( 1 ) A1 in Sessions Case no. 465 of 1996 on the file of the learned additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad is the appellant herein. Through a judgment dated 21-9-1999, the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian penal Code (for short ipc ) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. The parents-in-law of the victim and brother of A1, who were arrayed as a2 to A4, were acquitted. No appeal was preferred by the State against their acquittal. ( 2 ) THE story of the prosecution in short is that the deceased Vijaya is the wife of Al, their marriage having been performed on 20-5-1994. PW1 Gajula gangadhar and his wife PW2 Suseela are parents of Vijaya. At the time of marriage, they gave a cash of Rs. 25,000/-, five grams of gold ring, household articles worth rs. 10,000/- and clothes worth Rs. 5,000/- for clothes, towards dowry. The accused started harassing Vijaya for additional dowry. PW1 requested Al and his family members not to harass, however, they did not stop harassing her. It was represented before the marriage that Al was a tailor. Later they came to learn that A1 did not know tailoring work. PW1-Gajula Gangadhar advised Al to learn tailoring work at Pitlam. Accordingly, Al and his wife went to Pitlam, took a portion of the house of PWs3 and 4 on a rent. While they were residing at pitlam, Al started harassing the deceased to get additional amount of Rs. 20,000/ -. The deceased was informing about her plight to her parents. On one occasion, PW1 took his brother PW5-P. Kistaiah and raised a dispute before the caste elders PW6-B. Venkagoud and others, on that the accused promised before them that he would not demand any additional dowry. ( 3 ) SINCE the earnings at Pitlam were insufficient, Al and his wife intend to shift from Pitlam village. While the wife insisted to go to Yellareddy to her parents house, a1 insisted that they should go to maddelacheru, to his native place. On 16-6-1995 by 8 A. M. they packed their entire samans. When Al went outside the deceased Vijaya committed suicide by hanging to a rafter with her saree. While the wife insisted to go to Yellareddy to her parents house, a1 insisted that they should go to maddelacheru, to his native place. On 16-6-1995 by 8 A. M. they packed their entire samans. When Al went outside the deceased Vijaya committed suicide by hanging to a rafter with her saree. Al, having found the condition, took her to the government Hospital at Banswada. A4, the brother of Al, went to PW1 at about 10 A. M. and informed that the condition of the deceased was serious and she was taken to Banswada Hospital. Immediately, pws. 1 and 2 rushed to Banswada Hospital saw the deceased in unconscious state and found she was emanating froth from her mouth. PW9 Dr. P. Srinivasa Prasad, having found her condition to be serious referred the deceased to Government head quarters hospital at Nizamabad, where she died at about 5 p. m. ( 4 ) PW1-GAJULA Gangadhar, father of the deceased, gave a report-Ex. P1 to pw13-M. A Kareem, the Sub-Inspector of police, who, on receipt of Ex. Pl, registered a case in Cr. No. 68/95 under Section 304-B of IPC in F. I. R.-Ex. P6 and took up investigation. He proceeded to the scene of offence, situated at the house of PW-3 avusula Manemma and drafted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators PW7-K. Prabhakar and another, and noted the physical features, found at the scene. He also prepared rough sketch Ex. P3, incorporating the details, found at the scene. At his requisition, PW11-J. Kamalakararao, the Mandal Revenue officer, Nizambad, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 17-6-1995 in the presence of PW8-Muzeeb and another, under inquest report-Ex. P4. PWs1 and 2 were also present at that time. On the requisition, PW10-Dr. Sobha, Civil assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, nizamabad, along with one Dr. M. Prabhakar, conducted post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased on 18-6-1995 at about 12. 45 p. m. and observed various features on the body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia, 36 to 48 hours prior to the post-mortem examination, vide post mortem certificate - Ex. P5. ( 5 ) PW12 J. Janaranjandas, the inspector of Police, Banswada, verified the investigation made by PW13, the Sub-Inspector of Police, took up further investigation. P5. ( 5 ) PW12 J. Janaranjandas, the inspector of Police, Banswada, verified the investigation made by PW13, the Sub-Inspector of Police, took up further investigation. On 21-7-1995 the accused surrendered before him and on that he effected their arrest and remanded to judicial custody. His successor filed the charge-sheet. ( 6 ) THE learned Additional Sessions judge, after considering the evidence placed on record, observed that the deceased, committed suicide and the death was occurred within 7 years of the marriage, deducted that it was due to demand of additional dowry. He reasoned that, but for the demand, she could not have committed suicide. However, he opined that there was no evidence that A2 to A4 abetted the commission of offence, as they were residing in a different village. Their complicity in demand of additional dowry was not proved. Therefore, while acquitting A2 to A4, the learned Judge convicted Al as referred to above. ( 7 ) ASSAILING the conviction and sentence, Al preferred this appeal, contending that the learned Judge ought not to have relied on the highly interested and discrepant testimony of PWs. l, 2, 5 and 6. In fact, PWsl and 2 did not state before pwll-Mandal Revenue Officer that there was demand of additional dowry by the accused. PWs. 5 and 6 did not mention in their earlier statements about the mediation or about the demand for additional dowry. They were planted and stock witnesses. The evidence of independent witnesses pws. 3 and 4, the owners of the house, destroys the very case of the prosecution. From the fact that the household articles were packed and were getting ready to shift and as the accused did not agree for the proposal of the deceased to shift the house to her parents village instead of his native Maddilacheru, it can be said beyond doubt that the deceased committed suicide on that ground. The ingredients under section 304-B of JPC were not satisfied in the present case and therefore, he prayed that the appeal be allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against him. ( 8 ) IT is an admitted fact that the marriage between Al and the deceased vijaya was performed on 20-5-1994. While her parents PWs. l and 2 are residents of yellareddy, Al and his parents are residents of Maddilacheru. ( 8 ) IT is an admitted fact that the marriage between Al and the deceased vijaya was performed on 20-5-1994. While her parents PWs. l and 2 are residents of yellareddy, Al and his parents are residents of Maddilacheru. It is also not in dispute that Al and his wife Vijaya shifted to pitiam, a nearby village to eke out their livelihood. They were staying in a rented house, owned by PWs 3 and 4. On 16-6-1995 at about 8 a. m. Vijaya committed suicide by hanging to a beam with a saree. The prosecution alleges that Al and his parents were demanding additional dowry of rs. 20,000/ -. When PW1 expressed his inability, Al, his parents, and his brother started harassing her, and a dispute was also raised before the caste elders. Unable to bear the harassment, the deceased committed suicide. However, it is the version of Al that as their earnings were insufficient, they intend to shift, and in fact, packed entire articles to shift, and while Al insisted that they should move to his native place maddilacheru, his wife Vijaya insisted that they should shift to Yellareddy, to her parents house. Since she was unable to bear his proposal, she committed suicide. ( 9 ) THE prosecution, in order to prove its version, examined PW1 and PW2 the parents of the deceased, PWS the brother and PW6 the caste elder, before whom the alleged, mediation took place. PW1, the father gave a report to the police in Ex. Pl at 11 a. m. on 17-6-1995, though his daughter died at about 5 p. m. on 16-6-1995. PW1 himself admitted that A4, the brother of Al came to him at about 10 a. m. and informed about the condition of the deceased and the fact that she was taken to Banswada hospital. He himself stated, "immediately myself and my wife rushed to Banswada hospital and saw the deceased in an unconscious state and emanating froth from her mouth. At about 2 or 2. 30 p. m. Banswada doctor advised to shift the deceased to Government hospital, Nizamabad. We brought the deceased to head quarter s hospital, nizamabad. While the deceased was being taken into the hospital she died. " PW1, immediately, did not choose to give any report to police, informing that the death was due to harassment by Al and demand of additional dowry. We brought the deceased to head quarter s hospital, nizamabad. While the deceased was being taken into the hospital she died. " PW1, immediately, did not choose to give any report to police, informing that the death was due to harassment by Al and demand of additional dowry. PW1 and his wife PW2 and PW5-P. Kistayya, the brother of PW1 and PW6-B. Venkagoud, the so called elder deposed that A1 was harassing the deceased for additional dowry of Rs. 20,000/ -. The above witnesses were admittedly not witnesses to the harassment of Al and his parents. According to them, the deceased in formed them whenever she visited their house. ( 10 ) IT is useful at this juncture to refer to a decision in G. M. Ravi @ G. Purushotham v. State of A. P. , 2003 (2) ald (Crl.) 344 (AP ). His Lordship opined that when witnesses had no personal knowledge of harassment, but only stated on hearsay statement of victim with respect to the harassment meted out by her husband, is not admissible and does not even attract Section 32 of the Evidence Act. ( 11 ) THE fact that PW1 raised dispute before the elders was not even mentioned in his earliest report-Ex. P 1. What all he slated was that he along with his brother went to Maddilacheru village and requested the accused not to harass his daughter. PW s1 and 2 did not even mention that they raised a dispute before the panchayatdars in ex. P1 or their names in 161 Cr. P. C. statements. I reiterate that PW1 in earlier statement, mentioned that he along with his brother went to the house of the accused, requested them not to harass his daughter. 1 lovvever, at the time of evidence, PW1 made an improvement, stating "on one occasion I took my elder brother to maddelacheru village to the house of one venkagoud and informed him about the demands of the accused. Venkagoud enquired all the accused about their demands. On two occasions all the accused requested Venkagoud and promised before venkagoud that they will not demand the dowry. " PW1 frankly admitted in the crossexamination "i have not stated about raising of the panchayath before the Venkagoud either in Ex. Pl or in my 161 statement to police. " ( 12 ) PW2 was not a witness to the above mediation. " PW1 frankly admitted in the crossexamination "i have not stated about raising of the panchayath before the Venkagoud either in Ex. Pl or in my 161 statement to police. " ( 12 ) PW2 was not a witness to the above mediation. Though PW1 did not state that he took PW2, PW2 stated that she also went along with PW1. PW5-P. Kistaiah, the brother, who said to have accompanied pw1 further improved his version by station "on two occasions a panchayat was held by the father of the deceased at meddalacheru village before the caste elders. The village elders advised Al to satisfy the amount already received and don t ask the father of the deceased for additional dowry. All the accused admitted their guilt before the elders and promised that they will not demand additional dowry in future. " ( 13 ) IT is needless to state that this is an altogether complete departure from the evidence of PWsl and 2. PW6 Venkagoud, the so called elder gave altogether a different version. He deposed"in that connection father of the deceased came to our village and raised a panchayat before the elders, myself, Ramulu, Kishtaiah and some others were elders for the panchayat. All the accused attended before us and pleaded guilty and promised before us that they will not demand additional dowry in future. " ( 14 ) I may state that the version that pw1 raising a dispute before the elders was not even spoken by PW1 himself. According to him he raised dispute with pw6 only. PW6 does not belong to the caste of accused. PW6 himself admitted that while accused belong to Padmasali caste, he is Gouda by caste. Therefore, it cannot be said that it was a dispute raised before the caste elders. The evidence of pw6 is not only contradictory, but also he was a stock witness to the police. He himself admitted "i might have given statements in two or three cases prior to this case. I was one of the witnesses in sc. 269/96. " This is all the evidence that was let into prove that the accused demanded additional dowry. He himself admitted "i might have given statements in two or three cases prior to this case. I was one of the witnesses in sc. 269/96. " This is all the evidence that was let into prove that the accused demanded additional dowry. ( 15 ) THE Supreme Court in Yudhishtir v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1971 SCC (Crl.) 684, held that when a particular fact deposed to by witnesses does not find mention both in the F. I. R. and in statements recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. , it is an improvement and it cannot be considered. ( 16 ) BEFORE appreciating the version of the prosecution, I may mention herein that admittedly, A1 and the deceased had shifted their residence to Pitlam, residing independently in the house of PWs3 and 4. I recall the evidence of PWsl and 2, wherein they stated that they went to Pitlam in the month of June, 1995 itself, and they went to the house of the accused, his daughter informed them that A1 was insisting her to bring additional dowry. When he enquired A1, he informed that he did not demand dowry. Therefore, even from their version, A1 did not admit that he demanded additional dowry. ( 17 ) I recall that it is the version of the accused that as they were in dearth of money, they intend to shift the village. While he asked his wife to go to his house, she insisted to shift to her parents house. PW3, the house owner, has supported the version of the accused in toto. She stated that both of them living happily in the house. PW3 stated, "on the date of incident the accused was insisting the deceased to go over to Maddelacheru village whereas the deceased asking the A1 to go over to her parents house at Yellareddy. Some time thereafter, I heard noise of knocking the door, knocked bv the accused, i went there and saw A1 carrying the deceased on his shoulder. " There is no reason why her version should not be believed. She was not declared hostile, nor she was cross-examined. After all A1 was not living in that house after the death of the wife. Nothing was suggested against her. She is undoubtedly an independent witness, whom reliance could be made. " There is no reason why her version should not be believed. She was not declared hostile, nor she was cross-examined. After all A1 was not living in that house after the death of the wife. Nothing was suggested against her. She is undoubtedly an independent witness, whom reliance could be made. ( 18 ) PW7 the mediator of the scene of offence, a resident of Pitlam, has categorically stated that all the articles in the room were packed, confirming the fact spoken by PW3. He also mentioned that in the absence of A1, Vijaya committed suicide by hanging to a beam. PWs. 1 and 2 were present when they conducted panchanama of the scene of offence, but they did not state anything to these panchayatdars. PW11-J. Kamalakarrao, mandal Revenue Officer, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased vijaya. He admitted, "pwsl and 2 were present at the time of inquest panchanama and they not stated to me that they gave dowry to the accused at the time of marriage. They also not stated before me that the accused demanded additional dowry. " From these circumstances, it can be said beyond doubt that the plea of demand of additional dowry in any subsequent irmaration (sic is a subsequent improvement) made with oblique motive. The deceased could not have reconciled to the refusal of her request to go to her parent-in-laws house. ( 19 ) PW13, the Investigating Officer admitted, "except PWs. l and 2 other witnesses examined by me have not stated about harassment of dowry" He also admitted, "it is mentioned in Ex. P2 that all the articles in the house were packed. PW3 and PW4 have stated in their 161 statements recorded by me that the deceased and accused quarrelled with regard to going to the house of the accused or to the house of her parents. " When the very independent witnesses, examined by the prosecution, have confirmed that there was a dispute between A1 and his wife in regard to shifting of their residence and immediately after a while, she committed suicide and there was demand of additional dowiy, they would unerringly pointing out that there was no demand of additional dowry at any time. " When the very independent witnesses, examined by the prosecution, have confirmed that there was a dispute between A1 and his wife in regard to shifting of their residence and immediately after a while, she committed suicide and there was demand of additional dowiy, they would unerringly pointing out that there was no demand of additional dowry at any time. ( 20 ) OUR own High Court in Mummidi udaya Bhaskar v. State of Andhra pradesh, 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 891 (AP) held:"a conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the evidence Act and Section 304-B 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 brings 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 the 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 113. 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. A reference to expression soon before used in Section 113. 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 Court, 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 the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. If the death occurred independent on demand of dowry it cannot be termed as dowry death. " ( 21 ) ASSUMING without admitting that what all PW1 had stated was true, earlier he himself admitted that the accused agreed not to demand any additional dowry. It is not his case even that he demanded later. Subsequently, A1 and his wife shifted to pitlam. At no point of time, there was harassment nor a demand of additional dowry. PW13 admitted that the gold ornaments on the deceased were taken away by her father. Probably he was afraid that A1 would lay claim on them. In order to desist any claim, he must have given report. If really there was demand for additional dowry and harassment, A1 could have taken away the gold ornaments. In spite of the fact that A1 was in impervious circumstances and was even shifting for want of money, he did not take ornaments of his wife. It would speak volumes of his conduct. When the evidence as well as circumstances pointed out that A1 was not responsible for the death of the deceased, conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. ( 22 ) IN the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence, passed against the appellant/a1, is set aside. ( 22 ) IN the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence, passed against the appellant/a1, is set aside. The appellant/a1 is set at liberty, if his presence is not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by Al, shall be returned to him, after expiry of the appeal time. The bail bonds executed by the appellant/a1, if any, shall stand cancelled.