Section 304 (b) - Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment

for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life.
Smt. Shanti v. State of Haryana
Facts :
 The appellants, along with three other co-accused, were charged of committing a
dowry death. They were prosecuted under Section 201, 304-B and 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code.
 The Trial Court convicted the appellants on all the counts but acquitted the other three
co-accused.
 The appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court which set aside their
conviction under section 498-A holding that Sections304-B and 498-A are mutually
exclusive and that when once the cruelty envisaged in section 498-A into culminates
in dowry death of the victim Section 304-B alone was attracted.
 Accordingly, the High Court acquitted the appellants under section 498-A. But their
convictions under section 304-B and 201 were affirmed.
Issue : Whether a person charged and acquitted under section 304-B can be convicted under
Section 498-A without charge being there, if such a case, is made out?
Judgement:
The Apex Court observed that the view of the High Court that Sections 304-B and 498-A
Indian Penal Code are mutually exclusive is not correct. Sections 304-Band 498-A cannot be
held to be mutually exclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences.
Under Section 304-B, it is the "dowry death" that is punishable and such death should have
occurred within seven years of the marriage. No such period is mentioned in Section 498-A
and the husband or his relative would be liable for subjecting the woman to “cruelty" any
time after the marriage
a person charged and acquitted under section 304-B can be convicted under Section 498-A
without charge being there, if such a case, is made out.
In the instant case, there was absolutely no material to indicate even remotely that it was a
case of natural death. In the result it was an unnatural death; either homicidal or suicidal.
But even assuming that it was a case of suicide even then it would be death which had
occurred in unnatural circumstances. Even in such a case, Section 304-B was attracted.
Therefore, the prosecution had established that the appellants had committed an offence
punishable under Section 304-B beyond all reasonable doubt.

Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana

Father of the deceased files a case on the accused satbir and his brother of IPC
section 304b dowry death and 306 abetments of suicide. He did this because after
marriage her daughter many times told him and his son that because she brought
less dowry she was facing a lot of harassment and cruelty in her matrimonial home.

The case went to the court and trial court on 11 Dec 1997 convicted the accused
satbir and his brother under IPC sec 304b and sec 306 and was punished for 7year of
rigorous imprisonment under section 304b and 5 years of rigorous imprisonment
under section 306.

Issue : Whether the Trial Court and the High Court, was correct in convicting the
accused on the charge under Section 304B, IPC?

Judgement :

1) the first essential ingredient of offence stands proved as the fact states that the
accused and deceased were married on 1st July 1994 and died ( deceased) on 31 July
1995.

2) the second essential ingredient of offence stands proved as the death of the
deceased was due to burn injuries on her body and that too within 7 years of her
marriage.

3) some evidence also proved that within 1 month of the marriage the deceased was
came back to her paternal house as she was being harassed by her husband and
family because she brought less dowry.

4) even before 1week of her death she was complaining about the harassment and
cruelty she is facing by her husband and inlaws and later on 31 July 1995 she was
admitted to the hospital and later died due to burn injuries on her body.

5) the further court held that all these chains prove that there is definately a link
between death and demand for dowry.

6) the supreme court held that the two below courts have properly examined all the
shreds of evidence.

7) the supreme court held that all the essential ingredients for dowry death has been
proved by the prosecution and presumption under 113b section shall apply

8) the appellants failed to show any evidence to prove that the occurrence of death
was an accident because according to the doctor there was kerosene oil on the body
and thus the possibility of an accident does not occur.
Appasaheb & anr. v. state of Maharashtra
Deceased was married for 2 and a half years to the defendant at the time of marriage 5k
rupees as dowry was given she was initially treated well by the family then started to get
harassed by her husband and relatives to procure a sum of 1000 for the purchase of some
manure , she couldn’t complained to her family about it , soon she was reported dead having
consumed some poison , case bought against the defendant under 304 b
Judgement:
In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security
should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time
after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the
giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the
marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable
security with the marriage of the parties is essential.
A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent
domestic expenses of for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the
said word is normally understood. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not,
therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money
for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure. Since an essential ingredient of
Section 304-B IPC viz. demand for dowry is not established, the conviction of the appellants
cannot be sustained.

Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu

Issues: Whether a) 304 b and (b) 113 b of evidence act were applicable to this case