Introduction:
In the case titled Mubarak Ansari & Anr. -Versus- The State of West Bengal [C.R.A. 957 of 2013], the Calcutta High Court presided over by Justice Prasenjit Biswas delivered a significant ruling on 25th June 2025, acquitting the appellants previously convicted under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellants, Mubarak Ansari and another relative, had approached the Court challenging their conviction and sentence of seven years for dowry death under Section 304B and one year for cruelty under Section 498A IPC, imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, Islampur in Sessions Case No. 137 of 2011. The case involved the tragic death of a woman named Rohimunnesa, the wife of appellant Mubarak Ansari, who died by suicide within seven years of her marriage.
Arguments:
The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, arguing that the circumstances surrounding her death justified the inference of a dowry-related demise. Represented by advocates Mr. Niladri Sekhar Ghosh and Mr. Shaharayar Alam, the appellants contended that the conviction was unfounded as the prosecution had failed to establish the necessary elements under both provisions of the IPC. They argued that the post-mortem and inquest reports pointed clearly to a suicide, showing no evidence of bodily injury or signs of physical assault. Further, the defense stressed that there was no substantive or corroborated evidence of any cruelty or harassment for dowry that occurred soon before Rohimunnesa’s death, a critical requirement under Section 304B IPC. They challenged the reliability of the prosecution’s witnesses, particularly pointing to inconsistencies in the testimony of PW10, the deceased’s father, who mentioned seeing injuries on his daughter’s body despite medical reports stating otherwise. The defense also questioned the classification of financial assistance and wedding gifts as dowry, asserting that such support was voluntary and unrelated to any coercive demand. Notably, the defense emphasized that an alleged assault by the father-in-law, even if assumed true, had occurred nearly two years before the death and was resolved through a local settlement or ‘salish’, thus bearing no relevance to the immediate circumstances leading to the suicide.
On the other hand, the prosecution, represented by Mr. Arindam Sen and Mr. Imran Ali, contended that the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act automatically applied since the deceased died by suicide within seven years of marriage. They relied on the testimony of the victim’s family members, who asserted that the deceased was subjected to harassment and demands for dowry. It was submitted that the victim had returned to her matrimonial home just one day prior to her death, and that this abrupt event indicated the continuation of a toxic environment which ultimately pushed her to take her life. The prosecution maintained that even if the physical evidence of injuries was missing, the mental harassment and consistent demands for dowry created a cruel atmosphere that satisfied the conditions required for conviction under both Sections 304B and 498A IPC.
After a careful examination of the evidence, Justice Prasenjit Biswas delivered a well-reasoned judgment that reaffirmed the need for strict scrutiny when applying the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. The Court began by emphasizing the statutory prerequisites under Section 304B IPC, which require that (i) the woman must have died under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage, (ii) she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives, and (iii) such cruelty or harassment must be “in connection with” any demand for dowry and must have occurred “soon before her death.” Only upon satisfaction of these elements can the legal presumption of culpability arise. The Court observed a glaring chronological inconsistency in the testimonies presented by the prosecution. Specifically, the father of the deceased (PW10) claimed that his daughter was present at her parental home on 25th July 2007, while the incident of her death took place on 26th May 2007. This discrepancy significantly undermined the timeline presented by the prosecution and contradicted their narrative of continuous harassment “soon before her death.” Furthermore, the Court found no medical evidence to support the claims of physical abuse, as the post-mortem and inquest reports both indicated a clear case of suicide without any injuries on the body. The testimony regarding prior assaults, particularly the one two years before the death, had been amicably resolved in a local settlement and lacked any recent link to the victim’s death.
Judgement:
Importantly, the Court scrutinized the statements made by witnesses in terms of dowry demands. The bench noted that while there were general allegations about dowry harassment, no witness specifically stated that the harassment occurred shortly before the victim’s death. The timing of alleged dowry demands was either vague or situated in a period too remote to qualify as “soon before” the death, which is a sine qua non for conviction under Section 304B. The Court referred to authoritative Supreme Court rulings which have clarified that while the phrase “soon before death” is not to be interpreted with rigidity, it nonetheless requires a perceptible link between the alleged cruelty and the fatal act. The legislative intent behind this requirement is to ensure that only those deaths that bear a proximate and live connection to dowry-related cruelty are brought within the ambit of Section 304B. If this causal chain is broken or weakened by a significant time gap, then the presumption of guilt cannot be mechanically applied.
With regard to the Section 498A IPC charge, which criminalizes acts of cruelty by the husband or his relatives, the Court held that there was no evidence showing willful conduct of such gravity that would drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury. The vague and generalized statements regarding the accused’s behavior did not meet the threshold required for conviction under this provision. Additionally, there was no documented complaint or FIR specifically citing dowry demands, nor was there any reliable oral testimony establishing that the accused persistently harassed the victim for dowry. The statement allegedly made by the deceased during the police-facilitated settlement, wherein she promised to behave respectfully towards her in-laws, was also found to be irrelevant in determining the accused’s guilt under Section 498A IPC, since it did not reflect any admission of cruelty or abuse on the part of the appellants.
The Court was unequivocal in holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients required under Sections 304B and 498A IPC beyond a reasonable doubt. Without this foundational proof, the legal presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act does not arise, and hence the burden never shifted to the defense to prove their innocence. In such a scenario, the conviction imposed by the Trial Court could not be sustained in law. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court was set aside. The appellants were acquitted of all charges.
This ruling reaffirms the principle that presumptions under criminal law, especially those carrying severe consequences like dowry death, must be cautiously invoked and must always rest on a clear and reliable evidentiary foundation. The Court’s judgment in Mubarak Ansari & Anr. -Versus- The State of West Bengal reiterates that mere allegations of harassment without specificity in timing and nature cannot be the basis for a conviction under Section 304B or 498A IPC, even if the death occurs within seven years of marriage. The judgment is a clear call for precision, evidence-based prosecution, and respect for the rights of the accused, in line with constitutional protections and the burden of proof principle in criminal jurisprudence.