Standard of proof u/s 304B vis a vis 306, IPC

 Relevant provisions of the Evidence Act are as under:

"113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.- When  the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetment by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had  committed suicide within a period of seven  years from the date of her marriage and  that her husband or such relative of her  husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that  such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her  husband.

           113-B.       Presumption as to dowry   death.- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of  a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment  for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. "

 In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO...337/2009 ANAND KUMAR    v. STATE OF M.P, decided by apex court (Hon. Dalveer Bhandari and Hon. H.S. Bedi, JJ) on 20/02/2009, a newly married woman, within 45 days of her Gauna consumed had sulphas and died. A case under Section 498 A and 306 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered. The Naib Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate concerned was called by the doctor who recorded her dying declaration. Other accused except her husband/appellant were acquitted and appellant was convicted on the basis of a letter allegedly written by him to his father in law. His father in law stated in his examination in chief that:

         "I had received letter of threat from  accused Anand Kumar on 27.02.86 through Peon Achchhe Lal and that letter    is exhibit P20.      He had raised the   demand for radio, watch, cycle and fan through that letter, at the time of gauna,  I had given him watch, radio, cycle and   fan as demanded in the letter."

The Supreme Court observed that: “We are of the opinion that this excerpt from his evidence cannot be said to be proof of the document as no statement was made that he recognized the handwriting or the signature of the appellant. Moreover, this letter had not been produced before the police during the course of the initial investigation and had been handed over to the police after several months. This fact, as also a reading of the letter, indicates that this was a concocted piece of evidence and the work of a legal mind, as no person would write such a letter meeting all legal requirements for implicating himself and his near relatives, in a claim for Dowry.”

            Allowing the appeal the Court held that, the different terminology of Sections 113-A and 113-B itself brings out the real purpose behind the two provisions and whereas Section 113-B places a heavier onus on an accused, the onus placed under Section 113-A is far lighter. A comparative reading of the two provisions would highlight that under Section 113-A the Court `may presume', having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, an abetment of suicide as visualized by Section 306 of the IPC but in Section 113-B which is relatable to Section 304-B the word `may' has been substituted by `shall' and there is no reference to the circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the conviction of the appellant has been recorded under Section 306 which is relatable to Section 113-A and though the presumption against an accused has to be raised therein as well, the onus is not as heavy as in the case of a dowry death.