Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Section 304B of IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients:-

"Ingredients of offence. - The essential ingredients of the offence under sec. 304B are as follows :-

(1) Death should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;

(2) Such death should have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage;

41. Further the Honb'le Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Teg Bahadur and others [MANU/SC/0838/2004], in similar facts and circumstances of involving the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC read with Sections 113-B and 114 of the Indian Evidence Act were pleased to make interpretation regarding the expression used in the said sections "soon before" and it is worthwhile to extract paragraph 18 as below :-

"18. Our attention was drawn to Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code by the learned counsel appearing for the accused. A conjoint reading of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 304B of the 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."

For the above proposition, learned counsel appearing for the accused, cited the judgment of this Court in the case of Hira Lal & Ors. vs. State (Govt.of NCT), Delhi, MANU/SC/0495/2003 : 2003 CriLJ 3711. In that case this Court observed thus:

"The expression "soon before" is very relevant where Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B IPC 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 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 113B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive Section 304B IPC and Section 113B 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."

""14. Both the contentions are fallacious. The essential components of Section 304B are: (i) Death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage. (ii) Soon before her death she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. When the above ingredients are fulfilled, the husband or his relative, who subjected her to such cruelty or harassment, can be presumed to be guilty of offence under Section 304B. To be within the province of the first ingredient the provision stipulates that "where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances". It may appear that the former limb which is described by the words "death caused by burns or bodily injury" is a redundancy because such death would also fall within the wider province of "death caused otherwise than under normal circumstances". The former limb was inserted for highlighting that by no means death caused by burns or bodily injury should be treated as falling outside the ambit of the offence.