Judgment 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 21st January, 1998 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah in Session Trial No. 184/216 of 1996 convicting both the appellants, namely, Bhuneshwar Prasad Chaurasia alias Bhuneshwar Chaurasia under S. 304 (B) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of nine years under S. 304(B), IPC and appellant No. 2 Ram Chandra Chaurasia has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under S. 304(B), IPC. Both the appellants have been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 11/2 years for the offence under S. 201, IPC. Their sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Eleven (11) accused persons including the two appellants were charged and tried before the trial Court but by the impugned judgment and order, remaining nine accused persons, have been acquitted and given benefit of doubt. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that sister of the informant (P.W. 8) namely Manju Devi aged about 18 years, was married with appellant No. 1 Bhuneshwar Prasad Chaurasia or village Chhaturwar, district Nawadah in the year 1991 and at the time of marriage, cash amounting to Rs. 36,000.00 and other articles were given in dowry to the appellants. In the month of February, 1995, victim Manju Devi came to her Sasural after Duragaman. At that occasion, appellant No. 1 made a demand of television and Palang (cot) but the same could not be fulfilled by her family members due to financial constraint. Thereafter, she was regularly fortured in her "Sasural" by the appellants. Further case of the prosecution is that within 15 days of Duragaman, she returned back to her Naihar and stayed for about three months and again went to her Sasural. On 18-1-1996, Dilip Chaurasia, another brother-in-law of the informant, came to his house and informed that in the night of 17-1-1996 at about 8 p.m., the appellants, with the help of family members, have killed Manju Devi and in the same night at about 11 p.m., her dead body was disposed of. Thereafter, the informant along with his brother Shambhu Prasad Chaurasia (PW. Thereafter, the informant along with his brother Shambhu Prasad Chaurasia (PW. 7), mother Gulabia Devi (P.W. 9) and sister Lalita Devi went to village Chhatarwar where they learnt that deceased Manju Devi died due to poison and in the same night her dead body was cremated. The informant rushed to the local Police Station and lodged a written report (Ext. 1) and on its basis, the case was registered and formal First Information Report was drawn-up. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and the trial proceeded in the Court below. 3. The case of the defence is that victim committed suicide. There was neither demand dowry from the appellants nor she was tortured for the same. After she consumed poison, and she was taken to the hospital for treatment but in the way, she died. Her family members were informed and they participated in the cremation. It is also the case of the defence that after cremation, her family members made a demand of Rs. 1 lac from the appellants and threatened to implicate them in the case. The defence has examined two witnesses out of which D.W. 1 Rameshwar Prasad stated that the victim lady consumed poison, became unconscious and froth was coming out of her mouth. D.W. 2 Madan Prasad Chaurasia corroborated his evidence. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined 11 witnesses out of which, P.W. 1 Jageshwar Prasad Chaurasia, P.W. 2 Bishun Chaurasia, P.W. 4 Nithlesh Chaurasia turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. P.W. 6 Sahdeo Chaurasia and P.W. 6 Ayodhya Chaurasia have been tendered for cross-examination. These witnesses are of appellants village Chhatarwar. P.W. 3 Maheshwar Prasad Chaurasia is related to accused-appellant Bhuneshwar Prasad Chaurasia. He stated that victim lady Manju Devi had consumed poison and the dead body was cremated in the same night. P.W. 7 Shambhu Prasad Chaurasia and the informant (P.W. 8) are brothers of the deceased lady. P.W. 9 Gulabia Devi is her mother and P.W. 10 Dilip Chaurasia is relation of the informant who informed him about the death of Manju Devi. P.W. 11 Basant Kumar is the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation and submitted charge-sheet. 5. P.W. 7 Shambhu Prasad Chaurasia and the informant (P.W. 8) are brothers of the deceased lady. P.W. 9 Gulabia Devi is her mother and P.W. 10 Dilip Chaurasia is relation of the informant who informed him about the death of Manju Devi. P.W. 11 Basant Kumar is the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation and submitted charge-sheet. 5. The admitted facts which emerge out from the evidence on record are as follows :- (i) The victim lady Manju Devi was wife of appellant No. 1 Bhuneshwar Prasad Chaurasia alias Bhuneshwar Chaurasia and appellant No. 2 is her father-in-law. (ii) She was married with appellant No. 1 in the year 1991 and her Duragaman took place in the month of February, 1995. (iii) She died in her sasural on 17-1-1996 within seven years of her marriage, and (iv) Her death was an unnatural death and as per defence version, she consumed poison, whereas the prosecution case is that she was admistered poison. The point for consideration is whether the victim lady committed suicide or she was murdered at the hands of the appellants, and she was tortured physically and mentally by the appellants for non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry. 6. Learned appellants lawyer submitted that there is no specific allegation against either of the appellant that they committed murder of the victim lady by administering poision. The informant is not an eye-witness. He was informed about the death of Manju Devi by P.W. 10 Dilip Chaurasia, who is also not an eye-witness. P.Ws. 3, 7, 8 and 9 are hearsay witness. Therefore, the case is based only on the circumstantial evidence. 7. In his written report (Ext. 1) and in his evidence, the informant (PW. 8) has not made any allegation of demand of dowry against appellant No. 2 who is father-in-law of the victim lady. The allegation is only against appellant No. 1, the husband. Therefore, his conviction for the offence under S. 304(B) IPC is not maintainable. In support whereof, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2000 (3) PLJR 68 : (2000 Cri LJ 2993) (Kans Raj V/s. State of Punjab). The Court held that harassment and demand for dowry is made against husband, the in-laws cannot in all cases, be held to be involved for such demand or torture. In support whereof, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2000 (3) PLJR 68 : (2000 Cri LJ 2993) (Kans Raj V/s. State of Punjab). The Court held that harassment and demand for dowry is made against husband, the in-laws cannot in all cases, be held to be involved for such demand or torture. The overt acts attributed to persons other than the husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications, such relatives cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry death. The Apex Court also held that a tendency has however, developed for roping in-laws of deceased wife in the matter of dowry death. No witness has supported that appellant No. 2 also made any demand for dowry or tortured the deceased lady. In absence of any specific evidence, his conviction is based on mere conjectures. 8. It was also argued on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution has failed to adduce evidence that "soon before" the death of the victim lady, the appellants had made demand for dowry and tortured her for the same. This is an essential ingredient before the presumption is drawn against the accused under S. 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. The evidence of the informant (PW. 8) is that appellant No. 1 made a demand of T.V. set in the month of February, 1995 when Duraga-man of the victim lady was performed. She went to her sasural thereafter. As per the prosecution case, within 15 days of her Duragaman, she returned back to her Naihar and stayed there for about three months and thereafter returned to her Sasural where she died on 17-1-1996. There is no evidence on behalf of the prosecution that in between the period of her Duragaman that is, February, 1995 to 17-1-1996, there was any demand for dowry by the appellants or she was tortured for the same. 9. It was further argued that there is no independent witness to support the prosecution case because they turned hostile or were tendered for cross-examination. The remaining witnesses are brothers, mother and relation. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that to examine local witness of appellants village is not possible because such events take place within the four walls of the house of the appellants. The remaining witnesses are brothers, mother and relation. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that to examine local witness of appellants village is not possible because such events take place within the four walls of the house of the appellants. No outsider is expected to be present either at the time of demand dowry or torture for non-fulfilment of the dowry or commission of actual murder. As such, the incriminating circumstances have to be considered. To rebut the presumption of dowry death, the appellants have to prove that the lady died a natural death. 11. Having considered the submission of the parties, I am of the view that material on record prove beyond doubt that Manju Devi died in her sasural and her dead body was hurriedly cremated in the same night. There is no reliable evidence to come to the conclusion that the Naihar people were informed of her death. 12. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 11) had visited the house of the appellants on 18-1-1996. In his objective findings, he described that he found the room in which the victim lady resided, recently smeared and washed. He also found the smell of Alderine like substance in the room. On the same day, he visted the cremation ground and found fresh ash. The appellants were found absconding. It is admitted fact that no case of un-natural death of Manju Devi was instituted before the local police. There is no explanation by the appellants why they did not inform the police is she had committed suicide. 13. From the evidence on record, I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant No. 2 along with appellant No. 1, made demand for dowry soon before the death of the victim lady. The specific evidence on the record is against appellant No. 1 and it has not come in the evidence that on the date of Duragaman of the victim lady, appellant No. 2 had also accompanied his son (appellant No. 1). The family members of the victim lady have not made specific allegation against appellant No. 2. The evidence of the informant (P.W. 8) is vague to the effect that his sister stated that in sasural, she was tortured at the hands of her in-laws and other family members. The family members of the victim lady have not made specific allegation against appellant No. 2. The evidence of the informant (P.W. 8) is vague to the effect that his sister stated that in sasural, she was tortured at the hands of her in-laws and other family members. Therefore, there is no sufficient, cogent and reliable evidence on record to come to the finding that appellant No. 2 was also a party along with appellant No. 1 in making demand for dowry and of torturing her for the same. In absence of reliable and cogent evidence, he cannot be held to be involved in the demand for dowry on the basis of mere conjectures and implications. The accusation against him has not been proved beyond doubt, hence his conviction and sentence is fit to be set aside (Kans Raj V/s. State of Punjab (2000 Cri LJ 2993) relied upon. In the result, appellant No. 2 is acquitted and discharged from the liability of bail bonds. With regard to appellant No. 1, there are both direct and circumstantial evidence against him as stated above. Since the occurrence took place in the house of the appellants, no outsider could have seen the alleged offence. The evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8 are consistent to prove the allegation against him. 14. The death of victim lady was within seven years of her marriage in her sasural. Her death has not occurred in normal circumstance. The objective finding of the I.O. (P.W. 11) that the room in which she was living, was freshly washed and there was a smell of "alderine", is a strong circumstance to support the prosecution case. Besides the way she was cremated after her death, is another strong circumstance against this appellant. I have not found any reliable and cogent evidence on record that father of the victim lady was informed who participated in the cremation. The prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that "soon before" her death, there was both demand of dowry and torture for the same. As per S. 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the words "soon before" is relative term and not synonymous with the term "immediately before". Only few days before her death, there was demand for dowry by this appellant. Therefore, there are evidence on record relating to cruelty and of harassment in connection with dowry demand. 15. As per S. 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the words "soon before" is relative term and not synonymous with the term "immediately before". Only few days before her death, there was demand for dowry by this appellant. Therefore, there are evidence on record relating to cruelty and of harassment in connection with dowry demand. 15. The presumption as attached with S. 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, is against appellant No. 1 who has not been able to show that her death was a natural death or she committed suicide. Even if, she committed suicide, there is presumption under S. 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act that the suicide has been abetted by the husband, that is, appellant No. 1. The appellant has not been able to rebut this presumption. There is also cogent and reliable evidence that the deceased was treated with cruelty on account of dowry demand. (Kans Raj V/s. State of Punjab (2000 Cri LJ 2993) (supra) relied upon. 16. I have already come to the finding that her death has not been under a normal circumstance. The "normal circumstance" apparently means not the natural death. The Apex Court in the case of Smt. Shanti V/s. The State of Haryana reported in AIR 1991 SC 1226 : (1991 Cri LJ 1713), held that "where the death of a woman occurred otherwise than a normal circumstance within 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 in connection with any demand for dowry, such death shall be called dowry death and the husband (or any relative) shall be deemed to have caused the death and shall be punishable for the offence under S. 304(B) IPC. The expression otherwise occuring in S. 304(B) IPC means that death was other than the normal circumstance and it would mean that death was not in usual course but apparently, in mysterious circumstances, if not caused by burn or bodily injury. The dead body was disposed of by the appellant and others hurriedly in the same night. Therefore, the prosecution has also been able to substantiate the charge under S. 201 of the IPC against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 17. Under the circumstances, the finding arrived at by the trial Court against appellant No. 1 convicting him for the offence under Ss. Therefore, the prosecution has also been able to substantiate the charge under S. 201 of the IPC against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 17. Under the circumstances, the finding arrived at by the trial Court against appellant No. 1 convicting him for the offence under Ss. 304(B) and 201 IPC, is based on cogent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence and it does not require interference. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that appellant is in jail custody for about 41/2 years. Therefore, his sentences may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in custody. The appellant is husband of the deceased. Seven years rigorous imprisonment is the minimum sentence for this offence. Considering the facts and circumstances on record, his period of sentence is reduced from nine years to seven years under S. 304(B) IPC but the sentence of 11/2 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under S. 201 IPC, is maintained. 18. In the result, the present appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.Appeal partly allowed.