MUSTAFA SHAHADAL SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                        (2012] 7 S.C.R. 560


A                 MUSTAFA SHAHADAL SHAIKH
                                  v.
                 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1406 of 2008)

                      SEPTEMBER 14, 2012
B
          [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]

        Penal Code, 1860:

c      ss.3048 and 498A rlw s.34 - Dowry death - Cruelty by
  husband -Appellant's wife committed suicide at her
  matrimonial home - Death occurred within seven months of
  marriage - On the date of death, appellant and his parents
  alone were in the house - Conviction of appellant ulss.3048
  and 498A rlw s. 34 - Challenge to - Held: The evidence of PWs
0
  4, 6, 7 and 9 (grand-father, father, mother and brother of the
  deceased) clearly proved torture, harassment, and demand
  of dowry, at the hands of the accused including the appellant
  - Even 5 days prior to her death, deceased had told PW6
  about the harassment and torture meted out to her which
E clearly satisfies the expression ''soon before her death" used
  in s.3048 /PC and s.1138 of the Evidence Act - From the
  materials on record, it is clear that the prosecution established
  the offence u/s.3048 /PC - The prosecution evidence also
  clearly proved the ingredients of cruelty (i.e. 498A) -
F Conviction of appellant accordingly sustained - Evidence Act,
  1872 - s. 1138 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - s. 2.

        s. 3048 - Dowry death - Presumption - Burden of proof
  that the harassment or cruelty was related to demand for
G dowry and was caused "soon before her death" - Expression
  "soon before her death" - Meaning of - Held: To attract the
  provisions of s.3048, one of the main ingredients of the
  offence which is required to be established is that ''soon before
  her death" the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment
                                560
H
    MUSTAFA SHAHADAL SHAIKH v. STATE OF                   561
               MAHARASHTRA

"for, or in connection with the demand for dowry" - The           A
expression "soon before her death" used in s.3048 /PC and
s. 1138 of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of
proximity test - Determination of the period which can come
within the term "soon before her death" is to be determined
by the courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances         B
of each case - However, the said expression would normally
imply that the interval should not be much between the
concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question -
If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has
become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium         c
of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence -
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 1138.

     s.3048 - Conviction under- Prayer of convict for leniency
in sentence considering his young age and that he was the
only earning member in his family - Held: On facts, not           D
acceptable - These aspects were duly considered by the trial
court while awarding punishment - Further s. 3048 itself
mandates that in the case of conviction in terms of sub-section
(1) the imprisonment shall not be less than 7 years but which
may extend to imprisonment for life - In view of the fact that    E
the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable
doubt by placing acceptable evidence and of the fact that
minimum sentence of seven years was prescribed by the
courts below, it is not possible to award sentence less than 7
years - Moreso, when these aspects were also considered by        F
the High Court - Sentence I Sentencing.

     Crime against Women - Death of married woman -
Conviction of accused-husband - Challenge to - Plea of
accused that the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution         G
were close relatives of the deceased and no outsider was
examined to prove the prosecution case - Held: Not tenable
- In a case of this nature i.e. matrimonial death, one cannot
expect outsiders to come and depose what had happened in
the family of the deceased.
                                                                  H
    562      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012) 7 S.C.R.

A      The wife of appellant/A1 committed suicide by
   consuming poison while she was at her matrimonial
   home. The appellant and his parents informed about her
   death to her family members. On the same day, PW-4, the
  grand-father of the deceased lodged an F.l.R. alleging
s torture and harassment faced by the deceased on
  account of demand for dowry. On the basis of the said
  report, a case was registered against the appellant and
  his family members under Sections 306, 304-8 and 498-
  A read with Section 34 of IPC. In support of the charges,
c the prosecution heavily relied on the complaint (Exh. 20),
  the evidence of PWs 4, 6, 7 and 9 and other relevant
  circumstance, viz., the death occurred within 7 months
  from the date of marriage. The trial court, while acquitting
  A-4, the sister of the appellant, convicted the appellant
  and his parents (A-2 and A-3) under Sections 498-A and
0
  304-B read with Section 34 of IPC. The appellant and his
  parents (A-2 and A-3) preferred appeal before the High
  Court. During pendency of the appeal, A-2 and A-3
  expired and the appeal against them stood abated. By
E the impugned judgment, the High Court confirmed the
  conviction of appellant.

       In the instant appeal, the only point for consideration
  was whether the prosecution had made out a case in
  respect of the charges leveled against the appellant
F relating to Section 3048 and 498A IPC.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1.1. Section 3048 IPC relates to dowry death.
  In order to convict an accused for offence punishable
G under Section 3048 IPC, the following essentials must be
  satisfied: i) the death of a woman must have been caused
  by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal
  circumstances; ii) such death must have occurred within
  seven years of her marriage; iii) soon before her death,
H
    MUSTAFA SHAHADAL SHAIKH v. STATE OF               563
              MAHARASHTRA
the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or             A
harassment by her husband or any relatives of her
husband; iv) such cruelty or harassment must be for, or
in connection with, demand for dowry. When the above
ingredients are established by reliable and acceptable
evidence, such death shall be called dowry death and         B
such husband or his relatives shall be deemed to have
caused her death. If the above-mentioned ingredients
attract in view of the special provision, the court shall
presume and it shall record such fact as proved unless
and until it is disproved by the accused. However, it is     c
open to the accused to adduce evidence for disproving
such compulsory presumption as the burden is
unmistakably on him to do so and he can discharge such
burden by getting an answer through cross-examination
of prosecution witnesses or by adducing evidence on the
                                                             0
defence side. (Para 6) (568-G; 569-D-H; 570-A-8]

    1.2. Section 1138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
speaks about presumption as to dowry death. The
prosecution under Section 3048 of IPC cannot escape
from the burden of proof that the harassment or cruelty      E
was related to the demand for dowry and such was
caused "soon before her death". In view of the
explanation to the said section, the word "dowry" has to
be understood as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. [Para 7] [570-C; F-G]                 F

    1.3. To attract the provisions of Section 3048, one of
the main ingredients of the offence which is required to
be established is that "soon before her death" she was
subjected to cruelty or harassment "for, or in connection    G
with the demand for dowry". The expression "soon
before her death" used in Section 3048 IPC and Section
1138 of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of
proximity test. Though the language used "soon before
her death", no definite period has been enacted and the      H
    564    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A expression "soon before her death" has not been
  defined in both the enactments. Accordingly, the
  determination of the period which can come within the
  term "soon before her death" is to be determined by the
  courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of
8 each case. However, the said expression would normally
  imply that the interval should not be much between the
  concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in
  question. In other words, there must be existence of a
  proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based
c on dowry demand and the concerned death. 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. [Para
  8] [571-C-G]

D       Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR (2003) SC
    3828: 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 1 and Yashoda v. State of
    Madhya Pradesh (2004) 3 SCC 98- relied on.

       2.1. PW-4, aged about 65 years at the time of the
E incident deposed that the deceased was his grand-
  daughter. His evidence clearly prove the torture,
  harassment, and demand of dowry at the hands of the
  accused including the appellant. The evidence of PW-6 -
  the father of the deceased also proves the torture and
F harassment for the settlement for the payment of money
  and, in fact, this was narrated just 5 days prior to the date
  of her death. It very clearly satisfies the expression "soon
  before her death". PW-7, the mother of the deceased, also
  narrated similar to PWs 4 and 6. From her evidence also,
G it is clear that the accused tortured and harassed her
  daughter for money. The other witness relied on by the
  prosecution is PW-9 the brother of the deceased. Like
  PWs 4, 6 and 7, he also highlighted that his sister used
  to inform that her husband, sister-in-law, father-in-law
  and mother-in-law tortured her on many occasions for the
H
    MUSTAFA SHAHADAL SHAIKH v. STATE OF                565
              MAHARASHTRA
payment of money and gold ornaments. A perusal of his         A
entire evidence also corroborates with the similar claim
made by PWs 4, 6 and 7. [Paras 9,10,11 and 12] [572-A-
B; 573-A-B-E-H; 574-A]

     2.2. Though the appellant contended that all the         8
witnesses relied on by the prosecution were close
relatives and no outsider was examined to prove their
case, in a case of this nature i.e. matrimonial death, one
cannot expect outsiders to come and depose what had
happened in the family of the deceased. The death
occurred within a period of 7 months from the date of the     C
marriage and she died at her matrimonial home. It has
also come in evidence from the prosecution witnesses
that cm the date of the death, the appellant and his
parents alone were in the house. In such circumstances,
the contention raised by the appellant is liable to be        D
rejected. [Para 13] [574-B-D]

    2.3. Apart from the above witnesses, the doctor who
conducted the post mortem was examined as PW-5. In
the post mortem report, he opined that death of               E
appellant's wife was due to poisoning. He further
explained that poison was petroleum hydrocarbons. He
also deposed that the said poison was sufficient to cause
death of a human being. [Para 14] [574-D-E]
                                                              F
    2.4. From the materials on record, it is clear that the
prosecution has clearly established the offence under
Section 3048 IPC and the same has been rightly
accepted by the trial Court and confirmed by the High
Court. [Para 15] [57 4-F]
                                                              G
     2.5. Section 498A speaks about cruelty by husband
or relatives of husband. The object of inserting the above
section was to punish the husband or his relatives who
harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives
to satisfy unlawful .demands of dowry. The prosecution        H
    566      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A evidence clearly prove the ingredients of cruelty and no
  further elaboration is required, on the other hand, the
  conclusion arrived at by the trial Court as affirmed by the
  High Court is correct. [Para 16] [574-G; 575-D-F]

8       2.6. Though the appellant pleaded for reduction of
  his sentence considering his age, viz., 23 years at the time
  of occurrence and that he was the only earning member
  in his family, these aspects were duly considered by the
  trial court while awarding punishment. Further Section
C 3048 itself mandates that in the case of conviction in
  terms of sub-section (1) the imprisonment shali not be
  less than 7 years but which may extend to imprisonment
  for lifo. In view of the fact that the prosecution has
  established its case beyond reasonable doubt by placing
  acceptable evidence and of the fact that minimum
D sentence of seven years has been prescribed (by the
  courts below), it cannot be possible to award sentence
  less than 7 years. These aspects were also considered
  by the High Court. Accordingly, the similar request made
  by the appellant is rejected. [Para 17] (575-F-H; 576-A-B]
E
                          Case Law Reference:
          2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 1 relied on              Para 8
          (2004) 3 sec 98         relied on            Para 8
F
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 1406 of 2008.
      From the Judgment & Order dated 28.11.2007 of the
  Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 891/
G 1990.

          Sudhanhu S. Choudhari for the Appellant.

          Sachin J. Patil, Asha Gopalan Nair for the Respondent.

H         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
    MUSTAFA SHAHADAL SHAIKH v. STATE OF                     567
              MAHARASHTRA
    P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the        A
judgment and order dated 28.11.2007 passed by the High
Court of Judicature of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 891 of
1990 whereby the High Court confirmed the order of conviction
and sentence dated 07 .12.1990 passed by the 4th Additional
Sessions Judge at Kolhapur against the appellant herein.            B

     2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal
are as under :

     (a) On 26.01.1989, Mustafa Shahadal Shaikh (A 1) - the
appellant-accused married one Hasina Mustafa Shaikh (since          C
deceased) at Tembalalwadi, Dist. Kolhapur, Maharashtra. After
marriage, Hasina was staying with the appellant in her
matrimonial home at Ujalawadi Taluka Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur,
Maharashtra. On 23.08.1989, when she was at her matrimonial
home, she committed suicide by consuming poison. She was            D
taken to CPR Hospital at Kolhapur where the doctor declared
that she was brought dead. The appellant and his parents
informed about her death to her family members.

     (b) On the same day, Abdul Rahim Shaikh (PW-4) the
                                                                    E
grand-father of the deceased lodged an F.l.R. at Karveer Police
Station, Kohlapur alleging torture and harassment faced by the
deceased on account of demand for dowry. On the basis of the
said report, C.P. No. 186/89 (Exh.20) was registered against
the appellant and his family members for the offence punishable     F
under Sections 306, 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").

     (c) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and
numbered as Sessions Case No. 7of1990 and A-1 Husband,
A-2 Father, A-3 Mother, A-4 sister-in-law were arrayed as           G
accused nos. 1 to 4. During the trial, prosecution examined 12
witnesses and marked several documents. By order dated
07.12.1990, the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, while acquitting
the sister (A-4) of the appellant herein, convicted the appellant
and his parents for the offence punishable under Sections 498-      H
    568       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 7 S.C.R.

A A and 004-B read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them
  to suffer RI for 1 year along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in defa1:,t,
  to further under RI for 6 months and RI for 7 years respectively.

       (d) Being aggrieved, the appellant and his parents
B preferred Criminal Appeal No. 891 of 1990 before the High
  Court of Bombay. During the pendency of the appeal before
  the High Court, the parents (A-2 and A-3) of the appellant
  expired and the appeal against them stood abated. By the
  impugned judgment dated 28.11.2007, the High Court
  dismissed the appeal while confirming the conviction and
C sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellant.

         (e) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has
    preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

0         3. Heard Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned counsel for
    the appellant-accused and Mr. Sachin J. Patil, learned counsel
    for the respondent-State.

    Discussion:

E        4. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether
    the prosecution has made out a case in respect of the charges
    leveled against the appellant relating to Section 304B and 498A
    IPC.

       5. In support of the above charges, the prosecution heavily
F relied on the complaint (Exh. 20), the evidence of PWs 4, 6, 7
  and 9 and other relevant circumstance, viz., the death occurred
  on 23.08.1989 i.e. within a period of 7 months from the date
  of marriage i.e. 26.01.1989.
G        6. Before considering the prosecution case as well as the
    defence pleaded, it is desirable to extract the relevant
    provisions of Section 304B which relates to Dowry death.

          "3048. Dowry death. - (1) Where the death of a woman is
H         caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
    MUSTAFA SHAHADAL SHAIKH v. STATE OF                     569
      MAHARASHTRA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

    than under normal circumstances within seven years of her       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 of life"

The above provision was inserted by Act 43 of 1986 and came         0
into force w.e.f. 19.11.1986. There is no dispute about the
applicability of the above provision since the marriage and the
death occurred in 1989. In order to convict an accused for
offence punishable under Section 3048 of IPC, the following
essentials must be satisfied:
                                                                    E
     i) the death of a woman must have been caused by burns
or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;

    ii) such death must have occurred within seven years of
her marriage;                                                       F

      iii) soon before her death, the woman must have been
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
relatives of her husband;

     iv) such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection   G
with, demand for dowry.

When the above ingredients are established by reliable and
acceptable evidence, such death shall be called dowry death
and such husband or his relatives shall be deemed to have           H
    570      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [20121 7 S.C.R.


A caused her death. If the above-mentioned ingredients attract
  in view of the special provision, the court shall presume and it
  shall record such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved
  by the accused. However, it is open to the accused to adduce
  such evidence for disproving such compulsory presumption as
8 the burden is unmistakably on him to do so and he can
  discharge such burden by getting an answer through cross-
  examination of prosecution witnesses or by adducing evidence
  on the defence side.

C       7. Section 1138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 speaks
    about presumption as to dowry death which reads as under:-

          "1138. 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
D         woman has 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.

E         Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "dowry
          death" shall have the same meaning as in section 3048
          of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

  As stated earlier, the prosecution under Section 3048 of IPC
  cannot escape from the burden of proof that the harassment
F or cruelty was related to the demand for dowry and such was
  caused "soon before her death". In view of the explanation to
  the said section, the word "dowry" has to be understood as
  defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 which
  reads as under:-
G
       2. Definition of' dowry". In this Act," dowry" means any
       property or valuable security given or agreed to be given
       either directly or indirectly-

          (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the
H
   MUSTAFA SHAHADAL SHAIKH v. STATE OF                       571
      MAHARASHTRA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
    marriage; or                                                     A
    (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by a other
    person, to either party to the marriage or to any other
    person; at or before or after the marriage us consideration
    for the marriage of the said parties, but does not include       B
    dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim
    Personal Law (Shariat) applies."

     8. To attract the provisions of Section 3048, one of the
main ingredients of the offence which is required to be
established is that "soon before her death" she was subjected C
to cruelty or harassment "for, or in connection with the demand
for dowry". The expression "soon before her death" used in
Section 3048 IPC and Section 1138 of the Evidence Act is
present with the idea of proximity test. In fact, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no proximity o
for the alleged demand of dowry and harassment. With regard
to the said claim, we shall advert to the same while considering
the evidence led in by the prosecution. Though the language
used "soon before her death", no definite period has been
enacted and the expression "soon before her death" has not E
been defined in both the enactments. Accordingly, the
determination of the period which can come within the term
"soon before her death" is to be determined by the courts,
depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
However, the said expression would normally imply that the F
interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or
harassment and the death in question. In other words, there
must be existence of a proximate and live link between the
effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned
death. If the alleged inciden.t of cruelty is remote in time and G
has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium
of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.
These principles have been reiterated in Kaliyaperumal vs.
 State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828 and Yashoda vs.
 State of Madhya Pradesh, (2004) 3 SCC 98.
                                                                  H
    572      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A         9. With these principles in mind, let us analyze the
     evidence led in by the prosecution. Abdul Rahim Shaikh, PW-
     4, aged about 65 years at the time of the incident deposed that
     the deceased - Hasina was his grand daughter. Hasina was
    daughter of his daughter Chandbi and her husband's name is
B    Dilawar Khan. According to him, after her marriage on
     26.01.1989, she went to reside in the house of the appellant-
     accused at Ujalawadi. She stayed there for 5 days and returned
    to their house and stayed for 15 days. Thereafter, she again
    went to her in-laws house. At the time of Bakrid, Hasina, her
C    husband Mustafa (A 1) - the appellant accused and Hasina's
    brother Ayub had gone to Panaji. After 4 days, Ayub and
     Mustafa returned from Panaji and she stayed there for 15 days.
    Hasina narrated all her sufferings to her mother Chandbi (PW-
    7) daughter of PW-4 as to how the accused were torturing,
    beating and abusing her for the demand of Rs.5,000/- and a
0
    gold ring and a chain. When the appellant and his mother
    visited his house, he explained to them that they had already
    spent Rs.6,000/- for marriage and he was ready to get
    employment for the appellant. He further deposed that after 5-
    6 days, he had gone to the house of Abubakhar Nimshikari
E   PW-10 - the mediator to the said marriage and informed him
    about the cruelty and harassment meted out to the deceased
    in order to fulfill the demand of dowry. He also deposed that
    when he had gone to the house of the accused about 2-4 days
    prior to her death, she took him to a room and narrated how
F   the accused began to torture her more for their demand for
    money and gold chain and she also asked him to do something
    with regard to the same. He also explained that 4 days
    thereafter, father-in-law and mother-in-law of Hasina came· to
    their house and told him that Hasina had consumed poison and
G   she had been admitted in CPR Hospital. They also showed the
    bottle to him. Thereafter, PW-4 and his wife rushed to CPR
    Hospital. When they reached the Hospital, the Doctor informed
    that she was brought dead. Nobody was present near the dead
    body from the house of the accused. Thereafter, he went to
H   Kharvi P.S and lodged a report which is Exh. 20. In fact, while
    MUSTAFA SHAHADAL SHAIKH v. STATE OF                    573
      MAHARASHTRA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
recording his evidence, the trial Judge has noted that PW-4 - A
grandfather of the deceased became over emotional and began
to weep in the witness box. His evidence, who is an elderly
person and affectionate to the deceased - Hasina, clearly prove
the torture, harassment, and demand of dowry at the hands of
the accused including the appellant.                            B

     10. The next witness examined on the side of the
prosecution is Dilawarkhan PW-6 - father of the deceased. In
his evidence, he also explained that his daughter told him that
her in-laws used to torture her by beating and keeping her         C
starved. He subsequently mentioned that on 18.08.1989, he
himself and his wife had visited the house of his father-in-law,
namely, PW-4 at Tembalwadi and, thereafter, they had gone to
the house of accused at Ujalawadi. There itself Hasina
explained the harassment and torture meted out to her. She
started weeping and told PW-6 that her husband - appellant         D
herein tortured her more. On the next day, when the appellant
and his mother came to their house, PW-6 told them that he
would get employment for the appellant accused and he should
not harass her daughter. However, he did not listen to him and
left his house. The evidence of PW-6 - the father of the           E
deceased also proves the torture and harassment for the
settlement for the payment of money and, in fact, this was
narrated on 18.08.1989 i.e. just 5 days prior to the date of her
death. It very clearly satisfies the expression "soon before her
death".                                                            F

     11 . The next witness relied on by the prosecution is
Chandbi PW-7 the mother of the deceased. She also narrated
similar to PWs 4 and 6. From her evidence also, it is clear that
the accused tortured and harassed her daughter for money.
                                                                   G
    12. The other witness relied on by the prosecution is
Ayubkhan (PW-9) the brother of the deceased. Like PWs 4, 6
and 7, he also highlighted that his sister used to inform that her
husband, sister-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law tortured
her on many occasions for the payment of money and gold H
    574       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 7 S.C.R.

A   ornaments. A perusal of his entire evidence also corroborates
    with the similar claim made by PWs 4, 6 and 7.

        13. Though learned counsel for the appellant contended
  that all the witnesses relied on by the prosecution are close
  relatives and no outsider has been examined to prove their
8
  case, we are of the view that in a case of this nature i.e.
  matrimonial death, we cannot expect outsiders to come and
  depose what had happened in the family of the deceased. We
  have already highlighted that the death occurred within a period
C of 7 months from the date of the marriage and she died at her
  matrimonial home. It has also come in evidence from the
  prosecution witnesses that on the date of the death, the
  appellant and his parents alone were in the house. In such
  circumstances, we reject the contention raised by the counsel
  for the appellant.
D
       14. Apart from the above witnesses, Dr. Ramdas - the
  doctor who conducted the post mortem was examined as PW-
  5. In the post mortem report, he opined that death of Hasina
  was due to poisoning. He further explained that poison was
E petroleum hydrocarbons. He also deposed that the said poison
  was sufficient to cause death of a human being.

         15. From these materials, we are satisfied that the
    prosecution has clearly established the offence under Section
F   30413 IPC and the same has been rightly accepted by the trial
    Court and confirmed by the High Court.

         16. Coming to Section 498A which speaks about cruelty
    by husband or relatives of husband. It is useful to extract the
    said provision:-
G
          "49BA. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
          subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or
          the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
          woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for
H
     MUSTAFA SHAHADAL SHAIKH v. STATE OF                      575
       MAHARASHTRA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

    a term which may extend to three years and shall also be         A
    liable to fine.

    Explanation- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty"
    means-

      (a)   any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is       B
            likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
            cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
            (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

      (b)   harassment of the woman where such harassment            c
            is with a view to coercing her or any person related
            to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property
            or valuable security or is on account of failure by
            her or any person related to her to meet such
            demand."                                                 D
The object of inserting the above section by Act 46 of 1983
which came into force w.e.f. 25.12.1983 was with a view to
punish the husband or his relatives who harass or torture the
wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands
of dowry. The prosecution evidence, which we have already            E
discussed, clearly prove the ingredients of cruelty and no further
elaboration is required, on the other hand, we fully agree with
the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court as affirmed by the
High Court.
                                                                     F
     17. Finally, faint argument was advanced by the counsel
for the appellant for reduction of the sentence of appellant-
accused considering his age, viz., 23 years at the time of
occurrence. It is also pleaded that he is the only earning
member in his family and prayed for leniency. These aspects          G
were duly considered by the trial court while awarding
punishment. Further Section 3048 itself mandates that in the
case of conviction in terms of sub-section (1) the imprisonment
shall not be less than 7 years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life. In view of the fact that the prosecution
                                                                     H
    576     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012) 7 S.C.R.


A has established its case beyond reasonable doubt by placing
  acceptable evidence and of the fact that minimum sentence of
  seven years has been prescribed, it cannot be possible to
  award sentence less than 7 years. These aspects were also
  considered by the High Court. Accordingly, we reject the similar
8 request made by the counsel for the appellant.

        1a. In the light of what is stated above, we fully concur with
   the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and the High Court.
   Consequently, the appeal fails and accordingly dismissed.

C 8.8.8.                                        Appeal dismissed.