Section 304B requires a proximate link between dowry-related cruelty and death.

Priyanka, daughter of appellant Jagdish Singh, married respondent Upendra Singh on 24 June 2011.

On 13 February 2015, Upendra informed Jagdish that Priyanka had suffered burn injuries and had been taken to hospital.

The prosecution alleged that her husband and in-laws had assaulted and burned her.

Neighbours testified that Priyanka was burning inside the matrimonial home, whose door was bolted from within; they stated that Upendra entered, extinguished the fire and took her to hospital.

The trial court acquitted Upendra of the charge under Section 304B IPC but convicted him under Section 498A IPC.

Jagdish appealed against the acquittal.

Whether the prosecution established the ingredients of dowry death under Section 304B IPC, particularly dowry-related cruelty or harassment “soon before” Priyanka’s death.

Whether the trial court’s acquittal under Section 304B IPC was legally infirm or otherwise warranted appellate interference.

Section 304B IPC requires proof that a woman died from burns, bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage; that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative for, or in connection with, a dowry demand; and that such cruelty or harassment occurred “soon before” her death.

“Soon before” is a relative expression requiring a proximate and live link between the dowry-related cruelty and the death; it does not mean immediately before, but cannot be extended to a stale or remote period.

The court relied on Baljinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2015) 2 SCC 629; Devender Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2022) 13 SCC 82; and Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207.

On an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may reappreciate the evidence but should not reverse a plausible view merely because another view is possible; interference requires perversity, illegality or a comparable error.

The court relied on Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544; Girish Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 18 SCC 423; and State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra, (2021) 15 SCC 268.

Priyanka’s death by burning occurred within four years of her marriage, and the evidence supported a finding that she had suffered cruelty at her matrimonial home.

However, the prosecution did not establish that the cruelty was connected with a dowry demand or that dowry-related cruelty or harassment occurred soon before her death.

Jagdish testified that he visited Priyanka on 12 February 2015, the day before the incident, but she made no complaint; other witnesses likewise did not provide evidence of recent dowry-related cruelty.

In these circumstances, the trial court’s conclusion that the ingredients of Section 304B IPC were not proved was a permissible view, not one warranting interference under the appellate standard governing acquittals.

The acquittal appeal was dismissed, and the trial court record was directed to be returned to the court concerned.