Absence of proof of dowry demand "soon before death" and lack of bodily injuries vitiates conviction under Section 304B IPC.

The appellants (husband and brother-in-law of the deceased) challenged their conviction under Sections 304B, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The informant alleged that his daughter, Seema Devi, was married to Appellant No. 1 in 2006 and was subsequently subjected to torture and demands for Rs. 40,000.

On 04.03.2012, the informant found his daughter missing from her matrimonial home and suspected she had been killed for dowry.

The trial court convicted the appellants, sentencing Appellant No. 1 to 10 years and Appellant No. 2 to 8 years of rigorous imprisonment.

1. Whether the prosecution established the essential ingredients of "dowry death" under Section 304B of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act could be invoked against the appellants in the absence of evidence regarding cruelty "soon before death".

The court applied Section 304B of the IPC, which requires three ingredients for conviction: death by burns or bodily injury under non-normal circumstances, occurrence within seven years of marriage, and evidence that the woman was subjected to cruelty/harassment in connection with dowry "soon before her death".

Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, noting that the legal presumption of dowry death only operates once the prosecution proves the foundational ingredients.

The court also relied on the principle of circumstantial evidence, requiring a "complete chain" to establish guilt.

The court found that the prosecution failed to provide any documentary or oral evidence of dowry demands or "Panchayati" meetings regarding the same.

Notably, the post-mortem report (P.W. 6) revealed no external injuries on the deceased, contradicting the allegation of a brutal assault.

The court observed material contradictions: the informant (P.W. 5) claimed in the FIR that the deceased called him alleging assault, but admitted during cross-examination that Appellant No. 2 had called to report her missing.

Furthermore, the brother of the deceased (P.W. 4) testified to having a cordial relationship with the in-laws, making the allegations of torture after six years of marriage highly doubtful.

Since the prosecution failed to prove "cruelty soon before death" or a non-natural cause of death, the burden of proof did not shift to the accused under Section 113B.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction dated 16.12.2015 and the order of sentence dated 18.12.2015, and acquitted both appellants of all charges.