Dowry death presumption was rebutted by probable defence evidence, giving the accused benefit of doubt and acquittal.

In a dowry death prosecution, the prosecution must prove an unnatural death within seven years of marriage and cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before death, after which the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act arises. That presumption is rebuttable, and on the evidence here the defence version, supported by the accused's statement and a defence witness, was found probable enough to displace it. The court also noted that the High Court had not meaningfully considered the defence evidence and that no direct evidence proved administration of poison by the accused. As two views on the evidence were reasonably possible, the benefit of doubt went to the accused, and the conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 304B and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was sustainable in view of the statutory presumption relating to dowry death and the defence evidence adduced to rebut it.

Analysis: To sustain a conviction for dowry death, the prosecution must establish that the death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage and that soon before death the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry, whereupon the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act arises. That presumption is rebuttable. The defence version, supported by the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the testimony of a defence witness, was that the deceased had stayed at the house of her brother-in-law, that this had led to a dispute, and that the prosecution story of repeated dowry demands was not probable on the facts. The defence evidence was not considered by the High Court in a meaningful manner. On the evidence as a whole, the defence was found to be probable and sufficient to rebut the presumption. Since no direct evidence established administration of poison by the appellant, and two views on the evidence were reasonably possible, the benefit of doubt had to go to the accused.

Conclusion: The conviction was held unsustainable and the appellant was acquitted of the charges under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Ratio Decidendi: In a dowry death prosecution resting on a statutory presumption, if the accused adduces a probable defence and the evidence reasonably supports two views, the presumption stands rebutted and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

---