Section 113-B presumption cannot arise without proof of dowry-related cruelty soon before death.

The deceased, Santola Devi, married Dharmendra Mandal in 2002 and died in March 2007 at her matrimonial home.

Her father alleged that her in-laws, including her brother-in-law Dilchandra Mandal, had harassed her over dowry and forced her to consume Thimet

The post-mortem doctor suspected death by poisoning but preserved the viscera; no chemical-analysis report was produced

The trial court convicted the accused under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

During the appeal, the appeals of the deceased’s husband and father-in-law abated; Dilchandra’s appeal proceeded

Whether the prosecution proved the essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304-B IPC against Dilchandra Mandal, including cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before the deceased’s death.

Whether the evidence established that the deceased died by poisoning and supported the allegation that Dilchandra participated in administering poison.

Section 304-B IPC applies where a woman’s death occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage and she was subjected, soon before her death, to cruelty or harassment by her husband or a relative for or in connection with a dowry demand; Section 113-B of the Evidence Act requires the court to presume that the accused caused the dowry death only after the prosecution establishes such soon-before cruelty or harassment

A mere dowry demand is insufficient without proof of the accused’s act of cruelty or harassment, and omnibus allegations against family members—particularly relatives other than the husband and parents—require careful scrutiny

The judgment also stated that a poisoning case requires proof that death resulted from poison, that the accused possessed the poison, and that the accused had an opportunity to administer it

Although the death occurred within seven years of marriage and the doctor suspected poisoning, the viscera report was absent and the medical opinion was not confirmed by chemical analysis

The allegations against Dilchandra were general and linked principally to the fact that more dowry was allegedly received at his marriage; the Court found insufficient proof of his specific participation in dowry-related cruelty soon before the death

The absence of external injuries and the lack of proof that poison was recovered or possessed by an accused further weakened the allegation of forcible administration.

Accordingly, the statutory presumption under Section 113-B could not sustain the conviction

It set aside his conviction and life sentence, acquitted him of the charges, and discharged him from the liabilities of his bail bonds