Mere Death Within Seven Years Of Marriage Not Enough To Convict For Dowry Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband And In-Laws In Railway Suicide Case

“Presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act not attracted when prosecution fails to prove cruelty or harassment soon before death,” rules High Court In a judgment that underscores the legal threshold required to convict for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC, the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 5 January 2026 acquitted the husband and mother-in-law of a deceased woman who died by suicide at a railway platform, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the essential requirement of cruelty or harassment "soon before death".

The Division Bench of Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice Subba Reddy Satti, delivering a common judgment in Criminal Appeals Nos. 2301 and 2600 of 2018, set aside the convictions under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur at Gooty, in Sessions Case No.218 of 2017.

The High Court observed:

“Convicting accused for offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, based on the improved version of P.Ws.3, 4 and 10 is wholly unsustainable… The prosecution failed to connect the appellants to the crime and prove their guilt regarding the cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry, soon before the death of the deceased.” [Para 29]

“Soon Before Death” Must Be Proved: Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Automatic

The deceased, M. Lakshmi Rajyam, died on 4 March 2016, allegedly by suicide after jumping under a train at Guntakal Railway Station, within seven years of marriage. The prosecution’s case was that her husband (A1) and in-laws (A2 and A3) harassed her for additional dowry and cash.

However, while acknowledging that the death occurred under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage, the High Court highlighted that mere temporal proximity is not enough to sustain a conviction under Section 304-B IPC. The Court reiterated:

“There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effects of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.” [Para 20, quoting Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, (2005) 2 SCC 388]

Citing Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the Bench clarified that the statutory presumption of dowry death arises only when the foundational facts are proved, particularly harassment for dowry “soon before death”.

Witness Testimony Vague, Uncorroborated and Improved Over FIR: Court Finds Evidence Unreliable

The prosecution relied heavily on the testimonies of the deceased’s father (P.W.3), brother (P.W.4), and uncle (P.W.10). They alleged that the deceased was harassed for Rs.50,000 shortly after marriage and was later pressured to bring Rs.2,00,000 as additional dowry, following the marriage of her younger sister.

However, the Court found these statements vague, uncorroborated, and notably absent from the initial Ex.P1 complaint. The Bench emphasized:

“The report is silent about the payment of Rs.50,000/- and the demand for additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. Thus, P.W.3 and other material witnesses improved the version during the evidence.” [Para 27]

Further, the Court criticized the lack of contemporaneous complaints or mediation efforts, observing:

“Had the accused really harassed as spoken by P.Ws. 3, 4 and 10, for a period of nearly five years, P.W.1 would have reported the same or pressed for elderly mediation.” [Para 25]

Relying on the classification in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [AIR 1957 SC 614], the Bench held that the witnesses fell into the third category of being “neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable”, and hence required corroboration, which was lacking.

No Evidence Linking Dowry Harassment to the Suicide at Railway Station

The incident occurred in a busy public place—a central railway platform—yet the police could not find a single eyewitness, and the deceased left no suicide note.

The Bench noted:

“The scene of offence is situated in the middle of the platform, where several passengers will be present… Guntakal railway station is a big junction, where trains move round the clock.” [Para 28]

The post-mortem report confirmed death due to head injury and brain hemorrhage, consistent with being run over by a train. However, no evidence connected this act directly to any cruelty or dowry demand from the accused in the period immediately preceding her death.

Convictions Set Aside; Benefit of Doubt Extended to Accused

Observing that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden and the statutory presumption under Section 113-B could not be invoked, the High Court concluded:

“The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by connecting them to the offence... Hence, convicting the accused is wholly unsustainable.” [Para 29]

Accordingly, the Court allowed both appeals and acquitted Accused Nos.1 (husband) and 2 (mother-in-law) of all charges. As Accused No.3 (father-in-law) had passed away during the pendency of the appeal, proceedings against him were declared abated earlier on 18 December 2025.

This ruling reinforces the requirement of a “live and proximate link” between alleged dowry-related cruelty and the woman’s death for Section 304-B IPC to apply. The Court clarified that presumption under Section 113-B is not a substitute for proof of cruelty or harassment “soon before death.” Mere assumptions based on time of death and uncorroborated family testimony will not suffice to deprive the accused of their liberty.

Date of Decision: 5 January 2026