Abdul Gafoor, J.

Appellants/accused faced conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304 B read with Section 34 IPC. First accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and second accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years under Section 304B read with section 34 IPC. They are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively. The conviction is appealed against.

2. The marriage between the first appellant and deceased Soudha is not disputed. It was on 28.8.1997. Immediately after one month of the marriage, first accused, the husband of the victim, left for Gulf. Thereafter she was alone except for a few occasion with 2nd accused, her mother in law. Immediately after the marriage, both 1st accused and the victim visited her parental house. There was demand for dowry in the form of 25 cents said to be promised by PW1, father of the victim. There was frequent demand thereafter. That 1st accused returned from Gulf after nearly about two years. There was occasion for PW1 to go to the house of accused persons in connection with the demand. He sought for time because of economic disability, as he could not meet the demand for 25 cents of land immediately. After a few days of his return, the victim committed suicide jumping into the well in the compound nearby to the residence of accused. It was in the above circumstances, charge sheet was laid against the accused, the husband and mother-in-law of the victim under Section 304 B of the I.P.C.

3. The prosecution examine PWs.1 to 15 and marked Exts.P1 to P7 documents. Exts.D1 to D3 were marked on the defence side. MOs.1 to 5 were identified. No witness was examined for the defence.

4. Assailing the conviction, it is contended by the appellants that in order to lay a charge under Section 304 B, there should have been evidence for demand of dowry and cruelty and harassment in that regard “soon before her death”. In this case there was absolutely no evidence for demand of dowry. Really PW1 had promised to give 25 cents of land in the name of the victim. It was a promise without demand. He had not fulfilled the promise. Therefore, there was no demand for dowry at all, to attract the ingredients of Section 304 B. The 1st accused had been in Gulf. The incident occurred a few days after he returned from Gulf. There was no evidence of any cruel behaviour on his part or even harassment-demanding dowry during his short stay in India just before the incident. So nothing had taken place soon before her death in the form of cruelty demanding dowry. Moreover it is contended that admittedly PW1 the father of the victim he had come to the residence of accused 1 and 2 immediately after the arrival of 1st accused from Gulf and had settled the matter. When the issue thus stood settled, there arises no question of any harassment for dowry.

5. It is further contended that the evidence of PWs.1 and 9, the parents of the victim, is only an interested version. Even in cross examination PW1 admitted that nobody had demand for 25 cents of property. So going by his evidence, the charge under Section 304 B can be made out. The evidence given by PW9 reveals embroideries and exaggerations as compared to that of PW1. So PW9, the mother of the victim, cannot be believed. Even admittedly by the parents, they did not have any information about the victim at least, for three days prior to the incident. The expression “soon before” has to be understood in the circumstances of each case. In this case, therefore, there was no demand for dowry or harassment or cruelty soon before the incident, it is submitted.

6. PW8, though a neighbour, had a case against the family of the accused persons, as there was a complaint by her against the brother of 1st accused. Therefore, her version has to be appreciated, keeping this aspect in mind. There is no independent evidence, in this case, to convict the appellants/accused under Section 304 B. The decision reported in Sham L