Jharkhand HC Sets Aside Dowry-Death Convictions Of Mother- and Brother-in-Law, Finding No Proof Of Harassment Soon Before Death

Malti Devi married Manik Pandit in 1993. Her father alleged that her husband and in-laws demanded ₹5,000 and a bicycle as dowry and that she was subjected to cruelty when the demands were unmet.

After a panchayat, she returned to her matrimonial home accompanied by her father and two others. That night, her father found her dead with froth at her mouth; the viscera report detected methyl parathion.

The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, sentencing them to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B. The appeal was heard for the surviving appellants, as the appeal of co-accused Nandlal Pandit had abated on his death.

Section 304-B IPC requires proof that a woman died otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage and was subjected, soon before her death, to cruelty or harassment by her husband or a relative in connection with a dowry demand; only when those foundational elements are established does Section 113-B of the Evidence Act require the court to presume that the accused caused the dowry death.

“Soon before” is a proximity test, not a fixed time limit, and requires a live link between dowry-related cruelty and the death; a resolved dispute followed by no evidence of further cruelty does not support the presumption (Sham Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 9 SCC 759; Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207).

Section 498-A IPC was also set out, although the appeal concerned the convictions under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The court found that the evidence established that Malti Devi’s death by poisoning was otherwise than under normal circumstances and that she died within seven years of marriage.

However, the evidence did not establish that the surviving appellants subjected her to dowry-related cruelty or harassment soon before her death. The principal allegation of dowry demand was directed at Nandlal Pandit, whose appeal abated; the court found no specific overt act by Jamuni Devi or Jhuni Pandit. The court also noted the evidence that they had no connection with the marital affairs and relied on separate ration cards in assessing their claim of separate family arrangements.

The foundational facts for applying Section 113-B against the surviving appellants were therefore not proved.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were discharged from their bail bonds; their sureties were also discharged.