STATE OF KARNATAKAversusDATTARAJ & OTHERS

                            [2016] 2 S.C.R. 570



A                       STATE OF KARNATAKA
                                     v.
                         DATTARAJ & OTHERS
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 326of2012)
B                          FEBRUARY 15, 2016
        [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND S. A. BOBDE, JJ.]
        Penal Code, 1860: ss.498A, 304B r!w s.34 - Dowry Prohibition
  Act, 1961 - ss.3, 4 and 6 -Dowry death - Victim deceased was
c subjected   to dowry demands, cruelty and harassment by the
  husband, his brother and parents - She died of burn injuries within
  7 years of marriage - Trial court convicted all the four accused
  persons ulss.498A, 304B r!w s.34 !PC and ss.3, 4 and 6 of Act of
  1961 holding that taunts and physical torture at the hands of accused
  were established from eye witnesses account - High Court upheld
D conviction of husband-respondent - As regards the other 3 accused
  they were acquitted on the ground that they had played no role in
  the death of the deceased and also the mother and brother of the
  victim-deceased did not attribute any kind of overt acts of cruelty
  or harassment to the other accused - States appeal against acquittal
  - Held: The testimony of PWl-the mother of the victim-deceased
E
  showed that the monetary gifts given to husband and his family
  members were in the nature of customary gifts exchanged during
  different ceremonies and, therefore they were in accord with
  prevailing practice· and tradition - Demand of Rs.20,000 for
  purchas'e of agricultural land was made two years before the
F occurrence which also does not satisfy the requirement of 'soon
  before her death' contemplated uls.304B - As regards the demand
  of sewing machine, PWl testified that sewing machine was really a
  gift to the deceased as she knew tailol'ing - In view of testimony of
   PWl, it cannot be considered as demand made by deceased's
G husband for himself or for his family members - There was no
  further attribution, as against the respondents-accused nos. 2 to 4
  - Jn such view of the matter, the culpability of respondent-accused
  nos. 2 to 4, in the entire occurrence was not established - High
  Court was, therefore, fully justified in acquitting re.1pondent-accused
  nos. 2 to 4, for the said offences.
H
                                    570
      STATE OF KARNATAj(A v. DATTARAJ & OTHERS                          571



    Dismissin~ the appeal, the Court                                     A
     HELD: 1. Perusal of the statement of PW-1, the mother of
victim-deceased clearly showed that the monetary gifts given to
husband and his family members, were in the nature of customary
gifts exchanged during different ceremonies. But what is of
extreme significance is the fact, that even the family of the husband    B
of the deceased had· given four tonnes of sugarcane seeds and a
bag of jowar to her family, when the family of victim-deceased
visited her matrimonial
                .·1\..
                          house,.
                                   on the occasion of the birth of a
female child. It is acknowledged by PW-1, that the aforesaid gifts
were taken by the family members of the deceased to their own
village, by hiring a "tum-tum" (a horse-drawn cart). This return         c
gift by the family of accused-respondent was also in conformity
with the customary Jradition for such occasions. It seems that
the two families celebrated all festivities in the spirit of their
customary obligations. Both families engaged iu offering gifts to
each other, in accord with the prevailing practice aud tradition.        D
{Para 17] (580-H; 581-A-C]
   ·· 2. Insofar as the demand of Rs.20,000/- for the purchase of
agricultural land is concerned, it is apparent that the same was
allegedly made when husband .of deceased was in Dubai. The said
demand was allegedly made by respondent- accused no.2, the               E
father-in-law of deceased when he had gone to leave the deceased
at her maternal home. The deceased's husband is stated to have
returned to India from Dubai eight to ten months, after the a1iove
demand. A female child was born to the deceased about a year
after the return of her husband to India. After the birth of the
female child, the deceased had remained in her maternal house,           F
for about four to five months. Therefore, even if the above oral
allegation is accepted as correct, it was a demand made about
two years before the occurrence. The same was too remote to
the occurrence, and therefore, would not satisfy the requirement
of "soon before her death" contemplated under Section 304B(l)            G
IPC. The only remaining alleged dowry demand was that of a
sewing-machine. During cross-examination PWl stated, that the
deceased knew tailoring. And that, the sewing-machine was given
to her for tailoring clothes. This was really a gift to the deceased
and therefore, cannot be considered as a part of'the demand made
                                                                         H
572              SL:PREME COL:RT REPORTS                   [2016J 2 S.C.R.


A     by deceased's husband for himself or for his family members.
      This allegation, is inconsequential, with respect to the provisions
      under which the accused were charged. [Paras 18, 19] [581-D-H]
           3. The High Court was _justified in recording that even the
      statements of PW-I and PW-4, did not attribute any kind of overt
B     act to respondent•accused nos. 2 to 4. The High Court was,
      therefore, fully justified in acquitting respondent-accused nos. 2
      to 4, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 3048
      read with Section 34 of the IPC, as. also, for the charges under
      Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Act. [Para 20] [582-B-C]
C           Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015) 6 SCC 477:
            2015 (2) SCR 835 - held inapplicable.
               Kans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 207:
               2000 (3) SCR 662; Tumma/a Venkatesll'ar Rao v. State
               of Andhra Pr.adesh (2014) 2 SCC 240: 2013 (17) SCR
o              573; Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 9 SCC
               721: 2007 (1) SCR 164 - referred to.
                               Case Law Reference
         2000 (3) SCR 662          referred to                Para 14
         2013 (17) SCR 573         referred to                Para 14
 E
         2015 (2) SCR 835          held inapplicable          Para ·15
         2007 (1) SCR 164          referred to                Para 15
           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
      326 of2012.
 F
           From the Judgment and Order dated 30.06.2009 of the High Court
      ofKamataka, at Bangalore, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga in Criminal Appeal
      No. 3514 of2008.
           I
           Ms. Anitha Shenoy for the appellants.
 G        Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv., Anirudh Sanganeria, Chinmoy
      Deshpande (For Mr. B. Subrahmanya Prasad) for the respondents.
           The Judgment of the Cou11 was delivered by
           JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. I. Dattaraj - the respondent-
      accused no. I, married Savita (since deceased), on 7.6.2002. About
 H
       STATE OF KARNATAKA v. DATTARAJ & OTHERS                                  573
                 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.)

three months before the marriage, at the asking of Dattaraj, it was agreed       A
to give Rs.21,000/- in cash and 3 to las of gold. Accordingly, the family
of Savita complied with the aforesaid commitment, at the time of
marriage. After their marriage, Savita started to live in her matrimonial
ho.11se along withpattaraj (respondent-accused no. l ). Soon after his
marriage, Dattaraj went to Dubai, leaving Savita at the matrimonial house.
                                                                                 B
During his absence, she went t0 her parents' house. Dattaraj contacted
Savita, and had a telephonic conversation with her, while she was at her
parents' house. He enquired from lfer, with whose permission she had
gone to her maternal house. He also rebuked her for having left the
matrimonial house, without his permission.
      2. While Savita was in her maternal house, Dattaraj required her
                                                                                 c
to get Rs.20,000/- in cash from her parents, as his brother needed the
money to purchase some agricultural land. On the asking of Dattaraj,
Savita got the money from her parents.. After Dattaraj returned from
Dubai, he was invited by Savita's parents for a "pooja" (prayer) ceremony.
The "pooja" had been arranged to celebrate the in'Stallation of a bore-          D
well, on the agricultural lands owned by Savita's father. It was alleged,
that Dattaraj (respondent-accused no. l) had agreed to attend the "pooja",
only if he was given three to las of gold, as also, wearing apparel. As
against the above, the assertion of Dattaraj was, that such gifts were.
customary, and were given by the parents of Savita, on their own free
will. In any case, it is not a matter of dispute, that gold and clothing were    E
indeed given to Dattaraj, during the "pooja" arranged by the parents of
Savita, to celebrate the installation ofa bore-well.
     3. After Dattaraj returned from Dubai, Savita became pregnant.
She left for her maternal house, prior to her delivery. She delivered a
girl child, at her parents' house. Thereafter, she returned to her               F
matrimonial house.
      4. On yet another occasion, while Savita along with Dattaraj
(respondent-accused no. l) had gone to stay with her parents, it was
 alleged, that Dattaraj had made similar monetary demands. On this
 occasion, Savita's parents had expressed their helplessness, and had G
 informed Dattaraj, that they did not have adequate resources to meet his
.demands. It was also alleged, that on this occasion, Dattaraj had picked
 up a quarrel with the parents ofSavita. It was alleged, that when Savi ta .
 returned to her matrimonial house with Dattaraj, she was taunted by the
 brotherofDattaraj, namely, by Siddappa@ Siddaraj (res11.ondent-accused
                                                                                 H
574             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           (20 I 6] 2 S.C.R.


A     no. 3), as also by Ningesh (respondent-accused no. 2) and Revamma
      (respondent-accused no. 4), the father and mother ofrespondent-accused
      no. I respectively, for bringing inadequate gifts from her parents' house.
            5. Savita went to her parents' house for "Rakhi Poomima" (festival
      to celebrate sanctity of the brother-sister, relationship), to tie a "rakhi"
B     (sacred thread) on her brother's arm. It was alleged, that Dattaraj
      demanded a sewing machine. This demand made by· Dattaraj was
      allegedly met by the parents of Saviia. This is yet another incident of
      the alleged demand of dowry, made by Dattaraj and his family members.
           6. The case of the prosecution is, that despite the fact that the
 c    parents of Savita met all the demands made by Dattaraj, as well as, his
      family members, they remained unsatisfied and continued to pressurise
      Savita's family for more dowry. It is also the case of the prosecution,
      that Dattaraj used to harass and ill-treat Savita, and would even assault
      her.

 D        7. On 1.9.2006, Savitadiedofbum injuries. ThemotherofSavita,
    Tukkubai - PW-I, was informed about the burn injuries suffered by
    Savita, on 1.9.2006 itself. She was also informed, that Savita, had been
    admitted to hospital. When Tukkubai-PW-1 reached the hospital along
    with her son Dattatry- PW-4, the dead body of Savita was lying in the
    mortuary of the Government hospital, Gulbarga. None of the
 E respondents-accused was present at the hospital. Immediately, Tukkubai
    - PW- I, filed a complaint. In the complaint it was alleged, that the
    respondents-accused had committed the murder of Savita, on account
    of their dowry demands having not been met, by the maternal family of
    Savita. The above report was lodged on 2.9.2006 i.e., the day following
 F. the death of Savita. The fact, that Savita was left all by herself at the
    hospital, and that no one out of the respondents-accused attended upon
    her even during her pitiable condition, was alleged as sufficient to establish,
    that the relationship between Savita and the family of her in-laws, was
    not cordial. The defence repudiated the version of the prosecution by
    asserting, that Savita had committed suicide on account of her over-
 G sensitive nature.

           8. Consequent upon the culmination of the investigation, a
      chargesheet was filed by the prosecution, leading to the framing of
      charges against Dattaraj (respondent-accused no. I), his brother Siddappa
      @ Siddaraj (respondent-accused no. 3), his father Ningesh (respondent-
 H    accused no. 2), and his mother Revamma (respondent-accused no. 4).
       STATE OF KARNATAKA v. DATTARAJ & OTHERS                                 575
                 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

The respondents-accused were charged with the offences punishable               A
under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as, the !PC), as well as, under
Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as, the Dowry Act). The factual position recorded above,
constituted the basis of the alleged actions of cruelty, by the respondents-
                                                                                B
accused towards Savita, and therefore, the offence under Section 498A.
The fact that Savita had died of burn injuries, within seven years of her
marriage, and that, she was being subjected to dowry demands, cruelty
and harassmenr·by the accused, was the basis for substa.ntiating the
offence under Section 304B of the !PC.
     9. The Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-Ill), Bidar, who tried the
                                                                                c
respondents-accused arrived at the conclusion, that the cash, the go Id
and other gifts given by the parents of Savita to the accused, were in the
nature of dowry articles presented by Savita's family, to Dattaraj and
other members of bis family. This conclusion was arrived at b€cause
the term "dowry" means and includes, property or valuable security              D
given either directly or indirectly, not only at the time of marriage, but
also at any time after marriage.
      10. Despite the fact thatTukkubai- PW-1, admitted that the family
ofDattaraj had gifted the maternal family of Savita, 4 tonnes of sugarcane
seeds and a bag ofjowar, when a girl child was delivered by Savita, the         E
trial Court concluded, that the taunts and physical torture at the hands of
the accused, stood established from eye-witnesses account. The same
were considered sufficient to establish, mental and physical cruelty
towards Savita. Tire evidence indicating that Savita had been asking
Dattaraj not to go to Dubai, which according to the defence, was sufficient
to establish, ihatthere was love and harmony between them, was rejected.        F
The threat ofSavita to Dattaraj, that ifhe went abroad, he may not find
her alive, was also found to be of no substance. The trial Court also
rejected the contention of the accused, that Savita had a meal at the
residence of the sister of Dattaraj -Sulebai, just two hours before the
occurrence, again to indicate that Savita was not being harassed by the         G
family ofDattaraj. The ground for such rejection by the trial Court was,
that even though it was established that Savita had eaten her meal two
hours before the occurrence, yet there was no evidence to establish that
she had eaten her meal, at the house ofSulebai-the sister ofDattaraj.
The trial Court also rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the
                                                                                H
576             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            (2016] 2 S.C.R.


A     respondents-accused, that the doctor who conducted the post-mortem
      examination had deposed, that the deceased had no physical injuries on
      her person. This was used by the defence to establish, that the burn
      injuries were an act of suicide, at the free will of Savita herself. And
      that, the respondents-accused had not committed any act linked to the
      incident of burning.
B
            11. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted all the four accused persons
      for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B read with
      Section 34 of the !PC, and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Act.
      The following sentences were awarded by the trial Court to the accused:-

c           " All !he accused persons are sentenced to undergo imprisonment
            for life for the offence punishable under Section 304B of !PC.
            Further, they are sentenced to undergo si,J11ple imprisonment for 3
            year~, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand)
            each, for the offence punishable under Section 498A of !PC. In
            default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 3 months.
D
            Further, they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3
            years and to pay a fine of Rs. I 0,000/- each for the offence
            punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In
            default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
             Further, they are ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for 3
 E           years, and to pay a fine of Rs. l 5,000/- each, for the offence
             punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In default
             to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year; and lastly
             They are ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years,
             and to pay a fine of Rs.I 0,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each, for
 F           the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition
             Act. In default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six
             ll1<lnths.
             All the said substantive sentences shall run concurrently. They
             are entitled for set off.
 G             Out of the fine amount, it is ordered to pay Rs.1,50,000/-
               (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) to the mother of the
               deceased."
           12. All the four respondents-accused preferred Criminal Appeal
      no. 3514 of2008 before the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at
H
       STATE OF KARNATAKA v. DATTARAJ & OTHERS                                577
                 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

Gulbarga (hereinafter referred to as, the High Court). A Division Bench        A
of the High Court convicted Dattaraj and acquitted the other three
accused, namely, the brother, the father and the mother of Dattaraj.
While arrivini·at the conclusion, that the other three accused besides
the husband of Sa vita, namely, Dattaraj (respondent-accused no. I) had
played no role in the death of Savita, the High Court was of the view,
                                                                               B
that the evidence ofTukkubai - PW-I and Dattatry- PW-4, the mother
and the brother of the deceased respectively, did not attribute any kind
of overt acts of cruelty or harassment to respondent-accused nos. 2 to
4, and as such, their conviction under Sections 498A and 3048 read with
Section 34 of the !PC, was bad in law. For the same reason, respondent-
accused nos. 2 to 4 were found innocent, insofar as, the allegations           c
under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Act are concerned, and were
accordingly acquitted for the offences punishable thereunder.
     13. Dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 30.6.2009 passed
by the High Court, the State of Karnataka has approached this Court
through the present appeal.                                                    D
      14. During the course of hearing, learned counsel representing the
State of Karnataka vehemently contended, that the acquittal of the
accused by the High Court, was in clear violation of the declaration of
law, with reference to the.. provisions under which the accused were
charged. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, reliance    E
in the first instance was placed on the decision rendered by this Court in
Kans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2000) 5 SCC 207. Learned counsel
invited our pointed attention to the following observations recorded
therein:-
       "15. It is further contended on beliaff of the respondents that the     F
       statements of the deceased referred to the instances could not be
       termed to be cruelty or harassment by the husband soon before
       her death. "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        G
       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
                                                                               H
578            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 2 S.C.R.


A           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 restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a
            course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of
B
            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
 c          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
D
            stale enough."
                                                    (emphasis supplied)
           Learned counsel submitted, that the view expressed in the Kans
      Raj case (supra) had been reiterated in another decision rendered by
 E    this Court in Tummala Venkateswar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
      (2014) 2 sec 240.
            15. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the appellant,
      on a recent judgment rendered by a three-judge Bench of this Court in
      Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477, wherein Section
 F    304B has been explained to the effect, that the term "dowry" expressed
      therein, would not be limited to the traditional meaning attached to the
      aforesaid expression, but would include a demand for money for other
      purposes as well. In this behalf it would be relevant to mention, that the
      three-judge Bench did not accept the position expressed in Appasaheb
      v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 721, in connection whereof, this
 G    Court had first explained the position in the Appasaheb case (supra), as
      under:-
             "! I. This Court has spoken sometimes with divergent voices both
             on what would fall within "dowry" as defined and what is meant
             by the expression "soon before her death''. In Appasaheb v. State
 H           of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 721, this Court construed the
      STATE OF KARNATAKA v. DATTARAJ & OTHERS                                 579
                [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

      definition of dowry strictly, as it forms part of Section 304-B which    A
      is part of a penal statute. The.Court held that a demand for money
      for defraying the expenses of manure made to a young wife who
      in turn made the same demand to her father would be outside the
      definition of dowry. This Court said: (SCC p. 727, para 11)
      "11 .... A demand for money on account of some financial                 B
      stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for
      purchasing manure cann.ot be termed as a demand for dowry as
      the said word is normally understood. The evidence adduced by
      the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for
      'dowry' as defined in Section~ of the Dowry Prohibition Act was
      made by the Appellants as what was allegedly asked for was
                                                                               c
      some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing
      manure."

      And thereupon, having examined the object and intent of the
legislation, this Court held in the Rajinder Singh case (supra), as under:-
                                                                               D
      "26. The facts of this appeal are glaring. Demands for money
      were made shortly after one year of the marriage. A she-buffalo
      was given by the father to the daughter as a peace offering. The
      peace offering had no effect. The daughter was ill-treated. She
      went back to her father and demanded money again. The father,
      then, went along with his brother and the Sarpanch of the village         E
      to the matrimonial home with a request that the daughter be not
      ill-treated on account of the demand for money. The father also
      assured the said persons that their money demand would be fulfilled
             • they would have to wait till the crops of his field are
      and that
      harvested. Fifteen days before her death, Salwinder Kaur again            F
      visited her parents' house on being maltreated by her new family.
      Then came death by poisoning. The cross-examination of the father
      of Salwinder Kaur has, in no manner, shaken his evidence. On
      the facts, therefore, the concurrent findings recorded by both the
      courts below are upheld. The appeal is dismissed."
                                                                                G
     Based on the above decision it was the vehement contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant, that the demands made by the accused
for purchase of agricultural land, as also, with reference to a sewing
machine, were liable to be treated as demands constituting "dowry".
      16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
                                                                                H
580             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016] 2 S.C.R.


A     advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the rival parties. It is
      not necessary for us to deal with the statements of various witnesses,
      relied upon by the trial Court, as well as, the High Court. In our considered
      view, it would be sufficient for the disposal of the controversy in hand, to
      refer to a few relevant portions of the cross-examination ofTukkubai -
      PW- I, the mother of Savi ta. Tukkubai - PW- I, during the course of her
B
      cross-examination, acknowledged the following factual position:-
                                    •
            "'It is true two years A-I remained in India after coming from
            Dubai and after one year my daughter delivered female child my
            daughter was in our house at the time of delivery for about 4 to 5
            months. By giving all the necessary ornaments to my grand
c           daughter, my daughter was sent to her house. It is true there is
            custom to present gold and clothes to the person if they come
            from foreign country. At the time of putting my grand daughter in
            cradle, we went to their house by engaging "Tam Tam". They
            gave four tonnes sugarcane seeds and a bag of jowar to us and
D           we carried them to our village in the said ·Tum Tum".
             xxx                         xxx                        xxx
             It is true there is custom to give gold and clothes at the time of
             performing Pooja to the bore-well. At the time of Rakhi pourna
             when they came to our house, there was Chikungunya to my
 E           husband. As my son was notthere in village, A-1 took my husband
             to hospital. It is not true to suggest to avoid coolie work for my
             daughter, we.ourselves voluntarily gave tailoring machine to my"
             daughter. My daughter was knowing tailoring. Tailoring machine
             was given to our daughter for tailoring clothes by her. A- I once
 F           again went to Dubai for about two months to bring Visa service.
             xxx                         xxx                        xxx
             It is not true to suggest my daughter was not having a liking of A-
             1's going to foreign country second time.
             xxx                         xxx                        xxx
 G
             I have studied up to IV th Standard. My son drafted the complaint
             by sitting in the Govt. hospital."
           17. On a perusal of the statement ofTukkubai- PW-I, the mother
      ofSavita, it is apparent that the monetary gifts given to Dattaraj and his
 H    family members, were in the nature of customary gifts exchanged during
       STATE OF KARNATAKA v. DATTARAJ & OTHERS                                  581
                 (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.J

different ceremonies. But what is of extreme significance is the fact,           A
that even the family of Dattaraj, the husband of Savi ta, had given four
tonnes of sugarcane seeds and a bag of jowar to her family, when the
family of Sa vita visited her matrimonial house, on the occasion of the
birth ofa female child. It is acknowledged by Tukkubai- PW-I, that the
aforesaid gifts were taken by the family members ofSavita to their own
                                                                                 B
village, by hiring a "tum-tum" (a horse-drawn cart). This return gift by
the family of Dattaraj was aiso in conformity with the customary tradition
for such occasions. If seems that the two families celebrated all festivities
in the spirit of their customary obligations. Both families engaged in
offering gifts to each other, in accord with the prevailing practice and
tradition. For this reason, the judgment rendered by this Court in the           c
Raj inder Singh case (supra), which was strongly relied upon by the learned
counsel for the appellant, in our considered view, would be ofno avail in
the determination of the projection canvassed.
      18. Insofar as the demand of Rs.20,000/- for the purchase of
agricultural land is concerned, it is apparent that the same was allegedly       D
made when Dattaraj was in Dubai. The said demand was allegedly
made by Ningesh (respondent--:. accused no.2), the father of Dattaraj,
when he had gone to leave Savita at her maternal home. Dattaraj is
stated to have returned to India from Dubai ei_ght to ten months, after
the above demand. A female child was born to Savita about a year after
                                                                                  E
the return of Dattaraj to India. After the birth of the female child, Savita
had remained in her maternal house, for about four to five months..
Therefore, even if the above oral allegation is accepted as correct, it
was a demand made about two years before the occurrence. The same
was too remote to the occurrence, and therefore, would not satisfy the
requirement of "soon before her death" contemplated under Section                 F
304B(I) of the Indian Penal Code.
      19. The only remaining alleged dowry demand, besides those
referred to above was, that of a sewing-machine. Yet again the position
was clarified by Tukkubai - PW-I.; During her cross-examination she
stated, that Savita knew tailoring. And that, the sewing-machine was             G
given to her for tailoring clothes. This was really a gift to Savita, and
therefore, cannot be considered as a part of the demand made by Dattaraj,
for himself or for his family members. This allegation, in our considered
view, is inconsequential, with respect to the provisions under which the
accused were charged.
                                                                                 H
582             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 2 S.C.R.


A           20. There was no further attribution, as against the respondent -
      accused nos. 2 to 4. It is therefore not possible for us to accept, that the
      prosecution was successful in establishing either harassment or violence
      towards Savita, as against the aforestated accused, nor of any dowry
      demand. In such view of the matter, it is difficult for us to conclude the
      culpability of respondent-accused nos. 2 to 4, in the entire occurrence.
B
      We are satisfied, that the High Court was fully justified in recording that
      even the statements ofTukkubai- PW-I and Dattatry- PW-4, did not
      attribute any kind of overt act to respondent-accu~ed nos. 2 to 4. The
      High Court was, therefore, fully justified in acquitting respondent-accused
      nos. 2 to 4, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B
c     read with Section 34 of the IPC, as also, for the charges under Sections
      3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Act.
           21. For the reasons recorded hereinabove we are satisfied, that the
      impugned order passed by the High Court, does not justify any interference
      at our hands. The instant appeal being devoid of any merit, is accordingly
D     dismisSl)d.
      Devika Gujral.                                             Appeal dismissed.