### Presumption of Dowry Death Sustained Upon Proof of Foundational Facts and Unexplained Custodial Death of Wife

The appellant, a CRPF personnel, married the deceased, Snehlata Kumari, on 30.11.2012.

It was alleged that the appellant and his relatives harassed the deceased for dowry, specifically demanding one *katha* of land and a four-wheeler.

Consequently, the deceased lived at her parental home until April 2018, when the appellant moved her and their daughter to a rented house in Godda.

Between the night of 05.04.2018 and 06.04.2018, the deceased was found dead in the rented premises.

The post-mortem report identified the cause of death as asphyxia due to strangulation by throttling.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 304B of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

The appellant challenged this, claiming he was on leave but not present at the scene, and that the dowry allegations/torture were not proved.

1. Whether the ingredients of "dowry death" under Section 304B IPC were satisfied, particularly regarding the proximity of animal/cruelty "soon before death".

2. Whether the legal presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act was applicable and if the appellant successfully rebutted it.

The court applied Section 304B of the IPC, which defines dowry death as an unnatural death within seven years of marriage where the woman was subjected to cruelty for dowry "soon before death".

It relied on Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, which mandates a presumption of dowry death if the foundational facts are proven by the prosecution.

The court also cited *Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana* (2021), establishing that "soon before" implies a proximate and live link between the cruelty and death, rather than a specific timeframe.

The court found that the marriage occurred within seven years of the death.

The medical evidence (P.W.-3) confirmed the death was unnatural (strangulation), satisfying the first two criteria of Section 304B.

Regarding cruelty, the court relied on the testimony of the informant (P.W.-4), father (P.W.-1), and brother (P.W.-2), who stayed consistent regarding the demands for land and a vehicle.

The court noted that the deceased was forcibly moved to a rented house just weeks before her death, and the appellant admitted to being on leave during the period of occurrence (24.03.2018 to 09.04.2018) but failed to explain the death that occurred in his household.

This established a "live link" between the marital discord over dowry and the subsequent strangulation.

Since the prosecution proved these foundational facts, the burden shifted to the appellant under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act; however, the court held the appellant offered only "imaginary suggestions" and failed to provide a credible rebuttal.

The High Court upheld the judgment of conviction and the order of life imprisonment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Godda.

The appeal was dismissed, the appellant's bail bonds were cancelled, and he was directed to surrender within one month to serve the remainder of his sentence.