HIRA LAL AND ORS. versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 734 · Decided: 25-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HIRA LAL AND ORS. 
STA TE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI. 
JULY 25, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA VAT, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A: 
Dowry death-Wife subjected to torture for dowry by the husband and 
C his parents-Committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage-Trial Court 
convicted the husband and In-laws under Sect10ns 304-B and 498-A/34-
Sentence reduced by High Court-On appeal, Held: Jn the absence of definite 
evidence about ill-treatment to the deceased wife at any time having immediate 
proximity to the time of her death, the basic requirement of Section 304-B 
D not complied with-Not liable under Section 304-B-However, on the facts 
and circumstances of the case, accused convicted under Section 306 IPC-
Conviction under Section 498-A maintained-Evidence Act-Section I I 3-
B-Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986. 
E 
Words and Phrases: 
'proximity test', 'soon before her death', 'cruelty', 'harassment'-
Meaning of in the context of Evidence Act. 
Deceased-wife had been tortured for dowry by the accused-husband and 
his parents. She committed suicide by consuming poison. Police investigated 
F the matter and submitted a charge sheet. Trial Court found accused guilty of 
having committed the offences under Sections 304-B and 498A r/w Section 
34 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. On appeal, High Court maintained 
the conviction, but reduced the sentence. 
In the present appeal by the accused, it was contended that there was no 
G evidence as to demand of dowry by the accused; and that since admittedly there 
was no demand of dowry from the elder sister of the deceased who was married 
on the same date to the elder brother of the husband of the deceased, there 
was no reason to believe demand of dowry from the deceased. 
H 
734 
•
HIRA LAL v. STA TE OF DELHI 
735 
On behalf of the State, it was submitted that the case could be considered A 
under Section 306 IPC. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC 
shows that there must be material to show that soon before the death the victim B 
was subjected to cruelty or harassment. 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 IPC are pressed into service. Prosecution is obliged to show C 
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 
prosecution. 'Soon before' is a relative term and it would depend upon 
circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket 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 D 
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 
determination of the period which can come within the term 'soon before' is 
left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon the facts and 
circumstances of each case. The expression 'soon before' would normally 
imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or E 
harassment 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 
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. (740-F-H; 741-A; 741-C-DI 
p 
1.2. The evidence of Prosecution Witnesses shows that at the time of 
marriage there was no demand for dowry. But subsequently, the demands were 
made, and ill-treatments were meted out. Prosecution Witnesses stated that 
grievances were made before the Crime against Women Cell and the 
authorities brought about reconciliation. It, however, was candidly admitted G 
that there was no mention about any dowry aspect while the differences were 
ironed out. There is no definite evidence about ill-treatment to the deceased 
at any time having immediate proximity to the date of death of the deceased 
about ill-treatment by the accused persons to attach culpability under Section 
304-B IPC. Therefore, the bas

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.