THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1001 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment passed in S.C.No.245 of 2003 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Medak at Siddipet on 15.04.2004. The appellant herein, who is accused No.1 along with two others were prosecuted for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Smt Thatikonda Sreelatha @ Parijatha, who is the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2 was given in marriage to the accused No.1 about 6 years back. Accused No.1 along with his mother accused No.2 and his father, accused No.3 harassed the deceased to get additional dowry amount and on 30.05.2002 between 9.00 to 20.00 hours the deceased was beaten by the accused to death at Thallapally village of Dubbak mandal. The learned District and Sessions Judge has framed the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused and all the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges. The prosecution in order to establish the said charges examined P.Ws.1 to 20 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 and no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but marked Exs.D.1 and D.2 in the cross-examination of P.Ws.7 and 8. The learned Sessions Judge by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence found accused No.1 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.250/- in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and accused Nos.2 and 3 were found not guilty and they were acquitted. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentences, the appellant, who is accused No.1 has preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that the death of the deceased is natural death as she is having stomach pain and consumed poison and died and there is no evidence to establish that P.Ws.1 and 2 have given dowry to accused No.1 at the time of marriage and accused No.1 has demanded for payment of additional dowry subsequently and P.Ws.1 to 3 are interested witnesses and the prosecution has failed to establish the date, on which the alleged demand of additional dowry was made by the accused and also failed to establish the harassment caused by the accused in connection with demand for dowry. On behalf of the Public Prosecutor, it is pleaded that the offence of this nature will occur within the family and there cannot be any independent witnesses for the harassment caused by the accused or demand for dowry and the prosecution could able to establish the said allegations against accused No.1 by examining P.Ws.1 to 3, P.W.6, P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10. He further pleaded that the prosecution could able to establish that the death of the deceased is not a natural death, P.Ws.1 to 3 and other witnesses, who have come to the house of the accused after the death of the deceased found the injuries on the dead body of the deceased and the same was confirmed by the mediator for the inquest and the Mandal Revenue Officer P.W.17, who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and the said injuries were also found during the course of autopsy conducted by P.W.18 and P.W.18 has opined that the cause of death of deceased was due to injuries and throttling. Therefore, the prosecution could able to establish that the deceased died in unnatural circumstances and the accused harassed the deceased for getting additional dowry from her parents, as such the prosecution could able to establish the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In order to establish the offence under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must establish that (1) the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (2) such death must have occurred within seven years from the date of the marriage; (3) soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (4) such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand of dowry. (5) such cruelty is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. In the present case, in order to establish that the death of the deceased was otherwise than under normal circumstances, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.10, P.W.16, P.W.17 and P.W.18. According to P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased that on receiving the information about the death of their daughter, he along with his wife and son gone to Thallapally village and enquired the villagers of Thallapally as to how his daughter died, but nobody has given any reply and his grandson has informed that accused Nos.1 to 3 beat his mother in a cattle shed by using Bandi Katte and accused Nos.1 to 3 pressed neck of his mother, thereafter they removed the clothes and saw the dead body and noticed injury on the head, on the back, on the ear, on the ribs and on knees of the legs. P.W.2, mother of the deceased also supported the version of P.W.1 with regard to observing injuries on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.3, brother of the deceased also supported the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to observing the injuries on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.6, who came to know about the death of the deceased gone to Thallapally village and noticed the injuries on the dead body of the deceased and according to him, he saw the injury on the head and contusion on the neck and on the legs and contusion on the back of the body. P.W.7, he has also gone to Thallapally village on hearing the death of the deceased and also saw the injuries on the head, on the ear and on the knees of legs, on back and contusion on the neck. P.W.10, who is the uncle of the deceased and brother of P.W.2, who has gone to Thallapally village on hearing the death of the deceased also, saw the bleeding from the nose and injuries on head, shoulders and legs and contusion on the neck. P.W.16 is the mediator for the inquest and the deceased is her maternal uncle’s daughter and she also observed the injuries all over the body of deceased and found injuries on the head, contusion on the neck, contusion on shoulder and bleeding injury on the back side ribs and injuries on the legs. P.W.17, who is Mandal Revenue Officer, who conducted the inquest, also supported the version of P.W.16 with regard to their finding of injuries at the time of inquest. P.W.18, who conducted autopsy over the dead body has also found (1) abrasions over left cheek ½” X ½” (2) contusion around neck exchanging from right angle of lower jaw, to left lower jaw angle, (3) contusion over left shoulder 1” X 1”, (4) abrasion of ½” X ¼” over the left shoulder and (5) abrasion over left chest of 1/2” X 1” over lateral aspect. Therefore, most of the injuries observed during the course of autopsy by P.W.18 were also found and noted during the course of inquest by the witnesses, who have seen the dead body of the deceased, when she was lying in the house of the accused and P.W.18 has opined that the death was due to assault and throttling. Even though P.W.18 has admitted in the cross-examination that they have opened the neck and head of the deceased, they did not notice any injuries on the inner part of the neck and they did not notice any injury to the skull and they did not find any nail marks on the neck, it cannot be said that the death was not due to injuries found on her body. From the above, it is evident that the deceased died due to injuries sustained by her. Therefore, the death of the deceased was otherwise than under normal circumstances. According to P.Ws.1 to 3 the marriage of the deceased was performed with accused No.1 in the month of April or May, 1996. The appellant’s counsel has pleaded that the marriage has taken place in the year 1994, but not in the year 1996, as such the death was not occurred within 7 years of her marriage as she died in the year 2002. P.Ws.1 to 3, who are the father, mother and brother of the deceased and P.W.6, who is the cousin brother of the deceased, who attended the marriage and other relatives P.Ws.10 and 16 has specifically stated that the marriage was took place in the month of April or May 1996. Simply because the Investigating Officer has not collected any documentary evidence with regard to the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1, it cannot be said that the marriage has not taken lace during the year 1996, moreover in Ex.P.1 complaint given by P.W.1 to the police, he has specifically mentioned that the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 took place about 6 years back i.e. in the year 1996. Therefore, the prosecution could able to establish that the death of the deceased was occurred within 7 years of her marriage. The next point to be examined is whether soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by accused Nos.1 to 3 and such cruelty and harassment must be in connection with demand for dowry and such cruelty must have been meted out by the deceased soon before her death. According to prosecution at the time of marriage the parents of the deceased, P.Ws.1 and 2 have given Rs.60,000/- towards dowry, 2 tulas of Pusthelathadu and half tula of ring, 6 grams Makarakundhanalu to their daughter, half tula of gold ring to accused No.1. Apart from that they have presented a fan, tape recorder and other household utensils. Admittedly, P.Ws.1 to 3 are living by doing cooli work and according to P.W.1, he sold Ac.5.00 of land, which was standing in the name of his daughter and got Rs.45,000/- and they have saved Rs.15,000/- from their cooli work and totally they have paid Rs.60,000/- to accused No.1 at the time of marriage. According to him, gold ornaments were presented by his brothers-in-law by name Sriramreddy and Narsimha Reddy as they do not have sufficient amount for preparing the gold ornaments. With regard to selling away the agricultural land by P.W.1, the prosecution has examined P.W.9, who is the purchaser of the said property. According to him; he purchased Ac.5.00 of land from P.W.1, which was standing in the name of his daughter situated in survey number 292. He purchased the said land for total amount of Rs.45,000/- and he paid Rs.10,000/- as advance at the time of agreement and paid remaining amount at the time of sale deed and according to him, the transaction took place in the year 1996. In the cross-examination, he stated that he do not know as to how the said property was acquired by the deceased and according to him, he verified the revenue records and collected pattadar passbook and title deeds at the time of registration. None of the said documents were produced by P.W.9 to show the title of the deceased over the said property and more over, he has not produced any document to show that he purchased the said land in the year 1996 for Rs.45,000/-. With regard to earnings of P.Ws.1 to 3, P.W.1 has stated in his cross-examination that he was getting an income of Rs.30/- or 40/- per day during that period, himself and his wife and his son also attending cooli work and they used to save Rs.10,000/- per year during that period and used to circulate the amount on interest. But whereas, P.W.2 has stated in her cross-examination that their income from cooli works is hardly sufficient for their maintenance and they are not in a position to save any amount, herself, her husband and her son have been doing cooli work and that income on cooli work was just sufficient for their maintenance. P.W.3, who is the son of P.Ws.1 and 2 has also stated that himself and his parents attending cooli work and the income derived by himself and his parents is being used for the maintenance of the house and he did not speak anything about the savings from out of their earnings. Therefore, the plea of their saving Rs.15,000/- by the time of marriage of deceased and paying total dowry of Rs.60,000/- to the accused could not be established by the prosecution. With regard to the presentation of the gold ornaments, according to P.Ws.1 to 3, P.W.10 who is the brother of P.W.2 has presented the gold ornaments. P.W.10 has stated that he gave 2 tulas of Pusthelathadu and Vanke ring of half tula to deceased and half tula of finger ring to accused No.1 and he also presented Makarakundhanalu of 6 grams to the deceased. Therefore, the prosecution could able to establish the presentation of gold ornaments to the deceased and accused No.1 at the time of marriage. According to P.W.1 after one year of the marriage, the accused started harassing the deceased to get additional dowry and during that time she became pregnant and accused No.1 sent the deceased to his house and he took her back to the house of accused and stated that he would arrange the amount later on. Subsequently, they have brought his daughter to their house for delivery and she gave birth to a male child and after delivery, she stayed in their house for 3 months and thereafter P.W.2 has taken the deceased to the house of the accused along with child and want to perform Odibiyyam function, but the accused stated that they will not allow her to perform Odibiyyam function unless the demanded amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid by them and thereafter his daughter and grandson were sent to their house demanding to get additional dowry of Rs.10,000/-According to him, he purchased two bullocks for Rs.10,000/- and took those bullocks to the house of accused along with his daughter and left the deceased in the house of accused and thereafter for few days, they lived happily and again started demanding for additional money and one week prior to the death of the deceased, accused No.1 came to their house and he has borrowed Rs.5,000/- from Doosari Mallesham and paid the same to accused No.1. Thereafter, he got information through telephone from Bhoopathi Reddy that his daughter died in the house of the accused. Therefore, according to P.W.1, accused harassed the deceased demanding her to get Rs.10,000/- from her parents and the said version was supported by P.Ws.2 and 3. According to P.Ws.1 to 3, they purchased 2 bullocks and gave it to the accused. But no explanation was given as to why they presented bullocks when they demanded for Rs.10,000/- towards additional dowry and moreover P.W.1 in his cross- examination has stated that he do not know from whom he purchased bullocks, whereas P.W.2 has stated that the bullocks were purchased with their own money from a Shandi at Bachannapet village and whereas P.W.3, son of P.Ws.1 and 2 has stated that they have no document to show the purchase of bullocks and he cannot say the date of purchase of bullocks and he admitted that Shandi people will issue the receipt for purchase of bullocks, but he has not seen any receipt with his father. Even though P.W.1 has pleaded that he purchased bullocks and handed over the same to the accused, but whereas P.W.6, who is the cousin brother of the deceased has stated that he gave Rs.10,000/- to accused No.1 during Deepavli festival since accused No.1 stated that he will purchase cattle. In his cross- examination, he admitted that on the eve of Deepavali festival of 1997, he gave Rs.10,000/- to accused No.1, which is not stated by P.Ws.1 and 2. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish that P.W.1 has purchased the bullocks and handed over the same to the accused when they demanded for payment of Rs.10,000/- as additional dowry. The next contention of P.W.1 is that one week prior to the death of the deceased accused No.1 came to his house and demanded for payment of Rs.5,000/- and he borrowed Rs.5,000/- from Doosari Mallesham and paid the same to accused No.1 and the said version of P.W.1 was supported by P.W.2, whereas P.W.3 has stated that the accused has demanded Rs.10,000/-, but his father has arranged Rs.5,000/-. P.W.7 is Doosari Mallesham has stated that P.W.1 is cultivating the lands of his daughter on lease basis and therefore he got acquaintance with P.W.1 and the deceased used to inform his daughter that her husband, in-laws started harassing her for sake of money and he also stated that the dowry amount was not paid to him, still some more amount is due to them, and his daughter informed those details to him and he gave Rs.5,000/- to P.W.1 regarding dowry amount. He gave that amount to P.W.1 as a loan and in the cross-examination he stated that he do not know whether P.W.1 gave the amount of Rs.5,000/- to his son-in-law, and on 22nd or 23rd May, 2002 he paid the amount to P.W.1 and P.W.1 executed a document when he received amount from him, since P.W.1 repaid the same, he torn the said document. Therefore, P.W.7 knowing that the accused has demanded additional dowry and paid the said amount to P.W.1 as loan, but he do not know whether the said amount was paid to accused No.1 by P.W.1. Therefore, he could able to establish the borrowing of amount by P.W.1, but could not establish that the said amount was paid to accused No.1. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish about the demand of Rs.10,000/- towards additional dowry and payment of Rs.5,000/- as additional dowry on the demands made by the accused. The next contention of the prosecution is that the accused has harassed the deceased for getting the additional dowry amount, but all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution were silent about the dates of harassment by the accused and what was the mode of harassment by the accused. Admittedly, P.Ws.1 to 3 never gave any complaint to any of the villagers about the harassment caused by the accused to the deceased and they also did not give any complaint to the police about the alleged harassment. When the prosecution could not able to establish about the payment of additional dowry as alleged to have been demanded by the accused, the question of harassing the deceased cannot be believed. Moreover, P.W.1 did not state about the harassment and demand for additional dowry amount, in the complaint Ex.P.1 given by P.W.1 to the police. He has only stated about performing the marriage of his daughter with accused No.1 in March, 1996 and payment of dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-, gold ornaments and household articles and on 30.05.2002 at about 9.00 P.M. the accused harassed his daughter and demanded for more dowry and they beat his daughter in the cattle shed and his daughter died due to severe injuries. Therefore, Ex.P.1 only discloses about the harassment and beating of the deceased by accused No.1 on 30.05.2002 at 9.00 P.M. It does not disclose any harassment caused by the accused for additional dowry amount prior to the date of alleged incident on 30.05.2002. In “TARSEEM SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB[1]” the Apex Court held that in order to attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC and the presumptive provision of Section 113 B of the Evidence Act, one of the essential ingredients, amongst others, is that the ‘woman’ must have been “soon before her death” subjected to cruelty or harassment “for, or in connection with, the demand for dowry”. In “SURESH KUMAR SINGH V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH[2]” the Apex Court has observed that before a person is found guilty of commission of an offence, the Court must arrive at a firm conclusion that the ingredients thereof had been proved. For the said purpose whereas on the one hand the object of Parliament in inserting the said provisions must be borne in mind. It is further observed that the harassment which is said to have been caused in connection with the demand of dowry other than the incident in question, as noticed hereinbefore, was one year prior to the incident. Would a gap of one year answer the description of the term “soon before her death” is the question and held that some harassment which had taken place one year prior to the death without something more could not have been considered to be a cruelty which had been inflicted soon before the death of the deceased and it does not satisfy the proximity test. In the present case as observed above that P.W.1 has stated in his complaint that the harassment and beating of the deceased was took place on 30.05.2002 and does not speak anything about the harassment caused to the deceased for additional dowry prior to the said date. On the other hand, the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution shows that the incident has taken place much prior to 30.05.2002 and that the incidents of harassment and cruelty have taken place prior to the alleged date of incident i.e. 30.05.2002, but the prosecution could not establish about the demand for additional dowry of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as claimed by P.Ws.1 to 3 and harassing the deceased in connection with the said demand for dowry. Therefore, there is no material to establish that the accused has subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry prior to her death even though the prosecution could able to establish that the deceased died otherwise than under normal circumstances. The lower Court has taken a presumption that as the deceased died otherwise than under normal circumstances in the house of the accused, the accused alone are responsible for her death. In order to establish the causing of death by the accused, according to P.Ws.1 to 3, P.W.4 son of the deceased has disclosed to them that his father beat his mother with Bandi Katte on the head, on back of ear, shoulders and on the knees of the legs and pressed the neck of his mother and his grandfather and grandmother has closed the door from outside. But in the cross- examination, he admitted that P.Ws.1 to 3 tutored him to give statement as stated by him in his chief-examination. P.W.4 is aged about 6 years on the date of recording his evidence before the lower Court and as he was tutored by P.Ws.1 to 3, his evidence cannot be relied upon and the lower Court also discarded his evidence. When the evidence of P.W.4 is disbelieved, there is no