Dowry death
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 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 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(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 304B, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 80 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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
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: s.304B dowry death: 'soon before' is a relative term, not 'immediately before'. A narrow reading of 'dowry' (Appasaheb / Vipin Jaiswal) is not good law. Basic facts proved, the offence is made out (Rajinder Singh, 3-judge).
-
Rajinder Singh vs State of Haryana
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.
-
Buddhadeb Saha vs The State of West Bengal
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.
-
Major Singh vs State of Punjab
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
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.
-
Gurdip Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecutions under Section 304B IPC for dowry death, the prosecution bears the mandatory burden of proving all five statutory ingredients as matters of fact before the mandatory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act applies. The seven-year marriage requirement is a crucial ingredient that must be established through credible evidence, not presumption. Absent proof of this ingredient, the conviction under Section 304B cannot be sustained, though conviction under Section 498A for cruelty may still stand if the evidence establishes harassment and cruelty by the husband or relative.
On this section: Dowry death; requires five mandatory ingredients: (i) death of married woman by burns, bodily injury, or abnormal circumstances, (ii) within seven years of marriage, (iii) subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband or relative, (iv) cruelty soon before death, (v) in connection with dowry demand; conviction set aside due to failure to prove seven-year requirement
-
Pathan Hussain Basha vs State of A. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a woman dies unnaturally within seven years of marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives for or in connection with demand for dowry, all ingredients of Section 304B IPC are satisfied. The 'soon before her death' should be interpreted using the concept of reasonable time based on facts and circumstances, not as a narrow strict period. Once the prosecution establishes these ingredients through reliable evidence, a deeming fiction under Section 113B Evidence Act presumes the accused caused the dowry death, shifting the burden to the accused to prove otherwise. Mere denial without cogent evidence cannot discharge this burden. However, sentencing discretion remains with the court to consider humanitarian factors and time served.
On this section: Dowry death provision applied to determine guilt. Court examined all four ingredients: abnormal death, within seven years of marriage, cruelty/harassment by husband or relatives for dowry demand, and temporal proximity to death. The Court clarified that 'soon before her death' should be interpreted using concept of reasonable time rather than strict narrow period, and that reasonable nexus should exist between cruelty and death.
-
Sanjay Kumar Jain vs State of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a woman dies within seven years of marriage in unnatural circumstances and it is established that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives for or in connection with demand for dowry, the husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death under Section 304B IPC, even if the exact manner and perpetrator of death cannot be conclusively proved through direct evidence. The prosecution must establish the three ingredients of Section 304B: (1) cruelty or harassment by husband or relatives; (2) such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with dowry demand; (3) such cruelty or harassment was within seven years of marriage. In cases of circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be fully proved, conclusive in nature, and form a complete chain excluding every hypothesis except guilt; however, Section 304B provides a substantive offence that does not require the same level of proof as murder under Section 302 IPC.
On this section: Dowry Death - Applied to convict the appellant; requires proof of cruelty/harassment for dowry demand within seven years of marriage
-
Tarsem Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The essential ingredients of dowry death offense under Section 304B IPC, particularly the requirement that cruelty or harassment must be 'for or in connection with demand for dowry' and must occur 'soon before death,' are mandatory conditions that must be proved by the prosecution. A legal presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked unless the prosecution first proves all these essential ingredients, and specifically demonstrates that dowry was demanded temporally proximate to the death. Absence of evidence of dowry demand soon before death, notwithstanding proof of harassment or cruelty on other grounds, is fatal to prosecution under Section 304B IPC.
On this section: Dowry death offense - core section in this judgment; court analyzed that essential ingredients were not proved
-
Harish Kumar vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When death of a woman occurs within seven years of marriage accompanied by evidence of dowry-related cruelty or harassment, a presumption of dowry death arises under Section 113B IPC. However, if the defense presents a credible dying declaration recorded by an impartial public official (such as a Naib Tehsildar) in the presence of a medical officer who certifies the declarant's mental fitness, and such declaration provides a detailed, coherent explanation of accidental death supported by circumstantial evidence (immediate medical intervention, medical records documenting accidental nature, prompt hospitalization), the presumption stands rebutted. The courts must carefully evaluate the totality of circumstances, including the credibility of public officials as against hearsay allegations, to determine the true factual position. A conviction for dowry death under Section 304B IPC requires proof that the death was caused by cruelty or harassment for dowry; mere proof of cruelty without causal nexus to the death is insufficient.
On this section: Dowry death provision defining death by burn or bodily injury within seven years of marriage when subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry demand. Court examined whether the death fell within this definition despite cruelty being established.
-
Kunhiabdulla vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
To constitute a dowry death under Section 304B IPC and to trigger the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, it must be established that: (1) the woman's death occurred within seven years of marriage under abnormal circumstances; (2) she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives; (3) such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with dowry demand; and (4) the temporal proximity between such cruelty or harassment and the death must be established through a proximity test where 'soon before' the death means the interval should not be much and there must exist a proximate and live-link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death. The expression 'soon before' is not defined and its determination is left to courts based on facts and circumstances of each case, with the essential principle being that the cruelty must be proximate in time to the death and sufficiently fresh to disturb the victim's mental equilibrium.
On this section: Dowry death provision; defines dowry death as death of a woman by burns or bodily injury or occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage preceded by cruelty or harassment for dowry demand. Essential for establishing liability of husband and relatives.
-
Sheik Dawood vs State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
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.
-
Ram Pyarey vs The State of Uttar Pradesh Home Department Station House Officer
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.
-
Bijen Chandra Singh vs The State of Jharkhand
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
-
Ajay Kr. Ghoshal Etc vs State of Bihar
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
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.
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Since the factual matrix is the same for all of these cases, these appeals are being considered together for disposal. 3. The Appellant's case arises from FIR No. 0032/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh, for alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code[1]( page-2-0), along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. This FIR was lodged on 23.01.2024 by the Appellant (the brother of the deceased, Ms. Shahida Bano). It states that Shahida was married on 07.02.2022 to Accused No.1 , Sami Khan (husband of the deceased). Shortly …
-
… Since the factual matrix is the same for all of these cases, these appeals are being considered together for disposal. 3. The Appellant's case arises from FIR No. 0032/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh, for alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code[1]( page-2-0), along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. This FIR was lodged on 23.01.2024 by the Appellant (the brother of the deceased, Ms. Shahida Bano). It states that Shahida was married on 07.02.2022 to Accused No.1 , Sami Khan (husband of the deceased). Shortly …
-
… at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2003, upholding the conviction and sentence of imprisonment of the appellant for life awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). The appellant has however been fully exonerated from the charges under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. 2. Stated briefly, the appellant was married to the deceased. They had two children. The Trial Court/High Court found that the appellant and the members of his family illtreated the deceased and there were frequent altercations between the husband and the wife. The appellant had even left his wife at the …
Questions about Section 304B
What have the courts held on Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code?
Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (26 Feb 2015) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.304B dowry death: 'soon before' is a relative term, not 'immediately before'. A narrow reading of 'dowry' (Appasaheb / Vipin Jaiswal) is not good law. Basic facts proved, the offence is made out (Rajinder Singh, 3-judge). Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 304B, section 304B IPC, section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 304b in bns and ipc 304b punishment. 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 304B of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 80 (Dowry death), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 304B, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.