Honble TIBREWAL, J. – The appellant is the husband of the deceased Smt. Mehrunnisha-In the intervening night of January 9-10-1992 Smt. Mehrunnisha died at her husbands house in suspicious circumstances. For her death the appellant was prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 302, 304-B and 498A IPC in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar and vide impugned judgment dated October 4, 1993 ,the trial Court convicted him under sections 302,304-B and 498A IPC. Under section 302 IPC he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment, life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- Indefault of payment of fine to under go 15 days rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 304 B IPC are sentenced to under go seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 100/-. In default of payment of fine to under go 15 days rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 498A IPC, he was sentenced to under go one years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- In default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. This appeal is directed against the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. (2) The facts of the case are set out extensively in the impugned judgment of the trial court which indicate that the deceased Smt. Mehrunnisha was married to the appellant about 13-15 months prior to her death.After marriage, she was living in her matrimonial home at Jhalawar with the appellant while her parents resided at Modak. After marriage,she used to come at her parents house and the matrimonial relations between the husband and wife remained cordial for 2-3 months. Thereafter, the appellant started making unlawful demand of money and used to harass and beat the deceased for not bringing money from her parents.On account of harassment and cruel treatment, with which she was subjected, she came to her parents house and resided there for about eight months. She made complaints to her parents about unlawful demand of Rs.10,000/- which was being made by the appellant and the father of harassing her to bring the money from her father. He told her that from the money, he would establish a facts and as such his demand should be fulfilled even by selling immovable property. She made complaints to her parents about unlawful demand of Rs.10,000/- which was being made by the appellant and the father of harassing her to bring the money from her father. He told her that from the money, he would establish a facts and as such his demand should be fulfilled even by selling immovable property. Smt.Mehrunnisha was then taken by the appellant to his house who not allow her to visit her parents house again. (3) Information about the death of Smt. Mehrunnisha was given to her father by one Rashid,son of her mothers sister. After getting information.P.W 8 Suleman Khan, father of the deceased, made a report at the police station Kotwali, Jhalawar on 10th January,1992. the report was entered in `Rojnamcha Aam of the police station and First Information Report(for short FIR) N0. 1/1992 was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. During inquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. inquest report (Ex.p/6) was prepared on 10th January,1992. The autopsy upon the dead body of the deceased was conducted by a Medical Board consisting of P.W.2 Dr.Gauri Shanker Chauhan, Dr.C.S.Vyas and Dr. (Mrs.) Chitra Mathur. As per post-mortem report (Ex.p/3), at the time of post-mortem examination rigor mortise was present and decomposition had started. Both eyes of the deceased were closed slightly buldgint out.Conjectiva congested and pupil widely dilated and mixed.Froth with food material and Blood stains coming out from the Mouth and Nostril. There was ligature mark present 2 below the right angle of mendible. 4 x 1-1/4 and about 1/4 deep grooved extended from ant.aspect below the thyroide cartilage (Rt.ant.lat. aspect of neck).This was found ante-maritem in nature. On dissection and internal examination,echymosis was found present below the ligature mark. Neck muscle echymorval and swellen. Rupture of trachea at level of 3rd and 4th ribs was found. The deceased was also carrying a pregnancy of about 12-14 weeks. The cause of death was opined `Lasphyxia as a result of strangulation. (4) Subsequently, crime No.61/1992 was registered under Section 302 IPC on a communication sent by the S.P. Jhalawar on 11th March,1992. The matter was then investigated by the police and after completion of usual investigation a charge sheet under Sections 302,304-B and 498 A IPC was filed against the appellant before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar on 22nd April,1992. The case was, then, committed to the court of Sessions Judge. The matter was then investigated by the police and after completion of usual investigation a charge sheet under Sections 302,304-B and 498 A IPC was filed against the appellant before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar on 22nd April,1992. The case was, then, committed to the court of Sessions Judge. Jhalawar from where it was made over to the court of Additional Sessions Judge for trial . (5) On 30th November, 1992, charges under Sections 302,304B and 498A IPC were framed against the appellant who denied the same and pleaded not quilty. He desired to be tried.During trial prosecution examined 12 witnesses for seeking conviction of the appellant. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded alibi stating that in the night of incident he was not present at his house as on 8th January, 1992 he had gone to indore and came back to Jhalawar at 6 or 6.30 a.m.on 10th January,1992. One Abdul Mazid was examined as a defence witness but the learned trial Judge disbelieved the defence. The learned Judge found that marriage of the deceased Mehrunnisha with the appellant had taken place 1-1/2 years prior to her death. That her death was not natural and she died as a result of strangulation. He placed reliance on the testimony of P.W. 7 Smt. Jaibunnisha and P.W.8 Suleman, mother and father of the deceased and held that an unlawful demand of Rs. 10.000/- was being made by the appellant. It was also held that the deceased was subjected with cruel treatment with a view to coercing her to get his unlawful demand fulfilled from her parents. The learned Judge further held that death of the deceased took place between 10 to 12 in night of January 9,1992 in the house of the appellant. He disbelieved defence version that some unknown person committed her murder. Presuming presence of the appellant in the house at the time of Mehrunnishas death and considering that death was homicidal, the learned Judge held the appellant guilty for her murder. He also held him guilty of ``dowry-death punishable under Section 304-B IPC as stated earlier . (6) Shri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, vehemently contended that conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is not sustainable as there is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, to connect him with the offence. He also held him guilty of ``dowry-death punishable under Section 304-B IPC as stated earlier . (6) Shri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, vehemently contended that conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is not sustainable as there is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, to connect him with the offence. He further contended that the trial Judge committed serious error on the face of the record in misreading medical evidence when he observed that death of the deceased was as a result of throttling. He contended that medical evidence only shows that death was as a result of strangulation which can also be by a suicide. Learned counsel contended that there is no iota of evidence on record to prove presence of the appellant in his house at the time of the occurrence and by merely disbelieving defence version, the trial Judge committed an error in holding that the appellant was present in his house at the time of incident. It was, then contended that conviction of the appellant under Section 304 B IPC is based on erroneous presumptions and assumptions which is not permissible in criminal jurisprudence. Challenging conviction of the appellant, for the offence under Section 304 B IPC. learned counsel contended that all the ingredients of that offence are not made out to sustain his conviction. According to the learned counsel, there is no evidence that the appellant subjected the deceased with cruelty or harassment ``soon before her death and in absence of that evidence, the death cannot be one of ``dowry death as defined under section 304-B IPC (7) The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, after perusing entire materials on the record frankly conceded and in our opinion rightly so that on the basis of evidence and material on record it was difficult to sustain conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC. However, he contended that conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC is well founded and calls for no interference by this Court. (8) We are satisfied from the evidence on record that unlawful demand for dowry was the root cause of the death of Smt. Mehrunnisha. The dowry is now a deep rooted evil in our society though it may not be a recent phenomena.The alround effect of this evil is that it has spread amongst all the castes and communities,of the country. The dowry is now a deep rooted evil in our society though it may not be a recent phenomena.The alround effect of this evil is that it has spread amongst all the castes and communities,of the country. Some castes and communities, where dowry was unknown in old days, are also facing this evil in recent years.If we trace the history of dowry, we find that it started with customary presents out of love and affection. In old days, it was customary to give some presents to the bride and bride groom and his family members at the time of marriage.The parents of the bride or their relations used to give presents out of affection and good intention. The system started at a time when girls were not generally very much educated and employment by them was not acceptable to the society. There was yet another reason for such customary gifts. The daughter then was not entitled to a share in the joint family properties when she had a brother and, as such the father out of affection and other conside- ration to give some cash and kind to the daughter at the time of marriage. But , subsequently , a new practice developed and the boy or his family members started demanding cash or kind from parents of the brides. They started demanding dowry as a matter of right. The demand is often made even after the marriage, and if their unlawful demand is not fulfilled, they start harassing the girl or treating her with cruelty. In recent years, the evil of dowry demand has spread and increased to alarming Proportions. The Joint Commission of parliament, appointed to examine the working of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 has remarked : `` The evil sought to be done away with by the Act., on the other hand, increased by leaps and bounds and has now assumed grotesque and alarming proportions. (9) The greed of a man is always limitless. As such, unlawful demands for dowry out of greed were to have their adverse impact on marital relations of the parties.Harassment to young wives and subjecting them to cruelty by the husbands or their family members have become a common feature in recent days with the result that cases of suicides and bride burning are increasing unabated. In fact, it has become a curse for whole of the society . In fact, it has become a curse for whole of the society . (10) To combat this gloomy and alarming situation,several legislative steps were taken in the recent past. It started with enactment of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 1961 containing penal provisions also. When it did not have the desired effect, the Penal Code was amended first by inserting Chapter XX-A (containing Section 498A) in it by Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983 (Act No. 46 to 1983) and then by insertion of Section 304B by the Dowry Prohibition (amendment) Act, 1986 (Act No. 43 of 1986). To give teeth to these provisions Section 113-A in the Evidence Act was also inserted,permitting a court to presume having regard to the facts and circums- tances of the case that suicide by the woman was abetted by her husband or his relatives. Similarly, Act 43 of 1986 inserted Section 113-B in the Evidence Act requiring some presumption to be drawn in cae of dowry death. An amendment was also made in the Code of Criminal Procedure making the offence by a dowry cognizable, non-bailable and triable by a Court of Session. (11) Section 304 B IPC reads as under :– ``304 B. Dowry death : (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances with in seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subject to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called ``dowry death, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death . Explanation :- For the purposes of this sub-section, dowry shall have the same meaning as in sec. 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961(28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. Explanation :- For the purposes of this sub-section, dowry shall have the same meaning as in sec. 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961(28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. A careful analysis of Section 304 B shows that it has the following ingredients :– (1) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or other wise than under normal circumstances ; (2) Such death should have occurred with in seven years of her marriage, (3) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband ; (4) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry. (12) As stated earlier, the section was inserted by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986 with a view to combat the increasing menance of dowry deaths. It lays down that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs other wise than under normal circumstances with in seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before the death of the woman she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives for or in connection with any demand for dowry such death shall be called ``dowry death and the husband or relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death and shall be punishable with imprisonment for a minimum of seven years but which may extend to life imprisonment. As per the explanation to the Section, the ``dowry for the purposes of this Section shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The amended definition of ``dowry reads as below:– ``2. Definition of ``dowry :– In this Act. As per the explanation to the Section, the ``dowry for the purposes of this Section shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The amended definition of ``dowry reads as below:– ``2. Definition of ``dowry :– In this Act. ``Dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly– (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage : or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, buy does not include dower or mahr in the case of person to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. (13) The expression ``Cruelty has not been defind under Section 304 B IPC but section 498A IPC defines it . The meaning of the expression ``cruelty for pur- poses of Section 304 B IPC and 113-B of the Evidence Act, hence, is to be as is under Section 498A IPC.As per that Section,``cruelty means :– ``(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman, or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or any person related to her to meet such demand. (14) In the back ground of the above legal position, we shall now examine the arguments raised before us by the learned counsel for the parties. At the out set we find the contention of Shri Gupta to have merit that the offence under Section 302 IPC is not proved against the appellant.On perusing the entire material and evidence on the record, we find that there is no evidence to hold death of the deceased to be homicidal and that the appellant was responsible for the same. The medical evidence only indicates that her death was as a result of strangulation which could be as a result of suicide also. The medical evidence only indicates that her death was as a result of strangulation which could be as a result of suicide also. In our opinion, the learned trial Judge misread the medical evidence when he observed that death of the deceased was as a result of throattling.Then,there is no prosecution evidence to connect the appellant for the injury found on the neck of the deceased. There is no iota of evidence on the record that the appellant was in the house on the fateful night when the deceased met her death.On basis of false defence of alibi,no presumption can be drawn against the appellant that he must be in the house at the time of the occurrence and to be responsible for causing the death. Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, rightly conceded that it is difficult to maintain the conviction under Section 302 IPC. (15). So far as conviction of the appellant under Section 304B IPC is concerned, after examining the evidence carefully, we are satisfied that the prosecu- tion has succeeded in establishing the offence. The learned trial Judge has placed reliance on the testimony of P.W. 7 Smt. Jaibunnisha, the mother of the deceased and P.W. 8 Suleman the father of the deceased for holding that undue demand of Rs.10,000/- was being made by the appellant and to get the demand fulfilled, the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty .It is an admitted fact before us that death occurred with in seven years of the marriage.It is also not disputed that the death occurred other wise than normal circumstances and this fact is established beyond reasonable doubt from the medical evidence. The contention of Mr.Gupta assailing under Section 304B IPC that there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty ``soon before her death, was examined by us carefully , but we find no substance in it. After amendment in the definition of ``dowryby Act No.43 of 1986, it is no more in dispute that demands after solemnisation of marriage fall within the mischief of ``dowry The only question,therefore, remains for our consideration as to whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant soon before her death. After amendment in the definition of ``dowryby Act No.43 of 1986, it is no more in dispute that demands after solemnisation of marriage fall within the mischief of ``dowry The only question,therefore, remains for our consideration as to whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant soon before her death. Section 498A IPC has given a new dimension to the concept of ``cruelty to curb the unlawful demand for ``dowry.The explanation to Section 498A IPC provides that any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman would also amount to ``cruelty.Harassment of a woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or any person related to her to meet such demand would also constitute``cruelty. The persistent demand of Rs. 10,000/- by the appellant in our view, falls within the mischief of ``cruelty.In Sobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi(1), the demand for dowry itself was held to amount cruel for the wife to get a decree for dissolution of marriage.It was observed by their Lordships as under :- ``Section 13(1) (i-a) uses the words ``treated the petitioner with cruelty. The word ``crueltyhas not been defined. Indeed it could not have been defined. It has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical the court will have no problem to determine it. It is a question of fact and degree.If it is mental the problem presents difficulty. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment.Second, the impact of such treatment in the mind of the, spouse-whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other.Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. There may,however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough as per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted. (16) From the evidence of P.W. 7 Jaibunnisha and P.W.8 Suleman it stands established that soon after the marriage i.e. after two-three months the appellant started pressing the deceased to bring Rs.10,000/- from her parents. He used to harass and even beat her to covercing her to meet his unlawful demand. There is evidence on the record to show that on account of harassment and cruelty, to which the deceased was subjected she came to her parents house and remained there for about eight months.The in absence of her parents she was taken back by the appellant. Thereafter she was not even allowed to visit her parents house again. Thus, there was a constant harassment and mental torture to the deceased by not allowing her to visit her parents house unless his unlawful demand was fulfilled.In view of this, the learned trial Judge committed no error in holding that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty by the appellant soon before her death. One should not forget while dealing such cases that it is very difficult to get direct evidence on the question of cruelty or harassment at the hands of husband or his relatives. Our experience also shows that neighbours of in-laws of the woman seldom support the prosecution at the stage of trial. In the instant case,death of the deceased had taken place with in 1-1/2 years of her marriage. The medical evidence shows that her death was not in a normal circumstance and it could be homicidal or suicidal. When death takes place at in-laws house it is difficult to get direct evidence to connect the husband or his relatives for her death. Hence most of such henious offences used to go unpunished Sections 304-B and 498-A in the IPC and 113A and 113B in the Evidence Act have been inserted to raise a presumption of certain facts in a given situation, which are other wise difficult to be proved by leading evidence. Hence most of such henious offences used to go unpunished Sections 304-B and 498-A in the IPC and 113A and 113B in the Evidence Act have been inserted to raise a presumption of certain facts in a given situation, which are other wise difficult to be proved by leading evidence. As such these provisions shoud be given their true and full effect by the courts than to find out some lame excuses for acquittal of the offender. We are satisfied that the prosecution has succeeded to bring home the guilt of the appellant for offences under Sections 304-B and 498 A IPC.We find no merit in the argument of Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, that the prosecution has failed to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death . (17) The result of the aforesaid discussion is that conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC are not sustainable and as such, they are set aside. Conviction of the appellant under Section 304B and 498A IPC is maintained. The sentence awarded by the trial court for the offence under Section 304B IPC is also maintained but no separate sentence is awarded under Section 498A IPC in view of the substantive sentence already awarded for the major offence. Consequently, the appellant shall undergo the sentence of imprisonment and shall pay the amount of fine as awarded by the trial court for the offence under Section 304 B IPC.The appeal is disposed of accordingly. __________