Court case(1998) 3 SCC 309

Urmil married Pawan Kumar in 1985. From the day after the marriage her husband and in-laws taunted her for bringing insufficient dowry and demanded a scooter and a refrigerator; she was ill-treated, returned to her parents several times and went back after assurances. In May 1987, within two years of the marriage, she died of burns in her matrimonial home a day after a quarrel over the demand. The husband and his parents were convicted under ss. 304B, 498A and 306 IPC and appealed.

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of the husband and his parents under ss. 304B and 498A (the s. 306 conviction of the parents was set aside on the facts). "Dowry" under s. 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as amended in 1986, covers property demanded "at or before or any time after the marriage" in connection with the marriage; a demand made after the marriage, with no prior agreement, is therefore a dowry demand. Persistent demands and taunts amount to harassment "in connection with" dowry. "Soon before" does not mean immediately before; it requires a proximate link between the cruelty and the death, which the quarrel on the previous day supplied. On proof of the ingredients the presumption in s. 113B of the Evidence Act arose and the accused had not rebutted it.