JUDGMENT R.P. Awasthy, J. 1. It is an appeal against the finding of holding the accused-appellants guilty for committing an offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each. They have further been held guilty for committing an offence punishable under Section 201, I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default, to further undergo R.I. for 3 months. 2. It is not in dispute that Pushpa (since deceased) was married to Kanchhedi (appellant No. 2) and she died on 1.7.1987 in the house of the accused-appellants. Bharat Singh, Kotwar of village Bisenkhedi, gave the information regarding to death of Pushpa at the Police Station Parwalia. 3. The prosecution case was that the accused-appellants were subjecting Pushpa to cruelty on account of insufficiency of dowry given in the marriage of Pushpa. They used to beat her and to administer her the smoke of chillies. Ultimately, they committed murder of Pushpa and in spite of instructions given by Bharat Singh (P.W. 2) not to cremate the dead body of Pushpa, they cremated her body. When Bharat Singh came to village along with police officials, they found that the accused had already cremated the dead body of Pushpa. 4. On investigation, regarding untimely or unnatural death of Pushpa, being conducted by Shri A.M. Khan, S.I. of Police Station Parwalia, it was found that in fact the accused had committed murder of Pushpa. 5. After investigation, a report for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201, I.P.C. was filed against the accused-appellants as well as against two other co-accused Ramcharan and Shivaprasad. 6. On the said report being filed by the police, charges, as detailed in para 5 of the judgment were framed against the accused. However, after recording some evidence in the case, the charge for the alleged commission of an offence punishable under Sections 304B/34, I.P.C. was also framed against all the accused on 18.11.1991. 7. The accused denied the said allegation and pleaded not guilty for all of the charges framed against them. 8. After regarding evidence, the Trial Court acquitted two accused Ramcharan and Shivaprasad but held the accused-appellants guilty and sentenced them, as has been detailed above. 9. 7. The accused denied the said allegation and pleaded not guilty for all of the charges framed against them. 8. After regarding evidence, the Trial Court acquitted two accused Ramcharan and Shivaprasad but held the accused-appellants guilty and sentenced them, as has been detailed above. 9. It has been argued for the accused-appellants that there is absolutely no evidence available on record to establish that any dowry was settled in the marriage of Pushpa with Kanchhedilal. It has further been not established that any demand of dowry was being made by the accused-appellants. It is also not established that the marriage of Pushpa was solemnized within a period of seven years from the date of the death of Pushpa. It has further to be seen that the prosecution could not establish that the death of Pushpa was suicidal. Therefore, the Trial Court has clearly erred in holding the accused-appellants guilty for committing an offence punishable under Sections 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. In reply, the judgment delivered, finding given and sentence awarded to the accused-appellants has been fully supported by the learned Penal Lawyer. 11. Radeshyam Sahi (P.W. 5) has deposed that Pushpa was married to Kanchhedilal four to five years prior to her death. Shivnarayan (P.W. 7) has also stated in paragraph No. 11 of his statement that Pushpa was married to Kanchhedilal 5 to 6 years prior to her death. In the application dated 1.7.1986 filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by Pushpa, it was mentioned that she was married to Kanchhedilal five years prior to the filing of the paid petition. Likewise, in the report lodged by her at the Police Station Umraoganj recorded on 3.7.1986 also it was mentioned that Pushpa was married 5 years prior to--lodging of the said report regarding she being subjected to cruelty on account of some illegal demands made by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. There is scope for argument that the said documents Exs. P-9, P-14 and P-15 have not been proved, as is required by law. Nevertheless, from the testimony given by Radheshyam Sahu (P. Wo 5) and Shivnarayan (P.W. 7), it is established that Pushpa died within 7 years of her marriage with Kanchhedilal. There is scope for argument that the said documents Exs. P-9, P-14 and P-15 have not been proved, as is required by law. Nevertheless, from the testimony given by Radheshyam Sahu (P. Wo 5) and Shivnarayan (P.W. 7), it is established that Pushpa died within 7 years of her marriage with Kanchhedilal. In this context, it is note-worthy that no evidence in defence has been led to indicate that the marriage of Pushpa was solemnized with Kanchhedilal prior to the period of seven years from the date of her death. 12. From the contents of the report Ex. P-3 lodged in Bharat Singh (P.W. 2), it is established that Pushpa died in suspicious circumstances. In the said report, it is specifically mentioned that Pushpa died all of a sudden and froth was coming out of her mouth. 13. It has also to be seen that when Bharat Singh was sent for lodging report at the Police Station regarding the death of Pushpa, it was expected from the accused that they would not cremate the dead body of Pushpa till the return of Kotwar from the Police Station and till the inquest is made--pertaining to the death of Pushpa. The unholy haste shown by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in cremating the dead body of Pushpa also leads to an inference that Pushpa did not die a natural death--but her death took place in suspicious circumstances. 14. Thus from the evidence available on record, it is established that Pushpa died all of a sudden, under suspicious circumstances. 15. On seeing the dead body of Pushpa, it was found that froth was coming out of her mouth. The accused appellants Nos, 1 and 2 cremated the dead body of Pushpa without waiting for the return of Kotwar, who was seat for lodging the report at the Police Station regarding the death of Pushpa. This unnatural and unholy haste shown in cremating the dead body of Pushpa leads to an inference that the death of Pushpa was unnatural. 16. However, there is no evidence in the present case that Pushpa was murdered. No injury was seen on her person. Therefore, the only, inference from the said circumstances would be that Pushpa met with a suicidal death. (Please see para 5 of AIR 1991 SC 1226 : Shanti and Anr. v. State of Haryana). 16. However, there is no evidence in the present case that Pushpa was murdered. No injury was seen on her person. Therefore, the only, inference from the said circumstances would be that Pushpa met with a suicidal death. (Please see para 5 of AIR 1991 SC 1226 : Shanti and Anr. v. State of Haryana). In view of the reasoning mentioned above, it is held that Pushpa died a--suicidal death. 17. From the testimony given by Radheshyam Sahu (P.W. 5) and Prem Narain (P.W. 10) read with the contents of petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Ex. P-9), it is established that smoke of chillies was being administered to Pushpa and she was being beaten also by the accused-appellants. 18. It has nevertheless been argued for the appellants that after the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act having been filed, there was a compromise between Pushpa on one hand and Kanchhedilal, the accused-appellant No. 2 on the other. Therefore, even if Pushpa was subjected to cruelty prior to the said compromise, it is inconsequential. It has further been argued that there is no evidence available on record to indicate that before her death, Pushpa was being subjected to cruelty. 19. There is evidence that prior to the said compromise, the accused were subjecting Pushpabai to cruelty. It has also been held that Pushpabai had committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage with Kanchhedilal. Therefore, it can be inferred, under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, that Pushpa committed suicide on account of being subjected to cruelty. 20. It has further been argued that no charge for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 306, I.P.C. was framed. Offences punishable under Sections 306 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, it is argued, are quite distinct and different and, therefore, without a charge for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code having been framed, the accused cannot be held guilty thereunder on the ground that they have been charged for the alleged commission of a graver offence punishable under Section 304B I.P.C. 21. In my opinion, in view of the wordings of Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act, both of the said offences are not mutually exclusive. Section 113A reads as below : "113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. In my opinion, in view of the wordings of Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act, both of the said offences are not mutually exclusive. Section 113A reads as below : "113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a--period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. Explanation. For the purposes of this Section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)." Section 113B of the Evidence Act reads as under : "113-B. Presumption as to dowry death. When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such women had been subjected by--such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, and demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation., For the purposes of this Section 'dowry death' shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). 22. Thus, offence punishable under Section 304B, I.P.C. is an aggravated form of offence punishable under Section 306, I.P.C. in view of the provisions contained in Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act. Therefore, if the accused is charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 304B--of the Indian Penal Code, he can be held guilty for committing an offence punishable under Section 306, IPC. 23. It is correct that there is no evidence in the present case that dowry was settled in the marriage of Pushpabai with Kanchhedilal and the accused-appellants were demanding the said dowry which was settled in the said manner. Nevertheless, they were making demand that the same quantity of articles and money should be given to them as was given in the marriage of other sister. Nevertheless, they were making demand that the same quantity of articles and money should be given to them as was given in the marriage of other sister. Therefore, the said demand would come within the ambit of--Explanation (b) under Section 498A, I.P.C. which defines and explains the word "cruelty". I he said definition and explanation of the word "cruelty" is relevant for and is applicable to Section 113A of the Evidence Act as well. 24. Therefore, pertaining to the finding given by the Trial Court, the present, appeal succeeds pertially. In place of holding the accused-appellants guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 304B I.P.C., the accused-appellants are held guilty for committing an offence punishable under Section 306, I.P.C. 25. Regarding the appeal filed by Mangobai wife of Heeralal Sahu against the finding of holding the accused guilty for committing an offence punishable under Section 201, I.P.C., the said appeal is allowed and Maugobai is held not guilty for commuting on offence punishable under Section 201, I.P.C.-- because there is no evidence available on record to indicate that she also took part in cremating the dead body of Pushpabai. 26. As far as sentence is concerned, the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant No. 1 Heeralal son of Deviram Sahu and the accused-appellant No. 2 Kanchhedilal son of Heeralal Sahu for committing an offence punishable under Section 201, I.P C. of rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each or in default, to further undergo R.I. for 3 months, is maintained. 27. Looking to the fact that Mangobai is a lady, she is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for committing an offence punishable under Section 306, I.P.C. The accused-appellant Heeralal and Kanchhedilal are sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years, for commuting an offence punishable under Section 306, I.P.C. Thus the present appeal succeeds only partially as has been detailed above.