#Section 304-B IPC

The Supreme Court upheld a husband's murder conviction in a dowry death case, ruling that his fabricated defence of epileptic seizure - contradicted by post-mortem evidence of throttling - completed the circumstantial chain under Section 106 Evidence Act and triggered the Section 113-B presumption. The decision reinforces that a false plea on facts within the accused's exclusive knowledge can supply the missing link in dowry death prosecutions.

Once the prosecution proves Section 304-B IPC ingredients, Section 113-B Evidence Act shifts the burden to the accused to disprove dowry death; the Jharkhand HC upheld the conviction as the accused failed to rebut.

The Orissa High Court acquitted a husband and mother-in-law, ruling that the statutory presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act cannot be invoked without foundational proof of cruelty 'soon before death'. Unfulfilled dowry demands and suspicious cremation alone are insufficient to sustain a Section 304-B IPC conviction, raising the evidentiary bar for dowry death prosecutions.

The Allahabad High Court reduced a dowry-death life sentence to ten years, insisting that any deviation from the statutory term must be supported by a reasoned assessment of mitigating factors. Other convictions stand, and the decision mandates explicit justification for reduced sentences under Sec 304B IPC.

Allahabad HC acquitted the accused in a dowry death case, ruling that harassment must be proven 'soon before death' under Section 304-B IPC. The court emphasized the need for a proximate link between cruelty and the victim's death, setting a strict evidentiary standard for dowry harassment convictions.

Allahabad High Court grants bail to father-in-law in dowry death case, holding general allegations insufficient to invoke presumption under Section 304-B IPC without specific evidence of cruelty.

The Allahabad High Court ruled that a conviction under Section 304-B IPC can rest solely on a trustworthy dying declaration, rejecting arguments of delayed FIR. The Court also held that life imprisonment is not mandatory and must be proportionate to the accused's culpability, commuting sentences to time served for the appellants.

Rajasthan High Court ruled that suicide within two years of marriage alone cannot sustain dowry death charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC without credible, specific evidence of dowry demands or cruelty. The court emphasized the need for cogent proof linking the death to dowry harassment, reinforcing the 'soon before death' requirement for conviction.

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that the absence of dowry demands in a suicidal note, coupled with inconsistent testimonies and no forensic evidence, fails to meet the burden of proof under Section 304-B IPC. The judgment underscores that mere harassment allegations without proximate dowry-related cruelty are insufficient for conviction in dowry death cases.

The Chhattisgarh High Court reiterated that conviction under Section 304-B IPC requires concrete evidence of dowry demand or cruelty preceding the death. Mere death within seven years of marriage is insufficient, reinforcing the prosecution's burden of proof in dowry death cases.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that distant relatives cannot be prosecuted under Section 304-B IPC for dowry death unless specific allegations of harassment or cruelty are made against them. The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, emphasizing the need for direct involvement in dowry demands to establish liability.

Bombay High Court holds that for conviction under Section 304-B IPC, harassment must be proximate to death; vague, stale demands fail to establish live link.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that suicide note alone cannot sustain conviction under Sections 304-B, 306, or 498-A IPC without proof of cruelty or abetment as defined in Section 107 IPC.

Bombay High Court holds that vague, omnibus allegations without specific acts of cruelty or proximity to death cannot sustain charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.