“Employment-Cash Demands as Dowry” – Supreme Court’s Clarification on Section 304-B IPC
in Virender Pal @ Vipin v. State of Haryana (2025 INSC 710)

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated 15 May 2025, dismissed the appeal of Virender Pal (“Vipin”) and affirmed his conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing the dowry death of his wife, Punita alias Gayatri. The Court seized the opportunity to address two recurrent controversies in dowry-death litigation:

• whether an “employment-oriented cash demand” made on the bride’s family can be treated as a dowry demand; and
• the admissibility of a medical officer’s affidavit as substantive evidence under Section 296 CrPC and the curability of any procedural lapse.

While the conviction itself rested on well-trodden jurisprudence, the decision crystallises the principle that any monetary demand tethered to the marriage – even if ostensibly to secure employment for the husband – falls squarely within the expression “in connection with the marriage” and therefore attracts the twin statutory presumptions under Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.

2. Summary of the Judgment

After analysing witness testimonies, medical evidence and the statutory presumptions, the three-Judge Bench comprising Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. held:

• Punita’s death was unnatural and occurred within 1 year and 3 months of marriage.
• The husband persistently demanded Rs 5 lakh (partly paid by the bride’s father) purportedly to “secure a job”, amounting to a dowry demand.
• The prosecution proved continuous cruelty “soon before death”; hence Section 113-B Evidence Act presumptively fixed culpability on the husband.
• The defence explanations – accidental fall or suicide due to knee pain – were inconsistent, unsupported and failed to rebut the presumption.
• Minor procedural irregularity in accepting the doctor’s affidavit was curable; no prejudice was caused.
• Consequently, the conviction and 10-year rigorous imprisonment were upheld; the appellant, on bail, was directed to surrender within four weeks.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Influences

(The official text summarises rather than quotes cases; below are the controlling authorities evidently relied upon.)

• Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 207 – Laid down the four foundational ingredients of Section 304-B; frequently cited to gauge “soon before death”.
• Sher Singh v. State of Haryana (2015) 3 SCC 724 – Re-affirmed that cash demands are dowry if causally linked to marriage.
• Baijnath v. State of M.P. (2017) 1 SCC 101 – Clarified scope of rebuttable presumption; applied here to underline that mere alternative hypothesis without proof cannot dislodge Section 113-B.
• Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2021) 6 SCC 1 – Expanded on “proximate” cruelty and stressed the husband’s primary responsibility.
• State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601 – Though not cited, informs approach to electronic/affidavit evidence; relevant to the Court’s discussion on Section 296 CrPC.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Unnatural Death within Seven Years
   Post-mortem report (Exh. PK-3) and PW-9’s affidavit revealed multiple head injuries causing haemorrhage. The Court accepted these as indicative of violent trauma, thus fulfilling the first leg of Section 304-B.
2. Demand “in connection with marriage”
   Evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-10 established repeated requests for Rs 5 lakh. The Court reasoned that purpose (securing husband’s job) does not dilute the nexus with marriage because the demand was made on the wife’s family only by virtue of the marital relationship. This treats “employment-cash” same as conventional property demands.
3. “Soon before death” Harassment
   A frantic call from the deceased at 07:45 a.m. on the day of her death was decisive. The Court deemed this call a fresh act of cruelty proximate enough to satisfy the “live-link” test developed in Kans Raj.
4. Statutory Presumption Unrebutted
   Having triggered Section 113-B Evidence Act, the burden shifted. The defence offered mutually destructive theories (accident vs. suicide) and medical records on knee pain, none of which the Court found credible. The inconsistency itself weighed against the accused.
5. Affidavit of Medical Officer
   While Section 296 CrPC permits affidavits only for “evidence of formal character”, the doctor’s testimony went to the root of causation. Still, because the defence cross-examined the doctor and raised no contemporaneous objection, the lapse was held a “curable irregularity”.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

• Doctrinal Clarification – Any post-marital monetary demand directed at the bride’s side—including funds for husband’s career—is now firmly treated as dowry. This prevents defendants from carving out an “employment exception”.
• Prosecution Strategy – Victims’ families can rely on telephonic-communication evidence (even a single distress call) to establish proximity of cruelty, reducing dependency on documentary corroboration.
• Trial-Court Conduct – Judges are reminded of their gate-keeper role when relying on affidavit evidence in criminal trials; yet litigants cannot later exploit harmless irregularities they acquiesced in.
• Sentencing Consistency – The Court implicitly endorses 10-year RI as a just baseline where only the husband is convicted but aggravating facts (violent death, persistent demands) exist.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Section 304-B IPC (“Dowry Death”) – Creates a separate offence when a woman dies under abnormal circumstances within 7 years of marriage and has faced dowry-related cruelty “soon before” her death. Punishment: minimum 7 years, extendable to life.
• Section 113-B Evidence Act – Mandates a legal presumption of guilt once prosecution proves (a) abnormal death within 7 years and (b) dowry-related cruelty. The onus then reverses: the accused must produce evidence strong enough to create reasonable doubt.
• “Soon Before Death” – Not a rigid interval; courts look for a “perceptible and live link” between the cruelty and the death. Even an incident the night before, as here, suffices.
• Curable vs. Fatal Procedural Irregularity – Under Chapter 35 CrPC, an error that does not occasion prejudice can be ignored or cured. Acceptance of a substantive affidavit, though irregular, was deemed non-prejudicial because cross-examination occurred.
• Formal vs. Substantive Evidence (Section 296 CrPC) – “Formal character” evidence refers to routine or undisputed facts (e.g., chain-of-custody). Post-mortem opinion is generally substantive. The Court’s tolerance here is exceptional and warns prosecutors to avoid repetition.

5. Conclusion

Virender Pal @ Vipin fortifies the protective intent behind India’s anti-dowry framework in three concrete ways:

1. By stamping out a growing defence argument that money sought for the husband’s advancement is merely a “post-marital familial support” rather than dowry.
2. By underscoring the evidentiary value of immediate communications from the victim to establish the “soon before death” element.
3. By balancing procedural propriety with substantive justice—criticising but ultimately overlooking minor trial-level lapses when no prejudice is caused.

Going forward, the judgment will likely be cited to rebut claims that particular cash demands are sui generis and fall outside Section 304-B, thereby closing an interpretive loophole. Trial courts are simultaneously cautioned to adhere strictly to evidentiary protocols, but defence counsel are reminded that silence at trial may foreclose objections on appeal. The ruling thus strengthens both the doctrinal clarity and procedural rigour of dowry-death jurisprudence in India.