Section 304B.

Dowry death

 1
[304B. Dowry death.—(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 purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same
meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of
1961).
 Whoever commits dowry death shall be
(2)
punished with imprison­ment for a term which
shall not be less than seven years but which
may extend to imprisonment for life.]
Essentials of Dowry Death:

1) Death of woman in in-laws

house
2) Death other than ordinary
circumstances
3) Death within 7 years of
marriage
4) Demand of dowry
5) Harassment in connection with
demand of dowry
6) Harassment happened soon
Section 113B in
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
113B. 4[ 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 had 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. Explanation.-- For the purposes
of this section," dowry death" shall have the
same meaning as in section 304B of the
Indian Penal Code.]
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860

 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman

subjecting her to cruelty.-- Whoever, being the
husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine.1. Chapter
XXA inserted by Act 46 of 1983, s. 2.
 Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,"
cruelty" means-(a) any wilful conduct which is of such
a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb
or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman;
or
 (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment
is with a view to coercing her or any person related to
her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
Section 2 in The Dowry Prohibition Act 1961

 2. Definition of" dowry". 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
a other person, to either party to the marriage or to
any other person; at or before or after the marriage
us consideration for the marriage of the said parties,
but does not include dower or mahr in the case of
persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)
applies. Explanation I.- For the removal of doubts, it is
hereby declare that any presents made at the time of
a marriage to either party to the marriage in the form
of cash, ornaments, clothes or other articles, shall not
be deemed to be dowry within the meaning of this
section, unless they are made as consideration for the
marriage of the said parties.
K Bala Subrahmanyam v. State
of Andhra Pradesh 1993 Cr LJ
163
 Facts: Bala subrah belonged to a village, completely illiterate, into
agricultural flourishing business, girl was studying B Tech and was brought
up in Mumbai, could not speak in Telugu, her mother-in-law (her own aunt)
was ill-treating her, beating her, she wrote letters to her parents in Hindi
telling them about her plight, her sister-in-law used to post the letters for
her, neighbours saw this girl crying and asking for help, husband and mother-
in-law were not helping at all, had put her to fire, father-in-law went to get
water for her to save her, but he was stopped by the mother-in-law.
 TC- acquitted all of them
 1) she had told the neighbours about her plight
 2) she was speaking to her brother in Hindi
 3) sometimes, the neighbour said that she was in verandah, sometimes in
kitchen, hence changing statements
 4) In the letters, they could not find evidence of much of cruelty
 Defence counsel:
 1) Before death, she had watched a movie in Telugu about Parvati, and under
that influence she committed suicide
 HC- convicted only husband and acquitted rest
 SC- husband and mother-in-law were convicted, father-in-law was acquitted
Gurdip Singh Vs.State of Punjab,
2013(11)SCALE122
 Harjit Kaur, daughter of Mohinder Singh was married with
Mohan Singh accused. Mohinder Singh along with Hari
Singh Sarpanch, who was his brother from the brotherhood,
had gone to village Gharyala to see his daughter Harjit Kaur
because the in-laws of Harjit Kaur were in the habit of
picking up quarrels with her for bringing less dowry. The in-
laws of Harjit Kaur used to pressurize her to bring scooter,
refrigerator and cash from her parents. On her failure to do
so, they after conspiring with each other, threatened to kill
her by giving some poisonous substance. Gurdip Singh,
father-in-law of Harjit Kaur, on many occasions told Harjit
Kaur that in case she failed to bring the above said articles
before Rabi crop, then after murdering her, he will remarry
his son.
 it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to establish
that the death occurred within seven years of marriage.
Section 304B of Indian Penal Code permits presumption of
law only in a given set of facts and not presumption of fact.
Fact is to be proved and then only, law will presume.
 prosecution has failed to establish the crucial fact on the
 If, in a particular incident of dowry death, the facts are such as to
satisfy the legal ingredients of an offence already known to the law,
and if those facts can be proved without much difficulty, the
existing criminal law can be resorted to for bringing the offender to
book. In practice, however, two main impediments arise-
 (i) either the facts do not fully fit into the pigeonhole of any known
offence: or
 (ii) the peculiarities of the situation are such that proof of directly
incriminating facts is thereby rendered difficult.
 The first impediment mentioned above is aptly illustrated by the
situation where a woman takes her life with her own hands, though
she is driven to it by ill-treatment. This situation may not fit into any
existing pigeon-hole in the list of offences recognized by the
general criminal law of the country, except where there is definite
proof of instigation, encouragement or other conduct that amounts
to "abetment" of suicide. Though, according to newspaper reports,
there have been judgments of lower courts which seem to construe
"abetment" in this context widely, the position is not beyond doubt.
 The second situation mentioned above finds illustration in those
incidents in which even though the circumstances raise a strong
suspicion that the death was not accidental, yet, proof beyond
reasonable doubt may not be forthcoming that the case was really
one of homicide. Thus, there is need to address oneself to the
substantive criminal law as well as to the law of evidence.
Bakshish Ram and Anr.
Vs. State of Punjab
AIR2013SC1484
 As per the prosecution case, on 06.07.1992, Bikkar Ram (since
deceased) - the father of Surinder Kaur (deceased) went to meet
her daughter at her matrimonial home where she informed him
about the harassment and mal-treatment meted out by her
husband - Bakshish Ram (Appellant No. 1 herein), her father-in-law,
Khushia Ram (since deceased) and her mother-in-law Dalip Kaur
(Appellant No. 2 herein). She also informed him that her in-laws
were pressurizing her to bring more money from her parents as
they wanted to purchase a Cooler. It was alleged by Bikkar Ram
that about four months before the incident, the deceased was sent
to her parents house to bring money for purchasing a Cooler and he
gave her Rs. 800/- for the same,
 On the next day, i.e., on 07.07.1992, at about 10.30 p.m., one
Parminder Singh informed Bikkar Ram that his daughter has been
set on fire by her in-laws
 The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the
prosecution has established its case against the Appellants-accused
beyond reasonable doubt and the Courts below are justified in
convicting them under Sections 304B and 498A Indian Penal Code
and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven
years?
 Mother deposed in the court
 The harassment issues was told by her husband
 It was a hearsay evidence
 Father died before recording of the evidence
 Another relevant aspect to be noted is that it was
Appellant No. 1-husband of the deceased who took
the deceased to the hospital and it was he who
informed the police as well as parents of the
deceased. It is also brought to our notice that he did
not make any attempt to run away from the place of
occurrence
Kansraj v. State of Punjab
AIR 2000 SC 2324
 Facts: Lady died 7 years of marriage, brother of lady went
to her house on occasion of karvachauth with jewellery,
found her dead body, saw marks on the neck of the woman,
brother suspected, post-mortem report said that she died of
asphyxiation, when she met her parents 2 months earlier,
she told them that he was asking for dowry –scooter and
refrigerator, they gave 30 000, then went back to her
matrimonial house, then never saw her parents again
 Earlier everyone, her husband and his relatives were
charged
 TC and HC: acquitted everyone except husband
 SC- only husband
 Defence counsel-
 1) 2/3 months earlier he was asking for dowry, not soon
enough
 2) lady’s brother went to her sister’s house on karvachauth,
but 23rd October not karvachauth
 Husband was convicted under 304B, given life
imprisonment
AKULA RAVINDER
 The marriage took place in the month of
April, 1984. At the time of the marriage a
demand was made out for a dowry of Rs.
10,000/-. But the parents of the deceased
PW-1 paid Rupees 8,000/- and promised to
pay the balance amount some time after
marriage. But they could not pay. The
accused harassed the deceased for the
payment of the balance amount. A-l was
working in Army and used to come now and
then and used to demand the balance of the
dowry from the parents of the deceased and
he also used to join with the other two
accused in harassing the deceased. The
ASURVEY OF CASES ON
SECTIONS 304B OF THE IPC IN
THE STATE OF Punjab and
Haryana and Uttar Pradesh
FROM 2005-2010 and the
Supreme Court for the years
2004-2005
TRENDS IN SENTENCING
S304B Supreme Court-
2004-05
 No. of cases: 22
 No. of convictions in the trial court: 18
 No of acquittals in the trial court: 4
 No. of convictions in the High Court where sentence has been
maintained: 12
 No. of convictions where sentence has been reduced or
changed: 6
 No of convictions changed to acquittal in the High Court: 5
 No. of acquittal changed to conviction in the High Court: 1
 No. Of convictions in the Supreme Court where sentence of the
High Court has been maintained: 9
 No. Of convictions where sentence of the High Court has been
changed or reduced: 5
 No. Of acquittals changed to conviction in the Supreme Court:
1
 No. Of convictions changed to acquittal in the Supreme Court:
5
Observations
S113B- Burden of Proof
Defences-
A. Validity of the marriage
B.When the marriage was solemnised?
C.“Soon before her death”
An average time of 10 years has been
taken to reach a Supreme Court decision
Usually the minimum punishment of 7
years of RI is what is awarded to the
accused.
Special and Adequate Reasons
a. Old age of the in-laws
b. Youth of the husband
c . Dependents on the accused
d. No criminal record
 High Court of Punjab and
Haryana, Uttar Pradesh
High Court No. Of No of No. Of
Cases Convictio Acquittals
ns

Punjab and 36 28 7
Haryana

Uttar Pradesh 15 10 5
Observations in the High
Courts
Charged with S302, convicted under it
very rarely
S306 Abetment to commit suicide- if
S304B could not be proved
The method of killing the wife is usually
that of burning her and the defence
taken is that the fire was accidental.
But circumstantial evidence as to the
nature of the fire and its origin help to
determine whether the death was
accidental or homicidal- Dying
Declaration
In this High Court, the husband of
the deceased is usually convicted
but the in-laws are acquitted
due to lack of evidence to prove
cruelty or harassment on their
part.
Usual Punishment- 7-10 years RI(
LI given only in 2)
Duration- 7-8 years
 Ashok Kumar
Vs.
State of Haryana
I(2006)DMC466
Shashi Bala married to Ashok Kumar
Harassed by mother- in- law and
brothers-in-law for insufficieny of dowry
Shashi Bala visited the house of her
father Ram Avtar twice during this
period. She wept before him and told
him that her in-laws were harassing her.
Complainant gave her Rs. 10,000 and
sent her back. The second time also
when she came, complainant gave her
another sum of Rs. 10,000 after
borrowing it from his brother and he
sent-his daughter back to Village
Durana.
Dead on the bed, strangulation
marks on her neck( within 3
months of marriage)
The conduct of the appellant is
highly suspicious. (poison-
strangulation)
Defences- suicide by hanging
“soon before her death”- death
13 days after demand
Why life imprisonment? – within 3
months of marriage, defence not
able to refute presumption under
S113B, No discrepancy in
Prem Nath and otrs.
v.
State of Haryana
2005 CriLJ 2244
Husband-Convicted under
Sections 302 and 304-B I. P. C.
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
life under Section 302 I. P. C. No
separate sentence under
Section 304-B
Father-in-law, brother-in-law
( S304B)- 7RI( acquitted by HC)
Demand for home appliances+ 2
lacs
In-laws alleged- death by stove
bursting
Post mortem report-
Arun Garg Vs. State of Punjab
and Anr. (2004)8SCC251
Death within 3 years of marriage
Appellant alleged to have administered
aluminium phosphate
Seema started complaining that her
husband, Arun Garg, father- in-law, Sham
Lal Garg and mother-in-law, Shimla Garg
were not satisfied with the dowry given to
her at the time of her marriage and all of
them often used to taunt her on the
ground that she had not brought sufficient
dowry at the time of her marriage.
26.03.1999,( 4 days before
death) Seema telephoned her
father, that her husband, father-
in-law, mother-in-law and sister-
in-law were planning to kill her.
Cause of death- Aluminium
phosphate intake
10 years RI
 The Sessions Judge who imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000 to
the appellant did not take notice that for the offence
under Section 304B, the Court is not empowered to
impose fine as a punishment.Section 304B is one of the
few sections in the Indian Penal Code where imposition of
fine is not prescribed as a punishment.
 The Division Bench of the High Court which confirmed the
conviction of the appellant under Section 304B instead of
setting aside the fine, which is not warranted by law,
enhanced a sum to Rs. 2 lakhs and also directed that the
fine, if recovered, shall be paid to the complainant.
 The appellant could have been sentenced only to a
punishment which is prescribed under the law. As no fine
could be imposed as punishment for offence under
Section 304B, the direction to the appellant to pay a fine
of Rs. 2 lakhs was held to be wholly illegal.