( 1 ) A-1 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 af ine of Rs. 200/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. The parents-in-law of the victim and brother of A-1, who were arrayed as A-2 to A-4, 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 A-1, their marriage having been performed on 20-05-1994. P. W. 1 Gajula Gangadhar and his wife P. W-2 Suseela are parents of Vijay. 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 cloths worth rs. 5,000/- for clothes, towards dowry. The accused started harassing Vijaya for additional dowry. P. W. 1 requested A-1 and his family members not to harass, however, they did not stop harassing her. It was represented before the marriage that A-1 was a tailor. Later they came to learn that a-1 did not knowtailoring work. P. W. 1-Gujula gangadhar advised A-1 to learn tailoring work at Pitlam. Accordingly, A-1 and his wife went to Pitlam, took a portion of the house of p. Ws. 3 and 4 on a rent. While they were residing at Pitlam, A-1 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, P. W. 1 took his brother P. W. 5-P. Kistaiah and raised a dispute before the caste elders P. W. 6-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, A-1 and his wife intended to shift from Pitlam village. While the wife insisted to go to Yellareddy to her parents house, A-1 insisted that they should go to Maddelacheru, to his native place. On 16-06-1995 by 8 a. m. they packed their entire samans. ( 3 ) SINCE the earnings at Pitlam were insufficient, A-1 and his wife intended to shift from Pitlam village. While the wife insisted to go to Yellareddy to her parents house, A-1 insisted that they should go to Maddelacheru, to his native place. On 16-06-1995 by 8 a. m. they packed their entire samans. When A-1 went outside the deceased Vijay committed suicide by hanging to a rafter with her saree. A-1, having found the condition, took her to the Government Hospital at Banswada. A-4, the brother of A-1, went to P. W. 1 at about 10 a. m. and informed that the condition of the deceased was serious and she was taken to banswada Hospital. Immediately, P. Ws. 1 and 2 rushed to Banswada Hospital saw the deceased in unconscious state and found she was emanating froth from her mouth. P. W. 9 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 ) PW 1 -Gajula Gandadhar, father of the deceased, gave a report-Ex-1 to P. W. 13- m. A. Kareem, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who, on receipt of E. x. P-1, registered a case in Cr. No. 68/95 under Section 304-B of IPC in F. I. R.-Ex. P-6 and took up investigation. He proceeded to the scene of offence, situated at the house of P. W. S-Avusula Manemma and drafted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators P. W. 7- k. Prabhakar and another, and noted the physical features, found at the scene. He also prepared rough sketch-Ex. P-3, incorporating the details, found at the scene. Athis requisition, P. W. 11-J. Kamalakararao, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nizamabad, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 17-06-1995 in the presence of p. W 8-Muzeeb and another, under inquest report-Ex. P-4. P. Ws. 1 and 2 were also present at that time. On the requisition, p. W. 10-Dr. Sobha, Civil Assistant Surgeon, government Hospital, Nizamabad, along with one Dr. M. Prabhakar, conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased on 18-06-1995 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. P-5. M. Prabhakar, conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased on 18-06-1995 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. P-5. ( 5 ) P. W. 12 J. Janaranjandas, the Inspector of Police, Banswada, verified the investigation made by P. W. 13, the Sub-Inspector of Police, took up further investigation. On 21 -07-1995 the accused surrendered before him and on that he affected 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 A-2 to A-4 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 A-2 to A-4, the learned Judge convicted A-1 as referred to above. ( 7 ) ASSAILING the conviction and sentence, a-1 preferred this appeal, contending that the learned judge ought not to have relied on the highly interested and discrepant testimony of P. Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6. In fact, P. Ws. 1 and 2 did not state before P. W. 11 -Mandal Revenue officer that there was demand of additional dowry by the accused. P. Ws. 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. P. Ws. 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. 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 I PC 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 A-1 and the deceased Vijaya was performed on 20-05-1994. While her parents p. Ws. 1 and 2 are residents of Yellareddy, a-1 and his parents are residents of meddilacheru. It is also not in dispute that a-1 and his wife Vijaya shifted to Pitlam, a nearby village to eke out their livelihood. They were staying in a rented house, owned by P. Ws. 3 and 4. On 16-06-1995 at about 8 a. m. Vijaya committed suicide by hanging to a beam with a saree The prosecution alleges that A-1 and his parents were demanding additional dowry of Rs. 20,000/ -. When P. W. 1 expressed his inability, A-1, 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 A-1 that as their earnings were insufficient, they intended to shift, and in fact, packed entire articles to shift, and while A-1 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 P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 the parents of the deceased, P. W. 5 the brother and P. W. 6 the caste elder, before whom the alleged, mediation took place. P. W. 1, the father gave a report to the police in Ex. P-i at 11 a. m. on 17-06-1995, though his daughter died at about 5 p. m. on 16-06-1995. P. W. 1, the father gave a report to the police in Ex. P-i at 11 a. m. on 17-06-1995, though his daughter died at about 5 p. m. on 16-06-1995. P. W. 1 himself admitted that A-4, the brother of A-1 came to him at about 10 a. m. and informed about the condition of the deceased and the factthat she was taken to Banswads 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. " P. W. 1, immediately, did not choose to give any report to police, informing that the death was due to harassment by A-1 and demand of additional dowry. P. W. 1 and his wife P. W. 2 and P. W. 5- p. Kistayya, the brother of P. W. 1 and P. W. 6 b. Venkagoud, the so called elder deposed that A-1 was harassing the deceased for additional dowry of Rs. 20,000/ -. The above witnesses were admittedly not witnesses to the harassment of A-1 and his parents. According to them, the deceased informed them whenever she visited their house. ( 10 ) IT is useful at this juncture to refer to a decision in G. M. Ravi @ G. Purusthotham v. State of M. P. 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 P. W. 1 raised dispute before the elders was not even mentioned in his earliest report-Ex. P-1 What all he stated was that he along with his brother went to maddilacheru village and requested the accused not to harass his daughter. P. Ws. 1 and 2 did not even mention that they raised a dispute before the panchayatdars in ex. P-1 or their names in 161 Cr. P. C. statements. P-1 What all he stated was that he along with his brother went to maddilacheru village and requested the accused not to harass his daughter. P. Ws. 1 and 2 did not even mention that they raised a dispute before the panchayatdars in ex. P-1 or their names in 161 Cr. P. C. statements. 1 reiterate that P. W. 1 in earlier statement, mentioned that he along with his brother went to the house of the accused, requested them not to harass his daughter. However, at the time of evidence, P. W. 1 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. "p. W. 1 frankly admitted in the cross examination "i have not stated about raising of the panchayat before Venkagoud either in Ex. P-1 or in may 161 statement to police. " ( 12 ) P. W. 2 was not a witness to the above mediation. Though P. W. 1 did not state that he took P. W. 2, P. W. 2 stated that she also went along with P. W. 1. P. W. 5-P. Kristaiah, the brother, who is said to have accompanied p. W-1 further improved his version by stating "on two occasions a panchayat was held by the father of the deceased at Meddalacheru village before the caste elders. The village elders advised A-1 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 P. Ws. 1 and 2. P. W. 6 Venkagoud, the so called elder gave altogether a different version. He deposed "i n the 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. He deposed "i n the 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 ) MAY state that the version that P. W. 1 raising a dispute before the elders was not even spoken by P. W. 1 himself. According to him he raised dispute with P. W. 6 only. P. W. 6 does not belong to the caste of accused. P. W. 6 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 P. W. 6 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 in to prove that the accused demanded additional dowry. ( 15 ) THE Supreme Court in Yudhishitir v. the State of Madhya Pradesh* 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, A-1 and the deceased had shifted their residence to Pitlam, residing independently in the house of P. Ws. 3 and 4. I recall the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and2, 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 A-1 was insisting her to bring additional dowry. When he enquired a-1, he informed that he did not demand dowry. Therefore, even from their version, a-1 did not admit that he demand additional dowry. ( 17 ) I recall that it is the version of the accused that as they were in dearth of money, they intended to shift the village. When he enquired a-1, he informed that he did not demand dowry. Therefore, even from their version, a-1 did not admit that he demand additional dowry. ( 17 ) I recall that it is the version of the accused that as they were in dearth of money, they intended to shift the village. While he asked his wife to go to his house, she insisted to shift to her parents house. P. W. 3, the house owner, has supported the version of the accused in toto. She stated that both of them living happily in the house. P. W. 3 stated, "on the date of incident the accused was insisting thedeceased to go over to meddelcheru village whereas the deceased asking the A-1 to go over to her parents house at Yallareddy. Some time thereafter, I heard noise of knocking the door, knocked by the accused, I want there and saw A-1 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 A-1 was not living in that house after the death of the wife. Nothing was suggested against her. She is undoubtedly an independent witness, on whom reliance could be made. ( 18 ) P. W-7 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 P. W. 3. He also mentioned that in the absence of a-1, Vijaya committed suicide by hanging to a beam. P. Ws. 1 and 2 were present when they conducted panchanama of the scene of offence, but they did not state anything to these panchayatdars. P. W. 11- j. Kamalakarrao, Mandal Revenue Officer, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Vijaya. He admitted, "p. W. s -1 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 narration made with oblique motive. The deceased could not have reconciled to the refusal of her req lest to go to her parent-in-laws house. 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 narration made with oblique motive. The deceased could not have reconciled to the refusal of her req lest to go to her parent-in-laws house. ( 19 ) P. W. 13, the Investigating Officer admitted, "except P. Ws. 1 and 2 other witnesses examined by me have not stated about harassment of dowry "he also admitted,"it is mentioned in Ex. P-2 that all the articles in the house were packed. P. W. S and P. W. 4 have stated in their 161 statements recorded by me that the deceased and accused quarreled 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 A-1 and his wife in regard to shifting of their residence and immediately after a while, she committed suicide and there was demand of additional dowry, they would unerringly pointing out that there was no demand of additional dowry at any time. ( 20 ) OUROWN High Court in Mummidiudaya bhaskar v. State of Andhra Pradesh 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 3. 2004 (2) ALT (Crl.) 662 = 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 891 (A. P. ). 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 circumstance. 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. 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 on 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. 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 P. W-1 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, A-1 and his wife shifted to pitlam. At no point of time, there was harassment nor a demand of additional dowry. P. W. 13 admitted that the gold ornaments on the deceased were taken away by her father. It is not his case even that he demanded later. Subsequently, A-1 and his wife shifted to pitlam. At no point of time, there was harassment nor a demand of additional dowry. P. W. 13 admitted that the gold ornaments on the deceased were taken away by her father. Probably he was afraid that A-1 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, a-1 could have taken away the gold ornaments. In spite of the fact that A-1 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 A-1 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/a-1, is set aside. The appellant/a-1 is set at liberty, if his presence is not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by A-1, shall be returned to him, after expiry of the appeal time. The bail bonds executed by the appellant/a-1, if any, shall stand cancelled.