Madras High Court
Muthukrishnan vs State Through on 12 August, 2025
Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 24.07.2025
Pronounced on : 12.08.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018
1.Muthukrishnan
2.Petchiammal ... Appellants/Accused 1 & 3
Vs.
State through
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thirupparankundram Sub Division,
Madurai District
Thirunagar Police Station,
(In Crime No.431 of 2007) ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(ii) of Criminal
Procedure Code, to set aside the judgmnet of the learned District
Sessions Judge (Mahalir Neethimandram), Madurai, in S.C.No.14 of
2010 dated 04.07.2018.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Anand
for Mr.V.Maharaja
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm )
Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the accused 1 and 3 challenging the judgment dated 04.07.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai, in S.C. No.14 of 2010.
2. The appellants/A1 & A3 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year (R.I) and fine of Rs.5000/ in default to undergo 3 months(S.I) for the offence under Section 498 A IPC and to undergo 10 years (R.I) and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo 2 years(R.I.).
3. The deceased is the wife of the first accused. The accused 2 and 3 are the parents of the first accused. As the father of the first accused, who has been impleaded as the second accused died during the pendency of the case, the case against the second accused was closed as abated.
4. The brief case of the prosecution is that the deceased Tamilselvi and the first accused had married in the year 2006. Subsequent to their 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018 marriage, they have lived along with the accused 2 and 3 as a joint family at Thoppur. The accused 2 and 3 have been harassing the deceased by demanding money for establishing an electrical shop for the first accused. When she was sent to her parents' house to get money, her parents assured that they would arrange money shortly. Even thereafter, they continued to ill-treat her by demanding money and the deceased was unable to withstand the pressure and she committed suicide on 06.12.2007 at 11 p.m by pouring kerosine. She was admitted in the Government Hospital, Madurai, but she died about 10 a.m on 07.12.2007 due to unsuccessful treatment.
5. The father of the deceased had given a complaint on 07.12.2007 and the First Information Report was registered. After taking up the case for investigation and after completing the investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the offence under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) IPC. As the accused pleaded innocence they were subjected to trial and at the conclusion of the trial, they were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018 (R.I) and fine of Rs.5000/ in default to undergo 3 months(S.I) for the offence under Section 498 A IPC and to undergo 10 years (R.I) and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo 2 years(R.I.).
6. Challenging the judgment of conviction, the accused 1 and 3 have preferred this appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the material inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses have been overlooked by the trial court; even in the First Information Report, it has not been stated that the accused had demanded dowry; Even the allegations that the accused had demanded money to set up an electrical shop is not true; The distance between the father's house of the deceased and the house of the accused is only 2 kms; The said fact was not considered by the trial court on appreciating the circumstances of the case; The first accused also got burn injuries in his attempt to save the deceased from burning; The first accused only admitted the deceased in the hospital; The contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses have 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018 been put to the investigating officer during his cross-examination and his evidence would also reveal that the witnesses have stated the exaggerated and conflicting facts; The panchayatars said to have been examined by the Revenue Divisional Officer were not examined as witnesses; As the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence before it, the accused was found guilty and the same has to be reversed by this Court.
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution witnesses have deposed in a consistent and cogent manner and their evidences have been rightly appreciated by the trial court; The prosecution established the fact that soon before the death of the deceased, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused, who are her husband and the parents-in-laws by demanding dowry; The deceased committed suicide even during the two years of her marital life; soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by demanding dowry and hence, the Session Court has rightly drawn a presumption under Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act. He 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018 submitted that the judgment of the Sessions Court does not warrant interference by this Court.
9. I gave my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.
10. The fact that the occurrence had taken place within two years of marriage between the first accused and the deceased has not been disputed. Before proceeding to the facts and evidence, the application of Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act in order to draw presumption in favour of the prosecution can be taken for discussion. The presumption as to dowry death can be drawn in favour of the prosecution only on certain conditions. It should be proved that the suicide had taken place within 7 years of marriage between the woman and her husband. The materials on record should prove that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The cruelty and harassment can be either verbal or emotional. The victim should have been subjected to insult, threat or deprived of her essential amenities and economic 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018 resources. According to Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, the court can draw presumption under the above provision, when the cruelty or harassment should be for the purpose of getting dowry from her. So, without proving the foundation facts as to the immediate harassment, cruelty caused to the deceased for bringing dowry, the court cannot exercise its power to draw an initial presumption in favour of the prosecution under Section 113(B) Indian Evidence Act.
11. In this regard, it is appropriate to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Surinder Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in 2014(4) SCC 129. In the said case, it is held that the term ''soon before'' is relative in nature and the time-lag may differ from the case to case. It is emphasized that there must be a nexus between the demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death. Unless the case of the prosecution passes the test of proximity, the entitlement to get the presumption under Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be made available. 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018
12. In the above judgment, reference has been made to the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab reported in (2000)5 SCC 207, wherein it is held that it cannot be any straightjacket formula for fixing the time limit within the meaning of ''soon before'''. In this regard, the relevant paragraph of the above judgment is extracted as under:
“18. In this connection we may refer to judgment of this Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 207 where this Court considered the term ‘soon before’. The relevant observations are as under: “… … … “Soon before” is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit. This expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. The term “soon before” is not synonymous with the term “immediately before” and is opposite of the expression “soon after” as used and understood in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. These words would imply that the interval should not be too long between the time of making the statement and the death. It contemplates the reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018 restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be “soon before death” if any other intervening circumstance showing the non- existence of such treatment is not brought on record, before such alleged treatment and the date of death. It does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period. Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough.” Thus, there must be a nexus between the demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment, based upon such demand and the date of death. The test of proximity will have to be applied. But, it is not a rigid test. It depends on facts and circumstances of each case and calls for a pragmatic and sensitive approach of the court within the confines of law''.
13. So, it has to be seen whether the circumstances of the case proved before the court in this case earned presumption under Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act.
9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018
14.In the complaint(Ex.P.1)given by P.W.1/the father of the deceased, it is stated that on several occasions, the accused demanded dowry from his daughter and he had given assurance that he would give money to set up electrical shop for his husband shortly and sent her to the house of the first accused. The accused did not agree to wait and insisted the deceased to bring money immediately. When the complainant deposed the evidence as P.W.1, he has also stated that the deceased and the first accused were happy for nearly six months to one year after marriage and she had given birth to a child. Subsequently, he left her in his house by demanding money to set up an electrical shop; P.W.1 assured that after the property of his father-in-law is sold, he would give her money. Each time she came to the house of P.W.1, he used to pacify her and send her back.In this regard,panchayat was also held. On 06.12.2007 at 11 p.m,an informant came and told him that his daughter had been admitted in hospital. Immediately, P.W.1, his wife, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and husband of sister-in-law went to the Government Hospital.On seeing them,his daughter cried and told him that the accused had poured kerosine on her and lit fire as she did not bring Rs.50,000/-. 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018
15. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 would reveal that the problem between the deceased and the accused started only from the third month after the child born to the deceased. The records would reveal that he had stated in his evidence about the panchayat held with regard to demand of money. In his complaint and the statement of the police, he had not stated these facts. The said facts have been spoken by P.W.1 for the first time before the court. Despite the victim was alive for one day, her dying declaration has not been obtained. In all medico-legal cases, proper intimation has to be given to the police and memo should be sent to the court with a request to take dying declaration.
16. In Bhagwan Vs. State of U.P. (2013)12SCC137 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
''15. Para 115 of the police Regulations reads as under:
The officer investigating a case in which a person has been so seriously injured that he is likely to die before he can reach a dispensary where his dying declaration can be recorded should himself record the declaration at once in the presence of two respectable witnesses, obtaining the signature or mark of the declarant and witnesses at the foot of the declaration.11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018 16 . A reading of the said paragraph appears to be a guideline issued to the investigating officers as to the precautions to be taken while recording a dying declaration. It was stated therein that such declaration can be recorded by the investigating officer himself in the presence of two respectable witnesses and obtain the signature or mark of the declarant and the witnesses at the foot of the declaration.
In the first place, such a guideline in the form of police Regulation can have no impact on any superior statutory prescription. Leaving aside such a proposition which does not require to be considered in this case, the said para 115 will apply only in a grave situation where the victim is seriously injured and it would be impossible compliance of Section 32 (1) of the Evidence Act in its full rigour. Such guidelines have been issued to insure that at least the basic requirement of recording such a dying declaration in the presence of two respectable persons as witnesses while obtaining the signature or mark of the victim himself. It is relevant to note that the said paragraph 115 makes a specific reference to the recording of the dying declaration in which event alone such precautions have to be ensured by the investigating officers and not when Section 161 statement is recorded which does not require the signature of the author of the statement.
17. Though witnesses have stated that the accused have poured kerosine upon the body of the deceased and set fire, the Doctor, who registered the Accident Register, has entered that the deceased had told 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018 him that she had poured kerosine upon herself and lit fire. He was examined as P.W.9 and his cross-examination did not reveal any intention on his part to record something which was not stated to him by the deceased.
18. P.W.9-the Doctor in the cross-examination stated that he has sent intimation to get dying declaration from the deceased but he did not know whether dying declaration has been obtained from the deceased. In the chief examination, the Doctor had stated that immediately after the admission of the deceased, he had sent a memo for recording dying declaration. But for the reasons best known, the prosecution agency has not taken any steps to record her dying declaration. Even though the complaint has been given subsequent to the death of the deceased, on the memo given by the Doctor, the police in outpost themselves would have sent a request to the court to record the dying declaration with the help of a Magistrate.In the instant case, it is unfortunate that dying declaration of the deceased could not be obtained.
13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018
19. P.W.1 the father, P.W.2 the mother, P.W.3, the brother and P.W. 4, the grandfather of the deceased have stated that the accused had poured kerosine upon the deceased and they came to know the said fact only from the deceased. None of the above witnesses had insisted to take the dying declaration of the deceased and hence, hearsay evidence of P.W1 to P.W.4 on this aspect cannot be accepted.
20. The father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and he has stated in her evidence that before 2, 3 days prior to the occurrence a quarrel arose and on the demand of dowry to establish a shop. But that was settled in the presence of elders. Thereafter, he had sent the deceased to the house of the first accused. But the mother of the deceased who was examined as P.W.2 has stated in her evidence that when her daughter was at her house 2, 3 days before the occurrence. The first accused came and no panchayat was held in the presence of any elders. So the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 on the aspect of panachayat is in contrary to each other. 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018
21. The Investigating Officer(P.W14) during the cross-examination stated that the deceased has not given any complaint to the police station prior to the occurrence that she was harassed by demanding dowry and he did not know whether the Magistrate has recorded dying declaration of the deceased and he did not even try to ascertain whether such declaration has been taken.
22. In the absence of the eye witnesses or the evidence of any other panchayatars, it cannot be presumed that the accused had poured kerosine upon the deceased and burnt her. The neighbors of the deceased have been examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2. They have stated in their evidence that the first accused was also trying to save the deceased when she was burning and during that course, he also got slight burn injuries on his hands. It is stated in their evidence that the fire set on the deceased accidentally when she was about to boil milk in the stove. Even on that aspect, the statement of the deceased is not available. 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018
23. P.W.2, the mother of the deceased has stated that the deceased called her father (the grandfather of the deceased) at about 7.00 p.m. The grandfather of the deceased,who is the father of P.W.2 has been examined as P.W.4. He had stated in his evidence that at about 8.00 p.m on the date of occurrence, the deceased called him and said that the accused were harassing her by demanding money and he pacified her by saying that things can be discussed in the morning but the deceased continued to cry saying that if she was taken out of the house, they can do anything to her. P.W.4 told her that it was dark at night and he would call her father-in- law in the morning and then come to her house. P.W.3 the brother of the deceased, who was examined had stated that at about 8 p.m on the day of occurrence, the deceased had called her father and asked him to take her back as the accused threatened her that they would kill her.
24. While P.W.4 stated that the deceased had called him, P.W.3 had stated that the deceased called her father(P.W.1). P.W.1 had not stated that he had received any call from the deceased on the date of occurrence. P.W.3 would further say that his father informed about the 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018 predicament of the deceased, but he responded him that things can be discussed in the morning.
25. The distance between the house of accused at Thoppur and her parents' residence at Moonandipatti was only 2 kms. After the grandfather of the deceased had received call from the deceased saying that the accused would kill her if they did not take her, he could not have cooly said that he would see in the morning. Atleast the brother of the deceased P.W.3 would have urged his father and grandfather to go to the house of the deceased immediately and ensure her safety. No efforts have been taken in this regard. In fact, P.W.1 had not stated in his evidence that either himself or his father-in-law had received any call from the deceased on the day of the occurrence. So the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 about the alleged incident that had taken soon before the death of the deceased cannot be reliable in view of the inconsistencies and unnaturalness.
26. With regard to the demand of money made to P.W.1 and P.W.2 prior to the date of occurrence is not convincing in view of the direct 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018 contradiction between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are the mother and father of the deceased. It is reiterated by P.W.1 in his evidence that panchayat was held and the deceased was sent back to the house of the first accused on the assurance that money will be arranged shortly. P.W.2 the mother of the deceased stated in her evidence that no such panchayat was held and the deceased was simply sent with the accused when he came to pickup her.
27. When the cruelty or harassment caused to the deceased for demanding dowry soon before her death has not been established, it is not possible to grant the benefit of Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act presumption in favour of the prosecution. As the conditions contemplated in that provision have not been fulfilled, the trial court ought not to have granted the initial presumption in favour of the prosecution by shifting the burden of rebuttal on the accused. As the presumption under Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act is not automatic, the trial courts are not expected to grant the benefit of presumption unless ''soon before the occurrence'' as to cruelty or demand 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018 for dowry is proved.
28. In such case, the prosecution has the liability to bear the usual responsibility of proving the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, the father, the mother, the brother, the grandfather of the deceased admitted in their evidence that the life between the deceased and the first accused was happy until they gave birth to the child. Even P.W.5 who is the brother of P.W.1 has also stated in his evidence that problem started between the deceased and the first accused from two months after the child born. His evidence would reveal that the road between the village of the accused i.e Moonandipatti and the village of the father of the deceased Ananikaraipatti was a busy road and it is possible to establish communication with the other village within ½ an hour.
29. As villages are nearby to each other, the deceased could have been in the habit of going to her parents' house frequently. Without any 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018 concrete, consistent and reliable evidence, it cannot be presumed that each time when the deceased came to her father's house there was a dispute in her family. It is unbelievable that P.W.4 and P.W.3 were cool even after they received a desperate call from the deceased.
30. The trial Jude ought to have appreciated the evidence in a holistic fashion before proceeding to conclude that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home by demanding dowry and she had committed suicide only in pursuant to that. No doubt, dowry deaths and matrimonial cruelty need to be dealt with utmost sensitivity. At the same time, the courts cannot ignore the fact that the parents and relatives of the deceased have been completed distraught and devastated as they had lost their girl. All these emotions would be vented out only against the accused. The relatives of the deceased are the best persons, who could have the knowledge about the harassment and cruelty meted out to the deceased. But their evidence is confusing and contradictory, it is safer to look for any evidence of independent witnesses. 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018
31. In the instant case, no independent witness is available. P.W.12, the Revenue Divisional officer had stated that he enquired the panchayatars but no one has been examined as a witness. P.W.12, the Revenue Divisional Officer has not examined the husband of the deceased and recorded his evidence.
32.P.W.12 had also stated in his evidence that the distance between the house of the deceased and the accused are 4 kms and there are bus facilities. P.W.14 had stated that the distance between the father's house of the deceased and the matrimonial house of the deceased is only 1 km.
33. For the reasons best known, the Investigating Officer (P.W/14) did not examine the panchayatars listed in his report. In fact, P.W.1 had given statement to the Revenue Divisional Officer that the deceased was sent out of the house during night on 16.12.2007 by demanding dowry. Had it been the case,the parents,grandfather and the brother of the deceased would not have allowed her to toil outside without going and taking her back to their house. Hence, there is no consistency between 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018 the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4.It only appears that their grief outweighed their balance.
34. While evaluating such kind of statement given by the witnesses in a poignant state of mind, the courts need to be very careful by analyzing the overall facts and circumstances and the materials. The holistic evidence did not prove that the deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty soon before her death for demanding dowry by the accused.
35. In order to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 304(B) IPC, it is necessary to prove the ingredients between the death of the deceased and the cruelty or harassment inflicted upon her in respect of demand of dowry.
36. In fact, in the cases prosecuted for the charges under Section 304(B) IPC, a presumption in favor of the prosecution is available under Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act. One of the essential ingredients under Section 113(B) of the Act is that the prosecution has to 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018 show soon before the death of a women, she had been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. Only if the above fact is proved, the benefit of presumption under Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act can be granted in favour of the prosecution.
37. In this regard, it is appropriate to record the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mahesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2019 SC 425. The relevant paragraphs of the above judgment are extracted as under:
“9 . The first and foremost question that arises in this case, and in respect of the necessary ingredients of Section 304-B Indian Penal Code, is whether there is a proximate nexus between the death of the deceased with the cruelty or harassment inflicted upon her in respect of the demand of dowry''
38. In the case of Mahesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2019 SC 425, the Supreme Court has also made a reference about the judgment made in Satvir Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2001) 8 SCC 633 wherein the significance of the use of the word 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018 'soon before death' in Section 304-B IPC has been dealt.
20. Prosecution, in a case of offence under Section 3040B Indian penal Code cannot escape from the burden of proof that the harassment or cruelty was related to the demand for dowry and also that such cruelty or harassment was caused ''soon before her death''.
22. It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if 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 or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. 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 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 elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide the court would be in a position to 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 concept "soon before her death".
39. In yet another judgment of the Supreme Court in Hira Lal and 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018 Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi (2003) 8 SCC 80, the Supreme Court has signified the importance of discriminating the possibility of knowledge and accidental death from the death of the victim subjected to cruelty or harassment and in respect of demand for dowry. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment which make a conjoint analysis of Section 113(B) of Indian Evidence Act and Section 304(B)IPC is also worthy of reference:
''This Court held that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to Rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances. It was held as under:
9. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304- B Indian Penal Code shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to Rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of "death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances". The expression "soon before" is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B Indian Penal Code are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates.
Evidence in that regard has to be led by the prosecution. "Soon before"
is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018 case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption Under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive Section 304- B Indian Penal Code and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" is not defined. A reference to the expression "soon before" used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods "soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for their possession". The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined 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 cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence''.
40. In the case in hand, as discussed already, there is no clarity of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018 evidence available on the prosecution as to the cruelty or harassment meted out to the accused soon before her death in respect of demand for dowry as there are contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 with regard to phone call made by the deceased, which has been already observed in the earlier paragraphs that there is no convincing evidence to prove harassment or cruelty caused to the deceased soon before her death in respect of a demand for dowry. The deceased had the convenience of going to the parents house which is located 2 or 4 kms radius from her marital house. Even if she had subjected to cruelty or harassment as defined under Section 498(A)IPC, she could have very well gone to her parents' house and dealt the issue if any with their support.
41. Only when the prosecution has proved before the court that the husband or the relatives of the husband had subjected the deceased to cruelty due to their wilfull conduct would drive the deceased to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to the life, limb or health of the deceased, it can be concluded that the offence of marital cruelty under 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018 Section 498(A) has been committed by the accused. None of the witnesses have stated in their evidence that the deceased was harassed by the accused though they have stated that he was in need of financial help to set up a shop. The records available before the court also does not show that any previous complaint of this sort has been given against the accused or against his family members.
42. The mother of the deceased who was examined as P.W.2 in her evidence stated that no panchayat was held before the victim was sent to her marital home before 2 to 3 days of the occurrence. P.W.1, the father of the deceased has stated that there was a panchayat. The mother of the deceased, P.W.2 disowned the same. Hence, the evidence of on record is not sufficient enough to prove that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment of such a nature that would drive her to commit suicide or that he had subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment in respect of demand for dowry soon before her death. Failure to prove the above facts would only lead to the conclusion that the accused is not proved to be guilty under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018 IPC.
43. The trial Judge without properly appreciating the materials on record has proceeded to convict the accused under Sections 304(B) and 498(A) IPC.
44. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned District Sessions Judge (Mahalir Neethimandram), Madurai, in S.C.No.14 of 2010 dated 04.07.2018.is liable to be set aside and the same is set aside and the appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. The fine amount, if any, paid by them, shall be refunded to them. Bail bond, if any, executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled.
12.08.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
CM
29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm )
Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018
To,
1.The District Sessions Judge (Mahalir Neethimandram), Madurai,
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.390 of 2018 Dr.R.N.MANJULA, J CM Pre-delivery Judgment made in Crl.A.(MD)No.390 of 2018 12.08.2025 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:55 pm )