Acquittal upheld – Supreme Court found no substantive evidence proving demand for dowry – Material contradictions in witness statements – Presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act not attracted – (Para 12, 13).

Acts and Sections Discussed:

Constitution of India (COI) 

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) 

Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Subjects:

Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC – Section 113B Evidence Act – Acquittal – Appellate Jurisdiction – Perversity – Presumption – Material Contradictions.

Facts:

a. Nature of the litigation – Criminal Appeal against the High Court’s acquittal order in a dowry death case. b. Who is asking the court and for what remedy? – The State of Uttarakhand sought reversal of the High Court’s acquittal order. c. Reason for filing the case – Conviction under Section 304B IPC by Trial Court challenged by the accused; acquittal by High Court challenged by the State. d. What has already been decided until now? – Trial Court convicted the husband; High Court acquitted him; Supreme Court upheld the acquittal.

Issues:

Whether the demand for dowry and cruelty, as required under Section 304B IPC, was established to attract presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.

Submissions/Arguments:

a. Appellant-State argued that the Trial Court rightly convicted based on circumstantial evidence and injuries on the deceased’s body.

b. Respondent-Accused contended that prosecution failed to prove demand for dowry and highlighted material omissions in witness statements.

Ratio: Appellate Courts slow to reverse acquittals unless findings are perverse – Demand for dowry must be established for conviction under Section 304B IPC – Omission of material facts in Section 161 CrPC statements detrimental to prosecution – (Para 5, 8, 12, 13).