Supreme Court: How to appreciate evidence of demand of dowry if there is evidence that family of accused was more prosperous than family of deceased wife?

 In the instant case, there is no doubt that there is evidence to suggest that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty by the Appellant and his family members in connection with demand of dowry. The evidence of PWs. 4, 5 and 6 do support the case of the prosecution in this regard. It is, however, contended on behalf of the Appellant that though these witnesses have made such allegations, the allegations are not true. In the first instance, it was submitted that the family of the Appellant is relatively more prosperous than the family of the deceased. There is no allegation that any dowry was demanded at the time of marriage. The defence evidence also proves that the marriage ceremony was a simple ceremony where only the chunni ceremony was performed with only 11 or 17 persons constituting the barat. It was further contended that the family of the Appellant has considerable landed property, about 30 bighas of land and they are agriculturists. That apart the father of the Appellant was employed with the Electricity Board at Nabha. The Appellant had no reason to demand Rs. 10,000/- for supporting a shop because he did not intend to start any such shop nor was there any necessity to do so. So far as demand of a fridge is concerned, only three weeks before the occurrence they had purchased a new fridge and therefore, the allegation regarding demand of articles and Rs. 10,000/- appear to be false. Even before the marriage, the Appellant had in his house a black and white T.V. and therefore, there was really no need for the Appellant to demand a T.V. In any event, in these circumstances, it does not appear probable that for such petty things the Appellant would commit the murder of the deceased. The Learned Counsel therefore, argued that the prosecution evidence regarding demand of dowry must be rejected outright. There is no evidence to establish that such a complaint was ever made to anyone before the occurrence, nor had the parents of the deceased convened any panchayat making such a grievance, particularly in the background of the fact that the family of the Appellant had twice convened panchayat and had even taken the panchayat members to the village of the deceased to complain about her conduct. It was, therefore, submitted that Section 304B was not attracted to the facts of this case. It may be that the deceased committed suicide after she had a serious quarrel with her husband for her having stayed for the night at the house of Balwant Rai with whom the husband suspected her illicit relationship. {Para 10}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 880 of 2005

Decided On: 07.11.2006

Sanjiv Kumar Vs. State of Punjab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.P. Singh and Tarun Chatterjee, JJ.

Author: B.P. Singh, J.

Citation: 2010 (3) SCC (Cri) 330,MANU/SC/8928/2006

Print Page

When the Body Speaks Louder Than the Defence: Supreme Court on Circumstantial Evidence in Matrimonial Murder

 The Supreme Court’s decision of Chetan Dashrath Gade Vs. The State of Maharashtra delivered on 21 May 2026,2026 INSC 522, is an important reminder that a conviction for murder can rest safely on circumstantial evidence when the chain is complete, coherent, and inconsistent with innocence. The case arose out of the death of a young married woman, Rupali, inside her matrimonial home, where the defence attempted to project a theory of suicide supported by a purported suicide note, yet the medical and surrounding circumstances pointed to homicide by strangulation.

Why this judgment matters to session judges

Print Page

What is basic concept of Dowry death as per provisions of IPC?

 Dowry death is defined in Section 304B IPC. It applies when a woman dies by burns, bodily injury, or otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of marriage, and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives for, or in connection with, demand for dowry; in such a case, the law treats it as dowry death.

Essentials

For Section 304B IPC, these ingredients must be proved:

Print Page

When there is charge U/S 302 of IPC, whether accused can be convicted U/S 304B of IPC?

 Yes, in an appropriate case an accused charged under Section 302 IPC may still be convicted under Section 304B IPC, provided the facts necessary to establish dowry death were put to the accused and no prejudice or failure of justice is caused.

Print Page

Delhi HC: Cruelty simpliciter is not enough to constitute the offence U/S 498A IPC

Furthermore, in Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda vs. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/1308/2024 : (2025) 2 SCC 116 the Supreme Court while considering the guilt of the husband under Section 498A IPC observed that cruelty simpliciter is not enough to constitute the offence under Section 498A IPC; rather it must be done either with an intention to cause injury or to drive the person to commit suicide or with an intention to coerce her and her relatives to meet unlawful demands. Mere cruelty is not enough to constitute the offence. {Para 32}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CRL.M.C. 4785/2017

Decided On: 13.08.2025

Gainda Lal Vs. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

Citation: 2025 DHC 6826, MANU/DE/6021/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Delhi HC: How to appreciate evidence in case of offence U/S 498A of IPC and Dowry death?

 Furthermore, in Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda vs. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/1308/2024 : (2025) 2 SCC 116 the Supreme Court while considering the guilt of the husband under Section 498A IPC observed that cruelty simpliciter is not enough to constitute the offence under Section 498A IPC; rather it must be done either with an intention to cause injury or to drive the person to commit suicide or with an intention to coerce her and her relatives to meet unlawful demands. Mere cruelty is not enough to constitute the offence. {Para 32}

33. In the present case, to bring in the clause of cruelty leading to the death of the woman, it may be noted that Ms. Shashi had died not because of any act of cruelty but for natural reasons, as stated by CW-1 and rightly noted by learned ASJ. Therefore, Clause (a) to the Explanation annexed to Section 498A IPC is not attracted.

34. Now, Clause (b) to Section 498A IPC needs to be examined to assess whether there are any allegations, which even prima facie make out that the deceased was subjected to harassment with a view to coerce her or persons related to her to meet any unlawful demand of property or valuable security.

35. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana, MANU/SC/1309/2024 the Supreme Court while dealing with the components of Section 498A IPC and to ascertain whether the same are attracted on vague allegations raised by the wife, observed that the contents of the Complaint may be assessed to see if there is any kind of cruelty as contemplated in Clause 1 or if there is any harassment for dowry as contemplated in Clause 2 is made out. If the allegations in the FIR are found to be vague and ambiguous and lack precise allegations which are alleged after the notice of divorce, then it may be concluded that the FIR has been lodged as a retaliatory measure intended to settle the score with the husband and his relatives. In such a situation, the quashing of the FIR is justified.

36. Furthermore, the above observations were reiterated in the case of Digambar, (supra), that where the FIR or the Complaint even if taken on the face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute a case against the accused, the quashing of proceedings would be justified. Only stating cruelty has been committed by the Appellants, would not amount to an offence under Section 498A IPC.

39. It is quite understandable that he being a father, he would have been highly traumatised on account of the untimely death of his daughter. However, it is quite evident from the first statement of the Complainant that no details of the alleged harassment of the daughter was mentioned.

41. The next statement made by the Complainant was under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein also, similar allegations were made. However, as already noted above, no specific incidents which have been detailed in this Complaint.

43. However, Petitioner has neither given any date nor given any proof of giving any money, especially when he himself has stated that he was an Auto driver and had financial constraints. Such bald assertions, in the given situation, cannot be held to be even making out a prima facie case of harassment.

44. When the Petitioner's daughter became pregnant for the second time, he brought her to his house in the 5th month as there was threat to liquidate her in case she gave birth to the second child. He brought her to his house and left her in the matrimonial home after the birth of the second child. Pertinently, the Complainant has made contradictory statements in so much as if the Respondents had threatened to kill the Petitioner's daughter on birth of a girl child, no father would leave the daughter in the matrimonial home in the face of such imminent threat.

45. It is further claimed that there was consistent demand of Rs.2 Lacs in the name of both the children or else they threatened to kill the daughter. He sold his plot at Surya Colony, Faridabad and gave Rs.1 Lakh, despite which his daughter was killed. However, no evidence has been placed on record of either the ownership or sale or of the date on which this money was given. This assumes importance as the Petitioner's daughter died within 40 days of birth of second daughter. To accept the alleged sale and payment, some cogent evidence about the alleged demands and payment should have been disclosed by the Petitioner. Such bald assertions cannot be considered to even disclose the case of harassment.

46. The statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Sunny, brother of the deceased, Ms. Shashi was also recorded, who stated that he had gone to meet Ms. Shashi at her matrimonial home on Holi when he found her crying and her in-Laws were harassing her. He, on return to their home, informed the same to the Petitioner.

48. However, merely because the deceased was crying, cannot per se make out any case of dowry harassment. The statements of the brother, Sunny and sister, Poonam also in no way establish even prima facie that Shashi was being harassed by her in laws for meeting their demands.

49. Furthermore, in the Petitioner's Complaint as well, aside from vague assertions that there was a constant demand of money, there are no specific incidents which have been detailed in this Complaint. The amount of Rs.45- 50,000 has been stated to have been given in Chuchak at the time of birth of the daughter and cannot be termed as a demand. There was nothing on record to even remotely suggest that there was any harassment of the deceased for fulfilling their demands for money.

50. The allegations in the Complain and the statements of the witnesses reflect that essentially the Petitioner was aggrieved by the death of his daughter and believed it to be on account of cruelty meted out to her. However, the learned ASJ had concluded that the death was on account of natural reasons and discharged the Respondents No. 3 to 5 under Section 304B IPC. This Order never got challenged and cannot be re-agitated now.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CRL.M.C. 4785/2017

Decided On: 13.08.2025

Gainda Lal Vs. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

Citation: 2025 DHC 6826, MANU/DE/6021/2025

Print Page

Delhi HC: Whether accused is entitled to be released on bail in the case of dowry death if wife has died in parental home and not in matrimonial home?

To recapitulate, in the present case, according to the accused/applicant, offence under Section 304B IPC is not made out because the deceased died at her parental and not matrimonial home; and that there being no allegation of dowry harassment during the period between 15.03.2023 when the deceased shifted to her parental home and 27.04.2023 when she committed suicide, the period is too large a period to be taken as a period contemplated by the phrase "soon before her death" used in the said provision. {Para 6}

7. I am unable to convince myself that merely because the deceased committed suicide in her parental home and not in her matrimonial home, it is not a case of dowry death. Place where a tormented lady gets compelled to kill herself has no bearing. For purposive interpretation of the provision under Section 304B IPC, it is the existence and continuance of matrimony which has to be kept in mind and not the place(s) to which the deceased shifts herself before taking her life.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Bail Appln. 4627/2024

Decided On: 07.04.2025

Vinay Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Girish Kathpalia, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/2357/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Court should not discharge accused for an offence U/S 306 of IPC while confirming charge U/S 304B of IPC

This Court in the case of Bhupendra (supra) has in

paragraph 30 held as under:

“30. We are, therefore, of the opinion that Section

306 IPC is much broader in its application and

takes within its fold one aspect of Section 304B

IPC. These two sections are not mutually exclusive.

If a conviction for causing a suicide is based on

Section 304B IPC, it will necessarily attract

Section 306 IPC. However, the converse is not true.

Having heard learned counsel parties, considering

the totality of the circumstances and keeping in view the

suicide notes as well as the statements of witnesses, we

are of the opinion that respondents no.1 and 2 ought not

to have been discharged of the offence under Section 306

IPC, especially when the charges under Section 304B IPC

and other related sections had already been framed and

confirmed.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.601 OF 2021

BHAGWANRAO MAHADEO PATIL  Vs  APPA RAMCHANDRA SAVKAR 

Dated: July 14, 2021

Print Page

Can the court convict the accused for an offence U/S 304-B of IPC if charge U/S 498A of IPC is not framed against the accused?

 Lastly, the counsel on behalf of the appellant argued that without any charges under Section 498A, IPC a conviction under Section 304-B, IPC cannot be sustained. On this aspect this Court in the case of Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, (2005) 2 SCC 388 held as under:

“12. …….It is to be noted that Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC cannot be held to be mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is true that cruelty is a common essential to both the sections and that has to be proved. The  Explanation to Section 498-A gives the meaning of “cruelty”. In Section 304-B there is no such explanation about the meaning of “cruelty”. But having regard to the common background to these offences it has to be taken that the meaning of “cruelty” or “harassment” is the same as prescribed in the Explanation to Section 498-A under which “cruelty” by itself amounts to an offence. Under Section 304-B it is “dowry death” that is punishable and such death should have occurred within seven years of marriage. No such period is mentioned in Section 498-A. If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the sections.”

(emphasis supplied) {Para 19}

20. Therefore, the argument raised by the counsel on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted as the offences under Section 498-A and Section 304-B, IPC are distinct in nature. Although cruelty is a common thread existing in both the offences, however the ingredients of each offence are distinct and must be proved separately by the prosecution. If a case is made out, there can be a conviction under both the sections.

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1731 OF 2010

GURMEET SINGH Vs  STATE OF PUNJAB

Author: N. V. RAMANA, CJI.

DATED : 28.05.2021

Print Page