Dowry Death Conviction Set Aside Due to Absence of ‘Soon Before Death’ Cruelty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Conviction to Abetment of Suicide

“Presumption of Dowry Death Cannot Survive Mere Passage of Time”, In a significant pronouncement on the essential elements required for convicting under dowry death charges, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 17th July 2025 modified the conviction of a husband from Section 304B IPC (dowry death) to Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) and Section 498A IPC (cruelty). Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, while deciding CRA-S-323-SB-2008 and CRR-2294-2008, highlighted the critical necessity of proving “cruelty or harassment soon before death” for sustaining a conviction under dowry death provisions.

“Merely being within seven years of marriage is not enough. There must be clear evidence of dowry-related harassment immediately proximate to the death,” the Court emphasized while partially allowing the appeal and dismissing the revision against acquittal of co-accused.

The case arose from the tragic death of Bhavita, who had married the appellant Bhuvnesh Kapoor on 3rd July 2003 and died of aluminum phosphide poisoning on 25th February 2006, within seven years of marriage. Her brother, the complainant, alleged that she had been persistently harassed over dowry demands, particularly for a car. An FIR under Section 304B IPC was registered against the husband and four other relatives.

The Trial Court convicted only the husband under Section 304B IPC and acquitted the other family members on the grounds of separate residence and lack of direct involvement. Both the appeal by the husband against conviction and revision by the complainant against acquittal of co-accused were before the High Court.

The pivotal legal issue was whether the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act regarding dowry death could be invoked in absence of evidence showing dowry-related cruelty "soon before death."

Justice Bedi noted, “While cruelty and harassment are established, the temporal link required under Section 304B IPC between the harassment and the death is missing. The last proven dowry demand was over three months prior to the death, thus the presumption under Section 113B collapses.”

The Court heavily relied on Supreme Court precedents, particularly Baijnath v. State of M.P. (2017) 1 SCC 101 and Charan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 AIR SC 2005, to reinforce the principle that in dowry death cases, “soon before death” is not a casual phrase but a mandatory requirement.

The Court reiterated,

“Proof of dowry demand is not enough; there must be a live and proximate link between such demand and the unnatural death.”

Dowry Harassment Established, Dowry Death Charge Fails

Justice Bedi concluded that while the prosecution had successfully proved persistent dowry demands during the marriage, including credible testimony about demands for a car, there was no credible evidence linking the harassment directly to the death.

Quoting from the judgment:

“While it is hard to sustain the conviction under Section 304B IPC, there is sufficient material on record to convict the accused-appellant under Section 306 IPC along with Section 498A IPC.”

Accordingly, the conviction under Section 304B IPC was set aside, and instead, the Court convicted the husband under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) with four years’ imprisonment and under Section 498A IPC (cruelty) with two years’ imprisonment, both to run concurrently.

Acquittal of Co-Accused Upheld: “Living Separately, No Evidence of Harassment”

In dismissing the revision petition against the acquittal of the mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law, the Court endorsed the trial court’s reasoning, observing:

“The car was demanded for the husband’s benefit. The other accused lived separately and their involvement is not borne out by the evidence.”

The Court reiterated the importance of individualized criminal responsibility in dowry cases, holding that mere familial relations are insufficient for conviction without concrete evidence.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision underscores a nuanced approach to dowry death cases, ensuring convictions are based on rigorous adherence to statutory requirements rather than assumptions based on timing of death alone.

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi summed up the essence succinctly:

“Cruelty without proximity is not culpable under Section 304B IPC. To convict, the cruelty must echo in the immediate shadows of death.”

Date of Decision: 17th July 2025