JUDGMENT
Saldanha, J.
1. We have heard the appellant’s learned Counsel as also the learned Counsel who represents the respondents-accused. This is a case in which deceased Renuka who was a young wife sustained 80% burns in her house on the afternoon of 28.12.1994 at about 3.30 p.m. She has died pursuant to these burn injuries and the police have prosecuted the respondent-husband on the usual charges on the ground that this is a dowry death case. The prosecution allegation is that the accused had demanded 1 Tola of gold, that PW.1 who is the father of the deceased Renuka and who is a very poor person was not in a position to give this 1 tola of gold and secondly, it is alleged that the accused ill-treated his wife because of the non-securing of the dowry in order to pressurise her family into providing it and since this did not materialise that he set fire to her clothes and killed her. The Trial Court has acquitted the accused virtually for want of evidence and the State has filed the present appeal assailing the correctness of that order.
2. The learned Addl.SPP vehemently submitted that these dowry death cases are the worst and most habitual form of atrocities against married women and that the only manner in which these horrifying, treacherous incidents can be stopped, is if the persons involved are punished rigorously. He also alluded to the fact that the rate of acquittal in this class of cases, whether it is before the Trial Court or in appeal, is abnormally high and that this is sending out wrong signals because unfortunately, an impression is created that even if persons go to the extent of burning and killing their wives because of dowry demands that the Court will still acquit them. His principal submission therefore was that a deterrent view be taken and that the order of acquittal be set aside.
3. We fully appreciate the sentiments expressed and the submissions canvassed because they are totally and completely justified. We also endorse the view that this is a class of offences in which no mercy should be shown and we shall also presently deal with the learned Addl.SPP’s submission with regard to the attitude of the Courts in respect of these class of cases which again are fully justified. What we do hope is that the investigating agencies in the first instance, atleast after repeated guidelines have been laid down by this Court and very strong observations made with regard to the fact that most of the dowry death cases fail because of weak, unprofessional and dishonest investigation and that consequently, the State Government and the Director General of Police must ensure that in every single one of these cases there is an honest, competent and professionally good investigation when alone, the Courts will be able to take necessary punitive and corrective steps. The Courts are virtually helpless in a situation where the evidence is weak, non-existent, tampered with or in other cases where we find that it is as clear as daylight that the entire investigation has been sabotaged. Whether this is in collusion with the accused or those who represent them or whether there are other reasons for such corrupt practices, we are not aware of but the interests of justice are the casualty. Once again we reiterate that it is very very necessary that the approach of the investigating authorities and the type of investigation that is carried out will have to be totally overhauled. We need to also add that the presentation of the case before the Trial Court is crucial.
4. In case after we have found that whatever damage is not done by the investigating agencies is completed by the prosecutor before the Trial Court. The material witnesses are not examined, relevant documents are not produced and even the necessary care and caution to martial the evidence and to take the trouble of ensuring that the depositions make out the ingredients of the charge is also not happening. We find it a little difficult to believe that this is only because of negligence and incompetence because reading between the lines we find in numerous instances that the case has virtually gone by default. While it is necessary for the Presiding Judge to take a more vigilant role and ensure that the case is properly and competently conducted to whatever extent the law permits, the basic responsibility is on the prosecutor before the Trial Court and we have time and again, had occasion to not only issue directions but pass strictures in cases where the prosecution has defaulted. These essentially are the main reasons why the rate of acquittal in this class of cases is abnormally high.
5. When we had sought for explanations with regard to the poor performances during the trial or cases going by default, the reports submitted to us have indicated that the prosecutors before the Trial Courts have invariably found themselves totally handicapped because of the fact that the investigating officer has not bothered to attend when called before the commencement of the Trial, and he has not bothered to assist the prosecutor in any manner during the trial. Furthermore, some dull and irresponsible police constables are sent to the Court who know nothing about the case and who do not even take the elementary steps to produce the relevant exhibits, records or for that matter even the witnesses and who are very quick to produce memos to the effect that the material is not available or that the witnesses are not traceable. This state of affairs will have to stop because when one views these cases generally, it is found that these horrifying, shameful, antisocial offences are going unpunished, For a change, what is required is to ensure that the punishment prescribed by law is awarded to the accused, and to ensure that the accused gets convicted.
6. In the light of the aforesaid background, we have heard the learned advocates on both sides and we have perused the records. The evidence of PW.1 who is the father of the deceased hardly makes out any allegation or any charge in so far as admittedly he came on the scene after the death has occurred, he has not alleged any ill-treatment or cruelty, he has not even produced the letter written by his daughter to him and even with regard to the allegation concerning the demands, his evidence is of no consequence. This is the principal reason why the Trial Court has acquitted the accused but the learned SPP submitted that the Court is entitled in this class of cases where the death has occurred within 7 years of the marriage to draw the inference under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act in which case the onus shifts to the accused and since it has not been discharged that the accused ought to have been convicted.
7. It is true that after the promulgation of Section 113-B that presumptions do arise and it is equally true that in cases where unnatural death such as the burning as has taken place in the present case occurs, that the Court will most certainly draw certain presumptions. That however presupposes that the prosecution has made out sufficient ground for such presumptions to be drawn. Where the prosecution leaves before the Court a record where there is absolutely Zero evidence, it is not permissible for the Court to record a conviction on the basis of a presumption alone in the total absence of any tangible material or evidence. Presumptions that are required to be drawn are for the assistance of the Court and the prosecution, the principal reason being that the legislature was conscious of the fact that these are clandestine offences, that there would be limited evidence having regard to the nature of the incident and if the basic structure of the atrocity or the anatomy of the criminal offence is present then a presumption would certainly come to the assistance of the prosecution. It is therefore important that we clarify this position because we also need to take cognisance of the reverse position wherein deaths have occurred shortly after the marriage for a variety of reasons, sometimes incidentally when a young wife has fallen into a river or well, sometimes in situations where she has run into depression or there have been instances in which factors other than those connected with the marriage have caused suicides and it is wrong to presume ipso facto if the death has occurred within the first 7 years of marriage that an adverse inference has to be drawn against the accused. The submission of the learned State Counsel therefore, that the presumption will make up for all the deficiencies of the prosecution cannot be upheld on the state of the present record. We have heard the learned advocates on both sides in respect of the main heads of charge as also the allegation relating to the demand and receipt of dowry that because of ill-treatment and cruelty and provocation that could have led to the death of the deceased and after a careful reappraisal of the record, we find that the Trial Court was justified in holding that none of the heads of charge are established. The appeal consequently fails on merits and stands dismissed.
8. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Director of Prosecutions, Karnataka, and to the Director General of Police and to the Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Home Department, with a direction that necessary corrective steps be taken in view of the observations of this Court and that the 3 authorities report back to the Registrar General within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the judgment as to what precisely are the correctives that have been undertaken. The appeal fails on merits and stands dismissed.
