IMPORTANT POINT
It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any straightjacket formula to determine what would constitute soon before in the context of Section 304B, IPC. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 304B, 498A and 201-Dowry death-Prosecution of husband and appellants, parents of husband-Trial of husband separated as he was found to be juvenile-Deceased died within seven years of marriage-Defence case that she died on account of an attack of diarrhoea and vomiting-She was admitted in hospital in critical condition-Appellants did not inform parents of deceased about her death-Evidence of parents and relations of deceased that there was a persistent demand for gold ornaments ever since marriage of deceased-Demand last made was just 15 days before the occurrence-Dead body cremated same night in suspicious manner-Appellants rightly convicted for offences.
       Held : The evidence adduced by the prosecution, therefore, clearly establishes that the appellants made a persistent demand for some gold ornaments and the first demand was made when the deceased went to her matrimonial home on the first occasion and returned after 5-6 days. She complained to her mother about the treatment meted out to her. She also narrated her woes to her brother and father. The evidence of her mother Ramdei (PW-7) is clear and categoric that her daughter had been assaulted by the appellants in her matrimonial home and she had seen signs of violence on the person of the deceased. The evidence on record also discloses that on other occasions also when the deceased went to her matrimonial home the demand was repeated. The evidence of her brother Lalaram (PW-3) and her uncle Kalicharan (PW-4) in this regard is eloquent. Even on the last occasion when she was about to leave for her matrimonial home and her husband had come to fetch her, he again made the demand but with a view to pacify him, Shankarlal (PW-5), father of the deceased, assured him that he will make necessary arrangement. While leaving her parental home, the deceased had wept and told her uncle that if the demand of the appellants was not met, they will not let her live. About 15 days after her last departure the parents of the deceased suddenly came to know that she had died. The evidence on record, therefore, clearly establishes that there was persistent demand for gold ornaments and she was being persistently ill treated by the appellants for not bringing those gold ornaments, and her death occurred in circumstances which cannot be considered to be normal. (Para 14)
       The words "soon before" found in Section 304B IPC have come up for consideration before this Court in large number of cases. This Court has consistently held that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any straitjacket formula to determine what would constitute "soon before" in the context of Section 304B IPC. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 16)
       The evidence on record, therefore, reveals that the deceased was taken to the Morena Hospital in a critical condition when she was about to die and in fact she died within 1/2 an hour of her admission in the hospital. The appellants made no effort to inform the parents of the deceased about her death and on the contrary cremated the body of the deceased the same night in a suspicious manner. (Para 12)
       We are, therefore, satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellants. We, therefore, concur with the view of the courts below and affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellants. (Para 20)

JUDGMENT

B.P. Singh, J.-The appellants in this appeal are the parents of Kalicharan, who was married to Gangabai (deceased) about 4 years before the date of occurrence. Her death in circumstances not considered normal within seven years of her marriage led to the prosecution of the appellants as well as Kalicharan and eight other relatives and villagers charged variously of the offences under Sections 498A, 304B and 201 IPC. The trial of Kalicharan, husband of the deceased, was separated as he was found to be a juvenile and his case transferred to the Juvenile Court for his trial. The appellants alongwith eight other accused persons were put up for trial before the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Sessions Case No. 252 of 1989. The learned Sessions Judge by his judgment and order of February 4, 1992 found the appellants guilty of the offences with which they were charged but acquitted the remaining accused persons who were charged of the offence under Section 201 IPC finding no evidence to support the charge. The appellants herein were sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 498A IPC; to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 304B IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 201 IPC. The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench of Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1992 but the High Court, finding no merit in the appeal, dismissed the same upholding their conviction and sentence.

2. It is not the dispute that deceased Gangabai was married to Kalicharan about 4 years before the occurrence which occurred on May 19, 1989. While the prosecution contended that the death of Gangabai occurred under circumstances otherwise than normal and she was earlier subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellants as well as by her husband and soon before her death also she was meted out such treatment by them in connection with demand for dowry, the defence contended that Gangabai died on account of an attack of diarrhoea and vomiting, and inspite of the fact that the appellants had taken her for medical treatment to the hospital at Morena where she was treated by the doctors. According to the defence the allegation against the accused that they had made persistent demand of dowry was false and that they had been falsely implicated on account of the fact that some amount had been advanced to Shankar Lal (father of the deceased) by them which remained unpaid.

3. The trial court as well as the High Court have subjected the prosecution evidence to critical scrutiny and have concurrently reached the conclusion that so far as the appellants herein are concerned, the charges under Sections 498A; 304B and 201 IPC are fully established.

4. Shri S.K. Gambhir, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants vehemently contended before us that there was really no substance in the allegation made by the prosecution. He further submitted that the deceased suffered a bout of vomiting accompanied with diarrhoea and when they found that her condition was not stable, the appellants immediately removed her to the Morena Hospital where she was treated by the doctors concerned, but inspite of the their best efforts, she did not survive. He also submitted that in any event the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under Section 304B IPC since there was no evidence to prove that the deceased had been subjected to harassment and cruelty by the appellants soon before her death in connection with any demand of dowry. It therefore, followed that the presumption under Section 304B could not be drawn against them and there was no other evidence to prove that the appellants had caused the death of deceased Gangabai.

5. The prosecution has examined several witnesses to prove its case which includes Lalaram (PW-3), brother of the deceased; Kalicharan (PW-4), uncle of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 416

IMPORTANT POINTIt is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any straightjacket formula to determine what would constitute soon before in the context of Section 304B, IPC. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any straightjacket formula to determine what would constitute soon before in the context of Section 304B, IPC. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.