Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section.304-B- Dowry Death:

Deceased died consuming poison, evidence of parent that she complained ill-treatment and physical, mental torture for bringing less dowry. Conviction trial Court, upheld in appeal by High Court. Appeal, both witnesses deposed ill-treatment as a result of domestic cause, there was demand for money to meet expenses, evidence did not show that any demand was made for dowry.

Essential ingredient for dowry death not shown. Conviction set aside. (Appasaheb V/s State of maharashtra)
 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304-B/34—Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113-B—Dowry death:

Evidence of cruelty and harassment not enough to bring/application of Section 304-B. It is necessary to show that such cruelty, harassment was connected with demand of dowry, deceased died in a year of marriage, deceased complained of cruelty and harassment for dowry trial Court convicted. In appeal High Court upheld conviction No evidence to show any cruelty or harassment for dowry demand conviction not sustainable and set aside. (Biswajit Haldar @ Babo Haldaf v/s. State of West Bengal)
 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302/34 and 498-A/34—Murder of wife-Acquittal:

Accused husband and in-laws convicted. Prosecution plea that wife jumped into well due is harassment, conviction on circumstantial evidence, plea from father of deceased, in-laws were demanding money, medical evidence to show it was a homicidal death, post-mortem report indicate injuries on chest and abodomen, attack was with hard and solid thing. No credible evidence to show involvement of accused. N0 evidence of planning murder. Conviction not sustainable. [Laxman Anjali Dhundhale v/s. State of Maharashtra]
 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B and 201-Conviction under:

From the facts of the present case, it would appear that as far as the husband is concerned, there is no evidence to show that there was a demand by him or that he had subjected his wife to cruelty or harassment, whereas the only piece of evidence which has come on record is doubted for the reasons mentioned in the order is the statement made by the brother of the deceased lady, that a demand was made by the father-in-law of the deceased lady just four days prior to the death.

If a demand is made for a dowry, it is expected that the demand would be communicated to the person from whom the dowry is expected i.e. the father or the guardian of the woman in question. No such communication has been made to the father in the present case and even the evidence of PW 11 does not disclose that the demand was communicated to him by his son. it would also be presumed that once having made a demand, some time would lapse before any follow up action would be taken by the erring party. It cannot be said that having made a demand four days prior to the death, the victim would be subjected, to cruelty by her in-laws.

Therefore, the appellants have wrongly been convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. To be convicted under Section 304- B of the Indian Penal Code, there should also be, a conviction under Section 498- A of the Indian Penal Code. [Sumunt Ojha v/s. State of Bihar]
 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B and 498-A-—Acquittal justified:

Husband and mother-in-law alleged to have poured kerosene and burnt alive, defence pleaded for accidental death, letter of victim not showing proof of dowry demand, husband's conviction based on un-established accusation. and unreasoned order set aside. Statement were not made during investigation but at High Court, judgment was sketchy and devoid of reasons. Prosecution failed prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction set aside. [Rammz Kumar v. State of Punjab]
 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B and 498-A— Bigamy and cruelty:

The offence of bigamy will not apply to any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction. It would beappropriate to construe the expression 'husband to cover a person who enters into marital relationship and under the colour of such proclaimed or feigned status of husband subjects the woman concerned to Cruelty or coerce her in any manner or for any ofthe purposes enumerated in the relevant provisions—Section 304-B/49_8-A, whatever be the legitimacy of the marriage itself or the limited purpose of Sections 498-A and 304-B, Indian Penal Code.

Such an interpretation, known and recognized as purposive construction has to come into play in a case of this nature. The absence of at definition of 'husband to specifically include such persons who contract marriages ostensibly and cohabit with such woman, in the purported exercise of his role and status as husband’ is not ground to exclude them from the purview of Section 304-B or 498-A, Indian Penal Code, viewed in the context of the very object and aim of the legislations introducing those provisions. [Koppisetti Subbharao @ Subramaniam v. State of Andhra Pradesh]

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B and 498-A-Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113-B—Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Sections 2, 4, 5 and 6 (As amended)—-Concept of dowry:
Dowry is related to marriage. Intermittent demands related to marriage are called dowry. Where legality of marriage itself is under legal scrutiny only demand will not be dowry. Such demand will not be dowry. Scope of Sections 498'-A and 113-B discussed. [Koppisetti Subbharao @ Subramaniam v/s State of Andhra Pradesh]
 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A—Conviction reversed:

It is necessary to produce material to prove guilt and cruelty. High Court found appellant husband was financing father of deceased, hence there was no question of demand of dowry. High Court acquitted him, but convicting under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, holding after giving birth to a child in normal course she would not have entertained the idea of committing suicide unless one was being harassed for dowry. Conclusion of High Court that there must be some reason of committing suicide, it convicted accused appellant. Not sustainable conviction hence set aside. [Hazarilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh]
 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B and 498-A-Dowry death:

Trial Court acquitted, wife committed suicide, alleged that husband and in- laws demanded huge dowry, High Court interfered acquittal, suicide committed within seven years of marriage. Deceased told her parent regarding demand of dowry, otherwise her in-laws will not allow her entry in home the person who settled the marriage never affirmed of any dowry demand. No amount was ever transacted. No evidence of dowry demand, father of appellant sent information of death immediately after occurrence. Mere saying that something must have happened that led deceased to commit suicide is nota legal plea, conviction set aside. [Nepal Singh v. State of Haryana].
 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B and 498-A-Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113-B — Dowry death:

In the present case, there being not direct eye-witness against the accused- appellant, the question is, whether under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the accused-appellant could be convicted under Section 304-B, Indian I’enal' I I Code. The Evidence Act has taken care of such situation under Section 113-B, which provides presumption that may be drawn by. the Court under certain circumstances. To quote Section 113—B of the Evidence Act.
 

Section 113-B:

When the question is whether a person has committed the death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman Ind 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 mused the dowry death.

For the purpose of this section, dowry death shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code. The applicability of this section is subject to existence of certain facts. First of all, it should be shown that soon before her death, the woman was subjected by a person to cruelty or harassment, for or in connection with any demand for dowry. Looking at the facts and circumstances of the present case, and also the evidence available, Court not satisfied that (1) the death of appellant's wife was caused by burn injury under an unusual circumstances within seven years of her marriage; (2) she was subjected to cruelty and harassment byher husbandlaccused-appellant in connection with demand for dowry. [Kaushik Das v. State of Tripura]
 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B and 498—A-—Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113-B—Dowry death—Presumption of cruelty:

Prosecution unable to prove case. No body named by deceased mere presumption that she was being harassed by in-laws, it does not lead to inference that it was accused who committed offence. It is not proper to convict accused only on preposition; they’. Accused was present at place of occurrence, no valid presumption can be made vide Section 304—B, Indian Penal» Code. Prosecution failed to prove charges of dowry demand, harassment to deceased. Conviction of appellant accused wrong, granted benefit of doubt. [Kaushik Das v. State of Tripura]
 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B and 498-A—Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113-B-Suspicious evidence:

Suspicion arises and the accusing finger can be pointed at the person who was present at the place of occurrence and at the relevant time. Merely because the accused-appellant was present at the time of occurrence, a valid presumption cannot be made holding him responsible for the accident, meaning thereby that he committed the offence under Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code.

Even if it is taken asra case of accident or 13 case of unnatural death of the woman, the accused-appellant cannot be held guilty of the charge under Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code and presumption cannot also validly be drawn against him under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. In this connection, counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decisions in Baljeet Singh, Raj Gopal Asawa and Sham Lal, which lend support to the case of the accused-appellant. [Kaushik Das v. State of Tripura]
 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B and 498-A—Wrong interference by High Court:

Suicide committed by wife within seven years of marriage. Allegation of dowry demand not stated during investigation, lots of improvement were made in Court for first time. Considering limited scope for interference with judgment of acquittal, High Court should not have reversed acquittal, that was a well assessed judgment, conviction set aside. [Nepal Singh v. State 0f Haryana]
 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B 498-A and 324 Explanation (b)—Attracting provisions:

While interpreting the provisions of Sections 304-B, 49.8-A, 306 and 324, Indian Penal Code in the decision reported as State of H.P. v. Nikku Ram and others: 1995 (6) SCC 219, the Supreme Court observed that harassment to constitute cruelty under Explanation (b) to Section 498-A must have nexus with the demand of dowry and if this is missing the case will fall beyond the scope of Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code.

It is thus clear from the reading of Section 498-A, lndian Penal Code and for noted judicial pronouncements that pre-condition for attracting the provisions of Explanation (b) to Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code is the demand and if the demand is missing and cruelty is for the sake of giving torture to woman, without any nexus with demand then such cruelty will not be covered under Explanation (b) to Section 498-A. [Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal v/s State of Delhi]