B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13. 10. . 2003 passed in Sessions Case No. 405 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge found A-1 P. Laxma Reddy guilty for the offence under Section 304-B i. P. C. and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. However, the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions judge found A-2 C. Sudheer Reddy, A-3 S. Dinesh Reddy @ Dinesh, A-4 C. Bharathi and A-5 S. Indira Reddy found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-B I. P. C. and acquitted them accordingly. ( 2 ) THE appellant is A-l in Sessions case No. 405 of 1999. He along with four other accused persons (A-2 to A-5) was put on trial for the offence under Section 304-B i. P. C. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: P. W. I Ch. Surender Reddy is father and P. W. 2 Ch. Pawan Reddy is brother of Praveena (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ). P. W. 3 D. Asha Latha and P. W. 5 M. Annapurna are neighbours to p. W. 1 P. W. 4 Ch. Venkata Krishna Reddy is nephew of P. W. I. P. W. 6 K. Laxmi is sister-in-law of P. W. I being the sister of his wife. The marriage of the deceased was fixed with the A-1 in the year 1997. Betrothal function was held on 27. 5. 1997. P. W. I agreed to give 40 tolahs of gold, furniture worth of Rs. 50,000/- and other household articles. P. W. 1 gave Rs. 1,00,000/- to A-1 on the date of betrothal function. Marriage was performed on 19. 6. 1997. After the marriage the deceased joined with A-l for marital life. P. W. I agreed to give a house plot worth Rs. 6,00,000/- to the deceased. The deceased and A-l started living in a house at Gudimalkapur. The deceased led happy marital life for six months. It is alleged that A-l started pressurizing the deceased to get cash instead of plot from her father-P. W. 1. A-l declined the invitation of P. W. 1 for Dasara festival as well as satyanarayana Vratam . P. W. I gave Rs. 1,00,000/- to the deceased and A-l in February, 1998. On 7. It is alleged that A-l started pressurizing the deceased to get cash instead of plot from her father-P. W. 1. A-l declined the invitation of P. W. 1 for Dasara festival as well as satyanarayana Vratam . P. W. I gave Rs. 1,00,000/- to the deceased and A-l in February, 1998. On 7. 6. 1998 srimantham function of the deceased was arranged. A-l and members of his family attended the function. It is alleged that A-l expressed his anguish for not giving cash by selling plot. On 10. 6. 1998 the deceased left her parental home. On 15. 6. 1998 the deceased informed P. W. I over phone that she would come to his house on 17. 6. 1998 as 19. 6. 1998 happened to be their marriage day. P. W. I invited the deceased to come along with A-1. It is stated that the deceased asked P. W. I to give money for purchasing clothes to A-l. On 16. 6. 1998 P. W. I met the father of A-l at Basheerabagh, where sister of A-l resides. He reiterated his promise to give a plot instead of cash. Thereupon, the father of A-l informed him that he would convince A-1. On the same day evening P. W. 1 returned home and learnt that his wife received a phone call from the deceased. The deceased stated to have informed her mother that her father-in-law chastised A-l and so, A-l may not insist further to sell plot. On 17. 6. 1998 at about 11. 40 p. m. A-l informed P. W. I that the deceased consumed poison. Immediately p. W. I rushed to the house of A-l and from there to Niharika Hospital. He learnt that the deceased was shifted to C. D. R. Hospital, and therefore, he rushed to the hospital and saw A-2 to A-4 there. The deceased while undergoing treatment died on 18. 6. 1998 at 7. 30 p. m. P. W. 1 presented ex. P. l report before the Station House officer, Tappachabutra Police Station. P. W. 8 received Ex. P. l report and registered a case in Crime No. 70 of 1998 and issued ex. P. 5-F. I. R. He sent a requisition to the mandal Executive Magistrate to conduct inquest on the dead body of the deceased. P. W. 7, the Mandal Executive Magistrate, hyderabad, held inquest on the dead body of the deceased on 19. P. l report and registered a case in Crime No. 70 of 1998 and issued ex. P. 5-F. I. R. He sent a requisition to the mandal Executive Magistrate to conduct inquest on the dead body of the deceased. P. W. 7, the Mandal Executive Magistrate, hyderabad, held inquest on the dead body of the deceased on 19. 6. 1998. The opinion arrived at by the panchas came to be incorporated in Col. 15 of the inquest report. Ex. P. 4 is the inquest report. After the inquest, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. A team of doctors comprising P. W. 9 Dr. Durdana Begum and dr. T. Mahender Reddy, Assistant Professors in Forensic Medicine, Osmania Medical college, Hyderabad, held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 19. 6. 1998 at 1. 30 p. m. No external injuries were found. They preserved Viscera and sent the same to F. S. L. After receipt of the F. S. L. Report, a final opinion came to be issued stating that the deceased died of Organophosphate (an insecticide poisoning ). Ex. P. 8 is the post-mortem Examination Report. Ex. P. 9 is the F. S. L. report and Ex. P. 10 is the final opinion. P. W. 8 inspected the scene of offence and prepared Ex. P. 6 observation report and ex. P. 7 rough sketch in the presence of the mediators viz. , M. Venkateshwar Rao and yadamma Reddy. He examined P. W. I to p. W. 5 and recorded their statements. He arrested A-1 to A-3 and A-5 on 23. 6. 1998 and sent them for remand. P. W. 10 A. B. Pratap Reddy, A. C. P. , D. D. , Hyderabad, took up investigation, examined P. W. 6 and recorded his statement. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be submitted before the IX Metropolitan magistrate, Hyderabad. ( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as P. R. C. No. 26 of 1999 and committed the case to the Metropolitan sessions Division, Hyderabad, as the offence under Section 304-B I. P. C. is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The learned metropolitan Sessions Judge took the case on file as Sessions Case No. 405 of 1999 and made over the same to the II Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, for disposal according to law. The learned metropolitan Sessions Judge took the case on file as Sessions Case No. 405 of 1999 and made over the same to the II Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, for disposal according to law. ( 5 ) THE learned n Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, on hearing the prosecution and the accused, framed a charge under section 304-B I. P. C. against the accused, read over and explained the same to them. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 6 ) TO bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 304-B i. P. C, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and proved ten documents. The accused examined the landlord of the house, wherein A-l and the deceased resided together, as D. W. 1 and marked a contradiction in the statement of P. W. 2 recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. as Ex. D-1. ( 7 ) THE learned II Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, on considering the evidence on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, found A-l guilty for the offence under Section 304-B I. P. C. and convicted him accordingly and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. However, the learned II Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge found A-2 to A-5 not guilty for the offence under section 304-B I. P. C. and acquitted them accordingly. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, A-l has filed this criminal appeal. ( 8 ) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/a-1 submits that P. W. I does not own a house plot and therefore, the story narrated by P. W. 1 that the appellant/a-1 insisted him to sell house plot and pay cash of Rs. 6,00,000/- cannot be believed. He also submits that the trial court has missed to note that the deceased never complained against the appellant/a-1 to her father-P. W. 1 and that itself is sufficient to prove that the marital life of the deceased with appellant/a-1 has been cordial. It is also submitted by him that the evidence of P. W. 5 is quite artificial and therefore, no credence can be given to it. It is also submitted by him that the evidence of P. W. 5 is quite artificial and therefore, no credence can be given to it. ( 9 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of P. W. I is corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 6 and that the trial Court justified in recording conviction of the appellant/a-1 for the offence under Section 304-B I. P. C. and the same is not required to be interfered with in the appeal. ( 10 ) SECTION 304-B I. P. C. deals with dowry death, which reads as follows:"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 purpose of this subsection, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition act, 1961 (28 of 196 1 ). (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. " ( 11 ) IN order to attract application of section 304-B I. P. C. , the essential ingredients are as follows: (I) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance; (ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry; (v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. ( 12 ) SECTION 113-B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the case at hand. ( 12 ) SECTION 113-B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the case at hand. Both section 304-B I. P. C. and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act were inserted by the Dowry prohibition (Amendment) Act, (43 of 1986), with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths. Section 113-B of the evidence Act reads as follows: "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 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 304-B of the Indian Penal code (45 of 1860 ). ( 13 ) THE presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, shall be raised only on proof of the following essential ingredients: (1) The question before the Court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304-B I. P. C. ). (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death. ( 14 ) 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. 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. ( 15 ) CONSEQUENCES of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman is required to be established in order to bring home the application of section 498-A I. P. C. Cruelty has been defined in the explanation for the purpose of section 498-A LP. C. Substantive Section 498-A LP. C. and presumptive Section 113-B of the Evidence Act have been inserted in the respective statutes by Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983. It is to be noted that Sections 304-B I. P. C. and 498-A lp. C. cannot be held to be mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is true that cruelty is a common essential to both the sections and that has to be proved. The Explanation to Section 498-A lp. C. gives the meaning of cruelty. In section 304-B I. P. C. there is no such explanation about the meaning of cruelty . But having regard to common background to these offences it has to be taken that the meaning of cruelty or harassment is the same as prescribed in the Explanation to section 498-A I. P. C. under which cruelty by itself amounts to an offence. Under section 304-B I. P. C. it is dowry death that is punishable and such death should have occurred within seven years of marriage. No such period is mentioned in Section 498-A i. P. C. A person charged and acquitted under Section 304-B I. P. C. can be convicted under Section 498-A I. P. C. without that charge being there, if such a case is made out. If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the sections. Section 498-A I. P. C. and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act include in their amplitude past events of cruelty. Period of operation of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is seven years, presumption arises when a woman committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of marriage. Section 498-A I. P. C. and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act include in their amplitude past events of cruelty. Period of operation of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is seven years, presumption arises when a woman committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of marriage. ( 16 ) (A) The marriage of the deceased with A-1 was on 19. 6. 1997. The death of the deceased was on 18. 6. 1998 and it was due to organophosphate (an insecticide poison ). It can be said without any controversy that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage and her death occurred otherwise than under a normal circumstance. The crucial question is whether the deceased was subjected to harassment soon before her death. According to the prosecution, A-l was insisting the deceased to secure cash of Rs. 6,00,000/- instead of plot which p. W. I promised to give on the date of the marriage. I may quickly refer to the report presented by P. W. 1. It is stated by him in Ex. P. 1 report that he gave rs. 1,00,000/- to meet the demand of the appellant/a-1 and that the appellant/a-1, in connivance with the other accused, killed the deceased, (b) The deceased came to the house of P. W. I on 7. 6. 1998 and stayed there till 10. 6. 1998. P. W. I did not claim of the deceased informing him about the harassment on the ground of securing a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- instead of plot. P. W. 1 stated in the chief-examination as follows:"prior to giving Rs. 1,00,000/- in February, 1998 A-l did not come to my house when I invited him for Dasara and for Satyanarayana vratham. After giving cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- i asked my daughter to convince A-l and bring him to our house. When my daughter became pregnant we performed srimantham in our house on 7. 6. 1998. A-l and his family members attended the function. Then A-l was in anger. I felt that he was angry because I did not sell the plot and give cash to him. He went back to his house on that day itself. On 10. 6. 1998 my daughter returned back to the house of A-1 on receiving phone call from A-1 informing her that he was suffering with fever. On 15. 6. I felt that he was angry because I did not sell the plot and give cash to him. He went back to his house on that day itself. On 10. 6. 1998 my daughter returned back to the house of A-1 on receiving phone call from A-1 informing her that he was suffering with fever. On 15. 6. 1998 my daughter informed me over telephone that she will come to my house on 17th June, 1998 as 19. 6. 1998 was their marriage day. Then I asked her to come with A-1. Then she asked me to give money to purchase cloths for her and A-1. She also enquired with me what we were doing regarding the plot. I told her that i will discuss the matter with the father of a-l. On 16. 6. 1998 morning I went and met the father of A-l in the house of his daughter in Basheerbagh, informed him that i promised to give plot and not the cash. I also told him that I will give the plot to my daughter. He told me that he will convince his son. I returned back to my house. " (c) It is explicit from the evidence of p. W. 1 that the deceased stayed at the house of P. W. I from 7. 6. 1998 to 10. 6. 1998 and subsequently she talked to him over phone. She never complained against the appellant/ a-1. Indeed, P. W. I did not sail with the prosecution, and therefore, prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him after obtaining permission from the Court. In the cross-examination, he gave all the answers favourable to the prosecution. In the cross examination on behalf of the accused, P. W. I admits of his omission in the statement made before M. R. O. during inquest regarding the deceased informing him personally or over telephone the demands of the accused. He states in the cross-examination as follows:"i did not state before M. R. O. and also in ex. P. l that on 15. 6. 1998 my daughter telephoned me and informed me that A-l put a dead line for selling the plot and that it seems he wasn t allow her to stay in the house unless the plot is sold, and harassing her". When such is the evidence of P. W. 1, it is not safe to place reliance on it. 6. 1998 my daughter telephoned me and informed me that A-l put a dead line for selling the plot and that it seems he wasn t allow her to stay in the house unless the plot is sold, and harassing her". When such is the evidence of P. W. 1, it is not safe to place reliance on it. ( 17 ) THE trial Court rejected the evidence of P. W. 2, who is brother of the deceased by giving cogent and convincing reasons. P. W. 3 is a neighbour to P. W. I. According to her, she went to the house of P. W. I to invite the wife of P. W. I for the marriage of her daughter. Then she made enquiries with the deceased and learnt of demands of the appellant/a-1. In the cross- examination, she admits of her stating to police that she met the deceased while passing Surendra Reddy s house and accosted her. I deem it appropriate to refer the cross-examination of P. W. 3 in her own words and it is thus:"excepting in connection with the invitation for the marriage of my daughter, there was no occasion for me to go to the house of P. W. I on that day. It is not true to say that I did not state in my 161 Cr. P. C. statement that on 4. 6. 1998 I went to the house of P. W. 1 and in their house I spoke with Praveena. I have to pass in front of the house of P. W. 1 to reach my tailoring shop from my house. It is true I stated in my 161 Cr. P. C. statement that on 4. 6. 1998 while I was passing Surendra Reddy s house i saw Praveena and accosted her. "when she met the deceased in a public street, it is highly unbelievable that the deceased would explain her woes in marital life at that place. Therefore, a serious doubt lingers in the mind of the Court on the veracity of the P. W. 3 and this doubt should go to the benefit of the accused. The trial Court rejected the evidence of p. W. 4 by giving cogent and convincing reasons. The evidence left over is that of p. W. 5 and P. W. 6. Therefore, a serious doubt lingers in the mind of the Court on the veracity of the P. W. 3 and this doubt should go to the benefit of the accused. The trial Court rejected the evidence of p. W. 4 by giving cogent and convincing reasons. The evidence left over is that of p. W. 5 and P. W. 6. P. W. 5 states that the appellant/a-1 abused the deceased in filthy language on 7. 6. 1998 i. e. , the day of srimantham . Neither P. W. 1 nor any inmates of the house of P. W. 1 speak of the appellant/ a-l hurling abuses against the deceased. P. W. 6 did not support the prosecution and prosecution declared her hostile. There is no convincing evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to harassment soon before her death. Once the prosecution failed to prove harassment soon before her death, the appellant/a-1 is entitled to acquittal for the offence under Section 304-B I. P. C. ( 18 ) IN the result, this criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant/a-1 for the offence under Section 304-B I. P. C. and he is acquitted of the same. The bail bonds furnished by him shall stand cancelled.