Requirement of Specific Allegations for Convicting Distant Relatives under Section 304B of the IPC

The deceased, Shikha Banerjee, married the appellant Baid Nath Banerjee on 26.02.1997.

The informant (father of the deceased) alleged that after three months of marriage, the husband (a homeopathic doctor) and his relatives began demanding ₹50,000 for opening a clinic.

Despite the payment of ₹20,000 in February 1999, the harassment continued for the remaining ₹30,000.

On 17.10.1999, Shikha died from 90% burn injuries sustained at her matrimonial home.

The defense claimed the death was an accident caused by a bursting kerosene stove.

The Trial Court convicted the husband (Baid Nath), the brother-in-law (Mohan Banerjee), and the mother-in-law (Renuka Banerjee, whose appeal later abated due to death) under Sections 498A and 304B/34 of the IPC.

1. Whether the death of Shikha Banerjee qualifies as a "dowry death" under Section 304B of the IPC.

2. Whether the demand for money to open a business clinic constitutes a "demand for dowry" within the meaning of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the involvement of the brother-in-law, Mohan Banerjee.

Section 304B of the IPC, which defines dowry death as occurring within seven years of marriage under abnormal circumstances where the woman was subjected to cruelty/harassment for dowry "soon before her death".

Statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, which shifts the burden of proof to the accused once foundational facts are established.

Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the precedent Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015), which clarifies that any property or money demanded in connection with the marriage at any time after marriage constitutes dowry.

The prosecution established the foundational facts against the husband: the death occurred within seven years of marriage, it was caused by burns (90%) under abnormal circumstances, and corroborated testimony from P.W.-3, P.W.-4, and P.W.-5 proved consistent demands and harassment "soon before" the death.

The Court rejected the "accidental stove burst" theory as no physical evidence of a burst stove was found at the scene.

Applying the Rajinder Singh doctrine, the Court held that the ₹50,000 demanded for the homeopathic clinic was not a loan but a demand in connection with the marriage, as the deceased was coerced and tortured for it.

Regarding the brother-in-law (Mohan Banerjee), the Court noted that witnesses failed to provide specific evidence of his involvement in the demand or the cruelty; general allegations without specific overt acts are insufficient to trigger the presumption under Section 113B against a relative.

The Court allowed the appeal of the brother-in-law (Mohan Banerjee), setting aside his conviction and sentence due to lack of specific evidence and failure to meet the requirements for the statutory presumption.