JUDGMENT : Munnuri Laxman, J. 1. The present appeal assails the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 01.02.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Parbatsar in Sessions Case No.45/2002 (28/99), wherein and whereby the appellant-accused No.1 - Bhanwar Singh @ Pappi was convicted for the offences under Sections 498-A & 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC and for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC he was sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine he was to further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused No.2 - Man Singh and accused No.3 - Smt. Prem Kanwar from the above charges. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction, the present appeal is filed by the accused No.1 - Bhanwar Singh @ Pappi. 3. The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is that the accused-appellant - Bhanwar Singh @ Pappi was married to Santosh Kanwar on 10.03.1996 as per the Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, 10-12 tolas gold and Rs.31,000/- cash were given by the father of Santosh Kanwar. The accused No.1 was employed in the police Department. The natural guardian/father of the accused Bhanwar Singh @ Pappi was Shri Mohan Singh who expired prior to the marriage and Mohan Kanwar was his mother who resided at Ajmer whereas, the accused No.1 was residing in the village Dabadiya with Maan Singh and Prem Kanwar, who were his maternal uncle and aunt. 4. After the marriage, Santosh Kanwar (deceased) joined with Man Singh and Prem Kanwar in Dabadiya. Some time thereafter she returned to her parents’ house and informed that the in-laws were not satisfied with the things/articles given at the time of marriage and they said that sufficient dowry was not given. 5. The further allegation is that the husband i.e. Bhanwar Singh (accused No.1) had allegedly beaten the deceased in Ajmer, Dungarpur and Jaipur. He used to beat her as and when he was in drunken condition. 5. The further allegation is that the husband i.e. Bhanwar Singh (accused No.1) had allegedly beaten the deceased in Ajmer, Dungarpur and Jaipur. He used to beat her as and when he was in drunken condition. The accused – Bhanwar Singh did not attend marriage of Bhawani Singh, the younger brother of Santosh Kanwar, since his in-laws have not given a gold chain, as demanded by him but subsequently such demand was fulfilled when he came to the house of his in-laws after four days of the marriage. 6. It was also alleged that the accused demanded a Buffalo and the said demand was also satisfied by the father of the deceased Santosh Kanwar through Shri Raghuveer Singh (brother in-law of the father of the deceased) after purchasing a buffalo for a consideration of Rs.7000/-. As and when the deceased reached her parent’s house, she used to tell her parents, brother and sister-in-law that she had been subjected to harassment by not giving food and clothes timely. Santosh Kanwar (deceased) wrote letters to her father complaining therein that her condition is miserable and also informed them about the harassment by the husband and in-laws, due to less dowry given at the time of marriage. 7. On 29.03.1999, an information was received by the S.H.O., P.S. Gachhipura that the girl(deceased) suffered burn injuries and thereafter his father went there and was informed that Santosh Kanwar suffered burn injuries. She was taken to Makrana hospital. On the information of the admission of the deceased in Makrana hospital, at the direction of Circle Officer, Pancham Singh the Police official of P.S. Gachchipura went to the Makrana hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.P/21, in which she had explained how she received the burn injuries. According to her statement, she received the burn injuries while she was performing Pooja/worship, she was attacked with an epilepsy stroke and lamp fell on her and due to this, she suffered burn injuries. On account of seriousness, she was shifted to Jaipur where the deceased succumbed to burn injuries. 8. The police visited the scene of offence, drawn map and panchnama, seized the incriminating materials from scene and the inquest proceedings were also carried out. The dead body was subjected to postmortem and thereafter the same was handed over to her relatives. 9. On account of seriousness, she was shifted to Jaipur where the deceased succumbed to burn injuries. 8. The police visited the scene of offence, drawn map and panchnama, seized the incriminating materials from scene and the inquest proceedings were also carried out. The dead body was subjected to postmortem and thereafter the same was handed over to her relatives. 9. On 02.04.1999 PW-8 – complainant - Mahaal Singh (father of the deceased), submitted a written report to the S.H.O, P.S. Gachhipura about the harassment of her daughter by her in-laws and the husband with the allegations that they have murdered her daughter by burning and requested to initiate proceedings against the accused persons. On the aforesaid written report, the FIR No.33/1999 was registered at P.S. Gachhipura, District Nagaur. Basing on the above FIR, the investigation was taken place. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of the relatives and the neighbours. 10. Basing on the conclusion arrived at in the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offences under Section 498-A & 304-B of the IPC. On committal, the charges were framed against the accused persons for the said offences. 11. The prosecution to prove its case, examined as many as 18 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-18) and relied upon the documents Ex.P/1 to P/23. The accused persons in their defence examined 6 witnesses (DW-1 to DW-6) and they relied upon 15 documents Ex.D/1 to D/15. 12. Accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied all the allegations levelled against them. 13. The learned primary Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, found the Accused No.1 – Bhanwar Singh @ Pappi (appellant herein) guilty of the offences under Section 498-A & 304-B of IPC and sentenced to the term indicated hereinbefore. However, the accused No.2 - Man Singh and accused No.3 - Smt. Prem Kanwar (in-laws of the deceased) were acquitted of the said charges. Hence, the present appeal. 14. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 15. However, the accused No.2 - Man Singh and accused No.3 - Smt. Prem Kanwar (in-laws of the deceased) were acquitted of the said charges. Hence, the present appeal. 14. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant submitted that the primary Court has not considered the true purport of the ingredients of Section 304-B of the IPC and also not considered the defence set up by the accused-appellant, which clearly establishes that the deceased received the burn injuries in an accidental incident and there is no cruelty or the harassment in connection with the dowry so as to attract provisions of Section 304-B and consequential presumption of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that Ex.P/21, which is statement made by the deceased-Santosh Kanwar to the Investigation Officer Shri Pancham Singh (PW-8), shows that the deceased received the burn injuries in accident and there is no deliberate act on any part of the accused-appellant and such an accident was also not attributable to any harassment or cruelty from the accused-appellant in connection with the dowry. 17. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant also contended that the alleged harassment as spoken by the PW3, PW-7 and PW-8 does not refer to present accused-appellant. According to him, even such allegations are found to be true, those alleged incident of harassment cannot be brought within the scope of ‘soon before the death/incident’. There is no proximity and live link between such harassment and the incident of dowry death. 18. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the requirement of Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code so as to invoke the benefit of presumption under Sections 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. 19. The learned counsel for the accused appellant also contended that the harassment attributed was in the initial stage of marriage and the accused persons (in-laws) with whom the deceased stayed for some time, are not the natural parents. They are only the maternal uncle and aunt. The prosecution claimed that the accused-appellant No.1 - Bhanwar Singh was the adopted son of Maan Singh and Smt. Prem Kanwar. However, such a fact was not proved. Thus, they are not said to be in-laws of the deceased. They are only the maternal uncle and aunt. The prosecution claimed that the accused-appellant No.1 - Bhanwar Singh was the adopted son of Maan Singh and Smt. Prem Kanwar. However, such a fact was not proved. Thus, they are not said to be in-laws of the deceased. The natural mother of the accused No.1 is Mohan Kanwar who resides in Ajmer whereas the alleged incident occurred in the village Dawdiya. These facts were not taken into consideration by the learned trial Court. 20. He also submitted that the consistent statements of the prosecution witnesses show that the deceased had been staying with the present accused in Dungarpur and Jaipur, as the accused was working as a Constable in the police Department and there was no occasion for the victim to stay with her in-laws soon before the death. He also submitted that the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses do not indicate that deceased was subjected to any kind of harassment in connection with the dowry death. The only allegation made against the present accused-appellant is with reference to the alleged demand of gold chain on occasion of brother-in-law’s marriage and subsequent demand of buffalo, which two demands were already satisfied by the parents of the deceased. Therefore, there was no reason for the present accused-appellant to subject the deceased with cruelty and harassment. Absolutely, no evidence is there that soon before the death of the deceased, the present accused-appellant had caused any kind of cruelty or harassment to the deceased so as to invite the presumption presumption under Sections 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Trial Court has wrongly invoked the presumption for convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 498-A & 304-B of the IPC. 21. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the evidence of the mother (PW-7) clearly shows that her daughter informed on telephone that she was happily living with her husband (accused-appellant) at Dungarpur and Jaipur and her statement would disclose that there was no harassment from the present accused-appellant except the incident of alleged demand of dowry i.e. in the form of gold chain at the time of marriage of his brother-in-law and subsequently, the demand of buffalo. Both these two demands were fulfilled. Therefore, there was no occasion to harass the deceased. He, therefore, prayed to acquit the accused-appellant for the said charges. 22. Both these two demands were fulfilled. Therefore, there was no occasion to harass the deceased. He, therefore, prayed to acquit the accused-appellant for the said charges. 22. Conversely, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State is that the alleged dying declaration under Ex.P-21, whereunder the deceased claimed to have suffered burn injuries on account of fall of lighting lamp kept at the pooja is contrary the scene of offence and recoveries made from the scene. Such injuries were not on account of spill over of any oil lamp which was kept for Pooja but on account of burn injuries received from the kerosene. The alleged defence, set up by the accused-appellant, basing on the Ex.-P/21, is contrary to the situation on the ground, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly rejected such defence. 23. Learned Public Prosecutor also contended that the evidence on record, particularly the evidence of PW-3 – Shri Raghuveer Singh (uncle of the father of the deceased), PW-6 – Smt. Vimlesh Kanwar (sister-in-law of the deceased), PW-7 - Smt. Supyar Kanwar (mother of the deceased) and PW-8 - Mahaal Singh (father of the deceased), clearly goes to show that the in-laws and the appellant had subjected the deceased with cruelty and harassment. He also submitted that these evidence clearly show that apart from the oral evidence, the letter correspondence in between two families, clearly show that there was consistent dissatisfaction with regard to dowry and there are constant harassment of the deceased for the sake of dowry. The above evidence clearly shows that the deceased Santosh Kanwar was subjected to harassment, soon before her death. The learned trial Court has rightly drawn the presumption and rightly convicted the accused-appellant for the said charges. He, therefore, requested not to interfere in the just conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court. 24. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. 25. The evidence of PW-3 – Shri Raghuveer Singh (brother in-law of the father of the deceased) and PW-8 Mahaal Singh (father of the deceased) show that PW-8 received a letter from the deceased, which shows that there was a life threat to the deceased from the in-laws. On receiving such a letter, he went to PW-3 and asked him to get back the deceased Santosh Kanwar from her in-laws’ house. On receiving such a letter, he went to PW-3 and asked him to get back the deceased Santosh Kanwar from her in-laws’ house. It also shows that on the above request of PW-8, he went to the house of the in-laws of Santosh Kanwar at village Dabadiya, District - Nagaur and he requested to in-laws to send the deceased with him. However, they did not agree to send her with him. The evidence of this witness also shows that he met with Santosh Kanwar (deceased) and she told him that her in-laws were harassing her and she did not speak any further. She did not speak about any harassment from the side of present accused. His statement is also unclear whether Man Singh and Prem Kanwar who are the maternal uncle and aunt, are the natural father and mother or not. The natural mother of the accused-appellant Mohan Kanwar was residing at Ajmer. His statement is vague. 26. The evidence of PW-3, PW-6 and PW-8 show that initially, immediately after the marriage, there was some trouble to the deceased from the in-laws and there is also evidence that the deceased was physically beaten by the present accused when she was in Ajmer. The incident at Ajmer was prior to the deceased joined with the accused No.2 and 3 at Dungarpur and Jaipur and nature of physical assault and nature of injuries suffered by the deceased have not been detailed. These evidence also show that the present accused did not attend the marriage of his brother-in-law Bhawani Singh. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in this regard, there comes two different versions: one version from the father shows that the accused did not attend the marriage since, his parents were not invited to the marriage whereas; the other version shows that a demand for gold chain was made and when it was not fulfilled, he could not attend the marriage. 27. Be that as it may, the fact is that the alleged demand of gold chain was fulfilled by the in-laws. The evidence further shows that there was a demand of buffalo, which was also fulfilled. 28. 27. Be that as it may, the fact is that the alleged demand of gold chain was fulfilled by the in-laws. The evidence further shows that there was a demand of buffalo, which was also fulfilled. 28. A close scrutiny of the entire evidence shows that there is no evidence to show that apart from those two demands, which were made by the accused, and which were satisfied by the in-laws, any fresh demand was made by the accused and on account of non-fulfillment of such fresh demand, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment, as required under Section 304-B of the IPC. 29. The primary requirement of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, is the expression ‘soon before the death’. Such expression has fallen for consideration in number of cases. It is apt to referred one such case. In the case of Hira Lal Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi : MANU/SC/0495/2003 : 2003 (8) SCC 80 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “9. 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. 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 114. 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 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. 30. A close reading of the above Sections show that the expression 'soon before the death' is a relative term and requirement of such term would depend upon the circumstances of each case. It cannot be fitted in straight jacket formula or no period can be fixed which would construe 'soon before the death'. The important test is proximity and live link test. The proximity and live link must be between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the cruelty is of remote in time and such incident of cruelty has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it has no consequence. 31. In the present case, the immediate cause shown as per the evidence of PW-3 and PW-8 was a letter received from the deceased expressing a life threat. If the cruelty is of remote in time and such incident of cruelty has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it has no consequence. 31. In the present case, the immediate cause shown as per the evidence of PW-3 and PW-8 was a letter received from the deceased expressing a life threat. Responding to such a letter, he went to PW-3 who in turn, went to in-laws of deceased at Dabadiya and met with the deceased where the deceased only told him about the harassment from in-laws. The in-laws have been acquitted in the present case. There is nothing against the present accused-appellant. The entire evidence only speak about two incidents attributing to the present accused: the first incident of demand of gold chain during the wedding of his brother-in-laws which is one year prior to the incident; and the second demand is of buffalo and both demands were fulfilled. These demands are also not could not said to be ‘soon before death’ and except these two incidents of alleged demand, there is nothing on record. 32. The test of proximity and live link in the present case has not been established. The entire evidence do not refers to as to what was the first demand from the present accused-appellant and how such harassment has been meted out. Even the alleged statement of PW-3 that deceased told him about the harassment by in-laws, there is no reference to prove that such harassment was in connection with dowry. 33. Though, the defence set up by the accused that the deceased suffered injuries on account of epilepsy and consequential fall of oil lamp kept at the pooja room. Such theory is made out from Ex. P/21 as well as the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-18), who recorded the statement of the deceased and Dr. C.P. Mathur (PW-13) who attested such statement but the manner in which the incident was spoken by the deceased under Ex. P/21 does not get corroboration from the site plan and site inspection report. The recovery made from the place of the incident shows that the incident had occurred in the bed room which can be easily inferred on account of recovery of partly burned quilt. Further kerosene tin of 3-4 liters was recovered. P/21 does not get corroboration from the site plan and site inspection report. The recovery made from the place of the incident shows that the incident had occurred in the bed room which can be easily inferred on account of recovery of partly burned quilt. Further kerosene tin of 3-4 liters was recovered. There is no evidence that in the said room, there was any pooja room so as to believe the version was allegedly been given by the deceased in Ex. P/21. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly disbelieved Ex.P/21 and the defence set up by the accused that the burn injuries were accidental. 34. The postmortem report clearly indicates that the deceased suffered burn injuries and such burn injuries are the causative factor for the death of the deceased. There is no convincing evidence from the prosecution to show that such burn injuries are received in accident or it is homicidal in nature. However, the prosecution could be able to establish that the death of the deceased was under unnatural circumstances. The requirement of harassment or cruelty from the present accused in connection with dowry soon before the death, is not clearly made out by the prosecution. Though the alleged demand of dowry and fulfillment of such demand was spoken by all the witnesses, there was no scope for further harassment, since such demands were satisfied. There is no proof of further fresh demand of dowry and on account of non-fulfillment of such fresh demand, the deceased was subjected cruelty and harassment. Once such ingredients are not established by the prosecution, the benefit of presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act could not be applied. When such presumption is not applied, the prosecution must produce evidence to establish that the death of the deceased was attributed to the present accused. Such evidence is lacking in this case. 35. In the present case, the FIR was lodged on 02.04.1999 and the death occurred on 29.03.1999 and during the inquest proceedings and till the postmortem was done, no imputation was made against any of the accused. If really any serious conduct was there on the part of the present accused-appellant and in-laws, parents of the deceased could have lodged the complaint about the same but they have not explained the reasons for not immediately lodging the compliant. If really any serious conduct was there on the part of the present accused-appellant and in-laws, parents of the deceased could have lodged the complaint about the same but they have not explained the reasons for not immediately lodging the compliant. The only reason given is that they were badly affected on account of the incident. The fact discloses that they went to the hospital and they were present when the inquest proceedings were done, however no allegation is made against the in-laws or the present appellant (husband of the deceased). This fact is also relevant. It appears that subsequently they made up their mind to lodge the FIR. These circumstances also create doubt over the case set up by the prosecution. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 304-B of the IPC is unsustainable. 36. The prosecution also relied upon various letter correspondences. A close scrutiny of those letters, we find that the prosecution failed to prove that the writings of the letter were that of the deceased. Some letters had been received from Man Singh, the maternal uncle of the present appellant. One of the letter under Ex.P/11 is not received from any Postal Department and only the simple writings on the paper are there. It is not known, how such letter was received and what is proof of its authorship. Such letter was also much prior to the alleged incident which would not come within the purview of 'soon before'. The letter also does not indicate a specific incident of cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry. Therefore, such letters have no help to the prosecution. 37. Now, further question is – as to whether the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 498-A is sustainable or not. There are three incidents which are attributable to the present accused: the first incident is that accused physically assaulted the deceased; the second incident is that he did not attend the marriage of brother-in-law, since in-laws could not satisfy his demand of gold chain; and third incident spoken by the witness is the demand of buffalo. The demands of gold chain and buffalo have been satisfied thus, there is no scope for any fresh harassment. The other harassment is different from the alleged physical assault. Except the oral claim of parents and the sister-in-law (PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8), there is no other evidence. The demands of gold chain and buffalo have been satisfied thus, there is no scope for any fresh harassment. The other harassment is different from the alleged physical assault. Except the oral claim of parents and the sister-in-law (PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8), there is no other evidence. What kind of injuries the deceased sustained is not explained. Such evidence of PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 is hearsay evidence and it is not admissible to prove such a fact against the accused so as to convict him under Section 498-A of IPC. 38. The evidence of PW-7 (mother of the deceased) shows that she received a phone call from Jaipur where the accused was working, informing that the deceased who was staying at Jaipur with the accused-appellant was living happily life and further fact that sometime Bhawani Singh was also with the accused in Jaipur. These are all the facts disclose that there was no harassment or cruelty from the present accused. Therefore, the accused-appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. 39. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC imposed by the trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 01.02.2003 against the appellant is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges for the said offences. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for three months and thereafter shall stand discharged. He shall be released, if not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, shall be refunded to the accused. 40. However, while keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C./Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the accused-appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- each and a surety bond in the like amount, before the learned Trial Court, which shall be made effective for a period of six months, to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or for grant of leave, the accused-appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as soon as he would be called upon to do so.