JUDGMENT - A.A. CAZI, J.:---This Criminal Revision Application challenges the legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 14th February, 1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Satara, in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1989 by which judgment and order he has confirmed the judgment and order dated 10th May, 1989 passed by the learned III Assistant Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No. 118 of 1988 convicting both the petitioners for offences under section 498-A and section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and, in respect of the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing each of them for rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for six months, and in respect of the offence under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The victim is Mangal the wife of petitioner No. 1. She died by drowning in a well and her body was recovered on the afternoon of 24th October, 1985. Her parental place is Awarde, Taluka Patan, District Satara. The petitioner are residents of Vanvasmachi, Taluka Karad, District Satara. Petitioner No. 2 is the mother of petitioner No. 1. The Marriage of Mangal with petitioners No. 1 took place in May 1984 at Vanvasmachi. The prosecution case shortly was as follows: Soon after the marriage the petitioners started demanding gold and safari suit from Mangal's parents. They complained that the bormal which was given to Mangal by her parents at the time of marriage was less than one tola in weight and they harassed Mangal to obtain from her parents enough gold to make up one tola. A gold ring was also demanded. Mangal was subjected to harassment and cruel treatment in order to obtain these dowry gifts from her parents. Mangal, during her visits to her parental place spoke about the harassment/cruelty to her and about the demands for dowry. She sent one chit to her uncle Jaysing Yeshwant Chavan (P.W. 6) asking Jaysing to ask her father to come and fetcher from Vanvasmachi immediately as she was subjected to beating on account of demands for bormal and other items. Mangal, during her visits to her parental place spoke about the harassment/cruelty to her and about the demands for dowry. She sent one chit to her uncle Jaysing Yeshwant Chavan (P.W. 6) asking Jaysing to ask her father to come and fetcher from Vanvasmachi immediately as she was subjected to beating on account of demands for bormal and other items. She also sent by post a post card in June 1985 to her father asking him to come to Vanvasmachi as there was a plan there to harm her. Ultimately Mangal committed suicide by drowning in a well belonging to one Pawar which is adjacent to the land of petitioner No. 1 her body being discovered in the well on 24th October, 1985. According to the charge, Mangal committed suicide sometime between 22nd October, 1985 and 24th October, 1985. 3. The prosecution led evidence of eight witnesses. Anant Prabhu Mane, P.W.I, is a panch witness. He proved the panchanama (Exhibit 'II') which described the situation of the well. That evidence is not material for the purpose of this Criminal Revision Application. Govind Shankar Mane, P.W. 2, is also a panch witness. Apart from the inquest panchanama (Exhibit 8') he was also concerned with Exhibit 13', but he was hostile to the prosecution and his evidence does not carry the prosecution any further so far as this Criminal Revision Application is concerned. P.W. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are relations of the parties and we will proceed, in the following paragraphs, to give a gist of their evidence. Atmaram Dadaram Jadhav, P.W. 8, is the investigating officer. He deposed that petitioner No. 2 had lodged missing report regarding Mangal on 23rd October, 1985. He also deposed that petitioner No. 1 made discovery statement regarding whip and produced the whip from his house but there was no corroboration to this evidence and the Courts below have not relied, rightly, on the evidence regarding discovery of whip. 4. Maruti Krishna Chavan, P.W. 3, is Mangal's father's uncle. He deposed that Mangal has told him that on account of ornaments both the petitioners had harassed her and she had requested him to make arrangement for providing bormal to the petitioners. He also referred to the demand for gold ring and dress but as regards these two items he was contradicted by the omission to state about this in his police statement. 5. He also referred to the demand for gold ring and dress but as regards these two items he was contradicted by the omission to state about this in his police statement. 5. Sitabai Appa Chavan, P.W. 4, is Mangal's father's aunty. She deposed that Mangal, after her marriage, used to come to Awarde and used to cry and become nervous during her visits and she used to tell her that she was subjected to harassment on account of demand by both the petitioners and that petitioner No. 1 used to beat her at the instigation of petitioner No. 2 and the petitioners insisted for one tola of gold because of sub-standard ornaments of bormal presented in the marriage and the petitioners also insisted for one gold ring. 6. Narmadabai Ishwara Kochare, P.W. 5, is the aunt of petitioner No. 1, being the wife of the first petitioner's uncle Ishwara. She deposed that she resided in the same vada as the petitioners but in separate apartment and that once petitioner No. 1 asked Mangal to prepare jawar bread and on Mangal's refusal to do so petitioner No. 1 gave 2 to 4 strokes of whip to Mangal. 7. Jaysing Yeshwant Chavan, P.W. 6, is Mangal's uncle being brother of Mangal's father Khashaba. He deposed that when Mangal along with her husband and other members of her husband's family had visited her parental place on the sixteenth day of her marriage, petitioner No. 1 had said that he wanted a safari suit and a gold ring of one tola or otherwise he would not take Mangal but he (Jaysingh) told him to wait till Diwali when everything would be given but the first petitioner's angry mood did not change. He further deposed that one day Mangal again visited her parents' place and at that time she insisted for compliance of the dowry demand and made grievance of her harassment and she also told about the grievances made by both the petitioners about bormal. He further deposed that about 15 days prior to the incident he had met Mangal at Awarde and she had told him that Petitioner No. 1 had come to leave her at Awarde for compliance of the dowry gifts and at that time he persuaded petitioner No. 1 to be patient upto Diwali. He further deposed that about 15 days prior to the incident he had met Mangal at Awarde and she had told him that Petitioner No. 1 had come to leave her at Awarde for compliance of the dowry gifts and at that time he persuaded petitioner No. 1 to be patient upto Diwali. He also identified the hand-writing of Mangal on the chit which was marked Exhibit 18' and on the post-card which was marked Exhibit 19'. 8. Malan Khashabe Chavan, P.W. 7, is Mangal's mother. Her deposition is similar to the deposition of the other witnesses on the point of Mangal telling them about the dowry demand and harassment and cruelty by the petitioners on that account. However, she further deposed that Mangal had also stated to her that she had been beaten by whip, by stick and by kick blows by both the petitioners, but this part of her deposition is contradicted by her omission to state about this in her police statement. 9. We will first consider the conviction under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. That section reads as follows : "Section 498-A. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger of 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." It will be seen from the summary of evidence given above that as regards beating or physical cruelty by petitioner No. 1 the only direct evidence is the deposition of Narmadabai. Then there is direct oral evidence of demands made by petitioner No. 1 for gold and safari suit. Then there is direct oral evidence of demands made by petitioner No. 1 for gold and safari suit. Finally there is evidence of statements, both oral and in writing, of Mangal that she was treated cruelly by both petitioners for coercing her to meet her in-laws unlawful demand for property but the question is of admissibility of Mangal's statements. 10. As regards Narmadabai's deposition both the Courts below have declined to place reliance on it and we think, rightly so. Narmadabai admitted in her own deposition that there was disagreement between herself and the elder brother of petitioner No. 1 about house property. She also admitted that petitioner No. 2 raises quarrels with her and according to her this is "without any just Cause or reason". It was suggested to her, which of course she denied, that she was giving false evidence about the incident pertaining to bread and whipping due to strained relation caused by quarrels raised by petitioner No. 2 with her. Both the petitioners in their statements under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code stated that Narmdabai deposed against them because of the strained relations with her. As the evidence of Narmada stands uncorroborated by any other evidence it would be unsafe to rely upon her uncorroborated testimony that petitioner No. 1 whipped Mangal. 11. We will now discuss the admissibility of the oral and written statements made by Mangal regarding harassment/cruelty by both the petitioners on account of dowry demands. According to us, these statements are admissible under clause (1) of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act : Section 32 upto the end of clause (1) thereof reads as follows : "Section 32. Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases :- (1) When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, the cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question." The cause of Mangal's death is in question in these proceedings. The only question that remains to be answered is as to whether it can be said that the statements are "as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in "Mangal's death. This question also arose, in similar circumstances, before the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1622 (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra)1. Where the above question was answered in the affirmative (by majority judgment) and it is necessary to give particulars of that case. 12. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda's case the facts were as follows : The victim in that case was one Manju. The accused there was her husband Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. Manju and Sharad were married on 11-2-1982. During the night of 11-6-1982 and 12-6-1982. Manju died by potassium cyanide poisoning. On the morning of 12-6-1982 she was found dead in her bed. There was no eye-witness to say who administered the poison to Manju. The prosecution case was that Sharad administered the poison to Manju. Sharad's defence theory was that Manju committed suicide. Letters dated 8-5-1982 (Ex. 30), 8-6-1982 (Ex. 32), and 23-4-1982 (E.33) written by Manju to her sister Anju and to her friend Vahini were tendered in evidence by the prosecution to show that Sharad ill-treated Manju and those were held (by majority judgment) as admissible in evidence under clause (1) of section 32 of the Evidence Act but these letters were construed by the Court as revealing Manju's psychology from which it was held that she committed suicide. In none of these letters Manju spoke directly of having a mind to commit suicide. The closest she spoke of revealing her mind on this point was in the letter dated 8-4-1982 when she stated : "Now in this letter, when (out of) the things coming to my mind which cannot be written, I do not understand what is to be written. The state of mind now is very much the same. Enough. You understand (me). I am undergoing a very difficult test. I am unable to achieve it. The state of mind now is very much the same. Enough. You understand (me). I am undergoing a very difficult test. I am unable to achieve it. Till I could control (myself), well and good. When it becomes impossible, some others way will have to be evolved. Let us see what happens. All right". In the earlier letter dated 23-4 -1982 she had written about her condition in her husband's house---"At present my status is only that of a maid-servant without pay as of right." In that case the Supreme Court pointed out" .....that the Indian law on the question of the nature and scope of dying declaration has made a district departure from the English Law where only the statements which directly relate to the cause of the death are admissible. The second part of Cl. (1) of section 32, viz., "the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question" is not be found in the English Law." The Supreme Court also referred to A.I.R. 1954 All. 153 (State v. Kanchan Singh)2, where it was observed : "The law in India does not make the admissibility of a dying declaration dependent upon the person's having a consciousness of the approach of death. Even if the person did not apprehend that he would die, a statement made by him about the circumstances of his death would be admissible under section 32, Evidence Act". The Supreme Court further stated : "The test of proximity cannot be too literally construed and practically refused to a cut-and-dried formula of universal application so as to be confined in a straitjacket. Distance of time would depend or vary with the circumstances of each case. For instance, where death is a logical culmination of a continuous drama long in process and is, as it were, a finale of the story, the statement regarding each step directly connected with the end of the drama would be admissible because the entire statement would have to be read as an organic whole and not torn from the context. Sometimes statements relevant to or furnishing an immediate motive may also be admissible as being a part of the transaction of death. It is manifest that all these statements come to light only after the death of the deceased who speaks from death. Sometimes statements relevant to or furnishing an immediate motive may also be admissible as being a part of the transaction of death. It is manifest that all these statements come to light only after the death of the deceased who speaks from death. For instance, where the death takes place within a very short time of the marriage or the distance of time is not spread over more than 3-4 months the statement may be admissible under section 32." 13. The facts in our case are somewhat similar to the facts in the case of (Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana)3, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 370. There the victim was one Veena. The accused there were her husband Kanwar Singh, her father-in-law Wazir Chand, and her mother-in-law Krishana Devi. Veena and Kanwar Singh were married on 16-10-1983. On the morning of 10-6-1984 Veena died of burn injuries. There was no eye-witness to say whether the fire to her clothes was accidental from the kerosene stove or whether Veena committed suicide. There also, as in our case the prosecution case was that the accused harassed the victim on account of demands of dowry and therefore the victim committed suicide. There also the accused were charged of having committed offences under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. There the statements of Veena, which she made after her marriage and right upto the time when she died, that she and her parents were being harassed by the accused for various dowry articles, were considered in evidence by the Supreme Court and though the accused were acquitted in respect of the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code holding that the prosecution had failed to prove that it was a case of suicide, they were held guilty of the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 14. The question in our case is whether Mangal committed suicide. For this we are first required to consider the question whether Mangal was harassed for demands of dowry. Mangal's statements go to establish harassment. They are thus admissible under clause (1) of section 32 of the India Evidence Act. 15. It was urged by Mr. Nesari that Mangal's statements which are not proximate in time to her death would not be admissible in evidence. Mangal's statements go to establish harassment. They are thus admissible under clause (1) of section 32 of the India Evidence Act. 15. It was urged by Mr. Nesari that Mangal's statements which are not proximate in time to her death would not be admissible in evidence. Now, in respect of the death of a married woman, where the question is whether the death was suicide. It may be necessary to determine, as in our case, whether the victim had been subjected to harassment by her in-laws, and this may be a continuous build up right from the date of marriage. All these statements of Mangal are therefore admissible in evidence. 16. Both the Courts below have held the evidence sufficient for conviction of the petitioners under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The only law that was canvassed before us was with regard to the admissibility of Mangal's statement under clause (1) of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act and we have held that the same is admissible as discussed above. Hence, the convictions of both the petitioners under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code would stand. 17. Now, we will discuss the validity of conviction under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. First, it may be pointed out that when this incident took place section 304B of the Indian Penal Code which deals with " dowry death" had not been enacted. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: "Section 306. 17. Now, we will discuss the validity of conviction under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. First, it may be pointed out that when this incident took place section 304B of the Indian Penal Code which deals with " dowry death" had not been enacted. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: "Section 306. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act which provides for raising a presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman reads as follows: "Section 113A, Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.--- When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband." It will be noticed that for raising a presumption under section 113A it must first be shown that the woman had committed suicide. It is true that the evidence shows that Mangal was harassed/treated cruelly for dowry demands by the petitioners. It is also true that Mangal's death was by drowning. But these two circumstances do not lead to the positive conclusion that Mangal committed suicide. In fact, there is nothing to show that Mangal had at any time revealed her mind or mood to be suicidal. Further she was three months pregnant and this was her first pregnancy. Hence, the conviction for the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code will have to set aside. 18. In fact, there is nothing to show that Mangal had at any time revealed her mind or mood to be suicidal. Further she was three months pregnant and this was her first pregnancy. Hence, the conviction for the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code will have to set aside. 18. In the result, this Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed, the order of the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court of convicting and sentencing each of these petitioners for offence under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside, and these petitioners are acquitted of the offence under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and the orders of the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court for conviction and sentence of the petitioners under section 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are confirmed. Petitioners/Accused to surrender to their bail bonds. Fine imposed under section 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, if recovered, out of the said fine amount a sum of Rs. 1,000/- be paid to the 2nd respondent/complainant by way of compensation. Application partly allowed. -----