Section 113B presumption inapplicable without proving foundational facts of dowry-related cruelty soon before death.

The appellant (A1) married the deceased on 18.04.2014. At the time of marriage, 2½ sovereigns of gold and ₹50,000 were provided as dowry.

The prosecution alleged that the accused subsequently demanded an additional 2½ sovereigns and ₹50,000, leading to harassment.

On 26.02.2016, within two years of marriage, the deceased consumed poison and died at a government hospital.

An enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) under Ex.P11 concluded there was no prima facie evidence of dowry-related harassment.

Despite this, the police altered the investigation from Section 174 Cr.P.C. to Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC.

The trial court convicted A1 for offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, while acquitting his parents (A2 and A3).

1. Whether the prosecution successfully established the foundational facts of dowry demand and cruelty "soon before death" to trigger the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act?

2. Whether the ocular and medical evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC?

The court applied Section 304B of the IPC (Dowry Death), which mandates that the deceased must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives "soon before her death" in connection with a dowry demand.

It further applied Section 498A of the IPC regarding matrimonial cruelty and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Centrally, the court relied on Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, which creates a statutory presumption of dowry death only after the prosecution proves the foundational facts of harassment related to dowry occurring shortly before the death.

The High Court found the prosecution's case riddled with inconsistencies.

First, the testimonies of PW1 (mother) and PW2 (sister) were contradictory; PW1 admitted the couple lived happily for a year and that A1 managed her properties, contradicting claims of continuous harassment.

Second, the RDO report (Ex.P11) specifically ruled out dowry as a cause of death.

Third, medical evidence was unreliable: the initial Accident Register (Ex.P9) recorded no injuries, whereas the postmortem report (Ex.P8)—prepared with a two-day delay—noted abrasions which the doctors (PW12 and PW13) admitted could have resulted from "fits" rather than assault.

Fourth, the recovery of the pesticide bottle (MO1) was deemed fabricated, as its manufacturing date was months after the date of the occurrence.

The court determined that since the prosecution failed to prove the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry "soon before death," the legal presumption under Section 113B could not be invoked.

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence dated 24.02.2022. The appellant (A1) was acquitted of all charges under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, with directions to refund any fines paid and cancel existing bail bonds.