IMPORTANT POINT
Expression "soon before her death" in Section 304B IPC or in Section 113B Evidence Act would normally imply that interval should not be much between concerned cruelty and death in question.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Menace of dowry outs across caste, religion and geographical location. In the instant case, victim belonged to a remote village in the State of Kerala. The two appellants stood charged for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ). The trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to establish the accusations and directed their acquittal.

2. In appeal preferred by the State, the judgment of acquittal was set aside and the accused persons were found guilty under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC and each was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years.

3. The victim in this case was one Sherifa (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ) and the accused-appellants 1 and 2 were her husband and mother-in-law respectively.

4. According to the prosecution following is the factual scenario:

The deceased was married to the appellant No.1 (A-1) on 19.1.1989. At the time of marriage, there was an agreement to pay Rs. 35000/- as dowry. Since the entire amount was not paid, the accused was subjected to mental and physical harassment. On 29.8.1991 about 9.00 a.m. she committed suicide by jumping into a well. Information was lodged by Kunhimoidi (PW-1), a neighbour and investigation was undertaken. The case was registered under the heading unnatural death . On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Seventeen witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version, while the accused persons pleaded innocence and examined 3 witnesses. According to them, the deceased had accidentally fallen into the well and it was not a case of suicide. As noted above, the Trial Court found that there were some unexplained discrepancies in the evidence of the main witnesses i.e. PWs 5, 6 and 15 relating to demand of dowry and, therefore, it would be unsafe to convict accused persons.

5. In appeal, the High Court found that the approach of the Trial court was not correct. It found that the evidence of PWs 6 and 15 clearly established the commission of offence by the accused persons.

6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the accused-appellants submitted that there was no dispute regarding payment of a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as dowry. In fact, this amount was kept in a bank account in the name of the deceased and this itself negates the plea of prosecution that there was greed for money. Further, the deceased had herself withdrawn money and given the same to somebody. The claim of Kunhammed and Kunhi Choyi (PWs 6 and 15 respectively) that they witnessed the occurrence is improbabilised by the evidence of Prema (PW-5) who was stated to be an eyewitness. Her evidence rules out theory of suicide and the possibility of PWs 6 and 15 seeing the alleged occurrence. The well admittedly was not covered on the sides and it was possible as was held by the Trial Court that the deceased had slipped. Since the view taken by the Sessions Judge was a possible view, the High Court should not have interfered with the same. Furthermore, the evidence of prosecution in no way shows that the accused No.2 allegedly demanded dowry. Moideen (PW-8) had himself stated that he did not have any idea if any amount in excess of Rs. 30,000/- was demanded as dowry. There was no harassment after the payment of Rs. 30,000/-. Therefore, there was no question of any demand immediately prior to the alleged occurrence. Section 304B has therefore no application.

7. In response, learned counsel for the State of Kerala submitted that both the Trial Court and the High Court have discarded the plea taken by the accused persons that the deceased accidentally fell into the well. The Trial court proceeded on erroneous premises to hold that the demand of dowry has not been established overlooking the cogent evidence of Moideen and Kunhammed (PWs 8 and 12 respectively). Moreover, PWs.3 and 4 who were neighbours categorically stated about the harassment meted out to the d