THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.826 OF 2002. DATED: 04-08-2009. Between: 1.Kariveda Srinivasa Reddy and another …Appellants/A1 and A2 and State of A.P. through Sub Divisional Police officer, Karimnagar, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. …Respondent/complainant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.826 OF 2002. JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants-A1 and A2 under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment, dated 04-07- 2002, in Sessions Case No.559 of 2000, on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder and whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years of the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’), further they were convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, further they were convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 45 days of the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and further they were convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘D.P.Act’) and all the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Appeal, may be stated as follows: A1 is the husband, A2 and A3 are the parents-in-law and A4 is the sister-in-law of Vanitha (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’). The marriage of the deceased with A1 was performed in the month of May, 1999. At the time of marriage, P.Ws. 1 and 4 agreed to give dowry of Rs.1,60,000/- besides other gold and silver article, but P.Ws. 1 and 4 paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- ten days before the marriage on the betrothal ceremony, towards part of dowry. After the marriage, the deceased was sent to the village of A1, which is situated at a distance of seven miles from the village of P.W.1. For about four months, the deceased lived happily with her husband and in-laws. Thereafter, it is alleged that the present appellants were harassing her to bring remaining dowry as agreed to be given at the time of marriage. One or two months prior to the death of the deceased, she visited the village of her parents and informed about the harassment made by A1 and A2 with regard to selling of land of Ac.1.20 gts and paying the balance amount of dowry. P.Ws. 1 and 4 consoled her saying that they would sell the said land in the summer and sent the amount. On 12-12-1999 P.W.3 who is no other than the brother of the deceased went to the village of the accused to see his sister. At that time, it is alleged that A1 and A2 asked him to bring the remaining dowry and they refused to send the deceased along with P.W.3 to her parents’ house unless they pay the balance dowry. P.W.3 made a promise that they would pay the remaining balance of dowry shortly and returned to the village at about 2 P.M. On the same day at about 4.00 P.M. one K.Malla Reddy came to the village and informed to the parents of the deceased that the deceased committed suicide by jumping into the well. On the next day, P.W.3 lodged Ex.P3 complaint to P.W.8-Sub Inspector of Police, who registered a case, visited the scene of offence and observed the scene of offence. He issued requisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer to held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. After the inquest, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. The doctor reserved his opinion pending receipt of report from the Forensic Science Laboratory. The viscera preserved by the doctor was analyzed by the FSL and found that the intestines contain organo phosphate insecticide poison. After completion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet against four accused. 3. When the charges under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B IPC and 4 of D.P. Act were framed against A1 to A4, read over and explained to them in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P25 besides case property, M.Os.1 and 2. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D3 were marked. 6. The trial Court considering the evidence available on record and placing implicit reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 1,3 and 4 came to the conclusion that the deceased was subjected to harassment by A1 and A2 for or in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death and accordingly, while acquitting A3 and A4, convicted and sentenced the A1 and A2 as above. Hence, the present appeal by A1 and A2. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-A1 and A2 contended that there was no harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry, that it is not a case of treating the deceased cruelly or beating her in connection with any demand of dowry, that the deceased was not worldly wise woman and once she got down from the bus thinking that it is her village and therefore, for the reasons best known to the deceased, she must have consumed organo phosphate insecticide poison and committed suicide, that the investigation has to be conducted by the officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, that when P.Ws. 1,3 and 4 were examined by the Sub Inspector of Police, they did not state that the deceased was subjected to harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry and hence, he prays to set aside the convictions and sentences recorded against the appellants. 8. On the other hand, counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws. 1,3 and 4 would clearly go to show that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to harassment i.e., to bring additional dowry and unable to bear the harassment, the deceased committed suicide, that immediately after the incident, P.W.3 gave Ex.P3-complaint which would also clearly go to show that the appellants were harassing the deceased to bring remaining amount of dowry, that the burden placed on the prosecution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the burden shifts to the accused under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but the appellants have not rebutted that burden in adducing any evidence, that the trial Court after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants and absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants of the offences with which they were charged beyond all reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of the trial Court is legal, correct and proper? 10. Charges levelled against the appellants are under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B IPC and 4 of D.P. Act. Under Section 498-A I.P.C., whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects her to cruelty, he shall be punishable. Explanation: For the purposes of this section “cruelty” means- “(a) any willful conduct which is of a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 12. To prove the charge under Section 306 I.P.C., there must be abetment. Abetment is defined under Section 107 I.P.C., which is as follows: “107 Abetment of a thing:- A person abets in doing of a thing, who- Firstly-Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, in doing of that thing. Explanation 2 to Section 107 I.P.C. says that whoever, either prior to or at the time of commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. 13. To prove the charge under Section 304-B IPC, the following four conditions have to be established by the prosecution: 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: Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry and Fourthly: Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. 14. Section 4 of the D. P. Act reads as follows: “If any person demands directly or indirectly from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he is liable for punishment”. Section 2 of the D. P. Act, defines ‘dowry’, which 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, b) by parents of either party to a marriage or by other person to either party to the marriage or to any other person at or before or any time after marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties. 15. There cannot be any dispute that the burden always lies on the prosecution to establish the charges levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden never shifts to the accused unless the law says so. In view of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, burden shifts to the accused after the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act once the prosecution established that the death was occurred other than under normal circumstances and soon before her death, she was subjected to harassment and cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry, the presumption is that the accused caused the death of the deceased. 16. P.W.2 is the Mandal Revenue Officer who held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators. The mediators opined in Ex P2-inquest report that the death of the deceased was unnatural. After holding inquest, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. 17. P.W.10 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased found an abrasion on the left cheek 2” x 2” and lungs were congested. He sent viscera to the Forensic Science Laboratory. After receipt of Ex.P23-FSL report, he opined that the deceased died as a result of consuming organo phosphate insecticide poison. Even the accused did not deny or dispute about the cause of the death of the deceased as spoken to by P.W.10. Therefore, the death of the deceased is unnatural. 18. It is not in dispute that the marriage of the deceased with A1 was performed in the month of May, 1999, whereas the deceased died after consuming insecticide poison by jumping into the well in the village of the accused in the month of November, 1999, i.e., within seven months of her marriage. Therefore, the first two conditions of Section 304-B IPC have been established. The next two conditions are necessary for the prosecution to prove the charge under Section 304-B IPC. 19. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 would go to show that at the time of marriage, they agreed to pay Rs.1,60,000/- towards dowry and ten days before the marriage i.e., at the time of betrothal ceremony, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was given to A2. They have not given the remaining balance of Rs.1,35,000/-. According to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 Ac.1.20 gts of land was given to the accused by way of unregistered document. No doubt, learned counsel appearing for the appellants is right in contending that giving of Ac.1.20 gts of land was not in lieu of remaining balance of dowry agreed to be given, but their evidence would clearly go to show that only Rs.25,000/- was given to A2 ten days prior to the marriage and the remaining amount has not been paid. One or two months prior to the death of the deceased, she went to the village of P.Ws. 1 and 4 and at that time, she informed them that A1 and A2 were demanding her to bring money by selling the land. If the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 is to be accepted, it is admissible in evidence under Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act. A statement made by a person either verbal or written as to the cause of the death or any other circumstances resulting in her death in case in which the death of that person comes into question, is admissible in evidence under Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act. Law is equally well settled that if the statement given by the deceased falls within the four corners of Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, it can be acted upon even without any corroboration provided it is true and trustworthy and not an outcome of tutoring or prompting by any of the relatives of the deceased. The deceased came to the village casually and informed that the accused were insisting her to bring balance amount by selling the land. No doubt, the land was not given in lieu of remaining balance of dowry, but at seen from the evidence of three witnesses, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was only paid whereas the agreed amount for the marriage is Rs.1,60,000/-. In those circumstances, it can be inferred that the demand with regard to selling of the land and bringing the amount must be with reference to the payment of remaining balance amount. There is no other reason for P.Ws. 1,3 and 4 to speak false against the accused. Even prior to the marriage, P.W.4 was distantly related to the accused. So unless there was a demand of dowry in normal circumstances, P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 who are close relatives of the accused would not implicate the accused falsely. 20. P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased who went to the village of A1 to take the deceased to her parents’ house. It is not in dispute that the distance between the village of the accused and P.W.1 is seven miles. According to him, he went to the village of the accused at about 2.00 P.M. on 12-12-1999. When he went there, A1 and A2 asked him to bring remaining dowry. Then he promised that he would pay the remaining dowry after selling the land. Within two hours after his return from the village of the accused, he came to know about the death of the deceased. Within four or five hours prior to the incident, there was evidence, which would go to show that A1 and A2 demanded P.W.3 to bring balance amount. In the same way, it can be presumed that there was also a demand to the deceased for payment of balance dowry. The harassment or cruelty need not be physical by beating to bring additional dowry. Mere words with regard to bringing of balance of dowry amount would attract Section 304-B IPC. 21. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants placed strong reliance on the decision reported in K.PREMA S. RAO AND ANOTHER V YADLA SRINIVASA RAO AND OTHERS [1], wherein it was held thus: “We now take up for consideration Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 1995, preferred by the parents of the deceased seeking conviction of accused No. 1 for offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. In its common Judgment after appreciating the evidence on record, the conclusion reached by the High Court that the accused No. 1 cannot be convicted under Section 304B, IPC appears to be legally sound. There is no evidence against accused No. 1 that at the time of marriage there was any demand or settlement for giving dowry in cash or by way of transfer of property. The father of the deceased PW1 has not stated that cash, ornaments and the land were given at the time of marriage pursuant to any demand of dowry by the parents of the husband. He merely states that according to the custom of the community declaration was made of gift of five acres of land to the deceased as he "Stridhana" called in the community as pasupukumkuma. As promised and declared in the ritual at the time of marriage the land was transferred in the name of the wife. The couple lived happily thereafter. It is only 2- 3 months thereafter that the husband started harassing the wife to force her to transfer the land to him This harassment or cruel treatment to pressurize her to transfer the land cannot be said to be 'in connection with any alleged dowry demand'. For the purposes of Section 304B, IPC the legislature has borrowed the definition of 'dowry' from Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961. The relevant provisions of the Penal Code, Dowry Prohibition Act and Evidence Act are quoted hereunder: 304-B Dowry death - (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." Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1951 defines "dowry" as under:- 2. Definition of "dowry" - 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 parents 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 said parties, but does not include Dower or Mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. Explanation I - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any presents made at the time of a marriage to either party to the marriage in the form of cash, ornaments, clothes or other articles, shall not be deemed to be dowry within the meaning of this section, unless they are made as consideration for the marriage of the said parties. Explanation II - The expression 'valuable security' has the same meaning as in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 113B of the Evidence Act raises a presumption against the accused and reads:- 113-B Presumption as to dowry death - 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 be presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code." That is a case where there was no evidence on record to show that the land was demanded as dowry. In that case, the land given to the accused was towards ‘Pasupu Kumkuma’, but in this case P.Ws. 1 and 4 agreed to pay Rs.1,60,000/- towards dowry and part of the amount was paid. Therefore, the above decision has no application to the present facts of the case. 22. He also relied on another decision reported in SHAM LAL V STATE OF HARYANA [2], wherein it was held thus: “It is imperative, for invoking the aforesaid legal presumption to prove that ‘soon before her death’ she was subjected to such cruelty or harassment. Here, what the prosecution achieved in proving at the most was that there was persisting dispute between the two sides regarding the dowry paid or to be paid, both in kind and in cash, and on account of the failure to meet the demand for dowry. Neelam Rani was taken by her parents to their house about one and a half years before her death. Further evidence is that an attempt was made to patch up between the two sides for which a panchayat was held in which it was resolved that she would go back to the nuptial home pursuant to which she was taken by the husband to his house.” No doubt, there was no persistent demand with reference to the dowry in this case because on one occasion, the deceased was in a position to inform the harassment with regard to demand of balance amount of dowry to P.Ws. 1,3 and 4 when she visited the village about one or two months prior to her death and there was direct evidence of P.W.3 which would reveal that A1 and A2 i.e, the appellants herein demanded him to bring balance amount of dowry. The gap between the marriage and the death of the deceased is very short and it is only seven months. Further, there was no scope or possibility for holding any panchayat in this case. Hence, the above decision has no application to the present facts of the case. 23. He also relied on another decision reported in HARJIT SINGH V STATE OF PUNJAB [3], wherein it was held thus: “Yet again in Hira Lal and Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi, MANU/SC/0495/2003, this Curt observed that "The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive Section 304B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" is not defined. A reference to the expression "soon before" used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods "soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for their possession". The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the courts, depending