1

THE INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

PROJECT REPORT
ON
DOWRY DEATH
{SECTION 304 B}

SUBMITTED TO:

DR.PUSHPINDER KAUR

UILS, PU

CHANDIGARH

SUBMITTED BY:

YUVICA GUPTA

BCOM LLB (HONS.)

UILS,PU

CHANDIGARH
 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I avail this prospect to express my thoughtful sense of sincerity, earnestness
and deep gratitude to all those who have performed a vital role in the
achievement of the project ‘DOWRY DEATH (304B)’ by providing their
alacritous guidance and support. I wish to express my sincere and heartfelt
obligation to Dr. Pushpinder Kaur for her incessant encouragement and
inspiration throughtout the project. Without her enduring spur, generous
guidance and help, I would not have been able to cope up with the project
work.I am also grateful to the college and the staff of UILS Department, who
taught the fundamentals and gave me an opportunity to take up this project
which has been a great learning experience for me.

-YUVICA GUPTA
 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.INTRODUCTION
2.MEANING AND DEFINITION
3.UNDERSTANDING DOWRY DEATH (304 B)
4.INGREDIENTS OF DOWRY DEATH
5.CASE LAWS ON DOWRY DEATH
MUNSHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (Supreme Court of India)
NADEEM CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (DHC)
MANOHAR SINGH YADAV V. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH6.
6.PRESUMPTION AS TO DOWRY DEATH
7. DEMAND FOR DOWRY
8. PUNISHMENT FOR DOWRY DEATH
9.CRITICAL ANALYSIS
NADEEM CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (DHC)
10.BIBLIOGRAPHY
 4

INTRODUCTION
“Since time immemorial we have seen so many offences against women, where
they are tortured and one such offence is dowry death. We all must have heard
many cases related to the death caused to a woman for the demand for dowry.
It’s very disgraceful for a society where a woman dies for not being able to give
dowry and also very shameful where dowry is still being practised.
Dowry death is defined in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Also
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 states the presumption as to dowry
death.

Section 304 Bof the Indian Penal Code states that if a woman dies within seven
years of marriage by any burns or bodily injury or it was revealed that before her
marriage she was exposed to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any other
relative of the husband in connection to demand dowry then the death of the
woman will be considered as a dowry death.
Punishment for dowry death is a minimum sentence of imprisonment for seven
years or a maximum sentence of imprisonment for life.
 5

MEANING AND DEFINITION

(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs
otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage
and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection
with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such
husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation.For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same
meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life.]
 6

UNDERSTANDING DOWRY DEATH

DOWRY DEATH (Section 304 B)
This provision was added in the IPC In the year 1986 through an amendment
made in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. This said Act was drafted in order to
prohibit the giving or taking of Dowry.
Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 defines Dowry :
(a) Any property, or
(b)Valuable Security
Given on agreed to be given either directly or indirectly:
(a) By one Party to the marriage to the other party to the marriage, or
(b)By the parents of either party to a marriage, or to any other person
The Dowry is given or taken > AT or BEFORE or AFTER Marriage.
It does not include Dower or Mahr as applicable to the persons to whom the
Muslim Personal law (Shariat) applies.
Valuable Security acc to SEC 3O IPC denotes a document which is , or purports
to be a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred
,restricted, extinguished or released.
(OR)
Whereby any purchase acknowledges that he lies under legal liability or has not
a certain legal right.
 7

INGREDIENTS
The essentials of Section 304B are as follows:
• (1) The death of a woman must be caused within by burns or bodily injury
or otherwise than under normal circumstances
Akula Ravinder. v State of.AP. (AIR 1991 SC)
Death must be proved to be one “out of course of nature" and the mere fact that
the deceased was young and death was not accidental is not sufficient to establish
that death must have accused otherwise than under normal circumstances.
• (2) The death must occur within 7 years of marriage
• (3) Woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or his relatives.
• (4) Cruelty or harassment should be in connection with the demand of
dowry and soon before death.
• (5) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the
woman soon before her death
Section 304B imposes a statutory obligation on a court to presume that the
accused has committed the dowry death when the prosecution proves that:
• (i) The death of his wife has occurred otherwise than under normal
circumstances within seven years of her marriage; and
• (ii) soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by
her husband or his relatives in connection with a demand for dowry.
If any accused wants to escape from the catch, the burden is on him, to disprove
it. If he fails to rebut the presumption the court is bound to act upon it.
Dowry’s death is a non-bailable and cognizable offense.
 8

Expression: Death ……….otherwise than under normal

circumstances.

The prosecution is required to prove unnatural death and when there is nothing
to show that the death of the victim is unnatural then it does not amount to the
offense under section 304B. The words death caused by burns or bodily injury
is redundant because such death would also fall within the wide province of
death caused otherwise than under normal circumstances.
304B applies to a case of suicide where it is the sequel to cruelty or harassment
with the demand of dowry. The death of a wife by strangulation or stomach ache
without any history of dreadful disease of the stomach are covered within the
deaths otherwise than caused under normal circumstances.
The expression ‘otherwise than under normal circumstances ‘would mean that
the death is due to an unusual cause’ and under suspicious circumstances if not
caused by burns or bodily injury.

Expression: “Subject to the cruelty of harassment”

Section 304B does not explain the term cruelty. However, S.498A of IPC,
presents what amounts to cruelty.
In Shanti vs the State of Haryana2, the Supreme Court held that S.304B and
498A are not mutually exclusive. And the meaning of cruelty given in
explanation to S.498A having regard to common background to S.304B and S.
498A, can be applied to S.304B. The expression cruelty postulates such treatment
as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the wife that her living with
the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life.

In State of Rajasthan vs Jaagu Ram, the death of the deceased occurred within
one and half years of marriage due to head injuries. Cruel treatment and
harassment were meted out to her immediately after her marriage till her death
for bringing insufficient dowry. It was held that under such circumstances S.304B
will be attracted.
 9

Expression: “For or in connection with demand for dowry”

The main component of S.304B is that the death of the women should not only
be under the circumstances specified in the section but also the consequence of
the demand for dowry.
As per the explanation Dowry means “dowry as defined under S.2 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961”. Section 2(1) of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 defines
dowry as follows:
In this act, `dowry’ means any property or valuable security given or agreed to
be given either directly or indirectly:
a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either
party to the marriage or to any other person at or before or any time after the
marriage in connection with the marriage of said parties but does not include
dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)
applies.

Explanation II.-The expression `valuable security has the same meaning as in

Sec. 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
The word agreement referred to in section 2 has to be inferred from the facts and
circumstances of the case. The interpretation that the accused seeks that there can
be conviction only if there is an agreement for dowry is misconceived. This
would be contrary to the mandate and the object of the Act.
 10

Expression: “Soon before her death”

Section 304B uses the words that it should be shown that soon before her death,
the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
relative of her husband. Given these words, the prosecution must establish that
any cruel treatment or harassment was nearby immediately preceding her death.
Soon before is a relative term and it would depend on the circumstances of each
case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down as to what constitutes a
period soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed
period.
It needs to be judged from the facts and circumstances of the case. The
importance of the proximity test is both for the proof of offense of dowry and
for raising a presumption under S.113B of the Evidence Act.
In Satvir Singh vs the State of Punjab 4there was no sufficient evidence to
show that the wife was subjected to cruelty soon before her death she attempted
to commit suicide. The conviction of the accused under section 304B/306 was
therefore set aside and his conviction under 498Awas confirmed.
 11

CRUELTY
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code defines cruelty.
If a husband or any relative of him causes mental or physical harm to a woman
then they will be held punishable under this section.
Punishment will be imprisonment for three years and also will be liable to pay
fine.

ESSENTIALS
• Any willful conduct on a woman to cause her injury or to instigate her to
commit suicide.
• Harassing a woman or any of her relative in order to make them fulfil
their unlawful demands.

Case law
The State Of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh on 2 July 2014
In this case, the term ‘relative’ was analysed.
The respondent Gurmit Singh was charged under Section 304B of IPC that he is
the reason for the death caused to Gurujit Kaur wife of Paramjit Singh. The
respondent argued that he could not be charged with the offence of Section 304B
as he is not the relative of the deceased.
The respondent was the brother of Paramjit’s aunt and cannot be said that he is
the relative of the deceased’s husband.
It was held by the court that he cannot be charged under Section 304B as he is
not the relative either by blood, adoption or by marriage of the deceased’s
husband. But the court said that he can be tried under other Section for the
offence.
Section 498A in its definition talks about relative and by this case, it has analysed
the word ‘relative’ and it means a person who is a relative by blood, adoption or
by marriage others will not fall under the category of relatives and cannot be held
guilty under Section 304B but can be held guilty under other section if they have
committed any other offence.
 12

Misuse of the provision and its Constitutionality

Many fake cases have been filed in misusing of the provision for its own motive
or in order to give torture to the husband’s family. The women should not misuse
the very own Section which is made to protect her. However, a mere possibility
to misuse the provision should not invalidate the provision. Hence Section 498A
is Constitutional.

Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India And Ors

on 19 July 2005
In this case, the petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution challenged the
validity of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code to be Unconstitutional. The
petitioner says that the offence is made to protect women against dowry and not
for misusing it against the innocent family members as a weapon.

The issue, in this case, is what preventive measures should be taken if a woman
misuses this provision. The petitioner says the investigating agencies and courts
should analyse the case properly and should not start with a presumption that
the accused persons are guilty. They should not use a restrictive approach in the
matter relating to dowry.

He also says that the investigating agencies and courts should guard the laws
made and should not allow an innocent person to suffer on baseless and evil
allegations made by anyone. The court did not find any material in his appeal
and dismissed the writ petition and said if he wants to prove his innocence for
which he is accused of he may do it in a trial.
 13

Presumption as to Dowry Death

Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 talks about the Presumption as to
dowry death. If a woman dies about any demand for dowry and it was shown that
soon before her death she was subjected to harassment or cruelty by any such
person. Then the court shall presume that such person had caused such dowry
death.
Section 113B uses the word “shall” thus it is a presumption of law. On proof of
the essentials mentioned above, it becomes obligatory for the court to raise a
presumption that the accused caused the “dowry death”. The court has no
discretion to draw the presumption under this Section if the essential ingredients
are proved then they are bound to draw this presumption under Sec.113B of the
Indian Evidence Act.
If it is proved that soon before her death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or
harassment in connection with a dowry demand, then the presumption under
S.113B can be raised. If the prosecution has failed to prove the case under Sec
304B, IPC, then, no presumption can be raised under Sec. 113B of the Indian
Evidence Act.
Thus, S.304B is an integral part of S.113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Cruelty need not be confined to physical cruelty. Even mental torture in a given
case would be a case of cruelty or harassment under 304B and 498A.
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states about the Presumption as
to Dowry Death. If a woman dies in relation with any demand for dowry and it
was shown that soon before her death she was subjected to harassment or cruelty
by any person. Then the court will assume such a person responsible for her
death.
 14

DEMAND FOR DOWRY

As per Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 which says that dowry is
any property or valuable security directly or indirectly agreed to be given by-
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either
party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the
marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties.

Thinking that it will build a reputation in society

Earlier people had a preconceived notion that giving dowry will build up a good
reputation in the society. With time it became a show-off concept in society and
people started comparing it with others.

Illiteracy
In underdeveloped areas, the literacy rate is very less and people are unaware of
the laws relating to dowry, which led to the increased demand for dowry by the
others.
Though dowry is also practised by the literates in an underdeveloped area, it
becomes a bit more difficult to make them understand the laws.
 15

PUNISHMENT FOR DOWRY DEATH

Punishment for dowry death is a minimum sentence of imprisonment for seven

years or a maximum sentence of life. The bare act reading of the punishment for
dowry death states that "whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may
extend to imprisonment for life."

Is Dowry death a bailable and a cognizable offence?

Bailable Offences- Offences in which the permission from the court to release
the arrested person is not required. The arrested person by fulfilling the necessary
requirements can be released and the police cannot refuse the person.
Cognizable Offences- Offence in which the police have the authority to arrest
any person without any warrant and also has the authority to start an investigation
with or without any permission of the magistrate by filing FIR.
Dowry death is a non-bailable and cognizable offence.
As per Section 41 of The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the police officer
while arresting any person without a warrant, be satisfied with the complaint
registered against a person and fulfil all the provision of Section 41 of CrPC.
 16

CASE LAWS OF DOWRY DEATH 304B

MUNSHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Supreme Court Of India
Mar 23, 2023
Facts:
The appellant, Munshi, was convicted of the murder of his sister-in-law, who
died of consuming poison. The prosecution alleged that Munshi and his family
members had harassed the deceased for not meeting their demand for dowry,
which led to her death. The trial court and the high court upheld his conviction.
Issue:
*Whether the presumption under Section 304B IPC and 113B of the Evidence
Act can be raised against the appellant in the absence of evidence of cruelty or
harassment soon before the death of the deceased and specific allegations against
the appellant?
Ruling:
The evidence produced on record by the prosecution is not sufficient to uphold
the conviction of the appellant-Munshi by raising presumption. The appeal is
allowed, and the judgments and orders passed by the High Court and the Trial
Court are set aside for the conviction and sentence of the appellant-Munshi.
Reasoning:
The presumption under Section 304B IPC and 113B of the Evidence Act cannot
be raised against the appellant in the absence of evidence of cruelty or harassment
soon before the death of the deceased and specific allegations against the
appellant.

The deceased died of consuming poison for which the appellant had nothing to
do with in particular. There is no eye-witness to the crime. The allegations against
 17

the appellant are quite general in nature with no specific allegation against him
soon before the incident, which is sine qua non for invoking presumption under
Section 304B IPC and 113B of the Evidence Act.

2. NADEEM CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Delhi High Court
Mar 3, 2023

The complaint was filed by Shri Sagir Ahmed, alleging that the appellant who
was the husband of his daughter had harassed her and also beaten her due to
which she died and it was said that before marriage also the appellant and his
family were asking for dowry and after the marriage, their daughter was beaten,
harassed on a regular basis because she didn’t bring the dowry as expected by the
family and when the deceased once complained to her family about this her phone
was broken by the appellant and also it was doubtful that the deceased has
committed suicide or not because no evidence was found for same.
It was held by the hon’ble court that the trial would take considerable time and
the accused was in custody already for 2 years no one can be deprived of his
personal liberty and it can be assumed that the accused will cooperate in further
trial and won’t remove any evidence and hence, regular bail could be granted
with the penalty and some terms and conditions.
 18

3. MANOHAR SINGH YADAV V. THE STATE OF MADHYA

PRADESH
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mar 14, 2023
As per the prosecution story, the marriage of the appellant with the decased Malti
was held in the year 2001. The dying declaration of Malt was recorded in which
she disclosed that we appellant wanted to sell the house to which she was
objecting hence he threw a burning stove on her and due to which she and her
daughter sustained the burn injuries. The charges were framed against the
appellant which he denied and pleaded that her wife and daughter brunt due to an
accident.
Issue:
Whether the appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part-I and
whether the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC is liable to be altered for
Section 304 Part-I?
 19

Ruling:
The appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part-I as due to the
dispute with the wife he became angry and threw a stove on his wife without any
intention to kill. Hence, this offence will fall in exception 4 of Section 304 of IPC
for which the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC is liable to be altered for
Section 304 Part-I and the period of life imprisonment be reduced to the period
already undergone. The criminal appeal is partly allowed as held above. The
appellant be released from jail forthwith if he is not required in other offences.

Reasoning
The entire conviction is based on a dying declaration as there is no eyewitness of
this crime. The accident took place in the house and the presence of the appellant
has also been established. Hence, the complexity of the appellant has rightly been
decided by the trial Court. She has not stated in the dying declaration that the
appellant threw the burning stove with the intention to kill her. The offence was
committed by the appellant in a drunken condition as well as in heat of passion.
There was no pre-meditation or pre-planning on the part of this appellant and he
did not throw the burning stove on the deceased Malti with the intention to kill
her. It is to be noted that the 'fight' occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC
is not defined in the Penal Code, 1860.
Conclusion
The appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part-I and the conviction
under Section 302 of the IPC is liable to be altered for Section 304 Part-I. The
 20

period of life imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone. The

appellant be released from jail forthwith if he is not required in other offences

CRITICAL ANALYSIS..
NADEEM CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Delhi High Court
 21

Mar 3, 2023

The present application for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is filed in FIR No. 293/2020, under Sections
498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IC), registered at Police Station
Sunlight Colony.
The FIR was registered on a complaint made by Shri Sagir Ahmed, alleging that
the Applicant, Nadeem Chowdhary was married to his daughter, deceased
Shehzadi @Chand, who committed suicide on the intervening night of
05.09.2020- 06.09.2020, due to harassment and torture, being caused by her
husband (the present applicant), and his family members.

It is alleged that the family of the complainant was under pressure even before
the marriage took place. The marriage between the appellant and the deceased
took place on 7.
It is alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and was beaten on a regular
basis, the reason stated for the same was that she did not bring enough dowry as
demanded by the family of the applicant.
Learned APP for the State has opposed the grant of bail. The deceased on the day
of incident had called her mother and informed her that the applicant was having
an extra marital affair and when the deceased confronted the applicant, she was
brutally beaten.

It is alleged that on the day of incident, the victim had called and mentioned that
the applicant was having extra marital affairs and on being confronted, he had
beaten the victim.
The father of the applicant, against whom the same allegations have been made,
has already been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge.
 22

It is alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and was beaten on a regular
basis, the reason stated for the same was that she did not bring enough dowry as
demanded by the family of the applicant Learned APP for the State has opposed
the grant of bail. The deceased on the day of incident had called her mother and
informed her that the applicant was having an extra marital affair and when the
deceased confronted the applicant, she was brutally beaten

It is alleged that on the day of incident, the victim had called and mentioned that
the applicant was having extra marital affairs and on being confronted, he had
beaten the victim.
The father of the applicant, against whom the same allegations have been made,
has already been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge.
Argument:
The applicant cannot be made to spend the entire period of trial in custody
specially when the trial is likely to take considerable time. The presence of the
accused can be secured at the time of trial by putting appropriate conditions.

Decision:
In the event if the applicant is found to be violating any of the conditions, it would
be open to the State to seek redressal by filing appropriate application for
cancellation of bail.
It is also made clear that the observations made in the present case are only for
the purpose of considering the bail application and should not influence the
outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the
merits of the case.
The present application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
 23

BIBLIOGRAPHY
>BARE ACT – THE INDIAN PENAL CODE ,1860
>BOOK:
>WEBSITES:
> https://blog.ipleaders.in
>https://blog.finology.in/Legal-news/section-304b-ipc
>https://thelegallock.com/dowry-death-ipc-case-laws-and-essentials
>https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-
data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00037_186045_1523266765688&orderno=342
>https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1245-dowry-and-dowry-death.html