JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, A.C.J. 1. The appellant has been convicted u/s 304B I.P.C, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted u/s 201 I .P.C. and sentenced to undergo r.i. for two years. The sentences are to run concurrently. He has further been convicted u/s 498A I.P.C. and u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, but no separate sentence under either of the was awarded. Along with the appellant, his younger brother Bhagaban and mother-Laxmi Dei and one Bhaskar Sethi also faced trial. But they have been acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant married Ruma Dei (sister of P.W.I) in the year 1988. At the time of marriage, as per the demand made by the appellant and his parents, dowry in the shape of gold and silver ornaments, brass and belrnetal utensils, cash of Rs. 6,000/- and one bicycle was given. One and half years after the marriage, the appellant and Ruma Dei were blessed with a daughter. The appellant had been demanding dowry and as it was persistant, brother of Ruma Dei (P.W.1) arranged and paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to enable the appellant to start a business. Thereafter, the appellant again asked for Rs. 5000/-, As the family members of Ruma could not meet the further demand, she was tortured and assaulted. The family members of Ruma tried to solve the dispute by convening a meeting of gentle men belonging to their village and the village of the appellant. Few days after the meeting was held, P.W.1- brother of Ruma heard that his sister was serious . He accordingly with his mother (P.W.2) went to the house of the appellant and found that Ruma had died and dead body had been burnt. Suspecting that Ruma had been tortured and killed by the appellant, P.W.1 lodged F.I.R. before the Offficer in-charge of Balugaon P.S.. On receipt of the report, police registered a case and on completion of investigation, the appallant and others were charge-sheeted ultimately resulting in the conviction of the appellant as aforesaid. 3. The plea of the appellant was one of denial. 4. In order to bring home the charge, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. P.W.1 -Rama Chandra is the brother of Ruma (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). 3. The plea of the appellant was one of denial. 4. In order to bring home the charge, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. P.W.1 -Rama Chandra is the brother of Ruma (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). He lodged the F.I.R. P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased . P.Ws. 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10 belong to appellants village-Nimikheta. P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7 belong to Tangi, the village of the deceased. Out of the above witnesses, P.Ws. 3,4,6 and 9 turned hostile. The remaining two witnesses (P.Ws.11 and 12) are the investigating police officers. 5. Before discussing the evidence on record, the following points are required to be determined:- (i) Did the death of the deceased occur otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage? (ii) Whether she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant or any of his relatives in connection with any demand for dowry? Section 304B, I.P.C. lays down that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry death ' and such husband or relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death. Section 113B of the Evidence Act raises presumption as to 'dowry death' in certain circumstances. It provides that 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'. 6. There is no dispute that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage. There is, however, no evidence that her death was caused by any burns or bodily injury. This is due to the fact that she was cremated on the very day she died and no postmortem examination was conducted over the dead-body. Let us, therefore, proceed to examine the evidence if her death was caused otherwise than under normal circumstances. There is, however, no evidence that her death was caused by any burns or bodily injury. This is due to the fact that she was cremated on the very day she died and no postmortem examination was conducted over the dead-body. Let us, therefore, proceed to examine the evidence if her death was caused otherwise than under normal circumstances. P.W.1 (brother of the deceased) stated that the mother of appellant went to his village and told him that the condition of the deceased was serious. Accordingly, he and his mother went to the house of the deceased where they learnt that she was already dead and her body was consigned to flames. He further deposed that none of the family members of the appellant informed them about the cause of the death of the deceased. Suggestion was made to him in the cross-examination that the deceased died due to diarrhoea to which he denied. He also denied to have stated to the police that he took the deceased to Sunakhala for treatment of diarrhoea on the previous day or her death. The Investigating Officer (P.W.11) stated that P.W.1 told him that he took the deceased to Sunakhala for treatment of diarrhoea prior to the date of occurrence. On close and careful consideration of the evidence of P.W.1 it appears to us that he had taken his sister to Sunakhala for treatment of diarrhoea prior to the date of occurrence. P.W.2, the mother of the deceased deposed that on being informed by the mother of the appellant that the condition of the deceased was serious, she and her son (P.W.1) went to the house of the deceased at Nimkhita and by the time they arrived, her dead-body had already been consigned to flames. P.W.3, a co-villager of the appellant having denied his knowledge about the cause of death of the deceased, was cross-examined by the prosecution . This witness seemed to have some information about the cause of the death. It was brought out in his cross-examination that he had staled before the police that on 22.3.1990 at about 7 a.m. while he was sitting in the tiffin shop of his father along with Bhagaban (co-accused and brother of the appellant), the mother of the appellant came and called Bhagaban to come and see as to what happened to the deceased. After some-time, said Bhagaban came to the house and asked for tamarind. Twenty to twenty-five minutes thereafter, said Bhagaban again came and told him that deceased had died and her funeral was to be arranged. He also stated to the police that he had seen the appellant, his brother Bhagaban and the co-accused Bhaskar carrying the dead-body of the deceased to the burial ground which was consigned to flames at about 1.30 p.m. P. W.4 is a neighbour of the appellant. He denied his knowledge about the cause of the death of the deceased. He seems to have stated to the police that deceased took poison and died due to it and he could know from Bhagaban, brother of the appellant that decease committed suicide by taking poison. P.W.5 comes from Tangi, the village to which the deceased belonged. He deposed that she died under suspicious circumstances. He was a witness to the meeting which was held at Tangi for amicable settlement following the demand of dowry and torture meted out to the deceased. He corroborates the statements of P.W. 1 and 2 that on the date of occurrence the mother of the appellant came and informed them the condition of the deceased was serious and on being so informed, P.W.1 and his mother rushed to Nimikheta and by the time they arrived, the dead -body had been consigned to flames. From the suggestion made to this witness by the defence it appears that it wanted to make out a case that the deceased had natural death. We have, however, not been able to persuade ourselves to accept such a plea. If the deceased had died natural death, the appellant and his family members could not have hurriedly burnt her dead-body. They could have waited till the arrival of the family members of the deceased. In this circumstances we are inclined to hold that the death of the deceased was not under normal circumstances. 7. The next corollary point for decision is whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry by the appellant. The prosecution case itself is that at the time of marriage there was demand of dowry made by the appellant and his parents in the shape of gold, silver ornaments, etc., which was duly fulfilled. The prosecution case itself is that at the time of marriage there was demand of dowry made by the appellant and his parents in the shape of gold, silver ornaments, etc., which was duly fulfilled. P.W.1 of village Tangi (to which place the deceased belonged) stated that there was strained relation between the deceased on the one hand and her in-laws on the other, on the question of payment of dowry for which, the deceased often used to stay in her parental house. He further stated that P.W.1 convened a meeting of gentlemen of Tangi to resolve the dispute over demand of dowry and torture meted out to the deceased. The meeting which was held was attended by many villagers including P.W.6 in whose house the meeting was held. It was resolved in the meeting that P.W.1 would arrange utensils for the appellant for doing business and appellant would not ill-treat the deceased any further. P.Ws.1 and 2 stated that the appellant made demand of Rs 2000/-after the marriage. Accordingly, utensils worth of Rs 2000/- were arranged from P.W.7 to enable the appellant to do business in belmetals. P.W.7 corroborates the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2d by stating that he advanced utensils worth of Rs. 2,000/- to the appellant at the request of P.W.1 for doing small business in utensils. This fact also finds mention in the F.I.R lodged by P.W.1. The aforesaid evidence unequivocally goes to show that after the marriage the appellant made a demand for dowry for Rs. 2,000/- leading to ill-treatment of the deceased and subsequent settlement of dispute on the intervention of the local gentlemen in the meeting. 8. P.W.I further stated that after the arrangement of utensils worth of Rs. 2,000/-, the appellant again demanded Rs. 5,000/-and for that purpose his sister (the deceased) was treated with cruelty. In this connection, both P.W.1 and 2 deposed that few days before the death of the deceased. They had been to the house of the appellant along with P.W.5 and 6. This fact finds mention in the F.I.R. which had been lodged promptly on the vary day of the death of the deceased which include the possibility of concoction. All the essentials thus having been established by the prosecution to make out a case u/s 304B.I.P.C., the presumption u/s 113B of the Evidence Act comes into play. The appellant has not led any rebuttal evidence. All the essentials thus having been established by the prosecution to make out a case u/s 304B.I.P.C., the presumption u/s 113B of the Evidence Act comes into play. The appellant has not led any rebuttal evidence. The story that the deceased died on account of diarrhoea has not been established at all. The fact that before the arrival of P.Ws. 1 and 2 at village Nimikheta, the dead body of the deceased was consigned to flames raised doubt about the bona fides of the appellant, Had she died of diarrhoea or not her death in normal circumstances, there was no occasion to surreptitiously and hastily burn the dead body of the deceased. 9. In view of what has been stated above, we have no doubt to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove a case u/s 304B, I.P.C. As already indicated, there was demand for dowry after the marriage which has been established from the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2,6 and 7. Thus, the conviction of the appellant u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 cannot be faulted with. The appellant has also been rightly found guilty for the offence u/s 201 I.P.C. The undue haste in which the dead-body was cremated indicates that the appellant caused disappearance of evidence of offence with the clear intention of screening himself from legal punishment. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. P.K. Misra, J. - I agree. 10. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed