Can a Dowry-Death Conviction Stand Solely on Circumstantial Evidence Without a Valid Dying Declaration or Proof of Demand?

LawSikho
August 19, 2025
Category: High Court of Jharkhand

High Court Reaffirms That Section 113B Presumption Requires Proved Dowry Demand and Valid Dying Declaration, Setting Aside Convictions Under Sections 304B/34, 498A/34 IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act as Binding Precedent in Jharkhand

Summary

Category	Data
Case Name	Cr.A(DB)/816/2012 of DAYA NIDHI DAS AND ORS Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
CNR	JHHC010126252012
Date of Registration	25-07-2012
Decision Date	18-08-2025
Disposal Nature	Allowed
Judgment Author	Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Concurring or Dissenting Judges	Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath
Court	High Court of Jharkhand
Bench	Division Bench
Precedent Value	Affirms existing precedent on strict proof requirements under Section 113B Evidence Act and dying-declaration rules
Overrules / Affirms	Affirms
Type of Law	Criminal Law; Evidence
Questions of Law	Can convictions for dowry death (Section 304B IPC) and cruelty (Section 498A IPC) stand absent proof of dowry demand or a valid dying declaration?
Ratio Decidendi	The court held that presumption under Section 113B cannot arise without evidence of a demand for dowry. Dying declaration recorded without a doctor or fitness certificate is inadmissible. Absence of medical/injury reports for PW-1 and PW-2 undermines their testimony of burn injuries. Circumstantial evidence must be cogent and exclude every hypothesis except guilt. The trial court’s reliance on presumptive reasoning without sound foundation is impermissible. In absence of direct or properly recorded dying declaration, conviction on 304B IPC cannot be sustained.
Facts as Summarised by the Court	Marriage in May 2009 with Rs. 90,000 dowry; alleged motorcycle demand; on 14 Nov 2009, parents visited and at 3–4 a.m. daughter was found ablaze in locked room; she died after 15 days of treatment; FIR under Sections 304B/34, 498A/34 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act; trial court convicted; appeal allowed.
Citations	(2025 JHHC 24127-DB); Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 816 of 2012

Practical Impact

Category	Impact
Binding On	All subordinate courts in Jharkhand
Persuasive For	Other High Courts; possibly Supreme Court

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

Reaffirms that Section 113B’s presumption of dowry-related death requires proof of demand; vague or hearsay evidence is insufficient.
Holds that a dying declaration recorded without medical supervision or a fitness certificate cannot be relied upon for conviction.
Emphasises necessity of contemporaneous injury reports when parents/witnesses allegedly suffer burns while saving the victim.
Clarifies that circumstantial evidence must exclude all other hypotheses; trial-court presumptions must rest on sound reasoning.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

Section 113B Presumption: No specific evidence of motorcycle demand; presumption under Evidence Act does not arise.
Dying Declaration: Statement recorded by the IO at hospital without doctor or fitness certificate is invalid.
Witness Injuries: PW-1 and PW-2 claimed burns yet no medical records or treating doctor’s testimony; inconsistency undermines credibility.
Circumstantial Framework: Trial court failed to exclude accidental hypothesis; mere presence of accused as “mute spectators” insufficient.
Standard of Proof: Conviction must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt—absent direct evidence, appeal court must set aside conviction.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioners (Appellants)

No evidence of demand for motorcycle; Section 113B presumption inapplicable.
No independent witnesses; all witnesses (except doctor and IO) were related.
No injury reports for parents despite alleged burns.
Dying declaration recorded without doctor or fitness certificate; inadmissible.

Respondent (State)

Consistent testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 who were present and physically injured.
Daughter stated in hospital that in-laws set her ablaze.
Trial court rightly evaluated evidence and drew permissible inferences.

Factual Background

Anima Das married Daya Nidhi Das in May 2009 for which her father paid Rs. 90,000 plus household articles. Allegedly a demand for a motorcycle went unfulfilled. On 14 November 2009 her parents stayed overnight at her matrimonial home. At around 3–4 a.m. they heard her shrieks and found her clothes ablaze in a locked room; parents were burnt trying to save her. She was treated first at Ganga Narayan Memorial Nursing Home then at MGM Hospital and died after 15 days. A case was registered under Sections 304B/34 and 498A/34 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; the trial court convicted; this DB appeal was allowed.

Statutory Analysis

Section 304B IPC: Requires death of woman within seven years of marriage and proof of dowry demand or cruelty; Section 113B Evidence Act creates a presumption only if dowry demand proved.
Section 498A IPC: Deals with cruelty by husband or relatives.
Section 4, Dowry Prohibition Act: Prohibits giving or taking of dowry.
Dying Declaration Requirements: Must comply with jurisprudence on voluntariness, presence of medical officer, and certifiable mental fitness.

Alert Indicators

✔ Precedent Followed – Upheld strict proof standards under Section 113B and dying-declaration jurisprudence.

Citations

Neutral Citation: (2025 JHHC 24127-DB)
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 816 of 2012