STATE OF GUJARAT vs PATEL PRAVINKUMAR KASHIRAM & ORS

By way of this Appeal, the State of Gujarat has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in

Sessions Case No. 93 of 1994 dated 28th September 1994 vide which, the present respondents/accused have been acquitted by the trial Court

for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 304 [B], 498A of the Indian Penal Code [""IPC"" for short] and Sections 3 & 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The facts leading to the Appeal as unfolded during trial are that - the complainant Chhaganbhai Virchanddas Patel, resident of Khali has two

sons and three daughters. His son Vishnu is eldest among them and daughter Ramila is younger to him, Kailashben is younger to Ramila and Savita

is younger to Kailashben. Whereas, his son Ashwin is youngest among all his children. His daughter Ramila''s marriage was solemnized at village

Gorad with one Mahendrakumar Jesangbhai Patel. But, as they did not have harmonious relations with each other, they took divorce. As his son

Vishnu''s marriage was also solemnized there, he also had taken divorce. After passage of twelve months, it was decided to solemnized marriage

of his daughter Ramila with Pravinkumar Patel, resident of Dhanlaxmi Society, Mahesana and in exchange thereof, it was also decided to solemnize

marriage of Bhikhiben - sister of Pravinkumar with complainant''s son named Vishnu. Thereby, these marriages were solemnized by way of such

exchange. Prior to two months of lodgment of the complaint, when his daughter got remarried, a gold chain was given to her, but it was forcefully

taken away from her by Pravinkumar ie., the son-in-law of the complainant. The complainant''s daughter Ramila told him that the said gold chain

was sold out by her husband-Pravinkumar. Thereafter, the complainant advised his daughter to live harmoniously at her inlaws'' and sent her back

by stating that he would purchase another gold chain for her. Prior to one week of the incident i.e. on 26/09/1993, Ramila again came at the house

of complainant and stated in presence his son, his wife and his brother Bhagwandas that her parents-in-law and husband have sent her to bring Rs.

20,000/- from her parents which they need for their other house. She further stated that she has been clearly told by her in-laws that they will not

allow her to enter into the house unless she brings the said amount. All present there have pacified her and asked her to send her father-in-law

Kashiram or mother-in-law Joitiben to discuss in this regard. When Ramila was asked to go to her in-laws house after her brief stay for three days

at the complainant''s house, she denied to go there without money. She told that her parents-inlaw and husband would not allow her to live there

peacefully without money. As a result of that the complainant told her that he or his brother will come to meet her in-laws in this regard in two days

and thereby, she was persuaded to go to her in-laws house. Due to death occurred at Kanesara village in the morning on 31-12-1993, there was

condolence meeting and the complainant went there to attend the same with some persons of his area, there were persons from Mahesana. As one

of them came to know that we hail from Khali village, he stated that a woman in Dhanlakshmi Society, who also hails from Khali village died due to

burning. On knowing this, they inquired further, but they did not state anything else. Moreover, the complainant does not even know him. As his

daughter Ramila lived in Dhanlakshmi Society, the complainant, his brother-Bhagwandas, Vishnubhai and Amratbhai Shankarbhai hired a jeep and

came to Unjha to see her. He along with his nephew Kantibhai went to bungalow no. 19B in Dhanlakshmi Society, where his daughter resided and

found that there were many people standing surrounding the said house and Police was carrying out investigation at rear side of the house. When

he went into the house, dead body of his daughter was lying in the hall. Her external clothes were all burnt; she had sustained severe burn injuries

all over her body and died. Therefore, he asked her in- laws Kashiram Prabhudas, Joitiben and son-in-law Pravinkumar Kashiram who were

present there and they stated that some altercation had occurred on a previous night; resultantly, Ramila has taken such a step. Having said this,

they did not state anything else. But, he came to know via hearsay from surrounding persons that Ramila was strangled by her in-laws and

husband; kerosene was poured on her and she was set on fire at about 07:00 hrs in the morning. Moreover, he came to know the fact that

aforesaid three persons quarreled with Ramila throughout the night. Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint against all the respondents

[accused] at the Mahesana City Police Station. Having registered the said complaint, offence was registered against the said accused.

In the present case, in order to prove its case, prosecution examined complainant Chhaganlal Virchandbhai as prosecution witness no. 1 at Exh.

13; Bhagwanbhai Virchandbhai as PW-2 at Exh. 15; PW-3 Patel Kantilal Ambalal at Exh. 16; PW-4 Manubhai Hirabhai Barot at Exh. 17; PW-5

Kanubhai Hirabhai at Exh. 19; PW-6 Vijaykumar Rameshbhai Rami at Exh. 21; Medical Officer PW-7 Manilal Amthabhai Prajapati at Exh. 23

[who performed post mortem of the deceased]; PW-8 Kanubhai Ramshilal at Exh. 26; PW-9 Ramabhai Manilal at Exh. 27; PW-10 Maheshgiri at

Exh. 28; PW-11 Lilaben Ramgiri at Exh.29; PW 12 Laxmanji Ranaji at Exh. 30 and PW-13 Jassujo Rana at Exh. 47.

On the basis of evidence produced on the record by the prosecution - both ocular as well as documentary, it was held by the trial Court that the

prosecution had not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for commission of offences; as aforestated.

Accordingly, had acquitted all the accused persons [respondents herein]. Feeling aggrieved by the said acquittal, the State of Gujarat has filed the

present Criminal Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

We have heard Ms. Jirga D Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and Mr. Pratik B Barot, learned advocate

appearing on behalf of the respondents-original accused.

Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri appearing for the appellant-State questioned legality of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge urging that

the deceased was wife of the A1, being not in dispute, the circumstances which found favour with the trial Court namely, that the deceased and the

respondents were living together and last seen together; [b] it was for the respondents to give a reasonable explanation as to how she died, as they

were staying in a common house.

It is further submitted that the prosecution has clearly proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents accused by leading

cogent and satisfactory explanation. However, the learned trial Judge has committed an error in not believing the testimony of the material

witnesses. That, dowry demand was made by the respondents with the deceased Ramilaben; particularly of Rs. 20,000/= for purchasing a new

house from the complainant. As she did not fulfill the demand made by the respondents on a previous night of the incident, they indulged her in a

quarrel and on the next date, early in the morning, this incident took place in the house of the respondents. That, these versions were supported by

the prosecution witnesses, particularly father of the deceased as well as other relatives, however, the learned trial Court has committed a grave

error in not believing the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

It is further submitted that soon before the incident, respondents indulged in a quarrel with the deceased and this fact was supported by two

witnesses from the prosecution side. That, the medical evidence also supports prosecution case by examining Doctor who performed the post

mortem. That, the prosecution witnesses of the scene of offence have also supported the prosecution, however, the learned trial Judge has

committed grave error in not believing the testimony of panch witnesses. That, the family members of the deceased were not informed of the

incident having taken place immediately. That, after the incident, the accused never tried to break open the lock of the room or even tried to save

deceased-Ramilaben. That, the Investigating Officer has also supported the prosecution by proving statement of the prosecution witnesses who

have turned hostile.

That, the testimony of PW-10 Maheshgiri and PW- 11 Lilaben Ramgiri and other witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer and in

his deposition, their statements were proved by him before the Court below. That, due to dowry demand made by the respondentsaccused,

deceased Ramilaben had received burn injuries and the prosecution has successfully proved its case under Section 304B IPC, and therefore, the

order acquitting the respondents by the trial Court requires interference by this Court. Hence, it was requested by learned APP Mr. Jhaveri to

quash and set-aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 93 of 1994.

Per contra, learned advocate Shri Pratik Barot appearing on behalf of the respondents supported the judgment and findings arrived at by the

learned trial Court to urge that the cause of death of the deceased cannot be said to have been caused by strangulation. That, the circumstantial

evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the trial Court cannot be said to have formed a complete link in the chain to arrive at the guilt of

the respondents. That, the testimony of uncle of the deceased ie., PW-2 is completely contrary to the deposition of the father of the deceased.

That, in the instant case, father of the deceased is only a crucial witness from the prosecution side. That, PW-3 Patel Kantilal Ambalal in his

examination-in-chief has stated that demand of Rs. 20,000/= was made from the deceased, while in the cross-examination he admits of there being

no talk on this aspect and therefore, the whole case of the prosecution destroys. Though this witness supports the complainant, contrary to his

statement before the police on the aspect of demand of Rs. 20,000/= as dowry. That, mere cruelty or harassment; if any, would not be enough to

attract the provision of Section 304B IPC. That, no cogent evidence under Section 302 IPC was led by the prosecution. That, the prosecution has

clearly failed to establish homicidal death which is the primary, if not solitary basis, in order to convict the accused under Section 302 IPC. That,

no medical evidence is available with the prosecution and no question was asked to any of the prosecution witnesses examined before the Court

by putting a single question as to whether it was a homicidal death. It is further argued that it is the first and foremost aspect which was required to

be proved by the prosecution. On this issue, counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Madho

Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, [2010] 15 SCC 588 .

Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the demand of dowry as alleged by the prosecution is not fully corroborated by the

prosecution witnesses. That, it can be a case of suicide by the deceased, but not due to dowry demand made by the respondents. That, the charge

framed by the trial Court vide Exh. 8 was never proved by the prosecution. It is further submitted that Section 106 of the Evidence Act would

come into picture in such a case where death has occurred in a common house and presumption could be made against the accused persons. That,

although the same may be considered to be a strong circumstance, but that by alone in absence of any evidence of violence on the deceased

cannot be held to be conclusive evidence. On this issue, learned advocate Shri Barot for the respondents has placed strong reliance upon a

decision of the Apex Court in the case of Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., reported in [2009] 14 SCC 415.

Learned advocate for the respondents drew attention of this Court to another factual lacunae on the aspect of no marks of violence having

been found on the person of deceased-Ramilaben; nay marks of strangulation on her neck. That, it was not possible to enter into the room from

outside, as it was locked from inside the room. That, primary investigation was carried out under Section 174 CrPC as the accidental death, as

dowry death was never proved by the prosecution. In support of the above contention, learned advocate for the respondents referred to a

decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bimla Devi v. Rajesh Singh & Anr., reported in 2016 SAR [Criminal] 577.

Concluding his arguments, learned advocate Shri Pratik Barot appearing on behalf of the respondents urged this Court to dismiss the present

Appeal as the prosecution has completely failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Having carefully considered submissions made on behalf of the respective sides, it appears that on one side, the prosecution has tried to level

allegations against the respondents-accused for they having committed murder of deceased-Ramilaben by strangulation and pouring kerosene over

her body with the held of each other and on the other side, it is the case of the prosecution that there was a demand of dowry made by the

respondents-accused from the victim, and she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty prior to her death, and therefore, the accused have

committed an offence punishable under Sections 304B, 498A IPC read with Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, since the offence was

committed within a period of seven years of the marriage of deceased- Ramilaben.

In order to convict the respondents-accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the first and foremost aspect is to prove

homicidal death by the prosecution. The evidence available on record falls short to prove homicidal death of deceased-Ramilaben.

According to PW-1Chanalal Virchandbhai, father of the deceased, his daughter-Ramila was married to Pravinkumar about one and a half

years ago. Initially, they were at good terms, but thereafter, he started beating and harassing complainant''s daughter. He sold Ramila''s gold chain.

When Ramila was brought to her parental home to attend a social function of her elder brother, she told that her husband-Pravinkumar and her in-

laws have demanded Rs. 20,000/=. At that time, she was sent back to her matrimonial house.

This witness has also deposed that he came to know about this incident, when he went to Kanesara to attend a condolence meeting. Upon

being made aware about the incident, he came at the accused''s house and witnessed that her daughter was burnt. He came to know through

neighbours that when his daughter went to take shower, she was strangled. Thereafter, she was taken to the rear room of the residence where she

was burnt alive by pouring kerosene over her. His deposition is not corroborated by any other independent witness nor gets support from medical

evidences either.

Now, according to PW-2-BHagwandas Virchandbhai, who happens to be brother of the complainant and uncle of deceased Ramilaben, the

marriage of Ramilaben was solemnized with A1 Pravinkumar, who sold her gold chain some 3-4 months after their marriage. When Ramila

informed them about the incident, her father consoled her and told her that they will buy for her a new gold chain. Thereafter, inlaws of Ramilaben

told her to bring Rs. 20,000/= from her parents. When Ramilaben told these things to her father, she was sent her back to her matrimonial house,

after persuasions, and thereafter, this witness received news that Ramilaben was burnt. Nowhere from his deposition, it culls out that the accused

persons have strangulated Ramilaben and burnt her alive after pouring kerosene over her.

And whereas, PW-3 Kantibhai Ambaram in his deposition has stated that Ramilaben did not have a happy married life, as the accused

persons were harassing her. They also made a demand of Rs. 20,000/= from her and when she informed her father about the same, he sent her

back to matrimonial house, after persuasion and thereafter, he received news that Ramilaben has got burnt. When this witness went at Ramila''s

matrimonial house, he witnesses that Ramila was lying in burnt condition. This witness has not testified that any of the accused persons have

strangled Ramilaben and burnt her, after pouring kerosene. PW-4 Manubhbai Haribhai Barot is panch witness of Inquest Panchnama of the dead

body and PW-5 Kanubhai Haribhai is panch to the panchnama of the scene of occurrence, and whereas, PW-6 Vijaykumar Rameshbhai Rami is

panch to the Seizure panchnama which was drawn while collecting burnt clothes, carboy of kerosene, etc.

Analyzing deposition of Medical Officer-Manilal Amthabhai Prajapati, who entered the witness box as PW-7, it appears he performed

postmortem on deceased Ramilaben and observed second and third degree burn injuries on her body; except heels and toes of both the legs,

fingers and fingertips of both hands. No internal injuries were found on her body. This show that Ramilaben succumbed to burn injuries sustained

by her, but it is not proved that she was strangled and kerosene was poured on her to set her on fire.

Analyzing testimony of PW-8 Kanubhai Ramsilal, this witness has stated that when he was sleeping in his house on the day of incident, he

heard noises coming from the house of the accused who were indulged in quarreling with the wife of Pravinkumar and therefore, they were

persuaded by him and Ramilaben was made to sleep at Maheshbhai''s house. Even as per evidence of this witness, it is not proved that the

accused persons had strangled Ramila and caused her death by setting her on fire, after pouring kerosene on her.

PW-9 Ramabhai Manilal, PW-10 Maheshgiri Kantigiri and PW-11 Lilaben Ramgiri have not corroborated the case of prosecution in their

respective depositions, and therefore, they have been declared hostile witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution has clearly failed to prove that it was a

case of homicidal death. Now, the question remains whether due to demand of dowry by the respondents-accused, the deceased took extreme

step to end her life within a period of seven years of her marriage so as to attract Section 304B of IPC ?

Before proceeding any further, it would be apt to first take note of the fact that here is a case which admittedly is of unnatural death and the

death has taken within seven years of the marriage of the deceased. Therefore, prior to considering the prosecution case as well as defence

pleaded, it is desirable to extract the relevant provisions of Section 304B, which relates to dowry death :

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 sub-section, ''dowry'' shall have the same

meaning as in Section 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."" The above provision was inserted by Act 43 of 1986 and came into force with effect from 19.11.1986. There is no

dispute about the applicability of the above provision since the marriage and the death occurred in the year 1994 and 1996 respectively.

In order to convict an accused for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC, the following essentials must be satisfied :

[a] the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;

[b] such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;

[c] soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband;

[d] such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, demand for dowry.

When the above ingredients are established by reliable and acceptable evidence, such death shall be called dowry death and such husband or

his relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death. If the above-mentioned ingredients are attracted in view of the special provision, the court

shall presume and it shall record such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved by the accused. However, it is open to the accused to adduce

such evidence for disproving such conclusive presumption as the burden is unmistakably on him to do so and he can discharge such burden by

getting an answer through cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or by adducing evidence on the defence side.

Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 speaks about presumption as to dowry death which reads as under:

113-B. 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 has 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 purposes of this section, ''dowry death'' shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of

1860).

As stated earlier, the prosecution under Section 304B IPC cannot escape from the burden of proof that the harassment or cruelty was related

to the demand for dowry and such was caused ""soon before her death"". In view of the Explanation to the said section, the word ""dowry"" has to be

understood, as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 which reads as under:-

Definition of ''dowry''.-In this Act, ''dowry'' means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly-

(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or

(b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any

time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the

Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.

To attract the provisions of Section 304B, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that ""soon before

her death"" she was subjected to cruelty or harassment ""for, or in connection with the demand for dowry"". The expression ""soon before her death

used in Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. In fact, learned senior counsel

appearing for the appellants submitted that there is no proximity for the alleged demand of dowry and harassment. With regard to the said claim,

we shall advert to while considering the evidence led in by the prosecution. Though the language used is ""soon before her death"", no definite period

has been enacted and the expression ""soon before her death"" has not been defined in both the enactments. Accordingly, the determination of the

period which can come within the term ""soon before her death"" is to be determined by the courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of

each case. However, the said expression would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned

and the death in question. In other words, 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.

With these principles in mind, let us analyze evidence led in by the prosecution. Marriage of Ramilaben [since deceased] was solemnized with

Pravinkumar [A1]. Within seven years of their marriage, Ramila died due to burn injuries on 31st December 1993 at her matrimonial home. Father

of the complainant lodged a complaint against the accused persons by stating that before two months of the incident, when his daughter Ramilaben

visited them to attend a social function at her elder brother''s home, she told that her husband had sold the gold chain to which, the complainant

consoled her by stating that they will buy a new gold chain for her and thereby she was sent back to her matrimonial home with an advise to live in

a peaceful manner. However, before some two weeks of the incident, daughter of the complainant visited her parental home, at that time also, she

in presence of his brother, complainant''s wife and brother Bhagwandas informed that a demand of Rs. 20,000/= was made by the accused

persons and she was instructed to bring this amount from her father, as they have purchased a new house and they were in need of money. She

asserted that if she would not manage the amount, she would not be allowed to stay at her matrimonial home. After deliberation on the issue by the

family members, Ramilaben was sent back to her matrimonial home without managing the funds demanded by the accused, after some three days

of her arrival at parental home. Initially, she refused to go back to her matrimonial home, however, on an assurance from the complainant that the

issue will be resolved, she went back. On 31st December 1993, he was informed that Ramila was burnt and therefore, the complainant himself, his

brother-Bhagwandas, Vishnubhai and Amratbhai Shankarbhai hired a vehicle to reach at the residence of Ramilaben. When they reached at the

house, dead body of Ramilaben was lying in the hall. Her external clothes were all burnt. She had sustained severe burn injures all over her body

and succumbed to death, and when asked, the respondents told that there was some altercation, the previous night, and as a result thereof, Ramila

has taken such an extreme step. However, this witness came to know from the neighbours that Ramilaben was strangled by her in-laws and

kerosene was poured over her body and she was set on fire at about 7:00 hours in the morning. The complainant also came to know about the

quarrel which went on all throughout the night at the residence of her daughter, and hence, a complaint was lodged by him against the accused

persons. PW-1, who happens to be father of the deceased Ramila has stated before the Court that marriage life of his daughter in the beginning

was quite well, but thereafter, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment at the hands of the respondents.

If we consider averments made by the complainant in his complaint, it appears that nowhere it is stated by him that any cruelty was perpetrated

upon his daughter by the respondents-accused persons. There is material contradiction in the testimony of these witnesses and complaint lodged

before the Police. Before the Court, the complainant has stated that when his daughter Ramilaben came at her parental home on the festival of

Diwali, he was informed that gold chain given to her was sold out by her husband ie., A1. This statement does not get support from any of the

independent witnesses. In fact, he has admitted in his cross examination that gold chain was given to her by the respondents. This witness has

further stated that at a social function arranged at his elder brother''s place, Ramilaben was invited where she informed of demand of Rs. 20,000/=

made by her mother-in-law. There is nothing on the record that at what time, or on which date, the alleged demand of Rs. 20,000/= was made by

the accused persons. There is material contradiction in the deposition of this witness with other prosecution witnesses on the aspect of demand of

dowry. The complainant further says that Ramila had informed about such demand in presence of his brother Bhagwandas Virchand, while his

brother feigned ignorance of any such talk. Thus, deposition of complainant is quite contrary to his brother ie., PW-2. It is accepted by this witness

that Ramila and daughter of A2 & A3 were married under satta system [exchange system] prevailing in their custom where there is no system of

dowry in their community. Thus, when there is no custom of dowry, indisputably there was no talk in respect of demand of any dowry at the time

of her marriage with A1. Further, evidence is available to the effect of second marriage of Ramilaben with Pravinkumar [A1], as she sought

divorce from her previous husband due to there being no harmonious relations with him. From the testimony of father, it is difficult to accept the

version of demand of Rs. 20,000/= by the accused persons. PW-2 Bhagwandas, who is brother of the complainant, has tried to support the

prosecution by saying that Ramila had informed him that accused persons have changed their residence, and therefore, her mother-in-law

demanded an amount of Rs. 20,000/= from her. This witness has stated that Ramila has informed this witness that demand of Rs. 20,000/= was

made to her by the accused persons. As per deposition of the complainant, demand of Rs. 20,000/= was made by the accused persons from his

daughter Ramila and Ramila informed him about the same in presence of his brother. While this witness ie., PW-2 has not stated that Ramila had

informed anything in respect of demand of Rs. 20,000/=. Thus, deposition of this witness is contrary to the deposition of the complainant. This

witness has also admitted that in their community, there is a custom of satta system, but there is no custom of dowry and therefore also, it would be

difficult to accept the allegation of demand of dowry of Rs. 20,000/= made by the accused persons. In fact, this witness in his cross examination

has admitted that whenever Ramilaben used to visit his house, no complaint in respect of any cruelty or harassment was ever made by her. This

witness has also admitted in his cross examination that in a religious function ""Katha"" which was arranged at his home, Ramila was invited and at

that time, no complaint of any nature was made by her. Whereas, the complainant says that in a social function at his brother''s home, Ramila was

invited where she stated of demand of Rs. 20,000/= made by her in-law, while his brother Bhagwandas says that there was no talk with the

deceased. Hence, demand of dowry of Rs. 20,000/= appears to be doubtful, so also the testimony of both these brothers appears to be contrary

to each other. Analyzing further, PW-3 Kantibhai Ambaram has stated that Ramila was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons, and

therefore, she was visiting her parental home. This witness has stated that when he visited Khali, Ramilaben was at her parental home where this

witness was informed by the deceased that she was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws. In fact, the complainant or his brother Bhagwandas have

never stated anything about harassment or cruelty meted out to Ramila at the hands of A2 & A3. Thus, testimony of this witness is completely

contrary to the deposition of complainant and his brother-Bhagwandas. This witness says that he was informed by deceased Ramilaben that

frequent demand of money was made by the accused persons. He has further deposed that before 2-3 days of incident, Ramila had paid her visit

at village Khali and at that time also, it was informed by her that a demand of Rs. 20,000/= was made by her in-laws. Here, this Court would like

to divert its attention to the deposition of complainant and his brother PW-2, as they have never stated in their testimonies that before 2-3 days of

the incident, Ramila came at village Khali and informed about the demand of dowry of Rs. 20,000/= made by her in-laws. Therefore, it can be said

that this witness has given contrary deposition. Complainant himself and PW-2 have stated that there was a demand made for the first time from

deceased Ramilaben, while this witness states that there was a frequent demand of money from her in-laws. Therefore, it would be difficult to rely

upon such a contradictory statements made by this witness. Thus, from the testimonies of these three witnesses, it is not proved by the prosecution

that any physical or mental cruelty was given by the accused persons and/or demand of Rs. 20,000/= was made by them. The other witnesses viz.,

PW-4 Manubhai Haribhai Barot is panch witness to the Inquest panchnama of the dead body; PW-5 Kanubhai Haribhai is panch witness of the

place of incident; PW-6 Vijaykumar Rameshbhai Rami is panch to the Seizure panchnama. From their evidence, it is not proved that any physical

or mental cruelty was given to the deceased Ramilaben. Medical Officer Manilal Amthabhai Prajapati who entered the witness box at PW-7 has

stated that due to burn injuries sustained by the deceased, she succumbed to death.

From the evidence produced on record by the prosecution, it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that due to dowry demand made by the

accused [inlaws] or due to physical and mental cruelty to her, Ramila committed suicide. PW-8 Kanubhai Ramsilal has stated that on the previous

night of the incident, there was some altercation at the residence of the accused persons and upon persuasion, Ramilaben was adviced to sleep at

the residence of Mahesbhai. From the deposition of this witness, it cannot be stated that any physical or mental cruelty was given to Ramila; except

that there was altercation amongst the family members in the neighbourhod. This witness has not stated about there being any frequent quarrels

with the deceased Ramilaben and/or any cruelty given to her, nor any evidence has come on the record through this witness of any demand of

dowry made by the accused persons. More so, PW-8 Kanubhai Ramsilal refused to accept that Ramila went to sleep at his house on the previous

night; as stated above. PW-9 Ramabhai Manilal; PW-10 Maheshgiri Kantigiri and PW-11 Lilaben Ramgiri have not supported the prosecution

case and they have turned hostile, and therefore, no benefit can be given to the prosecution by referring their testimonies before the Court, though

they were independent witnesses.

Further, it appears from the testimony of PW-12 Laxman that before registering the complaint, he had already started investigation on receiving

an order from PSO on 31st December 1993. He has informed PSO by wireless message about accidental death and inquest report was prepared

together with panchnama of the scene of offence by calling two panchas.

Thus, from the evidence as discussed hereinabove, no case is made out by the prosecution under Section 304B or under Section 498A IPC,

as the requirement of law is that the harassment and cruelty should be ""soon before her death"" and no evidence has come on record for this

purpose. In order to bring home conviction under Section 304B IPC, it will not be sufficient to only lead evidence showing that cruelty or

harassment had been meted out to the victim, but that such treatment was in connection with the demand of dowry. The phrase, ""soon before her

death"", no doubt is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks

before it, but the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative intent in providing such a radius of time by

employing the words ""soon before her death"" is to emphasis the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, has been the aftermath of such

cruelty or harassment.

We have given our careful and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions putforth by either side and have also scrutinized through the

entire material available on the record; including the impugned judgment. It appears that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond

reasonable doubt against the accused persons and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana was justified in doubting the veracity of the

prosecution case and recorded finding of acquittal of all the respondents herein. The said finding in no way suffers from vice of perversity.

In light of the above discussions, we find no compelling substantial reason to interfere with the judgment dated 28th September 1994 passed

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 93 of 1994.

Resultantly, the present Appeal fails and is, accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds stand cancelled.