The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence to prove criminal charges beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases of dowry death.

( 1 ) APPELLANTS Kamlesh, Ram Milan and Laxmi Bai have been convicted under Ss. 304-B, 306 and 498-A, IPC, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years, seven years and two years respectively.

( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that deceased Anita committed suicide by hanging herself on 27-6-1997 in her matrimonial home in village Shivrajpur within three years of her marriage with accused Kamlesh. Accused Ram Milan is her Jeth and accused Laxmibai is her Jethani. The information relating to her unnatural death was given by accused Kamlesh to the police on the same day as per Ex. P-11. The parents of the deceased were informed about her death by accused Ram Milan and they were present when the Panchnama Ex. P-5 of her dead body was prepared.

( 3 ) THE prosecution case is that the accused persons were demanding an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and a T. V. as dowry; Anita used to complain to her parents about this demand; she was being harassed by them on that count and an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was paid to them a month prior to her death. Panchamlal (P. W. 6) father of the deceased submitted a written report Ex. P-7 to the Police on 9-9-1997 stating therein that it was a case of dowry death.

( 4 ) THE accused persons pleaded not guilty and their defence is that they never demanded any dowry nor caused any harassment to Anita.

( 5 ) THE trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record held that the accused persons demanded dowry and harassed the deceased before her death and on these findings convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above.

( 6 ) IN this appeal it is argued that there is no proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is pointed out that the statements of the parents and Naresh (P. W. 8) were recorded on the date the inquest was made or a day thereafter and in those statements they did not admittedly make any allegation regarding demand of any dowry by the accused persons or any harassment at their hands and therefore, their subsequent version must be held to be after thought and untrue. It is also contended that the FIR Ex. P-7 was made as late as two months and ten days and, therefore, such a report does not have any corroborative value and it is said that this report was made because the accused persons refused to pay an amount of Rs. 7,000/- to the parents of the deceased which they claimed to have incurred as expenses in the marriage. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses has been criticised as discrepant and wholly unsatisfactory and it is said to be insufficient to prove the criminal charges. On the other hand it is submitted on behalf of the State that the findings of the trial Court are correct.

( 7 ) THE evidence on record has been scanned by this Court in light of the arguments of both the sides. The ingredients of the offence of dowry death punishable under S. 304-B, IPC are (a) the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (b) such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (c) soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband; (d) such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand for dowry and (e) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. (Kans Raj v. State of Punjab AIR 2000 SC 2324 : (2000 Cri LJ 2993 ). In the present case there is no dispute with regard to the first two ingredients, namely, the death of Anita was suicidal and therefore it was "otherwise than under normal circumstances" and this death was within seven years of her marriage. The points for determination are whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons in connection with the demand of dowry and whether it was "soon before" her death.

( 8 ) IT is an admitted fact that Panchamlal (P. W. 6), Batasiabai (P. W. 11) who