Judgment M.L.Singhal, J. 1. In case FIR No. 50 dated 28.2.1987 registered under Sections 306/498-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Kaithal, vide order dated 21/23/5/1988, Krishan Kumar accused was convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years on the former count and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years on the latter count at Sessions case No. 9/2 of 1998/Sessions Trial No. 19 of 1988 on his file. 2. The prosecution case, in brief is that Smt. Kiran Bala d/o Jiwan Lal of Nabha (Punjab) was married to Krishan Kumar of Kaithal on 19.11.1986. As per her father Jiwan Lal, he gave lot of gifts in marriage by way of dowry to Krishan Kamr commensurate with his financial position, status and capacity. Krishan Kumar and his family was, however not satisfied with the dowry brought by her in marriage. She was being cursed daily by them for having brought inadequate downy. They pressed upon her to bring adequate cash for Krishan Kumar so that he could expand his newly started business. Smt. Kiran Bala requested her father to fulfil the demand for cash of her in-laws. Kiran Bala told her husband and his family of her fathers inability to satisfy their demand for cash. As per Jiwan Lal on 17.2.1987, Krishan Kumar, his father Het Ram, his mother Sarbati, his brother Ramesh Kumar and his wife Smt. Geeta administered poison to Kiran Bala. After she had become drowsy, she was doused with kerosene by all of them and was set on fire. She died on the spot. Thereafter, Krishan Kumar, his father, mother, brother Ramesh Kumar and Geeta lodged report at Police Station City Kaithal. It was a false report containing distorted version. Police reached the spot and took into possession the exhumed dead body of Smt. Kiran Bala. Police got the dead body snapped. Information was sent by Krishan Kumar and his other relatives about the death of Kiran Bala before cremating the dead body, to Kiran Balas parental house at Nabha. Jiwan Lal was not at home at Nabha and as such he could not attend cremation. He was away to Bathinda Cantt. in connection with his posting there. Information was sent by Krishan Kumar and his other relatives about the death of Kiran Bala before cremating the dead body, to Kiran Balas parental house at Nabha. Jiwan Lal was not at home at Nabha and as such he could not attend cremation. He was away to Bathinda Cantt. in connection with his posting there. It may be mentioned here that Jiwan Lal was UDC in the office of Garrison Engineer at Bathinda Cantt. Post mortem examination on the dead body of Kiran Bala was carried out at Kaithal. Kiran Balas was an un- natural death. Jiwan Lals wife and some other relatives attended the cremation at Kaithal. Her in-laws got their signatures/thumb impressions on blank papers on the pretext that case was going to be registered by the police with regard to the un-natural death of Kiran Bala. No case was registered by the police in the beginning as they were in league with Krishan Kumar and his family. As per Jiwan Lal, his daughter was doused with kerosene on 17.9.1987 at about 1.30 P.M. and was killed by her husband, his parents Het Ram, Sarbati and brother Ramesh Kumar and his wife Geeta. Jiwan Lal made application Exhibit P-G to Honble the Chief Minister of Haryana, on the basis of which, this case was registered on 28.2.1987 at Police Station City Kaithal under Sections 306/498-A IPC. After investigation, Krishan Kumar, his father Het Ram, mother Sarbati Devi and brother Ramesh Kumar were challaned. 3. Case was committed to the Court of Session by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal vide order dated 4.2.1988. 4. Vide order dated 7.3.1988, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra charged Krishan Kumar, his father Het Ram, mother Sarbati and his brother Ramesh Kumar under Sections 498-A and 304-B(2) Indian Penal Code. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 5. Vide order dated 21/23.5.1988, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra found the charge not proved so far as Het Ram, his wife Sarbati Devi and son Ramesh Kumar are concerned. He accordingly acquitted them. He found the charge proved against Krishan Kumar and he was convicted and sentenced as indicated above. 6. Dissatisfied with conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide order dated 21/23.5.1988, he has come up in appeal to this Court. 7. He accordingly acquitted them. He found the charge proved against Krishan Kumar and he was convicted and sentenced as indicated above. 6. Dissatisfied with conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide order dated 21/23.5.1988, he has come up in appeal to this Court. 7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there should have been fulfilment of the following three ingredients for bringing the accused within the mischief of Section 304-B IPC :- 8. 1) Marriage of woman should not have been less then seven years old on the date of her death. 9. 2) It should have been an un-natural death and in the house of the husband. 10. 3) Cause of death should have been demand of dowry by her husband or any relative of her husband and the non-fulfilment of that demand by her and her parents and consequential treatment of her with cruelty leading to her un- natural death. 11. Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows :- "304B. Dowry Death. - (1) 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. Explanation. - For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits "dowry death" shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life." 12. Cruelty is defined in Section 498-A Indian Penal Code. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows :- "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means - (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this case, the third ingredient constituting the offence is missing. Inasmuch as Kiran Balas mother was examined during inquest proceedings. In her statement in inquest proceedings, Kiran Balas mother did not suspect any foul play so far as her daughters death was concerned. It was submitted that if there had been any foul play in the death of Kiran Bala, Krishan Kumar would not have sent information to her parents at Nabha on 17.2.1987 itself that Kiran Bala had died, "attend her cremation". It was submitted that pursuant to the receipt of information regarding the death of Krian Bala, Kiran Balas mother and other relatives reached Kaithal and attended the cremation of 18.2.1987. It was submitted that soon after Kiran Balas death took place, Krishan Kumar appeared at Police Station, Kaithal on 17.2.1987 at 4.20 P.M. and made statement which was recorded in the daily diary of the police station against Section No. 32 on 17.2.1987 Exhibit P-C. It was submitted that if there had been any foul play in the death of Kiran Bala, Krishan Kumar would not have hastened and reached Police Station City Kaithal on 17.2.1987 and made statement Exhibit P-C in the daily diary. In statement Exhibit P-C Krishan Kumar had stated about the un-natural death of Kiran Bala. In statement Exhibit P-C Krishan Kumar had stated about the un-natural death of Kiran Bala. He, however, gave no reason about the cause of the death of Kiran Bala in his statement Exhibit P-C. As such, his statement Exhibit P-C is inconsequential. As regards the statement of Smt. Naraini Devi mother of Kiran Bala recorded in inquest proceedings that there was no foul play in Kiran Balas death and that she did not want to proceed against any one, learned counsel submitted that the statement of Naraini Devi was first in point of time and should be given due weight. It was submitted that the statement of Kiran Balas father Jiwan Lal, which is the foundation of FIR should not be given any weight, as it was made belatedly on 28.2.1987. It was submitted that Kiran Balas father raked up dead issue after 10 days with a view to extracting pound of flesh out of his daughters death. In support of the submission, he drew my attention to State of Haryana v. Sat Narain, 2001(4) RCR(Criminal) 817 and State of Haryana v. Rajinder Singh, 1997(2) RCR(Crl.) 176 : 1996 SCC Criminal 531. 13. It was submitted that there is no mention of the demand of Rs. 20,000/- in Exhibit P-G made by Jiwan Lal to the Chief Minister, Haryana on 27.2.1987. Only allegation is that the in-laws of his daughter were not satisfied with dowry and everyday, the cursed his daughter for having brought inadequate dowry and coerced her to press upon him (Jiwan Lal) to give her husband adequate cash to enable him to expand his newly started business. 14. Suffice it to say, in application Exhibit P-G made by Jiwan Lal to Chief Minister, Haryana, Chief Minister Haryana passed an order directing the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra to get the case thoroughly investigated and give justice to Jiwan Lal. Jiwan Lal made application to the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra Exhibit P-H, which constituted the FIR. In application Exhibit P-H, there is allegation of the demand of Rs. 20,000/- by Krishan Kumar upon her for opening a shop of electrical goods. 15. It was submitted that there is delay of 11 days in the lodging of the First Information Report by Jiwan Lal. In application Exhibit P-H, there is allegation of the demand of Rs. 20,000/- by Krishan Kumar upon her for opening a shop of electrical goods. 15. It was submitted that there is delay of 11 days in the lodging of the First Information Report by Jiwan Lal. It was submitted that in fact, the first version came on 18.2.1987 in the statement of Kiran Balas mother in inquest proceedings, in which she had spoken of no foul play in the death of Smt. Kiran Bala. It was submitted that the cause of taking this extreme step by Kiran Bala was that she got pregnant and unfortunately miscarriage took place. She did not reconcile to miscarriage having taken place, although she was assured that if God willing, she would again get pregnant and deliver a child. It was stated by Krishan Kumar in the statement made by him, which was recorded in the daily diary that the marriage of his niece was settled at Kotkapura for 21.2.1987. He could not bring a suit for Kiran Bala of her choice. He brought a suit for Kiran Bala of his own choice. Kiran Bala felt annoyed on this score also. It added fuel to the fire and she took this extreme step. It was submitted that due to miscarriage, Kiran Bala became apprehensive that she wont be able to bear any child in future. She took this extreme step due to this apprehension. Her mother Naraini Devi spoke of this apprehension in her statement made in inquest. In this case, there is no evidence that Kiran Bala became pregnant and miscarriage took place and miscarriage induced apprehension in her mind that she wont get pregnant again at all and she would go barren. There is no evidence that Kiran Bala wanted to have a suit of her choice on the occasion of the marriage of her husbands niece, which was to take place on 21.2.1987 at Kotkapura and Krishan Kumar got a suit for her not of her choice but of his choice and thus also added fuel to the fire and she took this extreme step. It is true that all the aforesaid three ingredients are required to be proved by the prosecution beyond shred of doubt and by unimpeachable evidence before the accused can be brought within the four corners of Section 304-B IPC. It is true that all the aforesaid three ingredients are required to be proved by the prosecution beyond shred of doubt and by unimpeachable evidence before the accused can be brought within the four corners of Section 304-B IPC. Since the death of Kiran Bala took place at the house of her in-laws and her parents could possibly be not aware of the exact cause of her death, they could only presume that hers was an unnatural death only from the circumstances which had preceded her death which took place on 17.2.1987. Reasons given by Krishan Kumar regarding his wifes death do not appeal to conscience. 16. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant belongs to lower strata of society. They are poor people and are Dhobi by calling and they are Dhobi caste also. Kiran Bala was also Dhobi by caste. It is not believable that there was any demand for dowry by Kiran Balas husband or any other member of the family. It was submitted how could they be so unreasonable as to lay any demand when they had known that Kiran Bala was poor, belonging to lower strata of society and Dhobi by calling unable to bring any money from her parents. Suffice it to say, Kiran Bala might have been Dhobi by calling, but her father was not Dhobi by calling, he was UDC in the Ministry of Defence, posted at Bathinda Cantt. 17. Jiwan Lal PW-5 stated that after about 15 days of marriage, Kiran Bala came to him at Nabha as brought by her brother Rajinder Kumar, and she complained to him that she had been married to a greedy family, who were expressing dissatisfaction with the dowry brought by her and were asking for Rs. 20,000/- to enable Kirshan Kumar to open a shop of electrical goods. She stayed with them for 10 days at Nabha whereafter she was taken by Krishan Kuamr to Kaithal. After one month thereof, Kiran Bala was again brought to their house at Nabha by Krishan Kumar. Kiran Bala repeated her complaint saying that she was being harassed by her husband, father-in-law Het. Ram mother-in-law Sarbati Devi and her brother-in-law Ramesh Kumar, who were impressing upon her to bring Rs. 20,000/- from him. After one month thereof, Kiran Bala was again brought to their house at Nabha by Krishan Kumar. Kiran Bala repeated her complaint saying that she was being harassed by her husband, father-in-law Het. Ram mother-in-law Sarbati Devi and her brother-in-law Ramesh Kumar, who were impressing upon her to bring Rs. 20,000/- from him. He told her son-in-law Krishan Kuamr that he was poor with a large family to support and was not in a position to fulfil their demand for Rs. 20,000/-. On 18.2.1987, he received a telegram from Nabha at Bathinda about Kiran Bala being serious and he should reach Kaithal. He received this telegram and reached Kaithal at the house of the accused. He came to know that Kiran Bala had died and the dead body had been taken to the cremation grounds. His wife came out of the house of the accused and told him that Kiran Bala had died and the dead body had been taken and she and her companions had signed some papers. His wife, his son and brothers told him that they had requested the accused to wait for his arrival. After 5-10 minutes of his arrival at the house of the accused, he found that the persons were returning from the cremation grounds. As such he did not go to the cremation grounds. He took away the articles of down and reached Nabha. He thought that there was no use approaching the Kaithal police. On 18.2.1987 at about 2 P.M. they reached Nabha. He got applications typed on 19.2.1987 and despatched them to the Chief Minister, Haryana. When no action was taken, he and his brother went to Chandigarh to meet Chaudhary Bansl Lal, Chief Minister, Haryana, who was on tour to Ambala. He met Chaudhary Bansi Lal at Ambala Rest House and made application on which he passed an order directing the Superintendent of Police to investigate the case and do justice to him. Original was handed over to the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, photocopy is Exhibit P-G. The Superintendent of Police detailed Inspector Baldev Kumar. Inspector Baldev Kumar came to Nabha and recorded his statement Exhibit P-H. His daughter was in good health. 18. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that Kiran Bala was married to Krishan Kumar. Krishan Kumars family was not stranger to Kiran Balas family. Inspector Baldev Kumar came to Nabha and recorded his statement Exhibit P-H. His daughter was in good health. 18. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that Kiran Bala was married to Krishan Kumar. Krishan Kumars family was not stranger to Kiran Balas family. Daughter of Jiwan Lals uncle who resides at Dhuri, was already married to the other son of Het Ram namely Amar Singh. That marriage took place 15/16 years ago. It was submitted by the leaned counsel for the appellant that if the marriage of Jiwan Lals uncles daughter were not working properly with Het Rams son, he would not have agreed to the marriage of Kiran Bala to Het Rams other son named Krishan Kumar. Suffice it to say, Jiwan Lal married Kiran Bala to Krishan Kumar as it was a tried family. His hopes, however, did not turn out to be correct. 19. Kiran Bala died three months after her marriage. She was a young girl. It does not sound well that she got pregnant and miscarriage took place and she felt dejected on account of miscarriage. She could be pregnant over again and deliver a child. Fact that she got pregnant so soon after marriage shows that she was quite fertile and could hope to be pregnant over again soon. Assuming that she got pregnant and miscarriage took place, could not induce any apprehension in her mind that life was worthless and that she should put an end to the flame of life in her. Similarly, if her husband got a suit not of her choice but of his choice, on the occasion of the marriage of his niece, which was to take place on 21.2.1987, it was so simple a matter that it could not induce her to extinguish the flame of life in her. She was a young girl in the morning of her life, newly married, could not think of extinguishing the flame of life in her, unless she left that the circumstances were so uncongenial in the house of her in-laws for her that she felt that she should extinguish the flame of life in her as life was not worth living for her. Un-natural death of a very young woman in her husbands house within three months of marriage has to be explained by the husband on some reasonable hypothesis. Un-natural death of a very young woman in her husbands house within three months of marriage has to be explained by the husband on some reasonable hypothesis. In this case, the husband has failed to explain her death on any reasonable hypothesis. 20. Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act creates presumption in favour of the prosecution. Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows :- "113-B. Presumption as to dowry death : 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, he court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death." Explanation : For the purposes of his section "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)." For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, justifiably found the charge under Sections 304-B/498-A of the Indian Penal Code proved against Krishan Kumar, convicted and sentenced him thereunder, since the sentence imposed is seven years rigorous imprisonment, which is the minimum provided for the offence, no reduction can be ordered in sentence. Appeal fails and is dismissed in toto both as regards conviction and sentence. Conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra are maintained.