Indeterminate cause of death does not defeat a dowry-death conviction when statutory elements are otherwise proved.

The deceased, Milan Devi, married appellant no. 2, Binod Ram, about five months before her death.

Her family alleged that the appellants demanded a motorcycle and buffalo as dowry and subjected her to cruelty when the demands were not met.

On 6 April 2014, her father received information that she had been killed and her body was being burnt; he found the body partially burnt behind the matrimonial home.

The appellants were convicted under Sections 304-B and 201/34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment, with the terms to run concurrently.

By the time the appeal was heard, both appellants had completed their sentences and been released; the appeal therefore survived against the convictions.

1. Whether the evidence established the ingredients of dowry death under Section 304-B IPC and justified the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.

2. Whether the trial court’s convictions under Sections 304-B and 201/34 IPC warranted interference in appeal, including in light of the medical evidence and the absence of independent or eyewitness testimony.

Section 304-B IPC requires proof that a woman’s death was caused by burns, bodily injury, or otherwise than under normal circumstances; that it occurred within seven years of marriage; and that, soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused in connection with a dowry demand.

Once the statutory conditions are established, Section 113B of the Evidence Act raises a presumption of dowry death, which the defence may rebut.

The Court also treated Sections 201/34 IPC as applicable to the alleged destruction of evidence through the burning of the deceased’s body.

The Court accepted the testimony of the deceased’s father and other close relatives concerning the dowry demands and cruelty, holding that their relationship to the deceased did not, by itself, make their evidence unreliable.

It found that the death was unnatural, occurred within five months of the marriage, and followed cruelty connected with demands for a motorcycle and buffalo.

The doctor’s inability to determine the precise cause of death was attributed to the extensive burning of the body and was not considered inconsistent with the prosecution case.

The Investigating Officer’s evidence concerning recovery of the burnt body, together with the circumstances of its burning, supported the prosecution’s case of destruction of evidence.

The Court concluded that the Section 304-B ingredients were proved and that the defence had not rebutted the Section 113B presumption.

As both appellants had completed their sentences, the appeal, which survived only against the convictions, was disposed of.