Virender Singh, J.

1. Sudesh Kumari died an unnatural death within nine months of her marriage with the appellant. It was a case of burn injuries. She in fact committed suicide. At that time, she was carrying the pregnancy of eight months.

2. The appellant, his brother Ashok Kumar and Nirmla wife of Ashok Kumar were booked in this case.

3. Sushil Kumar, the appellant herein stands convicted under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in fault of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months under Section 304-B IPC and to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of three months under section 498-A IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide judgment dated 19.7.1990. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

4. Ashok Kumar and his wife Nirmala who were also tried along with the appellant have been acquitted by the trial Court. No appeal has, however, been filed by the State against their acquittal.

5. Sudesh Kumari was daughter of Rameshwar Dass PW6 and Smt. Rajbala PW7, residents of Delhi. She was married to the appellant on 20.11.1988 and died in village Sehzadpur falling within the jurisdiction of police station Sadar, Sonepaton 18.8.1989. The present case was registered on the basis of written application Ex. PF of Rameshwar Dass, the father who was working as Assistant Sub Inspector in Prime Ministers security, Delhi at that time. Formal FIR is Ex.PF/1 recorded under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.6. In short the allegations as emerges from Ex. PF are that Sudesh (since deceased) was married to the appellant on 20.11.88 and immediately after the marriage she was being harassed on account of inadequacy of dowry. It is then alleged that Ashok and his wife Nirmia being the Jeth (brother) and Jethani (brothers wife) of the deceased used to harass her and had given threats to her that they would not allow her live. (The exact words in vernacular are, "Ashok Kumar bh uski patni jo ladki kejeth bh jethani thai esmaein jyada hissa lete thai kai bar ladki ko unhone dhamki bhi di three ke tujhe jeene nahin denge. "). It is then alleged that the present appellant had connived with his brother and bhabhi and used to harass her daughter mentally and physically. On 18.8.89 at about 6 PM Rameshwar Dass received a message from one Dharma uncle of the appellant, that their daughter (Sudesh) had died in village Sehazadpur. They reached the said village alongwith other persons and found the dead body of their daughter in one corner of the store room used as kitchen. On these allegations the present case was registered. It is worth mentioning here that on the next day, i.e. on 19.8.89, a supplementary statement of ASI Rameshwar Dass PW6 was also recorded by the concerned police in which he alleged that after the marriage when his daughter came to his house in Delhi, she told that her in-laws were taunting her with the remarks that her parents had given very less items in the marriage and no cash amount has been given and when Sudesh again came to their house and told her that her husband, her jeth Ashok Kumar, her jethani Nirmia had harassed her and had made a demand of cash and gas cylinder. He men arranged for a gas cylinder and sent his daughter alongwith same to village Sehzadpur. The said gas cylinder in fact was in his name (Remeshwar). It is then alleged in the supplementary statement that Rameshwar had met the present appellant and undertook that he would send the money after some time.

7. The prosecution agency after the registration of the FIR swung into motion at once. Sub Inspector Prem Singh PW 8, the Investigating Officer of the case inspected the spot, prepared the inquest proceedings of the dead body of Smt. Sudesh. A photographer was called at the spot who clicked two photographs Ex.P4 and P5 of Sudesh who was lying on the floor. On 19.8.1989, Dr. D.P. Lochan PW10 alongwith Dr. Subhash Mathur conducted the autopsy on the dead body and found burn injuries her person. The cause of death declared by the Board was that Sudesh died on account whack and asphyxia as a result of burns which were ante mortem in nature and the time elapses between injury and death was within few minutes.

8. On 25.8.1989, the appellant was arrested in this case. Certain papers regarding gas connection Ex. PB, Ex.PB/1, Ex. PE and PG & Photographs Ex.Pl to P3 vide Ex. PH were also taken into possession by the investigating agency.

9. After the completion of the necessary investigation, the present appellant and the other two accused, as stated above, were sent for trial. All the three were charged under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. As stated above, the brother of the present appellant and his wife stand acquitted but the appellant has been convicted and sentenced, as indicated above. Hence, the present appeal.

10. I have heard Mr. O.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanjiv Sheokand, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. With their assistance I have also gone through the entire record.

11. Mr. Sharma at the very outset has submitted that the offence under section 304-B IPC is not made out in this case. Developing his arguments, he contends that although the death of Sudesh in this case is un-natural and within a span of one year but the third basic ingredient is not proved by the prosecution to the hilt in order to bring home the guilt to the present appellant. Mr. Sharma submits that there is no evidence with the prosecution worth the name to show that Sudesh was harassed soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry and in the absence of this evidence, presumption under section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act cannot be drawn against the appellant.

12. The learned counsel strengthening his arguments has taken me through the evidence of the two star witnesses of the prosecution case, namely, Rameshwar Dass PW6 the father and Rajbala PW7 the mother. It is contended that the initial application Ex. PF moved by Rameshwar to the prosecution agency does not make out any case against the present appellant so far as demand of dowry is concerned as it is mainly against Ashok Kumar and his wife Nirmla who have since been acquitted by the trial Court. The present appellant was booked alongwith his brother Ashok on the basis of general allegations. The learned counsel then contended that supplementary statement recorded on 19.8.1989, the next date of the registration of the case, in fact, is a very clever move in which a story of giving of Rs.2000/- and of a gas cylinder has been introduced in order to bring the present case within the mischief of section 304-B IPC. Had Sudesh been harassed on account of dowry demand immediately after the marriage, it is not possible that her father who was ASI would forget all these incidents in his initial application Ex. PF which was the basis of the FIR.

13. The learned counsel in order to demolish the case of the prosecution has very heavily relied upon the letters written by Sudesh Ex. DA to DH to her in-laws including her husband on different occasions and submitted that there is no indication worth the name from the side of Sudesh since deceased in regard to demand of dowry in any shape.

14. Mr. Sharma further contends that, in fact, the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the explanation given by the appellant in the shape of his defence to the effect that at the time of marriage the appellant and his brother Ashok were running a joint shop of goldsmith at Sonepat but after sometime because of some tiff the appellant had asked his brother Ashok for the partition of the business as well as of the house and ultimately the appellant had shifted to village Sehzadpur (their native place). The appellant also started separate business. The explanation of the appellant further was that Sudesh was not happy while staying in the village and she wanted to study further as she was 10+2 pass and on account of his stay in village Sehzadpur, her studies were being hampered. She also used to be under tension because of the tiff between the appellant and his brother Ashok Kumar and she was told by the appellant not to keep unnecessary tension and assured her that a house would be taken on rent at tone pat very soon but ultimately she committed suicide on account his continuous tension. The learned counsel thus prays for acquittal.

15. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjiv Sheokand, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana refuting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the prosecution has been able to prove all the basic ingredients bringing the present case within the four corners of section 304-B IPC. He then contends that Sudesh has died an unnatural death within the four walls of the house of her in-laws in village Sehzadpur on account of harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the present appellant in connection with the demand of dowry and as such the presumption of dowry death under section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act has to be drawn against the appellant.

16. I have heard the rival contentions of both sides. I have minutely scanned the entire evidence as well as the defence evidence adduced by the appellant. Admittedly, Sudesh has died within nine months of her marriage. There cannot be any dispute that it is an unnatural death as is clear from the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution. This fact is also otherwise not denied by the appellant side.

17. The only point which is debatable in the present case is as to whether Sudesh was subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before her unnatural death of account of dowry

18. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no reference to demand in the shape of cash or in the shape of gas cylinder in Ex. PF which is the basis of the FIR and the subsequent insertion of these allegations in the supplementary statement of Rameshwar PW6 on 19.8.89 do not constitute the offence of section 304-B IPC, in my view would not render any help to the appellant. Admittedly, the supplementary statement was not recorded after a considerable lapse of time. It was recorded on the next date i.e. 19.8.89 in which Rameshwar, the father of the deceased, had given a true picture so far as the demand is concerned. The matter does not rest here. Statement of Rajbala PW7, the mother of the deceased, was recorded on the same day when the FIR was registered i.e. on 18.8.89 and she has categorically stated about the demand of cash and a gas connection as well. It appears that she initially the application Ex. PF as moved by Rameshwar, he was perplexed and at that time he just alleged that the present appellant, his elder brother Ashok and bhabhi Nirmla used to harass his daughter on account of dowry. He immediately on the next date came up with the true picture. This rather strengthens the prosecution case and goes to show that there is no false allegations levelled with any ulterior motive from the side of the prosecution. Had Rameshwar to take any benefit in police department, he would have knitted a net wider to the extent of even falsely implicating the parents of the present appellant also in the present case taking an undue advantage of the situation very well but the same is not done in this case. Admittedly, the parents were also staying in village Sehzadpur when Sudesh died an unnatural death.

19. Even as per the allegations there appears to be no exaggeration from the side of the parents of the deceased. 1 have seen the statements of both Rameshwar Dass and Rajbala PWs which clearly go to show that when on 22.11.88 i.e. after two days of her marriage, Sudesh came to her parents house alongwith Sushil Kumar and Ashok, she told that accused were not happy with the dowry and they were telling that inadequate dowry was given. At that time a sum of Rs.2000/- was given to Sudesh and she was sent with the appellant from Delhi to Sonepat. So far as staying for two days at Delhi is concerned, this fact is not denied by the present appellant although the factum of taking Rs.2000/- is denied. The statements of these two star witnesses being the parents further show that whenever Sudesh visited Delhi, she had been complaining to her parents that she is being harassed on account of inadequacy of dowry. The demand of cooking gas connection from the side of the appellant would also be termed as a dowry demand keeping in view the short span of nine months between marriage and death. The statements of these3 two witnesses go to show that in fact when Sudesh had come to their house she had categorically told them that a demand of cash and cooing gas connection has been made. This all happened in June, 1989 i.e. two months prior to her death. According to the statement of Rameshwar PW6, the gas connection was in his name which was attached with Punit Gas Service, Rohni, Delhi and he got it transferred in the name of his daughter Sudesh Kumari. The authority letter Ex. PE makes the position very clear. The statement of Rameshwar further shows that on 13.8.89, the appellant had to take these papers from him but incidentally he did not take them and in between Sudesh died on 18.8.89 and as such all the relevant papers regarding the gas connection were handed over to the prosecution agency by Rameshwar PW6. The relevant papers go to show that all the formalities were completed by Rameshwar in the name of his daughter Sudesh. From the prosecution evidence, the continuous harassment connected with the demand of dowry remained in existence till the date when the deceased Sudesh met her parents about a few days before her death and there is no intervening circumstance brought on record from the side of the appellant to show it otherwise. As such the existence of harassment would be deemed to be soon before the death and the appellant shall be liable to be convicted under section 304-B IPC.

20. No doubt Rameshwar and Rajbala the parents of Sudesh have made certain improvements in their statements in the Court from the one which were made before the police but the discrepancies occurred in their statement do not shatter the basic substratum so far as the involvement of the present appellant is concerned. The statements of these two witnesses were subjected to gruelling cross-examination by the accused side but so far as harassment and cruelty on account of dowry demand is concerned, the defence could not dent the prosecution case at all.

21. So far as the co-accused of the present appellant are concerned, the view taken by the trial court for their acquittal is that they were living separately from the present appellant and Sudesh and in fact Sudesh after staying for some time at Sonepat with them had shifted to village Sehzadpur where she was staying with her husband and parents-in-law. The other view taken by the trial court in support of Ashok Kumar and Nirmla was that even from the letter Ex. DC written by Sudesh herself to her jethani at Ambala and letter Ex. DH it was clear that the present appellant and his brother were having strained relations. Although as per the allegations, Ashok and Nirmla have also been allegedly harassing Sudesh but in my view the learned trial Court has rightly segregated their case from the present appellant and the appellant cannot derive any benefit from the same. Admittedly, Sudesh had started residing in village Sehzadpur where she had died on 18.8.89. There cannot be any factual dispute that when Sudesh had gone to her parents in June, 1989, a few days before her death and told her parents that a demand for gas connection and money is being made, she was staying in village Sehzadpur with her husband (appellant) only. This, in my view, was the reason which prevailed with the trial Court for extending the doubt towards Ashok and Nirmla.

22. No doubt the letters Ex. DA written by Sudesh dated 17.3.89 to her husband (appellant), Ex. DC dated 14.4.89 to her Jethani Smt. Sumitra Verma who was staying at Ambala, Ex. DD dated 15.12.88 to her Jeth R.S. Verma husband of Sumitra Verma, Ex. DB dated 13.3.89 written by the appellant to Sudesh deceased when she was in Delhi, letter Ex. DE dated 30.12.87 by Rameshwar Dass PW6 to Ashok Kumar accused (since acquitted), Ex. DF dated 24.1.89 written by Rameshwar Dass P W to father of the appellant, Ex. DH written by one Prem to the appellant, do not refer to any demand of dowry or harassment at the hands of appellant but this fact by itself would not be sufficient to discard the prosecution story against the appellant, It is a general practice that normally the newly wedded lady does not make any complaint against the ill treatment meted out to her in her correspondence by way of letters. Many letters were written by Sudesh to her in-laws i.e. Jeth, Jethani and others and certainly in those letters she would not have thought of complaining about the behaviour of the her husband or as a matter of fact of any body from her in-laws side. She had been visiting her parents about the harassment and cruelty she was facing in connection with the demand of parents about the harassment and cruelty she was facing in connection with the demand of dowry after her marriage till she turned to be corpse. Thus, in my view, the letters on which the learned counsel for the appellant was relying very heavily do not come to his rescue at all.

23. I at the same time, do not find any merit in the explanation put forward by the appellant in his statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. or the defence adduced by him in this regard. There is no evidence at all to show that how Sudesh wanted to continue with her studies and for the reason she was tense in village Sehzadpur. It is also not believable on the face of it that because of the strained relations between the present appellant and his real brother Ashok she use to remain tense most of the time she was pacified by the appellant but instead of that she went to the extent of committing suicide all of a sudden on 18.8.89 by burning herself. Another fact which is also alarming in this case is that when Sudesh committed suicide, she was carrying the pregnancy of eight months as is clear from the statement of Dr. D. P. Lochan PW10.

24. All these circumstances if taken collectively speak volumes of the fact that Sudesh was fed up with the treatment meted out to her by the appellant on account of dowry demand and ultimately she took the drastic step of finishing herself. The evidence adduced by the prosecution amply proves the basic ingredients of section 304-B IPC and as such presumption under section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act is attracted in the present case against the appellant.

25. The conviction of the present appellant is, thus, maintained under section 304-B IPC.

26. So far as section 498- A is concerned, the same is an offshoot of the main offence and I do not feel the necessity of entering into discussion qua the same.

No other point has been urged before me.

27. Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

28. Let intimation be sent to the learned trial Court and the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, so that necessary steps can be taken immediately to take the appellant in custody to serve out his remaining part of substantive sentence.

CIC)