JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred from the judgment of the Principal Sessions Court at Pudukottai, dated 25.1.1994 made in S.C.No.7 of 1992, convicting the appellant/ accused under Secs.304-B(i)(2) and 498(A) of Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for seven years for an offence under Sec.304-B(i)(2) of I.P.C. and also to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500 for an offence under Sec.498(a) of I.P.C. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Keeranur, filed a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pudukottai, stating that during the period in between the date of marriage of the appellant with the deceased Ponnammal viz., 13.6.1990 and the date of her death viz., 4.12.1990, the accused 1 to 3 caused mental agony and cruelty to the deceased by beating and scolding her in order to get Seer Varisai from her parents; that on 4.12.1990 between 7.30 a.m. and 8.30 a.m. the deceased Ponnammal committed suicide by consuming poison, at the haystach shed within seven years of the marriage and thereby the accused 1 to 3 have committed offences punishable under Sec.498(A) and 304(B)(i) (2) of Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, who found the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused, were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Pudukottai. The learned Sessions Judge, Pudukottai, after perusing the records and materials available and after hearing both sides, was of the opinion that there were grounds of presuming that the accused have committed the alleged offences and framed charges under Secs.498(A) and 304(B)(i)(2) of Indian Penal Code. When the appellant/accused was questioned by the Sessions Court, he pleaded that he was not guilty and made a request that the trial should be conducted. 4. From the available materials and records, the acts of the case could be summarised as follows: The deceased Ponnammal was the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2. The marriage between the first accused and one Santhi was made null and void. Under such circumstances, P.W.3 arranged the marriage of the first accused/appellant with the deceased Ponnammal in the year 1990. Though the appellant refused to receive anything as Seedhanas, the appellant refused to receive anything as Seedhanas, P.Ws.1 and 2 had given utensils worth Rs.1,500 to them. For about three months, the couples were living happily. Under such circumstances, P.W.3 arranged the marriage of the first accused/appellant with the deceased Ponnammal in the year 1990. Though the appellant refused to receive anything as Seedhanas, the appellant refused to receive anything as Seedhanas, P.Ws.1 and 2 had given utensils worth Rs.1,500 to them. For about three months, the couples were living happily. After that the deceased often visited her parents’ house. She told P.Ws.1 and 2 that the appellant scolded her by saying that his father-in-law had not given anything as Seedhana and so also the accused Nos.2 and 3 scolded her. P.W.5, a neighbour of the accused know that the accused have scolded and have also beaten the deceased. On 4.12.1990, the deceased came to her parents’ house and told them that the accused were demanding dowry. P.W.1 purchased a saree for Rs.165 to be given to the deceased. After P.Ws.1 and 2 returned from the paddy field, they found the deceased not available in the house. When they asked the children who were in the house, as to the whereabouts of their sister, the deceased, they were told that the brother-in-law of the children (appellant) had beaten the deceased as a result of which there was bleeding in the ear, and the appellant had taken the deceased to the hospital. On 4.12.1990 at about 7 30 a.m. when P.W.5 went to the paddy field, the appellant and the deceased were setting fire-wood for coal purposes. At that time, the accused No.3 asked the deceased to go away from their house. When P.W.5 returned from the paddy field, he saw the deceased placed under the haystack. On information, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the house of the accused and saw their daughter dead, P.W.1 gave a complaint as found under Ex.P-2 to the Annavasal Police Station. P.W.10 Head Constable registered a case in Cr.No.303 of 1990 under Sec.174 of Code of Criminal Procedure. P.W.11 Inspector visited the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P-8 observation mahazar and Ex.P-9 Rough Sketch in the presence of witnesses P.W.8 and another Karuppiah. P.W.9 photographer took the photographs of the scene of occurrence as well as the dead body of the deceased. M.Os.1 and 2 are the respective photos. On 5.12.1990 at 12.10 p.m., P.W.7 Revenue Divisional Officer at Pudukottai, on receipt of Ex.P-5, First Information Report conducted inquest on the deceased in the presence of witnesses and pachayatars. P.W.9 photographer took the photographs of the scene of occurrence as well as the dead body of the deceased. M.Os.1 and 2 are the respective photos. On 5.12.1990 at 12.10 p.m., P.W.7 Revenue Divisional Officer at Pudukottai, on receipt of Ex.P-5, First Information Report conducted inquest on the deceased in the presence of witnesses and pachayatars. He recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also the Panchayat President Kaliamurthy as well as the accused. He sent Ex.P-7 report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Keeralur. On 5.12.1990, P.W.6 Medical Officer conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. Ex.P-3 is the postmortem certificate. Ex.P-4 is the chemical analyst report. On 5.12.1990, P.W.11 Inspector examined P.Ws.1 to 5, 8 and 9 and recorded their statements. On receipt of Ex.P-7, P.W.11 altered the case into one under Sec.498-A of I.P.C. and sent Ex.P-10 express report to the concerned Magistrate’s Court. On 10.12.1990, at 8 p.m. he arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2. P.W.12 Deputy Superintendent of Police on receipt of Ex.P-7 report, took up the investigation, visited the scene of occurrence and examined the witnesses. He recorded the statement of P.W.7. On 17.12.1990, he recorded the statement of P.W.6 Medical Officer. After completion of the investigation P.W.12 filed the charge sheet on 6.4.91 as stated above. 5. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant/first accused, P.Ws.1 to 12 wore examined by the prosecution and Exs.P-1 to P11 and M.Os. 1 and 2 were marked. After the evidence of the prosecution side, the appellant was questioned under Sec.313 of Crl.P.C., and he pleaded innocence. No witnesses were examined on the defence side. 6. After termination of the trial, the trial Court after hearing the rival submissions, found the appellant/first accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 7. The appellant herein stood charged before the Court below along with his parents ranked as A2 and A3, for the offences that he along with the other accused subjected his wife Ponnammal to cruelty which drove her to commit suicide and that her death occurred otherwise than under the normal circumstances within seven years of marriage due to dowry demand and thus they were liable to be punished under Secs.498-A and 304(b)(i)(2) of Indian Penal Code. The trial Court after scrutiny of the available materials and consideration of the rival submissions, acquitted A2 and A3 of the charges, but found the appellant guilty as stated above, which resulted in this appeal. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P-1 to P11 and M.Os.1 and 2. Out of the said witnesses P.Ws.3 and 4 were treated as hostile and their evidence could not be relied on by the prosecution. 8. The admitted facts are that the marriage between the deceased Ponnammal, the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the first accused/appellant was solemnized in the year 1990, as found under Ex.P.1 that they lived happily in the marital home for a period three months; that she committed suicide on 4.12.1990; and she dies within a short span of six months from the date of the marriage. 9. On 4.12.1999 at about 11.30 a.m. P.Ws.1 and 2 were informed by a message that Ponnammal was seriously ill and hearing the same they rushed to Keezhapazhuvanchi village, the place of the accused. P.Ws.1 and 2 found their daughter dead and the body was placed under the haystack. P.W.1 proceeded to Annavasal Police Station and gave a complaint under Ex.P-2, to P.W.10 Head Constable, who registered a case under Sec.174 of Crl.P.C. for suspicious death. P.W.11 Inspector of Police visited the scene of occurrence and in the presence of P.W.8 and another witness, prepared Ex.P-8 observation mahazar and Ex.P-9 rough sketch. The scene of occurrence as well as the dead body were photographed by P.W.9 and they were marked as M.Os.1 and 2. On receipt of the first information report, P.W.7 Revenue Divisional Officer at Pudukottai proceeded to the place and conducted inquest on the deceased Ponnammal and concluded that it was a dowry death, as found under Ex.P-7. On receipt of the report of R. D.O. as found under Ex.P.7, through the Superintendent of Police. P.W.11 Inspector has altered the case to Sec.498-A I.P.C. P.W.12 Deputy Superintendent of Police took up the further investigation, arrested the accused, remanded them to custody and filed the charge sheet as stated above. 10. From the evidence of P.W.6 it is clear that on a requisition made by P.W.7, R.D.O., P.W.6, medical officer conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased Ponnammal on 5.12.1990. 10. From the evidence of P.W.6 it is clear that on a requisition made by P.W.7, R.D.O., P.W.6, medical officer conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased Ponnammal on 5.12.1990. Intestine contents of the deceased were preserved for chemical analysis. They were sent with a requisition to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Thanjavur, wherefrom after chemical analysis, a report as found under Ex.P-4 was received stating that the intestine contents contained Organophosphorous compound, a poisonous substance used as insecticide. After receiving Ex.P-4 Chemical Analyst Report P.W.6 Medical Officer has given the postmortem certificate as found under Ex.P3. Thus from the evidence of P.W.6, Medical Officer and the documents Exs.P-3 and P4, it would be abundantly clear that the said deceased Ponnammal has committed suicide by consuming Organophosphorous compound, a poisonous substance, which fact is also not disputed by the defence side. 11. While the facts and circumstances were as above, the only question that would arise for consideration would be whether the appellant was responsible for the death of this wife Ponnammal by subjecting her to dowry harassment and cruelty. 12. 11. While the facts and circumstances were as above, the only question that would arise for consideration would be whether the appellant was responsible for the death of this wife Ponnammal by subjecting her to dowry harassment and cruelty. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that the conviction sustained against the appellant is not justifiable on facts and in law; that the fact that Ex.P-2 complaint falsifies the entire prosecution case was not appreciated by the Court below; that P.W.1 is only a coolie and he admits that the appellant did not want any dowry; that the appellant has not harassed the deceased for dowry; that the evidence of P.W.3 does not support the story of dowry harassment; that P.W.5 did not implicate the accused/appellant at all the time of investigation; that P.W.2 did not give any statement during investigation that the appellant demanded a ring, cycle and a watch and the deceased was beaten by the appellant which is evidence by the deposition of P.W.11 Inspector; that the recorded statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 by the Revenue Divisional Officer was suppressed by the prosecution and copies of the same were not furnished to the appellant; that the appellant has been deprived for an effective material to contradict the prosecution witnesses on the basis of those statement and question the credibility; that if cruelty is not proved, the presumption under Sec.113(B) of the Evidence Act is not sustainable and hence the judgment of the Court below has to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charges. 13. The learned Government Advocate on the Criminal side would contend that the lower Court on proper appreciation of the prosecution evidence has come to the correct conclusion that the appellant herein subjected his wife to dowry harassment and cruelty, which led her to commit suicide, and thus the appellant was responsible for her death and he is liable to be punished, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. 14. P.Ws.1 and 2 have categorically stated that their daughter Ponnammal lived with the appellant in the marital home only for a period of 3 months from the time of marriage and that she came to her parental house complaining of the demands made by her husband, the appellant and his parents as to seer varisai. 14. P.Ws.1 and 2 have categorically stated that their daughter Ponnammal lived with the appellant in the marital home only for a period of 3 months from the time of marriage and that she came to her parental house complaining of the demands made by her husband, the appellant and his parents as to seer varisai. This piece of evidence by P.Ws.1 and 2 stating that the deceased Ponnammal left the matrimonial home within a short span of 3 months from the date of marriage is not controverted by the appellant. From their evidence it would be clear that the demands made by the appellant and others was the sole reason and the deceased was constrained to leave the matrimonial home and be with her parents during the rest of the other three months of her life. 15. Admittedly P.W.5, a neighbour of the appellant has categorically stated that there were occasions in the past when the deceased Ponnammal was assaulted and subjected to harassment by the appellant and his parents, who were talking about the inability of the parents of the deceased viz., P.Ws.1 and 2 to give seer varisai to the appellant. P.W.5 was a stranger to the appellant family. The appellant is unable to show any reason or circumstance why the evidence of P.W.5 should be disbelieved or rejected. The motive attributed to P.W.5 that he used to make demand of handloan from the appellant’s family and on the refusal of the same, he has given false evidence, is too flimsy and cannot be a reason at all to reject his evidence. 16. P.Ws.1 and 2 have deposed that their daughter Ponnammal came to their house sometime prior to the occurrence and she was staying with her parents and that P.W.1 purchased a saree for Rs.165 for his daughter, but he did not purchase anything for his son-in-law, the appellant herein, that just 15 days prior to the date of occurrence, one day when P.Ws.1 and 2 returned home from their work, they were informed that the appellant visited their house and assaulted the deceased Ponnammal in such a way causing oozing of blood from her ear and he took her also. This piece of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would clearly indicate that sometime before the occurrence, there was an instance, when the appellant/accused assaulted her knowing the fact that nothing was purchased by his father-in-law for him for Deepavali. 17. The above evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would clearly indicate that the appellant who assaulted and took his wife from P.W.1’s house, should have continued the same kind of treatment by harassing her since his demand for dowry was not met by the deceased as per his desire. 18. P.W.7, Revenue Divisional Officer, deposed that on receipt of Ex.P-5 First Information Report, he proceeded to the scene of occurrence on 5.12.1990 and conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased Ponnammal, as contemplated under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and after detailed enquiry of the witnesses, he came to the conclusion that the deceased Ponnammal committed suicide on 4.12.1990 and that she was subjected to dowry harassment and cruelty, which led her to commit suicide. P.W.7 has given report under Ex.P-6 to that effect. 19. From the perusal of the evidence of P.W.7 it would be clear that he was not cross examined by the defence side. From the evidence of P.W.7 R.D.O. and his report as found under Ex.P-6 it would also be clear that he proceeded to the scene of occurrence, conducted an enquiry as to the cause of death of the said Ponnammal and has come to the conclusion that she committed suicide because of the dowry harassment by the appellant and his parents. 20. All the above would clinchingly establish that the deceased Ponnammal was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, who made dowry demand. It is pertinent to note that the appellant’s wife committed suicide within a period of six months from the time of the marriage. During the course of the six months of the family life, she has lived only for a continuous period of three months in the appellant’s house and in the later short span of three months, as witnessed, there were short span of three months, as witnessed, there were occasions, when she was assaulted, ill-treated and harassed by the appellant on the ground of dowry. Since those demands could not be met by her poor parents on the one side and she could not tolerate the torture of the appellant and others on the other side, she has committed suicide by consuming a poisonous substance as indicated above. 21. In a case of dowry death punishable under Sec.304-B of the Indian Penal Code, as one in hand, the initial burden lies on the prosecution to prove the ingredients of Sec.304-B of I.P.C. that soon before her death, the deceased woman was subjected by the accused person to cruelty or harassment for an in connection with any demand for dowry. The prosecution by the above discussed evidence has satisfactorily discharged its initial burden. If the prosecution succeeds in discharging the said initial burden, then positively the provisions of Sec.113(B) of the Evidence Act come into play. In the instant case, the Court is of the view that presumption under Sec.113(B) of the Evidence Act can be pressed into service for drawing the presumption against the appellant. 22. In order to draw the legal presumption as envisaged under Sec.113(B) of the Evidence Act, the following essentials have to be necessarily raised: (i) Whether the accused has committed the dowry death of the woman; (ii) Whether the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband; (iii) Whether such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any demand for dowry; and (iv) Whether such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death. 23. In the instant case it becomes obligatory on the Court to raise the presumption since all the above essentials are satisfactorily proved by the prosecution. In the case on hand, the unnatural death of the appellant’s wife by suicide has taken place within seven years from the date of marriage. There is ample evidence to show that the deceased had been harassed in connection with the demand for dowry. While such proof in that regard was available, then the burden to show that it was not a dowry death, but suicide would be on the accused/appellant. 24. It is not in controversy that on the date of the occurrence, the appellant’s wife was in his house and has committed suicide. While such proof in that regard was available, then the burden to show that it was not a dowry death, but suicide would be on the accused/appellant. 24. It is not in controversy that on the date of the occurrence, the appellant’s wife was in his house and has committed suicide. The prosecution by satisfactory evidence, as narrated above, has proved that the deceased was subjected the cruelty by the appellant as contemplated under Sec.498-A of I.P.C. and she has committed suicide because of the demand for dowry made by the appellant, as contemplated under Sec.304(b)(i)(2) of I.P.C. It is pertinent to note that the appellant/husband cannot come with any reason what forced her to commit suicide. It is not a case where the reason for the commission of her suicide was not known, since the prosecution has adduced sufficient evidence to indicate the cause and the result of it. 25. The contention of the appellant’s side that copies of the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 recorded by P.W.7 Revenue Divisional Officer were not furnished to him and thus it has caused prejudice to the appellant, cannot be countenanced, in view of the fact that the copies of the documents as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure were furnished by the Judicial Magistrate’s Court. There is no material on record to show that it was brought to the notice of the Court of Sessions before or during the trial. Having cross examined P.Ws.1 and 2, the appellant cannot now be permitted to urge the same. Apart from that, the concerned R.D.O. was examined by the prosecution as P.W.7. But the appellant did not cross examine him. All other contentions put forth by the appellant’s side, in view of the sufficient evidence available on the side of the prosecution, do not merit approval of this Court. 26. Thus, the Court is of the view that the Court below was perfectly correct in finding the appellant/first accused guilty under Secs.304-B(1)(2) and 498(A) of Indian Penal Code. Taking into consideration of the cumulative facts and circumstances, the Court is of the view that nothing is available to interfere in the quantum of punishment imposed by the Court below. The judgment of the Court below has to be confirmed. 27. In the result, this criminal appeal would fail and the same is dismissed. Taking into consideration of the cumulative facts and circumstances, the Court is of the view that nothing is available to interfere in the quantum of punishment imposed by the Court below. The judgment of the Court below has to be confirmed. 27. In the result, this criminal appeal would fail and the same is dismissed. The judgment of the Lower Court is confirmed. The Principal Sessions Judge, Pudukottai is directed to secure the appellant and commit him to prison to undergo the rest of the sentence already imposed. Bail bond if any executed shall stand cancelled.