Dowry death
Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with dowry death. Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in con The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) 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.
Section 80, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 304B Dowry death Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dowry death. | Imprisonment for not less than 7 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-17.pdf 2015-02-26 (not ROPs 16/18). Crl A 2321/2009. 3-judge Thakur/Nariman/Pant. DATE-CHECK flagged 1993-08-31 (death date in the facts); the document is the 2015 dowry-death restatement. IPC 304B 'soon before' is not 'immediately before'. Appasaheb / Vipin Jaiswal are not good law on a narrow reading of 'dowry'. IEA 113B presumption is triggered once the prosecution proves the basic facts. Map ipc 304B and iea 113B.
On this section: Successor of IPC 304B (mapping.csv near-identical, score 1). Dowry-death teaching carries to BNS 80.
-
Rajinder Singh vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In dowry death prosecutions under Section 304B IPC, once the prosecution establishes that: (a) the victim died within 7 years of marriage under circumstances otherwise than normal, (b) the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before death, the court must invoke the mandatory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act that the accused caused the dowry death. The 'soon before her death' requirement is satisfied when there is proximate connection between the harassment and death, determined on case-by-case basis. Circumstantial evidence, including conduct showing consciousness of guilt (such as hasty cremation), combined with forensic evidence and credible witness testimony, can establish dowry death beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to explain incriminating facts within special knowledge (such as presence of pesticide or hasty cremation) permits adverse inference under Section 106 of Evidence Act.
On this section: Dowry death - causing death by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of marriage preceded by cruelty/harassment connected to dowry demand. Primary charge; applied to convict Rajinder Singh.
-
Ram Pyarey vs The State of Uttar Pradesh Home Department Station House Officer
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, the court cannot invoke the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act without first establishing cogent evidence of cruelty or harassment. The presumptive language in Section 113A ('may presume') is permissive, not mandatory, and requires a foundation of direct evidence of aiding, instigating, or encouraging the suicide. The absence of such cogent evidence renders the presumption inapplicable, and the accused must be acquitted.
On this section: Dowry death - The original charge was framed under this section, but all accused were acquitted of this charge by the trial court. The Supreme Court noted the distinction between dowry death and abetment of suicide.
-
Buddhadeb Saha vs The State of West Bengal
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a case of dowry death under Section 304B IPC, chemical examination of viscera is not mandatory. When a woman dies soon after marriage under suspicious circumstances following harassment for dowry, and there is evidence of unnatural death (such as post-mortem findings consistent with poisoning), the court can presume under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act that the person subjected to such harassment caused the dowry death. The absence of positive identification of poison in the viscera report is not fatal to the prosecution case if there is other evidence of unnatural death and the delay in forwarding samples can explain the negative report. Circumstantial evidence combined with the mandatory presumption under Section 113B can sustain a conviction for dowry death.
On this section: Dowry death. Applied to convict appellants for causing death of Tuli Shah by subjecting her to cruelty and harassment for dowry. Sentence: 7 years rigorous imprisonment. Court held that chemical examination is not mandatory; unnatural death combined with harassment for dowry suffices.
-
Ajay Kr. Ghoshal Etc vs State of Bihar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power to order retrial under Section 386(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an exceptional power to be exercised only when the appellate court is satisfied that: (a) the trial was undertaken by a court lacking jurisdiction, or (b) the trial was vitiated by serious illegality or irregularity occasioning failure of justice, or (c) there was a misconception of the nature of proceedings such that there was no real trial. Mere procedural lapses or irregularities in investigation or conduct of trial, without demonstrable miscarriage of justice, are insufficient to order retrial. The appellate court must independently evaluate evidence and arrive at its own conclusions on guilt or innocence rather than remitting to trial court merely because procedural defects exist. De novo trial is a last resort remedy reserved for exceptional circumstances and must be guided by the demand of justice, balancing the accused's right to fair and speedy trial against societal interest in prosecution of serious crimes.
On this section: Dowry death - charged against appellants; trial court convicted under this section with 10 years imprisonment
-
Satish Shetty vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once the prosecution succeeds in establishing the component of cruelty leading to conviction under Section 498-A IPC, in a rare case only can the court refuse to invoke the presumption of abetment under Section 113A of the Evidence Act if other requirements of that section are satisfied. The presumption is discretionary but should be invoked in appropriate cases where cruelty is established, suicide occurs within seven years of marriage, and the accused fails to rebut the presumption. Courts must apply sensitivity in cases involving vulnerable women and dowry harassment, and delay in lodging FIR should not be treated as fatal when the victim's closest relation is a poor, helpless person dealing with tragedy.
On this section: Defines dowry death. The Court noted that subsequent demands for dowry after marriage do not fall under this section as they are unrelated to the marriage transaction.
-
Satish Shetty vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a trial court's judgment of acquittal is shown to be perverse through gross errors in approach and appreciation of evidence, ignoring glaring facts and credible testimonies, an appellate court is justified in interfering with such acquittal and reversing it based on the merits of the case. Specifically, in cases of cruelty leading to suicide by a married woman within seven years of marriage, once the cruelty under Section 498-A IPC is established through credible evidence, the Court may exercise its discretion to invoke the statutory presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act to convict for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, even without a specific charge under that section, where the relevant and material facts are already part of the charges framed under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The conviction should be upheld when the presumption is not rebutted by credible evidence and the trial court's acquittal judgment was patently erroneous in ignoring available evidence.
On this section: Dowry death - when woman's death is caused by any burn or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage and these circumstances suggest cruelty by husband or his relative. Court noted charge was framed but conviction not awarded as subsequent dowry demand was unrelated to marriage.
-
Balveer Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a Magistrate actively considers an application for cognizance, applies independent mind, and deliberately refuses cognizance of certain offences before committing case to Sessions Court, the Sessions Court can still take cognizance of those offences on a fresh application by the complainant, because: (1) Sessions Court is acting as court of original jurisdiction under Section 193 and cognizance taken by it is first cognizance for jurisdictional purposes; (2) The Magistrate's refusal order does not attain absolute finality that bars Sessions Court's revisional jurisdiction; (3) No valuable right accrues from such refusal order as it is not final adjudication on merits; and (4) Provided proper opportunity of hearing is given to the accused before Sessions Court takes such cognizance, the action is constitutionally valid. The distinction between Magistrate playing 'active role' (taking/refusing cognizance after hearing) versus 'passive role' (merely forwarding for commitment) becomes relevant when Magistrate has already actively decided against cognizance, but does not create an absolute bar.
On this section: Dowry death - causing death by abetment with knowledge that abetment is likely to cause death. Alleged against appellants by complainant but rejected by police as not made out.
-
Major Singh vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
To sustain a conviction under Section 304B IPC for dowry death, the prosecution must establish all five essential ingredients with specific emphasis on proving that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand 'soon before her death'. The expression 'soon before her death' requires a proximity test with a material temporal and causal link (proximate and live link) between the alleged harassment and the death. Without clear and credible evidence of such harassment inflicted shortly before death, the conviction cannot be sustained even if the death occurs within seven years of marriage and the victim dies by abnormal circumstances. Evidence from interested witnesses (close family members) alone, without independent corroboration despite opportunity to secure such corroboration, is insufficient to discharge the prosecution's burden of proof. The absence of conviction under Section 498A IPC (cruelty) in the same case further supports reasonable doubt regarding the essential ingredient of dowry-related harassment.
On this section: Primary provision for dowry death; requires death of a woman caused by burns, bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstance, within seven years of marriage, due to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand, inflicted soon before death. The Court analyzed the five essential ingredients and found the prosecution failed on the crucial requirement of proving harassment 'soon before her death'.
-
Sher Singh @ Partapa vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecutions under Section 304B IPC for dowry death, the prosecution must prove beyond preponderance of evidence that: (i) the death of a woman occurred in abnormal circumstances caused by burns or bodily injury, (ii) within seven years of her marriage, and (iii) that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relative connected with a demand for dowry, with the cruelty/harassment maintaining a live link or causal connection to the death (not being stale or aberration of past). Only after prosecution establishes these three core elements does the burden shift to the husband or relative to disprove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The word 'shown' in Section 304B must be interpreted as 'prove' (using preponderance standard), and the deeming provision operates after such proof, not before. Until prosecution discharges this foundational burden, the accused's presumption of innocence is not displaced, and the burden of proof does not shift to the defense.
On this section: Core provision defining dowry death and imposing minimum 7-year imprisonment. Court held that prosecution must 'prove' (not merely 'show') that death occurred in abnormal circumstances within seven years of marriage, with cruelty/harassment connected to dowry demand having a live link to the death.
-
Srikant vs State of Mp
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that a woman died within seven years of marriage due to burns or bodily injury, and that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband for dowry demand soon before her death (even if not immediately before death), the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act shall be invoked against the accused. The burden then shifts to the accused to prove that the death was accidental and not caused by the harassment. An accused cannot escape liability by merely pointing to dying declarations that contain inconsistent versions, especially when medical evidence (postmortem examination) contradicts the accidental narrative. The essential requirement of 'soon before' is satisfied through a proximity test that considers the circumstances of the case, not by reference to any fixed period; a harassment 5-6 months before death is sufficiently proximate when it is continuous and unabated. When death is caused by burns, the condition of 'occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances' is automatically fulfilled without requiring separate proof.
On this section: Dowry death provision: establishes that death caused by burns or bodily injury within 7 years of marriage, preceded by cruelty or harassment for dowry, shall be called dowry death and husband or relative deemed to have caused it. Court clarified that if death caused by burns is proved, it automatically comes under 'otherwise than under normal circumstances' and prosecution need not separately prove abnormal circumstances.
-
A. K. Devaiah vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a woman dies by burns or bodily injury within seven years of marriage and it is shown through consistent testimony of credible witnesses that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband for or in connection with a demand for dowry, the mandatory presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act applies, shifting the burden on the accused to rebut the presumption. The testimony of the deceased's close family members regarding the dowry demand, the cruelty inflicted, and the harassment endured constitutes admissible and credible evidence to establish the essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304-B IPC. Once these three ingredients (abnormal death within seven years, cruelty/harassment for dowry before death, and the causal nexus) are proven, the legal presumption of dowry death operates automatically unless rebutted by the accused, and a trial court's acquittal based on suspicion and conjecture without properly appreciating such evidence is wholly perverse and liable to be set aside by appellate courts.
On this section: Dowry death provision - Where death of woman occurs within seven years of marriage by burns or bodily injury and is shown to be preceded by cruelty or harassment for dowry demand, such death is deemed dowry death and husband/relative is presumed to have caused it. Applied to convict appellant for death of Leelavati occurring within 11 months of marriage.
-
Ramaiah @ Rama vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When essential ingredients of a dowry-related criminal offence, particularly the demand for dowry and subsequent cruelty or harassment for non-payment thereof, are not established beyond reasonable doubt through credible evidence, conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 498-A, and Section 304-B IPC cannot be sustained. The presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act can only be invoked after the prerequisite of proved dowry-related cruelty or harassment is satisfied. When an appellate court reviews an acquittal and finds that two views are reasonably possible on the evidence, with one view being favourable to the accused as taken by the trial court, the appellate court should not disturb such acquittal unless the trial court's reasoning is clearly unreasonable or vitiated by manifest illegality. Courts must scrutinize witness credibility carefully when inconsistencies exist between original complaint and later testimony, and when significant delays in lodging FIR lack satisfactory explanation.
On this section: Dowry death provision; Court held that without establishing dowry-related cruelty as a precondition, this offence cannot be invoked; presumption under Section 113-B cannot be applied in absence of proved dowry harassment
-
Sheik Dawood vs State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a woman dies in non-normal circumstances (such as burn injuries) within seven years of marriage and evidence establishes cruelty, harassment, or dowry demands by the husband or his relatives prior to death, the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act applies. The burden then shifts to the accused to prove on the balance of probabilities that the death did not result from any act constituting dowry harassment. If the accused fails to rebut this presumption through credible evidence, the conviction under Section 304B IPC (dowry death) is justified. Additionally, in cases of dowry death, the minimum sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304B is appropriate and should not be reduced merely on the ground of lapse of time, unless exceptional circumstances (such as advanced age and significant sentence already served) exist.
On this section: Applied to convict Sheik Dawood (the husband) for causing the death of his wife by burns in circumstances amounting to dowry death. This section makes it an offense when the death of a woman is caused by any burn or by any bodily injury or caused by circumstances arising out of any act as described in section 498A. The High Court reversed the trial court's acquittal and convicted the husband under this section, which the Supreme Court upheld.
-
Bijen Chandra Singh vs The State of Jharkhand
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a co-accused in the same case has been admitted to regular bail and interim protection has already been granted to an accused whose employment is at jeopardy, the balance of convenience favors confirming anticipatory bail with conditions imposed by the trial court to ensure investigation cooperation and trial attendance, rather than denying bail entirely.
On this section: Causing death by negligence; the charge under which the petitioner was accused, read conjointly with Section 34 for joint liability
-
Bhupendra vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A conviction for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC does not require a chemical examination report of viscera proving the specific poison consumed; proof of unnatural death of a woman within 7 years of marriage following cruelty or harassment for dowry, combined with the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, is sufficient for conviction. Further, Sections 304-B and 306 IPC are not mutually exclusive; a conviction under Section 304-B necessarily attracts Section 306, though the converse is not true. Suicide is a recognized mode of death falling within Section 304-B when preceded by dowry-related cruelty.
On this section: Dowry Death. Core provision invoked where death of a woman occurs within 7 years of marriage under abnormal circumstances following cruelty or harassment for dowry. Court clarified that chemical examination is not mandatory and unnatural death suffices to invite presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 80
What have the courts held on Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (26 Feb 2015) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 304B, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 304B (mapping.csv near-identical, score 1). Dowry-death teaching carries to BNS 80. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2013 to 2025.
Is Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Non-bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Court of Session.
How do I find court cases under Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 80, section 80 BNS, section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 80(2) and bns 80 3 5 in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (26 Feb 2015).
What should I read with Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 304B (Dowry death), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 80, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.