IMPORTANT POINTS
Section 304B, IPC and section 113B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 supplement each other in the matter of statutory presumption of guilt when a wife dies of unnatural death within seven years of marriage.
‘Dowry’ explained.
Soon before occurring in Section 304B, IPC and section 113B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 should pass proximity test, but is not synonymous with 'immediately before'.
'Soon before death' implies that there ought to be a proximate and live link between the impact of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death. The expression should be construed in a fair and pragmatic manner.

JUDGMENT

Amitava Roy, J.

1. Aggrieved by the reversal of the verdict of his acquittal from the charge of having committed the offences Under Section 498A and Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'Indian Penal Code) and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Appellant has mounted this challenge against the judgment and order dated 15.02.2007 rendered by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 1076 of 2000.

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The prosecution is traceable to an oral information lodged by Smt. Shivamma, the neighbour of the deceased Gangalakshmamma (for short 'Ganga'), to the effect that on her return to her house at about 5.30 p.m. on 08.09.1993, she found Ganga hanging by the neck by a rope from the roof. She also mentioned that a folding chair was found on the cot. According to the informant on this sight, she lost her consciousness and when she regained the same, she found that the body of Ganga had been meanwhile removed from the hook of the roof and had been laid in the house. She, however, expressed ignorance about the person or the agency, who/which had brought down the body.

4. On receipt of this information, the Hebbal Police Station, Bangalore City, registered the same as UDR No. 34/1993 Under Section 174 Code of Criminal Procedure Autopsy on the dead body was conducted on 09.09.1993 at M.S. Ramaiah Medical College, Bangalore, which confirmed that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. The post mortem report also disclosed a ligature mark on the front, sides and back of neck of the deceased. The ligature material was identified to be a light green nylon rope measuring 286 cms in length and 4 cms in diameter. Dr. J. Kiran, who performed the post mortem examination, mentioned in the report that the rope did fit into the ligature mark and was capable of bearing the weight of the body.

5. Be that as it may, on 10.09.1993 Shri Siddagangaiah, the maternal uncle of the deceased, lodged a complaint about the death of her niece Ganga on 08.09.1993 with the same Police Station. The information revealed that the deceased had been given in marriage to the Appellant on 20.06.1991 and that on that occasion, gold ornaments and cash of Rs. 20,000/- had been given by way of dowry. It was alleged that for about six months after the marriage, the couple lived happily and thereafter the husband of the deceased (the Appellant herein) developed some illicit relationship with another girl of Nayak community and as a consequence, started to despise the deceased and often assaulted her in an inebriated condition besides intimidating and harassing her by demanding Rs. 50,000/- as dowry. It was mentioned as well that about two months prior to the demise of the deceased, she had come to the village of the informant and had stayed there for a month for being unable to bear the harassment meted out to her by her husband. The informant asserted that during that time, the deceased had disclosed to him and his wife about the persistent demand of the Appellant -husband for Rs. 50,000/- by way of dowry. The informant mentioned as well about an incident of about the same time, i.e. two months before the incident, when the Appellant-husband had visited their house at Dasanapura village in the midnight in an intoxicated state, holding a knife in hand. According to the informant, the Appellant threatened to kill her (deceased) and the family members if the deceased was not able to arrange for Rs. 50,000/-. The informant mentioned as well of another incident thereafter, when the deceased had come to their house stating that her husband had tried to murder her and also showed to them the marks of assault on her body. The informant stated too that the deceased had disclosed to them that unless Rs. 50,000/- as demanded by her husband was paid, he would kill her. According to the informant, he thereafter did v