MANOHAR LALversusSTATE OF HARYANA

                   [2014] 6 S.C.R. 263


                      MANOHAR LAL                              A
                            v.
                   STATE OF HARYANA
            (Criminal Appeal No.1188 of 2009)
                      JULY 01, 2014.
                                                               B
      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
               DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

     PENAL CODE, 1860: s.3048 - Presumption under -
Essential ingredients - Discussed - In the instant case, the   c
victim-deceased was subjected to harassment in connection
with dowry demand and she died on account of burn injuries
- Conviction of husband u/s.3048 by courts below - On
appeal, held: The statement of the mother of the deceased
PW 1 was general and not specific - No specific incident was   o
indicated suggesting the cruelty or harassment made by the
accvsed-husband - The statement of PW 1 was not reliable
and not trustworthy - Though the allegation of demand of
dowry was made, none of the witnesses including PW 1 stated
that the deceased was harassed "soon before her death" for     E
or in connection with demand of dowry - The accused was
charge-sheeted u/ss. 498-A and 304-8 but the trial court did
not convict the accused uls.498-A - In this background, the
prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accused
harassed the deceased soon before her death for or in
                                                               F·
connection with a demand of dowry- Accused acquitted from
the charge u/s. 3048 - Crime against women.

    Prosecution case was that the victim-deceased was
subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry and she
died on account of burn injuries. The appellant-husband,       G
his brothers, parents and sister-in-law were made
accused. The trial court convicted the appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 3048 IPC and other

                            263                                H
    264       SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A accused were acquitted. The High Court upheld the
  conviction. The instant appeal was filed challenging the
  order of conviction.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court

B      HELD: 1. For the purpose of Section 3048, IPC, a
  presumption can be raised only on proof of the following
  essentials: (a) Death of the woman was caused by burns
  or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal
  circumstances. (b)Such death took place within seven
C years of her marriage. (c) The woman was subjected to
  cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (d)
  Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection
  with, any demand for dowry and Such cruelty or
  harassment was soon before her death. [Para 17] [271-
D E-H; 272-A]

         2. In the instant case, the statement of the mother of
    the deceased, PW.1 showed that the death took place
    within seven years of marriage. Admittedly, death of the
    deceased was due to burning i.e. not in normal
E   circumstances. The statement of the complainant PW.1
    was general and not specific. No specific incidence was
    indicated suggesting the cruelty or harassment made by
    the accused. Her statement was not reliable and not
    trustworthy. Though the allegation of demand of dowry
F   was made none of the witnesses including PW.1 stated
    that the deceased was harassed "soon before her death"
    for or in connection with demand of dowry. The accused
    appellant was charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A and
    304-8 IPC but the trial court did not convict the accused
G   under Section 498-A. In this background, the prosecution
    miserably failed to prove that the accused harassed the
    deceased soon before her death for or in connection with
    a demand of dowry. The accused is acquitted from the
    charge under ·section 3048 IPC. [Paras 20 to 22] [276-G-
H   H; 277-A-E]
       MANOHAR LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA                 265


     Kaliaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu: AIR 2003 SC        A
3828; Sunil Bajaj vs. State of M.P., (2001) 9 SCC 417: 2001
(4) Suppl. SCR 51; Hira Lal & Others vs. State (Govt. of
NCT), Delhi, (2003) 8 sec 80: 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 734;
Ba/want Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab (2004) 7 SCC
724 - relied on.                                              B

                    Case Law Reference:
    AIR 2003 SC 3828            Relied on        Para 17
    2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 51      Relied on        Para 18
                                                              c
    2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 734     Relied on        Para 19
    (2004) 1 sec 724            Relied on        Para 19
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No.1188 of 2009.                                              D

    From the Judgment and Order dated 26.03.2007 of the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
Appeal No. 529-SB of 1994.
                                                              E
    Mukesh Sharma, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the
Appellant.

    Santosh Singh, Rakesh K. Mudgal, Dinesh Midgal,
Sharda Hooda for the Respondent.
                                                              F
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. This
appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26th March,
2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.529-SB of 1994. By the       G
impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the appeal and
upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant under
Section 3048 IPC for which he stands sentenced to undergo
RI for seven years.
                                                              H
    266      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A     2. The case of the prosecution is that Phullan @ Darshana,
  (deceased) was married to the accused-Manohar Lal about 5
  years prior to her death which took place on 27th August, 1991.
  She was subjected to harassment for dowry and finally she died
  on account of burn injuries. Raj Rani (PW-1), mother of the
B deceased on learning about the incident, went to Civil Hospital
  and found the victim dead. Thereafter she made statement
  (Exh.PD) before the Police at 12.05 P.M. on 28th August, 1991,
  on the basis of which FIR was registered. Apart from the
  appellant, his brothers Krishan Lal, Harbans Lal, his father
c Gopal Dass, mother Shanti and wife of the brother Smt.
  Champa were also made accused.

          ASI Surat Kant (PW .9) investigated the case and
    recorded the D.D.R.-Ex. P.M. on the statement of Hans
    Raj(PW.8) and Sat Pal. He then alongwith the above-said
D   persons went to the house where the death took place and
    prepared the inquest report -Ex.P.H./1. He took into
    possession one pipi -Ex. P.7, steel bowl -Ex. P-8, burnt match
    sticks Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.11 and half burnt piece of cloth alongwith
    some cash .. After sealing the same into separate parcels with
E   the seal of SK, vide recovery memo Ex. P.N. attested by PWs
    site plan-Ex.P.O. was also prepared by him with correct
    marginal notes. Photographs of the dead body were also taken
    by Swaran Kumar (PW.7). The dead body was sent to the Civil
    Hospital, through constable Krishan Lal, for post-mortem
F   examination. On the next day, Raj Rani(PW.1) made her
    statement-Ex.PD. on which endorsement -Ex.PD/1 was made
    and on the basis of which formal FIR -Ex.P.D./2 was recorded
    by ASI- Ram Krishna. Krishan Lal, Constable produced before
    him one pair of ear rings of gold which were made into a parcel
G   and sealed with the seal SK and taken into possession vide
    recovery memo Ex.P.P .. The accused were arrested on 30th
    August, 1991 and dowry articles were recovered and were
    taken into possession vide memo Ex.P.O. Complainant-Raj
    Rani (PW.1) also produced before him the list of Kanayadan
H   Mark A. After completion of the investigation, all the accused
       MANOHAR LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA                     267
      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
were charge-sheeted for offence under Section 498-A /34 IPC       A
and Section 3048/34 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.

     3. The prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses
and placed on record the documentary evidence. Defence also
                                                                  8
produced Ram Prakash as defence witness. The Trial Court
after hearing the parties and on appreciation of evidence by
the judgment dated 25th August, 1994 convicted the appellant
for the offence punishable under Section 3048 IPC and
sentenced him to undergo RI for seven years. The rest of the
accused i.e. his brothers Krishan Lal, Harbans Lal, his father    C
Gopal Dass, mother Shanti and wife of the brother Smt.
Champa were acquitted by the Trial Court on the ground that
they were all residing separately at a far place from the place
of occurrence where deceased was living with the appellant.
                                                                  D
    4. Learned counsel for the appellant made the following
submissions:

      (a)   There was inordinate delay of twenty hours in
            lodging FIR.
                                                                  E
      (b)   The prosecution failed to prove that accused
            harassed the deceased 'soon before the death' for
            or in connection with the demand of dowry.

      (c)   Satpal, son of 8odha Ram and Puran Chand in their     F
            statements under Section 174 Cr.P.C. did not say
            anything about cruelty on account of demand of
            dowry.

      (d)   The accused Manohar Lal married with Darshana
            @ Phoolan eight years prior to her death.             G
            Therefore, provisions of Section 3048 IPC is not
            attracted in this case.

   5. Raj Rani (PW.1), mother of the deceased- Darshana
@Phullan stated that the accused married her daughter about       H
    268       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A five years back. The accused used to harass her daughter on
  account of inadequacy of dowry and used to make demands
  for cash. According to PW-1, the accused made a demand of
  Rs. 10,000/- which she could not meet. All the accused persons
  used· to give beatings to Darshana @ Phullan and she was
8 pressurized to bring more items of dowry while sufficient dowry   1


  was given to the accused at the time of marriage. Initially for i
  about eight days, the accused kept her daughter nicely but
  thereafter she used to be harassed and beaten by the accused
  repeatedly. During the life time of father of the deceased, he
C used to meet the dowry demands of the appellant. The
  deceased used to complain that her husband was not allowing
  her to stay in the matrimonial home unless some payments
  were made and the complainant(PW.1) had been paying her
  money and used to sent her back to the matrimonial house by
  meeting the demands of the appellant.
D
        6. One day prior to the last Rakhi festival, Jindu Ram-
  father-in-law of PW .1 went to the house of in-laws of
  Darshana@Phullan to meet her and on his return, Jindu Ram.
  (father-in-law of PW.1) informed her that Darshana @ Phullan
E told that she was beaten by the accused after taking liquor and
  it was not possible for her to live in the matrimonial house. This
  information was given to PW.1 by her father-in-law in presence
  of her maternal uncle Devi Lal.

F       7. She further stated that about 8-9 months after the rakhi
  festival, her daughter-Darshana @ Phullan died. She had been
  killed by her-in-laws. She then came to Yamuna Nagar and saw
  the dead body of her daughter having external injuries on her
  dead person which appeared to have been caused on being
  strangulated. Policed recorded the statement of PW.1 and tool< :
G thumb impre~ion which was marked as Ext.PD. The above             1




  statement is not supported by any evidence and contradictory
  to post mortem report, which shows that the death was due tc .
  shock resulting from burns.
                                                                    I
H         8. During the cross-examination, she stated that she made ·
        MANOHAR LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA                       269
       [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

the statement before the police that till the death of her husband,   A
he was meeting the demands of the accused through her
daughter and used to give money and other articles. During the
cross-examination, she further stated that she was informed by
Jindu, her father-in-law that the deceased was being beaten by
her husband after consuming liquor and that she wanted the            B
matter to be settled once for all. When confronted with the
statement-EX.P.D. it was found that no such statement was
given before the police. Her statement that her maternal uncle
was also present, when confronted with Ex.P.D., it was not found
recorded. Jindu, father-in-law of PW.1 also did not support the       c
case of the prosecution. Therefore, he was declared hostile.

     9. PW.5 -Smt. Usha Rani, neighbor of the deceased also
did not support the story of the prosecution. Therefore, she was
also declared hostile.
                                                                      D
     10. PW.3 -Dr.N.K.Garg had conducted post-mortem
examination of deceased-Darshana @Phullan on 28th August,
1991 at 12.30P.M. Dr. A.K. Gupta was also present with PW.3.
Carbon copy of post-mortem report indicates that death was
due to shock resulting from burns. PW.4 -Om Parkash,                  E
draftsman had prepared the site plan -Ex.P.J. of the place of
occurrence.

     11. PW.5-Usha Rani as stated above, informed that
Manohar Lal was residing with his wife-Darshana @ Phullan
                                                                      F
and she did not know how deceased-Darshana @ Phullan was
treated by her husband. In her cross-examination, she stated
that when she asked, the deceased told her that husband had
beaten her. But she did not state the specific date of the
incident. PW.5 was also declared hostile.
                                                                      G
     12. PW.6-Ram Mehar Singh, Constable tendered his
affidavit Ex.P.M. in evidence. PW.7-Sarwan Kumar-
Photographer went to the house of accused-Manohar Lal and
took three photographs- Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and the positives are
Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.6. PW.8-Hans Raj alongwith Sat Pal saw smoke           H
    270      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A   coming out from the house of Manohar Lal. They went there and
    saw that one girl was lying burning. They went to police post
    and lodged report Ex.P.M. Then they came back with the police
    and were asked by the police to go to the village Antawa to
    inform the parents of the accused that their Sahu had died. Then
B   they went there and informed accordingly.

        13. PW.9-ASI Surat Kant, Investigating Officer supported
    the prosecution story and submitted the report of FSL as
    evidence Ex.P.R.

C       14. After closing of the prosecution evidence, the accused
  were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on all the material
  particulars appearing against them. Accused-Manohar Lal
  admitted his marriage with the deceased. He denied the other
  allegations against him. He took specific plea that he had
D separated from his parents just after the marriage and was
  living at Yamuna Nagar. He pleaded innocence and stated that
  for the last 4 or 5 years, he was working with Prakash Transport
  as driver and was living happily with his wife. A daughter was
  also born out of their wedlock. He never made any demand of
E dowry and never maltreated the deceased- Darshana @
  Phullan. He also stated that his wife-deceased Darshana @
  Phullan got her cousin sister Santosh engaged with his brother
  Kishan about 2 years prior to the incident. About 2 % months
  before the incident, his brother refused to accept the proposal
F of relationship due to which relations between his in-laws and
  his parents became strained. They stopped visiting his parents
  and his parents also stopped visiting his in-laws. On the day
  of occurrence, he was away and on return in the evening he
  found his wife dead. He alleged that his in-laws were demanding
G money which he did not give, and as a result, false case of
  dowry-death got registered against him.

       15. In defence, the accused produced Ram Prakash,
  owner of Prakash Transport. He stated that on 26th August,
  1991, accused-Manohar Lal was employed with him as driver
H of a truck and went to Kaithal. He came back at 5.00P.M. and
       MANOHAR LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA                     271
      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
told him about the incident. He handed over the accused-          A
Manohar Lal to the police.

     16. Section 3048 /PC relates to dowry death and reads
as follows:

    "3048. Dowry death.- (1) Where the death of a woman           B
    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, any   C
    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" shall have the same meaning as
    in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of        D
    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."
                                                                  E
    17. For the purpose of the said Section, a presumption
can be raised only on proof of the following essentials:

     (a)   Death of the woman was caused by burns or bodily
           injury or occurs otherwise than under normal           F
           circumstances.

     (b)   Such death took place within seven years of her
           marriage.

     (c)   The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment       G
           by her husband or his relatives.

     (d)   Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in
           connection with, any demand for dowry and
                                                                  H
       272            SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 6 S.C.R.

A               (e)    Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her
                       death.

            In this connection, we may refer decision of this Court in
       Kaliaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828.

B           18. In Sunil Bajaj vs. State of MP., (2001) 9 SCC 417,
       this Court held:
                                   .    .
               "5. We have given our attention and consideration to the
               submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
               Normally this Court will be slow and reluctant, as it ought
c              to be, to upset the order of conviction of the trial court as
               confirmed by the High Court appreciating the evidence
               placed on record. But in cases where both the courts
               concurrently recorded a finding that the accused was guilty
               of an offence in the absence of evidence satisfying the
D.             necessary ingredients of an offence, in other words, when
               no offence was made out, it becomes necessary to disturb
               such an order of conviction and sentence to meet the
               demand of justice. In order to convict an accused for an ·
               offence under Section 304-8 IPC, the following essentials
E              must.be satisfied:

               (1) the death of a woman must have been caused by burns;
               or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal·
               circumstances;
F
           · (2) such death must have occurred within 7 years of her
             marriage;

               (3) soon before her death, the woman must have been
               subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by
G              relatives of her husband;
     .......   ~)such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection
               with demand of dowry.

               6. It is only when the aforementioned ingredients are
H
        MANOHAR LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA                     273
       [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
established by acceptable evidence such death shall be called       A
"dowry death" and such husband or his relative shall be
deemed to have caused her death. It may be noticed that
punishment for the offence of dowry death under Section 304-
B is imprisonment of not less than 7 years, which may extend
to imprisonment for life. Unlike under Section 498-A IPC,           B
husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to
cruelty shall be liable for imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Normally,
in a criminal case the accused can be punished for an offence
on establishment of commission of that offence on the basis         c
of evidence, maybe direct or circumstantial or both. But in case
of an offence under Section 304-B IPC, an exc~ption is made
by deeming provision as to nature of death as "dowry death"
and that the husband or his relative, as the case may be, is
deemed to have caused such death, even in the absence of            0
evidence to prove these aspects but on proving the existence
of the ingredients of the said offence by convincing evidence.
Hence, there is need for greater care and caution, that too
having regard to the gravity of the punishment prescribed for
the said offence, in scrutinizing the evidence and in arriving at   E
the conclusion as to whether all the abovementioned
ingredients of the offence are proved by the prosecution. In the
case on hand, the learned counsel for the appellant could not
dispute that the first two ingredients mentioned above are
satisfied."
                                                                    F
     19. The expression "soon before her death" used in the
Section 3048 IPC and Section 1138 of the Evidence Act was
considered by this Court in Hira Lal & Others vs. State (Govt.
of NCT), Delhi, (2003) 8 sec 80,which reads as under:
                                                                    G
    "8. Section 304-B IPC which deals with dowry death, reads
    as follows:

    "304-B. Dowry death.-(1) Where the death of a woman
    is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
    than under normal circumstances within seven years of her       H
    274        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A         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, any
          demand for dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry
          death', and such husband or relative shall be deemed to
B         have caused her death.

          Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-section, 'dowry'
          shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry
          Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961 ).
c         (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."

          The provision has application when death of a woman is
D         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 relatives of her husband for, or in connection with any
          demand for dowry. In order to attract application of Section
E
          304-B IPC, the essential ingredients are as follows:

          (i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or
          bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal
          circumstance.
F
          (ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years
          of her marriage.

          (iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment
          by her husband or any relative of her husband.
G
          (iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in
          connection with demand of dowry.

          (v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been
H         meted out to the woman soon before her death.
     MANOHAR LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA                      275
    [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
  Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the      A
  case at hand. Both Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-
  B of the Evidence Act were inserted as noted earlier by
  Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a
  view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths.
  Section 113-B reads as follows:                                 B

  "113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.-When the
  question is whether a person has committed the dowry
  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           C
  demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such
  person had caused the dowry de"lth.

  Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, 'dowry
  death' shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B          D
  of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

  The necessity for insertion of the two provisions has been
  amply analysed by the Law Commission of India in its 21st
  Report dated 10-8-1988 on "Dowry Deaths and Law
  Reform". Keeping in view the impediment in the pre-             E
  existing law in securing evidence to prove dowry-related
  deaths, the legislature thought it wise to insert a provision
  relating to presumption of dowry death on proof of certain
  essentials. It is in this background that presumptive Section
  113-B in the Evidence Act has been inserted. As per the         F
  definition of "dowry death" in Section 304-B IPC and the
  wording in the presumptive Section 113-B of the Evidence
  Act, one of the esseqtial ingredients, amongst others, in
  both the provisions is that the woman concerned must
, have been "soon before her death" subjected to cruelty or       G
  harassment "for or in connection with the demand of
  dowry". Presumption under Section 113-B is a
  presumption of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned
  therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a
  presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. The        H
    276       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 6 S.C:_R.


A         presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following
          essentials:

          (1) The question before the court must be whether the
          accused has committed the dowry death. of the woman.
          (This means that the presumption can be raised only if the
B         accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304-
          B IPC.)

          (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by ·
          her husband or his relatives.
c         (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with ·
          any demand for dowry.

          (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death."

D        Similar observation was made by this Court in Ba/want
    Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab (2004) 7 SCC 724. In
    the said case this Court held:

          "10. These decisions and other decisions of this Court do
          lay down the proximity test. It has been reiterated in several
E
          decisions of this Court that "soon before" is an expression
          which permits of elasticity, and therefore the proximity test
          has to pe applied keeping in view the facts and
          circumstances of each case. The facts must show the
          existence of a proximate live link between the effect of
F         cruelty based on dowry demand and the death of the
          victim."

       20. In the present case, from the statement of PW.1 it
  appears that the death took place within seven years of
G marriage. Admittedly, death of the deceased was due to
  burning i.e. not in normal circumstances. We have to see now
  whether the remaining two ingredients are satisfied looking into
  the eviden~e on record.

          21. The statement of the complainant PW.1 is general and
H
          MANOHAR LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA                     277
         [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
 not specific. No specific incidence has been indicated              A
 suggesting the cruelty or harassment made by the accused-
 Manohar Lal. Her statement is not reliable and not trustworthy.
 Though the allegation of demand of dowry was made none of
 the witnesses including PW.1 stated that the deceased was
 harassed "soon before her death" for or in connection with          B
 demand of dowry. The accused appellant<vas charge-sheeted
 under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC but the Trial Court has
 not convicted the accused under Section 498-A. In this
 background, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has
 miserably failed to prove that the accused harassed the             c
 deceased soon before her death for or in connection with a
 demand of dowry.

       22. ·For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment passed by the
· Trial Court dated 26th August, 1994 as upheld by the High
  Court by impugned judgment dated 26th March, 2007, cannot          D
  be upheld. They are accordingly set aside. The accused-
  Manohar Lal is qcquitted from the charge under Section 3048
  IPC. The appeal is allowed. Bail Bonds, if any, stand
  discharged.
                                                                     E
 Devika Gujral                                     Appeal allowed.