Unrebutted Section 113B Presumption Sustains Dowry-Death Conviction Where Statutory Ingredients Are Proved.

The appellant’s wife was married to him in 2007 and died in 2011 at the matrimonial home from multiple sharp-cut injuries.

Her father alleged that the appellant and his family had demanded a colour television and ₹50,000 for business purposes and harassed her when the demands were not met.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

During the appeal, the appellant’s completed sentence and release from custody were reported; the appeal therefore survived only against the conviction.

Whether the appeal remained to be decided against the conviction after the appellant had completed his sentence and been released.

Whether the evidence established the ingredients of dowry death under Section 304B IPC and justified upholding the conviction.

Section 304B IPC applies where a woman’s death is caused by burns, bodily injury, or 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 his relatives in connection with a dowry demand.

Under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, proof of those circumstances gives rise to a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death, subject to rebuttal.

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act concerns punishment for demanding dowry; the judgment records the conviction under that provision but does not separately analyse its application.

No judicial precedents are cited.

The Court treated the evidence of P.Ws. 2–6 as supporting the dowry demand and cruelty, including harassment soon before the death.

The marriage occurred in 2007 and the death in 2011, placing the death within seven years of marriage; the post-mortem evidence showed seven ante-mortem sharp-cut injuries, and the investigating officer testified to blood-stained bedding at the matrimonial home.

Finding the statutory ingredients established, the Court held that the presumption under Section 113B arose and had not been rebutted by the defence.

It found no perversity or illegality warranting appellate interference.

The appeal, which survived only against the conviction after the appellant completed his sentence, was disposed of.