1. In these appeals by special leave, Balwant Singh and his mother Nishan Kaur are the appellants who have been sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment under S.304-B IPC. The victim Manjit Kaur was married to the appellant Balwant Singh on 6-12-1986. According to the case of the prosecution, on 25-3-1990, Manjit Kaur was brought to the hospital in a precarious condition having suffered serious burn injuries. Soon thereafter she succumbed to her injuries. Mohinder Singh (PW 6), the father of the deceased on receiving information came to Ludhiana and lodged the first information report on 26-3-1990. After investigation, the appellants herein as well as Gurcharan Singh, brother of Appellant 1 and Gurpreet Kaur, wife of Gurcharan Singh were put up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in Sessions Case No. 98 of 30-7-1990.

2. The trial court while acquitting Gurcharan Singh and Gurpreet Kaur of the charge levelled against them found the appellants herein guilty of the offence punishable under S.304-B IPC and sentenced them as noticed above. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the trial court the appellants herein preferred two appeals, namely, Criminal Appeal No. 436-SB of 1991 and Criminal Appeal No. 59-SB of 1992. The State of Punjab also filed a criminal appeal against the acquittal of Gurcharan Singh and his wife Gurpreet Kaur. A criminal revision was also filed by Mohinder Singh (PW 6), the father of the deceased, against the acquittal of Gurcharan Singh and Gurpreet Kaur. The High Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellants and also the criminal appeal and the criminal revision preferred by the State and the informant respectively.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of Appellant 1 Balwant Singh with Manjit Kaur took place on 6-12-1986. According to Mohinder Singh (PW 6), about one month after the marriage, he went to meet his daughter when it was reported to him by his daughter that her husband Balwant Singh was beating, maltreating and harassing her and was demanding that she should bring a scooter from her parents in dowry. According to the informant Mohinder Singh (PW 6), he tried to persuade Balwant Singh not to maltreat his daughter with the promise that he would fulfil the demand, but unfortunately that had no effect on him. According to him, about 2-4 months after the marriage he brought his daughter to his house and thereafter she remained with him for about one and a half years. According to the informant, he visited the house of Balwant Singh on several occasions with the request that they should bring back his daughter to the matrimonial home, but they paid no heed to the request. A demand was made for a sum of Rs. 20,000. Ultimately, it was the appellant Balwant Singh who brought a Panchayat to his house and on their intervention the informant sent his daughter with appellant Balwant Singh. It was then agreed in the Panchayat that the informant will pay to Balwant Singh a sum of Rs. 20,000 in instalments. According to the informant, he again went to the house of the appellant Balwant Singh two months later when he was told by his daughter Manjit Kaur, the deceased that the appellant Balwant Singh had been beating and maltreating her. In these circumstances he arranged a sum of Rs. 5000 and paid it to Balwant Singh in the presence of Gurcharan Singh and Nishan Kaur.

4. On 25-3-1990, PW 6 was informed by Gulshan Rai who was employed at the Loco Shed, Ferozepur, that he had received a telephonic message from Ludhiana to the effect that the in-laws of Manjit Kaur had poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. He was also told that Manjit Kaur was admitted in CMC Hospital, Ludhiana, with burn injuries. He, therefore, along with his cousin Darshan Singh (PW 9) immediately rushed to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana, reaching there at about 9 a.m. on 26-3-1990. However, before his arrival Manjit Kaur had succumbed to her injuries. His cousin Darshan Singh (PW 9) who had accompanied him, was left behind by him to look after the dead body, while he himself went to the police station and lodged the report.

5. Having regard to the charge levelled against the appellants it is not necessary to refer to the evidence of other witnesses who have deposed about matters unrelated to the facts which constitute an offence under S.304-B IPC. The evidence on which reliance has been placed by the courts below is the evidence of Mohinder Singh (PW 6). The only other relative witness examined by the prosecution is Darshan Singh (PW 9), but a perusal of his evidence discloses that whatever he had stated was based upon his knowledge derived from Mohinder Singh (PW 6).

6. Counsel for the appellants urged before us that having regard to the allegations levelled by the prosecution witness Mohinder Singh (PW 6), even if the facts stated are taken to be true and proved, the offence under S.304-B is not made out. He submitted that there is no material to show that the deceased Manjit Kaur had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any other relative, for or in connection with any demand for dowry "soon before her death". He further submitted that in any event, so far as Nishan Kaur (Appellant 2) is concerned, there is no evidence whatsoever against her. The allegations are all against the appellant Balwant Singh, though some general allegations have been made against the in-laws. Having perused the evidence of Mohinder Singh (PW 6) we find that he has referred to two occasions when his daughter reported to him that she had been maltreated or harassed by her husband Balwant Singh who was demanding a scooter. All that is said about Nishan Kaur is that PW 6 had paid the money to Balwant Singh in the presence of Nishan Kaur and her son Gurcharan Singh. We, therefore, find that there is no material whatsoever to prove the charge against the appellant Nishan Kaur. The mere fact that she happens to be the mother-in-law is no ground to convict her on mere suspicion.

7. The question which still survives for consideration is whether Balwant Singh is guilty of the offence under S.304-B IPC. Taking the facts as stated by Mohinder Singh (PW 6), the marriage took place on 6-12-1986. He refers to an incident which took place about a month after the occurrence in which the appellant Balwant Singh is alleged to have assaulted the deceased. 2 to 4 months after the marriage, he brought Manjit Kaur to his house and thereafter she lived with him for about a year and a half. Having regard to the fact that the marriage took place on 6-12-1986, one can safely assume that Manjit Kaur came to her paternal home in or about April 1987 and lived there with her father till about October 1988. Thereafter she was taken back by the appellant Balwant Singh. Two months later, Mohinder Singh (PW 6) again visited his daughter when she complained to him that she was beaten or maltreated by Balwant Singh. On that occasion, Mohinder Singh (PW 6) gave Rs. 5000 to Balwant Singh in order to pacify him. This event must have taken place sometime in December 1988, going by the period mentioned by Mohinder Singh (PW 6). The occurrence took place on 25-3-1990. Counsel for the appellants submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that any untoward incident took place involving any act of cruelty or harassment to the deceased between January 1989 and March 1990. She died a year and three months later and during this period, according to the counsel for the appellants, there is nothing to show that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment. He, therefore, submitted that even if the prosecution case is accepted, the alleged cruelty or harassment related to a period long before the date of death which cannot be said to be "soon before her death". Reliance is placed on decisions of this Court to support this submission.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the decision of this Court in Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2001 (8) SCC 633 [LQ/SC/2001/2198] ) and emphasised the observations in Para.22 of the said judgment wherein this Court has succinctly enunciated the principle underlying the use of the words "soon before her death" in S.304-B IPC. This Court has observed as under:

"22. It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if S.304-B is to be invoked. But it should have happened soon before her death. The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words soon before her death is to emphasise the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry-related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide the court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the harassment or cruelty would not have been the immediate cause of her death. It is hence for the court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept soon before her death."

9. Counsel for the appellants submitted that having regard to the principle enunciated in this judgment it must be held in the facts of this case that for a period of one year and three months there was no complaint of harassment or cruelty. The words "soon before her death" in S.304-B connote that the death in all probability should have been the aftermath to such cruelty or harassment. In the instant case, there is no perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry related harassment or cruelty, and therefore, the harassment or cruelty would not have been the immediate cause of her death. The phrase "soon before her death" must necessarily refer to a period either immediately before her death or a few days earlier. But the phrase indicates that the incriminating events which took place had proximity to her death. He submitted that applying the said test, it must be held that the proximity test has not been fulfilled in this case. He also relied upon the decision of this Court in Him Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi, (2003 (8) SCC 80 [LQ/SC/2003/689] ) In that case as well the expression "soon before her death" used in S.304-B IPC fell for consideration. This Court observed that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must exist a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death of the victim. 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. In that case, the evidence on record disclosed that though at the time of marriage there was no demand for dowry but subsequently such demands were made and failure to meet those demands resulted in ill-treatment of the victim whereafter a complaint was made before the Crime Against Women Cell and ultimately a reconciliation was brought about on 30-11-1998, in which inter alia, it was resolved that the parties should take up separate residence. The Court concluded that there was no definite evidence about the ill-treatment of the deceased at any time proximate to the date of death of the deceased on 14-4-1999 so as to attract S.304-B IPC. The basic requirement of cruelty or harassment soon before the death which would have attracted the application of S.304-B, was absent.

10. These decisions and other decisions of this Court do lay down the proximity test. It has been reiterated in several decisions of this Court that "soon before" is an expression which permits of elasticity, and therefore the proximity test has to be 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 cruelty based on dowry demand and the death of the victim.

11. Since one of the ingredients of the offence under S.304-B is that such cruelty should have been meted out to the deceased soon before her death, it is for the prosecution to establish affirmatively that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment based on dowry demand soon before her death. In the instant case, we find that at least for a year and three months before her death there is no evidence to even remotely suggest that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment of the nature specified in S.304-B IPC. The proximity test is, therefore, not satisfied. We, therefore, hold that there is not sufficient evidence on the basis of which conviction under S.304-B IPC can be founded.

12. The question then is whether a conviction under S.498-A is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the appellants did not dispute that there can be no legal objection to the conviction of the appellant under S.498-A IPC being a lesser offence, provided the facts proved by the prosecution make out a case under S.498-A. According to him, in the facts and circumstances of this case, conviction under S.498-A is not warranted. We have discussed the evidence on record. The evidence of Mohinder Singh (PW 6) leaves no room for doubt that the victim Manjit Kaur was harassed and treated with cruelty about a month after the marriage and thereafter, she was again treated with cruelty 2 months after she had gone back to her matrimonial home on the persuasion of the Panchayat. These facts clearly make out a case under S.498-A.

13. We are informed that Appellant 1 Balwant Singh, who is in jail, has undergone actual sentence of one year and 9 months. Having regard to the period of incarceration suffered by appellant Balwant Singh, while finding him guilty of offence under S.498-A, we sentence him to the period of imprisonment already undergone, but direct him to pay a fine of Rs. 500.

14. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 1415 of 2003 preferred by Balwant Singh is allowed to the extent that his conviction under S.304-B IPC is set aside, but he is convicted of the offence under S.498-A IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone. He shall pay a fine of Rs. 500, and in default he shall undergo one months simple imprisonment. On payment of fine he shall be released forthwith.

15. Criminal Appeal No. 1416 of 2003 preferred by Nishan Kaur is allowed and she is acquitted of the charge under S.304-B IPC. She is already on bail, the bail bonds furnished by her are discharged.