Holding

The High Court was correct in acquitting the accused because the prosecution did not establish the essential element of dowry demand, rendering the presumption under Section 113‑B inapplicable.

Summary

The State of Rajasthan appealed against the Rajasthan High Court’s acquittal of Teg Bahadur and others, who were charged under Sections 498A, 304B and 201 IPC for the death of Suman within seven years of marriage. The prosecution alleged dowry demand and harassment leading to her death, but many witnesses turned hostile and the recovered articles could not be identified as belonging to the deceased. The trial court had relied on a presumption under Section 113‑B of the Evidence Act, but the High Court found the evidence unreliable and acquitted the accused. The Supreme Court held that the essential ingredient of a dowry demand made "soon before" the death was not proved, so the presumption could not be invoked. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the acquittal.

Issues considered

The prosecution failed to prove a dowry demand made soon before the death, a requisite element for conviction under Section 304B IPC.
Whether the presumption under Section 113‑B of the Evidence Act can be applied in the absence of proof of dowry demand and harassment.
Whether the recovered articles (ear‑ring, bangles, hair clip) can be linked to the deceased.
Whether hostile witness testimony can be relied upon to support the prosecution’s case.
Whether the death qualifies as "death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances" under Section 304B.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 161, s. 313
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 113-B
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 304B, s. 498A

Subjects

dowry deathSection 304B IPCSection 113-B Evidence Actpresumptionhostile witnessdowry demanddeath within seven yearsacquittalevidence reliability

Judgment

A STA TE OF RAJAS THAN
v.
TEG BAHADUR AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 29, 2004

B [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860-Sections 498A, 304-B and 201-Death within 7
years of marriage-Under unnatural circumstances-Allegation of demand
of dowry-Recovery of articles-Not proved to be belonging to deceased-
Witnesses not fully corroborating prosecution case-Evidence regarding
c demand of dowry contradictory-Discrepancy with regard to statement of
reports in Police Station-Conviction by trial Court drawing presumption u/
s I 13-B of Evidence Act-Acquittal by High Court-On appeal, held:
Acquittal justified as one of the main ingredients of the offence of dowry
demand was absent-On the basis of evidence it could not be treated to have
D been proved that accused actually demanded dowry soon before the death .
of deceased and she was harassed due to this-Evidence Act, 1972-1I3-B.

According to. the Prosecution the Respondents-accused, the husband
and in-laws of the deceased had killed her within 7 years of her marriage.
It was alleged that the accused had sent the deceased to her parental
E house demanding dowry. When she was sent back to her matrimonial
house, her death took place under mysterious circumstances. Cremation
ceremony was performed in a hasty manner in the absence of her parents.
PW-13, father of"the deceased went to the house of the accused after
getting information about his daughter's death from PW-18. The cause
F ot: her death was told to him by grandfather of accused-husband to be
Haiza. But neighbours told him that she was killed by throwing in the
well. Gold ear-ring, glass/lac bangle pieces and metal clips were recovered
from the well. Accused were prosecuted for offences u/s 498-A, 304-B
and 201 IPC. 8 witnesses turned hostile and did not support the
prosecution case. The recovered articles were not proved to be that of
G the deceased. Some witnesses including PW-18 stated that the parents of
the deceased were present at cremation. Evidence regarding demand of
dowry was also contradicted.

Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences charged holding
H that since the deceased had died under unnatural circumstances, that
840
STATE v. TEG BAHADUR 841

since her death took place within 7 years from the date of her marriage, A
and that cremation was done in undue haste without informing her
parents, presumption u/s 113-B Evidence Act could be drawn. On appeal,
High Court acquitted the accused on account of weak and unreliable
evidence. Hence the present appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
B

HELD: 1. In the instant case one of the main_ingredients of the offence
of demand of dowry being absent, the High Court is right in acquitting the
accused for the .offence under Section 304-B IPC. The finding of the trial
Court is contrary to the evidence led in this case. A reading of the judgment C
of the trial Court clearly shows that it proceeded as if the presumption is
available against the accused merely because an allegation of death within
seven years of marriage was made without even the prosecution having
proved the required preliminary fact. Having so shifted the onus, the Court
then proceeded to hold that the accused had not discharged the said onus
and hence convicted the accused primarily based on the presumption under D
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. That apart, there is also discrepancy in
regard to the statement ofreports in the Police Station. The prosecution has
failed to prove the circumstances alleged against the accused persons.
[850-F-G-H; 851-A-B]
E
2. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and
Section 304-B of Penal Code shows that there must be material to show
that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or
harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural
or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of "death
occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances." [848-D-E-F] F
Hira Lal and Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi, [2003] 8 SCC 80,
relied on.

3. On a careful scrutiny of the statements of the witnesses, it is seen
that witnesses have given different statements regarding demand of G
dowry. Under these circumstances, there is lack of evidence to prove the
demand of dowry and the evidence led by the prosecution bristle 'with
discrepancies and contradictions. On the basis of the evidence, it could
not be treated to have been proved that actually the accused had made
a demand of dowry and that was made soon before the death and due H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A to this, the deceased was harassed. [849-G-H; 850-A-B-C]

4. In the instant case, the wit1_1esses having given the statements
about the facts within their special knowledge under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
recorded during investigation, have resiled from the correctness of the
versions in the statements. They have not given any reason as to why the
B investigating officer could record statements contrary to what they had
disclosed. It is equally settled law that the evidence of hostile witness
would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or
the accused, but it can be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion
of the evidence which is consistent with. the case of the prosecution or
c defence may be accepted. [850-C-D-E]

5. The prosecution relied upon the recovery of ear-rings, hair clip,
pieces of bangles belonging to the deceased from the well upon the
disclosure statements made by police. These are articles of common use
and can be found out in any house. That apart, no family member of the
D deceased has identified these articles or claimed that the same belonged
to the deceased. and/or she was wearing the same at the time of
occurrence. {850~D-E-F]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 639
E of 1998.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.3.97 of the Rajasthan High
Court in S.B. Crl. A. No. 487 of 1996.

Ms. Madhurima Tatia and Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellant.
F
M.L. Lahoty, Sushil Kumar Jain, P.K. Sharma, Ms. Ruchi Kohli,
S. Singhania and Ms. Pali Katiiki for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : This appeal is directed against the final
judgment and ~rder dated 14.03.1997 passed by the High Court ofRajasthan
at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 487of1996 whereby the High Court
allowing the appeal held that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not
reliable and on the basis of such weak and unreliable evidence, the guilt of
H the respondents-accused cannot be proved successfully.
STATE v. TEG BAHADUR [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 843

The short facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows: A

On 05.05.1993, the deceased Suman aged 18 years was married to the
respondent-accused Teg Bahadur in accordance with Hindu rites and
ceremonies. After the Gauna ceremony was completed, deceased Suman was
sent back to her maternal house by her in-laws and she complained to her
B
parents that she had been sent back because she had not brought enough
dowry with her. She also told them that she had been threatened not to return
if she was unable to bring a Television, Cooler and money. However, after
lot of discussions and negotiations with her in-laws, Suman was taken back
by her in-laws. But the demand for dowry still persisted and within five
months that Suman stayed in her maternal house, she was sent back to her c
matrimonial house three/four times and threatened to bring new dowry items
every time. According to the prosecution, she was harassed, tonnented and
tortured by her in-laws, husband and other relatives and physically abused
for bringing insufficient dowry in her marriage.
D
On 09.09.1994, at about 10.30 p.m. death of the deceased Suman took
place in mysterious circumstances in the intervening night without assigning
any logical or cogent reasons for her demise. Even before sunrise, the
cremation ceremony was performed in a hasty manner without the parents
of the deceased Suman being duly informed about the death of their daughter.
E
On 11.09.1994, the infonnation about the death of their daughter Suman
was received by the father of the deceased - Om Prakash PW-13 from their
relative Chunilal PW-8, who was residing in Garhwalon Ki Dhani. Upon
receiving this infonnation, Om Prakash and Ganpat Ram left for the house
ofGhanshyam i.e. grandfather of the respondent-accused, who told them that F
their daughter Suman died due to Haiza. But upon asking the neighbours they
gathered altogether different infonnation that their daughter had been killed
mercilessly, being thrown in the well. An F.l.R. was lodged on 13.09.1994
by the father of the deceased - Om Prakash who was accompanied by a
number of villagers. On the basis of the written report, F.l.R. was lodged and

- a case was registered under Sections 498-A, · 302 and 202 I.P.C. The
Investigation Officer PW-24 reached the place of incident and prepared the
site plan of the well Ex.P-1 in the presence of witnesses - Radheyshyam
and Lichman Ram. Rameshwar was made to go down the well from which
G

one gold ear-ring, glass/lak bangle pieces and a metal clip was recovered and
sealed then and there. The mud on the motor installed in the well was also H
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A taken along with the mud which was stuck on the sides of the well was also
scraped and sealed and marked as Ex.P-4. Thereafter, the site plan of the
place of incident was prepared and samples of plain earth and suspicious mud
from the residential house of the respondent-accused were taken and sealed.
In the presence of the witnesses, the remains of ashes and bones belonging
to the deceased Suman were collected from the cremation place and sealed
B them there. During investigation, _the statements of various witnesses were
recorded underSection 161 Cr.P.C. Upon completion of investigation, charge
sheet was filed against the respondents-accused Teg Bahadur, Ghanshyam
and Smt. Singari under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 I.P.C. in the Court
of Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navalgarh. On committal for trial, it was
c numbered as Sessions Case No. 7 of 1995.

The prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesse~ to prove their case.
No witness was examined by the Defence side. Out of24 witnesses, 8 of them
have turned hostile. Relying upon the facts and circumstances and the
evidence adduced on record, the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu held the
D respondents-accused guilty under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and
were sentenced to 8 years of rigorous imprisonment. However, no sentence
was passed separately for the offence committed by them under Section 498-
A.

E Aggrieved against the judgment and order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, the respondents-accused filed S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 487
of 1996 in the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur. Final judgment and order
was passed by the High Court while allowing the appe~l filed by the
respondents herein. The High Court held that the evidence adduced by the
prosecution is not reliable and on the basis of such weak and unreliable
F evidence, the guilt of the accused cannot be proved successfully.

• Aggrieved against the final judgment and order passed by the .High
Court, the State of Rajasthan has filed the above appeal in this Court.

We heard Ms. Madhurima Tatia, learned counsel for the appellant and
G Mr. M.L. Lahoty, learned counsel for the respondent. We have perused the
records and also of the judgments of both the Sessions Court and of the High
Court and heard lengthy arguments advanced by the· counsel appearing on
either side.

H Ms. Madhurima Tatia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
STATE v. TEG BAHADUR [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 845

t submitted that the High Court has erred in acquitting the respondents-accused A
even when the facts and circumstances which were proved beyond reasonable
doubt and the evidence adduced on record clearly proves the guilt of all the
respondents-accused that in all probabilities the respondents-accused had
caused the death of the 18 year old deceased Suman. She further submitted
that the High Court is not correct in not appreciating the testimonies of PW-
B
13 - Om Prakash and PW-4 - Ram Kishan who have clearly stated in their
statements the entire chronology of events, which led to the death of the
deceased. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, such clear and
lucid statement of facts, which were proved beyond reasonable doubt should
not have been overlooked and ignored by the High Court even when their
testimonies clearly corroborate the evidence adduced by the prosecution and c
has successfully proved the guilt of the accused. The counsel for the appellant
contended that all the ingredients of offence under Section 304B were made
out an~ it was urged that there was sufficient evidence to hold that before
the death of Suman there was demand for dowry by the appellant and there
was consequential harassment on his part. Counsel also urged that the
D
presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act should have been
drawn and the High Court seriously erred in acquitting the accused without
properly appreciating the evidence.

In view of these submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the High Court has erred in acquitting the accused even when E
the chain of circumstances was complete which clearly point out towards the
guilt of the respondents-accused. Winding up her arguments, the learned
counsel submitted that the cremation of the body of the deceased Suman was
cremated in the hasty manner without even informing the parents of the
deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the appeal against
the final Judgment of the High Court be set aside and the judgment of the
F
Sessions Court be restored.

Per contra, Mr. M.L. Lahoty, learned counsel for the respondents-
accused submitted that the information regarding the death of Suman was
given to her family members who were present at the time of cremation and G
though many neighbours were examined, none of them supported the case
of the prosecution. He further submitted that the alleged recovery of one
golden ear-ring, pieces of bangles and hair clip has not been proved as those
of the deceased-Suman. With regard to the demand of dowry, the important
....., witness is the mother of deceased, Smt. Hira Bai, PW-22 but she also has
H
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A not supported the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the. accused
took us through the evidence of the witnes.ses and submitted that the death
of Suman was not for the reasons, as alleged by the prosecution and,
therefore, the High Court has rightly allowed the appeal filed by the accused-
respondents herein.

B In the instant case, the prosecution has examined as many as 24
witnesses. In these, the father of the deceased, Suman, PW-13, Om Prakash,
grand-father of PW-5, Ganpat and mother of the deceased, Smt. Hira Bai,
PW-22, PW-2, Lachhman and PW-3, Radhey Shyam were examined. PW-
6, PW-7, PW-14, PW-15 and PW-16 were declared hostile. The accused-
c Teg Bahadur, in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, stated that his marriage with Suman was solemnised without dowry
and even after marriage, there was no demand for dowry and that they were
living happily together and that a false case has been lodged against him. The
accused-Ghanshyam, stated in his statement that Teg Bahadur is his grand
son whose marriage was solemnised without dowry and there was no demand
D
of dowry. It is also in the evidence that at the time of death of Suman, as
spoken to by PW-18, Chunnilal, that Suman's father, mother, grand-father
came to the funeral ceremony of Suman at Ghanshyam's house at Meelo Ki
Dhani. The said witness has also stated that there was no dispute of dowry.

E The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the evidence produced, held
that Suman died on 9/10 September, 1994 in unnatural circumstances and that
she had died due to fall in well and that the death of Suman took place within
seven years from the date of marriage and, therefore, under Section 113-B
of the Evidence Act, presumption could be made against the accused person
F and that prior to cremation, the parents of the Suman and other members of
the family were not informed and that the cremation was done in undue haste.
Learned Sessions Judge, in our opinion, is not correct in holding so. The
finding of the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to the evidence led in this
case.

G This apart, there is also discr~pancy in regard to the statement ofreports
in the police station. It is seen that two reports were submitted by Om
Prakash, one report is Ex. P-10 and other report has not been produced.
Likewise, PW-12, Mnkhram, has stated in his statement that report was given
in the police station on 13th which was written by Bhagwan Singh, whereas
H Om Prakash himself has stated that Bhagwan Singh has written the report.
STATE v. TEG BAHADUR [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 847

Therefore, it is seen that Ex.P-10 is not the first report and the other report A
filed prior to Ex.P-10 was removed and afterwards second report was filed.

In brief, for proving the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal
Code, the prosecution has to prove the following things:

a) The death of the married woman was within seven years of the B
marriage.

b) A little prior to death, her husband or relative on the point of
demand of dowry subjected cruelty to her or harassed her.

In the present case, it is proved that Suman was married on 5.5. I 993 c
and she died on 10.9.1994. Thus Suman' s death took place within seven years
of her marria_ge.

In regard to the cause of death, there are two versions. According to
the prosecution, the death was due to falling in well whereas according to D
the accused, Suman died due to Plague. However, the facts stated by Om
Prakash, PW-13, in FIR, Ex.P-10, are otherwise. From the evidence, it is not
known whether Suman died during the day time or in the night. PW-8,
Ramlal, has stated in his statement that the wife of Teg Bahadur had died
due to vomiting and loose motions and no voice of beating was heard.
Therefore, this witness was declared hostile. Likewise, Radheyshyam and E
Ramlal, as mentioned in the First Information Report, told Om Prakash that
in the night in the house of Ghanshyam they heard the cries of woman
weeping and this fact has not been proved. PW-2, Lachhman, was declared
hostile since he has not supported the case of the prosecution. He, in his
statement, has stated that the father of Teg Bahadur has taken the thick rope F
and also stated that the air of Motor of well is to be taken out. Out of tjl.e
women mentioned in the First Information Report, the statements of PW-6,
Manbhari, PW-7, Smt. Mani, PW-14, Smt. Manohari, PW-15, Smt.
Parmeshwari, PW-16, Smt. Barji and PW-19, Suman was available. All these
witnesses have been declared hostile because they have not supported the
prosecution case and the facts mentioned in Ex.P-10 that when they got bath G
to Suman before cremation, no injuries were seen. Likewise, there is no
evidence in regard to the recovery from the well ofSuman's ear-rings, pieces
of bangles and hair clip and that these articles found at the well at the time
of search were of Suman. There was no evidence to that effect. The
Investigating Officer, in our view, has not given any attention to this and had H
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A not investigated regarding this. As already noticed, Om Prakash, PW-13,
Gan pat, Ramkishan ·and Shri Ram had stated that they have no information
about the death and that no information was given to the family members
of Suman and that they have denied to have participated in the cremation.
Whereas the other persons of the village, whose statements the prosecution
has produced, had stated the presence of the parents of Suman at the time
B
of cremation, as to be seen from the statements ofManbhari, Smt. Mani, Ram
Lal, Kushal Singh, Smt. Manohari, Smt. Parmeshwari, Smt. Barji, Smt.
Suman and Chunnilal. PW-18, Chunnilal had also accepted, in cross-
examination, that on his telling, Om Prakash, father of Suman, and the mother
of Suman had come for cremation of Suman in the house of Ghanshyam in
c Milon Ki Dadhi. As already noticed, for proving an offence under Section
304-B of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that the prosecution should
prove this that a little prior to death on the issue of demand of dowry, her.
pusband or the relatives of her husband have subjected cruelty with her.

Our attention was drawn to Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and
D
Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code by the learned counsel appearing for
the accused. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act
and Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code shows that there must be material
to show that soon before her death the victim was· subjected to cruelty or
harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or
E accidental" death so as to bring it within the purview of "de~th occurring
otherwise than in normal circumstances." For the above proposition, learned ·
coui:sel appearing for the accused, cited the judgment of this Court in the
case of Hira Lal & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi, [2003] 8 SCC 80.
In that case this Court observed thus:
F
"The expression "soon b~fore" is very relevant where Section
113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into
service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the
occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that ~ase
presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by the.
G prosecution. "Soon before" is a relative term and it would depend
upon the circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can
be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before ·
the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate ~ny fixed period,
and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the
proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a
H
STATE v. TEG BAHADUR [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 849

presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression A
"soon before her death" used in the substantive Section 304-B IPC
and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of
proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the
expression "soon before" is not defined. A reference to the expression
"soon before" used in Section 114 Illustradon (a) of the Evidence
B
Act is relevant. It lays down that a Court may presume that a man
who is in the possession of goods "soon after the theft, is either the
thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless
he can account for their possession". The determination of the period
which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be
determined by the Courts, depending upon facts and circumstances c
of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon
before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much
between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in
question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link
between the effect of cruelty based cm dowry demand and the death
D
concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and
has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of
the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence."

With regard to the dowry, there are different versions. PW-1, Sanwarmal
stated that he had not heard anything about the dowry with the wife of Teg E
Bahadur. PW-2, Lachhman stated that he does not know this that from
Suman, her in-laws have asked for dowry or not. PW-4, Ram Kishan stated,
in cross examination, that at the time of marriage, the accused persons have
not raised any objection regarding dowry. The statement of this witness is
contrary to the statement of Om Prakash. According to Ram Kishan, when F
Suman came back for the first time from her in-laws then she complained
regarding dowry whereas Om Prakash and Hira Bai had not stated so. PW-
5, Ganpat, uncle of Om Prakash, in his statement, stated that at the time of
marriage on the issue of dowry Teg Bahadur and Ghanshyam raised the
dispute. PW-9, Shriram, stated that no dowry was demanded at the time of
marriage but afterwards dowry was demanded. PW-10, Kushal singh, stated G
that at the time of marriage on the point of dowry displeasure was shown.

On the careful scrutiny of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses, it
is seen that witnesses have given different statements regarding demand of
dowry. According to him, with respect to dowry, dispute was raised at the H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A time of marriage. According to Om Prakash, when Suman returned to her
parents' house, she complained about demand of dowry by the in-laws. There
is no corroboration about the statement of Om Prakash by the statement of
his wife Sint. Hira Bai. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion,
that there is lack of evidence to prove the demand of dowry and that the
evidence led by the prosecution bristle with discrepancies and contradictions.
B
On the basis of the evidence, it could not be treated to have been proved that
actually the accused had made a demand of dowry and that was made soon
before the death and due to this, the deceased was harassed.

In the instant case, the witnesses having given the statements about the
c facts within their special knowledge, under Section 161 of the Criminal
Procedure Code recorded during investigation, have resiled from correctness
of the versions in the statements. They have not given any reason as to why
the investigating officer could record statements contrary to what they had
disclosed. It is equally settled law that the evidence of a hostile witness would
not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused,
D
but it can be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which
is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted.

The prosecution relied upon the recovery of ear-rings, hair clip, pieces
of bangles belonging to the deceased from the well upon the disclosure
E statement made by police. It may stated that these are articles of common
use and can be found out in any house. That apart, no family member of the
deceased has identified these articles or claimed that the same belonged to
the deceased and/or she was wearing the same at the time of occurrence.

In the instant case, one of the main ingredients of the offence of demand
F
of dowry being absent, the High Court is right in acquitting the accused for
the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.

A reading of the judgment of the trial Court clearly shows that the
Sessions Judge proceeded as if the prosecution is available against the
G accused merely because an allegation of death within seven years of marriage
was made without even the prosecution having proved the required preliminary
fact. Having so shifted the onus, the Court then proceeded to hold that the
accused had not discharged the said onus and hence convicted the accused
primarily based on the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.
The approach by the Sessions Court is not correct.
H
ST ATE v. TEG BAHADUR [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 851

In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the prosecution A
has failed to prove the circumstances alleged against the accused persons. The
High Court, in our opinion, has not committed any error in interfering with
the conviction of the accused passed by the Sessions Court.

The appeal, therefore, fails and stands dismissed.
B
K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.