JUDGMENT : AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by Purshottam Sindhi (husband of the deceased Jyoti), Gopal Sindhi (brother-in-law of the deceased), and Smt. Janki Devi (mother-in-law of the deceased) against the judgment of conviction dated 30.01.1996 passed under sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). Vide order of even date, the appellants were sentenced life imprisonment u/s 304B IPC and to pay fine of Rs.250/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for one month. Sentence u/s 498A IPC is of three years imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for fifteen days. Both the sentences run concurrently. 2. During pendency of the appeal, Smt. Janki Devi expired and the appeal was abated qua her. 3. The facts as per the prosecution are that the FIR dated 22.08.1993 under sections 304B and 498A IPC was lodged at Police Station Brahmpuri, Jaipur at the instance of Arjun Das (brother of the deceased). It was stated that a relative of the complainant informed that deceased was burnt and taken to the hospital. On reaching the hospital the deceased told the complainant that she was harassed to the extent that she was left with no other alternative but to set herself on fire. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused u/s 304B and 498A IPC. In the statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused stated it to be a case of false implication and that the deceased was neither harassed nor treated in a cruel manner. There was no demand of dowry. 3.1 The prosecution examined twenty three witnesses and produced twenty one exhibits. The case of the prosecution was set up mainly on the testimony of (i) PW2- Ramesh (neighbour of the in-laws of the deceased); (ii) PW4- Smt. Devi (mother of the deceased); (iii) PW5- Smt. Nirmala Devi (sister-in-law of the deceased ‘Bhabhi’); (iv) PW6- Ram Chandra (brother of the deceased) and (v) PW7- Arjun Das (brother of the deceased). 3.2 For conviction the trial court considered that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized in the year 1990 and the incident is of August, 1993 i.e less than four years of the marriage. The cause of death was burn injury. 3.2 For conviction the trial court considered that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized in the year 1990 and the incident is of August, 1993 i.e less than four years of the marriage. The cause of death was burn injury. The testimonies of PW-4 to PW-7 were relied upon to conclude that soon before the death harassment and cruelty for dowry by the accused was proved. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was no eye witness to the incident. In the FIR or in testimonies of witnesses no specific instance is pointed out for demand of dowry and harassment. The argument is that PW2– Ramesh (neighbour of the in-laws) who was the first person to reach the roof where the incident occurred testified that the deceased at least eight to ten times repeated to her mother-in-law that she committed a mistake and should be taken to the hospital. It is contended that the witnesses stated that there were differences between the couple due to financial constraints. 4.1 Learned counsel relies upon testimony of PW21- Hakim Singh (Police Official) who stated that on reaching hospital the doctors refused to certify that the deceased was in a fit condition for recording of the statement. The argument is that the statement of PW7- Arjun Das that deceased whispered in his ears in hospital that she has taken extreme step due to physical abuse by the in-laws for dowry, cannot be relied upon. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the trial court after considering the facts and appreciating the evidence has dealt with each issue in detail. Further submission is that the ingredients of Sections 304B and 498A IPC are proved and the accused have been rightly convicted. 6. Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘1872 Act’) were inserted by the Act 43 of 1986 to specifically deal with dowry death cases where onus was shifted on accused. The sections are reproduced below:- 304B. 6. Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘1872 Act’) were inserted by the Act 43 of 1986 to specifically deal with dowry death cases where onus was shifted on accused. The sections are reproduced below:- 304B. Dowry death:- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. 113B. Presumption as to dowry death:- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). 6.1 The pre-requisites for invoking Section 304B IPC are: (i) unnatural death of a married woman due to burn or bodily injury; (ii) death is within seven years of her marriage; (iii) lastly, deceased soon before the incident was subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband or his relatives for or with regard to the demand of dowry. 6.2 Section 113B of the 1872 Act raises presumption of accused having caused dowry death, in case condition (iii) referred above, for invoking u/s 304B IPC is met. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the paper book and perused the record with their able assistance. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Karan Singh Vs. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the paper book and perused the record with their able assistance. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Karan Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2025 0 INSC 133 held that before attracting Section 113B of the 1872 Act, ingredient of Section 304B IPC must be proved. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below:- “8. The presumption under Section 113-B will apply when it is established that soon before her death the woman has been subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Therefore, even for attracting Section 113-B, the prosecution must establish that the deceased was subjected by the appellant to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death. Unless these facts are proved, the presumptions under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked.” 8.1 To similar effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in Shoor Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 0 INSC 713 . 8.2 The law is settled that the word ‘soon’ used in Section 304B IPC is to be given interpretation by proximity test and that ‘soon’ is not to be taken by literal meaning of immediately before the incident. The Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 INSC 707 reiterated the earlier decision of Thakkan Jha & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (2004) 13 SCC 348 , wherein it was held that:- “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.” 9. The testimony of PW2- Ramesh is to the effect that the mother-in-law of the deceased was shouting and on her asking, he went to the roof of their house where he saw the deceased in burnt condition and that the door of the roof was bolted from inside. It was on his unbolting the door, the in-laws were able to come to the roof. It was on his unbolting the door, the in-laws were able to come to the roof. He further stated that after the deceased was brought down from the roof she eight to ten times repeated to her mother-in-law that she committed a mistake and should be saved by taking to the hospital and at that time appellants- Purshottam Sindhi and Gopal Sindhi were not there. 10. PW4- Smt. Devi in her examination-in-chief stated that amount of Rs.40,000/- was spent on marriage and the gifts worth Rs.10,000/- were given on birth of the grandson. Her testimony was to the effect that her son-in-law was not having a regular source of income and due to financial constraints there was dispute between the couple and with the in-laws of the deceased. On few occasions they had come to stay with the parents of the deceased and were sent back after pacifying. She stated that when a gold ornament of the deceased was lost and Purshottam Sindhi asked for Rs.10,000/- so that he can purchase a new ornament to which she refused. 11. It would be relevant to note that she had not given any specific incident of harassment for dowry and the deceased being subjected to cruelty just before the incident. The specific details of the time when money was demanded for purchasing new ornament in place of the lost one was not mentioned. 12. PW5- Nirmala Devi deposed that after having quarrel with the in-laws, the deceased along with her husband came to her parents house and stated that they intend to stay separately. They stayed there for nine to eleven days and were sent back by making them understand that they should go back to their house. She also failed to give any specific details of cruelty or harassment for dowry. 13. PW6- Ram Chandra testified that he informed Arjun Das that a relative has informed him that the deceased was set on fire and was being taken to the hospital. In cross-examination he stated that the incident of the ornament having been lost and demand of rupees ten thousand for purchasing new one was one year prior to death of deceased. 14. Complainant- Arjun Das deposed that the deceased once told him that Gopal Sindhi had beaten her but he made her understand that she should live peacefully. In cross-examination he stated that the incident of the ornament having been lost and demand of rupees ten thousand for purchasing new one was one year prior to death of deceased. 14. Complainant- Arjun Das deposed that the deceased once told him that Gopal Sindhi had beaten her but he made her understand that she should live peacefully. It would be relevant to note that there is no mention of date, month and year of the incident. This witness has admitted in his cross-examination that at that time, Purshottam was a compounder and the atmosphere at home was fine but after he left the compounder’s job, there were quarrels at home. After that, Purshottam did not get a job. There used to be a quarrel between Purshottam and Jyoti over the fact that Purshottam had no regular source of income. 15. It is an admitted fact that the deceased set herself on fire. From testimonies of witnesses PW4 to PW7 no support is drawn for prosecution that soon before the incident the deceased was met with cruelty or harassed for dowry. Rather, P.W.2 – Ramesh, who is neighbour of the in-laws house of deceased, has admitted that Purshottam and Gopal were not present at home and reached the house later. None of the witnesses gave any specific incident rather from reading the testimony as a whole along-with the cross-examination, the picture that emerges is that due to financial constraints there were regular wear and tear in the matrimonial relationship. It is consistent in statements of PW4 to PW7 that on number of occasions both deceased and her husband after quarreling with in-laws of deceased had come to stay with them and were sent back on tempers having being cooled. This behaviour of the family was not only met with the deceased but to her husband also. 16. Another aspect that needs consideration is that PW7- Arjun Das stated that in hospital the deceased told him that as a result of physical abuse she reached a stage where she was left with no other option but to take this extreme step. For two reasons the statement of Arjun Das is not reliable for conviction u/s 498A and 304B IPC. Firstly, no allegation of physical abuse was made by PW7- Arjun Das in the FIR. For two reasons the statement of Arjun Das is not reliable for conviction u/s 498A and 304B IPC. Firstly, no allegation of physical abuse was made by PW7- Arjun Das in the FIR. Moreover, according to PW-7 the deceased told him in hospital that she took this extreme step consequent to harassment for dowry, whereas PW21- Hakim Singh specifically stated that doctors refused to certify that the deceased at that time was in a fit condition for the statement to be recorded. It is also pertinent to note that doctor and the compounder present in the ward at the relevant time were not produced by the prosecution in the witness box to establish whether deceased was in a fit state to give her statement or not. 17. For invoking presumption u/s 113B of 1872 Act, the prosecution has to prove that deceased soon before her death was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with dowry. In the present case, the cause of death is burn injuries i.e. unnatural death; the incident took place within four years of the marriage; but most importantly none of the witnesses of the prosecution proved that deceased was harassed for dowry. Testimony of PW4 – mother of the deceased and PW6 & PW7– brothers of the deceased are to the effect that bone of dispute among husband, wife and the in-laws of decased was financial constraints. No regular source of income of Purshottam Sindhi adversely affected the couple for making two ends meet. The economic circumstances were the reason for relations facing troubled water. 18. As regard incident of demanding money by Purshottam Sindhi for purchasing new ornament to replace the lost ornament, no specific details were mentioned by the witnesses. Rather PW6 stated that incident occurred a year prior to the death of the deceased. The intervening period in absence of any other material shall not cover the incident under the phrase ‘soon before her death’. 19. Rather PW6 stated that incident occurred a year prior to the death of the deceased. The intervening period in absence of any other material shall not cover the incident under the phrase ‘soon before her death’. 19. The Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Singh (supra) dealing with the issue:- the harassment which is said to have been caused in connection with the demand of dowry other than the incident in question, as noticed herein before, was one year prior to the incident held: - “some harassment which had taken place one year prior to the death without something more, in out opinion, could not have been considered to be a cruelty which had been inflicted soon before the death of the deceased. It does not satisfy the proximity test.” 20. The prosecution failed to prove three requirements of Section 304B IPC and ingredients of Section 498A IPC and in such circumstances the onus cannot be shifted on accused by invoking Section 113B of 1872 Act. 21. The appeal qua Purshottam Sindhi and Gopal Sindhi is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.1996 is quashed. The appellants- Purshottam Sindhi & Gopal Sindhi are on bail, need not to surrender and their bail bonds are discharged. 22. The appellants- Purshottam Sindhi and Gopal Sindhi are directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each and surety bond in the like amount in accordance with provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C./481 of B.N.S.S. before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within four weeks from the date of this judgment, to the effect that in the event of filing of special leave petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The bail bonds will be effective for a period of six months.