I understand why privacy weighs on you. A dowry death case exposes a family's deepest grief and a marriage's darkest details, and such cases often attract local attention, media reports and social media commentary. You may be the grieving family, a witness, or an accused worried about public hostility. Let me be honest at the outset. An in-camera trial in a dowry death case is not automatic under Indian law, because dowry death is not among the offences requiring closed trials. But the court has clear power to close proceedings where justice requires, and there are strong protections for children and vulnerable witnesses.

Let me explain the offence briefly. Dowry death was punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and is now covered by Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). It applies where a woman dies unnaturally within seven years of marriage and was subjected to dowry-related cruelty soon before her death. The punishment is at least seven years, extending to life. Related charges often include cruelty under Section 85 BNS, murder under Section 103 BNS and abetment of suicide under Section 108 BNS.

The starting point is open justice. Section 327(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now Section 366(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), declares every criminal court an open court. Open trials ensure transparency and public confidence, and protect accused persons from secret proceedings.

Mandatory in-camera trials apply only to specific offences. Section 366(2) BNSS requires closed trials for rape and related offences, and Section 37 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for sexual offences against children. Dowry death, cruelty, murder and abetment of suicide are not included. So there is no automatic right to an in-camera trial in a dowry death case.

However, if the case also involves sexual violence, the position changes. If the woman was raped before her death, the rape charge, for example under Section 66 BNS, requires an in-camera trial under Section 366(2) BNSS, and her identity is protected under Section 72 BNS and the directions in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2018), which apply even after death.

For ordinary dowry death cases, the key provision is the proviso to Section 366(1) BNSS. It allows the presiding judge, if he thinks fit, to order at any stage that the public generally, or any particular person, shall not have access to the courtroom. In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966), the Supreme Court held that courts have inherent power to hold proceedings in camera where publicity would defeat the ends of justice, such as where witnesses cannot speak freely.

Dowry death cases often justify such orders. Witnesses are frequently threatened by the accused family, and community pressure to turn hostile is intense. Grieving parents may find it impossible to describe intimate family details before a crowd. Children of the deceased may need to testify. In Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004), the Supreme Court stressed that a fair trial requires witnesses to depose without fear, which supports protective measures where intimidation is real.

Constitutional values guide the decision. Article 21 guarantees a fair trial and includes privacy and dignity, recognised in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). Article 19(1)(a) protects press freedom, and Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018) favoured open courts while accepting exceptions for sensitive matters. The judge balances these on your facts.

Children are specially protected. If the deceased's children testify, Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 prohibits disclosure in any media of the name, address, school or any other particular that may lead to the identification of a child who is a victim or witness of a crime. Violation is punishable. Courts also use screens under Sakshi v. Union of India (2004) and Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres directed in Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra (2022).

Partial measures are often easier to obtain than a fully closed trial. The court can record particularly sensitive testimony in camera, exclude specific persons such as relatives of the accused who are intimidating witnesses, or schedule evidence when the courtroom is less crowded. Video testimony under Section 254 BNSS and Section 530 BNSS, as upheld in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003), allows witnesses to testify away from the public gallery.

Sensitive evidence can be protected. Post-mortem photographs, inquest reports and medical records can be kept sealed and not displayed publicly. In P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2019), the Supreme Court recognised that access to sensitive electronic material can be restricted where privacy and dignity require. The inquest itself, conducted by an Executive Magistrate under Section 194(3) and Section 196 BNSS, is not a public proceeding.

Media reporting can be controlled. Under Section 366(3) BNSS, publishing in-camera proceedings without permission is unlawful. Courts can pass postponement orders on reporting to protect a fair trial, as recognised in Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI (2012). Sensational coverage that prejudges guilt or names children can be restrained. Your lawyer can also request anonymisation of family members in orders.

To request an in-camera or restricted hearing, your lawyer or the Public Prosecutor should file a written application invoking the proviso to Section 366(1) BNSS and the inherent power recognised in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar. It should explain the specific harm, such as threats, children testifying, intimate family matters or media pressure. Police complaints about threats and any witness protection orders strengthen the request.

In-camera does not exclude the accused or their lawyers. Under Section 273 CrPC, now Section 308 BNSS, evidence must be taken in the presence of the accused or their pleaders. The presumption under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and the burden of proof remain unchanged. Only the public's access and the scope of publication are affected.

If you are an accused, you may also want privacy, particularly given the social stigma. Courts rarely close trials only to protect reputation, but you can seek directions against prejudicial media coverage, which can harm your fair trial right under Article 21. Any attempt to influence witnesses, however, can lead to cancellation of bail.

If you are the victim's family, you have independent rights. You may engage your own advocate under Section 24(8) CrPC, now Section 18(8) BNSS, and participate under Section 301(2) CrPC, now Section 338(2) BNSS. Your advocate can raise privacy and safety concerns directly. Victim compensation is available under Section 357A CrPC, now Section 396 BNSS.

If the trial court refuses a reasonable request, you may approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, now Section 528 BNSS, or Article 227. Where the trial atmosphere is compromised by public pressure or influential accused, transfer may be sought under Section 407 CrPC, now Section 447 BNSS, or Section 406 CrPC, now Section 446 BNSS, as the Supreme Court did in the Best Bakery case.

For help protecting your family's privacy and safety, you can contact Aapka Legal Advice confidentially. Experienced Top Criminal Lawyers in India| Aapka Legal Advice can seek in-camera or restricted hearings, protect children's identities under Section 74 of the JJ Act, arrange video testimony, seek sealing of post-mortem material and pursue transfer where needed.

Aapka Legal Advice also offers consultations with its panel of retired judges, including retired High Court judges and retired Principal District and Sessions Judges, who work alongside its criminal lawyers. Having presided over dowry death trials, they can tell you which protective requests courts are likely to grant and whether a High Court challenge or transfer is worthwhile.

If you face threats, protection is available. Threatening a witness is punishable under Section 232 BNS, and criminal intimidation under Section 351 BNS. The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, approved in Mahender Chawla v. Union of India (2018), and Section 398 BNSS provide measures including identity concealment and protected testimony. Tampering can justify cancellation of bail under Section 483(3) BNSS.

Practical care helps too. Avoid discussing the case on social media, especially anything identifying the children. Report posts that name or show them. Keep documents secure and tell your lawyer if journalists or strangers contact you.

To sum up, an in-camera trial in a dowry death case is not automatic, because Section 80 BNS falls outside the mandatory list in Section 366(2) BNSS, unless sexual violence is also charged. However, the court can close proceedings under the proviso to Section 366(1) BNSS and its inherent power recognised in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar. Children's identities are protected under Section 74 of the JJ Act, and partial closure, screens, video testimony under Section 254 BNSS, sealing of sensitive material and media restrictions are all available, with High Court remedies and transfer provisions as backup.

Your family's dignity and safety deserve protection, and a well-supported request can secure much of it. With an experienced lawyer, and a retired judge's guidance where helpful, you can make that request early and effectively. Take advice now, because a successful request for an in-camera trial in a dowry death case depends on specific reasons, solid material and timely action.