JUDGMENT 1. - Sydney Brandon In M. Borland (ed.), violence in Family (1976) 1, said that "Statistically it is safer to be on the streets after dark with a stranger than at home in the bosom of 'one's family, for it is there that accident murder and violence are likely to occur." The present case reveals the said story of a young bride Usha whose body was found in flames in her in laws house which was locked from the outside. This unfortunate incident occurred within a period of seven months of her marriage. 2. First some admitted facts. Usha was married to accused appellant Hari Shankar Gupta on November 18, 1986 at Alwar. Accused Smt. Kesar is the mother of Hari Shanker and accused Devi Daval is the real brother of Smt. Kesar. Hari Shankar was serving as LDC (cashier) in CID (CB) Deptt. Jaipur on May 23, 1987 and was residing at Jaipur whereas he did not allow Usha to live with him at Jaipur and Usha was residing with her mother in law Kesar at village Neemrana (Alwar). Devi Dayal, younger brother of Kesar was also residing at Neemrana. Narsingh Das, the husband of Smt. Kesar had died much before the marriage of Hari Shanker, Hariom (PW 11) maternal uncle of Usha, took active part in arranging marriage of Usha with Hari Shanker. Devi Dayal wrote two letters to Hari Om, one on November 7, 1986 (Ex.R 10) and another on November 11, 1986 (Ex.R11). Letter Ex.R 10 reads as under " vkius tks M~kQ~V ds }kjk :i;ksa dh dgh Fkh] mldks 'kadj th us euk dj fn;k gSA mUgksaus crk;k fd xkao esa rks :i;s Fkkyh esa fn[kkus iM+rs gSa] blfy, vki :i;s M~kQ~V }kjk u fHktokdj Lo;a gh yk;saA " Letter Ex. P.11 reads thus- " Vhds ij :i;s vki Lo;a ysdj vkukA M~kQ~V }kjk :i;s fcYdqy er HkstukA 'kadj th us dgk gS fd :i;s M~kQ~V ;k pSd ds }kjk fcYdqy ugha ywaxkA xkao dh ijEijk ds vuqlkj ds'k fn[kkus esa gh 'kksHkk gksrh gS] lks /;ku j[kukA " Devi Dayal in his statement under Section 313 CrP.C. stated thus- " i= esjs gkFk ds gSaA " Wireless message was received at Police Station Shahjahanpur Distt. Alwar at 12.20 a.m. on May 23, 1987 that Usha was admitted in B.D.M. Hospital Kotputli in a serverly burnt condition. Alwar at 12.20 a.m. on May 23, 1987 that Usha was admitted in B.D.M. Hospital Kotputli in a serverly burnt condition. Usha died on May 24, 1987 and postmortem of her body was conducted on the said date at 10.30 a.m. Initially proceedings under Section 174 Cr.PC. were instituted by RS. Shahjahanpur. Thereafter FIR was lodged by Hari Prasad (inhabitant of Nagda Distt. Ujjain M.P.) father of deceased Usha on May 30, 1987. Case under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC was registered against Hari Shankar, Smt. Kesar and Devi Dayal and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation RS. Shahjahanpur laid the charge sheet. The case was committed and learned Sessions Judge framed charge under section 304-B and 498-A of the IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.RC. were recorded. The accused examined seven defence witnesses and exhibited as many as 11 documents. Learned trial court vide its judgment dated January 22, 1996 convicted and sentenced the accused as under- Hari Shanker-Under Section 304-B IPC to suffer & Smt. Keshar 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- (in default of payment of fine to further under go six months simple imprisonment) under Section 498-A IPC to suffer 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 (in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment). (The sentences were directed to run concurrently.) Devi Dayal-Under Section 498-A IPC to suffer three years Rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 (in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment). 3. Impugning this judgment that the instant appeals have been field by the accused Hari Shanker, Smt. Kesar and Devi Dayal. 4. As a first limb of his argument, Mr. S.R. Bajwa learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the accused Hari Shanker and Smt. Kesar vociferously contended that not a single prosecution witness has stated that Usha was tortured on May 23, 1987 and she committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil. Prosecution witnesses Banwari Lal (PW. 4. As a first limb of his argument, Mr. S.R. Bajwa learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the accused Hari Shanker and Smt. Kesar vociferously contended that not a single prosecution witness has stated that Usha was tortured on May 23, 1987 and she committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil. Prosecution witnesses Banwari Lal (PW. 1) Kerori Mai (PW 2) Bani Prasad (PW 3) Bai Singh (PW 4) Virendra Kumar (PW 5) and Manoj Kumar (PW 6) categorically stated that they had gone to the spot immediately, at that time Usha was in senses and on being enquired by them she told that she was preparing tea when she caught fire, it is also in evidence of these prosecution witnesses that Usha was at that time wearing nylon sari and tea was actually being prepared. These prosecution witnesses testified oral dying declaration of Usha and have not supported the prosecution case but they were not declared hostile therefore their testimony ought to have been relied upon. 5. The learned counsel Mr. Bajwa, then added by contending that witnesses relied upon by the learned trial court are partisan witnesses highly interested in the deceased and they have deposed regarding their suspicion and the learned trial court has committed mistake in considering their suspicion as substantive evidence, these witnesses were contradicted with their police statements and thus on record there was evidence to indicate that they are unreliable. 6. Next plank of Mr. Bajwa's contention is that the learned court below has failed to consider the documentary evidence in shape of two letters Ex. D.4 and Ex. D.7 written by deceased Usha and another letter Ex. D.9 written by the father of the deceased which proclaim the relations between the accused appellants and the deceased were quite normal. The allegations regarding demand of scooter and Rs. 15,000/- cash were levelled only afterwards with a view to rope in the accused appellants on false charge. 7. At the end, on the totality of the conspectus of the evidence and circumstances of the case Mr. Bajwa, learned counsel urged that the prosecution has failed to prove the presence of the accused persons at the spot. In the post mortem report there is no mention that the wounds were having a characteristic odour of kerosene and sooty blackening of parts. Bajwa, learned counsel urged that the prosecution has failed to prove the presence of the accused persons at the spot. In the post mortem report there is no mention that the wounds were having a characteristic odour of kerosene and sooty blackening of parts. In Modi's Medical Jurisprudence in connection with the burns, it has been stated that "burns caused by kerosene oil are usually very severe and are known from its characteristic odour and sooty blackening of the part.'' But this aspect was not considered by the trial court and conclusion was incorrectly arrived at that the accused had committed the offence under section 304-B and 498-A IPC. 8. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for accused Devi Dayal canvassed that the only evidence against Devi Dayal is that he wrote two letters in connection of demand of dowry before marriage of Usha and Hari Shankar and no evidence thereafter is available on record. Thus no case under section 498-A IPC is made out against him. 9. On the other hand Mr. S.M. Poddar, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and contended that the accused persons harassed the young bride in connection with the demand of dowry and dragged her to commit suicide within a period of seven months of her marriage and they have been rightly convicted by the learned trial court. 10. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 11. In Sobha Ram v. Madhukar Reddi ( AIR 1988 SC 121 ) the Supreme Court observed thus- "It will be necessary to bear in mind that there has been marked change in the life around us. In matrimonial duties and responsibilities in particular, we find a sea change. They are of varying degrees from house to house or person to person. A set of facts stigmatised as cruelty in one case may not be so in another case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life, the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions. It may also depend upon their culture and human values to which they attach importance. We, the Judges and lawyers, therefore, should not impart our own notions of life. We may not go in parallel with them. There may be a generation gap between us and the parties. It may also depend upon their culture and human values to which they attach importance. We, the Judges and lawyers, therefore, should not impart our own notions of life. We may not go in parallel with them. There may be a generation gap between us and the parties. It would be better if we keep aside our customs and manners. It would be also better if we less depend upon precedents. Because as Lord Denning said in Sheldon v. Sheldon (1966 (2) All E.R. 257) the categories of cruelty are not closed. Each case may be different. We deal with the conduct of human beings who are not generally similar. Among the human beings there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. New eype of cruelty map crop up in any case depending upon the human behaviour, capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct complained of. Such is the wonderful realm of cruelty." (Emphasis supplied) 12. With these principles in mind, I may now unfold the story of the instant case. 13. At this juncture few questions stand before me in a magnified size and I have to search answers of those question. The questions are - (i) Why a newly wedded wife Usha was not allowed by her husband Hari Shanker to live with him at Jaipur where he was posted? (ii) Why Usha, shortly after her marriage was deprived of her conjugal rights by her husband Hari Shanker? (iii) Why Usha was left at the mercy of Smt. Kesar and Devi Dayal at village Neemrana? (iv) Why on the date of unfortunate incident, Usha was locked in the house by her mother in law Kesar? (v) Why did Kesar not allow Usha to accompany her to the 'ladies Sangeet' on the date of incident? 14. Admittedly the foundation of marriage of Usha and Hari Shanker was 'dowry' which is evident from the letters Ex. RIO and Ex. R11 written by accused Devi Dayal. The essential ingredients spelt out in section 304-B IPC are extracted as hereunder- (i) The death should have been caused within seven years of the marriage of the accused. (ii) The death of woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances. RIO and Ex. R11 written by accused Devi Dayal. The essential ingredients spelt out in section 304-B IPC are extracted as hereunder- (i) The death should have been caused within seven years of the marriage of the accused. (ii) The death of woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances. (iii) The deceased should have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband soon before her death. (iv) The cruelty and harassment so subjected shall be for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. 15. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act provides a 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 woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. 16. The word 'cruelty' has not been defined under section 304-B IPC, but the same is made available in the explanation to section 498-A IPC, which runs as follows- (a) Any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or 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 meant any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security is on account of failure by her on any person related to her to meet such demand. 17. In the instant case, as already noticed, that Usha was married to the accused Hari Shanker on November 18, 1996 and her death was caused by burns on May 24, 1987. The only point which remains to be considered is whether Usha was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons soon before her death in connection with any demand for dowry? 18. I now proceed to determine, whether Usha has sustained accidental burns while preparing tea or she had committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her body. The only point which remains to be considered is whether Usha was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons soon before her death in connection with any demand for dowry? 18. I now proceed to determine, whether Usha has sustained accidental burns while preparing tea or she had committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her body. The prosecution witnesses Banwari Lal (PW 1), Kerori Mai (PW 2), Bani Prasad (PW 3), Bai Singh (F(W 4), Virendra Kumar (PW 5) and Manoj Kumar (PW 6) have categorically stated that they had gone to the spot immediately where they found Usha in senses and on being enquired by them she told that when she was preparing tea, she caught fire. These witnesses also stated that Usha was wearing nylon Sari and tea was actually being prepared. No doubt that the learned Public Prosecutor did not declare these witnesses hostile but in order to adjudge the veracity of the testimony of these witnesses I deem it necessary to look at the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. 19. A look at the memo of site plan (Ex. P 5) demonstrates that in the kitchen where Usha caught fire, there was a health made of clay and bricks (chulha) at mark No. 1 of the floor. Water tank existed outside the kitchen but Usha did not make attempt to extinguish fire. The place where Usha fell after catching fire became yellowish and was full of cracks. There was a smell of kerosene oil at that place. 20. A perusal of inspection memo of dead body of Usha (Exp.6) reveals that she was wearing silver ring on the middle finger of left hand, a nose pin and one silver ring on each of the toe of the feet. Burnt clothes sticked over the skin, smelt kerosene oil. 21. External appearance of dead body of Usha, according to postmortem report (Ex.R 15) was as under- "Average built, Average nourishment whole body burnt and is in pugilistic state. Froth in nostrils congested. Whole body is having 2nd degree burns. Back buttocks, Abdomen is charred and soot is deposited over them. Skin is peeled of at various places particularly more on extremities. Froth in nostrils congested. Whole body is having 2nd degree burns. Back buttocks, Abdomen is charred and soot is deposited over them. Skin is peeled of at various places particularly more on extremities. Burnt cloth adnerant at places on the body." Cause of death was shock as a result of severe burns all over the body.A Jar marked 'A' having stomach contents, a piece of small intestine, a piece of large gut, another Jar makred 'B' having pieces of Brain, Liver, Spleen, Kidney, Heart and long and a packed marked 'C' having remant of burnt clothings, were sealed and sent to FSL for examination. 22. Description of Articles mentioned in FSL, report (Ex.P. 18) thus "Packet marked 'C' It contained one cloth covered sealed packet sealed with 10 number of seals similar to the specimen seal forwarded, which in turn contained pieces of partially burnt red coloured synthetic and cotton cloth apparently of Sari and blouse and pieces of partially burn brassiere all packed in a ploythene cover." Result of examination reads thus- "on physico chemical analysis remnant fractions of kerosene residue were detected in the extract of the exhibits contained in the packet marked 'C'." (Emphasis supplied) 23. A tin of kerosene oil was also seized by the Investigating Officer from the spot. Seizure memo was exhibited as Ex.P.3. 24. Conjoint reading of F.S.L. report and above noted memos drawn by the Investigating Officer signifies that Usha at the time of catching fire was wearing Sari made of synthetic and cotton. Kitchen had a 'chulha' which could ignite by wood sticks and Usha could not have caught fire accidently while preparing tea. As kerosene residue were detected on her cloths in the FSL report, there is no doubt the fact that Usha had committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her body. Had she caught fire accidently she must have attempted to extinguish fire by entering into water tank existed just outside the kitchen. 25. Prosecution witnesses Banwari Lal (PW 1) is the real brother of accused Devi Dayal and Kesar. I fail to understand as to why he was made witness by the Investigating Officer when Banwari Lal did not support the prosecution story, why the learned Public Prosecutor did not declare him hostile. 25. Prosecution witnesses Banwari Lal (PW 1) is the real brother of accused Devi Dayal and Kesar. I fail to understand as to why he was made witness by the Investigating Officer when Banwari Lal did not support the prosecution story, why the learned Public Prosecutor did not declare him hostile. Similarly other prosecution witnesses Kirodi Mai (PW 2), Beni Prasad (PW 3), Bai Singh (PW 4), Virendra Kumar (PW 5) and Manoj Kumar (PW 6) who have not supported prosecution story, were not declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor. Misconduct is evident on the part of learned public prosecutor. 26. Testimony of Banwari Lal (PW 1) Kirodi Mai (PW 2) Beni Prasad (PW 3) Bai Singh (PW 4) Virendra Kumar (PW 5) and Manoj Kumar (PW 6) does not inspire confidence. Their deposition that Usha was wearing Nylon Sari and that she made dying declaration that she caught fire while preparing tea, is not reliable in view of the FSL report and other facts earlier noticed by me. As already stated Usha was wearing Sari made of Synthetic and Cotton and she committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil. Stove ignited by kerosene oil was not found in the kitchen which could burst and cause accident. There was no possibility of catching fire by "chulha" existed on one corner of floor, which could ignite by wood sticks. 27. I shall now examine the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. Manohar Lal (PW. 9) Shri Narayan (PW 10) Hari Om (PW 11), Smt. Chameli (PW 12) Smt. Kisturi Devi (PW 13) Smt. Kamla (PW 14) Hari Prasad (PW 15) and Ramesh Gupta (PW 16) are the relatives of Usha and all of them testify that Hari Shanker used to demand a scooter and cash in the sum of Rs. 15,000/-. 28. Relative witnesses are competent witnesses in the eye of law. They are not necessarily interested witnesses. As indicated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki ( AIR 1981 SC 1390 ) . "Related is not equivalent to interested. 15,000/-. 28. Relative witnesses are competent witnesses in the eye of law. They are not necessarily interested witnesses. As indicated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki ( AIR 1981 SC 1390 ) . "Related is not equivalent to interested. A witness be called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation, in the decree in a suit or in seeing an accused person punished." In Dalip Singh and others v. The State of Punjab ( AIR 1953 SC 364 ) , the Supreme Court while dealing with appreciation of the evidence of relative witnesses of the deceased observed that "merely because the witnesses are closely related to the deceased would not be a ground to discard their evidence or be a ground to require corroboration to their evidence." it was further observed by their Lordships thus "This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases. We find that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the courts, at any rate, in the arguments of counsel. A witness is normally considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such an enmity against the accused to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true when feelings run high and there is a personal cause for enmity that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship, far from being a foundation is after a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its own facts." 29. Hari Om (PW 11) is Maternal uncle (Mama) of Usha. He is the person who took active part in arranging the marriage of Usha. Accused Devi Dayal wrote him two letters Ex.P 10 and Ex.P 11 in connection with demand for dowry. He is the person who, in writing permitted the cremation of dead body of Usha in the absence of her parents Hari Prasad (PW 15) and Smt. Kamla (PW 14). Accused Devi Dayal wrote him two letters Ex.P 10 and Ex.P 11 in connection with demand for dowry. He is the person who, in writing permitted the cremation of dead body of Usha in the absence of her parents Hari Prasad (PW 15) and Smt. Kamla (PW 14). His conduct was quite natural and he did not lodge any report against the accused persons. He deposed that on the occasion of "Barsi" of his late father he requested Hari Shanker to come Alwar with Usha but he came all alone. On being asked as to why he came alone, Hari Shanker replied that he deliberately left Usha and until and unless his demand of scooter and cash in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- is fulfilled he would not allow Usha to visit. After about one month of the said communication he received massage that Usha was no more. 30. Hari Prasad (PW 15) is the father of Usha. He deposed that when Usha visited his house she informed him that accused Hari Shanker and Smt. Kesar used to demand Scooter and cash in the sum of Rs.15,000/-. Other witnesses also testified the demand of dowry made by the accused persons. These witnesses were subjected to elaborate cross examination and many of them were contradicted with their earlier statements recorded by the Investigating Officer. Under these circumstances I have to examine the testimony of these witnesses cautiously and in the light of peculiarities of the case on hand. As already stated following peculiarities are noticed in the instant case (i) The foundation of marriage was dowry and the accused dared to demand dowry by writing letters. (ii) Husband Hari Shanker did not allow his wife to Usha live with him at Jaipur and deprived her from the conjugal rights. (iii) Usha was left at the mercy of Smt. Kesar and Devi Dayal and was forced to live with them at village Neem Rana. (iv) On the date of incident Usha was locked from outside in the house by Smt. Kesar as is evident from the statement of defence witness Smt. Kamla (DW 3). (v) Smt. Kesar did not allow Usha to accompany her to the 'ladies sangeet' on the date of incident. (vi) Usha was not properly nourished as is evident from post mortem report (Ex.R 15). (v) Smt. Kesar did not allow Usha to accompany her to the 'ladies sangeet' on the date of incident. (vi) Usha was not properly nourished as is evident from post mortem report (Ex.R 15). (vii) Usha was not wearing 'Mangal Sutra' Gold Bangles, Gold earings and gold rings though she was a newly wedded bride, as is evident from inspection memo of her dead body (Ex.R6). (viii) Usha died under abnormal circumstances by burns within seven months of her marriage. 31. In view of above noted peculiar facts the statements of Hari Om (PW 11) and Hari Prasad (PW 15) appear to be natural. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements of these witnesses. The accused Hari Shanker did make demand of scooter and cash in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- at. the time of Barsi of maternal grand father of Usha and when demand was not fulfilled, Usha was sent to Neemrana by Hari Shanker depriving her from her conjugal rights, where she was subjected to spend days and nights in confinement. She was not allowed to meet people and take part in social gatherings. On the unfortunate day of incident she was prevented from taking part in 'ladies sangeet' and was locked in the house. A newly wedded bride who was deprived of her conjugal rights and ornaments and who was locked in the house, decided to end her life by committing suicide. The cruelty and harassment suffered by her was on connection with unfulfilled demand for scooter and cash in the sum of Rs. 15,000/-. 32. The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Dowry has made some recommendations with a view to giving teeth to law. Parliament-has accepted some of the recommendations, and incorporating the same has passed the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984. It happens more often than not that a husband who feels that his wife has not brought the, promised or expected dowry, with a view to exerting pressure on her and his in laws or with a view to punishing her, ceases to have cohabitation with her and ultimately snaps all relations with her. It is a notorious fact that a bridge who fails to bring dowry is subjected to physical and mental torture even leading to the suspension of marital relations, ultimately resulting in bride burning or bride suicide. It is a notorious fact that a bridge who fails to bring dowry is subjected to physical and mental torture even leading to the suspension of marital relations, ultimately resulting in bride burning or bride suicide. In view of this prevailing factual situation, the Joint Committee recommended that a husband who suspends or ceases to have marital relations with his wife should be punished with imprisonment which may accept to one year along with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. But the Parliament has not accepted this recommendation. Though Orissa State Statute (28 of 1961) and West Bengal State Statute (35 of 1975) have enacted similar provision. 33. In the instant case also accused Hari Shanker felt hurt when his demand of scooter and cash was not fulfilled and with a view to exerting pressure on Usha and her parents and with a view to punishing her, Hari Shanker ceased to have cohabitation with her and left her at Neem Rana which resulted in her death. In view of the cruel act of Hari Shanker supported by Kesar and Devi Dayal, the statements of Hari Om (PW 11) and Hari Prasad can not be disbelieved. Letters written by Usha (Ex.D. 4 and Ex.D. 7) and another letter (Ex.D. 9) written by Hari Prasad to accused Hari Shanker, no doubt demonstrate that the relations between Usha and Hari Shanker were cordial immediately after the marriage but the said letters do not help the accused persons as Usha was subjected to cruelty only after she came from Nagda to reside with Hari Shanker and after demand of scooter arid cash was not fulfilled. 34. It will not be out of place to incorporate the extract from the "Book Dowry prohibition Act 1961 by Justice B.P. Beri (1988 Edition) At page 18 of the Book it has been mentioned that ''The bride-price had certainly of its rate and in setting marriages other considerations prevailed including the beauty worth accomplishments and the family back ground of the girl, the dowry has predominating the competitive spirit of the auction hammer and the parents of the girl not unoften over reach themselves. If the dowry lust had stopped at marriage probably the robbed parents may or could have recovered. The process is a continuos one. Every occasion however, small or big is to be exploited and converted into a mundane advantage. If the dowry lust had stopped at marriage probably the robbed parents may or could have recovered. The process is a continuos one. Every occasion however, small or big is to be exploited and converted into a mundane advantage. If there is a birth in either family the bride's family is mulcted. If there is any other 'sanskar' customary ritual the brides family has to pay the levy and that too with humility and always with the danger of being run down or even insulted. Even death is exploited. If any death is occurs in the bride's family or the bride groom's family there is tax recoverable." 35. Thus, it does seem reasonable that the accused Hari Shanker might have repeated his demand for scooter and cash in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- at the time of 'Barsi' of the maternal grand father of his wife Usha. Accused Hari Shanker was serving in the office of CID (CB), his mother Smt. Kesar and his mama Devi Dayal had knowledge that the demand of dowry was offence out still they deliberately dared to demand dowry by writing letters before marriage and afterwards also they demanded scooter and cash and when demand was not fulfilled Hari Shanker ceased to have cohabitation with Usha and suspended marital relation by sending her to Neemrana where in cruel atmosphere she committed suicide. From the evidence of Manohar Lal (PW 9) it has been established that accused Devi Dayal also went to Alwar and supported the demand of scooter and cash made by accused Hari Shanker. Hari Om (PW 11) also stated about Devi Dayal in his examination in chief as under- " tSls gh uhejkuk igqWaps rks jkLrs esa uhejkuk esa ?kqlrs gh nsohn;ky feykA igys rks bUgksaus dgk vkidh cPph pk; cukrs oDr ty xbZA fQj nqck: geus dgk lp&lp crkvks rks dgk [kkuk curs oDr ty xbZA geus dgk ;g lp ugha gS lp crkvksaxs rks cp tkvksxsA tc mlus dgk fd mlus feV~Vh ds rsy dh ihih mMsydj vkx yxk yh gSA vc gekjh bTtr vkids ikl esa gSA " In view of the peculiar facts of the case there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Hari Om. 36. In the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons pleaded that at the time of incident they were not present in the house. 36. In the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons pleaded that at the time of incident they were not present in the house. Accused Hari Om was at Jaipur, accused Devi Dayal had gone to attend the marriage and accused Kesar had gone to participate in 'ladies sangeet'. Attempt was made to establish these facts by producing the defence witnesses. The manner in which Usha was subjected to cruelty, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused even in their absence from the home. The accused created such a cruel atmosphere which could drag Usha to commit suicide. The accused persons created new type of cruelty by their conduct and behaviour. 37. I am unable to pursuade myself with the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the accused persons. The guilt against accused Hari Shanker and Smt. Kesar under Section 304-B and 498-A of I.PC. and against Devi Dayal under Section 498-A IPC is established beyond reasonable doubt and they have rightly been convicted. 38. For the reasons stated above the appeals fail and stand dismissed. The impugned judgment of the learned trial court is upheld. The accused Devi Dayal is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out sentence. Record of the case be sent back forthwith. *******