V. K. AGRAWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the conviction of the accused/appellant for offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of R. I. for 7 years therefor imposed by Sessions Judge, Bhopal by judgment dated 21-10-1994 in S. T. No. 18 of 1993. ( 2 ) THE facts not in dispute in the case are that the accused/appellant Anand Kumar was married to deceased Ranjana, alias, Reetu on 14-2-1989 at Amrawati (Maharashtra ). Acquitted co-accused Biharilal and Taradevi are the parents of appellant/anand Kumar, while acquitted co-accused Akhil Kumar and his wife Renu are his brother and sister-in-law respectively. Taradevi (P. W. 7) is the mother, Santosh (P. W. 9) is the brother, Prabha Vishnu Gupta (P. W. 10) is the younger sister, Anil Kumar (P. W. 4) is the cousin (uncle's son) and Dinesh (P. W. 8) is the cousin (maternal aunt's) son of deceased Ranjana. It is also not disputed that at the time of marriage of the deceased Ranjana with the accused/appellant Anand Kumar, a sum of Rs. 21,000/- was paid to him by bank Draft by Ranjana's mother Taradevi (P. W. 7 ). Deceased Ranjana, after her marriage had visited her mother at Amrawati at the time of Holi Festival and thereafter, she was taken back to Bhopal by the accused-appellant Anand Kumar. The wedding of Prabha Gupta (P. W. 10) took place at Jabalpur in July, 1991, which was attended by the accused/appellant Anand Kumar and his wife deceased Ranjana. Deceased Ranjana thereafter went back with the accused/appellant and continued to live with him till her death at Bhopal. ( 3 ) IT is also not in dispute that on 23-3-92 at about 7. 30 p. m. , the deceased Ranjana was admitted in Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal in serious condition, as a case of poisoning and expired after about half an hour of her admission in the hospital. ( 4 ) THE prosecution case stated in brief is that the accused-appellant and his family members, from the time of marriage, continuously made demands and asked the deceased to bring money from her parents. She was being maltreated by the accused-appellant and his family members. At time of marriage of accused-appellant with Ranjana, in addition to the amount of Rs. 21,000/- paid by Tara Devi (P. W. 7) by Demand Draft, a cash amount of Rs. She was being maltreated by the accused-appellant and his family members. At time of marriage of accused-appellant with Ranjana, in addition to the amount of Rs. 21,000/- paid by Tara Devi (P. W. 7) by Demand Draft, a cash amount of Rs. 4,000/- was also paid, besides gold, clothes, etc. , The family members of the accused-appellant were not satisfied with the clothes given by way of presents at the time of marriage, hence another set of clothes worth about Rs. 10,000. 00 were purchased from Bhopal for the family members of the accused-appellant. During negotiations of marriage, the co-accused Akhilesh, the elder brother of the accused-appellant,demanded that a sum of Rs. 27,000. 00 be given to meet the fare of the Barat and desired that a Godrej Almirah be also given. Taradevi (P. W. 7) had, however, given only Rs. 20,000. 00 towards the above demand. After the marriage also, the demand from the deceased Ranjana was continued to be made and deceased Ranjana was asked to bring Rs. 20,000. 00 by the accused-appellant. She was being maltreated because of the non-fulfillment of the demand. At the time of marriage of Prabha Gupta (P. W. 10) in the month of July, 1991, the accused-appellant had again made the demand of Rs. 20,000. 00 and had created a scene and assaulted Ranjana as the demand was not met. Thereafter, deceased Ranjana was not permitted to talk to her family members on telephone and was not permitted to go to her parents as long as the above demand of Rs. 20,000/- was not met. ( 5 ) THE prosecution case further is that on 23-3-1992, deceased Ranjana consumed poison and was admitted in the Govt. Hamidia Hospital; Bhopal in serious condition, where she died after about half an hour. The information regarding the serious condition of deceased Ranjana was sent to her mother, Taradevi (P. W. 7), upon which she along with her son Santosh (P. W. 9) reached Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal where they were informed that Ranjana was dead. On admission of Ranjana in Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal Dr. Anoop Dubey (P. W. 11) initially had examined her and found that she was in a very serious condition. The accused-appellant Anand Kumar had informed Dr. Anoop Dubey (P. W. 11) that Ranjana had consumed poisonous insecticide 'rogor' (Organo-Phosphours) at about 6. On admission of Ranjana in Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal Dr. Anoop Dubey (P. W. 11) initially had examined her and found that she was in a very serious condition. The accused-appellant Anand Kumar had informed Dr. Anoop Dubey (P. W. 11) that Ranjana had consumed poisonous insecticide 'rogor' (Organo-Phosphours) at about 6. 40 p. m. She was admitted in the female ward and referred to R. M. O. (Medicine) for investigation and treatment. Dr. Nikheleshwar Prasad Verma (P. W. 12) had then examined the deceased Ranjana, whom he found in an unconscious state. She was gasping. There was smell of Organo Phosphorus in her breath and she had a weak pulse and the blood pressure was not recordable. Despite treatment, Ranjana died within half an hour of her admission. ( 6 ) INTIMATION of death of Ranjana was sent to police, which was recorded by Head Constable, Maanpal Singh (P. W. 2) in the Rognamacha (Ex. P/2), on 23-3-1992 at 8. 20 p. m. , Merg was registered. After enquiry, City Superintendent of Police, S. R. Sharma (D. W. 15) registered the offence punishable u/s. 304-B of Indian Penal Code, as per report (Ex. P/20 ). ( 7 ) THE post-mortem of the body was conducted by Dr. D. K. Satpathi (P. W. 5 ). As per his report (Ex. P/4), he found that the death of Ranjana was due to respiratory failure, as a result of poisoning. He also found following injuries on the person of deceased Ranjana :- (1) Contusion with abrasion over left side of cheek 2. 5 cm. left to left nasolatrial fold 3 cm. diameter circular in shape. Abrasion 0. 5 cm. diameter on left side; (ii) Superficial abrasion - on bridge of nose, left side transverse size 0. 5 x 1 cm. ; (III) Contusion sup. laceration against lower left inciser (Sic) transverse, size 0. 5 x 0. 2 cm. ; (iv) Abrasion 2. 5 cm. above mid of right eyebrow, obliquely transverse 0. 5 x 0. 2 cm. ; (v) Contusion on right cheek 3. 5 cm. diameter where impression of the tooth inform of grove (depression) pressed; (vi) Abrasion 1 x 0. 5 cm on right above of nose base; (vii) Multiple abrasions on left knee 3. 05 cm. to 0. 5 x 0. 2 cm. in various directions present; (viii) Abrasion on left tibial tuberosity size 2. 1 cm. 5 cm. diameter where impression of the tooth inform of grove (depression) pressed; (vi) Abrasion 1 x 0. 5 cm on right above of nose base; (vii) Multiple abrasions on left knee 3. 05 cm. to 0. 5 x 0. 2 cm. in various directions present; (viii) Abrasion on left tibial tuberosity size 2. 1 cm. obliguely transverse; (ix) Contusion over chil nearly in the mid line size 2 x 1 cm. more on left side obliquely verticle; (x) Abrasions over right wrist extension aspect 3 cm. above the wrist joint size 0. 3 x 0. 1 cm. obliquely verticle 1. 5 cm. apart two in number; (xi) Abrasion on lateral aspect of right little finger 0. 5 x 0. 1 cm. obliquely verticle;dr. D. K. Satpathy (P. W. 5) preserved the viscera of deceased Ranjana, which was sent for chemical analysis. The report (Ex. P/22) of Chemical Analysis confirmed the presence of poisonous Organo-Phosphorous insecticide in the viscera. ( 8 ) AFTER completion of other usual formalities of investigation, charge-sheet against the accused/ appellant as well as acquitted co-accused Biharilal, Taradevi, Ranu and Akhilesh Kumar was filed by P. S. Habibganj, Bhopal. ( 9 ) THE learned Sessions Judge framed charge for offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused. However, after trial, offence punishableunder Section 304-B, IPC was found proved against the accused-appellant alone. Remaining co-accused were found not guilty of the said offences and were acquitted. The accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced for offence punishable u/s. 304-B of the I. P. C. ( 10 ) CHALLENGING the conviction of the accused-appellant, it has been mainly urged by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that there is no evidence on record to establish that the accused-appellant had subjected deceased Ranjana to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in connection with the demand of 'dowry', as defined in the Dowry Prohibition Act and it has, therefore, been urged that the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the I. P. C. is not made out against the accused-appellant. As against this, the learned Counsel for the respondent-State has supported the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant. As against this, the learned Counsel for the respondent-State has supported the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant. ( 11 ) "as pointed out earlier, admittedly, deceased Ranjana was married to accused Anand Kumar on 14th February, 1989 as would also be evidenced by the statement of Prabha Gupta (P. W. 10), who is the younger sister of the deceased. The statements of Dr. A. K. Dubey (P. W. 11) and Dr. N. P. Verma (P. W. 12) show that deceased Ranjana was admitted in the Hamidia Hospital on 23-3-1992 in a serious condition and died due to Organo Phosphorus poisoning within half an hour of her admission in the Hospital, despite treatment given to her. Dr. Satpathy (P. W. 5) has conducted post-mortem examination on the body of Ranjana alias Reetu and found the injuries as per his report (Ex. P/4), which have been detailed above, Dr. Satpathy (P. W. 5) opined that the death of Ranjana took place on account of asphyxia resulting from poisoning. He has also opined that the injuries found on the person of Ranjana were caused during 24 hours prior to her death. ( 12 ) IT would also appear that Ranjana had consumed poisonous insecticide 'rogor'. The present of 'rogor' was found in the vicera in the report of the Chemical Analyst (Ex. P/22 ). Though some efforts had been made by adducing defence evidence to indicate that deceased Ranjana had consumed poison by accident, as stated by Pt. Radhe Shyam Pathak (D. W. 3) and Preeti Gupta (D. W. 6), but since the incident of consuming insecticide occurred at about 5-30 p. m. during day time, while a 'katha' was going on at the house of the accused-appellant, there does not appear to be any chance for deceased Ranjana to have consumed insecticide 'rogor' by accident. There does not appear to be any material to even suspect that the deceased consumed poison by accident. In fact, there has been no suggestion in cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses on the point and there does not appear to be any basis whatsoever to infer that Ranjana had consumed the insecticide by accident. Therefore, the evidence adduced in defence in this regard obviously is an afterthought, as has been rightly concluded after appreciation of evidence by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the evidence adduced in defence in this regard obviously is an afterthought, as has been rightly concluded after appreciation of evidence by the learned trial Court. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, it is established that deceased Ranjana had consumed poisonous insecticide 'rogor' (Organo-Phosphorus substance) due to which she ultimately died on 23-3-1992. It is thus clear that deceased Ranjana after about 3 years of her marriage with the accused-appellant Anand Kumar committed suicide by poisoning herself. Thus her death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. ( 14 ) THEREFORE, the vital point that now required to be considered is, 'whether Ranjana was subjected to cruelty by accused-appellant for or in connection with demand for dowry, soon before her death?' ( 15 ) COMING to the evidence on the point, Taradevi (P. W. 7), who is the mother of the deceased, has stated that at the time of engagement of deceased Ranjana, her would be in-laws had demanded Rs. 25,000/-, which was paid in the shape of Bank Draft of Rs. 21,000/- and cash amount of Rs. 4,000/ -. Besides, she had also presented a gold ring, gold chain, clothes, etc. However, since the clothes were not approved, other set of clothes was purchased from Bhopal and given to the family members of the accused/ appellant. She has further stated that thereafter Akhilesh (acquitted co-accused) came for finalising the arrangements regarding marriage. He again demanded Rs. 27,000/- in cash and a Godrej Almirah. Tara Bai (P. W. 7) expressed her inability to fulfil the above demand upon which, Akhilesh had threatened that they would not perform the marriage, whereafter Taradevi (P. W. 7) paid Rs. 20,000/- towards the above demand. She has also stated that thereafter at the time of marriage, gold ornaments weighing about 10-11 tolas and silver ornaments were also given by her. ( 16 ) IT also appears from the statement of Tara Devi (P. W. 7) that there was a miscarriage of Ranjana and the mother-in-law asked Tarabai to take Ranjana with her for giving her proper nourishment and diet upon which, she had taken Ranjana with her and Ranjana remained with her for about 1 1/2 months, after which the accused/appellant had taken her back to Bhopal. Taradevi (P. W. 7) further states that at the time of marriage of her younger daughter Prabha (P. W. 10) at Jabalpur, the accused/appellant Anand Kumar misbehaved and created a scene. He also had beaten Ranjana and prepared to leave. When Tara Devi (P. W. 7) asked Ranjana as to what the matter was, Ranjana told her that accused/appellant Anand was demanding Rs. 20,000/- and had asked her to ask for the money from her mother, but Ranjana had refused to accede to his demand, upon which he had beaten Ranjana. Taradevi (P. W. 7) further states that thereafter she had persuaded the accused/appellant not to behave in that manner. ( 17 ) THE above statement of Taradevi (P. W. 7) is corroborated by the statement of her younger daughter Prabha (P. W. 10), who has also stated that accused/appellant got drunk a day before her marriage at Jabalpur. Her elder sister deceased Ranjana on being asked had told Prabha that the accused/appellant was demanding Rs. 20,000/-, but Ranjana expressed her inability to do so and she had told the accused/appellant that it would not be possible for her to make the demand from her mother on the occasion of marriage of her younger sister upon which the accused/appellant had beaten Ranjana. Santosh (P. W. 9) has also narrated the above incident. ( 18 ) ALL the above witnesses have thus consistently stated that on the occasion of marriage of Prabha (P. W. 10), accused/appellant got drunk, created a scene and had demanded that Ranjana should ask her mother to pay rupees twenty thousand to the accused/appellant. Deceased Ranjana obviously thought it improper to make such a demand from her mother on the occasion of marriage of her younger sister Prabha (P. W. 10), apparently on consideration that her mother was required to incur heavy expenses in the marriage. This refusal on the part of Ranjana appears to have infuriated the accused/appellant. Ranjana was, therefore, assaulted and beaten by the accused/ appellant, who also prepared to leave the venue of marriage, but was prevented to do so by Ranjana's mother Tara Devi (P. W. 7 ). It would also appear from the statement of Taradevi (P. W. 7) that the accused/appellant had earlier on the same occasion, misbehaved with her and on being greeted by her, he had refused to recognise her and asked her as to who she was. It would also appear from the statement of Taradevi (P. W. 7) that the accused/appellant had earlier on the same occasion, misbehaved with her and on being greeted by her, he had refused to recognise her and asked her as to who she was. ( 19 ) OBVIOUSLY, behaviour of the accused/ appellant, as above, was due to non-fulfillment of his demand of Rs. 20,000/-, which he wanted Ranjana to make from her mother, for which deceased Ranjana was not agreeable. The learned trial Court, after discussion and appreciation of evidence in this regard has concluded that Rs. 20,000/- were demanded by the accused/appellant, which finding appears to be absolutely justified, as detailed above. ( 20 ) LEARNED counsel for the accused/appellant has urged in this connection that demand by the accused/appellant was not a demand for 'dowry' and it was made only for starting his own business. It has also been urged that, even assuming such a demand was made, it was admittedly in the month of July, 1991, i. e. much prior to the death of deceased Ranjana as (Sic) (on) 23-2-1992 and, therefore, cannot be said to have been made soon before the death of deceased Ranjana. It has, therefore, been urged that there is no basis to conclude that Ranjana was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry soon before her death. . ( 21 ) IN support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the accused/appellant has placed reliance on Ravindra Pyarelal Bidlan v. State of Maharashtra, 1993 Cri LJ 3019 (Bombay), Ramesh Chandra v. State of U. P. , 1992 Cri LJ 1444 (All) and Shyama Devi v. State of West Bengal, 1987 Cri LJ 1163 (Cal ). In Didlan's case (supra), which was for offence punishable u/s, 498-A of IPC, the Bombay High Court has observed that, 'a reasonable nexus has to be established between the cruelty and the suicide in order to make good the offence of cruelty. Alternatively, the cruelty established has to be of such a gravity as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide. If suicide is established it has further to be established that it was occasioned on account of cruelty which was of sufficient gravity so as to lead a reasonable person placed in similar circumstances to commit suicide. Alternatively, the cruelty established has to be of such a gravity as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide. If suicide is established it has further to be established that it was occasioned on account of cruelty which was of sufficient gravity so as to lead a reasonable person placed in similar circumstances to commit suicide. ' In Ramesh Chand's case (supra), which again was a case of offence punishableu/s. 498-A IPC, the Allahabad High Court has observed that the complaint could succeed only if it can be proved that there was an 'unlawful demand'by the husband. In Shyama Devi's case (supra), the Calcutta High Court, after consideration of evidence on record, concluded that cruelty of a nature as to lead to suicide was not proved in that case. In the instant case, the demand and maltreatment with the deceased Ranjana by the accused/appellant on the occasion of Marriage of Prabha (P. W. 10) in July, 91 has amply been proved from the evidence on record. ( 22 ) NOW, the evidence regarding the conduct of the accused/appellant and developments after the marriage of Prabha Gupta may be briefly taken into consideration; Santosh (P. W. 9) who is the younger brother of deceased Ranjana has stated that in the month of March, 1992 he had telephoned the accused/appellant that he wishes to take his sister Ranjana to Amravati during the festival of Holi. However, the accused/appellant had refused to accede to his request and had stated that Ranjana would not be sent to her parents'home till the demand of Rs. 20,000/- was met. Santosh (P. W. 9) has further stated that though he wanted to take his sister, deceased Ranjana, the accused/appellant did not permit him to do so. ( 23 ) THE above statement of Santosh (P. W. 9) is supported by the statement of Prabha Vishnu Gupta (P. W. 10), who has stated that when she had gone to attend the festival of Holi in the month of March, 1992, she had requested her mother that her sister be also called to Amravati, but her brother Santosh told her that the accused/appellant was demanding money and had stated that Ranjana would only be sent, if his demand was met. ( 24 ) TARABAI (P. W. 7), the mother of deceased Ranjana has stated in para 8 that though her son Santosh (P. W. 9) had telephoned the accused/appellant twice or thrice, requesting that Ranjana be sent, the accused/appellant refused to send her and also did not permit her to talk to Santosh on phone. ( 25 ) THE above conduct on the part of the accused/appellant clearly indicate, that the accused/appellant even after the marriage of Prabha Vishnu Gupta (P. W. 10) in the month of July, 1991 persisted in his demand of Rs. 20,000/- and continued to misbehave with the family members of Ranjana and even did not permit her to talk on telephone. She was also not permitted to visit her mother's place at Amrawati, during the festival of Holi in the year 1992, as the accused/appellant insisted that unless his demand was met Ranjana would not be sent to her mother's place. He did not permit the deceased Ranjana to talk to her family members even on phone. ( 26 ) DINESH Saravgi (P. W. 8), who is the cousin of deceased Ranjana, has stated that Ranjana had told him that she was not happy with the treatment meted out to her by her in-laws. She had to get ready early in the morning at 4. 00 A. M. and had to work till 10. 00 P. M. in the night. She was not permitted to talk on telephone and she was scolded over petty matters. Such maltreatment to deceased Ranjana would not have meted out to her unless the accused/appellant was party to it. ( 27 ) IT may also be noted that the deceased had several injuries on her person, as has been stated and reported by Dr. D. K. Satpathy (P. W. 5 ). Those injuries were ante-mortem and caused within 24 hours of the death of deceased Ranjana. No reasonable explanation of those injuries has been given on behalf of the accused/appellant. Presumably, the deceased was assaulted and maltreated just before her death, which might have been the immediate cause for consuming poison by deceased Ranjana. ( 28 ) CONSIDERING the above material on record, it is clear that the deceased Ranjana complained of maltreatment by the family members of the accused/appellant since very beginning. Presumably, the deceased was assaulted and maltreated just before her death, which might have been the immediate cause for consuming poison by deceased Ranjana. ( 28 ) CONSIDERING the above material on record, it is clear that the deceased Ranjana complained of maltreatment by the family members of the accused/appellant since very beginning. The greed and lust for money of accused/appellant is apparent from his conduct, from the time marriage was fixed and it is clear that on one pretext or the other, demand for money was continuously being made. The accused/appellant made a specific demand of Rs. 20,000/- at the time of marriage of Prabha Vishnu Gupta (P. W. 10) in July, 1991, which the deceased refused to fulfil. The accused/appellant took it ill and subsequently not only refused, permission to the deceased to visit her mother's place at the time of Holi in the year 1992, but also did not permit her to talk to her brother even on telephone. Ranjana was assaulted just before her death, due to which several injuries were sustained by her. All these circumstances would indicate that the accused/appellant was continuously harassing and ill-treating the deceased Ranjana on non fulfillment by her of his demandfor money, which would certainly amount to cruelty in the circumstances of the case. ( 29 ) IN Gurubachan Singh v. Satpal Singh, AIR 1990 SC 209 : 1990 Cri LJ 502, it was held that the deceased was compelled to take extreme step of suicide as the accused had subjected her to cruelty by constant taunts and mal-treatment and also by alleging that she was carrying an illegitimate child. ( 30 ) SIMILARLY, in State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418 : (1994 Cri LJ 2104), it was found that the victim was subjected to abuses, humiliation and mental torture from the very beginning of her married life and the bridal presents were branded as of inferior guality. It was accordingly held that the above acts were quite likely to destroy the normal frame of her mind and drive her to frustration and mental agony and to end her life by committing suicide. It was accordingly held that the above acts were quite likely to destroy the normal frame of her mind and drive her to frustration and mental agony and to end her life by committing suicide. ( 31 ) IN the foregoing circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused/ appellant that his demand was only to meet his requirement to start his own business and would not amount to a demand for dowry cannot be accepted. Reference in this connection may be made to case reported in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nikku Ram, AIR 1996 SC 67 : (1995 Cri LJ 4184), wherein it has been laid down that demands made long after the marriage could also be a part of the consideration for marriage. It has been observed therein that (Para 13) :-"the aforesaid definition makes it clear that the property or the valuable security need not be as a consideration for marriage, as was required to be under the unamended definition. This apart, the addition of the words "any time" before the expression "after the marriage" would clearly show that even if the demand is long after the marriage the same could constitute dowry, if other requirements of the Section are satisfied. " ( 32 ) IN the instant case, it would be clear that there was constant demand of money by the accused/appellant from the deceased Ranjana; and since his demand was not fulfilled by Ranjana, she was subjected to torture by the accused/appellant, who went even to the extent of assaulting and beating her. It also appears that she was assaulted just prior to her death. She was not even permitted to talk to her close relatives on phone and to visit her mother. Clearly, therefore, she was subjected to continuous harassment and torture both mental and physical - which certainly would amount to cruelty, by the accused/appellant in connection with his demand for dowry. This behaviour of accused/appellant ultimately led Ranjana to commit suicide. ( 33 ) IN the circumstances, the learned trial Court appears to be wholly justified in finding the accused guilty of causing dowry death of Ranjana. He has, therefore, rightly been convicted for offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. ( 34 ) THE above finding does not called for any interference in this appeal. ( 33 ) IN the circumstances, the learned trial Court appears to be wholly justified in finding the accused guilty of causing dowry death of Ranjana. He has, therefore, rightly been convicted for offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. ( 34 ) THE above finding does not called for any interference in this appeal. The sentence also does not appear to be in any way excessive, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the appeal deserved to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused/appellant by the impugned-judgment are hereby confirmed. Appeal dismissed. .