution must establish these facts beyond a reasonable doubt. After the prosecution has successfully presented evidence of guilt, the accused bears the burden of proving his innocence.

CASE LAWS

SHANTI VS STATE OF HARYANA[9] (1991)

It was said that the bride was repeatedly demanded for dowry in this particular case. The bride’s father and brother were prohibited from visiting the bride’s wedded home since they had refused to pay the dowry. The victim died within seven years of her marriage, and before her father and brother were informed, her body was immediately burnt, excluding the chance that she died naturally. The prosecution clearly demonstrated that the victim was being mistreated for dowry money by her deceased brother-in-law’s widow and mother-in-law. The Supreme Court decided that in this case, the presumption under Section 113 B will be extended and both the accused were convicted under 304B IPC and subjected to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment.

HEM CHAND VS STATE OF HARYANA (1994)[10]

The parties in this case were married. The bride returned to her parents’ home after two months at her husband’s house. The husband had demanded a television and a refrigerator. After giving her Rs. 6000, the bride’s father sent her back to her marital house in order to meet this requirement. Then her husband asked for Rs. 25,000 in order to purchase a piece of land. After that, the husband left his wife at her mother’s house and threatened to reject her unless the full sum was paid. The husband continued to demand Rs. 25,000 even after she returned a year later.

After returning from her home with Rs. 15,000, the wife promised that her parents would pay the remaining amount soon. After this incident, she was strangled to death at her husband’s home. Although the prosecution had proven that the victim’s death was caused by the dowry, the court determined that there was insufficient evidence to establish a direct connection between the victim’s death and the husband. Despite not being charged with murder under Section 302 of the IPC, the accused was declared guilty under Section 304 B of the IPC after the Supreme Court supported the assumption of dowry death under Section 113 B. Since it was determined that the victim’s death was not natural, the presumption laws were invoked in this case.

PAWAN KUMAR VS STATE OF HARYANA(1998)[11]

The woman was tormented and humiliated by her husband and in-laws when she was unable to bring a refrigerator and a scooter. Additionally, the deceased shared it with her father and sister, who both provided testimony about it in court. The day before she killed herself, the woman quarreled with her husband in front of her sister and brother-in-law. Despite her reluctance, her sister convinced her to go with her husband. In her last words to her sister, the victim said, “It would be difficult now to see her face in the future.” The next day, the victim burned herself and was declared dead. According to her family, the victim’s suicide was caused by the dowry, even though there was no concrete proof that the disagreement between her and her husband was because of it. Because he was unable to deny it, the assumption placed the burden of proof on the accused to demonstrate that the conversation was not about dowry. Based on the criteria of Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act, the court determined that the husband appeared to have committed dowry death under the necessary assumption and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment in addition to a fine.

BAIJNATH & ORS. VS STATE OF M. P.(2016)[12]

In this case, the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the dowry was the reason for the victim’s death. The Supreme Court holds that a death, no matter how tragic, does not prove that it was a dowry death and, as a result, does not create presumptions under Section 113B, IEA, 1872. Witnesses claimed that the bride asked for a motorcycle but was turned down. It was proven that the newlyweds lived away from the in-laws, respected the bride, and did not treat her badly. Since the accused was not found guilty by the court, the appeal was allowed.

SATBIR SINGH VS STATE OF HARYANA(2021)[13]

Because of her in-laws’ constant demands for a dowry, the deceased in this case committed suicide within a year of marriage. Her father filed an accusation against her husband and her in-laws for dowry death. There was a clear and immediate link between her death and the abuse which her in-laws inflicted for the dowry, as the court observed in one case when she told her brother about the pressure to pay a dowry just one week before she died. It further said that the phrase “Shortly Before Death” should not be interpreted literally, meaning “just before death.” Abuse or harassment relating to dowries and death must be directly and intimately connected. Based on this condition and the deceased’s premature death within a year of her marriage, the Court determined that the accused had been granted the presumption under section 113B and that it was his responsibility to prove his innocence. In this case, the Court upheld the decisions made by the trial court and the High Court.

KANS RAJ V. STATE OF PUNJAB [14](2000)
The Court pointed out that not all family members may be held responsible for vague and general charges of cruelty in dowry death cases. It emphasized the need for specific evidence to distinguish between the direct and indirect participation of relatives. The decision underlined the need of avoiding misusing the judicial system by including innocent family members.

VIMLA BAI V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA(1996)[15]

The Supreme Court upheld Section 8A’s validity, arguing that it was necessary to remedy the imbalance of weaponry in dowry disputes, in which women are typically disadvantaged and unable to fight the powers of their husbands or in-laws.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

Under the new criminal code i.e. Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Dowry Death is defined under Section 80 and the minimum punishment is increased from 7 years to 10 years further providing protection for dowry victims.
No Automatic Presumption of Dowry Death

In a 2023 ruling, the Supreme Court stated that a conviction under Section 304B IPC is not usually the consequence of an unexpected death in the marital house within seven years of marriage. The Court emphasized that any harassment or cruelty must be linked to requests for dowries and must be demonstrated to have occurred “soon before” the death. In one case, it was determined that general charges of dowry-related cruelty lacking specific proof were insufficient for conviction under this provision.

Reduced Sentences in Absence of Clear Evidence

In a recent case, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of a husband under Section 304 Clause B of Indian Penal Code to seven years from ten years, noting absence of adequate evidence of dowry demands, though the offence of cruelty under Section 498 clause A of Indian Penal Code was upheld. This decision underscores the importance of drawing clear and actionable links between harassment and dowry demands.

CONCLUSION

The law’s objective is to significantly reduce the risk of dowry murders and similar instances. It should be mentioned that since most crimes are committed in residential houses in secret and in private, it is challenging to get independent and direct proof. Because of this, the legislature tried to strengthen the prosecution’s case by amending the Evidence Act to include Section 113-B, which establishes a presumption if certain foundation facts are presented and the tragic event happened within seven years after the marriage. The legislation assumes the pair would have achieved stability in their life after the seven-year period, which is considered the turbulent one. When the question at hand is whether someone is to blame for a woman’s death from dowry and the evidence indicates that she was subjected to cruelty and/or harassment brought on by or in reaction to any demands for dowries. According to Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the court would presume that the dowry death was brought on by that person.Conclusively, this presumption helps the victims and the Indian justice system in reaching to the point of justice.

REFERENCES

[1] The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, ACT NO. 28 OF 1961

[2] Law Comm’n of India, Report No. 202, Proposal to Amend Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (2007)

[3] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 § 80, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 2023

[4] Indian Evidence Act,1872, § 113-A(Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman)No.1, Acts of Parliament,1872 [Inserted by Act 46 of 1983, Section 7]

[5]The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 § 8A(Burden of proof in certain cases), No.28, Acts of Parliament, 1961

[6] The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 § 101(Burden of proof), No.1, Acts of Parliament

[7] State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, Air 1988 Sc 1998

[8] State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, 1973 AIR 2407

[9] Shanti vs State of Haryana, 1991 AIR 1226

[10] Hem Chand vs State Of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 727

[11] Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1998) 3 SCC 309

[12] Baijnath & Ors. Vs State of M.P., 2016 KHC 6768

[13] Satbir Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2021, 6 SCC 1

[14] Kans Raj vs State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324

[15] Vimla Bai v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 4 SCC 274

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.