S. 304-B IPC | No Proof Of Harassment For Dowry 'Soon Before' Death: Allahabad High Court Acquits Three In 35-Year-Old Case
The Allahabad High Court has held that to sustain a conviction under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must prove that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, a demand for dowry "soon before" her death.
A bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj made the observation while allowing 3 criminal appeals arising from the death of a woman in September 1991.
The Court acquitted Husband-Shiv Narain @ Surya Narain and in-Laws Jai Narayan and Pateshwar, finding that the prosecution had failed to prove dowry-related harassment soon before her death.
Case in Brief
The deceased got married to Accused-Shiv Narain on May 12, 1987. The prosecution alleged that her husband and his relatives harassed her for dowry.
According to her parents, after the deceased initially returned to her parental home, relatives came to take her back and a scooter was allegedly demanded as dowry.
However, the High Court noted that this specific demand was not mentioned in either the FIR or the statements recorded during the investigation and the same was introduced only during the parents' testimony before the trial court.
Deceased subsequently stayed in her matrimonial home for about two and a half years and returned there again in August 1990. She went missing on the intervening night of September 19/20, 1991. Her body was recovered from a well about 115 steps from her matrimonial home on September 21.
At the inquest, the complainant and close relatives expressed the opinion that she had probably died of drowning and did not allege murder or dowry death at that stage.
The FIR was subsequently registered on October 2, 1991, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 and 120-B IPC. The trial court later convicted the accused under these provisions. Challenging their conviction, the Accused moved the High Court.
High Court's observations
Examining the evidence concerning the alleged dowry harassment, the Court noted that, according to the own evidence of the parents of the deceased, the alleged scooter demand was made in November 1987, nearly 4 years before the incident.
The complainant admitted that he had visited his daughter's matrimonial home about a month before her death, but his testimony did not state that any dowry demand was made at that time. Her mother also admitted that she had not visited the matrimonial home after the marriage.
The Court further noted that several close relatives who could have supported the allegation of dowry harassment were not examined. The deceased herself had also never made any complaint during her lifetime alleging dowry harassment.
The bench therefore observed thus:
"…in the light of the sequence of events of stay of Urmila (deceased) and absence of any complaint whatsoever during her lifetime, much less in respect of dowry demand, this Court finds that the evidence adduced by prosecution does not prove beyond doubt that the complainant's daughter was harassed for demand of dowry soon before her death".
Examining the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the bench referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Karan Singh v. State of Haryana. The High Court noted that the prosecution must first establish that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, a demand for dowry soon before her death.
The Court observed thus:
"...the prosecution has to prove cruelty in order to attract Section 113-B Indian Evidence Act and in the absence of any such evidence, the presumption would not be available".
Thus, the Court concluded that a statutory presumption could not arise in the absence of proof of the foundational fact of dowry-related cruelty or harassment.
The High Court separately considered the prosecution's allegation that the deceased had been murdered and her body thrown into the well.
The bench noted that the post-mortem showed a solitary ante-mortem head injury. The doctor stated that the injury could have resulted from a fall into the well if her head struck a tubewell pipe.
The Court noted that the prosecution had not established the manner or place of the alleged murder, nor produced medical evidence supporting the claim that the body had been thrown into the well after murder.
Consequently, the Court held that the Section 201 IPC charge relating to the disappearance of evidence also could not survive in the absence of evidence of murder.
The High Court also noted that neither the charge-sheet nor the charges included Section 302 IPC. Despite this, the trial court had held that the accused committed the murder.
The High Court termed this approach “apparently erroneous in law and perverse”, adding that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate material discrepancies and inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence.
The High Court ultimately found that the prosecution's evidence raised serious doubts and that the charges had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
It accordingly set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and acquitted Shiv Narain @ Surya Narain, Jai Narayan and Pateshwar of all charges.
Case Title - Shiv Narain @ Surya Narain vs. State of U.P. and connected appeals 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 636
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 636