P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) A1 to A3 in Sessions case No. 281 of 1995 on the file of i Additional District and Sessions Judge, west Godavan at Eluru had preferred this criminal appeal, as against the judgment dated 20-7-1989, whereunder the appellants- accused were found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498-A and section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each in default simple imprisonment for one month and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years respectively and the sentences to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE Inspector of Police, Town circle Eluru filed charge-sheet against the accused in Cr. No. 25 of 1994 of II Town law and Order Police Eluru under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution is that one Akkisetti Narayana Rao and his wife lakshmi are residents of Paikapuram in vijayawada and their daughter Kanaka lakshmi was given in marriage to one pandiripalli Ganesh during May, 1989 at vijayawada. The said Ganesh is the son of a2. A3 is the sister of the said Ganesh. A1 is the wife of A2 and the mother of the said Ganesh. It is also the case of the prosecution that at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs. 3,750/- was given as dowry besides some gifts and house hold articles to a1 and A2. The parents of Kanaka Lakshmi hereinafter referred to as deceased for the purpose of convenience, also executed a gift deed in respect of house site measuring 72 yards in Vijayawada in favour of Al and a2 and the deceased joined her husband in her matrimonial house at Eluru. The husband of the deceased is innocent and he was treating her with love and affection. For sometime appellants-accused treated the deceased normally and thereafter began to ill-treat her by subjecting her to cruelty with a view to extract more money and unable to bear the same, the deceased went to her parents house. Her husband visited the parents house of the deceased and brought her back to his house and the accused subjecting her the same harassment continued in the absence of the said Ganesh. Her husband visited the parents house of the deceased and brought her back to his house and the accused subjecting her the same harassment continued in the absence of the said Ganesh. The deceased again went to the parents house and Ganesh requested Reddi Kasiraju (PW-5) to go over to Vijayawada and bring back his wife. The said Kasiraju went to the house of the parents of the deceased assured them that he would admonish the accused and so saying brought her to the house of the accused. This time it is stated that the accused had gone to the extent of threatening her that they would celebrate the second marriage of their son to get more dowry. It is also the version of the prosecution that she was unable to bear with the harassment, cruelty and insult, the deceased poured kerosene and set herself ablaze and she was shifted to the hospital, h. C. 712 of Eluru II Town Lando Police station recorded the statement of the deceased at the hospital. The sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Lando Police registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 25 of 1994 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal code and the deceased also made a dying declaration to the II Additional Judicial i Class Magistrate, Eluru. On the same day, she had succumbed to the injuries and hence the Sub-Inspector of Police altered the fir into Section 304-B of Indian Penal code. The investigation was taken up and inquest was conducted over the dead body. The same was registered as PRC 25 of ! 995 on the file of II Additional Judicial ! Class magistrate. Eluru and the same was committed to the Court of Sessions as sessions Case No. 281 of 1995 which was made over to the learned 1 Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at eluru, who had recorded the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 19 and also marked Exs. Pl to p17 and M. Os. 1 to 6. ( 4 ) SRI C. B. Ramamohan Reddy, the learned Counsel representing appellants had pointed out that even as per the evidence available on record especially what had been deposed by PW. 1 to 19 and also marked Exs. Pl to p17 and M. Os. 1 to 6. ( 4 ) SRI C. B. Ramamohan Reddy, the learned Counsel representing appellants had pointed out that even as per the evidence available on record especially what had been deposed by PW. l does not show that his daughter ever complained against A3, having harassed her for dowry and so there is no acceptable evidence as against A3 and as such A3 is entitled for an acquittal. ( 5 ) "i he learned Counsel also had pointed out to Exs. P13, P17 and also P15 and would contend that in view of the fact that P. Ws. 5 to 9 were declared hostile, the other evidence which may have to be carefully scrutinized is that of PWs. l to 4 and also in Exs. P13 and P17 and the witnesses concerned therewith PWs. l5 and 18. The learned Counsel had taken Court through the evidence available on record and would contend that PW. 1 is the father of the deceased, PW. 2 is the brother of the deceased, PWs. 3 and 4 are also close relatives of PW-1. The Counsel also would maintain tint on careful scrutiny, even in Exs. P13 and p17, there is no specific allegation relating to the demanding of dowry as such and hence the harassment in relation to dowry as alleged by the prosecution may have to be disbelieved. At any rate, the ingredients of section 304-B of Indian Penal Code definitely are not satisfied much less the ingredients of section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. " ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel also had pointed out that the words "soon before her death" may have to be appreciated taking into consideration the proximity of the alleged demand made and the date of death. The counsel also would maintain that the medical evidence is not clear relating to the percentage of bums. The learned Counsel also pointed out to Ex. P11 which would disclose that skin was charred all-over the body and in such a condition it is doubtful whether the deceased was capable of making dying declaration. Even otherwise in the dying declaration, no incriminating statement relating to the demand of dowry is said to have been made. The learned Counsel also pointed out to Ex. P11 which would disclose that skin was charred all-over the body and in such a condition it is doubtful whether the deceased was capable of making dying declaration. Even otherwise in the dying declaration, no incriminating statement relating to the demand of dowry is said to have been made. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to several material omissions and the evidence of the Investigating Officer in this regard. Ultimately the Counsel would submit that PWs. 7 to 9, the neighbours were declared hostile and there is no independent evidence at all. In the light of the same, the conviction recorded cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the following decisions. 1. In Kalivaperuma/ v. State of Tamil nadu, 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 682 (SC) = 2003 (2) ALT Crl. 337 (SC ). 2. In Panchdeo Singh v. State of Bihar, 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 110 (SC ). ( 7 ) ON the contrary, the learned additional Public Prosecutor had pointed out that apart from the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4, Exs. P13, P15 and P17 available on record would make it clear that the deceased was driven to pour kerosene on herself and set her ablaze, because of the harassment relating to the demand of dowry and nothing else. The ingredients of Section 304-B of indian Penal Code are clearly satisfied. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also had taken this Court through the contents of Ex. P13 and would contend that the genesis of the prosecution version is well established. The omissions pointed out are of the minor nature and the evidence of pw2 is clear and categorical which corroborates the evidence of PW. 1. PW. 6 is the husband of the deceased though was declared hostile, he had admitted the factum of receiving the dowry by his parents. The witness would be disbelieved, merely because he made some exaggerated statements. The omissions should be of such a nature which can be said to be material omissions. Even if the doctor had not certified the state of mind of the person making the dying declaration, the same is acceptable and the same cannot be in any way doubted. ( 8 ) THE learned Additional Public prosecutor also placed strong reliance on the following decisions:1. Even if the doctor had not certified the state of mind of the person making the dying declaration, the same is acceptable and the same cannot be in any way doubted. ( 8 ) THE learned Additional Public prosecutor also placed strong reliance on the following decisions:1. In Laxman v. Sate of Maharashtra, 2002 (2) ALD (Crl.) 505 (SC) = 2002 crl. LJ 4095. 2. In Om Prakash @ Raja v. State of uttaranchal, 2003 (1) ALD (Crl.) 84 (SC) = 2003 Crl. LJ 483. 3. In the State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuidip Singh, 2004 (2) ALD Crl. 683 (SC ). 4. In Matadin v. State of U. P. , AIR 1979 sc 1234 . ( 9 ) HEARD both the Counsel at length. Perused the evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the learned judge. ( 10 ) THIS is a case where the husband of the deceased is not arrayed as accused, but figured as a witness PW. 6. PW. 7 no doubt was declared as hostile, but however pw. 6 deposed that at the time of marriage, dowry of Rs. 3,750/- was given to his parents and accused used to treat his wife properly. This witness also deposed that he used to visit the house of PW. 1 along with the deceased and he used to go to their house and bring her back and PW. 6 also further deposed that his wife committed suicide by pouring kerosene being unable to bear with the pain she had during menstrual period. Ex. P13, the Dying Declaration, which was recorded by PW. l5, the A. S. I, reads as hereunder:"i am a residence of Kothapet of Eluru. Myself and my husband Ganesh are living together. Our marriage was performed three years back. We have no children. My mother-in-law Ramalakslimi, father-in-law apparao and my sister-in-law Paravathi are used to abuse me every day alleging that my parents have not given anything. Now and then my father-in-law used to beat me. Today as they harassed me, 1 poured kerosene on the body and lit fire in our house. My husband was not known about these things. My husband did not hear my words and used to hear their words. It is done by me, as I suffered. They took me to the hospital. 1 stated what happened to the persons, who asked me. My husband was not known about these things. My husband did not hear my words and used to hear their words. It is done by me, as I suffered. They took me to the hospital. 1 stated what happened to the persons, who asked me. It is written, read and explained to me and it is correct. " ( 11 ) PW. 16, the Sub-Inspector to police deposed that on receipt of Ex. P13 recorded by PW15, he registered a case in cr. No. 25 of 1994 under Section 498-A of ipc. Ex. P14 is the original FIR. This witness, however, deposed that when he was temporarily absent in the Police Station, pw-15 was the Station House Officer, and he had taken up investigation went to the Government Hospital, Eluru and recorded a statement of the injured in the Government hospital, which is Ex. P15. No doubt PW-16 also deposed about the other details of investigation. In Ex. P15 several other details have been narrated. PW-18, the II Additional judicial Magistrate of 1 Class, Eluru had recorded the Dying Declaration Ex. P17 and the said dying declaration reads as hereunder: (1) What is your name? pandiripalli Kanakalakshmi. (2) What is your village? kothapeta, Eluru. (3) What is your husband s name? gancsh. (4) Where are you now? in the hospital. ( 12 ) ON the above said answers I am satisfied that the patient is conscious state and fit condition to give statement. Do you know, who I am? not known. Then I disclosed my identity. 1 am a magistrate. At the time of recording, except doctor and myself, no other person was present in the close vicinity. I verified the case sheet and found no sedatives have been administered. How this is happened? our mother-in-law, and sister-in-law abused. Hence I poured kerosene. They are always used to abuse like that. Why did they are abusing? they are not good persons. What are their names? pandiripalli Ramalaskshmi pandiripalli Apparao pandiripalli Parvathi. How many years back the marriage was performed? three years back. How many children you got? no children. Do you wish to say anything more? nothing is there. L. T. I of P. Kanakalakshmi. ( 13 ) NO doubt the same was certified as patient is conscious in a fit condition while the statement is recorded. Reliance was placed by the learned Judge both on Exs. P13 and P17. How many children you got? no children. Do you wish to say anything more? nothing is there. L. T. I of P. Kanakalakshmi. ( 13 ) NO doubt the same was certified as patient is conscious in a fit condition while the statement is recorded. Reliance was placed by the learned Judge both on Exs. P13 and P17. Ex. P11 is the post-mortem certificate, wherein no doubt it is mentioned skin charred all-over the body. But the extent of bums had not been specified in the medical evidence available on record. In view of the fact that the deceased was conscious and was capable of making this statement, reliance was placed by the learned Judge on exs. P13 and P17 and the same cannot be found fault in any way. ( 14 ) RELIANCE was placed on Panchdeo singh s case (supra ). Wherein it was held as follows:"when the conviction is based solely on the dying declaration, Court to consider with extreme care the dying declaration and evidence supporting it - Case law considered. In the absence of a certificate by the doctor before recording the declaration that the injured was in a fit state of mind to make the declaration, it would be very risky to accept the subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate that the injured was in a fit state of mind and in the instant case there is no certificate of the doctors regards the condition of the injured. Only the Magistrate stated in the box that injured was in a fit condition - Such declaration is not a very piece of evidence 1999 (7) SCC 695 = 1992 (2) ALT (Crl) 345 (SC ). "in Lakshman s case (supra ). Wherein it was held as follows: that absence of certification of doctor as to fitness of mind of declarant in relation to dying declaration would not render dying declaration not acceptable - What is essentially required is that person who records it must be satisfied that deceased was in fit state of mind - Certification by doctor is rule of caution - Thus voluntary and truthful nature of declaration can be established otherwise. ( 15 ) PW. 1 is the father of the deceased deposed about the details and also deposed about giving of Rs. ( 15 ) PW. 1 is the father of the deceased deposed about the details and also deposed about giving of Rs. 3,750/- dowry to A1 at the time of marriage and also gave house site of 72 square yards in the village to A1 and in that connection, the house site was given in the name of Al executing a document on Rs. 20/- stamp paper for the reason that his son-in-law is not a worldlywise person. This witness further deposed that the accused was harassing her on the ground that the dowry given was insufficient and he informed to his daughter he will give the same as and when available with him and his son-in-law came to his house and assured that he would manage with his parents A1 and A2 and so stating he had taken his wife from his house. Within four months thereafter again his daughter came and complained A1 and A2 harassing for more dowry. Again his son-in-law visited the house and had taken his wife. He sent rs. 1,000/- through his son to Al. Again after four months, his daughter came to the house and complained that there was harassment for money and she also informed that in case she dies, another marriage would be celebrated to her husband. On reddi Kasiraju, the eldest son-in-law of a1 and A2 came to the house and took his deceased daughter to the house of accused assuring that everything will be alright. Three months thereafter they received information that his daughter died by pouring kerosene being unable to bear their harassment. This is the evidence of pw. 1. This witness was cross-examined at length. This witness no doubt deposed that it is not true to suggest that the house site cannot be alienated and it was D-form land and it is true there is a condition that the site is not transferable and it is true he stated before the police that the said house site and the cash Rs. 3,750/- was given to his daughter and it is true that he did not state before the police that a document was reduced into writing on Rs. 20/- stamp in favour of Al for the said house site. This witness also further deposed that he did not complain A3 harassed her for dowry and this witness also denied certain suggestions. 3,750/- was given to his daughter and it is true that he did not state before the police that a document was reduced into writing on Rs. 20/- stamp in favour of Al for the said house site. This witness also further deposed that he did not complain A3 harassed her for dowry and this witness also denied certain suggestions. PW-2 is the son of PW-1, who had corroborated PW. 1 in all particulars and also deposed that he personally went to the house and gave Rs. 1,000/- to A1 and A2. The suggestions put to this witness has also been denied. PW-3 deposed that when he visited the house of PW-1, the deceased was there and she informed him that A1 to A3 were harassing her, demanding her for more dowry. PW-4 deposed that PW-1 is his younger brother and he knows the deceased, who is the daughter of PW-1 and he also deposed about the harassment and she informed him about the harassment and pw-2 came to Eluru and gave Rs. 1,000/- to the accused and he came to known that the deceased died due to burn injuries by pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze. The evidence of PW-6 has already been discussed supra. PWs. 5, 7, 8 and 9 were declared hostile. PW-10 was deposed about the seizure of M. Os. 2, 3 4 and also about ex. P6 the observation report and he was also present at the time of inquest. P W-11 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, who deposed about the injuries. Ex. P7 is the wound certificate. Ex. P8 is the hospital intimation. Ex. P9 is the intimation sent to Magistrate. Ex. P10 is the death intimation given by him to the police. PW-12 is the Civil assistant Surgeon, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body who deposed extensive deep burns all-over the body except over soles of both feet present. Skin charred all-over the body. Ex. P11 is the post-mortem certificate issued by her and Doctor Sumanth Kumar. PW-13 is the Village Administrative Officer, who deposed about M. Os. 5 and 6 and also drafting of Ex. P12, the inquest report. PW-14 is the Constable, who deposed about the dead body being handed over to him. P. W15 is the ASI who had recorded the earliest version Ex. P13, which had already been referred to supra. PW16. PW-13 is the Village Administrative Officer, who deposed about M. Os. 5 and 6 and also drafting of Ex. P12, the inquest report. PW-14 is the Constable, who deposed about the dead body being handed over to him. P. W15 is the ASI who had recorded the earliest version Ex. P13, which had already been referred to supra. PW16. deposed about the details of the investigation. PW-17, the Inspector of Police deposed about the further details of investigation and in cross-examination pw-17 deposed that it is true pw-2 did not specifically state that he gave rs. 3,750/- to A1. So also he did not specifically state that on Rs. 20/- stamp paper, the said document was executed in respect of house site. PVV-1 also did not state before him that his son-in-law came to his house and assured that he would manage with his parents and requested to send the deceased along with him. During his second visit also, PW-1 did not state before him that A1 and A2 were harassing her. So also PW-1 did not state before him that the deceased informed to him that in the event of her death, accused will perform second marriage with the husband (PW-6) of the deceased and he (PW-6) would get more dowry. This witness further deposed that it is true PW-2 did not state that he gave rs. 3,750/- to Al. So also he did not specifically state that on Rs. 20/- stamp paper, the document was reduced into writing in respect of house site. PW-2 also did not state before him that PW-6 came to his house and assured to pacify the matter. He did not state that he informed him that the accused were demanding Rs. 5,000/- and certain suggestions were denied. PW-18 the 11 Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, eluru, no doubt deposed about the recording of the dying declaration Ex. P17. PW-19 is the Civil Surgeon, Government Headquarters hospital, who deposed that the patient was in a fit condition to make the statement and he had curtained to that effect in Ex. P17. ( 16 ) RELIANCE was placed in Om Prakash @ Raja s case (supra) wherein it was held as follows:"that the FIR need not contain an exhaustive account of incident. Witness who had dictated fir giving few more details, evidence given by such witnesses cannot be doubted on the ground of improvement. P17. ( 16 ) RELIANCE was placed in Om Prakash @ Raja s case (supra) wherein it was held as follows:"that the FIR need not contain an exhaustive account of incident. Witness who had dictated fir giving few more details, evidence given by such witnesses cannot be doubted on the ground of improvement. " ( 17 ) IN Matadin s case (supra), wherein it was held as follows:"the statement given by the witnesses before the police are meant to be brief statements and could not take the place of evidence in the Court. Where the omissions are vital, they merit consideration, but mere small omission will not justify a finding by a court that the witnesses concerned are self-contained liars. " ( 18 ) RELIANCE also was placed on the state of Maharashtra s case (supra ). Wherein it was held as follows:"that High Court gave undue importance to the minor discrepancies - exaggeration of incidents does not affect core of prosecution version. " ( 19 ) IN Kaliya Perumal v. State of Tamil nadu (supra ). Wherein it was held as follows: that a conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B of IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. Prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of the death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances . The expression soon before is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. Prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by prosecution. soon before is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no strait- jacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that bring in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under section 113-B of the Evidence Act. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that bring in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression soon before her death used in substantive Section 304-B 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 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 has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. The determination of the period which can come within the term soon before is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression soon before would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live-link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. ( 20 ) THE evidence available on record is that of PWs. 1 to 4 and Exs. PIS and P17 recorded by PWs. 15 and 18. Though submissions at length were made in the light of Ex. P11 and in view of the fact that skin charred all-over the body, the deceased could not have made such statement in the light of the fact that it was certified that she was in a fit condition to state unless the medical evidence is clear on the aspect that she was unable to make such a statement Exs. P13 and P17 can be relied upon. However, on a careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record, a specific demand relating to the harassment in relation to the dowry cannot be spelled out either from Ex. Pl3 or P. 17. Apart from this aspect of the matter, PWs. P13 and P17 can be relied upon. However, on a careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record, a specific demand relating to the harassment in relation to the dowry cannot be spelled out either from Ex. Pl3 or P. 17. Apart from this aspect of the matter, PWs. 5 to 9 were declared hostile. PW-2 the son of pw-1 is the only witness who has supported the version of the prosecution relating to the demand of Rs. 1,000/- and what had been narrated by the deceased to these witnesses would be in the nature of hearsay and unless the ingredients of Section 304-B or 498-A of Indian Penal Code are clearly established, on the strength of such evidence, conviction cannot be sustained. No doubt the learned additional Public Prosecutor would contend that from the dying declarations, the demand of dowry or harassment can be inferred that the accused are chaiged with serious offences and hence the findings are to be confirmed. It is needless to say that it should be unsafe to convict the accused on the strength of such statements. Apart from this aspect of the matter a careful scrutiny of Exs. P13, P17 and P15 definitely would go to show that there are certain variations and on the strength of the interested testimony of PWs. 1 and 2 alone it would be definitely unsafe to convict the accused, especially in the light of what had been deposed by PW-1 himself that there was no harassment in relation to dowry as far as A3 is concerned and it is also pertinent to note that PW-1 had left away the son-in-law on the ground that he is not worldly-wise or there are no allegations as such, as against the husband of the deceased, who is examined as PW-6. The sister of PW-6, A3 and he parents of PW-6, A1 and A2 had been charged with these offences. Viewed from any angle on appreciation of over-all evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that especially in the light of the material omissions in the statements recorded which had been disposed by the Investigating officer, the version of the prosecution may have to be viewed with suspicion and appe Hants-accused are entitled to benefit of doubt and accordingly the findings recorded by the learned Judge cannot be sustained and the said findings are hereby set aside. Hence, acquittal is hereby recorded. ( 21 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed and the bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.