IMPORTANT POINT
Expression "soon before" in Section 304B IPC would normally imply that interval should not be much between concerned cruelty or harassment and death in question and there must be a proximate and live link between effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and concerned death.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Marriages are made in heaven, is an adage. A bride leaves the parental home for the matrimonial home, leaving behind sweet memories therewith a hope that she will see a new world full of love in her groom s house. She leaves behind not only her memories, but also her surname, gotra and maidenhood. She expects not only to be a daughter in law, but a daughter in fact, Alias! The alarming rise in the number of cases involving harassment to the newly wed girls for dowry shatters the dreams. Inlaws are characterized to be outlaws for perpetrating a terrorism which destroys matrimonial home. The terrorist is dowry, and it is spreading tentacles in every possible direction.

2. With a view to curb the spiraling number of cases where demand for dowry leads to loss of life, Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 1986 brought about sweeping changes in the panel statutes, and Sections 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ) and Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the Evidence Act ) came to be enforced.

3. One Sarita (hereinafter referred to as deceased ) committed suicide by consuming poison on 14.4.1999. She was married to accused Surender on 26.11.1995. Other appellants Hiralal and Angoori Devi were her father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. Since the death was unnatural, information was lodged with police and investigation was undertaken.

4. Grievance was made by the family members of deceased that she was subjected to torture for dowry and that led to her suicide. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was placed for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 304B and 498A IPC. Trial was conducted by learned Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions case No. 11/1999 and the appellants were found guilty under Sections 304B and 498A read with Section 34 IPC. They were sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- each with default stipulation of SI for one year, and also one year RI with fine of Rs. 5000/- with stipulation of SI for one month for the two substantive offences respectively. It is relevant to note that for substantiating the accusations twelve witnesses were examined. Bahadur Singh (PW 1), Sobha Rani (PW 5), Ratti Ram (PW 10), Manju (PW 11), the father, brother, cousin brother and sister, respectively of the deceased spoke about the dowry demands. The testimony was accepted to be truthful and cogent by the trial Court.

5. The matter was carried in appeal before the Delhi High Court. By the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge reduced the sentence to 3 years RI instead of 10 years RI in respect of accused-appellants Hiralal and Angoori keeping in view their old age. The fine imposed was maintained but the default sentence was reduced to six months, custodial sentence and fine for offences punishable under Section 498A were maintained. In case of appellant-Surender, the sentence was reduced to 7 years in respect of first offence, while for the second offence the sentence was maintained.

6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that ingredients of Section 304-B and 498A are not made out. There was no evidence regarding any dowry demand. On the contrary it was confirmed that at the time of marriage there was no demand for dowry. It is of relevance to note that while deceased was married to accused-Surender, her sister, Manju (PW 11) was married to Virender, elder brother of Surender. Both the marriages were solemnized on the same date. It has been accepted by the prosecution witnesses that there was no demand for valuable articles at any point subsequent to the marriage in case of Manju. If the demand was made for deceased as alleged, there is no reason as to why a departure was made in case of her sister. The evidence of relatives (PW 1, PW 2, PW 10 and PW 11) does not inspire any confidence. Before the alleged suicide, there were differences between the deceased and her husband for which allegations w