Omnibus allegations cannot sustain dowry-death convictions against in-laws absent specific evidence of cruelty or dowry demands.

Rekha Mandal married appellant No. 1 in 2002.

Her father alleged that, after the marriage, her husband and in-laws demanded a motorcycle and ₹50,000, and that she was harassed when the demand was not met.

In November 2007, Rekha and her two children suffered burn injuries; Rekha and one child died.

The Sessions Court convicted the accused, including the four appellants in this appeal, under Sections 304B/34 IPC and sentenced each to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.

The appeal challenged that conviction and sentence; the appeals of two other convicted persons had abated.

Whether the prosecution proved the statutory ingredients of dowry death under Section 304B IPC, including cruelty or harassment for or in connection with a dowry demand soon before the death.

Whether the evidence justified applying the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act against each appellant, or whether the conviction of appellants Nos. 2–4 rested only on general and omnibus allegations.

Section 304B IPC applies where a woman’s death is caused by burns, bodily injury, or otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage, and she was subjected soon before death to cruelty or harassment by her husband or a relative of her husband for or in connection with a dowry demand.

Once these foundational facts are established, Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act requires the court to presume that the person who subjected her to such cruelty or harassment caused the dowry death.

The court also referred to the definition of dowry in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and explained that a death need not be classified as homicidal, suicidal, or accidental to fall within Section 304B IPC.

The court found that the medical evidence established death by burn injuries and that Rekha died within seven years of her marriage.

It accepted the informant’s and other witnesses’ evidence that the husband had demanded a motorcycle and ₹50,000 and that Rekha was harassed for non-fulfilment of that demand; accordingly, it held that the Section 304B ingredients were proved against the husband and that he had not rebutted the Section 113B presumption.

By contrast, the evidence did not specifically establish that appellants Nos. 2–4 demanded dowry or subjected Rekha to cruelty or harassment; the allegations against them were general and omnibus.

The statutory presumption therefore could not sustain their convictions.

The conviction and seven-year sentence under Section 304B IPC were affirmed against appellant No. 1, who was directed to surrender within two months and serve the remaining sentence.

The convictions and sentences of appellants Nos. 2–4 were set aside; they were acquitted and discharged from their bail-bond liabilities.