V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated ( 2 ) 11. 1996 made in SC No. 386 of 1994 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Adilabad in convicting A1 (appellant herein) for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, and further convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years. 2. A1 is the husband of the deceased; a2 is the elder brother of A1 ; A3 is the mother of A1 ; A4 is the elder sister of a4; A5 is the father of A1 and husband of a3. ( 3 ) ACCUSED Nos. 1 to 5 were charged for the offences under Sections 498-A, 302 read with 34, 304-B and 201 IPC. But, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted A2 to A4 of all the charges; and A1 was only found guilty of the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. ( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the deceased Sunitha, the daughter of pw2, was given in marriage to A1 about one year prior to her death. The said marriage was performed on 20. 4. 1992 at Maddikal village, which is the village of the parents of the deceased. As demanded by A1 to A5, the parents of the deceased agreed to pay Rs. 19,000/- as dowry to A1 ; and out of the agreed amount, Rs. 6,000/- was given to the accused in advance prior to the marriage; and at the time of marriage, a net cash of Rs. 10,000/- was given and the remaining part of the dowry was given in the shape of gold jewellery worth about rs. 3,000/- to the deceased. Besides it, the parents of the deceased also presented to a1 tape recorder, fan, almirah chairs, cot, utensils, clothes etc. , in the marriage. After the marriage, the deceased went to live with her husband (A1 ) at his house at lalbahadurpet and she lived happily for about 2 or 3 months in her in-laws house at lalbahadurpet. Besides it, the parents of the deceased also presented to a1 tape recorder, fan, almirah chairs, cot, utensils, clothes etc. , in the marriage. After the marriage, the deceased went to live with her husband (A1 ) at his house at lalbahadurpet and she lived happily for about 2 or 3 months in her in-laws house at lalbahadurpet. Then, A1 separated from his parents and started living separately with the deceased in the same house, wherein his parents (A3 and A5) reside, while the deceased and A1 were living in the front portion of the house, whereas A3 and A5 were living at rear portion of the house. A2 and his elder sister (A4) are residing in a separate house, which is situated opposite to the portion of the deceased; and A1 to A5 started harassing the deceased mentally and physically accusing that she brought meager dowry. Eight days prior to Shivaratri festival, A1 beat the deceased, and for which, the deceased came to the house of her parents. Followed by it, a Panchayat was held with the participation of PWs. 7, 8, 9 and Chippa Rajam and others, in which, A1 was found at fault and was admonished. On the interference of Odeti Ram Reddy and Odeti Satyanarayana Reddy, the deceased was sent along with A1 A1 continued to harass and torture the deceased with the support of A2 to A5 and even asked the deceased to get away from his house by taking along with her the articles whatever given by her parents, so that he may marry another girl with more dowry. In between Shivaratri and Ugadi festivals, a1 again beat the deceased; and the deceased brought the matter to the notice of the elders including PW7. As A2 to A5 were also supporting A1 , the deceased was mentally upset and unwell due to the treatment of A1 to A5, and the parents of the deceased left her at the house of pw4 and Salla Rajeshwari at b Zone, r. K. Pur for relief. Salla Rajeshwari is the younger sister of mother of the deceased; and PW4 is the husband of Salla Rajeshwari. While the deceased was at the house of pw4 and Salla Rajeshwari, A1 went there twice and created a scene. Salla Rajeshwari is the younger sister of mother of the deceased; and PW4 is the husband of Salla Rajeshwari. While the deceased was at the house of pw4 and Salla Rajeshwari, A1 went there twice and created a scene. On the second occasion, he went along with his supports and even called the deceased and Salla rajeshwari to R. K. Pur Police Station, but vasireddy Seetharamaiah, the Sarpanch of kyathanpalli village interfered and brought them back. Apprehending danger to the safety of the deceased, PW4 and Salla rajeshwari refused to send the deceased along with A1 and advised A1 to take the deceased from her parents house and they would send her back, and accordingly, pw4 and Salla Rajeshwari left the deceased back at her parents house. On 8. 4. 1993 between 20. 00 hours and 21. 00 hours, A1 to a4 went to the house of PW2 and his wife, and in the absence of PW2, forcibly took away the deceased. On 10. 4. 1993 at about 20. 00 hours, A1 and A3 to A5, with an intention to murder the deceased, beat her severely in her dwelling portion, in which, a1 beat her with stick, whereas A3 to A5 beat her with hands. PW3, a neighbour, heard the shrieks of the deceased, went there and noticed A1 holding the deceased on his shoulders and the deceased was motionless; and A3 to A5 were present there; and PW3 went back to his house. After murdering the deceased, A1 to A5, with common intention of screening the evidence, created a false scene to show that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. On 11. 4. 1993 morning, A1 to A5 called jayarapu Ashalu and told him that the deceased committed suicide by hanging and asked him to inform the parents of the deceased about her death, and accordingly, at 6. 00 hours Jayarapu Ashalu informed pws. 1 and 2 and Swam Lalithamma about the death of the deceased. On 11. 4. 1993, pw1 lodged a written complaint at Police station, Jaipur reporting about the harassment caused to the deceased and suspecting the hand of A1 to A5 in the death of the deceased. On receipt of the said complaint, pw14 registered a case in Cr. 1 and 2 and Swam Lalithamma about the death of the deceased. On 11. 4. 1993, pw1 lodged a written complaint at Police station, Jaipur reporting about the harassment caused to the deceased and suspecting the hand of A1 to A5 in the death of the deceased. On receipt of the said complaint, pw14 registered a case in Cr. No. 36/93 under Section 306 IPC and took up the initial investigation, in which, he visited the scene of occurrence and requested the mandal Revenue Officer (PW11) to conduct inquest over the dead body of the deceased, and accordingly, PW11 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased on the spot in the presence of PWs. 7 and 12 and booram Mallamma. Later, the dead body was sent for post-mortem, where the doctors PW10 and K. Hanmanth Rao constituting as a team conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post-mortem report (Ex. P7 ). PW10 opined that the cause of death of the deceased to the best of their knowledge and belief is due to shock and haemorrhage due to laceration of left lung due to fracture of ribs. Basing on the opinion of the doctors, PW14 altered the section of law from Section 306 IPC to Section 302, 304-B, 498-A, 201 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry prohibition Act read with Section 34 IPC through express report on 14. 4. 1993 under intimation to all the concerned. Subsequently, pw15 took up investigation and examined the witnesses. On 2. 5. 1993 at 11. 40 hours, pw15 effected the arrest of A1 to A4 at lalbahadurpet; and on interrogation, A1 to a4 admitted the offence in the presence of pw13 and Chippa Purushotham. The confessional statement of A1 was recorded and the stick used by him in the commission of offence was recovered from him before the said panchas; and on the same day, A5 was arrested at 13. 00 hours at lalbahadurpet, "and on interrogation, A5 too admitted about the offence. After the investigation was over, the charge-sheet was filed. ( 5 ) WITH regard to the conviction of A1 , the learned Counsel for the appellant- a1 submits that there is no evidence regarding demand of dowry in the instant case; and the so-called panchayatdars (PWs. 00 hours at lalbahadurpet, "and on interrogation, A5 too admitted about the offence. After the investigation was over, the charge-sheet was filed. ( 5 ) WITH regard to the conviction of A1 , the learned Counsel for the appellant- a1 submits that there is no evidence regarding demand of dowry in the instant case; and the so-called panchayatdars (PWs. 7 to 9) have not supported the case of the prosecution, with regard to the demand of dowry; and there is no evidence to show that the demand of dowry was soon before the death of the deceased; and the so- called harassment and cruelty on the deceased was not in connection with the demand of dowry; and therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC have not been satisfied for conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B IPC. He further submits that PWs. 1, 2 and 4 are close relatives; and even in their evidence, there are discrepancies; and their evidence also does not clearly prove beyond all reasonable doubt that there is a demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased; and therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused under Section 304-B IPC. ( 6 ) PW1 deposed that the accused is a resident of Lalbahadurpet hamlet of maddikal Village, i. e. , the village of the parents of the deceased. The deceased died on 10. 4. 1993 and she is the daughter of his maternal uncle Suram Venkat Reddy (PW2 ). The deceased was given in marriage to A1 about one year prior to her death. The marriage was performed at maddikal. After the marriage, the deceased was sent to her in-law s house. For about 3 to 4 months, the deceased and her husband (A 1) lived happily. During the shivarathri days, A1 beat the deceased demanding more dowry saying that if A1 gets married again, he would get a better girl and better dowry. The deceased came back to her parent s house. After some day s, a1 came to the house of the parents of the deceased to take back the deceased. The parents of the deceased wanted assurance from A1 and asked him to come along with the elders. The deceased came back to her parent s house. After some day s, a1 came to the house of the parents of the deceased to take back the deceased. The parents of the deceased wanted assurance from A1 and asked him to come along with the elders. After 10 days, A1 again came with elders, i. e. , Mukund Reddy (PW7), chippa Rajam, Chinna Rajareddy (PW6) and Buram Shankar (PW9 ). The parents of A1 also came along with A1 After some discussion, A1 and his parents admitted the ill-treatment given to the deceased and assured that they would look after the deceased well. On the assurance given by the parents and elders, the deceased was sent along with A1 to the house of A1 within 3 or 4 days, again the deceased was beaten by A1 The deceased went to the elders, who attended the panchayat, and complained. The elders expressed their helplessness and advised the deceased to go back to her parents house. Accordingly, the deceased returned to her parents house. As the deceased was not doing well, she was sent to her junior maternal aunt s house situated at Ramakrishnapur (i. e. , the house of PW4 ). After some days, the deceased returned to her parents house. Two days prior to the death, when the father of the deceased was not in the house, during night hours, A1 to A4 and the father of A1 came to the house of the parents of the deceased and took her away forcibly. Then, the parents of the deceased came to him on the same night and reported the matter to him. Since the deceased was taken away by her husband and in-laws, he advised them to keep quiet. On 10. 4. 1993 at about 7. 00 a. m. , one Ashaiah came from the village of the accused and reported to him and parents of the deceased that the deceased died due to hanging. In view of the above circumstances, they suspected the accused for the death of the deceased. Then, himself, the parents of the deceased and some other villagers went to the village of the accused and saw the dead body of the deceased, which was lying in the house of the accused and found injuries on the dead body of the deceased. Blood was oozing out from the right ear of the deceased. Then, himself, the parents of the deceased and some other villagers went to the village of the accused and saw the dead body of the deceased, which was lying in the house of the accused and found injuries on the dead body of the deceased. Blood was oozing out from the right ear of the deceased. Then, he went to the police station and gave a complaint to the police. Ex. P1 is the complaint given by him. Though he was cross-examined at length, there were no material deviations or serious contradictions. ( 7 ) PW2, the father of the deceased, stated that he has agreed to give dowry of rs, 18,000/- to A1 ; and at the time of engagement, he paid Rs,6,000/- to A1 ; and the balance amount was given at the time of marriage to A1 After marriage, the deceased was sent to the house of the accused. For about 3 months, the deceased and A1 lived happily. After 3 months, on a day, A1 beat the deceased. On information, his wife went to the village of the accused and brought the deceased. The deceased complained and told him that she was beaten by A1 with a stick used for goading cattle, when the deceased questioned A1 as to why he was not doing any work. On the next day, A1 also came to their house and admitted the mistake and wanted to take back the deceased. Then, he convinced a1 and sent the deceased along with A1 after one week, the deceased was again beaten by A1 So, the deceased came back to his house. The deceased complained that she is being beaten by A1 and does not want to go back to the house of A1 On the next day, A1 came to his house and wanted to take back the deceased. Then, he refused to send his daughter and asked him to bring some elders of the village. Then, after 3 days, A1 brought the elders; and a Panchayat was held in their house; and the deceased also complained before the elders that the accused are demanding more dowry to a tune of Rs. 20,000/- and that A1 is beating her for the same and on the ground that A1 could get better girl and better dowry, if he gets married again. The elders found fault with A1 and admonished him. 20,000/- and that A1 is beating her for the same and on the ground that A1 could get better girl and better dowry, if he gets married again. The elders found fault with A1 and admonished him. A1 assured that he will look after the deceased well, and on that assurance, the deceased was sent along with A1 On the next day of ugadi, the deceased came to their house and complained as to what had happened on ugadi and the deceased also told him about the reporting of the matter to the elders. The deceased was complaining severe pain on her body on account of the beating of A1 and did not want to go back to the house of the accused. As the deceased was not doing well, she was taken to the house of his co-brother (PW4) at Ramakrishnapur. On the next day morning, his co-brother brought back the deceased and told them that A1 along with some of his friends came to the house of his co-brother and wanted to take back the deceased, but he refused to send her. His co-brother (PW4) and sister-in-law told them that A1 brought police constable to call them to the police station at Ramakrishnapur. After 3 or 4 days, A1 came along with his parents and wanted to take back the deceased. But, he refused to send the deceased along with the accused. When he went to attend some marriage, A1 and his family members came and forcibly took away the deceased from his house in absence not caring his wife. Then, himself and his wife kept quiet, as the deceased was taken by her husband and in-laws. Three days thereafter, he came to know about the death of the deceased. Immediately, he informed the same to PW1; and all of them rushed to the house of the accused; and he found some injuries on the body of the deceased; and the injuries were on her right side of abdomen, left side of chest and some injuries on the legs. Immediately, he informed the same to PW1; and all of them rushed to the house of the accused; and he found some injuries on the body of the deceased; and the injuries were on her right side of abdomen, left side of chest and some injuries on the legs. ( 8 ) PW3, a neighbour of the accused, did not support the case of the prosecution, except saying that on the date of the death of the deceased during night hours, he heard some cries from the house of the accused; and he rushed to the house of A1 ; and by the time he reached there, he found the deceased dead. ( 9 ) PW4, co-brother of PW2, stated that prior to the death of the deceased, the deceased was brought by the wife of pw2 to his house for treatment of the deceased; and A1 along with his four friends came to his house and asked him and his wife to send the deceased along with them. By that time, the mother of the deceased already left for her village. But, he refused to send the deceased along with A1 , as he knew that A1 was beating the deceased and there were some disputes in that regard. Then, A1 went to the police station and gave a complaint against him and his wife regarding non-sending of the deceased along with them. On that, the police called him and his wife and the deceased to the police station. He took their Sarpanch along with him and explained to the police regarding the disputes between A1 and the deceased, and therefore, he was not inclined to send her; and he requested the police to give one day time to send back the deceased to her parents; and on the next day, he took the deceased to her parents house. Within one week thereafter, he came to know about the death of the deceased. In the chief-examination, he stated that the police examined him and recorded his statement. But, in the cross-examination, he stated that the police did not examine him. Within one week thereafter, he came to know about the death of the deceased. In the chief-examination, he stated that the police examined him and recorded his statement. But, in the cross-examination, he stated that the police did not examine him. ( 10 ) PW5, a resident of Lalbahadurpet and related to PW2, stated about the beatings by the accused to the deceased and also the taking away of the deceased forcibly by the accused from the house of PW2 and 2 days thereafter, on coming to know that the deceased died, he went to the house of A1 and saw the dead body of the deceased and found some injuries on the dead body of the deceased. He suspected that A1 is responsible for the death of the deceased. He stated that the police did not examine him. ( 11 ) PW6, a resident of Meddikal Village and related to the deceased, stated about the incident of beating of A1 to the deceased and the panchayat. But, he did not state anything about the dowry. ( 12 ) PWS. 7, 8 and 9 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. ( 13 ) PW10, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Mancherial, who examined the deceased on 12. 4. 1993 and conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, found the following external injuries:"1. ABRASION 2" x 2" on left elbow covered with clotted blood. 2. Abrasion 1" x 2" on the sight of the face. 3. Abrasion 1" x 1" over the right eyebrow. 4. Abrasion 2" x 2" on the left scapula. "in the chief-examination, he further stated as follows:"there is diffuse swelling about 10" x 8" on the upper part of the front of the chest, and lower part of the front of the neck. On opening subcutaneous clotted blood present. On left side 2nd, 3rd, 4th ribs and on right side 2nd 4th ribs found fractured. Strenum depressed left lung has a small laceration about 1/2" x 1/2" present on the upper lobe left side of the thorasic cavity contains lot of clotted blood. There is a grove with its abrasion about 3/ 4th width and 1/2" depth found round the neck at the level of thyroid cartilage. Subcutaneons blood clots present. Trachil and Laryngil cartilage found depressed. Larynx and trachea contained blood stained froth. There is a grove with its abrasion about 3/ 4th width and 1/2" depth found round the neck at the level of thyroid cartilage. Subcutaneons blood clots present. Trachil and Laryngil cartilage found depressed. Larynx and trachea contained blood stained froth. All the above injuries are ante-mortem in nature. On dissection lungs small lacerated on the upper lobe of the left lung and both lungs are emphysimated occation putrefactive blebs present. Stomach semi digested food present. Post-mortem completed on 12. 4. 93 at 12. 30 PM. Approximate time of death is about 48 hours prior to my examination. The cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of lung injury. Ex. P7 is the post-mortem report issued by me. All abovesaid injuries could have been caused by blunt weapon like stick shown to me in the Court. The abovesaid lung injury is sufficient to cause death of the person in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries including lung injury were antemortem in nature. My colleague Dr. J. Hanumanth Rao and myself conducted the autopsy. "in the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the injury to the lung will cause because of suffocation due to respiratory embarrassment. She stated that the injury to lung is caused first. He denied the suggestion that in this case by seeing the injuries one can say that the death is due to hanging. ( 14 ) PW11, the M. R. O. , stated that he conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of 3 panchas, namely, PW7, and two others; and the panchas observed the dead body and found injuries on various places over the dead body; and the injuries are incorporated in the inquest report (Ex. P-8); and the panchas opined that the deceased died due to the injuries present over the dead body. ( 15 ) PW12, one of the inquest panchas, also stated that the MRO (PW11) conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased; and they observed the dead body and found some injuries over the different parts of the body. Some of them appear to be contusions. The MRO and police examined some witnesses. They opined that the deceased died due to injuries present on the body. A panchanama (Ex. P8) was drafted incorporating the injuries and opinion. Some of them appear to be contusions. The MRO and police examined some witnesses. They opined that the deceased died due to injuries present on the body. A panchanama (Ex. P8) was drafted incorporating the injuries and opinion. ( 16 ) PW13 is the witness for the confessional statement of A1 for seizing the stick (MO1) and sickle (MO2) used by him and A1 produced the said stick in pursuance of the said statement, which was seized by the police in his presence under cover of panchanama (Ex. P9 ). ( 17 ) PW14 is the S. I. of the Police, who registered the case and altered the section of law pursuant to the post-mortem. ( 18 ) PW15 the C. I. of police, stated that he examined the witnesses on 16. 4. 1993 and arrested the accused and also interrogated them and seized MOs. 1 and 2 on confessional statement of A1 under cover of panchanama (Ex. P9 ). The defence has not cross-examined PW15 with regard to the non-recording of the statements of PWs. 4 and 5. ( 19 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor submits that the fact remains that the statement of PWs. 4 and 5 under Section 161 cr. PC are also recorded and they form part and parcel of the charge-sheet; and it is not the case of the accused that the police did not examine PWs. 4 and 5; and therefore, merely because they have not stated that the police have examined, no prejudice has been caused to the defence of the accused, as their statements form part and parcel of the charge-sheet and they were not newly introduced witnesses at the time of trial, but they were witnesses, who were examined during the investigation also. ( 20 ) IN-VIEW of the aforesaid evidence, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences committed by A1 under Sections 498-A and 304-B ipc? ( 21 ) AS far as the offence under Section 498-A IPC is concerned, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and other circumstantial evidence clearly prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused used to beat the deceased time and again and the deceased used to inform PWs. ( 21 ) AS far as the offence under Section 498-A IPC is concerned, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and other circumstantial evidence clearly prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused used to beat the deceased time and again and the deceased used to inform PWs. 2 and 4 about the same, and therefore, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt about the cruelty subjected on the deceased by A1 ; and therefore, the Court below rightly found A1 guilty of the offence under Section 498-AIPC. ( 22 ) INSOFAR as the offence under Section 304-B IPC is concerned, the death has occurred within one year from the date of the marriage; and the marriage took place on 20. 4. 1992 and the death had occurred on 10. 4. 1993; and the death is an unnatural death but not under normal circumstances; and A1 subjected the deceased to cruelty; and the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 clearly goes to show that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty in connection with the dowry by saying that if he marries another girl, he will get better dowry. There is no other reason as to why the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment. The evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 4 corroborated by the doctor s evidence, would clearly show that the deceased was beaten by a1 ;and due to the beating injuries caused by A1 alone, she died, but the death was not in natural circumstances. The death was not a suicidal but it is homicidal only. If it is a case of suicide, there would have been something to rebut the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. But, this is a case of homicide; and the death is unnatural and not under normal circumstances. Therefore, there is a legal presumption under Section 113-B of the evidence Act that when a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and if 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 of dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. In the instant case, as deposed by PWs. In the instant case, as deposed by PWs. 2 and 4, it is clear that there was a Panchayat with regard to the dowry and the deceased was subjected to cruelty by her husband (A1); and the husband beat her 2 or 3 times; and deceased was taken by A1 ; and A1 was living separately in the same house; and the deceased received injuries; and the cruelty was soon before her death; and as a matter of fact, she died because of the cruelty of A1 only and because of the injuries received in the house of A1 only, she died; and therefore, it cannot be said that the cruelty is not in connection with any demand of dowry. The Trial Court rightly held that the accused is guilty for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. ( 23 ) ACCORDINGLY, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant (A1) under Section 498-A IPC are confirmed. ( 24 ) THE conviction imposed on the appellant (A1) under Section 304-B IPC is confirmed; but the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from 8 years rigorous imprisonment to 7 years rigorous imprisonment. ( 25 ) THE criminal appeal is dismissed.