Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 304-B, 498-A – Evidence Act, 1872 – S.113-B – Dowry death – “Soon before death” – Proximity test – Interested witnesses – Improvements in evidence – Presumption – Scope For attracting S.304-B IPC, prosecution must prove that the death occurred within seven years of marriage, otherwise than under normal circumstances, and that soon before death the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand for dowry. The expression “soon before” is a relative term requiring a proximate and live link between alleged cruelty and death. Where evidence of close relatives falls within the third category (neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable), contains improvements, omits material particulars in the earliest version, and lacks proof of proximity, conviction cannot be sustained. In absence of foundational facts, presumption under S.113-B Evidence Act does not arise. Held: Convictions under Ss.304-B and 498-A IPC unsustainable; appellants acquitted; fine, if paid, to be refunded. Appeal abated as to deceased accused.

advocatemmmohan

Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 304-B, 498-A – Evidence Act, 1872 – S.113-B – Dowry death – “Soon before death” – Proximity test – Interested witnesses – Improvements in evidence – Presumption – Scope

For attracting S.304-B IPC, prosecution must prove that the death occurred within seven years of marriage, otherwise than under normal circumstances, and that soon before death the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand for dowry. The expression “soon before” is a relative term requiring a proximate and live link between alleged cruelty and death. Where evidence of close relatives falls within the third category (neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable), contains improvements, omits material particulars in the earliest version, and lacks proof of proximity, conviction cannot be sustained. In absence of foundational facts, presumption under S.113-B Evidence Act does not arise.

Held: Convictions under Ss.304-B and 498-A IPC unsustainable; appellants acquitted; fine, if paid, to be refunded. Appeal abated as to deceased accused.

I. Core Legal Issue

Whether the prosecution proved the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC and Section 498-A IPC, particularly the requirement that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment “soon before her death” in connection with demand for dowry, so as to attract the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.

---

II. Legal Framework Applied by the Court

1. Section 304-B IPC
   Requires proof of:

   • Death of a woman otherwise than under normal circumstances;

   • Within seven years of marriage;

   • Cruelty or harassment by husband or relatives;

   • Such cruelty or harassment for or in connection with dowry demand;

   • Occurring soon before her death.

2. Section 113-B, Evidence Act
   Presumption arises only after the prosecution establishes the foundational facts, particularly proximate cruelty linked to dowry demand.

3. “Soon before death” – Proximity Test
   The Court reiterated that:

   • “Soon before” is a relative expression;

   • There must be a live and proximate link between cruelty and death;

   • Remote, stale, or unparticularised allegations are insufficient.

---

III. Appreciation of Evidence

1. Nature of Prosecution Evidence

• Prosecution relied primarily on PWs 3, 4, and 10 (father, brother, paternal uncle).

• All are interested witnesses, requiring cautious scrutiny.

2. Improvements and Omissions

• Ex.P1 (initial report) mentioned:

  • Marriage,

  • Dowry at marriage,

  • Medical treatment for fertility.

• Crucial omissions in Ex.P1:

  • Alleged payment of ₹50,000/-,

  • Alleged demand of ₹2,00,000/-,

  • Alleged continuing harassment.

• These allegations surfaced for the first time during oral evidence, amounting to material improvements.

3. Lack of Specifics

• No dates, months, or time-frames were furnished for:

  • Payment of ₹50,000/-,

  • Alleged demand of ₹2,00,000/-,

  • Any act of harassment “soon before death”.

4. Absence of Corroborative Circumstances

• No panchayat or mediation despite alleged prolonged harassment.

• No independent witnesses.

• Scene of occurrence was a busy railway platform, yet no eyewitnesses.

• House of accused found locked; no incriminating recovery.

---

IV. Categorisation of Evidence (Vadivelu Thevar Test)

The Court placed the testimony of PWs 3, 4, and 10 in the third category:

• Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

• Required corroboration in material particulars, which was absent.

---

V. Failure to Attract Presumption under Section 113-B

• Since the prosecution failed to establish:

  • Dowry-linked cruelty,

  • Proximity to death,

• The statutory presumption did not arise.

• Consequently, the burden never shifted to the accused.

---

VI. Resultant Legal Consequences

1. Section 304-B IPC

   • Found not proved due to absence of “soon before death” cruelty.

   • Conviction set aside.

2. Section 498-A IPC

   • Based on the same unreliable and improved evidence.

   • Conviction unsustainable and set aside.

3. Appellate Outcome

   • Accused Nos. 1 & 2: Acquitted.

   • Accused No. 3: Appeal already abated due to death.

   • Fine, if paid: Refund directed.

   • Bail bonds: Formal compliance directed as per precedent.

---

VII. Jurisprudential Significance

• Reaffirms that dowry death is not a presumption-driven offence; it is proof-centric.

• Reinforces strict application of the proximity test.

• Cautions against convictions based on:

  • Interested witnesses alone,

  • Improved versions,

  • Generalised allegations without temporal linkage.

• Aligns with consistent Supreme Court jurisprudence that Section 304-B IPC cannot be sustained on suspicion or sympathy.