Section 113-B presumption requires proof of dowry-related cruelty soon before death.

Soni Kumari @ Rubi Kumari married appellant Sri Ram Malakar on 28 November 2013.

Her family alleged that, after the marriage, her husband and in-laws demanded ₹1 lakh, a motorcycle and an LED television, and subjected her to harassment.

She died at her matrimonial home on 4 July 2015, within seven years of the marriage.

The appellants were convicted under Sections 304-B/34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment; they appealed, challenging, among other matters, proof of dowry-related cruelty soon before death and the medical evidence.

Whether the prosecution proved that the deceased was subjected, soon before her death, to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with a dowry demand, thereby establishing the foundational facts for Section 304-B IPC and the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.

Whether the evidence sufficiently established the appellants’ individual or joint liability, particularly in light of the general nature of the allegations, the medical evidence and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer.

Section 304-B IPC requires proof that a woman died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage and was subjected, soon before her death, to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative for or in connection with a dowry demand.

Under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the presumption of dowry death arises only after the prosecution proves these foundational facts; it cannot replace that proof.

“Soon before” is a relative expression, not confined to a fixed period, but the alleged cruelty must retain a proximate, continuing or live link with the death.

The Court also relied on the presumption of innocence and benefit-of-doubt principles in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh; on the scrutiny of witness quality in Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh; and on the context-dependent prejudice that may result from non-examination of the Investigating Officer in Rajesh Patil v. State of Jharkhand.

Section 34 IPC does not cure a failure to prove the substantive offence’s ingredients.

The Court accepted that the marriage occurred within seven years of the death and that P.Ws. 3–5 gave evidence of dowry demands.

It found, however, that their evidence did not reliably identify a specific, proximate incident of dowry-related cruelty, who committed it, or how it remained connected to the death.

The allegations against the father- and mother-in-law were largely collective, and the evidence concerning Sri Ram did not establish the required live link.

The post-mortem disclosed no significant injuries and did not initially determine the cause of death; the defence medical material also raised a reasonable alternative explanation.

The hostile witnesses supplied no corroborative link, and the Investigating Officer’s non-examination caused relevant prejudice in the circumstances.

The prosecution therefore failed to establish the foundational facts necessary to invoke Section 113-B.

Both appeals were allowed; the convictions and sentences were set aside, and all three appellants were acquitted on benefit of doubt.

As they were on bail, they were discharged from their bail bonds and sureties, and any deposited fine was ordered returned in accordance with law.