Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. Appellant-baldev Raj has filed this appeal against judgment and order dated 10/8/1988, vide which he was convicted for commission of an offence under Sec.304-B of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine Rs.2,000.00. In case of default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. 2. As per prosecution version, marriage between Baldev Raj, appellant/accused was solemnised with Neeru, deceased aged about 20 years, on 21/6/1987. She died on 10/12/1987, an unnatural death by burning, in her matrimonial home. It was allegation of the prosecution that there was a dispute between Baldev Raj, appellant/accused and Neeru, deceased, regarding dowry. It was further alleged that Banarsi Dass, Tilak Raj and Pushpa i. e. other family members were instigating Baldev Raj appellant/accused to harass the deceased on account of bringing less dowry. All the above named three persons also, were sent by the police, for trial, for having abetted suicide of Neeru and thus, causing a dowry death. 3. Perusal of record reveal that two sisters of Neeru, namely Asha and Sita were married in this family to Sat Pal and Manohar Lal, brothers of Baldev Raj. It is also coming out from the record that on the fateful day, husband and wife had gone to cinema and they came back in the early afternoon. At about 10.3.0 p. m. , when both of them were together in a room in the first floor of their house, shrieks were heard and flames were seen. Asha and Sita, who at that time, were busy watching television along with their children, rushed upstairs and saw their sister burning and Baldev Raj was allegedly, seen trying to put off the fire. Neeru died at the spot. Case was reported to the police by Asha at 10.55 p. m. , her statement was recorded by the Investigation Officer and accordingly FIR was registered against Baldev Raj appellant/accused and Banarsi Dass, Tilak Raj and Pushpa wife of Tilak Raj. Investigating Officer got the postmortem examination conducted on the dead body. A burnt canister and a match box was also taken into possession from the spot during investigation. 4. Investigating Officer got the postmortem examination conducted on the dead body. A burnt canister and a match box was also taken into possession from the spot during investigation. 4. After recording evidence of witnesses and completion of other formalities, final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the Court for trial of the accused named therein for commission of offences under Sections 306, 304-B/34 IPC. After committal proceedings, trial proceeded before the competent Court. Accused were charge-sheeted for the commission of offences, as found mentioned above. 5. Prosecution then led as many as 11 witnesses to prove its case. On completion of prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. In his statement, Baldev Raj, appellant/accused admitted inter se relationship between deceased, her two sisters, their husband and his co-accused. However, he denied all the allegations levelled against him regarding causing death of Smt. Neeru. He, in the alternative, took up a stand that death was caused when his wife had caught fire accidentally while cooking food on a kerosene stove. He further stated that he had tried to save her and in that process, he got burn injuries at his chest and other parts of the body. But despite his best efforts, she could not be saved. He further stated that due to injuries suffered by him, he remained admitted in a hospital. Other co-accused denied allegations levelled against them and pleaded their false implication. Appellant/accused Baldev Raj and other co-accused also led evidence in defence. 6. Trial Court on appraisal of evidence, as led by both the parties, found Banarsi Das, Tilak Raj and Pushpa innocent and acquitted all the three on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove charges against them. However, appellant/accused was found guilty of commission of offence under Sec.304-B IPC, he was convicted and sentenced accordingly, as found mentioned in para 1 of this order. Hence, this appeal. 7. Shri A. S. Virk, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has vehemently contended that conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant, keeping in view evidence on record, was not justified. By referring to the statements of Asha PW 2, Manohar Lal PW-3 and Sat Pal, PW4, he argued that all the above named three witnesses had failed to support the prosecution version. By referring to the statements of Asha PW 2, Manohar Lal PW-3 and Sat Pal, PW4, he argued that all the above named three witnesses had failed to support the prosecution version. He further stated that Asha, real sister of the deceased, had categorically stated that there was no dispute regarding dowry between the accused and deceased Smt. Neeru and the other co-accused never instigated Baldev Raj against Neeru, as had been stated by the prose-cution. Shri Virk has further contended that even Sita, PW5 and Surinder Kumar, PW6 had failed to give any specific instance regarding demand of dowry, harassment and cruelty committed by the appellant/accused to Smt. Neeru, deceased. He stated that trial Court had erred while relying upon the testimony of above two witnesses, as there existed large number of contradictions and improvements in the statements of these witnesses. He further stated that there existed no evidence to prove that there was any demand of dowry, raised by the appellant/accused, soon before death. By referring to the prosecution evidence, he stated that on the fateful day, both husband and wife were very happy, they have gone to cinema and came back in the early afternoon. By referring to the statements of defence witnesses, he stated that it was a case of accidental fire and despite best efforts, on the part of Baldev Raj, appellant, who suffered injuries in the process of putting of fire, Neeru could not be saved. Counsel further argued that there existed various improvements and contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses. He prayed that the appeal be accepted and the judgment under challenge be set aside. 8. Counsel for the respondent, Shri G. S. Bhandari, DAG Punjab, has vehemently controverted the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant/accused. He supported the judgment passed by the Court below, by stating that there existed sufficient evidence on record in the shape of statement of PW5 and PW6 due to which conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant was perfectly justified. He further stated that the commission of offence is squarely covered under the provisions of Sec.304-B IPC. Death was unnatural and was caused within about six months of the marriage and there existed sufficient evidence that there was a dispute between the husband and wife regarding bringing insufficient dowry by the deceased. He further stated that the commission of offence is squarely covered under the provisions of Sec.304-B IPC. Death was unnatural and was caused within about six months of the marriage and there existed sufficient evidence that there was a dispute between the husband and wife regarding bringing insufficient dowry by the deceased. He, by referring to the statement of Asha, PW2, Manohar Lal, PW3 and Sat Pal, PW4, who had failed to support the prosecution, stated that these witnesses may have succumbed to the family pressure. However, Sita PW5 failed to relent and had stated the truth before the Court below and her statement has rightly been believed by the trial Court. Counsel prayed that the appeal, having no substance be dismissed. 9. Before adverting to the merits of the case, some facts need to be noticed. Admittedly, marriage between the appellant/accused Baldev Raj and Smt. Neeru, deceased was solemnized on 2 1.6.1987. She died on 10.12.1987. Death is by burning and was unnatural and has also occurred within six months of the date of marriage. It is also admitted fact that earlier to the marriage of deceased Smt. Neeru in this family, her two sisters, namely Asha, PW2 and Sita PW5 were married to Manohar Lal PW3 and Sat Pal PW4 i. e. brothers of the appellanljaccused. In this matter, all the material witnesses were from the family of the appellanljaccused. Recording of FIR was very prompt and it was recorded at the instance of Smt. Asha PW2, a sister of deceased Smt. Neeru. It is also an admitted fact that PW2 Asha and Manohar Lal PW3, Satpal PW4 had failed to support the prosecution version before the trial Court. It is also an admitted fact that smell, of kerosene was coming out from the clothes and body of deceased Smt. Neeru, her body was virtually drenched with the kerosene oil, Match box, burnt canister were also taken in possession from the spot. As against this, no stove burnt or otherwise was recovered from the spot. 10. Contention of Shri Virk that since Asha, PW2, the complainant, and PW3 and PW4 had failed to support the prosecution version, story of the prosecution lost credibility, as such, conviction of the appellant/accused was not justified, is devoid of any force and is liable to be rejected. 11. All the above named three witnesses were from the family of the appellant/accused. 11. All the above named three witnesses were from the family of the appellant/accused. No doubt, PW 2 Asha is the real sister of the deceased, she informed the police in a very prompt manner regarding incident. However, subsequently, it seems that she has succumbed to the family pressure and tried to save the appellant/accused. So far as PW3 and PW 4 are concerned, they are real brothers of the appellant/accused and this Court presumes that due to their close relations, they had failed to support the prosecution version at the time of trial. 12. Despite failure of above mentioned three witnesses to support the prosecution version, Sita another sister of the deceased and wife of the brother of appellant/accused stood by her statement. She deposed the truth before the trial Court. This she had done even at the cost of her relations becoming strained with her in-laws family. This witness had stated that there existed a dispute between the deceased and Baldev Raj, regarding Neeru having brought insufficient dowry. She had further stated that Baldev Raj, appellant had been restraining the deceased from meeting her. In her cross-examination, she had denied the suggestion that accused and Neeru were happily married and there was no dispute of any kind regarding insufficiency of dowry. Testimony of this witness had clearly established that there was a dispute regarding insufficient dowry between the husband and wife. Not only this, PW6 Surinder Kumar brother of the deceased had stated in no uncertain terms that when her sister, after marriage, visited Chandigarh, she informed him that she was being ill-treated by Baldev Raj on account of insufficient dowry. This witness had further stated that Baldev Raj, appellant/accused had burnt Neeru because of that reasons. Despite lengthy cross-examination, defence had failed to shatter the testimony of above mentioned two witnesses. There existed sufficient circumstantial evidence on record, which indicated towards the guilt of the appellanljaccused. So far as defence version is concerned that was rightly negated by the trial Court. No stove burnt or otherwise was recovered from the spot, furthermore, there existed no evidence to show, as to how and in what manner, appellanljaccused, Baldev Raj tried to save the deceased. So far as defence version is concerned that was rightly negated by the trial Court. No stove burnt or otherwise was recovered from the spot, furthermore, there existed no evidence to show, as to how and in what manner, appellanljaccused, Baldev Raj tried to save the deceased. Mere existence of some injuries on the person of Baldev Raj does not entitle him to get any benefit of the defence version, which otherwise, was rightly held to be not very cogent by the trial Court. 13. Appellant/accused cannot be given any benefit of some minor contradictions existed here and there in the testimony of PW5 and PW6, as had been indicated by the counsel for the appellant at the time of arguments. 14. In view of facts and circum-stances of this case, as found mentioned above, presumption under Sec.113-B of Evidence Act had rightly been raised against the appellant/accused by the trial Court. Mere fact that the death had occurred within a short span of marriage indicated towards the guilt of the appellant/accused and no benefit can be given to him of the fact that the witness had failed to state as to what actually was demanded and on which date, by the appellant/accused from the deceased. 15. Shri Virk has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Kans Raj V/s. State of Punjab and others, to contend that since there existed no proof of demand of dowry, soon before death benefit of the same be given to the appellant/accused and he be acquitted of the charges framed against him. With due respect, judgment referred to above, is not applicable to the facts of this case. In this case, death had occurred within six months. Defence had failed to show any other reason, than the one, as had been alleged by the prosecution, due to which death could have been occurred, under the circumstances, as has happened in this case. 16. In view of the facts and reasoning stated above, conviction of the appellant/accused is upheld. In this case, death had occurred within six months. Defence had failed to show any other reason, than the one, as had been alleged by the prosecution, due to which death could have been occurred, under the circumstances, as has happened in this case. 16. In view of the facts and reasoning stated above, conviction of the appellant/accused is upheld. However, keeping in view a fact that FIR was recorded in the year 1987, his trial was concluded in the month of August, 1988 and since thereafter, appeal is pending in this Court and due to this appellant/accused might had suffered mental harassment and financially also, he was a person of 26 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence he belongs to a poor section of the society, his sentence is reduced from 10 years to 7 years, how-ever, punishment of fine is dismissed. With the above mentioned modifications, appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed with modification in sentence.