JUDGMENT : This criminal appeal has been directed against the convictions and sentences dated 24th July 2015 passed in Sessions Case No.277 of 2006 by the Mahala Neethi Manram, Chennai. 2. In the present case, a mother of two young children has been driven to commit suicide due to importunity of her husband and in laws and consequently, her young children have lost their maternal huddling. 3. The conspectus of the case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of the first accused. The first accused has married the deceased Krishna Kumari on 25-05-2001. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased have given gold jewels and house-hold articles as dowry. After lapse of six months from the date of marriage since the said Krishna Kumari has not become pregnant, for the purpose of conducting second marriage to the first accused, the second accused has given torture to her. On 18-10-2002, the said Krishna Kumari has given birth to a female child. The parents of the said Krishna Kumari has given gold jewels to the new born child. Since her parents have not given Rs.6000/-(Rupees Six thousand only) for setting up separate family, the accused Nos.1 to 3 have debased them. The accused have also deterred the said Krishna Kumari from contacting her parents overphone. On 15-09-2005, the second accused has contacted the mother of the said Krishna Kumari overphone and told that the first accused has attacked the said Krishna Kumari and due to that, her earstud has become broken. Since the said Krishna Kumari has not been able to brook the torture given by all the accused, on 17-09-2005, at about 17:45 hours, she doused kerosene and set fire on her and subsequently passed away. After occurrence, the house-owner by name Karuppasamy has given a complaint (Ex-P1) and the same has been registered in Crime No.169 of 2005. 4. On receipt of the complaint, the Investigating Officer viz., P.W.10 has taken up investigation, examined connected witnesses and also made arrangements to conduct inquest and accordingly, the concerned Tahsildar (P.W.5) has conducted inquest and submitted his inquest report(Ex-P9). The Investigating Officer has also made arrangements to conduct autopsy on the body of the deceased and accordingly, Dr. Manohar, P.W.7 has conducted necropsy and found the following external and internal injuries: "INJURY : 1. The Investigating Officer has also made arrangements to conduct autopsy on the body of the deceased and accordingly, Dr. Manohar, P.W.7 has conducted necropsy and found the following external and internal injuries: "INJURY : 1. Epidermo-dermo epidermal ante-moretem burns with denuded cuticle exposing the reddish area seen over the Face, Neck, both sides of the Chest and Abdomen, front and back of all the Limbs and back of the Trunk(100%Burns). Soot particles present in the traches. Lips and thums are involved. No other external of internal injury seen. HEART Normal in size. Cut section – All Chambers contained clotted blood. CORONORIES Patent HYOID BONE Intact STOMACH 300 GMS, of rice food present. No specific smell. Mucosa-Normal. LUNGS, LIVER SPLEEN Cut section - Congested. KIDNEYS Cut Section - Congested. INTESTINES Distended with Gas. BLADDER Empty. UTERUS Normal in size. Cut section-Empty. PELVIS Intact. SCALP, BONES, MEMBRANES INTACT. BRAIN Normal. SPINAL COLUMN Intact. OPINION : The deceased would appear to have DIED OF HYPOVOLUMIC SHOCK DUE TO BURNS." The post-mortem certificate has been marked as Ex-P11. The Investigating Officer after completing investigation has laid a final report on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and the same has been taken on file in P.R.C.No.159 of 2005. 5. The XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai after considering the facts that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused are triable by the Sessions Court has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Chennai Division and taken on file in Sessions Case No.277 of 2006 and subsequently, made over to the Trial Court. The Trial Court after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the relevant records has framed first charge against all the accused under Section 498A, second charge under Section 304(b) and third charge against him under Section 306, IPC and the same have been read over and explained to them. The accused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. On the side of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 10 have been examined and Exs-P1 to P15 and M.Os.1 and 2 have been marked. When the accused have been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects incriminating materials available in evidence against them, they denied their complicity in the crime. 6. On the side of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 10 have been examined and Exs-P1 to P15 and M.Os.1 and 2 have been marked. When the accused have been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects incriminating materials available in evidence against them, they denied their complicity in the crime. On the side of the accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined and no documentary evidence has been adduced on their side. 7. The Trial Court after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the relevant evidence available on record has found the accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty under Section 498 A, IPC and sentenced them to undergo three years' Rigorous Imprisonment and also imposed fine of Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) with usual default clause. The Trial Court also found them guilty under Section 306, IPC and sentenced them to undergo ten years' Rigorous Imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) with usual default clause. Since the third accused has passed away pending trial, the charges framed against him have become abated. Against the convictions and sentences passed by the Trial Court, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the accused Nos.1 and 2, as appellants. 8. The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is that the accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of the first accused. The first accused has married the deceased Krishna Kumari on 25-05-2001. At the time of marriage her parents have given gold jewels and cash in the form of dowry. Since the said Krishna Kumari has not become pregnant even after six months' of marriage, the second accused has made arrangements to conduct second marriage to the first accused and thereby tortured her. On 18-10-2002, the said Krishna Kumari has given birth to a female child and her parents have given some jewels to new born child. Since they failed to give Rs.6000/-(Rupees Six thousand only) for setting up a separate family, all the accused have debased them. On 15-09-2005, the first accused has attacked the said Krishna Kumari and due to that her earstud has become broken and the same has been conveyed by the second accused to the mother of the said Krishna Kumari. Since they failed to give Rs.6000/-(Rupees Six thousand only) for setting up a separate family, all the accused have debased them. On 15-09-2005, the first accused has attacked the said Krishna Kumari and due to that her earstud has become broken and the same has been conveyed by the second accused to the mother of the said Krishna Kumari. Since the said Krishna Kumari has not been able to thole the consistent torture given by the accused on 17-09-2005 at about 17:45 hours in the house of the accused, she doused kerosene on her body and set fire and subsequently, she passed away. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 has vehemently contended to the effect that the marriage between the first accused and deceased has taken place on 25-05-2001 and after marriage both of them have gone to Andaman and Nicobar Islands to eke out their livelihood and since the first accused has not been able to earn attractive income, both of them have come down to their native place and the deceased without sufficient reasons has left matrimonial abode and thereafter, the first accused has issued a legal notice and subsequently, food a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and in fact, neither the first accused nor remaining accused has had done any torture to the deceased and the Trial Court without considering the bona fide attempt made by the first accused and also without considering that absolutely there is no evidence so as to attract the penal provisions of Section 498 A and 306, IPC has unnecessarily invited convictions and sentences against the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 and therefore, the same are liable to be set aside. 10. 10. As a riposte to the contentions put forth on the side of the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has befittingly contended that in the instant case, the parent of the deceased has been examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and both of them have given consistent evidence about the torture alleged to have been caused by the accused to the deceased and only due to their torture she committed suicide and the Trial Court after considering plethora of evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution has rightly invited convictions and sentences against the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 and therefore, the convictions and sentences passed by the Trial Court need not be set aside. 11. On the basis of the rival submissions made on either side, the Court has to look into the evidence adduced by the following witness. 12. The prosecution has set the law in motion only on the basis of Ex-P1, complaint alleged to have been given by the defacto complainant viz., P.W.1 wherein it has been simply stated that the accused and deceased have resided in the house of the defacto complainant and such occurrence has taken place on 17-09-2005. 13. The father of the deceased as well as her mother have been examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and both of them have cogently, consistently stated in their evidence that after lapse of some months from the date of marriage, the accused have used to torture their daughter and their specific evidence is that since the deceased has not become pregnant, the second accused has made arrangements to conduct second marriage to the first accused after cancelling the existing marriage. Further, they would say that after delivery of first child since it is a female, the first accused has directed them to keep the child in their house upto five years. Further, they would say that on 05-05-2003, their daughter has contacted them overphone and informed that the accused have not provided her food and requested them to come and take her. Further, they would say that on 08-05-2003, both of them have come to Chennai to see their daughter and grand daughter. But all the accused have deterred them to enter into their house and subsequently, a police complaint has been given in Tondiarpet Police Station. The police have directed them to approach Family Court. Further, they would say that on 08-05-2003, both of them have come to Chennai to see their daughter and grand daughter. But all the accused have deterred them to enter into their house and subsequently, a police complaint has been given in Tondiarpet Police Station. The police have directed them to approach Family Court. Further P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated in their evidence that on 05-09-2005, the second accused has contacted P.W.2 overphone and stated that the first accused has attacked the deceased and due to that her earstud has become broken. 14. Apart from the evidence given by P.Ws.2 and 3 on the side of the prosecution, Ex-P14 has been filed. Ex-P14 is a complaint given by the said Krishna Kumari against accused Nos.1 and 2 in All Women Police Station, Kovilpatti wherein the entire sufferings meted out by her at the hands of accused Nos.1 and 2 have been clearly stated. Further, in Ex-P14, it has been clearly stated to the effect that the accused Nos.1 and 2 have driven her out from marital abode even without giving food. 15. From a conjoint reading of the evidence given by P.Ws.2 and 3, coupled with Ex-P14, the Court can very well come to a conclusion that after some time from the date of marriage, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have tortured the deceased to the maximum extent and only due to their torture she has been driven to commit suicide even without thinking about the life of her young children. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused Nos.1 and 2 has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision reported in 1994 (1) SCC 73 (State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal and another), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that for invoking Section 498-A, IPC and also Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, requisite proof beyond all reasonable doubt is very much essential. Before recording a finding of guilt, Court must satisfy itself that the deceased was not hypersensitive. 17. It is a settled principle of law that merely on the basis that presumption available under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court cannot easily come to a conclusion that the offences under Section 498-A and 306 are made out. The prosecution must prove the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt and further strict proof is required. 17. It is a settled principle of law that merely on the basis that presumption available under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court cannot easily come to a conclusion that the offences under Section 498-A and 306 are made out. The prosecution must prove the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt and further strict proof is required. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has befittingly drawn the attention of the Court to the decision reported in Jivendra Kumar Vs. Jaidrath Singh and Others (Criminal Appeal No.2321 of 2009 dated 26-02-2015) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court on the basis of its previous decisions has observed as follows: "Thus, the words "soon before" appear in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 and also in Section 304-B IPC. For the presumptions contemplated under these sections to spring into action, it is necessary to show that the cruelty or harassment was caused soon before the death. The interpretation of the words "soon before" is, therefore, important. The question is how "soon before"? This would obviously depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. It relates to the mindset of people which varies from person to person. Cruelty can be mental or it can be physical. Mental cruelty is also of different shades. It can be verbal or emotional like insulting or ridiculing or humiliating a woman. It can be giving threats of injury to her or her near and dear ones. It can be depriving her of economic resources or essential amenities of life. It can be putting restraints on her movements. It can be not allowing her to talk to the outside world. The list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Physical cruelty could be actual beating or causing pain and harm to the person of a woman. Every such instance of cruelty and related harassment has a different impact on the mind of a woman. Some instances may be so grave as to have a lasting impact on a woman. Some instances which degrade her dignity may remain etched in her memory for a long time. Therefore, "soon before" is a relative term. In matters of emotions we cannot have fixed formulae. The time-lag may differ from case to case. This must be kept in mind while examining each case of dowry death. (Surinder Singh Vs. Some instances which degrade her dignity may remain etched in her memory for a long time. Therefore, "soon before" is a relative term. In matters of emotions we cannot have fixed formulae. The time-lag may differ from case to case. This must be kept in mind while examining each case of dowry death. (Surinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana ( 2014(4) SCC 129 )" Further it is observed that, "We are aware that the word 'soon' finds place in Section 304B; but we would prefer to interpret its use not in terms of days or months or years, but as necessarily indicating that the demand for dowry should not be stale or an aberration of the past, but should be the continuing cause for the death under Section 304B or the suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. (Sher Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2015 (1) Scale 250)) " 18. In the instant case, as per charges the Court can easily come to a conclusion that on 15-09-2005, the first accused has attacked the deceased as to why the deceased has shown the child to her parents without his consent and due to that, her earstud has become broken, and on 17-09-2005, the deceased doused kerosene on her person and set fire. 19. The Trial Court has found the accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty under Sections 306 IPC along with Section 498-A of the said Code. In fact, the prosecution has adduced abundant evidence for the purpose of proving cruelty alleged to have been caused by accused Nos.1 and 2. Now the Court has to look into as to whether the occurrence taken place on 15-09-2005 would be sufficient to come to a conclusion that both the accused Nos.1 and 2 have abetted the deceased to commit suicide. As per the dictum given by the Honourable Supreme Court, the Court can very well come to a conclusion that the occurrence taken place on 15-09-2005, would be sufficient to drive the deceased to commit suicide. In fact, after lapse of few months from the date of marriage, the deceased has met untold miseries and ordeals at the hands of the accused Nos.1 and 2. It has already been pointed out that at one point of time, the accused have attacked and driven her out from marital abode. Under the said circumstances Ex-P14 complaint has been given by her. It has already been pointed out that at one point of time, the accused have attacked and driven her out from marital abode. Under the said circumstances Ex-P14 complaint has been given by her. Therefore, it is quite clear that accused Nos.1 and 2 have clearly committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306, IPC. 20. In the genesis of the judgment it is pointed out that the deceased has been driven to commit suicide due to importunity caused by her husband and in laws, even without thinking the life of her children. Since young children of the deceased have lost their maternal affection as well as huddling at their young age, this Court is of the view that no leniency can be shown in awarding sentence. 21. The Trial Court after considering the available evidence on record has rightly found both the accused guilty under the said Sections. In view of the discussions made earlier, this Court has not found any acceptable force in the contentions put forth on the side of the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 and altogether, the present criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. In fine, this criminal appeal is dismissed. The convictions and sentences passed by the Trial Court in S.C.No. 277 of 2006 dated 24-07-2015 against the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are confirmed.