HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.807 OF 2008 AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1418 OF 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu) Criminal Appeal No.807 of 2008 filed by the appellants/A-1 to A-3 under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."), is directed against the judgment, dated 26.06.2008, in Sessions Case No.187 of 2007 on the file of V Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur whereunder and whereby, the appellants/A-1 to A-3 were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Criminal Revision Case No.1418 of 2008 filed by the de facto complainant (P.W.1) is against the judgment, dated 26.06.2008, in Sessions Case No.187 of 2007 on the file of V Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur aggrieved by the acquittal of A-4 and A-5 of the offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, may be stated as follows: P.Ws.1 and 2 are the parents, and P.W.3 is the paternal uncle, of the deceased. A-1 is the husband, A-2 and A-3 are the in-laws, and A-4 and A-5 are the brothers-in-law, of the deceased. Marriage of the deceased was performed with A-1, who was working as Teacher in Mangalagiri Municipal School, on 06.05.2004 in Guntur. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs towards dowry and ten sovereigns of gold besides cash of Rs.1.00 lakh towards furniture were given. After the marriage, deceased joined her in-laws’ place. She was looked after well for about five or six months and was blessed with a male child. Later, the deceased started complaining to P.Ws.1 and 2 that the accused were harassing her by demanding additional dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs. On that, they sent P.W.3 and another for mediation, but accused refused to agree. Then, P.W.1 purchased a motor cycle to A- 1 by spending Rs.50,000/- and also gave Rs.40,000/- for A-1’s transfer from Mangalagiri to Guntur. A-1 developed illicit intimacy with his maternal aunt’s daughter. On 30.11.2006, at about 9 p.m., the deceased telephoned to P.W.1 and stated that she was beaten and harassed by A-1, but P.W.1 replied that he could not come immediately. Then, A-1 took the phone from deceased and asked P.W.1 to come on the next day. Then, on the same day night, at about 1 a.m., A-1 phoned to P.W.1 and asked him to come immediately. By 1.30 a.m., P.W.1 along with P.W.2 went to the house of accused and found gathering there and A-3 requested to save them by holding their legs. Then, they were informed that the deceased was shifted to the hospital. P.Ws.1 and 2 rushed to the hospital and found the deceased with burns in unconscious state and also with a head injury. At about 4 a.m., she was declared dead. Thereafter, on 01.12.2006, at 1.30 p.m., P.W.1 lodged a report, which is marked as Ex.P-1. P.W.14 is the Sub Inspector of Police. On 01.12.2006, at 13.10 hours, on receiving Ex.P-1 report from P.W.1, he registered a case in Crime No.286 of 2006 and issued F.I.R., which is marked as Ex.P-12. He then visited the scene of offence and prepared an observation report and rough sketch of the scene, which are marked as Exs.P-2 and P-13. P.W.15 is the Inspector of Police, who took up the investigation from P.W.14. He altered the section of law and issued altered F.I.R., which is marked as Ex.P-14. P.W.16 is the then Sub Divisional Police Officer, who took up the investigation. On 08.12.2006, he visited the scene of offence and verified the investigation done by C.I. of Police. During the course of investigation, he examined all the relevant witnesses. On 08.12.2006, he arrested A-3. On 12.12.2006, he arrested A-2 and A-4 and on 14.12.2006, he arrested A-1 and A-5. He further got recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws.1 to 3. After receiving relevant documents and on completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet. 3. The trial Court framed the following charge against the accused: “That you A-1 being the husband of the deceased Shaik Israth, A-2 and A-3 being father and mother of you A-4 and A-5 are the sons of A-2 and A-3 that on midnight of 30-11-06 when L.W.13 Vempati Subbaiah came out of the house for calls of nature having seen flames from the back yard of the residential portion of the accused at 15/1 A.T.Agraharam Guntur found the deceased Shaik Israth with flames on her body and then shifted to G.G.H.Guntur by A-4 and A-5 with the help of L.W.22 Bandi Venksta Sivareddi and you A-1 to A-5 caused the death of Smt.Shaik Israth by burns or bodily injury that her death occurred within seven years of her marriage that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives of her husband in connection with demand for dowry and that you A-1 to A-5 thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.” 4. When the above charge was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-15 besides case properties - M.Os.1 to 7. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no oral evidence, but got marked Exs.D-1 to D-3. 7. The trial Court, basing on the evidence available on record, found A-1 to A-3 guilty of the charge under Section 304-B I.P.C. and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them while acquitting A-4 and A-5. Challenging the conviction and sentence, Criminal Appeal No.807 of 2008 is preferred by A-1 to A-3 whereas Criminal Revision Case No.1418 of 2008 is preferred by the de facto complainant (P.W.1) challenging the acquittal of A-4 and A-5. Since both the cases arise out of the same judgment, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 8. The points for determination are: “Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against A-1 to A-3 of the offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. and whether the judgment of the trial Court in acquitting A-4 and A- 5 is correct, legal and proper or not?” 9. POINTS:- Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl.A.No.807 of 2008 contended that there is absolutely no evidence to show that soon after the marriage of the deceased, she was subjected to cruelty and such cruelty is for, or in connection with, demand of dowry; that the proximity of time of the alleged demand of dowry before the death of the deceased is not disclosed; that the demand of dowry, as stated by P.Ws.1 and 2, cannot be accepted for the reason that they stated before the Court for the first time and therefore, he prays to acquit A-1 to A-3. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the necessary ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. are proved by prosecution; that there is evidence, which would go to show that soon before the death of deceased, she was subjected to cruelty for, or in connection with demand of dowry and hence, she prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/P.W.1 contended that there is a consistent demand of dowry by the accused and unable to bear the said demand of dowry, the deceased committed suicide; that the deceased also sustained ante mortem injuries before sustaining the burn injuries; that the only inference that can be drawn is that the deceased received the injuries at the hands of all the accused because A-1 to A-3 and the deceased were admittedly residing in a house and this is borne out from the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 to show that all the persons were living together in the same house and therefore, an inference can be drawn that the accused caused injuries to the deceased and hence, he prays to convict A-4 and A-5. He also relied upon certain decisions, which would be referred to at an appropriate time. 12. The charge levelled against the accused is under Section 304-B I.P.C. The following ingredients are necessary to be proved by the prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C.: Firstly: The death of a woman should be caused by any burns or bodily injury otherwise than under normal circumstances; Secondly: Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage; Thirdly: She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; Fourthly: Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry and Fifthly: Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. The prosecution has to prove initially all the aforesaid ingredients so as to convict the accused. Once the initial burden on the prosecution is discharged, then the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Act’) can be drawn. If it is drawn, the presumption is that it is a case of dowry death. 13. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. It is not in dispute before this Court that marriage of the deceased with A-1 was performed on 06.05.2004 whereas the burn injuries were received on the mid night of 30.11.2006 and the death had taken place at 4 a.m. on 01.12.2006. P.W.13 is the Mandal Revenue Officer, who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators under Ex.P-3. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of burn injuries. P.W.11 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries: “1. Right oblique laceration of 2 x 1 c.m. Muscle deep present over right temple 1.5 c.m. behind the outer canthus of right eye. 2. Horizontal laceration of 8 x 2 cm. bone deep, present over right parietal region of scalp present 2 cm. below the level of right parietal eminence. 3. 100% Dermo-Epidermal burns present all over the body with peeling of skin present here and there all over the body. A heat rupture of 20 x 6 cm. skin deep, right obliquely placed present over left groin, the scalp hair party burnt and partly signed and completely burnt over the upper part of the scalp. 4. Two venesection wounds with sutures and dressing present one on the inner aspect of each ankle on both sides. The above injuries present are ante mortem in nature.” The Doctor opined that the deceased died as a result of shock due to the burns and issued Ex.P-4-Post Mortem Certificate. Nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.11 and recitals in Ex.P-4, it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased died as a result of burn injuries. Therefore, un-natural death of the deceased within seven years of her marriage is established. 14. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased, were examined to speak about the harassment or cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would go to show that they gave Rs.5.00 lakhs towards dowry and ten sovereigns of gold to their daughter besides giving Rs.1.00 lakh towards furniture. Initially, A-1 and his parents demanded Rs.8.00 lakhs as dowry, but it was settled to Rs.5.00 lakhs. For about five or six months, they lived happily. She was blessed with a male child. Thereafter, the deceased informed them that all the accused were harassing her both physically and mentally demanding additional dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs. It also came in evidence that when marriage of their second daughter was fixed, A-1 developed an impression that they were giving Rs.8.00 lakhs to their second daughter and hence, he insisted the deceased to bring Rs.3.00 lakhs. In that connection, he sent P.W.3 to the father of A-1 to mediate the dispute, but the accused did not heed their words and demanded money. On 30.11.2006, at about 9 p.m., the deceased daughter telephoned to P.W.1 saying that she was beaten and harassed. On the same day, at mid night, they received a phone call asking P.W.1 to come and they rushed to the place of incident. The persons present there informed them that the deceased sustained burns and she was shifted to Government Hospital. Immediately, they rushed to the Government Hospital and found the deceased with burns and head injury. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would go to show that there was some harassment by the accused for demand of dowry. There is no specific date or month or year on which the accused demanded dowry. Similarly, there is no evidence to show that when the marriage alliance of second daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2 was fixed because it is the case of the prosecution that when [1]the marriage alliance of the second daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2 was fixed, the accused insisted the deceased to bring Rs.3.00 lakhs as dowry because P.Ws.1 and 2 were giving Rs.8.00 lakhs towards dowry to their second daughter. 15. The words “soon before her death” have been considered by the Supreme Court in Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and others wherein it is held at Para Nos.11 and 18 as under: “Section 32 of the Evidence Act is admittedly an exception to the general rule of exclusion to the hearsay evidence and the statements of a person, written or verbal, of relevant facts, after his death are admissible in evidence if they refer to the cause of his death or to any circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. To attract the provisions of Section 32, for the purposes of admissibility of the statement of a deceased the prosecution is required to prove that the statement was made by a person who is dead or who cannot be found or whose attendance cannot be procured without any amount of delay or expense or he is incapable of giving evidence and that such statement had been made under any of the circumstances specified in sub-sections (1) to (8) of Section 32 of the Act. Section 32 does not required that the statement sought to be admitted in evidence should have been made in imminent expectation of death. The words “as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death” appearing in Section 32 must have some proximate relations to the actual occurrence. In other words the statement of the deceased relating to the cause of death or the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death must be sufficiently or closely connected with the actual transaction. To make such statement as substantive evidence, the person or the agency relying upon it is under a legal obligation to prove the making of such statement as a fact. If it is in writing, the scribe must be produced in the Court and if it is verbal, it should be proved by examining the person who heard the deceased making the statement. The phrase “circumstances of the transaction” was considered and explained in Pakala Narayana Swami vs. Emperor (AIR 1939 PC 47: (1939) 40 Cri LJ 364): “The circumstances must be circumstances of the transaction: general expressions indicating fear or suspicion whether of a particular individual or otherwise and not directly related to the occasion of the death will not be admissible. But statements made by the deceased that he was proceeding to the spot where he was in fact killed, or as to his reasons for so proceeding, or that he was going to meet a particular person, or that he had been invited by such person to meet him would each of them be circumstances of the transaction, and would be so whether the person was unknown, or was not the person accused. Such a statement might indeed be exculpatory of the person accused. ‘Circumstances of the transaction’ is a phrase no doubt that conveys some limitations. It is not as broad as the analogous use in ‘circumstantial evidence’ which includes evidence of all relevant facts. It is on the other hand narrower than ‘res gestae’. Circumstances must have some proximate relation to the actual occurrence: though, as for instance, in a case of prolonged poisoning they may be related to dates at a considerable distance from the date of the actual fatal dose. It will be observed that ‘the circumstances’ are of the transaction which resulted in the death of the declarant. It is not necessary that there should be a known transaction other than that the death of the declarant has ultimately been caused, for the condition of the admissibility of the evidence is that ‘the cause of (the declarant’s) death comes into question’.” 18. We have examined the original record and found that the statement of the witness which was recorded in Punjabi/Gurmukhi script states that Ram Kishan had gone to the residence of the accused on the occasion of Karva Chauth (mauke te) and not on the date of Karva Chauth. Relying upon the evidence in the case, the trial court had rightly concluded: “The sum and substance of the above discussion is that the prosecution has adduced best available evidence to prove the charge against the accused. The statement of Kans Raj (PW6) and Ram Kishan (PW5) inspire confidence. It is not disputed that Sunita Kumari committed suicide about 3 ½ years after the marriage. The accused have not given any satisfactory account of even high probability as to how Sunita Kumari died. There is a presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act that the suicide has been abetted by the husband or other relative of the husband of the deceased. The accused have not been able to rebut that presumption. It is also proved that Sunita Kumari was treated with cruelty on account of dowry.” So, from the above decision, it is clear that the statement given by the deceased so as to come within the purview of Section 32(1) of the Act and become admissible provided it has nexus with the date of transaction, which resulted in the death. Therefore, the crux of the case that the demand of dowry and the date of death should not be too remote in time and there should be a proximate and live mark between the fact of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. 16. In view of the fact that there was a time gap of 2 ½ years between the marriage and the date of death of the deceased, the prosecution is unable to adduce evidence to show that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry. That evidence is lacking. Even the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the deceased informing about the demand of dowry by accused has been stated for the first time in the Court. There cannot be any dispute that the statement made by a person, oral or written, as to the cause of death or anyone of the circumstances resulting in the death in case of death comes into question is admissible under Section 32(1) of the Act. Once a statement comes under the purview of Section 32(1) of the Act, then, that evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. It needs no corroboration provided that such evidence must be true, trustworthy and reliable. 17. P.W.16, who is the Investigating Officer, has clearly admitted that he did not find the demand of additional dowry and telephone version between the accused and P.Ws.1 to 3 three or four hours prior to the incident i.e., on 30.11.2006 at about 9 p.m. and the same has not been stated by the witnesses when they were examined by the Sub Inspector of Police in the first instance or examined by the Inspector of Police in the second instance. Therefore, the evidence with regard to the demand of additional dowry and also the deceased telephoning to P.W.1 are clearly improvements. Those improvements cannot be brushed aside as insignificant. Even, P.W.1 admitted that he did not personally see the accused harassing or beating the deceased. What all P.W.1 has stated was that he came to know about the harassment through the deceased. 18. One of the reasons for demand of additional dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs was that marriage of the second daughter of P.W.1 was fixed. At that time, A-1 came to know that P.Ws.1 and 2 were giving Rs.8.00 lakhs towards dowry for the purpose of performing the marriage of their second daughter. Even, this aspect of the case has not been stated to the police when P.W.1 was examined. P.W.1 has categorically admitted that he did not state before the police that they were going to give Rs.8.00 lakhs towards dowry to his second daughter and as such, the accused had entertained grouse against him and for that purpose, P.W.1 sent P.Ws.3 and 4 to A-1’s house for mediation. P.W.3 though stated that at the request of P.W.1, himself and Abdul Kareem went to the house of the accused to mediate the dispute, but the accused insisted for additional dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs. He admitted in the cross examination that he did not state before the police about the mediation held by him and Abdul Kareem. He also admitted that he did not state before the police that P.W.1 gave Rs.50,000/- to A-1 for purchase of motor cycle and Rs.40,000/- for his transfer. Therefore, these omissions cannot be ignored as not important. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is not much helpful to the case of the prosecution. 19. Coming to the evidence of P.W.5, though he stated that the deceased informed him that the accused were harassing her for additional dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs as their younger sister’s marriage was settled for a dowry of Rs.8.00 lakhs, he did not state that the said statement was made by the deceased soon before her death so as to come within the purview of Section 32 of the Act. Furthermore, he was not examined immediately after the death of the deceased. Two weeks after the incident, he was examined. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.6 is not much helpful. His evidence would only go to show that P.W.1 had taken loan of Rs.60,000/- for purchase of motor cycle for A- 1. Even assuming for a moment that the evidence of P.W.6 is to be accepted as correct, it would not come under the act or commission of an offence. 20. P.W.7 is a neighbourer. It is his evidence that when he came outside to answer calls of nature, he saw flames in the house of Siva Reddi. Then, he raised cries and several people gathered there. The deceased sustained burn injuries and she was referred to hospital. The remaining evidence is formal in nature. So, from the evidence on record, prosecution failed to establish that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry. 21. The learned Sessions Judge gave a perverse finding that because the deceased sustained injuries, A-1 is bound to reveal as to how the deceased sustained ante mortem injuries and the accused did not explain the injuries caused on the deceased. That perverse finding cannot be accepted for the reason that the burden is not on the accused to establish what had happened within the four corners of the house. The initial burden is always on the prosecution. The initial burden for the offence punishable under