Persistent dowry-related cruelty continuing shortly before death satisfies Section 304-B’s “soon before” requirement.

Suneeta Devi was found dead at her matrimonial home on 9 January 2014, with burn injuries and signs of ante-mortem strangulation.

Her father alleged that her husband, Karunesh Tiwari, had subjected her to cruelty over demands for ₹1,00,000 and a motorcycle. The trial court acquitted the other accused but convicted Karunesh under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment under Section 304-B. He appealed, disputing, among other matters, the duration of the marriage, the dowry allegations and the proof of cruelty soon before death.

Whether Suneeta’s death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances and within seven years of her marriage.

Whether the prosecution established dowry-related cruelty or harassment soon before her death, bringing the case within Section 304-B IPC.

Whether the evidence and statutory presumptions justified affirming the appellant’s convictions.

Section 304-B IPC applies where a woman dies from burns, bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage, and is shown to have faced dowry-related cruelty or harassment soon before death; Section 113-B of the Evidence Act then requires the court to presume dowry death.

“Soon before” is a proximity test assessed in the circumstances of each case, not a fixed time limit; persistent cruelty may satisfy it where no intervening circumstance breaks the link (Kans Raj v. State of Punjab).

Section 106 of the Evidence Act places the burden of explaining facts especially within an accused’s knowledge once the prosecution establishes the foundational facts; in a death within the matrimonial home, the husband’s failure to give a credible explanation may be a relevant circumstance (Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra).

The court also considered Sections 498-A IPC and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and relied on the principle that independent witnesses may not ordinarily be available to prove cruelty within the matrimonial home (Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana).

The medical evidence established ante-mortem strangulation and extensive burns, making the death unnatural; the court rejected the suicide account as inconsistent with the strangulation injury and unsupported by evidence that the deceased had been found in a bolted room or placed on a funeral pyre.

It accepted the father’s and uncle’s evidence that the marriage had taken place about five years before the death, and found that dowry-related cruelty was reported four to five months before death by the father and about one month before death by the uncle. Applying the proximity test, the court held that the evidence established cruelty soon before death and triggered the Section 113-B presumption.

It further found that the appellant’s explanation was unsupported and insufficient to rebut the presumption; the acquittal of the relatives did not undermine the conviction because they were found to be living separately from the appellant and deceased.

It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the appellant’s convictions and sentences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.