ASHOK KUMARversusSTATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2007 INSC 692
- Decided
- 12 June 2007
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The conviction cannot be maintained because the marriage exceeded the seven‑year period required for the presumption under Section 113B, and the prosecution failed to prove the death resulted from dowry‑related cruelty.
Summary
The appellant, Ashok Kumar, was convicted under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC for the death of his wife. He appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Evidence Act does not apply because the marriage had lasted more than ten years, exceeding the seven‑year period prescribed by the statute. The Court observed that the co‑accused had been acquitted due to insufficient evidence and that the prosecution had not discharged the burden of proving the death was caused by dowry‑related cruelty. Since the statutory presumption is inapplicable and the prosecution failed to establish the requisite facts, the conviction could not be sustained. Consequently, the High Court's order was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the bail bonds were discharged.
Issues considered
- Whether the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act applies when the death occurs more than seven years after marriage
- Whether the prosecution proved the death was caused by dowry‑related cruelty to sustain convictions under Sections 304B and 498A IPC
- Whether the burden of proof shifts to the accused to explain the circumstances of death
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 113B
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 304B, s. 498A
Subjects
Judgment
..J.
!
A ASHOKKUMAR ,:(
v.
STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ORS.
JUNE 12, 2007
B [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.]
Evidence Act, 1872:
"""
s. I I 3B-Presumption under, is relatable to death occurring within 7
c years of marriage--On facts, marriage was solemnized more than I 0 years
before the death of wife-Hence, High Court's order convicting accused not
sustainable-Pena/ Code, 1860-ss.304B and 498A.
The present appeal is filed by accused-husband against the High Court's
order upholding conviction under ss. 498-A and 304-B IPC.
D
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained. The co-
accused persons were acquitted of all the charges as evidence was not
sufficient to substantiate the accusation. Additionally burden has been put
E on the accused-appellant to show as to under what circumstances the death
was caused. The presumption in such matters is relateable to a death
occurring within seven years of marriage. Admittedly, the marriage in the
present case was solemnized more than I 0 years before the date of occurrence.
That being the position, the order of the High Court is not sustainable and
F the same is set aside. The appellant is entitled to acquittal. 1999-A, B, CJ
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 552 of
2002.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15. I 0.200 I of the High Court of
G Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 414of1997.
Anu Mohla for the Appellant.
Ashok Bhan, S. Wasim A. Qadri and D.S. Mahra for the Respondent. -<-
H 998
999
-
ASHOKKUMAR v. STATEOFN.C.T.OFDELHI[PASAYAT.J.)
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Having heard the learned counsel for the
respondent-State, we find that the conviction of the appellant cannot be
maintained. It is to be noted that the co-accussed persons were acquitted of
all the charges as evidence was not sufficient to substantiate the accusation.
Additionally burden has been put on the accused-appellant to show as to B
under what circumstances the death was caused. The presumption in such
matters is relateable to a death occuring within seven years of marriage.
Admittedly, the marriage in the present case was solemnised more than IO
years before the date of occurrence. That being the position, the order of the
High Court is not sustainable and the same is set aside. The appellant is C
entitled to acquittal. The bail bonds of the accused executed for the purpose
of bail in terms of the order dated 15.07.2002 shall stand discharged.
The appeal is allowed.
,, D.G. Appeal allowed. D
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.