Dowry death – Ss. 304-B, 498-A IPC – Ss. 113-B Evidence Act – Requirement of proof of cruelty or harassment “soon before death” – Interested witnesses – Improvements in testimony – Absence of proximity – Presumption not attracted – Conviction unsustainable – Acquittal

advocatemmmohan

Dowry death – Ss. 304-B, 498-A IPC – Ss. 113-B Evidence Act – Requirement of proof of cruelty or harassment “soon before death” – Interested witnesses – Improvements in testimony – Absence of proximity – Presumption not attracted – Conviction unsustainable – Acquittal

---

FACTS

The appellants were tried in S.C.No.218 of 2017 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu at Gooty, for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B r/w 34 IPC or 302 IPC.

The case of the prosecution was that the deceased, wife of A-1, was subjected to cruelty and harassment by A-1 (husband) and A-2 & A-3 (in-laws) for additional dowry. The deceased died on 04.03.2016 by falling under a train at Guntakal Railway Station, within seven years of marriage.

The Trial Court convicted:

• A-1 under Sections 304-B IPC (life imprisonment) and 498-A IPC, and

• A-2 & A-3 under Sections 304-B IPC and 498-A IPC.

During pendency of appeal, A-3 died, and the appeal stood abated insofar as A-3.

Aggrieved, A-1 and A-2 preferred the present appeals.
(Paras 1–6)

---

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

The prosecution relied mainly on the evidence of:

• P.W.3 – father of the deceased,

• P.W.4 – brother of the deceased, and

• P.W.10 – paternal uncle of the deceased,

to prove demand of dowry, harassment, and cruelty.

The prosecution alleged payment of:

• Rs.5,00,000/- and gold at the time of marriage,

• Additional Rs.50,000/- subsequently, and

• Demand of Rs.2,00,000/- allegedly arising out of comparison with the dowry given at the marriage of deceased’s sister.

The death was admittedly unnatural and occurred within seven years of marriage.
(Paras 7–9)

---

ISSUES

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment “soon before her death” in connection with demand for dowry so as to attract Sections 304-B IPC and 113-B of the Evidence Act.
(Paras 15–19)

---

DISCUSSION & FINDINGS

Ingredients of Section 304-B IPC

The Court reiterated that for attracting Section 304-B IPC, prosecution must prove:

1. Death within seven years of marriage,

2. Death otherwise than under normal circumstances, and

3. Cruelty or harassment soon before death in connection with dowry demand.
   (Paras 16–19)

“Soon before death” – Proximity test

Relying on Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, Teg Bahadur, and Hira Lal, the Court held that:

• “Soon before” is a relative term,

• There must be a proximate and live link between alleged cruelty and the death,

• Remote or stale allegations do not satisfy the statutory requirement.
  (Paras 20–22)

Appreciation of evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 & 10

The Court found that:

• P.Ws.3, 4 and 10 are interested witnesses,

• Their evidence falls in the third category as per Vadivelu Thevar,

• No panchayat or mediation was ever convened despite alleged prolonged harassment,

• Crucial details like dates/months of alleged payments were missing,

• Allegations of Rs.50,000/- payment and Rs.2,00,000/- demand were absent in Ex.P1 report,

• Material improvements were made during trial.
  (Paras 25–27)

Scene of occurrence

The Court also noted that the alleged place of death was a busy railway platform at a major junction, weakening the prosecution version regarding circumstances of death.
(Para 28)

---

DECISION

The prosecution failed to establish:

• Cruelty or harassment soon before death,

• A proximate nexus between dowry demand and death, and

• The foundational facts necessary to invoke presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.

The convictions under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC were held to be unsustainable.
(Paras 29–30)

---

FINAL ORDER

• Criminal Appeal Nos.2301 and 2600 of 2018 are allowed.

• Convictions and sentences imposed on Accused Nos.1 and 2 under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC are set aside.

• Accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted.

• Fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded.

• Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall comply with formalities as per Batchu Ranga Rao v. State of A.P.
  (Paras 30–31)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Proof of cruelty or harassment “soon before death” is mandatory for conviction under Section 304-B IPC.

2. Presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act arises only after foundational facts are proved.

3. Improved and uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses cannot sustain conviction for dowry death.

4. Remote allegations, without proximity to death, do not satisfy the statutory requirement.