[IPC 304B] Wife Was At Parents' Home Days Before Death, No Link Between Harassment & Death: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Conviction

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas has held that to convict a person under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), it must be conclusively proven that the deceased wife was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with a dowry demand soon before her death. If there is a significant gap between the alleged cruelty or harassment and the death, the essential link required for a dowry death is broken, and the accused cannot be held liable under this provision.

Brief Facts:

This appeal has been filed challenging the conviction of A1 and A2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, Islampur, in Sessions Case No. 137 of 2011, where both were sentenced to seven years under Section 304B of the IPC and one year with a ₹1000 fine under Section 498A IPC.

The Appellant submitted that the prosecution's evidence does not convincingly establish the appellants' involvement in the alleged offences. There is no specific evidence against them, and the Trial Court should have acquitted them. The post-mortem and inquest reports indicate suicide with no signs of bodily injury.

It was further submitted that no proof was presented that the deceased was subjected to cruelty shortly before her death, as required under Section 304B IPC. Additionally, the gifts given at marriage do not qualify as dowry, and the initial allegations in the FIR do not meet the legal definition of dowry.

It was further submitted that there is no medical evidence on record to show that the victim ever received any head injury which falsifies the claim that one year prior to her death she was subjected to assault.

Lastly, it was submitted that there is no clinching evidence which would establish that there was any harassment by the accused persons for dowry. Therefore, both the appellants are liable to be acquitted from the charges framed under Section 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

In reply, the prosecution submitted that according to Section 304B IPC, if a woman dies by suicide within seven years of marriage, a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act applies. Based on the prosecution witnesses' testimony, the essential ingredients of Sections 304B and 498A IPC are fulfilled, thereby justifying the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court.

Observations:

The court at the outset observed that to convict under Section 304B IPC, it must be shown that the woman died under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage and was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death. Once these elements are proved, a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act arises, deeming the husband or his relatives responsible. However, due to the serious nature of this presumption, courts must carefully scrutinize the evidence to ensure all essential ingredients are convincingly established.

It further noted that P.W.10 stated that his daughter was at her parental home on 25.07.2007, while the incident occurred on 26.05.2007, creating a chronological inconsistency and negating the claim of torture "soon before death." He also claimed to have seen injuries on the deceased's body, but these are not corroborated by the post-mortem or inquest report, making his testimony unreliable and unsupported by medical evidence.

The court further noted that in cross-examination, the witness admitted that a 'salish' (settlement) took place at the police station, during which the victim gave a written statement promising respectful behavior towards her in-laws. However, this writing does not fulfill the ingredients of Section 498A IPC. Moreover, the witness did not mention any dowry demand by the appellants, contrary to the claims made in the written complaint.

It further added that the witness stated he told the police that PW10, the victim's father, bore the education expenses of Mubarak, who was a student at the time. However, such financial support cannot be classified as dowry. He also admitted in cross-examination that an alleged assault by the father-in-law was resolved in a 'salish' held two years prior to the victim's death, weakening any link to harassment "soon before death."

It held that the prosecution failed to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death, as required under Section 304B IPC. While witnesses mentioned dowry-related torment, they did not specify its timing. The victim returned to her matrimonial home on 25.07.2007 and died the next day, yet no evidence was presented showing harassment during this brief period. Given she was at her parental home before that, the essential nexus between dowry harassment and her death is absent.

The court further opined that to secure a conviction under Section 498A IPC, there must be evidence of willful conduct causing the woman to commit suicide or suffer serious harm. In this case, no such evidence exists linking the appellants' conduct to the victim's death or any demand for dowry. Therefore, the Court found no legally acceptable basis to convict the appellants under Section 498A IPC.

Relying on various judgments of the Supreme Court, it held that the phrase “soon before her death” is flexible but centers on the requirement of proximity between the cruelty or harassment and the woman's death. The legislative intent is to ensure that the death is likely a consequence of such cruelty. If a significant time has passed between the harassment and the death, the court may reasonably infer that the harassment was not the immediate cause of death.

It concluded that given the above facts and analysis, it is evident that the prosecution has completely failed to prove that the appellants demanded dowry or subjected the deceased, Rohimunnesa, to cruelty related to dowry soon before her death. As the essential ingredients of Section 304B IPC have not been established beyond reasonable doubt, the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act does not apply. Consequently, the burden of proving innocence never shifted to the appellants.

Accordingly, the present appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment was set aside.

Case Title: Mubarak Ansari & Anr. -Versus- The State of West Bengal

Case Number:C.R.A. 957 of 2013

Judgment Date: 25/06/2025

For the Appellant : Mr. Niladri Sekhar Ghosh, Mr. Shaharayar Alam.

For the State : Mr. Arindam Sen, Mr. Imran Ali.

Click Here To Read/Download Order