Section 113-B Presumption Cannot Replace Proof of Dowry Cruelty “Soon Before Death”: Punjab and Haryana High Court Acquits Husband in 1998 Burn-Death Case

Case Name: Bhanu Parkash v. State of Haryana; Sakesh Mani Sharma v. Bhanu Parkash and Another

Date of Judgment: 18 August 2026

Citation: CRA-S No. 2515-SB of 2004; CRR No. 695 of 2005

Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the statutory presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be invoked mechanically merely because a married woman died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage. The prosecution must first establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with a dowry demand “soon before her death,” thereby demonstrating a proximate and live link between the alleged cruelty and the death. Where the deceased consistently described the burning as accidental, including in a medically certified statement recorded by a Judicial Magistrate, such exculpatory evidence could not be discarded without convincing reasons.

Summary: Geetika Sharma suffered 90% burn injuries on 4 August 1998 and died five days later. Immediately after the incident, she informed the attending doctor that she had accidentally caught fire while using kerosene near a burning gas stove. She repeated the same account in a statement recorded by a Judicial Magistrate after being declared medically fit and did not implicate her husband or his family. After her death, her father lodged an FIR alleging dowry harassment and intentional burning. The Trial Court disbelieved the dying declaration, relied upon the parents’ testimony and a disputed note allegedly written by the deceased, and convicted the husband under Section 304-B IPC, sentencing him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.

The High Court found that the deceased’s earliest medical history and her duly recorded dying declaration consistently supported accidental burning. It also noted that she remained alive for five days, during which her family members had access to her, yet no complaint was made during her lifetime. The FIR was registered only after her death, while the recovery and authorship of the alleged incriminating note were surrounded by serious doubt. The remaining allegations were general and failed to establish any specific or proximate dowry-related cruelty soon before the death. Consequently, the foundational facts necessary to invoke the presumption under Section 113-B were not proved.

Decision: The High Court allowed Bhanu Parkash’s appeal, set aside his conviction and sentence under Section 304-B IPC, and acquitted him by extending the benefit of reasonable doubt. The complainant’s revision seeking enhancement of the sentence was dismissed.