Trial courts committing repeated mistakes in dowry cases, judicial academies must step in: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said trial courts are committing repeated mistakes in convicting the accused in dowry harassment case without sufficient basis, necessitating judicial academies to step in.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observation in its judgment on January 31, 2025, while setting free a man in a case concerning death of his wife. The woman had ended the life by hanging herself in 1998 within two years of marriage.

Her family members claimed she was harassed by the accused husband and her family members for dowry.

The trial court held him guilty of the offences of Section 304 B (dowry death), and Section 498 A (dowry harassment) and awarded him seven and one year of jail respectively under the two provisions. It had acquitted his parents. Upon appeal, the High Court confirmed the sessions court's judgment.

Going through the evidence including statements of victim's family members, the bench said both the offences alleged against the appellant were not proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt, since there were significant omissions and contradictions.

"Section 304-B of the IPC was brought on the statute book in 1986. This court has repeatedly laid down and explained the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B. But, the trial courts are committing the same mistakes repeatedly. It is for the State Judicial Academies to step in. Perhaps this is a case of moral conviction," the bench said.

The court pointed out the prosecution did not prove the material ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304-B. It also said not a single incident of cruelty covered by Section 498-A was proved by the prosecution.

It said the death can be called a dowry death, and the husband and or his relative relative would be deemed to have caused the dowry death, only if ingredients of Section 304 B were proved viz death in other than normal circumstances within seven years of marriage and soon before the death, the victim must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband and or relative for dowry.

The court noted in this case, there is no dispute that the death of the appellant's wife occurred within seven years of the marriage, so the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act will apply when it is established that soon before her death, the woman has been subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for any demand for 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," the bench said.

Unless these facts are proved, the presumptions under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked, it said.

Referring to the testimony of the victim's mother, the bench said, "There is something fundamental which goes to the root of the matter. She has not deposed to any particular act of cruelty or harassment by the appellant. This is an essential ingredient of Section 304-B. It is not made out from her evidence."