In a case of dowry death, accused were charged with offences under
sections 498-A and 304-B of the Penal Code, 1860, the Supreme Court in Pathan Hussair Basha Vs State of A.P21 observed
that the present case completely satisfied the ingredients of section 304-B and
498-A IPC. The Court further observed that it is for the accused to show that
the death of the deceased did not result from any cruelty or demand of dowry by
the accused persons. The accused did not care to explain as to how the death of
his wife occurred. Denial cannot be treated to be the discharge of onus. Onus
has to be discharged by leading proper and cogent evidence. It is expected of
the accused to explain as to how and why his wife died, as well as his conduct
immediately prior and subsequent to the death of the deceased. Maintaining
silence cannot be equated to discharge of onus by the accused. Herein,
prosecution by reliable and cogent evidence has established the guilt of the
accused. There being no rebuttal thereto, there is no occasion to interfere in
the judgements of the courts under appeal.
The Supreme Court in Pathan Hussair Basha Vs State of A.P21, held:
“… the rule of law requires a person to be
innocent till proved guilty. The concept of deeming fiction is hardly
applicable to the criminal jurisprudence. In contradistinction to this aspect,
the legislature has applied the concept of deeming fiction to the provisions of
section 304-B. Where other ingredients of section 304-B are satisfied, in that
event, the husband or all relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death.
In other words, the offence shall be deemed to have been committed by fiction
of law. Once the prosecution proves its case with regard to the basic
ingredients of section 304-B the Court will presume by deemed fiction of law
that the husband or the relatives complained of, has caused her death. Such a
presumption can be drawn by the Court keeping in view the evidence produced by
the prosecution in support of the substantive charge under section 304-B of the
Code.
Applying these principles to the facts of the
present case, it is clear that the ingredients of section 304B read with
section 498A IPC are completely satisfied in the present case. By a deeming
fiction in law, the onus shifts on the accused to prove as to how the deceased
died. It is for the accused to show that the death of the deceased did not
result from any cruelty or demand of dowry by the accused persons. The accused
did not care to explain as to how the death of his wife occurred. Denial cannot
be treated to be the discharge of onus. Onus has to be discharged by leading
proper and cogent evidence. It was expected of the accused to explain as to how
and why his wife died, as well as his conduct immediately prior and subsequent
to the death of the deceased. Maintaining silence cannot be equated to
discharge of onus by the accused. In the present case, the prosecution by
reliable and cogent evidence has established the guilt of the accused. There
being no rebuttal thereto, there is no occasion to interfere in the judgments of the courts under appeal”.
Prepared by:
S. Hemanth
Advocate at Hemanth
& Associates
