● Section 8(B) also inserted by the amendment Act of 1986 is a welcome

provision as it provides for the appointment of a Dowry Prohibition Officer by

the State Government for every specified area, who is empowered to (a) to see
that the provisions of the Act are complied with (b) to prevent as far as possible
the taking or abetting the taking of or the demanding of dowry, (c) to collect
such evidence as may be necessary for the prosecution of persons committing
offences under the Act and (d) to perform such additional functions as may be
assigned to him by the State Government or as may be specified in the rules
made under the Act.

● In an incident in 2018, a newly-wed Ganga was forced to commit suicide at her

marital home only 72 days after her marriage to Raju Mitra, the major cause
being a demand for additional dowry money. She hung herself in the house,
and traces of damage were discovered on the body of the dead, including a
ligature mark, swelling on the back of the head, and bruise marks on the left
palm of the deceased, according to the investigation. The court dismissed the
‘absurd’ claim that the woman committed suicide because she was dissatisfied
with her husband’s financial situation, and went on to say that consistent
evidence on record demonstrates that she was physically and emotionally
abused at the matrimonial home over dowry demands, therefore held the
husband guilty (Raju Mitra & Ors. v. State of West Bengal (2022)).

● The essentials can be listed as follows:

1. Under normal conditions, a woman’s death should not be caused by
burns or bodily harm.
2. Within seven years of her marriage, she should have died.
3. Her spouse or any of her husband’s relatives must have treated her
cruelly or harassed her.
4. Any demand for dowry should be accompanied by or accompanied
by such brutality or harassment.
5. Such brutal treatment or harassment should have occurred prior to
her death.
6. If a woman dies as a result of the circumstances described above,
the husband and his relatives will be believed to have caused a
dowry death and will be held accountable for the offences until they
can be proven differently.
● The term “dowry” is defined in the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961, not
in the IPC. Hence it is specified in the statutory provision that for the
purpose of Sub-section 304B, dowry shall have the same meaning as
in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (1961). It has been defined
 as any property or valued security granted or promised to be given
directly or indirectly, according to the act:
● by one party to a marriage to the other party to a marriage, or
● by one party to a marriage to the other party to a marriage or by
one party to a marriage.

● The Indian Penal Code (IPC) now includes Sections 304B (dowry
death) and 498A (cruelty by a husband or his family) post its
amendment.
● The Indian Evidence Act (IEA) has been amended to include Section
113B (presumption of dowry death) in order to eliminate or at least
reduce the horrific act of the dowry system and related fatalities.

Nature of the offence under Section 304B

IPC
The offence of dowry death is criminal in nature and is regulated by the
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. The IPC covers the substantive provisions
while the procedural aspect is provided by the Indian Evidence Act (IEA),
1872 and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. The offence under
Section 304B is:

Cognizable

A cognizable offence is one for which a police officer may arrest without a
warrant in line with the First Schedule or any other legislation in effect at the
time. The majority of cognizable offences are of serious nature.

Non-bailable

Non-bailable offences are serious crimes for which bail is a privilege granted
solely by the courts. When a person is arrested and brought into jail for a
serious or non-bailable offence, he or she does not have the right to seek
bail.
Non-compoundable

Compoundable offences are ones that can be compromised, meaning that the
complainant can agree to drop the charges against the accused, whereas
non-compoundable offences are the more serious kind that does not allow
the parties to compromise.

Tribal by Court of Session

The Criminal Procedure Code does not define the term “trial”. The trial may
be characterised as a form of investigation to determine the accused person’s
guilt or innocence. Matters involving warrants can be heard by either the
Court of Session or a Magistrate, but summons cases can only be heard by a
Magistrate. The Court of Session does not directly take cognizance of the
cases. Rather, the cases are committed to the Court of Session by the
Magistrate under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code if they are
exclusively triable by the Session court. It should be observed that the
Session Court hears cases involving crimes punishable by more than seven
years in jail, life in prison, or death.

Punishment for Section 304B IPC

Penal provision

Anyone who commits dowry death is punishable under Section 304B (2) of
the IPC with a term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years, which may
extend up to life imprisonment.

Provision for evidence for dowry death

Presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872

When the inquiry is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a
woman and it is established that such woman was exposed to cruelty or
harassment by such person shortly before her death for, or in connection
with, any dowry demand. The court will assume that this individual was
responsible for the dowry death. For this provision to apply, dowry death has
the same meaning in this provision as it does in Section 304B of the IPC.

This concept may be illustrated by utilising the following cases:

1. In the case of Hansraj v. State of Punjab (1984), where the

Supreme Court decided that the word “normal conditions” appears
to indicate that it was not a natural death.
2. In the case of Rameshwar Dass v. State of Punjab (2008), where
the Supreme Court decided that a pregnant woman would not
commit suicide until her relationship with her husband deteriorated
to the point where she felt obliged to do so and that the accused is
liable to be convicted if he fails to show his defence.
3. In the case of Sher Singh @ Partapa v. State of Haryana (2015),
where the two-judge bench of the Supreme Court utilised this
principle while dealing with a matter concerning Section 304B. The
judges held that even by a preponderance of the evidence, the
prosecution can discharge the initial burden of proving the elements
of Section 304B. The preliminary presumption of innocence is
supplanted by an assumption of guilt of the accused, who is then
required to produce evidence attempting to remove his guilt,
beyond a reasonable doubt, once the participation of the
concomitants is established, demonstrated, or proved by the
prosecution, even by the prevalence of possibility.

Elements needed to get relief under Section

304B IPC
1. The primary element that an accused can show to prove his
innocence is the fact that there never existed a demand for dowry.
If the plaintiffs are unable to procure and furnish sufficient evidence
to show that the death occurred post the demand of dowry by the
husband, then no case of dowry death exists.

In the case of Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra (2007), the wife

succumbed to death after ingesting poison. There was proof from her parents
that she had been subjected to ill-treatment and physical and emotional
torment as a result of bringing in less money. The High Court affirmed the
conviction of the trial court. Both witnesses testified to ill-treatment as a
result of household circumstances. There was a need for money to cover
expenditures, but there was no proof of dowry demand. Since there was no
display of a demand for dowry, which is an essential factor for dowry death,
the conviction was overturned.

2. The accused will also get relief in case the plaintiffs are unable to
establish proper communication of the demand of dowry death to
the wife or her family.

In the case of Sumunt Ojha v. State of Bihar (2009), there was no evidence
that the husband made a demand or that he treated his wife cruelly or
harassed her, whereas the only piece of evidence that has come on record is
the statement made by the deceased woman’s brother, that a demand was
made by the deceased woman’s father-in-law just four days prior to the
occurrence, which is doubted for the reasons stated in the order.

If a dowry demand is made, it is assumed that the demand would be relayed

to the person from whom the dowry is expected, i.e. the woman’s father or
guardian. In this case, no such communication was made to the father, and
even PW 11’s testimony does not reveal that his son conveyed the demand to
him. It would also be assumed that after making a demand, the erring party
would spend some time before taking any further action. It cannot be stated
that the victim would be exposed to mistreatment by her in-laws because
she made a demand four days before her death.

Therefore, the appellants were wrongfully convicted under the Indian Penal
Code Section 304B. There must also be a conviction under Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code to be convicted under Section 304B.

A similar observation was made in Nepal Singh v. State of Haryana (2009),

the woman committed herself after the trial court acquitted her of charges
that her husband and in-laws sought a large dowry. The High Court
intervened in the verdict, and she committed suicide within seven years of
their marriage. The deceased informed her parents about the dowry demand,
otherwise, her in-laws would refuse to let her enter their house. The person
who finalised the marriage never confirmed any dowry demand. There was
never any money exchanged. There was no evidence of dowry demand, and
the appellant’s father submitted a notification of his son’s death shortly after
it occurred. Simply stating that something must have occurred that caused
the dead to commit suicide is not a legitimate plea, and the conviction was
overturned.
 3. It is also required by the plaintiffs to prove doubt beyond a
reasonable level for the accused to be convicted. For instance, in the
case of Raman Kumar v. State of Punjab (2009), the husband and
mother-in-law were accused of pouring kerosene on themselves and
being burned alive. The defence claimed it was an accident. The
victim’s letter did not offer proof of the dowry demand and the
husband was convicted based on an unproven charge. and the
irrational order is rescinded Although no statements were made
throughout the inquiry, the High Court’s decision was hazy and
lacking in reasoning. The prosecution was unable to establish guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction was subsequently
overturned.

Similarly, in the case of Kuljit Singh & Anr. v. The State of Punjab (2021), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the trial court had not referred to any
specific instances where the appellant No.2, namely, the deceased’s
mother-in-law, had been ascribed any specific role in making the demand
and inflicting cruelty, except for making vague statements to the effect that
the husband and in­laws of their daughter had made a demand for dowry and
inflicted cruel treatment. According to the statement recorded under Section
313 of the Cr.PC, appellant No.2 (Raj Rani) denied any involvement and
claimed that she was not there at the house when her daughter-in-law died.
Though the existence of appellant No. 1 (Kuljit Singh) was proven, no
mention was made of appellant No. 2 (Raj Rani). Apart from that, there is no
particular proof that appellant No.2 made such demand or that she
committed cruelty in response to such a demand.

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted the appeal in part, holding that
the aforesaid evidence is insufficient for a conviction under Section 304B of
the Indian Penal Code, and acquitting accused no. 2. (Raj Rani).

4. Furthermore, any individual whose marriage to such a husband or

wife has been declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction is
not guilty of bigamy. It would be appropriate to interpret the term
“husband” to include a person who enters into a marital relationship
and, under the guise of such proclaimed or feigned status of the
husband, subjects the woman to cruelty or coerces her in any
manner or for any of the purposes enumerated in the relevant
provisions Section 304B/498A, regardless of the legitimacy of the
marriage or the limited purpose of Sections 498A and 304B.
In a situation like this, an interpretation known and accepted as purposive
construction must be used. The lack of a definition of “husband” to
specifically include such persons who contract marriages only apparently and
cohabit with such women, in the purported exercise of his role and status as
a husband, is not sufficient to exclude them from the scope of Section 304B
or 498A of the Indian Penal Code when considered in the context of the
legislation enacting those provisions. This was held in Koppisetti Subbharao
@ Subramaniam v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2009).

5. The above-mentioned case had also formulated the concept that

dowry has primarily to do with marriage. Dowry refers to a series of
requests made in connection with a marriage. Only dowry will not be
demanded if the legitimacy of the marriage is being investigated.
This is not a dowry demand. Sections 498A and 113B are considered
in terms of their scope.
6. To show guilt and cruelty, the evidence must be produced by the
plaintiffs to create a presumption of dowry death. If the same is not
proved, the accused will be allowed to go scot-free since no claim
under Section 304B gets formed. In the case of Hazarilal v. State of
Madhya Pradesh (2007), the appellant spouse was found to be
financially supporting the deceased’s father, hence there was no
need for a dowry claim. The High Court acquitted him, but found
him guilty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, stating that
after giving birth to a child, she would not have considered suicide
unless she was being hounded for dowry. The High Court found that
there had to be a motive for the accused appellant’s suicide and
convicted him. Hence, the conviction was set aside.
7. The case of Kaushik Das v. the State of Tripura (2008) lays down
another instance where the accused was allowed to be released.
Because there were no direct eyewitnesses against the
accused-appellant in this case, the question was whether the
accused-appellant might be convicted under Section 304B of the
Indian Penal Code given the aforementioned facts and
circumstances. Section 113B of the Evidence Act, which allows for a
presumption that the Court may draw in specific situations, has
taken care of such a problem. To use Section 113B of the Evidence
Act, when the question is whether a person has committed the
death of a woman and it is shown that such woman was subjected
to cruelty or harassment by such person shortly before her death
for, or in connection with, any dowry demand, the Court shall
presume that such person had mused the dowry death of his wife.
Dowry death has the same meaning in this provision as it does in Section
304B of the Indian Penal Code. This Section’s application is contingent on the
occurrence of specified facts. First and foremost, it must be demonstrated
that the woman was exposed to abuse or harassment by someone shortly
before her death, for or in connection with any dowry demand. In light of the
facts and circumstances of this case, as well as the evidence presented, the
Court was not convinced that:

● The Appellant’s wife died of a burn injury in unusual circumstances

within seven years of her marriage, and
● She was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband
accused-appellant in connection with a dowry demand.

When suspicion emerges, the accusing finger might be directed at the

individual who was present at the time and location of occurrence. Because
the accused-appellant was present at the time of the accident, there is no
valid assumption that he was responsible for it, implying that he committed
the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

Even if the case is considered an accident or an instance of a woman’s

unnatural death, the accused-appellant cannot be found guilty of the charge
under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, and no presumption can be
established against him under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. Hence, no
case was made out against the accused.

8. Earlier the accused could also make use of the ambiguity in the
phrase ‘soon before death’, but post the Satbir Singh & Others v. the
State of Haryana (2021) judgement this loophole has been removed
by the Supreme Court. The phrase ‘soon before’ as used in Section
304B cannot be understood to mean ‘exactly before’, the judgement
stated.

Landmark cases on Section 304B IPC

Kamesh Panjiyar @ Kamlesh v. State of Bihar

(2005)
In this case, the Supreme Court stated the key ingredients of dowry death
(Section 304B, IPC) as follows:

1. A woman’s death should be caused by burns, physical harm, or

some other unusual event.
2. She should have died during the first seven years of her marriage.
3. Her husband or a relative of her husband must have treated her
cruelly or harassed her.
4. Such cruelty or harassment should be in response to or in
conjunction with a dowry demand.
5. It must be proven that the woman was subjected to such brutality
or harassment shortly before her death.

Facts of the case

In this case, the appellant and the deceased, Jaikali Devi, married in 1988. A
dowry of Rs 40000 was paid at the time of the wedding. The groom’s side
desired a she-buffalo for her second Bidai. The requirement was not met. The
dead had previously expressed her dissatisfaction with her spouse and other
members of his family’s mistreatment and torture.

Sudhir Kumar Mahto, her brother, heard various rumours in the area about
the deceased’s murder on November 28, 1989. (her sister). He then travelled
to the appellant’s village with his father, brother, and uncle. Her sister’s
(dead) body was on the verandah, and there was blood gushing out of her
lips. There were also a few markings on her neck indicating violence.

During the Sessions Court hearing, it was noted that this was not a case of
natural death. Her spouse was sentenced to 10 years in jail after the Court
found him guilty under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. He
subsequently took his case to the Supreme Court.

Judgement of the Court

The conviction was affirmed by the High Court. However, the sentence was
reduced to seven years. He then took his case to the Supreme Court.
According to the Supreme Court, a combined reading of Section 113B of the
Indian Evidence Act and Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code establishes
that there must be some material or proof to prove that the victim was
subjected to cruelty or harassment shortly before her death.
Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam (2004)

The legitimacy of dowry demand in an invalid marriage was addressed in this

case. The Supreme Court ruled that the idea of dowry is tied to marriage,
and therefore dowry death regulations only apply to married people. It was
also noted that if the legitimacy of marriage is illegal in and of itself, the
dowry demand in an illegitimate marriage would be legally unrecognisable.

This is a watershed moment in the understanding of the term “husband”

under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1908.

Facts of the case

On January 25, 1998, the petitioner and the respondent married. The
petitioner was taken to the Tagore Hospital in Jalandhar on July 3, 1998,
after forcefully consuming a deadly drug. The I.O. questioned the appellant
to record her statement as follows:

1. That she was harassed by her husband, mother-in-law,

father-in-law, and brother-in-law (respondents nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4)
for bringing insufficient dowry after her marriage to respondent no
1. She further revealed that both the petitioner and the respondent
were in their second marriage.
2. They forced her to ingest a dangerous acidic chemical to end her
life, which caused her to vomit and pass out.

The police filed an FIR and charge sheet, following which charges were
drafted under Sections 307 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The
case was heard in front of the Hon’ble trial court. The learned trial court
found the accused people not guilty and ruled in their favour. The State of
Punjab then sought a leave to appeal against the accused’s acquittal before
the division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. However, the
request for leave to appeal was denied and the case was dismissed. The
appellant filed a criminal revision petition in light of the dismissal, which was
likewise dismissed. Hence, an application was filed with the Supreme Court of
India.

Judgement of the Court

The Supreme Court’s view, in this case, was as follows:

 1. The liberal method of interpretation is to be used in evaluating a
husband and wife’s relationship in cases when societal evil is being
addressed. On the other hand, when it comes to deciding civil rights
amongst them, stringent interpretation should be used.
2. It is critical to interpret the legislation realistically rather than
pedantically. The goal of the legislation must be understood in order
to read the language in context.
3. The appellant filed a criminal revision petition in light of the
dismissal, which was likewise dismissed. Thus, an application has
been filed with the Supreme Court of India. Any individual who, as a
declared husband, treats the woman with cruelty in respect to
dowry under these sections is referred to as a “husband” under
Section 498A or 304B of the IPC.
4. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the High Court for a
merits hearing, stating that the High Court’s dismissal of the grant
of leave and criminal revision petition was unreasonable.

The Court went on to say that understanding the intent of any statute is
critical.

For example, the main factor in committing Bigamy under Section 494 of the
IPC is “marrying” again within the lifetime of the husband or wife, but the
key ingredient under Section 498A is cruelty to the woman concerned. The
focus is on “marrying” under Section 494 IPC as opposed to cruelty to a
woman under Section 498A. Similarly, the focus of the Section 304B offence
is “Dowry Death.” Each segment has a distinct thrust or crucial component
depending on who is doing the crime. The language used in this Section can
be interpreted to mean not just people who are legally married, but also
those who have experienced some sort of marriage and hence appears to be
the husband. The court decided that the presumption of extended
cohabitation could not be used simply because the parties were unable to
establish that they had undertaken the appropriate rituals to form a
legitimate marriage.

Bachni Devi v. State of Haryana (2011)

This case examines the concept of dowry demand. The Supreme Court
declared in this case that any demand for property or valued security that is
in any way related to marriage constitutes dowry demand.
Facts of the case

In May 1990, Kanta Devi, the deceased, married the accused. The deceased’s
mother-in-law (accused 1) went to her father’s house after two months of
marriage and demanded a motorcycle because her son (accused 2) wanted
to establish a house milk vending company. However, because the deceased’s
father was destitute, he expressed his inability to meet the demand.

Following that, the deceased’s husband and mother-in-law began harassing

her and warned her father that if he would not stop pestering her, he would
be killed. Following that, the deceased’s husband and mother-in-law began
tormenting her and told her father that unless he gave her a motorcycle,
they would not allow Kanta Devi to live in the matrimonial home.

Five days before Rakshabandhan, the deceased’s husband took her to her
father’s house, left her there, and returned to his house the same day.

The deceased notified her father about her husband’s and mother-in-law’s
harassment and mistreatment. However, two days before Rakshabandhan,
Kanta was abducted from her parent’s home by her husband, who said that
his brother’s engagement had to be fulfilled. Her husband’s statement was
completely false.

Other locals notified the deceased’s father that Kanta had died after around
eight days (on August 12, 1990). When her father and some other people
went to the house of accused 1 and 2, he discovered Kanta’s body lying in
the room. And, because Kanta’s death looked to have occurred under unusual
circumstances, the deceased’s father launched a lawsuit.

Judgement of the Court

Her mother-in-law and husband were found guilty of violating Section 304B
of the Indian Penal Code by the Trial Court. They were sentenced to seven
years in solitary confinement. When the High Court heard the appeal, it
agreed with the Trial Court, and the case was dismissed.

The case was then taken to the Supreme Court for review. The Supreme
Court ruled that any demand for property or significant security with a
connection to marriage is a dowry demand. It makes no difference what the
cause or rationale for such a demand is. The accused harassed the dead
when her father refused to comply with the demand, according to the report.
Therefore, dowry death is defined as harassment that causes the deceased to
commit suicide.

Hence, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and accused 1 was given
two months to surrender in order to serve her sentence in jail. In addition,
the Court said that in dowry death cases, direct proof is not always
necessary. Furthermore, the defence did not present any evidence to explain
the deceased’s neck injuries. Therefore, the husband’s conviction under
Section 304B was warranted.

Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015)

The word “soon before death” was defined by the court in this case. In this
case, the Punjab-Haryana High Court noted that time delays might vary
depending on the circumstances. What is required, however, is that the
dowry demand continues to be a source of death for the married woman.

Facts of the case

In 1990, the deceased Salwinder Kaur married the appellant Rajinder Singh.
She died four months after her marriage after ingesting a pesticide
(Aluminium Phosphide).

In court, the deceased’s father testified that her husband had wanted money
for the house’s construction. And he couldn’t offer the money at the moment.
He had, however, given his daughter a she-buffalo to go to her in-laws’
house. Her daughter was then mistreated again around 7-8 months later. He
assured his accused son-in-law that he would pay the money when the crop
was harvested.

Judgement of the Court

Karnail Singh (the deceased’s father) told the lawyer that his daughter (the
deceased) had made no complaint within the first year of their marriage.
After reviewing the evidence, the Trial Court found the appellant (the
deceased’s spouse) guilty under Section 304B and sentenced him to seven
years in jail.
The conviction was also maintained by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
According to the Court, what is to be seen are not days or months, but
instead, it is important to remember that the word ‘soon’ does not indicate
‘instant.’ Hence, the appeal was dismissed.

Satbir Singh & others v. State of Haryana (2021)

In this case, the Supreme Court clarified the term ‘soon before’ and provided
standards for trial courts to follow while recording the accused’s statement,
therefore doing away with a major loophole in this Section.

Facts of the case

On July 1, 1994, the accused (appellant no. 1) married the dead. After
almost a year, on July 31, 1995, at 4:00 p.m., the deceased’s father received
word that his daughter (dead) had been admitted to the hospital. When the
father and son arrived at the hospital, they learned that his daughter had
died from terrible injuries. According to the doctor, traces of kerosene were
discovered on the corpse of the dead. Due to burn injuries, 85 percent of the
body was harmed. According to the witnesses, the deceased was subjected
to dowry harassment and brutality.

The trial court handed down its decision on December 11, 1997, finding the
accused guilty of cruelty under Sections 304B and 306 of the Indian Penal
Code. The defendants took their case to the High Court, but it was rejected
on November 6, 2008. The Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed the
lower court’s decision to convict. It had to be determined whether the Trial
Court and the High Court’s convictions of cruelty under Section 304B of the
IPC were correct, and if the allegation of abetment of suicide under Section
306 of the IPC, under which the accused was imprisoned, was correct or not.

Judgement of the Court

The Supreme Court held that the expression “soon before death” cannot
imply “exactly before death.” The Bench went on to say that there must be a
direct and ongoing relationship between the dowry death and the husband’s
and his relatives’ cruelty or harassment. The Bench made the
aforementioned findings while dismissing an appeal filed by an accused guilty
of an offence under Section 304B who was appealing a previous judgement.
State of Bihar v. Nasruddin Mian @ Lallu (2021)

This case is a landmark for specifying how not to write judgement in dowry
death cases. The Patna High Court laid down guidelines for courts on how a
dowry death case may be analysed and adjudicated.

Facts of the case

Abdul Jabbar, the dead Sanjeeda Khatoon’s father. Sanjeeda Khatoon, his
23-year-old daughter, was married to Nasruddin Mian @ Lallu @ Nasiruddin
Ahmad on 10.08.2003, according to his report to the S.H.O. of Thawe Police
Station. Although he donated clothes and accessories as a wedding present
in his capacity, the accused individuals demanded a motorbike. However, his
daughter’s ‘bidagari’ was conducted on the promise of a motorbike after a
while. Nasruddin Ahmad, his Deyadin (sister-in-law) Salamu Nesha, and his
father Maqsood Alam, he said, tortured the dead in exchange for a Hero
Honda motorcycle as dowry. He claims that on the evening of March 20,
2007, he learned that the aforementioned accused people had killed his
daughter on March 17, 2007, by poisoning her food in response to the
non-fulfilment of a motorbike demand, and buried her body without alerting
him or his family members.

Judgement of the Court

In-State of Bihar versus Nasruddin Mian, the High Court of Patna held that
the Supreme Court has frequently concentrated on the same point, namely,
that courts and judges must conduct a dispassionate review of evidence. And
that courts and judges should not be motivated by the horror of the crime or
the character of the offender when giving judgement.

The following statement was given by the High Court of Patna when the
Bench was hearing an appeal against the conviction and sentencing orders
issued on the 26th and 29th of March 2019. The husband and sister-in-law of
the dead wife were sentenced to prison for dowry death by the Trial Court.

According to the High Court of Patna, there was no charge under Section 306
of the IPC once the charge was altered, and the Trial Court had no chance to
record such findings under Section 306 of the IPC. The High Court of Patna
further considered that legally acceptable evidence was not present because
the prosecution had failed to establish the motive beyond a reasonable doubt
that it was a case of murder, and the Trial Court had convicted the appellants
under Section 302 of the IPC only on the ‘moral ground’ that the wife had
died in her matrimonial home. Subsequently, on the 26th and 29th of March
2019, the judgments and sentences were overturned. It was also proposed
that the appellants be freed.

Difference between Section 304B IPC and

Section 498A IPC
Sections 304B and 498A are not mutually exclusive and represent different
levels of seriousness in related crimes. These rules deal with two separate
offences, however, they frequently overlap. True, ‘cruelty’ is a shared
element in both parts, but this must be demonstrated. Section 498A was
introduced in 1983 in response to an increase in the number of incidents of
dowry harassment and cruelty. After just three years in 1986, the legislature
had to create a new provision, Section 304B, dealing with dowry. True,
“cruelty” is a common factor in both Sections, and the prosecution must
establish it. The definition of “cruelty” is given in the explanation of Section
498A.

There is no similar clarification in Section 304B concerning the definition of

“cruelty,” but given the common backdrop to these offences, the definition of
“cruelty of harassment” will be the same as that specified in Section 498A,
where “cruelty” by itself is an offence punishable. The “dowry death” is
punished under Section 304B, and it must have transpired within seven years
of the marriage. Section 498A makes no mention of such a period, and the
husband or his family might be held guilty for “cruelty” to the woman at any
point after the marriage.

Difference in elements

The following are the main requirements for 498A to be applicable:

1. The woman must be married,

2. She must have been exposed to cruelty or harassment, and
3. The cruelty or harassment must have been perpetrated by the
woman’s husband or a relative of her husband.
The word ‘cruelty’ also covers ay wilful acts which are of such a nature as are
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, any ‘wilful’ conduct which is
likely to cause grave injury to the woman, or any ‘wilful’ act which is likely to
cause danger to life, limb or health whether physical or mental of the
woman. Furthermore, the term ‘harassment’ is devoid of the phrase ‘cruelty,’
and it is penalised in the following situations:

1. Where the harassment is aimed at coercing the woman or anyone

associated with her to fulfil any unlawful demand for property or
valued security,
2. When the harassment is based on her or anyone associated with her
failing to meet such demands. It is self-evident that not all acts of
cruelty or harassment are criminally punishable under Section 498A.
This legislation deals with four categories of cruelty consisting of
circumstances of physical violence and infliction of damage likely to
cause grave injury or risk to life, limb, or health,
3. Harassment with the intent of compelling the woman or her relatives
to provide some property, or
4. Harassment because the woman or her relatives are either unable to
succumb to the demand for additional money or refuse to give some
portion of the property.

These elements are comparatively different from those of Section 304B,

which have already been listed above.

Judicial rulings on the issue

In Shanti v. State of Haryana (1990), the Honourable Apex Court decided

that Sections 304B and 498A are not mutually exclusive. Two different
offences are identified and addressed. If a case is formed, a person who has
been accused and acquitted under Section 304B can be convicted under
Section 498A without the need for a charge to be framed. The Supreme
Court has ruled that in order to convict someone accused of causing dowry
death, the prosecution must present evidence proving that the dowry
demand was accompanied by acts of harassment and cruelty. The
prosecution must establish, besides the demand for dowry, harassment or
cruelty committed by the accused to the dead soon before her death for the
court to draw the inference that the accused caused the dowry death. In the
ruling, Justice A.K. Patnaik and Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya of the Supreme
Court said In any instance, to declare an accused guilty of both the offences
under Sections 304B (dowry death) and 498A (cruelty), IPC, the prosecution
must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected
to cruelty or harassment by the accused. The Supreme Court stated that
because the prosecution was unable to show this element of harassment or
cruelty beyond a reasonable doubt, none of the crimes under Sections 498A
and 304B, IPC has been made out by the prosecution.

In the matter of Sunita Malik v. Inder Raj Malik (1986), a Delhi High Court
opined that Section 498A of the IPC differs from Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act in that the latter punishes the mere demand of dowry without
requiring the presence of an element of cruelty, whereas Section 498A of the
IPC punishes an act of cruelty committed against a recently married woman.

In Satvir Singh and Ors v. State of Punjab and Anr (2001), the Supreme
Court declared that in dowry death cases, the conditions of harassment and
cruelty to the victim must be shown soon before her death. The phrase “soon
before death” appears in Section 304B of the IPC and is associated with the
concept of a proximity test. There is no indication of a time frame, and this
expression is undefined. The courts will establish the period soon before
based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Normally, the phrase ‘soon
before’ would suggest that there should not be much time between the
harassing or cruel behaviour and the deceased’s death. Based on the proof
required under Section 304B, the court must assume that the accused was
responsible for the dowry death.

In the case of Atmaram v. State of Maharashtra (2013), a woman was

intentionally harassed by her husband and his family. Clause (a) of Section
498A deals with exacerbated types of cruelty that inflict grave damage,
according to the Supreme Court, and her husband was found guilty of
cruelty.

The court in Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1987) defined cruelty and gave
it a new meaning, cruelty when awarding a divorce to the woman on the
basis of dowry demand.

According to the explanation of Section 498A, any wilful act that is likely to
push a woman to commit suicide is considered cruelty. Cruelty is defined as
purposeful action that is likely to inflict serious injury or risk to a woman’s
life, limb, or health (whether mental or physical). Harassment of a woman
with the intent of forcing her or anybody associated with her to comply with
any unlawful demand for property or valued security would also be
considered cruelty.
Analysis

The offence of dowry death, as defined in Section 304B of the IPC, does not
fall into any of the categories for which the death sentence is provided under
the Penal Code. Murder and dowry death is not the same thing. The death of
a bride may come under both the categories of murder and dowry death, in
which case, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, a death
sentence may be imposed for committing the offence of murder. The Indian
Penal Code specifically mentions the punishment for Dowry Death. It is
specified in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, where Subsection (2)
states that Dowry Death is punishable by “imprison­ment for a term not less
than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.” It’s crucial
to think about what would happen if both Sections 498A and 304B are
changed. It would, in general, serve a two-fold purpose in reducing the
threat of cruelty.

Current legal developments in Section 304B

IPC

Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab (2021)

In this case, the latest appeal was filed against the High Court’s judgement
dismissing the appellants’ appeal and upholding the High Court’s judgement
of conviction under Section 304B IPC with a sentence of seven years’
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. The prosecution claimed that the
complainant’s dead – daughter was engaged to the appellant in 2004. The
complainant then travelled to Abu Dhabi, and the marriage between the
appellant and the dead was solemnised during his absence. A kid was born
out of wedlock in 2006, and when the complainant returned in 2007, the
dead confessed that she had been brutally attacked for dowry by her in-laws
and husband-appellant.

The complainant was said to have handed the appellant a gold chain before
returning to India later in 2008. The appellants had made a demand for the
vehicle, but it had not been met this time. The deceased drank poison and
died on the same day in 2008, little more than a month after the appellant
returned.
The Trial Court found the appellant, his father-in-law, and his mother-in-law
guilty of violating Section 304B and sentenced them to seven years in jail
and a fine of Rs.5000/- each. The High Court affirmed the Trial Court’s ruling,
prompting the appellants to take their case to the Supreme Court.

After hearing both parties and reading Sections 304B IPC and 113B Evidence
Act, as well as the recent judgement of Satbir Singh vs. the State of
Haryana, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that all of the elements of Section
304B IPC were met, namely, the death occurred due to dowry demand within
7 years of marriage and the deceased was harassed by her husband and
in-laws shortly before her death. As a result of Section 113B of the Evidence
Act, there is a presumption of causation against the accused, and the
accused-appellant must refute this statutory presumption.

The defence of the accused that the deceased and they were in a cordial
relationship and the deceased even helped in the mother-in-law’s treatment
of cancer was found to be forged by the trial court on a thorough
examination of records and witnesses therefore the supreme court held, such
a decision did not require interference. The supreme court further held that
the defendants failed to prove their contention that the deceased was
suffering from depression. Therefore, the appellant failed to make out a case
for us to interfere in the concurrent opinions of the Courts below, convicting
the accused-appellant under Section 304B, IPC.

The appellant further submitted that a conviction under Section 304B of the
IPC cannot be upheld without a conviction under Section 498A of the IPC.
Although cruelty is a common thread in both counts, the Supreme Court
concluded that the components of each violation are unique and must be
shown individually by the prosecution. If a case is proven, both parties can
result in a conviction.

In conclusion, the court held that the High Court and Trial Court did not make
any mistake in convicting the appellant under Section 304B, IPC since the
appellant failed to fulfil the burden under Section 113B, Evidence Act.

Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2021)

This case has been a landmark verdict and its facts and judgements have
been discussed above. In a nutshell, the following were the major directions
given by the Supreme Court in this matter:
 1. “Soon Before”- the phrase does not imply ‘immediately before’
under Section 304B of the IPC.

The phrase ‘soon before’ in Section 304B I.P.C. cannot be understood to

indicate ‘exactly before,’ according to the Court. The Court found that the
facts of cruelty or harassment vary from case to case and that ther.e is no
one-size-fits-all methodology for defining the word “soon before” and what
falls under it.

2. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 establishes a

presumption

A presumption of causation against the accused arises under Section 113B of

the Evidence Act when the prosecution proves that “immediately before the
death of the woman she was exposed to cruelty or harassment by such
person for or in connection with any demand for dowry.” Following that, the
accused must refute the statutory presumption.

3. Other guidelines are provided by the Court Trial courts when

interpreting Section 304B I.P.C.
● The legislature seeks to minimise the social evil of bride burning and
dowry demand by including this Section.
● The application of rebuttable presumption under Section 113B
places a larger burden on judges, defence attorneys, and
prosecutors. In the instance of dowry death, judges must use
special caution while conducting criminal cases.
● Courts should not record the accused’s statements under Section
313 Cr.P.C. in a casual or superficial way. The accused’s examination
under this clause cannot be viewed as a formality, and the judge
should ask the accused meaningful questions about his defence. The
audi alteram partem concept is included in this rule, which allows
the accused to explain the incriminatory evidence brought against
him. Therefore, the court has a responsibility to interrogate him
fairly, cautiously, and carefully.
● The court must provide the accused with incriminating
circumstances and demand an explanation from him.
● The accused’s lawyer should also prepare his defence carefully,
taking into account
● According to Section 232 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if the
judge determines that there is no proof that the accused committed
the crime after obtaining evidence, questioning the accused, and
 hearing the prosecution and defence, the court may order the
accused’s acquittal.
● The Courts must use this discretion as a best-efforts responsibility.
If the offender is not acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C., the court
will schedule hearings for “defence evidence.” The accused will be
required to present his evidence in accordance with the method
outlined in Section 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This is a
crucial right that the accused has.
● Other crucial factors, such as the right to a timely trial, must be
weighed as well. The Supreme Court issued a warning to the trial
courts. The Court admonished the trial courts not to allow the
aforesaid provisions to be utilised as a delay tactic.
● When sentencing and inflicting appropriate punishment, this Court’s
guidelines must be observed.
● In circumstances where family members who had no active
participation in the conduct of the crime and who live in different
locations are wrongly implicated, the courts must exercise caution.

Devender Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand

(2022)

While restoring the conviction and sentence of a man and his father in this
dowry death case, the Supreme Court held that seeking money for the
construction of a house constitutes a “dowry demand” that is punishable
under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B was put into the
IPC to address the social evil of dowry demand, which has reached
worrisome proportions, according to a bench led by Chief Justice NV Ramana
and composed of Justices A S Bopanna and Hima Kohli.

It cannot be maintained that if the wording employed in the clause is

ambiguous, it should be interpreted rigidly since it would negate the purpose
of the rule, it stated. They claimed that, in light of the clause (Dowry Act)
that defines the term “dowry” and includes any sort of property or valuable
security, the High Court made a mistake by ruling that a demand for money
for a home building cannot be considered a dowry demand.

The Supreme Court ruled that interpreting a statute in a way that contradicts
the legislature’s meaning should be avoided in favour of interpreting it in a
way that advances the goal of the legislation, which is to eliminate social
evils like dowry demand. In this context, the term ‘dowry’ should be given a
broad definition to include any demand made on a woman, whether
concerning a property or valued security of any kind. It was said that any
strict interpretation would tend to negate the true purpose of the provision.

The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal filed by the Madhya Pradesh State
Government against a High Court decision that overturned a man’s conviction
and sentence for committing suicide at his wife’s matrimonial home under
Sections 304B (dowry death) and 306 (abetment to suicide) of the Indian
Penal Code. The Supreme Court stated that, after considering the evidence
presented by the prosecution, it has no difficulty in concluding that the trial
court’s analysis was sound and that the respondents deserved to be
convicted under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Conclusion
In today’s culture, dowry is both a source of joy and a source of a curse. It
also brings satisfaction to the husband and his relatives, who receive cash,
expensive clothing and kitchenware, furniture, and bedding materials, among
other things.

However, it is a burden for the bride’s parents, who must incur significant
expenses to meet the bridegroom’s party’s outrageous expectations. Even
after marriage, dowry expectations do not go away. In certain cases, the
bride’s in-laws are willing to subject the bride to harassment, insults, and
mental and physical torment.

When the bride’s parents are put under additional pressure, their precious
daughter frequently has no choice but to commit suicide in order to prevent
more insult and torment at the hands of her husband’s family. Furthermore,
when brides are burned to death, the evidence is generally destroyed in the
flames. Both recent and historical judicial precedents act as a beacon of hope
in tackling this menace effectively, yet it is essential that the implementation
of these provisions must be performed as dedicatedly as expected.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What are the legal provisions in India for the crimes related to
dowry in India?
Section 304B (dowry deaths) and 498A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal
Code,1860 as well as the specific legislation of Domestic Violence Act, 2005
may be made applicable in cases of dowry crimes.

2. What are the essential elements for dowry death under Section
304B?

The essential elements to prove dowry death are listed as follows:

1. Under normal conditions, a woman’s death should not be caused by

burns or bodily harm.
2. Within seven years of her marriage, she should have died.
3. Her spouse or any of her husband’s relatives must have treated her
cruelly or harassed her.
4. Any demand for dowry should be accompanied by or accompanied
by such brutality or harassment.
5. Such brutal treatment or harassment should have occurred prior to
her death.
6. If a woman dies as a result of the circumstances described above,
the husband and his relatives will be believed to have caused a
dowry death and will be held accountable for the offences until they
can be proven differently.
7. What is the nature of the offence of dowry death?

The offence under Section 304B is cognizable, non-bailable,

non-compoundable and subject to trial by Sessions Court.

4. What are the penal repercussions for convicts of dowry death?

Anyone who commits dowry death is punishable under Section 304B (2) of
the IPC with a term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years, which may
extend up to life imprisonment.

5. What is the provision for evidence in cases of dowry deaths?

When the inquiry is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a
woman and it is established that such woman was exposed to cruelty or
harassment by such person shortly before her death for, or in connection
with, any dowry demand. The court will assume that this individual was
responsible for the dowry death, and the burden of proof to prove
themselves innocent shifts to the accused