304 B, IPC - cruelty soon before death

Section 304B of the Penal Code has the following ingredients:

      (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 from the date of the marriage'

      (iii)   Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of herhusband; and 

   (iv)    Such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the

 demand of dowry.

In order to attract the said provision, it is imperative on

the part of the prosecution to establish that the cruelty or harassment has

been meted out to the deceased `soon before her death'. There cannot be

any doubt or dispute that it is a flexible term. Its application would depend

upon the factual matrix obtaining in a particular case. No fix period can be

indicated therefor. It, however, must undergo the test known as `proximity

test'. What, however, is necessary for the prosecution is to bring on record

that the dowry demand was not too late and not too stale before the death of the victim.

In Satvir Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2001) 8 SCC 633], the Supreme Court held:

              "22. It is not enough that harassment or cruelty

              was caused to the woman with a demand for

              dowry at some time, if Section 304B 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 emphasis the idea that her death

            should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath

            of such cruelty or harassment.”

Same view was teken in Thakkan Jha & Ors.v. State of Bihar [(2004) 13 SCC 348] and in Kamesh Panjiyar Alias Kamlesh Panjiyar vs. State of Bihar [(2005) 2 SCC 388].

      Discussing above noted cases as well as other decisions and 91st report of  the Law commission, the apex court in Crl appeal no 939 of 2009 , suresh kumar singh v. State of UP decided on 6/5/9 held that : “Some harassment which had taken place one year prior to the death without something more, in our opinion, could not have been considered to be a cruelty which had been inflicted soon before the death of the deceased.

It does not satisfy the proximity test.” In this case since unnatural death was occurred after 7 yrs of marriage the supreme court set aside the conviction u/s 304 B but upheld the conviction u/s 498 A of IPC.