NARAYANAMURTHYversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

                     [2008] 8 S.C.R. 403


                    NARAYANAMURTHY                               A
                              V.
            STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.
            (Criminal Appeal No. 876 Of 2008)
                       MAY 13, 2008
                                                                 8
  [S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

      Penal Code, 1860: ss. 498A and 304-8 r. w. Evidence Act,
1872, s.1138- Conviction under-Dowry death-No evidence
to show that the deceased was ill-treated or harassed by ac-     c
cused-husband for not satisfying 'dowry demand' or there was
demand of dowry 'soon before death' so as to compel her to
commit suicide - Evidence of witnesses, inconsistent - Held:
Conviction not proper-Even otherwise, mere evidence of cru-
elty and harassment not sufficient to bring in application of
                                                               0
s.3048 - It is to be established that 'soon before death' de-
ceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband
for or in connection with demand for dowry - Dowry Prohibi-
tion Act, 1961 - ss. 3,4 and 6.
      Dowry demand - Customary gifts - Given to son-in-Jaw E
- In ceremony prevalent in society- Held: Such gifts do not
fall within the ambit of 'dowry'.
      Criminal trial: Conviction of A-1 and A-3 - High Court
acquitted A-3 and upheld conviction of A-1 - Conviction chal-
lenged by A-1 - On facts, Held: High Court on the same set of F
evidence acquitted A-3 whose case was no better than that of
A-1 - Even the unproved allegations of harassment and de-
mand for dowry and evidence led by prosecution were similar
to that led against A-3 - Since High Court was right in holding
that evidence against A-3 was insufficient, therefore A-1 is a/so G
entitled to acquittal.
     Prosecution case was that deceased was daughter
of PW-1. On the occasion of marriage of deceased with A-
                             403                                 H
    404      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2008] 8 S.C.R.


A 1, PW-1 gave an amount of Rs.4000 in cash and five sov-
  ereign gold ornaments to A-1. After marriage, A-1 to A-3
  who were husband and parents-in-law of deceased,
  started harassing the deceased for not bringing sufficient
  dowry and were compelling her to bring more dowry from
B her parental house. On or about 7-8 days before the date
  of incident, deceased had gone to her parents house and
  informed them that she was being harassed and assaulted
  by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law for not
  satisfying their dowry demand. The parents of deceased
C persuaded her to go back to her in-law's house and she,
  accordingly, returned to her husband.
       On 11.11.1990, deceased allegedly bolted the door
  of the kitchen from inside and poured kerosene oil on her
  body and then set herself on fire. PW-15 and PW-16,
D neighbours of the accused, noticed smoke emanating
  from the kitchen of the house of the accused. They broke
  open the door and removed dead body of deceased from
  there. A-1, at the relevant time, was not present at his
  house.
E      A charge sheet was filed against A-1 and A-3 under
  ss.498A and 3048 IPC and ss.3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibi-
  tion Act. A-2 died during pendency of trial. The Trial Judge
  held that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged of-
  fences against A-1 and A-3 beyond reasonable doubt and,
F accordingly, acquitted them. On appeal, High Court con-        •
  victed A-1 for offences under ss.498A and 3048 of IPC,
  however, acquitted him for offence under ss. 3, 4 and 6 of
  the DP Act, 1961, whereas the judgment of acquittal
  passed by the trial Judge in favour of A-3 was upheld.
G Hence the present appeal by A-1.
          Allowing the appeal, the Court                         •
       HELD: 1.1. There is no evidence to show that there
  was any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with
H the demand of dowry. [Para 21] [417-8,C]
           NARAYANAMURTHY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA             405
                        ANDANR.

         Tota Singh v. State of Punjab (1987) 2 SCC 529; State A
    of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180; Shivaji
    Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793;
    Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225;
    Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 4 SCC 484; State of
    Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr (2007) 3 SCC. 755; Surajpal B
    Singh v. State AIR (1952) SC 52; Aher Raja Khima v. State of
•   Saurashtra AIR (1956) SC 217; Satvir Singh v. State ofPunjab
    (2001) 8 SCC 633; Hira Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi
    (2003) 8 SCC 80; Kaliyaperumal v. State cit T N. (2004) .9
    SCC 157 ; Kamesh Panjiyar Alias Kamlesh Panjiyar v. State c
    of Bihar (2005) 2 SGC 388; State of A. P v. Raj Gopa/ Asawa
    (2004) 4 SCC 470; Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2Q06) 1
    SCC 463; Biswajit Halder Alias Babu Halder & Ors. v. State of
    W B. (2008) 1 SCC 202 - relied on.
          1.2. The testimony of PW-2, brother of the deceased D
    is totally contrary to the version of PW-1 and secondly he
    has not corroborated the allegations made in complaint
    lodged at the first point of time by his father, ·on the basis
    of which a case was registered against A-1 and his par-
    ents. The evidence of this witness does not reveal that E
    the deceased was ever ill-treated or harassed by A-1 for
    not satisfying dowry demand or there was any demand
    of dowry "soon before her death" so as to drive the de-
    ceased to take extreme steps of committing suicide. [Para
    23] [418-B,C]                                                  F
          1.3. PW-3-maternal aunt of deceased deposed that
    after the marriage of deceased with A-1, deceased came
    to her house and informed that she was being tortured by
    her parents-in-law as she could not give silver plate to them.
    This portion of the statement of the witness js totally in- G
    .consistent with and contrary to the versions of PWs~f and
    2, who had not deposed that after marriage deceased had
    ever complained to them that she was given beatings· by
     her parents-in-law or was ever maltreated or harassed by
     them. PW-3 herself has contradicted her statement re- .H
    406       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 8 S.C.R.


A corded by the Investigating Officer under s.161, Cr.P.C.
  therefore, the evidence of this witness is of no help to the
  prosecution to hold A-1 responsible for committing the al-
  leged crime. The trial Judge appreciated the evidence of
  PWs.-1, 2 and 3 in its right perspective and concluded that
B the evidence of these star witnesses did not establish that
  the deceased was being ever harassed or ill-treated by the
  accused for bringing inadequate and insufficient dowry at
  the time of her marriage with A-1 or that the accused ever
                                                                      .   .
  demanded dowry articles from the parents of the deceased
c before she committed suicide. [Para 24) [418-D-H, 419-A]
           2. It is proved on record that father of deceased gifted
    a silver Panchapatre and silver plate to A-1 at the time of
    performing customary thread changing ceremony in con-
    nection with birth of girl child and such ceremony is preva-
0   lent in their society. Such gifts were not enveloped within
    the ambit of 'dowry'. The High Court on the same set of               •
    evidence had chosen to acquit A-3 whose case was no
    better than that of A-1. Even the unproved allegations of
    ill-treatment, harassment and demand for dowry and the
E   evidence led by the prosecution were similar to that led
    against A-3. High Court was right in holding that the evi-
    dence against mother (A-3) was insufficient and incon-
    sistent to convict her and it is the same against A-1. This
    deficiency in the evidence proved fatal to the prosecu-
F   tion case. Even otherwise, mere evidence of cruelty and
    harassment is not sufficient to bring in application of
    s.3048, IPC. It is to be established that 'soon before death',
    deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
    husband for, or 'in connection with demand for dowry'. In
G   the afore-mentioned situation, the provisions of s.3048,
    IPC, and s.1138 of the Evidence Act could not be attracted
    to hold A-1 guilty of the offence of dowry death and/or
    cruelty in terms of s.498A, IPC. The prosecution, there-
    fore, must be held to have failed to establish any case
H   against A-1. (Para 28) [420-E-H, 421-A,8]
        NARAYANAMURTHY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA'               407
         AND ANR. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

      CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION : CrifninalAp-              A
 peal No. 876 of 2008
      From the final Judgment & Order dated 5.12.2006 of the
 High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. Appeal No. 903/
·2000
                                                                   B
     P. Vishwariatha Shetty, Vikas Rajipura, K.B. Sandeep and
E.C. Vidyasagar for the Appellant.
    · Sanjay R. Hegde for the Respondents.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                   c
      LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. 1. Leave granted.
        2. Appellant-Narayanarnurthy (A-1) has filed this appeal
  against the judgment and order-dated 05.12.2006 passed by
  the Divi5ion Bench of the High Court ofKarnataka at Banga-       0
  lore in Criminal Appeal No.903/2000, whereby and whereun-
  der appeal filed by the State against the judgment and order
  dated 19.04.2000 passed by the 111 Additional Sessions Judge,
  Bangalore City, in S.C. No.178/1995 acquitting the appellant
  and Shivabhushanamma (A-3), for the offences under. Sections     E
  498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code [for short 'IPC'] and
  Secti.ons 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, has
. been allowed in part and A-1 has been convicted and sentenced
  under Section 498A and Section 304B, IPC.
        3. In all, three accused persons, namely, Narayanamurthy F
 (A-1 ), his father Kannappa (A-2) and mother Shivabhushanamma
 (A-3), were tried by the learned Ill Additional Sessions Judge,
 Bangalore City, under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and Sec-
 tions 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [for short
 'DP Act']. During the pendency of trial, A-2 died. The learned G
 trial Judge found the evidence of prosecution witnesses insuffi-
 cient and lacking for holding A-1 and A-3 guilty of the offences
 alleged against them and, accordingly, they were acquitted of
 the charg~s.
      4. On appeal by the State, the Division Bench of the High    H
    408       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2008] 8 S.C.R.


A Court convicted A-1 for offences under Sections 498A and 304B
  of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a
  period of seven years under Section 304B, IPC, and rigorous
  imprisonment for two years under Section 498A, IPC, and to
  pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to un-
B dergo imprisonment for three months. The amount of fine, if
  realised from A-1, has been ordered to be paid to Smt.
  Pavanamma (PW-1 ), mother of the deceased Jagadeshwari.
  Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The High Court, how-
  ever, acquitted A-1 for offence under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the
c DP Act. 1961, whereas the judgment of acquittal passed by the
  learned trial Judge in favour of A"3 has been upheld.

         5. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution was that on
   03.09.1989 the marriage of Jagadeshwari, daughter of B.V.D
   Mani-complainant and Pavan am ma <PW-1) was celebrated
D with A-1 in DRDO Community Hall, Bangalore. An amount of             •
   Rs.4.000/- in cash and five sovereign gold ornaments allegedly
   were given to A-1 in dowry at the time of the marriage. After the
   marriage, Jagadeshwari started living with A-1, A-2 and A-3 in
   their house at Yellamma Temple Road Cross, Nagarapalya,
E Bangalore. It was alleged that after marriage, A-1 to A-3 started
   harassing ~agadeshwari for not bringing sufficient dowry and
   were compelling her to bring more dowry from her parental
   house. Jagadeshwari during her pregnancy period stayed at
   the house of her parents for about five months. She gave birth
r- to a female child. It was alleged that on the day fixed by the
   parents of Jagadeshwari for performing the customary thread
   changing ceremony of the child, A-1 refused to participate in
   the said ceremony and he made demand of a gold ring, silver
   plate and silver panchapatre as dowry. Since B.V.D Mani, fa-
G ther of Jagadeshwari. was not financially sound to fulfill the de-
   manded articles, he gifted a stef' panchapatre and steel plate
   to A-1. A-1 expressed his disp.aasure and went back to his
   house. After few days, Ravichrmdra (PW-2) took his sister
   Jagadeshwari and her crild to tt,• '1n•Jse of A-1. A-2 and A-3 at
   Nagarapalya and told th·m th.•t h·S tiarents would try to meet
H
         NARAYANAMURTHY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                   409
          AND ANR [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

their demand of dowry articles within a short time, but still they    A
continued to ill-treat and harass Jagadeshwari.
        6. On or about 7-8 days before 11.11.1990, Jagadeshwari
  had gone to her parents' house and informed them that she was
  being harassed and assaulted by her husband, father-in-law and
  mother-in-law for not satisfying their dowry demand. The par- 8
  ents of Jagadeshwari persuaded her to go back to her in-law's
  house and she, accordingly, returned to her husband. On
  11.11.1990 around 2:00 p.m., Jagadeshwari alleged to have
  bolted the door of the kitchen from inside and poured kerosene
  oil on her body and then set herself on fire. Chikkathayappa C
  (PW-15) and Mariappa (PW-16), neighbours of the accused,
  having noticed smoke emanating from the kitchen of the house
  of the accused, broke open the door and removed dead body
  of Jagadeshwari from there. A-1, at the relevant time, was not
  present at his house. Parents of the deceased, on receipt of D
  the information of the death of their daughter through one of the
. relatives of PW-1, rushed to the house of the accused and on
  visual inspection they noticed exter:isive burn injuries on the dead
  body of Jagadeshwari. On the following day, i.e. on 12.11.1990
  at 2:30 p.rn., B.V.D Mani, father of the deceased, lodged a com- E
  plaint (Ex. P-1) with Byappanahalli Police Station, on the basis
  of which, a case in Grime No.263/1990 was registered against
  accused persons for an offence punishable under Section
  304B, IPC. Thereafter, on 12.11.1990 after receipt of the requi-
 sition, B. Nagaraj (PW-12), who at the relevant time was work- F
  mg as Tehsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, visited th·:l place of
 occurrence and conducted IP on the dead body of
 Jagadeshwari in the presence of Panchas and her dose rela-
 tives. He recorded the statements of the parents, bro;her of the
 deceased and their neighbours who were present a1 the spot. G
  He sent original inquest papers to S.D.M., Barigalon~ and fur-
  nished the copy thereof duly signed by him tJ the c.)ncerned
  police. S.E.D. D'souza (PW-13), who at the n·levant '.ime was
 working as Pl in COD (ADC) Bangalore, cond 1cted th~ investi-
 gation of the case and recorded the stateme1 ts of B.\.D. Mani
                                                                       H
    410       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2008] 8 S.C.R.


A   - complainant, Ri:lviChandra (PW-2), Rathanamma (PW-4) and
    Adhilakshmi (PW-6) and visited the place of occurrence where
    he drew rough sketch (Ex. P-12). Post mortem examination on
    the dead body of the dec~ased was conducted by Dr.
    Thirunavakkarasu (PW-7). On 18:04.1991, the Investigating Of-
B   ficer collected a copy of the post mortem report (Ex. P-5) of the
    deceased. On 22.04.1991, he recorded the statement of An-
    thony Mary (PW-5). On 25.04.1991, the Investigating Officer
    examined and recorded the statements of PW-1, mother of the
    deceased, and Kumar @Armugam (PW-10).

C       7. After completion of the investigation and after receipt of
  the post mortem report, charge sheet was filed against accused
  persons for the commission of the offences punishable under
  Sections 498A and 3048 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the
  DP Act. As already stated above, Kannappa (A-2) died during
D the pendency of the trial. The prosecution, in support of its case,   •
  examined as many as 16 witnesses. In their statements recorded
  under Section 313 of the Code of C~iminal Procedure, A-1 and
  his mother A-3 denied the allegations of the prosecution and
  pleaded false implication on suspicion and claimed to be inno-
E cent. They, however, led no evidence in defence. After consid-
  ering the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge held
  that the prosecution has failed to prove th~ alleged offences
  against A-1 and A-3 beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly,
  acquitted them. On appeal being preferred by the State, the
F High Court has convicted and sentenced A-1 as aforesaid. Now,
  the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave against the
  judgment of the High Court.
         8. We h~ve heard learned counsel for the parties who have
    taken us through the material evidence placed on record.
G
          9. In support of the appeal, Mr. P. Vishwanatha Shetty,
    learned senior counsel appearing for A-·1, submitted that the
    prosecution has failed to prove that A-1 at any point of time has
    made demand of dowry or the deceased was subjected to cru-
    elty or harassment or that the harassment was fc1 or in connec-
H
                NARAYANAMURTHY v. STATE·OF KARNATAKA                    411
                 AND ANR. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
...\
       . tion with the demand of dowry immediately before the death of A
         Jagadeshwari and therefore, in the absence of.any believable
         and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, the conviction of
         A-1 by the High Court is wholly wrong and unjustified. He con-
         tended that the interference of the High Court in the context of
         reversal of acquittal is against the well-established principles B
         laid down by this Court in series of decisions, therefore, on this
         ground as well the judgment of the High Court has to be set
         aside.
              10. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned counsel for the respon-
        dent-State, on the other hand, submitted that Section 3048, IPC, c
        has to be read in the context of Section 1138' of the Evidence
        Act, 1872. The Court could presume the death of the deceased
        to be dowry death and it was open to the Court to presume
        further that the appellant, being husband of the deceased, was
        responsible for the dowry death of the deceased. He submitted D
        that the High Court has re-appraised the entire evidence or.
        record and found the appellant guilty of the charged offer;ices
        and this Court normally should not be obliged to interfere with
        the well-merited and well-reasoned judgment of the High Court,
        which, in no circumstances, can be termed as perverse or ille- E
        gal.
              11. In the backdrop of the above-said contentions of the
        learned counsel for the parties, before dealing with the evidence
        coming on record we may refer to a few decisions of this Court
..      in regard to the jurisdiction and.limitations of the appellate court   F
        while considering appeal against an order of acquittal: lh the
        case qf Tota Singh v. State of Punja [1987 (2) SCC 529], this
        Court held:. (SCC p.532 para 6)
              "6. The jurisdiction of the appellate court in dealing with an
                                                                             G
              appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by
  ~           the limitation that no interference is to be made with the
              order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower
              court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is
              vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion
                                                                             H
    412       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 8 S.C.R


A         recorded by the court below is such which could not have
          been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably
          and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised
          as perverse. Where two views are possible on an
          appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the
B         court below has taken a view which is a plausible one, the
          appellate court cannot legally interfere with an order of
          acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by
          the court below on its consideration of the evidence is
          erroneous."

C       12. In State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram_((2003) 8 SCC
  180), it was held that the golden thread which runs through the
  web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two
  views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one
  pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his inno-
D cence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be
  adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure
                                                                           •
  that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of jus-
  tice, which may arise from acquittal of the guilty, is no less than
  the conviction of an innocent. Further, it is held that in a case
E where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the
  appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence in a case where
  the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertain-
  ing as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or
  not. The principle to be followed by the appellate Court consid-
F ering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere      ..
  only where there are compelling and substantial reasons for
  doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is
  a compelling reason for interference. These aspects were again
  highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State
G of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793]; Ramesh Babula/ Doshi
  v. State of Gujarat ((1996) 9 SCC 225] and Jaswant Singh v.
  State of Haryana ((2000) 4 sec 484] and same parameters
  were reiterated in the latest judgment of this Court in State of
  Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr ((2007) 3 SCC 755).

H         13. In Surajpal Singh v State [AIR 1952 SC 52], a two-
              NARAYANAMURTHY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                      413
               AND ANR. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J]
..\
      Judge Bench observed that it was well-established that in an              A
      appeal under Section 417 of the Cr.P.C. (old), the High Court
      had full power to review the evidence upon which the order of
      acquittal was founded. But it was equally we/I-settled that the
      presumption of innocence of the accused was further rein-
      forced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the       B
      trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses
.,    and hearing their evidence could be reversed only for very
      substantial and compelling reasons
                                                    (emphasis supplied).
                                                                                c
           14. In Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra [AIR 1956
      SC 217], the accused was prosecuted under Sections 302 and
      447 IPC. He was acquitted by the trial court but convicted by
      the High Court. Dealing with the power of the High Court against
      an order of acquittal, Bose, J. speaking for the majority (2: 1)
                                                                                D
      stated: (AIR p. 220, para 1)
           "It is, in our opinion, well settled that it is not enough for the
           High Court to take a different view of the evidence; there
           must a/so be substantial and compelling reasons for
           holding that the trial court was wrong."                             E
                                                     (emphasis supplied)
           15. Section 3048, IPC, deals with 'dowry death', which
      reads as follows:-

           "3048. Dowry death.-(1) Where the death of a woman                   F
           is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
           than under normal circumstances within seven years of
           her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death
           she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband
           or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with,           G
           any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry
           death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to
           have caused her death.

           Explanation -For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry"
                                                                                H
    414       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 8 S.C.R.


A         shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry
          Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
          (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
          imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven
          years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."
B
         16. The legislature has also introduced Section 1138 of
    the Evidence Act alongside insertion of Section 3048, IPC.
          "1138. Presumption as to dowry death.-When the
          question is whether a person has committed the dowry
c         death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her
          death such woman had been subjected by such person to
          cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with any demand
          for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had
          caused the dowry death.
D
          Explanation.-For the· purpose of this Section "dowry
          death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 3048
          of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
        17. The basic ingredients to attract the provisions of Sec-
E tion 3048, IPC, are as follows:-
          "( 1) That the death of the woman was caused by any burns
          or bodily injury or in some circumstances which were not
          normal;

F         (2) such death occurs within 7 years from the date of her     •
          marriage;
          (3) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment
          by her husband or any relative of her husband;
G         (4) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in
          connection with the demand of dowry; and
          (5) it is established th.at such cruelty and harassment was
          made soon before her death."
          18. In the case of unnatural death of a married woman as
H
       NARAYANAMURTHYv. STATE OF KARNATAKA               415
        AND ANR. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

in a case of this nature, the husband could be prosecuted under A
Sections 302, 304-B and 306 of the Penal Code. The distinc-
tion as regards commission ofan offence under one or the other
provisio"ns as mentioned hereinbefore came up for consider-
ation before a Division Bench of this Court in Satvir Singh v.
State of Punjab. [(2001) 8 SCC 633] whe.rein it was held: (SCC B
p. 643, paras 21-22)
     "21. Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry.
     One is before the marriage, second is at the time of
     marriage and the third is 'at any time' after the marriage.
     The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. C
     But the crucial words are 'in connection with the marriage
     of the said parties'. This means that giving or agreeing to
     give any property or valuable security ori any of the above
     three· stages should have been in connection with the
     marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances D
     for payment of money or giving rroperty as between the
     spouses. For example, some customary payments in
     connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are
     prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not
     enveloped within the ambit of 'dowry'. Hence the dowry E
     mentioned in Section 304"B should be any property or
     valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection
     with the marriage.
     22. It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused
     to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if F
     Section 304-B is to be invoked. But it should have
     happened 'soon before her death'. The said phrase, no
     doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period
     either immediately before her death o~ within a few days
     or· even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her G
     death is the pivot indicated by that ~xpression. The
     legislative object in providing such a radius of time. by
     employing the words 'soon before her death' is to
     emphasise the idea that her death should, in all
     probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or H
    416       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 8 S.C.R.


A         harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible
          nexus between her death and the dowry-related
          harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval which
          elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty
          and her death is wide the court would be in a position to
B         gauge that in all probabilities the harassment or cruelty
          would not have been the immediate cause of her death.
          It is hence for the court to decide, on the facts and
          circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in
          that particular case was sufficient to snuff its·cord from the
c         concept 'soon before her death'."

        19. In Hira Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi [(2003) 8
    SCC 80], this Court observed that: (SCC pp. 86-87, para 9]

          "The expression 'soon before her death' used in· the
          substantive S. 304-B, 1.P.C. and S.113-B of the Evidence
D
          Act is present with the idea of proximity test No definite
          period has been indicated and thi::: expression 'soon
          before' is not defined. A reference to expression 'soon
          before' used in S. 114. Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act
          is relevant. It lays down that a Court may presume that a
E         man who is in the possession of goods ·soon after the
          theft, is either tne thief has received the goods knowing
          them to be stolen, unless he can account for his
          possession.' The determination of the period which can
          come within the term ·soon before' is left to be determined
F         by the Courts, depending upon facts and circumstances            •
          of each case. Suffice. however. to indicate that the
          expression 'soon before' would normally imply that the
          interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty
          or harassment and the death in question. There must be
G         existence of a proximate and live link between the effect
          of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned
          death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and
           has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium
          of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence."
H
       NARAYANAMURTHYv. STATE OF KARNATAKA                  417
        AND ANR. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

      20. The same opinion was expressed by this Court in A
Kaliyaperumal v. State of T N. [(2004) 9 SCC 157) (SCC para
4); Kamesh Panjiyar Alias Kamlesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar
[(2005) 2 SCC 388) (SCC para 10); State of A. P v. Raj Gopal
Asawa [(2004) 4 SCC 470) (SCC paras 10 and 11); Harjit Singh
v. State of Punjab [(2006) 1 SCC 463] and Biswajit Halder Alias B
Babu Halder & Ors. v. State of W B. [(2008) 1 SCC 202).

      21. In the present case, we have independently analysed
and scrutinized the evidence of the material witnesses and found
that there is practically no evidence to show that there was any
cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of C
dowry.
      22. PW-1, mother of the deceased, deposed that after
about 11 months of the marriage, her daughter delivered a fe-
male child and after staying in her house for about 5 months, D
she sent her daughter and the child along with her son PW-2 to
the house of A-1. Jagadeshwari on 2 or 3 occasions came to
her parental house and disclosed that her husband, parents-in-
law and sister-in-law had been quarrelling with her for having
not brought silver plate, cot, almirah and silver panchpathere at
the time of thread changing ceremony of the newly born child. E
She stated that she gave gold ring to the child of the deceased.
A complaint (Ex. P-1) was lodged by her husband B.V.D. Mani
in the Police Station in regard to the commission of the alleged
offences against the husband Narayanmurthy (A-1), father-in-
law Kannappa (A-2) and mother-in-law Shivabhushanamma (A- F
3) of the deceased. The complainant-father of the deceased
could not be examined as witness in the Court because by that
time he had died. The testimony of PW-1 does not support the
allegations of demand for dowry by A-1 and his parents. This
witness has not deposed that her daughter committed suicide G
because she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by A-1
 in connection with the demand for dowry.
      23. PW-2, the brother of the deceased, stated that his sis-
ter delivered a female child at their house and he along with his   H
    418       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 8 S.C.R.
                                                                          •
A   sister and her child went to the house of A-1. It is his testimony
    that A-1 and his sister used to quarrel with each other on some
    small and petty matters and her husband and parent-in-laws
    were demanding an Almirah, cot, silver plate, e1c. from his par-
    ents. The testimony of this witness is totaliy contrary to the ver-
B   sion of PW-1 and secondly he has not corroborated the allega-
    tions made in complaint (Ex. P-1) lodged at the first point of
    time by his late father, on the basis of which a case was regis-
    tered against A-1 and his parents in the Police Station. The evi-
    dence of this witness does not reveal that the deceased was
C   ever ill-treated or harassed by A-1 for not satisfying dowry de-
    mand or there was any demand of dowry "soon before her death"
    so as to drive the deceased Jagadeshwari to take extreme steps
    of committin9 suicide.

         24. Saradhamma (PW-3) - maternal aunt of deceased
D Jagadesl1wari, deposed that after the marriage of Jagadeshwari
  with /\-1. she came to her house and irformed that she was
  beir1g t::irtur.cd by her parents-in-law as she could not give silver
  plate to tr.em. This portion of the statement of the witness is
  totally ir.consistent with and contrary to the versions of PWs-1
E and 2, who have not deposed that after marriage Jagadeshwari
  had· ever complained to them that she was given beatings by
  her parents-in-law or was ever maltreated or harassed by them.
  This witness admitted in cross-examination that she did not
  make statement before the Police Officer; that before her death.
F Jagadeshwari came to her house and made complaint that her
  husband and in-laws had harassed for having not brought a sil-
  ver plate from the house of her parents. Thus, PW-3 herself has
  contradicted her statement recorded by the Investigating Of-
  ficer under Section 161, Cr.P.C. therefore, the evidence of this
G witness is of no help to the prosecution to hold A-1 responsible
  for committing the alleged crime. The leam8d trial Judge has
  appreciated the evidence of PWs.-1. 2 and 3 in its right per-
  ;;pective and concluded that the ev:dence of these star wit-
  nesses has not established that the deceased Jagadeshwari
  was being ever harassed or ill-tr2ated by the accused for bring-
H
           NARAYANAMURTHY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA               419
            AND ANR. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J]

    ing inadequate and insufficient dowry at the time of her mar- A
    riage with A-1 or that the accused ever demanded dowry ar-
    ticles from the parents of the deceased before she committed
    suicide. PW-1 denied having made statement (Ex.D-1) to the
    Investigating Officer that her husband gave Rs.4,000/- to A-1
    towards marriage expenses. It is the categorical evidence of B
    PWs-1 and 2 that the accused had borne the entire expenses
    of the marriage and paid rent of Ka/yanamantap and also ex-
    penses of the food and other items. The complaint (Ex. P-1)
    does not reveal that the accused had raised demand of dowry
    either in cash or in kind a.t the time of the marriage.         c
          25. Dr. Thirunavakkarasu, (PW-7), Professor of Forensic
    Medicine, Victoria Hospital, conducted post mortem on the dead
    body of Jagadeshwari on 12.11.1990 and found first, second
    and third degree burns present all over the body except both
    feet, cuticle over the burnt areas blackened, charred and peeled D
    off at places, areas of redness r.ere and there over chest, on
    the front and over limbs, scalp hairs burnt and partially singed,
    burnt cloth sticking over the arms, chest and abdomen. Eye
    brows, eye lashes, axicially and pubic hairs were singed. Doc-
    tor deposed that the burns were ante mortem in nature to the E
    extent of 95% and opined that the death was due to shock as a
    result of burns sustained. The record reveals that the original
    post mortem report was not placed before the court besides of
    notices, but true copy thereof was produced and marked as
    Ext.P-5. It is not in dispute that the deceased Jagadeshwari F
    had sustained burn injuries to the extent of 95% and as a result
    thereof she died.
         26. Rathanamma (PW-4) and Mariappa (PW-16), the wife
    and husband respectively, are the owners of the house in which
    the accused and his parents along with deceased Jagadeshwari G
    were residing. PW-4 deposed thatA-1 and his wife during their
•   stay in the house were living happily and on two occasions,
    Jagadeshwari disclosed her that as she (Jagadeshwari) was
    not keeping good health, therefore, she wanted to go to her
    parents house and stay there for some time. She deposed that H
                                                                               ,.
                                                                               l::::
                                                                               I


    420       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 8 S.C.R


A   on the day of occurrence of the incident, at about 3:00 p.m. while
    she was in her house, she noticed smoke emanating from the
    house in occupation of A-1 and when she went there, she found
    the door of the house locked from inside and after breaking
    open the door, she went inside and saw the dead body of the
B   wife of A-1 with burn injuries all over her body and the child of A-
    1 was also lying in the kitchen at a short distance who also sus-
    tained minor burns on her leg. Despite cross-examination by
    the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing substantial in support of
    the prosecution case could be elicited from her statement ind1-
    eating that Jagadeshwari committed suicide because of ill-treat-
c
    mentor harassment meted out to her at the hands of her hus-
    band or his parents.

         27. Anthony Mary (PW-5), Adhilakshmi (PW-6) and Kumar
    @Armugam (PW-10), the other neighbours, examined by the
D   prosecution in support of the allegations of ill-treatment or ha-
    rassment of the deceased by A-1 or his parents for the demand
    of dowry, have not supported the prosecution case. The evi-
    dence of these witnesses would show that they have denied
    having made statements before the Police that the deceased
E   Jagadeshwari committed suicide because of being maltreat-
    ment and harassed by A-1 or his parents.

        28. It is proved on record that deceased B.V.D. Mani, fa-
  ther of deceased Jagadeshwari, gifted a silver Panchapatre
  and silver plate to A-1 at the time of performing customary thread
F changing ceremony in connection with birth of girl child and such
  ceremony is prevalent in their society. Such gifts are not envel-
  oped within the ambit of 'dowry'. It is also to be noticed that the
  High Court on the same set of evidence has chosen to acquit
  A-3 (the mother of A-1), whose case is no better than that of A-
G 1 . Even the unproved allegations of ill-treatment, harassment
  and demand for dowry and the evidence led by the prosecution
  are similar to that led againstA-3. We agree with the High Court         '    '
  that the evidence against mother (A-3) is insufficient and incon-
  sistent to convict her and, in our view. it is the same againstA-1.
H This deficiency in the evidence proves fatal to the prosecution
            NARAYANAMURTHY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                   421
             AND ANR. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

    case. Even otherwise, mere evidence of cruelty and harass-           A
    ment is not sufficient to being in application of Section 3048,
    IPC. It is to be established that 'soon before death', deceased
    was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband for, or
    'in connection with demand for dowry'. In the afore-mentioned
    situation, the provisions of Section 3048, IPC, and Section 1138     8
    of the Evidence Act could not be attracted to hold A-1 guilty of
    the offence of dowry death and/or cruelty in terms of Section
    498A, IPC. The prosecution, therefore, must be held to have
,   failed to establish any case against A-1 herein.
          29. Having given our careful consideration to the above- C
    stated submissions made by the learned counsel for the par-
    ties and in the backdrop of the evidence discussed hereinabove
    and tested in the light of the principles of law highlighted above,
    it must be held that the evaluation of the findings recorded by
    the High Court suffer from manifest error and improper appre- D
    ciation of the evidence on record. Therefore, the judgment of
    the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal of A-1 cannot
    be sustained.
          30. For the reasons stated above, we are of the consid-
    ered opinion that the evidence led by the prosecution in regard      E
    to the involvement of A-1 in the death of Jagadeshwari is not
    proved beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution, hence,
    the High Court was in error in basing conviction of A-1 on weak
    and slender evidence appearing against him.
                                                                         F
          31. In the result, this appeal succeeds and the same is
    allowed. The judgment of the High Court dated 05.12.2006
    passed in Criminal Appeal No.903/2000 is set aside and the
    order of acquittal of A-1 recorded by the learned trial Judge
    shall stand restored. The amount of fine imposed by the High G
    Court upon A-1, if paid, shall be remitted to him. Narayanamurthy
    shall be set at liberty by the Jail authorities if his detention is not
    required in any other case.
    D.G.                                            Appeal allowed.
                                                                         H