The section that replaced IPC 304B on 1 July 2024. What has to be established, what "soon before her death" actually means, how the mandatory presumption works and how it is answered, what the SDM inquest in Delhi involves, and what a family on either side should do in the first days.
Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 applies where a married woman dies of burns, bodily injury, or 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 his relative in connection with a demand for dowry. Where that is established, the law deems that person to have caused her death. The punishment is a minimum of seven years, extending to imprisonment for life.
It replaced Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code on 1 July 2024. The words are the same; only the number changed. The offence is cognizable, non-bailable, not compoundable, and is tried by a Court of Session.
Once the four ingredients are established, Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — what used to be Section 113B of the Evidence Act — requires the court to presume that the accused caused the death. The burden then shifts to the accused to rebut it. In Delhi, the death is inquired into by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in an inquest that runs alongside the police investigation.
On 1 July 2024 the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act were replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. For this offence, the change was one of numbering and nothing more.
| What you are looking for | Old law (till 30 June 2024) | New law (from 1 July 2024) |
|---|---|---|
| Dowry death | Section 304B IPC | Section 80 BNS |
| The presumption | Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act | Section 118 BSA |
| Presumption of abetted suicide | Section 113A, Indian Evidence Act | Section 117 BSA |
| Cruelty to a married woman | Section 498A IPC | Section 85 BNS |
| Inquest by an Executive Magistrate | Section 176 CrPC | Section 196 BNSS |
| Police intimation to the Magistrate | Section 174 CrPC | Section 194 BNSS |
| Committal to the Court of Session | Section 209 CrPC | Section 232 BNSS |
| Time to file the charge-sheet | Section 167 CrPC | Section 187 BNSS |
(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."
(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."
Two phrases in sub-section (1) carry almost the entire weight of the section, and they are the ones argued about in every trial. The first is "otherwise than under normal circumstances", which is much wider than burns or injury and takes in poisoning, hanging and deaths that are simply unexplained. The second is "soon before her death", which has its own section below.
Note also the words "shall be deemed to have caused her death". Section 80 does not require the prosecution to prove that the accused killed her. It requires proof of four circumstances, and once those are proved the law supplies the rest. That is unusual, and it is why the section is both powerful and, when misapplied, dangerous.
Section 80 does not define dowry itself. It borrows the definition from the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
"In this Act, 'dowry' means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly—
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person,
at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies."
Three things in that definition are worth noticing, because they are wider than most people assume.
The Supreme Court has restated these many times, most recently in Karan Singh v. State of Haryana (2025). All four must be established. If any one fails, Section 80 fails — though other sections may still apply on the same facts.
| # | Ingredient | What it means in practice |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | An unnatural death | Death by burns, by bodily injury, or "otherwise than under normal circumstances". A natural death takes the case outside the section entirely. |
| 2 | Within seven years of the marriage | Counted from the date of the marriage. Outside the window, Section 80 cannot be used. |
| 3 | Cruelty or harassment soon before the death | By the husband or a relative of the husband. The link must be live, not stale. |
| 4 | Connected to a demand for dowry | The cruelty must be "for, or in connection with" a dowry demand. Cruelty with no dowry element is Section 85, not Section 80. |
There is no number of days written into the statute, and the courts have refused to invent one. What they have insisted on is a proximate and live link between the cruelty and the death.
Put plainly: the harassment must be part of the circumstances in which the woman died, not something that happened long ago and stopped. A course of demands and humiliation continuing into the weeks before the death satisfies the requirement. An incident two years earlier, followed by a period in which nothing was alleged, generally does not.
This is the provision that gives Section 80 its force.
"When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death."
Explanation.—"For the purposes of this section, 'dowry death' shall have the same meaning as in section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023."
| Section 117 BSA — abetment of suicide | Section 118 BSA — dowry death | |
|---|---|---|
| Old provision | Section 113A, Evidence Act | Section 113B, Evidence Act |
| The words used | "may presume" | "shall presume" |
| Nature | Discretionary — the court weighs all the circumstances | Mandatory — once the foundation is laid, the court must presume |
| Dowry demand needed? | No — cruelty is enough | Yes |
| Linked offence | Section 108 BNS (abetment of suicide) | Section 80 BNS |
Most pages on this section state the law as though it were settled. On one important point it is not, and you should know that before anyone tells you what your chances are.
The question is how firmly the prosecution must establish the foundational facts before the presumption can be triggered. Section 80 uses the word "shown", not "proved". In Sher Singh @ Partapa v. State of Haryana (2015) the Supreme Court took that word seriously and held that the prosecution's burden on those facts is discharged on a preponderance of probabilities. In Baijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) a different bench held that the ingredients must be proved beyond reasonable doubt before the presumption can be invoked — and that bench did not consider Sher Singh.
The two decisions have not been reconciled. In practice, trial courts generally follow the stricter Baijnath line, and defence arguments are built on it. But it is an open question, and anyone who tells you otherwise is overstating the position.
| Punishment | Minimum 7 years, extending to imprisonment for life |
| Is there a minimum? | Yes — 7 years. The court cannot go below it |
| Cognizable? | Yes — police may act without a Magistrate's order |
| Bailable? | Non-bailable |
| Compoundable? | No — not listed in Section 359 BNSS |
| Can it go to mediation? | No — expressly excluded where death is alleged |
| Triable by | Court of Session (an Additional Sessions Judge in practice) |
| Charge-sheet period | 90 days — Section 187(3) BNSS, because life imprisonment is possible |
| The presumption | Section 118, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — mandatory |
| Corresponding old provision | Section 304B IPC |
What happens in the first two days shapes the whole case. This is the ordinary sequence in Delhi.
This is the feature of a dowry death case that families understand least, and it deserves explaining properly. Two separate processes run at the same time, with different powers and different purposes.
| The SDM (Executive Magistrate) | The police (SHO and Investigating Officer) | |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | An independent inquiry into the cause of death | An investigation into an offence |
| What it produces | An inquest report and recorded statements, which form part of the record at trial | An FIR and, in due course, a charge-sheet |
| Can it arrest? | No | Yes |
| Why it exists | Because the death occurred inside a private home, and the law does not want the police to be the only authority looking at it | — |
The BNSS also requires that relatives of the deceased be informed of the inquiry and be allowed to be present. If your family has not been told when the SDM is holding the inquest, ask — in writing.
Section 80 is triable exclusively by a Court of Session. The charge-sheet is filed before the Magistrate, who takes cognizance and commits the case to the Sessions Court under Section 232 of the BNSS. An Additional Sessions Judge hears it.
Which complex depends on the police station where the FIR was registered, which follows where the death occurred — not where either family lives and not where the marriage took place.
| Court complex | Broadly serves |
|---|---|
| Tis Hazari | Central and West Delhi |
| Rohini | North and North-West Delhi |
| Karkardooma | East, North-East and Shahdara |
| Saket | South and South-East Delhi |
| Dwarka | South-West Delhi |
| Patiala House | New Delhi district |
Delhi has more police districts than judicial districts and the boundaries do not map neatly. Confirm the current allocation from the Delhi District Courts website or the filing counter before you travel.
Regular bail lies to the Sessions Court and then to the Delhi High Court. Quashing lies only to the High Court. Bail is not barred — but the courts approach it seriously, and two recent decisions show both sides of that.
These cases have historically taken years. In August 2026 the Supreme Court issued a set of directions aimed at that delay, covering trials under Sections 80 and 85 of the BNS and the corresponding IPC sections. The main ones:
"All courts dealing with offences under Sections 304B and 498A IPC / Sections 80 and 85 BNS, 2023 shall, as far as practicable, treat such matters as priority cases and endeavour to ensure expeditious disposal thereof… The concerned District Judiciary shall identify cases pending beyond three years, particularly those pending at the stage of framing of charge or recording of evidence, and undertake periodic monitoring thereof."
"Consider framing of charge preferably within sixty to ninety days from filing of charge sheet; commence recording of evidence within a reasonable period after framing of charge; and proceed with recording of evidence on a continuous or day-to-day basis… Provided the timelines indicated herein may ordinarily be adhered to as directory benchmarks, subject to exceptional cases."
"Trial courts and High Courts shall discourage unnecessary adjournments and ensure that adjournments are granted only upon recording reasons in writing… Immediately after framing of charge, the Trial Court shall prepare a witness calendar indicating dates for examination of material witnesses."
| Stage | Usual time | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Police intimation to the SDM | Immediately | Statutory — s.194(1) BNSS |
| SDM inquest | Within the first day or two | Practice |
| Post-mortem | 12–48 hours | Practice |
| FSL and viscera reports | Weeks to several months | Practice |
| Charge-sheet | Within 90 days | Statutory — s.187(3) BNSS |
| Progress to be told to the family | Within 90 days | Statutory — s.193(3) BNSS |
| Committal to the Court of Session | Weeks after the charge-sheet | Practice |
| Framing of charge | Target of 60–90 days from charge-sheet | SC directions, August 2026 (directory) |
| Trial | Historically several years; the 2026 directions aim to shorten this | Practice |
| What | Number / where |
|---|---|
| Police emergency | 112 |
| Delhi Police Women's Helpline | 1091 — 24 hours |
| Delhi Commission for Women | 181 — 24 hours |
| Delhi State Legal Services Authority — free legal aid | 1516 — 24 hours |
| Legal services front office | Inside every district court complex |
| Case | Year | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana | 2021 | Restates the ingredients; holds the presumption operates mandatorily once they are established; emphasises the trial court's duty to put the incriminating circumstances to the accused properly. |
| Karan Singh v. State of Haryana | 2025 | Restates the four ingredients and criticises their repeated misapplication by trial courts; conviction set aside. |
| Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P. | 2025 | Bail cancelled. Heightened vigilance required where a young bride dies in suspicious circumstances soon after marriage. |
| Karanjeet Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) | 2025 | Delhi High Court. Bail granted. A bail court must assess prima facie whether "soon before death" is made out; vague post-incident allegations do not suffice. |
| Baijnath v. State of M.P. | 2017 | Ingredients must be proved beyond reasonable doubt before the presumption is invoked. |
| Sher Singh @ Partapa v. State of Haryana | 2015 | Takes the statutory word "shown" to mean a lower standard for the foundational facts. Not reconciled with Baijnath. |
| Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka | 2001 | How the accused may discharge the burden — through cross-examination, defence evidence, or both. |
Reported citations vary between sources for some of these. Verify before citing in a petition.
| Section | When it applies | Punishment and court |
|---|---|---|
| Section 80 BNS — dowry death | Unnatural death within 7 years, dowry-linked cruelty soon before | 7 years to life; Court of Session |
| Section 85 BNS — cruelty | Cruelty to a living married woman; no death, no dowry element required | Up to 3 years and fine; Magistrate |
| Section 103 BNS — murder | Where the evidence shows an intentional killing | Death or life; Court of Session |
| Section 108 BNS — abetment of suicide | Where the woman took her own life and it was abetted | Up to 10 years and fine; Court of Session |
| Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, ss.3 and 4 | Giving, taking or demanding dowry as such | Commonly charged alongside Section 80 |
Sections 80, 103 and 108 are frequently charged in the alternative, because at the stage of the charge-sheet nobody yet knows which the evidence will establish. That is not a defect; it is how the charge is properly framed when the facts are capable of more than one reading.
This page explains the law in general terms. It cannot tell you what to do about your own facts — only an advocate who has read your papers can do that. You can look through the advocates associated with Legal Space Services who practise in criminal and matrimonial matters, see their enrolment details and areas of practice, and send a consultation request. Searching and sending a request are free.
It covers the death of a married woman caused by burns or bodily injury, or occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of her marriage, where it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative in connection with a demand for dowry. Where that is established, the law deems the husband or relative to have caused her death. The sentence is a minimum of seven years and may extend to imprisonment for life.
Yes. Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita replaced Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code on 1 July 2024, and the words are the same. Only the number changed. A death that occurred before 1 July 2024 is still prosecuted under Section 304B IPC.
Four. That the woman died of burns, bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; that the death occurred within seven years of the marriage; that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative; and that the cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, a demand for dowry. All four are needed. Remove any one and Section 80 does not apply, though other sections may.
There is no fixed number of days. The courts have consistently held that what is needed is a proximate and live link between the cruelty and the death — the cruelty must not be stale or unconnected. A long, unexplained gap breaks the link; a continuing course of harassment running up to the death satisfies it. It is judged on the facts of each case.
It is in Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — what used to be Section 113B of the Evidence Act. Once the prosecution establishes the foundational facts, the court shall presume that the accused caused the dowry death, and the burden moves to the accused to rebut it.
Be careful with what you read elsewhere: several pages state the presumption is in Section 111 of the BSA. That is wrong. It is Section 118.
It is cognizable and non-bailable, and it is tried by a Court of Session. It is not compoundable — it does not appear in the table in Section 359 of the BNSS, and an offence not listed there cannot be compounded. There is no settling this case between the families.
From the date of the marriage. The seven-year window is one of the four ingredients, and where the death occurs outside it, Section 80 cannot apply — although Section 85 (cruelty), Section 103 (murder) or Section 108 (abetment of suicide) may still, depending on the facts.
No. The section covers death "otherwise than under normal circumstances", which is wider than burns or injury. A death by poisoning, hanging or in unexplained circumstances can fall within it. What the section requires is that the death was not natural.
The police must immediately inform the Executive Magistrate — in Delhi, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate — who holds an inquest. The SDM personally views the body, prepares an inquest report, records the statements of the family on both sides, and directs the post-mortem. The police separately register an FIR and begin their investigation. The two run in parallel and serve different purposes.
Because the death happened inside a private home, and the law does not want the police to be the only check. The Executive Magistrate holds an independent inquiry into the cause of death. It is a safeguard, and it is one of the most important features of a case like this.
The statement your family gives to the SDM in the first day or two. It becomes part of the record and it is read at every later stage. If the harassment is described vaguely, without dates or specifics, and a dowry demand only surfaces weeks later, that gap is used against the prosecution for the rest of the case. Say what actually happened, with dates and detail, as early as you can — even while grieving.
Section 173(1) of the BNSS allows information to be given "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed" — the Zero FIR, now written into the statute. It is then transferred to the police station with jurisdiction. The trial will still happen where the death occurred.
Yes, and it is worth asking in writing. Section 193(3) of the BNSS requires the investigating officer to inform the informant or the victim of the progress of the investigation within ninety days, including by electronic means.
Free legal aid is available as of right to a wide range of people under Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and in Delhi it is arranged through the Delhi State Legal Services Authority, which runs a 24-hour helpline and front offices in every court complex. There is also a victim compensation scheme administered through the legal services authority.
No. The offence is not compoundable, and it cannot be closed by agreement. It is also expressly outside the categories the Supreme Court has said may be sent to mediation — its directions of August 2026 permit mediation in matrimonial matters but exclude cases involving death.
It is common, and courts have repeatedly criticised it. The Supreme Court has cautioned against omnibus allegations naming an entire family without saying what each person is supposed to have done. Where a relative lived separately or elsewhere, that is established with documents — rent agreements, utility bills, employment records, travel records.
It is not barred, but it is taken seriously. In Shabeen Ahmad (2025) the Supreme Court cancelled bail and said that where a young bride dies in suspicious circumstances within a short time of marriage, courts must show heightened vigilance. Shortly afterwards, in Karanjeet Singh (2025), the Delhi High Court granted bail and held that Shabeen Ahmad does not create an absolute bar — each case turns on its own evidence, and a bail court should look at whether the "soon before death" requirement is even prima facie made out.
Evidence, not argument. Medical and forensic material pointing to an accident, a natural cause or an independent suicide; the absence of any dowry demand; the absence of any complaint made during the woman's lifetime; documentary proof that a named relative did not live in the same household. The accused may do this by cross-examining prosecution witnesses, by leading defence evidence, or both.
Because the case is tried by a Court of Session, bail lies to the Sessions Court at the district court complex concerned, and then to the Delhi High Court. Quashing lies only to the High Court.
Historically these trials have run for years. In August 2026 the Supreme Court issued directions aimed at speeding them up — including that charges should preferably be framed within sixty to ninety days of the charge-sheet, that evidence should be recorded continuously, and that cases pending beyond three years should be monitored. Those are benchmarks, not guarantees, and the directions themselves say so.
Section 85 punishes cruelty to a living woman — up to three years, tried by a Magistrate. Section 80 applies only where the woman has died, requires a dowry connection, carries a minimum of seven years extending to life, and is tried by a Court of Session. They are frequently charged together, because the cruelty that preceded the death is itself an offence. Our separate page on Section 85 explains that side in full.
Yes, in the alternative. Where the evidence shows an intentional killing, Section 103 (murder) applies. Where it shows a suicide that was abetted, Section 108 applies. Section 80 sits between them and operates on a presumption rather than on proof of the act itself. Which one succeeds depends on what the evidence at trial establishes.
Section 117 concerns abetment of a married woman's suicide within seven years and says the court may presume — it is discretionary and needs no dowry demand. Section 118 concerns dowry death and says the court shall presume — it is mandatory, and it does require a dowry connection. One word, "may" against "shall", changes the whole shape of the case.
It punishes the giving, taking and demanding of dowry as such, and its Sections 3 and 4 are commonly charged alongside Section 80. Section 80 also borrows its definition of "dowry" from Section 2 of that Act.
Browse all 21 law pages — search by section number, old or new →
Tell us in one line. We will tell you which practice area it falls under and point you to an advocate who works in it. The first conversation costs nothing.