Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1032 (PNJ)

Jeet Ram v. State Of Haryana

2002-10-08

HEMANT GUPTA, R.L.ANAND

body2002
Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. Shri Jeet Ram son of Sohan Ram, caste Bajigar, resident of village Alika, District Hisar (Haryana) has filed the present criminal appeal against the judgment dated 12.11.1998 and order dated 13.11.1998 vide which he was convicted for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 304-B IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 900/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court further held that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. It may be mentioned here that along with the appellant, Shri Bhagat Singh (brother) and Smt. Roshi Bai (Bhabi) were charge-sheeted but, they were acquitted by the impugned judgment. 3. The appellant, along with Bhagat Singh and Smt. Roshi Bai (since acquitted), was charge-sheeted on the allegations that Smt. Bindo Bai died an un-natural death on the night intervening 17/18.8.1995 within seven years of her marriage and, thereby, the appellant along with her two companions committed the offence punishable under section 304-IPC; and, secondly, it was alleged against the appellant that he, along with the acquitted accused, treated the deceased with cruelty by taunting her for not bringing adequate dowry and by making demand of the cash amount and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The story of the prosecution has been unfolded by Shri Ranjha Ram (P.W.4) - the brother of the deceased, vide his statement Ex.PG made before A.S.I. Maha Singh, Incharge of Police Post Madh, at the Bus Stand Alika when the Thanedar, along with the police party, was present there in connection with patrolling and when Shri Ranjha Ram PW made his statement Ex.PG. according to which, the complainant is a resident of village Mirana and works as a labourer. His father had expired long time back. He has four brothers and sisters. His elder sister is Smt. Jhamro Bai, younger to her is Smt. Bindo Bai (deceased) and the youngest sister is Smt. Jindo Bai. His two elder sisters are married. according to which, the complainant is a resident of village Mirana and works as a labourer. His father had expired long time back. He has four brothers and sisters. His elder sister is Smt. Jhamro Bai, younger to her is Smt. Bindo Bai (deceased) and the youngest sister is Smt. Jindo Bai. His two elder sisters are married. He had performed the marriage of his elder sister Smt. Bindo Bai about six years ago with Jeet Ram son of Sohan Ram, caste Bazigar, resident of village Alika according to Hindu rites and customs. He had given dowry articles to his sister at the time of marriage beyond his capacity but the husband of Smt. Bindo Bai, her Jeth Bhagat Singh and Jethani Smt. Roshi Bai (both acquitted) were not satisfied with the dowry articles and they used to harass Smt. Bindo Bai for bringing more dowry articles. It is also stated by the complainant that his sister Smt. Bindo was blessed with two sons from the loins of her husband, the younger son of his sister is three years old. The accused started harassing her (his ?) sister about four years prior to the present occurrence. His sister had been telling the accused that her brother is a poor person and could not afford as there are three more sisters who are dependent upon him. It is difficult for him to meet the demand of the accused but the accused were not satisfied with this request of the deceased and they used to beat her. So much so, she was turned out of her matrimonial home and was given warning to return to the matrimonial home only after getting the money. It is alleged by the complainant that his sister returned to the house of her parents and apprised him, Smt. Ladi Bai, his uncle Sikandar Ram and his grand father Sh. Sohan Ram about the illegal demand of the accused. The complainant further alleges that in order to rehabilitate Smt. Bindo Bai in the house of her in-laws, he along with his uncle Sikandar Ram went to the house of the accused with a sum of Rs. 5000/- and his sister was rehabilitated. However, the accused were not satisfied and they started saying that they would have no relations with the poor family. 5000/- and his sister was rehabilitated. However, the accused were not satisfied and they started saying that they would have no relations with the poor family. Upon which, the complainant party pleaded with folded hands and after leaving Smt. Bindo Bai at her husbands house, the complainant party returned to their own village. For some days, there was no problem for the deceased but three years back, again the accused started pressing upon her sister to bring Rs. 10,000/- for getting their land levelled. The matter was brought to the notice of the complainant who was not in a position to pay the huge amount of Rs. 10,000/- nor he was in a position to meet this monetary demand. It is further alleged by the complainant that when he could not meet the demand of Rs. 10,000/-, his sister was given beating in a cruel manner and she was turned out of the matrimonial home. Again a threat was given to her that in case she wanted to rehabilitate herself in the matrimonial home, she should return only with the money. All the facts were narrated by the deceased to her brothers and the other relatives. It was also informed to the complainant that the deceased apprehended danger to her life from the hands of her husband, her Jeth and Bhagat Ram and Jethani Roshi Bai and that they could kill her at any time for the lust of money. It is further alleged by the complainant that they tried to pacify the matter. So much so, a Panchayat was taken to village Alika but, the request of the Panchayat was not accepted by the accused and they insisted with their own demands. The complainant also stated in the statement Ex.PG that he had been going to village Alika a number of times with the Panchayat but the suggestion of the Panchayat was never accepted. The Panchayat consisted of Piara Lal and Mai Ram Members Panchayat. To ensure rehabilitation of Smt. Bindo Bai, the complainant along with his grand-father Shri Sohan Ram took the deceased to the house of her in-laws and also paid a sum of Rs. 6000/- to her husband Jeet Ram, Jeth Bhagat Singh and Jethani Roshi Bai. The Panchayat consisted of Piara Lal and Mai Ram Members Panchayat. To ensure rehabilitation of Smt. Bindo Bai, the complainant along with his grand-father Shri Sohan Ram took the deceased to the house of her in-laws and also paid a sum of Rs. 6000/- to her husband Jeet Ram, Jeth Bhagat Singh and Jethani Roshi Bai. However, the accused made demand that the remaining amount shall be paid to them within two days, failing which it will not be in the interest of the deceased Smt. Bindo Bai. The complainant also stated that they tried to pacify the matter. They could not arrange the money within the time given by the accused. On the day of lodging the report i.e. on 18th August, 1995, at about 7 Oclock, Ram Chand, Member Panchayat of village Alika came to the village of the complainant and informed that Smt. Bindo Bai had expired during the night. Upon which, the complainant along with his family members and some of the co-villagers went to village Alika. They tried to verify the facts at their own level and came to know that Smt. Bindo Bai had been murdered by her husband Jeet Ram, Jeth Bhagat Singh and Jethani Roshi Bai for their just of dowry. The above statement Ex.PG was made by Shri Ranjha Ram before the Thanedar. The contents of the statement Ex.PG were read over and explained to the complainant, who signed the same in token of its correctness. The Thanedar made endorsement underneath the said statement and it was sent to Police Station Ratia for registration of the case under section 304/34 IPC on the basis of which, formal FIR No. 394 dated 18.8.1995 was registered in the police station vide D.D.R. No. 16 of the said date. It may be mentioned here that endorsement underneath the statement Ex.PG was made by the Thanedar at 2.40 p.m. on the same day. 5. Shri Maha Singh, the investigating officer, after recording statement Ex.PG, reached the place of occurrence which is "Dhani Bajigar" in the revenue estate of village Alika in the house of Jeet Ram appellant. The dead body of Smt. Bindo Bai was lying and the parents of the deceased were sitting there. Shri Chet Ram Tehsildar Ratia came to the house of Jeet Ram for carrying out the inquest. The dead body of Smt. Bindo Bai was lying and the parents of the deceased were sitting there. Shri Chet Ram Tehsildar Ratia came to the house of Jeet Ram for carrying out the inquest. The said Tehsildar prepared the inquest report Ex.PD in the presence of the Thanedar. The said Tehsildar took into possession one Gadda and one Dupatta and made a sealed parcel thereof by using his own seal bearing "MS" and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PK, attested by Ranjha Ram PW. S.H.O. Mohinder Singh, meanwhile, also arrived at the spot and he prepared rough site plan Ex.PL with its correct marginal notes. He recorded the statements of some witnesses and drafted application Ex.PB for post mortem examination of Smt. Bindo Bai deceased. 6. On 19th August, 1995, the post mortem examination on the dead body of Smt. Bindo Bai was conducted in civil hospital Fatehabad and the doctor after the post mortem examination handed over to the Thanedar the three parcels - one containing Viscera, the second containing clothes of the deceased and third containing papers, bearing the seals of the doctor along with its samples. This officer also took into possession these parcels vide memo Ex. PM attested by Head Constable Chand Ram and Constable Ramesh Kumar. After the post mortem examination, the dead body was handed over to the parents of the deceased. He visited village Mirana where the father and the brother of the deceased handed over to him one book containing the account of Kanyadan Exhibit PH, Photostat copy of Nyota record/Kanyadan which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PN, which was attested by H.C. Chand Ram and Constable Ramesh Kumar. Jeet Ram appellant was arrested on 27th August, 1995 when he was produced before P.W.10 Mohinder Singh S.I./S.H.O. of Police Station, Ratia at bus stand Alika. 7. P.W.3 Dr. D.L. Bansal, Medical Officer, on the application Ex.PB dated 18.8.1995 made by the Executive Magistrate, along with Dr. M.M. Pahwa, conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Smt. Bindo Bai on 19.8.1995 at 10.15 a.m. As per the observations of the Board of Doctors, the dead body was of a female aged 28 years. Eyes and mouth were open. Face was swollen and syanosed. Eyes were dominant and open. Lips were swollen and pale. Blood stained froth from nostril was present. The tongue was swollen. Eyes and mouth were open. Face was swollen and syanosed. Eyes were dominant and open. Lips were swollen and pale. Blood stained froth from nostril was present. The tongue was swollen. The rigor mortis on lower limbs in passing stage. The dead body was wearing a black salwar printed, black printed jumpher. The following injuries were noticed on her person : 1. There was a contusion 4 cm x 3 cm on right side of neck, 3 cm below the angle of mandible and 8 cm away from midline of neck. And there was another contusion in an area of 8 cm x 6 cm on left side of neck, 5 cm below the angle of mandible. On dissection, infiltration of blood underlying tissue and muscle. Upper tracheal rings were ruptured. Left side sternomastoid muscle was lacerated. 2. An abrasion 1 cm x 1/4 cm on left side of neck, 2 cm below mendible and 7 cm away from midline. On dissection infiltration underlying tissues. Larynx and trachea were congested and contain blood stained froth (mucus). 3. Swelling over right eye in an area of 3" with eye ball lacerated. (cornea, conjunctiva and pupil lacerated). On dissection infiltration underlying tissue). 8. The doctor preserved the viscera. The stomach was found healthy. The viscera was sent to the office of the chemical examiner. The cause of death was conditional till the receipt of the report of the chemical examiner. The probable time that elapsed between death and post mortem was about 36 hours. The post mortem report is Ex.DC. After the receipt of the report of the chemical examiner, the doctor declared the cause of death as asphyxia as a result of throttling vide opinion Ex.PE. The report of Chemical Examiner is Ex.PF. The viscera was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of noticing whether any poison was available in the contents of the viscera and the chemical report Ex.PF gave negative test for common poisons. 9. On the completion of the investigation of the case, accused were challaned in the court of the area Magistrate who supplied copies of documents to the accused as required under the law and, vide commitment order dated 30.4.1996, committed the appellant and his two companions to the Court of Sessions to face their trial. 10. 9. On the completion of the investigation of the case, accused were challaned in the court of the area Magistrate who supplied copies of documents to the accused as required under the law and, vide commitment order dated 30.4.1996, committed the appellant and his two companions to the Court of Sessions to face their trial. 10. Vide order dated 11.10.1996, the learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant and his two companions under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 11. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined P.W.1 Shri Inderjeet Draftsman who on 31.10.195 prepared the scaled site plan of Ex.PA on the asking of the police and on the demarcation of Ranjha Ram complainant to the scale of 1 inch = 32 feet. 12. P.W.2 is S.I. Mohinder Singh, who on 20.12.1995 on completion of the investigation of the case submitted report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 13. P.W.3 is Dr. D.L. Bansal who along with his companion, conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Smt. Bindo Bai and the opinion of the Board of doctors has already been given by us in the earlier portion of this judgment. 14. P.W.4 is Mr. Ranjha Ram complainant brother of the deceased. Shri Sohan Ram is P.W.5. He is the grand father of the deceased. The testimony of P.W.4 and P.W.5 shall be discussed in detail by us in the subsequent portion of this judgment. 15. P.W.6 is Shri Inder Singh who deposed that Smt. Bindo Bai was his first cousin and he attended her marriage. It was performed on 26.3.1989. The Shagun was written by him in the note-book Ex.PH. Extract of the same is Ex.PH/1. 16. P.W.7 is Mr. Mai Ram who deposed that he along with Piara Lal and 4-5 other persons of village Mirana had gone to the village of the accused forming a panchayat on 15th of Sawan. The purpose of the panchayat was to make a request to the accused to keep Smt. Bindo Bai properly as she was being harassed on account of dowry. He had gone to the accused as a Member of the Panchayat. The purpose of the panchayat was to make a request to the accused to keep Smt. Bindo Bai properly as she was being harassed on account of dowry. He had gone to the accused as a Member of the Panchayat. It has also come in the statement of this witness that Smt. Bindo Bai was turned out by the accused several times. In the cross-examination, he stated that in his presence, no amount was given by the deceaseds brother to the accused. The last Panchayat was taken on 15th of Sawan. 17. P.W.8 is Mr. Rajpal Assistant Sub Inspector who was one of the investigating officers and, according to him, Bhagat Ram and Roshi Bai accused surrendered themselves before the Ilaqa Magistrate, Fatehabad and after seeking permission of the Court, he arrested them and during investigation, the dowry articles No. 24 were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P1, attested by Constable Shadi Ram and Ranjha Ram complainant. 18. P.W.9 is Mr. Suresh Kumar Assistant Sub Inspector of Police who simply recorded the statements of Inderjit P.W.1 and Bhajan Singh. P.W.10 is Mr. Maha Singh, the investigating officer. 19. After tendering into evidence the report of the chemical examiner, the prosecution closed its case. 20. On the closure of the evidence of the prosecution the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused. Accused denied those circumstances and the plea of Sh. Jeet Ram, appellant, is as follows : "False case has been made against me. I am living separately from my brothers from the last so many years. I was leading happy married life. I never demanded any dowry from Smt. Bindo or her brothers. Smt. Bindo was ailing for the last two years prior to her death. She died a natural death. She was got treated from various Sadhus and Ojhas. She was under the influence of some "Opry". Smt. Ladon, my mother-in-law has also been accompanying us while getting my wife treated from Sadhus and ojhas. I am innocent. I informed the Panchayat of village Alika, Ram Chander Panch was sent to inform the parents of the deceased. I was arrested by the police on 17.8.1995, both of my children were present at the spot when the police reached there. I am innocent. I informed the Panchayat of village Alika, Ram Chander Panch was sent to inform the parents of the deceased. I was arrested by the police on 17.8.1995, both of my children were present at the spot when the police reached there. Chet Ram Tehsildar never came at the spot nor he made any inquest proceeding." 21. We need not reproduce the pleas of two acquitted accused as the State had not filed any appeal against their acquittal. 22. When called upon to enter into their defence, the accused examined Shri Jaimal Singh aged 80 years as D.W.1, Shri Bhana Ram as D.W.2 and B.S. Randhawa draftsman who prepared scaled site plan Ex.DE appeared as D.W.3. Besides that, the defence also tendered in evidence house-tax receipt Ex.DB, school leaving certificate Ex.DC and copy of the Jamabandi Ex.DD. The defence further tendered into evidence Bahi containing entries regarding the Nyota received at the time of marriage of Jeeta which is Ex.PF. 23. The trial court for the reasons given in the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges so far as Bhagat Singh and Roshi Bai are concerned but, however, the charge under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC have been proved beyond reasonable doubt against Shri Jeet Ram appellant and he was convicted and sentenced in the manner as stated above, and aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the present appeal. 24. We have heard Shri Atul Lakhanpal Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Shri D.P. Singh, Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana, and, with their assistance, have gone through the record of the case. 25. Two points were raised before us; firstly, that death of the deceased had taken place within seven years of the marriage of Smt. Bindo Bai with Jeet Ram appellant and, secondly, it is also not established that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty. 26. 25. Two points were raised before us; firstly, that death of the deceased had taken place within seven years of the marriage of Smt. Bindo Bai with Jeet Ram appellant and, secondly, it is also not established that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty. 26. Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code 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 relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. In order to prove the provisions of section 304-B, Indian Penal Code, the following requirement of law is to be proved by the prosecution : 1. unnatural death of a woman within seven years of her marriage; 2. she being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death. 27. Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act draws a presumption with regard to dowry death and lays down 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. 28. Thus, the evidence of the prosecution shall be examined by us in the light of the two relevant sections which we have just reproduced above. So far as unnatural death is concerned, it stands fully established from the statement of Dr. D.L. Bansal, P.W.3, who had given the cause of death as asphyxia on account of strangulation. 29. With regard to the date of marriage of Smt. Bindo with Shri Jeet Ram, it has been deposed by Shri Ranjha Ram (P.W.4) that his sister was married on 26th March, 1989. He categorically denied the suggestion that the marriage was solemnised in the year 1987. 29. With regard to the date of marriage of Smt. Bindo with Shri Jeet Ram, it has been deposed by Shri Ranjha Ram (P.W.4) that his sister was married on 26th March, 1989. He categorically denied the suggestion that the marriage was solemnised in the year 1987. It is also established on the record that Smt. Bindo Bai was killed on 18.8.1995. Thus, it is clearly suggestive of the finding that the death of Smt. Bindo Bai took place within seven years of her marriage. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that the marriage of the deceased took place in the year 1987 who has placed reliance on the document Ex.D-1, the Bahi, produced by Shri Jaimal Singh (DW1), but the statement of Shri Jaimal Singh cannot be believed as he has deposed in cross- examination that Smt. Balbiro Bai is his younger daughter and she is still un-married and the Bahi Ex.D-1 relied upon by the appellant also indicates that there are entries of Neota of Smt. Balbiro Bai. There is no explanation with regard to the entries of Smt. balbiro Bai when she is still un-married. Yet, reliance was also placed on the School Leaving Certificate Ex.DC which shows the date of birth of Shri Hari Singh son of Jeet Singh appellant is 10.6.1988. It was contended as per the prosecution that the marriage of Smt. Bindo Bai took place on 26th March, 1989. How is it possible that Shri Hari Singh was born on 10th June, 1988 ? Again no reliance can be placed on the entries Ex.DC. As we all know that the date of birth in the school record is invariably incorrect as people have the tendency to give wrong date of birth so that their wards my be admitted in such school. No birth certificate has been produced with regard to Hari Singh to show that he was born on 10th June, 1988. Also, no person has been produced on record by the accused to show that he got admitted Hari Singh in the school. As against it, the prosecution has placed on record Ex.PH the note book prepared by P.W.6 Shri Inder Singh who clearly establishes that Smt. Bindo Bai was married with Jeet Ram on 26th March, 1989. Also, no person has been produced on record by the accused to show that he got admitted Hari Singh in the school. As against it, the prosecution has placed on record Ex.PH the note book prepared by P.W.6 Shri Inder Singh who clearly establishes that Smt. Bindo Bai was married with Jeet Ram on 26th March, 1989. It is the admitted case that on the day of marriage i.e. on 26th March, 1989, Piara Singh brother of Jeet Ram appellant was also married. Therefore, it was very easy for the accused to examine Shri Piara Singh but he too has not been examined by the defence. In the presence of any cogent evidence led by the accused, we have to bank upon the statement of Shri Ranjha Ram (P.W.4) who had categorically stated in cross-examination that the marriage of Smt. Bindo Bai took place on 26th March, 1989. With regard to the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no evidence that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry. We will again have to refer to the statement of Shri Ranjha Ram (P.W.4) who categorically deposed that in the marriage of his sister, he spent Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- but, in spite of all that, all the accused had been harassing his sister for not bringing adequate dowry. Two years after marriage, a demand of money was made. The deceased used to tell the accused that it was not possible for her brother to arrange for the money. So much so, the deceased used to make complaint about the accused that she was being subjected to harassment and these complaints used to be made to the complainant. Shri Ranjha Ram deposed that on one occasion, i.e. four years prior to her death, he had given Rs. 5000/- to the accused to fulfil their demand. Yet a demand of Rs. 10,000/- was also made. He convened a Panchayat on 2-3 occasions consisting of Piara Lal Sarpanch and Mai Ram, Member Panchayat, but the behaviour of the accused did not improve and they had been harassing his sister. Shri Ranjha Ram also deposed that he gave Rs. 6000/- three years prior to the death of his sister in order to fulfill the lust of the accused. Shri Ranjha Ram also deposed that he gave Rs. 6000/- three years prior to the death of his sister in order to fulfill the lust of the accused. Still the accused were not satisfied with that amount and made a demand of Rs. 4000/- to be paid within two days. It has also come in the statement of this witness that the accused stated that in case the remaining amount is not paid, the deceased would not be kept properly. Shri Ranjha Ram has finally stated that he gave Rs. 6000/- to the accused 10-15 days prior to the death of his sister. The above statement of Shri Ranjha Ram is very natural. In such like cases, the relations are the best witnesses. It has come in evidence that the marriage of Smt. Bindo Bai was performed by the complainant and, in these circumstances, it was but natural on the part of Smt. Bindo Bai to bring to the notice of her brother about the cruel treatment and harassment being meted out to her by her husband. The relations between the deceased and her husband became strained on account of in-adequate dowry and the demand of money by the husband coercing her wife to bring money from the house of her parents will be considered dowry death for all intents and purposes. 30. In section 304-B, the word "soon" before her death is not supposed to be read immediately before her death. The demands for money, torture and harassment in the present case were the continuing process started after few days of the marriage and it continued 10-15 days prior to the death of Smt. Bindo Bai. In cross-examination, Shri Ranjha Ram deposed that his sister was kept nicely only for 2-3 months. The testimony of Shri Ranjha Ram (P.W.4) has been supported by the statement of Shri Sohan Ram P.W.5 who also deposed that the accused started harassing the deceased after two years of the marriage. She was given beating and she was turned out of her matrimonial home. A demand of cash was also made. A sum of Rs. 5000/- was paid to the accused by Ranjha Ram P.W.4 but that could not satisfy the accused. Again a demand for Rs. 10,000/- was made, out of which, Rs. She was given beating and she was turned out of her matrimonial home. A demand of cash was also made. A sum of Rs. 5000/- was paid to the accused by Ranjha Ram P.W.4 but that could not satisfy the accused. Again a demand for Rs. 10,000/- was made, out of which, Rs. 6000/- was paid to the accused by him and Ranjha Ram PW 15 days prior to the occurrence, but the accused still made a demand of the balance of Rs. 4000/- which could not be paid and, ultimately, Smt. Bindo Rai was killed by the accused. 31. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Shri Sohan Ram and Shri Ranjha Ram PWs as they were the persons who could naturally depose if she was not properly treated or if she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand for dowry. P.W.7 Shri Mai Ram also deposed that he had been going to village Alika in the shape of a Panchayat in order to beseech the accused not to harass Smt. Bindo Bai for dowry. From the statements of P.W.4., P.W.5 and P.W.7 there is no manner of doubt that the deceased was subjected to demand for dowry and this bad treatment continued upto 10-15 days prior to her death which will be considered soon before her death within the meaning of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, all the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC have been fully proved on the record. 32. Faced with this difficulty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently submitted that the deceased had, in fact, committed suicide as she used to remain ill. We are not convinced with this submission. Firstly, there is no evidence that the deceased was ailing for the last two years as stated by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No medical record has been produced nor any doctor has come in the witness box to say that he had the occasion to examined medically Smt. Bando Bai. Rather, the case of the appellant is that the deceased was treated from various Sadhus and Ojhas (witchcraft) as she used to be under the influence of some "Opery" (evil spirit). This defence taken up by the appellant not only looks to be false but also imaginary. Rather, the case of the appellant is that the deceased was treated from various Sadhus and Ojhas (witchcraft) as she used to be under the influence of some "Opery" (evil spirit). This defence taken up by the appellant not only looks to be false but also imaginary. The fact is that the deceased could not meet the illegal demand of dowry and money of her husband and for that alleged reason, she was killed. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that all the ingredients of the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are hereby proved and we, therefore, affirm the finding of the learned trial Court on both the counts. 33. Lastly, it was argued by the learned counsel Shri Lakhan Pal that if none of the contentions is accepted by the Court then, in the matter of sentence, the appellant may be visited with leniency. 34. We have considered this submission. The appellant is the father of two minor children. We are of the opinion that ends of justice will suffice if the substantive sentence of the appellant under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code is reduced to eight years. It is ordered accordingly. 35. So far as the sentence imposed upon the appellant under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code concerned, the same is hereby not disturbed. 36. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 37. With the above modification in the matter of sentence, the appeal of Shri Jeet Ram is hereby dismissed. 38. Let intimation about the dismissal of this appeal and sentence be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar and to the jail authorities.