<p>The Supreme Court has said the prosecution has to establish “proximate and live link” between the cruelty and the consequential death of a woman in unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage to prove charges in dowry death cases.</p>.<p>All such incidents related to dowry demands from husband and families should not have taken place just immediately before the death, the top court explained while upholding conviction and sentence of a man in one such case. </p>.<p>Section 304-B(1) of the IPC defined ‘dowry death’.</p>.<p><strong>Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/sc-calls-for-careful-cautious-approach-in-conducting-trial-in-dowry-death-cases-991269.html" target="_blank">SC calls for careful, cautious approach in conducting trial in dowry death cases</a></strong></p>.<p>It said ‘dowry death’ would mean where death of a woman was caused by burning or bodily injuries or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of marriage. To establish the charges, it has to be shown that soon before her death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with demand for dowry. Such an offence provided sentence of minimum seven years jail which could be extended upto life imprisonment.</p>.<p>"The important ingredient which needs to be established is the existence of dowry demand “soon before her death”. This court in catena of judgements have held that, “soon before” as mentioned in Sec 304-B(1) cannot be interpreted to mean “immediately before”. Rather, the prosecution has to show that there existed a “proximate and live link” between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim," a bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose said.</p>.<p>In a judgement delivered on Friday, the court explained the legal position while dismissing appeal of Gurmeet Singh of Punjab against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgement which upheld his conviction and seven years sentence imposed by the trial court.</p>.<p>In the case, the court noted wife of the appellant died in 2008 after consuming poison within four years of marriage so the two ingredients of the offence of death under otherwise than ‘normal circumstances’ within seven years of marriage stood satisfied.</p>.<p>It relied upon the statement of the victim's father on demands of cash and gifts in 2007 and 2008. Further, the appellant failed to rebut the presumption against him under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has said the prosecution has to establish “proximate and live link” between the cruelty and the consequential death of a woman in unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage to prove charges in dowry death cases.</p>.<p>All such incidents related to dowry demands from husband and families should not have taken place just immediately before the death, the top court explained while upholding conviction and sentence of a man in one such case. </p>.<p>Section 304-B(1) of the IPC defined ‘dowry death’.</p>.<p><strong>Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/sc-calls-for-careful-cautious-approach-in-conducting-trial-in-dowry-death-cases-991269.html" target="_blank">SC calls for careful, cautious approach in conducting trial in dowry death cases</a></strong></p>.<p>It said ‘dowry death’ would mean where death of a woman was caused by burning or bodily injuries or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of marriage. To establish the charges, it has to be shown that soon before her death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with demand for dowry. Such an offence provided sentence of minimum seven years jail which could be extended upto life imprisonment.</p>.<p>"The important ingredient which needs to be established is the existence of dowry demand “soon before her death”. This court in catena of judgements have held that, “soon before” as mentioned in Sec 304-B(1) cannot be interpreted to mean “immediately before”. Rather, the prosecution has to show that there existed a “proximate and live link” between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim," a bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose said.</p>.<p>In a judgement delivered on Friday, the court explained the legal position while dismissing appeal of Gurmeet Singh of Punjab against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgement which upheld his conviction and seven years sentence imposed by the trial court.</p>.<p>In the case, the court noted wife of the appellant died in 2008 after consuming poison within four years of marriage so the two ingredients of the offence of death under otherwise than ‘normal circumstances’ within seven years of marriage stood satisfied.</p>.<p>It relied upon the statement of the victim's father on demands of cash and gifts in 2007 and 2008. Further, the appellant failed to rebut the presumption against him under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.</p>
