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.P1 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.P1, 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 judgements of the courts under appeal”.
