Mere Death Within Seven Years Of Marriage Not Enough To Invoke Dowry Death Presumption: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of a husband and his family members in a dowry death case, holding that mere death of a woman within seven years of marriage is insufficient to attract the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act unless cruelty or harassment for dowry is clearly established.

A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen was hearing an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the father of the deceased woman, assailing a January 2023 judgment of the Sessions Court at Raisen which had acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case stemmed from an incident in April 2020 in which Mumtaz and her seven-month-old infant son died of extensive burn injuries at their matrimonial home. It was alleged that Mumtaz was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of dowry demands, which ultimately drove her to commit suicide. The Sessions Court, however, found the prosecution evidence insufficient and acquitted all the accused.

Before the High Court, the appellant argued that since the death had occurred within seven years of marriage and under unnatural circumstances, the statutory presumption of dowry death ought to have been invoked against the accused. It was contended that oral testimonies of family members established consistent allegations of dowry demand and harassment.

The Bench, however, noted several glaring inconsistencies and omissions in the prosecution case. It was observed that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of more than one month and that the inquest proceedings did not record any allegation of dowry-related cruelty. Significantly, none of the prosecution witnesses could specify the nature or particulars of the alleged dowry demand.

The Court also took note of admissions made by the deceased’s family members during cross-examination that the marriage had taken place in a community gathering without exchange of dowry or gifts. Several witnesses conceded that no complaint was ever made to the police or village elders during the subsistence of the marriage. The Bench further observed that all allegations regarding dowry harassment were based on what the deceased had allegedly told her family, without any independent corroboration.

Importantly, the Court found that evidence on record suggested that the deceased wanted to live separately from her in-laws, which was not acceptable to the husband. The Bench held that while such domestic discord may have caused emotional distress, it could not be equated with dowry-related cruelty so as to attract penal liability under Section 304B IPC.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahabir v. State of Haryana (2025), the High Court reiterated that interference with an order of acquittal is permissible only in exceptional circumstances where the findings are perverse or material evidence has been ignored. Finding no such infirmity, the Court declined to interfere with the acquittal.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed. Advocate Dharmendra Kaurav appeared as Amicus Curiae for the appellant, while the State was represented by Government Advocate Manas Mani Verma.

Case Title: Mansoor Khan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Judgment: 29.01.2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen