Foundational facts must be established by prosecution before shifting burden of proof under Section 304B IPC.

The deceased, Ashma Khatoon, was married to appellant Saheb Jan Mian.

On May 10, 1999, the informant (P.W. 5) alleged that her niece had been killed by her husband and in-laws (appellants) due to a demand for a television.

The prosecution alleged the victim died of unnatural causes within seven years of marriage.

The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

1. Whether the prosecution successfully established the foundational facts, including the date of marriage and the demand for dowry, necessary to trigger the presumption of dowry death.

2. Whether the "reverse burden of proof" under Section 113B of the Evidence Act can be applied in the absence of a prima facie case established by the prosecution.

The court applied Section 304B of the IPC, which requires proving three elements: death within seven years of marriage, demand of dowry, and death in non-natural circumstances.

It relied on Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the presumption of dowry death.

Furthermore, the court cited Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2008) 16 SCC 417, establishing that legal presumptions do not absolve the prosecution of proving foundational facts "beyond all reasonable doubt" before the burden shifts to the accused.

The High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the date of marriage in court, noting that FIR statements are not substantive evidence unless proved by the informant.

The sole non-hostile witness, the informant (P.W. 5), gave contradictory testimony, stating in one instance that there was a demand for a TV, but later admitting there was no dowry demand and the couple lived happily.

The court observed that four of the nine witnesses were declared hostile and the Investigating Officer (I.O.) was not examined, which prejudiced the defense.

While the doctor (P.W. 6) confirmed death by strangulation, the court held that medical evidence alone, without establishing the "foundational facts" of dowry demand and time of marriage, cannot sustain a conviction under Section 304B.

The High Court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2000 and 22.12.2000. The appellants were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released from jail forthwith.