Judgment :- 1. Challenging the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pudukottai, dated 14.09.2001, made in S.C.No.11 of 2000 convicting and sentencing A-1 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months, for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and further convicting and sentencing to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and convicting and sentencing A.2 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months, for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the second accused Swaminathan not having been found guilty for the offence under Section 304-B IPC, the accused have preferred this Criminal Appeal as against the respective conviction and sentence imposed upon them by the learned Principal Sessions Judge. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: a) The first accused Michelraj is the husband of the deceased wife. The second accused Swaminathan is the father-in-law of the deceased. The third accused, Sengolammal is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The marriage between the deceased Arockiyaselvi and the first accused took place 4 years prior to the occurrence and they lived together as husband and wife for two months happily. The complainant P.W.1 who is the father of the deceased Arockiaselvi, provided jewels and household articles to his daughters marriage with the accused A1 and he was also provided with 1 1/2 sovereign gold chain and wrist watch in his marriage. Further, the first accused demanded his wifes father to give a sum of Rs.5000/= for his trip to foreign country and he provided the first accused a sum of Rs.5,000/=. Afterwards, the first accused demanded his wifes father (PW.1) and her mother (PW.2) to give one acre of land as dowry. After snatching away the jewels from the deceased Arockiaselvi, the first accused drove her away from the matrimonial house to her parents house and he left for Gurune, Gulf Country. The deceased was residing with her parents in Kattukudi Village for two years. After snatching away the jewels from the deceased Arockiaselvi, the first accused drove her away from the matrimonial house to her parents house and he left for Gurune, Gulf Country. The deceased was residing with her parents in Kattukudi Village for two years. Afterwards the first accused came to Melakarai from the gulf country and panchayat was convened in the presence of PW.3 and PW.4 at Melakarai Village and she was sent with her husband the first accused and they were living together. When P.Ws1 and 2 visited their house, they were not permitted to see the deceased and he first accused used to harass her frequently. The accused 1 to 4 and others demanded the deceased to provide one acre of agricultural land as dowry for their marriage and the first accused ill-treated her for four months. Unbearable with the dowry harassment and cruelty meted out to her by accused Nos.1 to 3. the deceased Arockiaselvi committed suicide by hanging from the tamarind tree situate in the land of one Chinnappan at Melakkarai village and her body was not seen by anybody for nearly 5 days. When she committed suicide, she was five months pregnant. (b) P.W.9, then Sub Inspector of Police, Karur Police Station, registered the FIR in Ex.P.9 in Cr.No:33 of 1999 or the offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C., on basis of the complaint in Ex.P.2 lodged by the witness P.W.4, the President of Thunjanur on 23.12.1999 at 8.30 a.m. (c) On the basis of the information in Cr.No:33/99, dated 23.12.1999, PW.5 who was the then Revenue Divisional Officer of Pudukkottai visited the place of occurrence and conducted an inquest on the body of the deceased Arockiaselvi and he prepared an inquest report in Ex.P.4 and he enquired the witnesses and recorded their statements. He sent the body to the Government Hospital, Aranthangi for postmortem and after completing his investigation, he sent the report in Ex.P.3 along with the witnesses statements and Viscera Report in Ex.P.11, Hyoid Bone report in Ex.P.12 to P.W.11, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai for further investigation. (d) P.W.10, Dr.Tamilarasi, who was then working at Government Hospital, Aranthangi, received a requisition letter dated 23.12.1999 from the RDO, Aranthangi for the postmortem on the deceased body, she conducted an autopsy over the deceased body of Arockiyaselvi on 24.12.1999 at 12.30 noon. (d) P.W.10, Dr.Tamilarasi, who was then working at Government Hospital, Aranthangi, received a requisition letter dated 23.12.1999 from the RDO, Aranthangi for the postmortem on the deceased body, she conducted an autopsy over the deceased body of Arockiyaselvi on 24.12.1999 at 12.30 noon. According to her, the deceased body was found highly decomposed of bloated up with full of maggots and blebs. Her face was eaten up with hole, tongue protruded out, jaws clenched skin peeled off. Further, she found following injuries: "An injury after the removal of country twine in situ around the neck, a blackish rope impression mark was soon, starting from the front of neck 3 cm below shin, ending behind the neck seen as a continuous line ending behind neck been below (Right ear 17 cm below right ear muscles around the front of neck are lacerated and blackish hyoid bone horn of # to send for Forensic test loss of Hair and J.M. Exam Ht 100 gm. Normal Lungs R.400 gm. L.350 gm liquified. Hyoid bone of # Horn sent for examination. Stomach Empty. Liver 1000 gm liquified. Spleen 100 gm. normal. Intestine distended with foul gas. Uterus : Normal size. Brain - Liquefied." (e) Further, P.W.10 deposed that the death would have occurred more than 72 hours prior to the autopsy. (f) Mr.Jayagopal (P.W.11) who was then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dowry Prohibition Wing, Pudukkottai, visited the place of occurrence on 23.12.1999 at 03.30 p.m. at Melakarai village and prepared two observation mahazars under Ex.P.5 and 6 in the presence of P.W.6 Koothaiyan, Village Administrative Officer and Mr.Vellaiyan. He prepared a rough plan in Ex.P.14 and Haribabu (P.W.7), the photographer took photos on the deceased of Arokiyaselvi at the place of occurrence. He examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3, P.W.6, P.W.8 and P.W.9 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. He sent a special report in Ex.P.13 to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Aranthangi. He arrested the accused Michel (A-1) on 23.12.1999 at 08.30 p.m. at Avudayarkoil and he arrested A.2 to A.4 on the same day at 07.30 p.m. at Melakarai village and they were produced to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Aranthangi. After completing the investigation, he laid a charge sheet on 02.03.2000 against the accused A-1 to A-5 for offences under Section 304-B IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3. After completing the investigation, he laid a charge sheet on 02.03.2000 against the accused A-1 to A-5 for offences under Section 304-B IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined 11 witnesses marked 14 exhibits and on the side of the defence, no witness was examined and no exhibit was marked. 4. The accused was questioned with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the complicity of the offence. Considering all the circumstances and the evidences on record, the learned Trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the court below ought not to have given much weightage to the fact that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, being the father and mother of the deceased are interested evidence and being inconsistent with their earlier statements made by them before P.W.5, RDO and P.W.11, Deputy Superintendent of Police. According to the learned counsel, even P.W.5 in his cross examination has stated that he gave his opinion about the cause of death only on the basis of Panchayat witnesses. 7. It is seen from the evidence of P.W.3, participant of Panchayat, that there was no talks about the 1 acre of land and the decision arrived at the Panchayat was only with respect to peaceful reunion of the couples. According to him, subsequent to four months of the said Panchayat, he came to know of the death of the deceased Arockiaselvi. P.W.4 is the then Village President, in whose presence the Panchayat was held. He also deposed that six months before the death of the deceased, the Panchayat was held and the Panchayatdars advised both the parties to live amicably. In his cross examination he has deposed that he does not know directly about the harassment or cruelty done by the accused and his family members. 8. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Teg Bahadur and others, reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 218, wherein their Lordships have held thus:- "18. Our attention was drawn to Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code by the learned counsel appearing for the accused. 8. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Teg Bahadur and others, reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 218, wherein their Lordships have held thus:- "18. Our attention was drawn to Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code by the learned counsel appearing for the accused. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances". For the above proposition, learned counsel appearing for the accused, cited the judgment of this court in the case of Hira Lal Vs. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi ( 2003 8 SCC 80 ). In that case this Court observed thus:- "The expression ‘soon before is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. The 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 the prosecution. `Soon before is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straitjacket 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 the expression `soon before used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Ct is relevant. No definite period has been indicated and the expression ‘soon before is not defined. A reference to the expression `soon before used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Ct 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 or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for their 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 cruelty or harassment concerned 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 death concerned. If the 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. 9. As rightly contended by the Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner the courts below have placed the reliance only on the interested and hearsay evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and convicted the accused, while there is no direct evidence for the harassment and cruelty meted out to the deceased on the demand of 1 acre of land. Even according to PWs.3 and 4, Panchayatdars, there was no talk about the demand of 1 acre of land in the Panchayat held four months prior to the death of the deceased and therefore it cannot be held that there was a demand of dowry soon before the death so as to attract the provisions of 304 (B) IPC. 10. In Gurditta Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1992 Crl.L.J, 309, a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, while dealing the presumption under Section 113 while invoking Section 304 (B) IPC, has held as follows:- "In other words, to draw a presumption under S.113-B, of the Evidence Act, ingredient that it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment, in connection with the demand of dowry has to be proved. Only when these facts are proved, then by virtue of the deeming provision of S.304-B, the Court shall presume that the husband or any relative of the husband had caused dowry death. Though cruelty at any time after the marriage may cause depression in the mind of the victim, the cruelty and harassment envisaged by S.304-B is to be soon before the death of a woman. The courts are to scrutinise the evidence carefully because cases are not rare in which occasionally there is demand and then the atmosphere become calm and quiet and then again there is demand. Where a wife dies in the house of the husband within the short span of seven years of her marriage, it is of considerable difficulty to assess the precise circumstances in which the incident occurred because ordinarily independent witnesses are not available as the torture and harassment is confined in the four walls of the house. However, the courts are to be vigilant to scrutinise the evidence regarding the harassment and torture carefully if the witnesses are relatives of the deceased and relations between them and her in-laws are strained for any reason whatsoever it might be...." 11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Inder Singh and others, reported in 2002 (9) SCC 537 , wherein their Lordships have held that when two views are possible, one which is favourable to the accused should be accepted. 12. There is no direct evidence for the alleged cruelty or harassment caused by the accused for demand of dowry made by him soon before the death of the deceased. In such dowry demand cases, which depends only upon the circumstantial evidence, the courts must reach a definite conclusion leaving no doubt of suspicion. But in this case, the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged cruelty made by the petitioner or torture to the deceased soon prior to the death of the deceased. 13. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is lack of evidence to prove the demand of dowry soon before the occurrence. Even the alleged demand of 1 acre of land was made six months prior to the date of death of the deceased and therefore it cannot at all be termed that cruelty was meted out to the deceased soon before the occurrence. Even the alleged demand of 1 acre of land was made six months prior to the date of death of the deceased and therefore it cannot at all be termed that cruelty was meted out to the deceased soon before the occurrence. As rightly held by the Apex Court in Hira Lals case, cited supra, if the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the victim concerned, it would be of no consequence and the accused cannot be found guilty under Section 304(b) IPC. 14. In the result, the Criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence of the court below. The accused are acquitted of all the charges. The amount of fine, if deposited by them, shall be refunded.