Judgment BRAJ NAN DAN PRASAD SINGH, J. 1. Though the prosecution was launched initially against five persons including the appellant, his parents and other family members, the police on conclusion of investigation, laid chargesheet against appellant alone under Sections 306/201 of the Indian Penal Code. The Police was set in motion on behest of Doman Chaudhary (PW. 3), father of the deceased Sangeeta Devi, with accusation that at the time of marriage of Sangeeta Devi with the appellant, dowry in accordance with the financial status was given to her in-laws. Sangeeta remained for about a month in her marital house after marriage. Thereafter, she came to her parents house and when she was taken to her in-laws house, sometimes in the month of October, 1996, the father-in-law of Sangeeta conveyed desire of his family members for provisions of a she-buffalo and a two wheeler, else it would be extremely difficult for Sangeeta to remain in in-laws house. All entreaties were made before father-in-law of Sangeeta, in view of financial constrains of the family. It was only after ten days, when Sangeeta had gone to her in-laws house, that Doman Chaudhary visited her in-laws house when she narrating her woes stated about maltreatment and torture meted out to her by them for his failure to make provision of sufficient dowry to them. This time too he had made all entreaties before the in-laws. It was alleged that when brother of Sangeeta happened to go to meet her, Sangeeta had again reiterated her woes before him about in- laws including her husband assaulting her for non-receipt of dowry from her parents, and had also cautioned her for the future. Even though she-buffalo was given to them thereafter, but that did not satisfy them who had been yet insisting for a two wheeler and had been torturing Sangeeta constantly. Though Sangeeta was blessed also with a child, the tragic news about her unnatural death, and her newly born child came to father through one Hira Paswan on 6th May, 1999. It was alleged that both Sangeeta and her newly born child had been strangulated and were hurriedly cremated. When Shiv Kumar Chaudhary, brother of the deceased, and also other villagers visited village Larsa, where Sangeeta was married, the in-laws were found absconding, having got the house locked. The villagers too had reiterated those informations which were conveyed to him by Hira Paswan. When Shiv Kumar Chaudhary, brother of the deceased, and also other villagers visited village Larsa, where Sangeeta was married, the in-laws were found absconding, having got the house locked. The villagers too had reiterated those informations which were conveyed to him by Hira Paswan. In the process of collection of evidences, the Police Officer visited the place of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses, and on conclusion of investigation laid chargesheet before the Court against appellant alone, not sending rest, to be put on trial. The Court in seisin of the proceeding, framed charges under Sections 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. In the eventual trial, while State examined five witnesses, the defence too examined three witnesses including Hira Paswan. 2. The defence of the appellant was that as newly born child of Sangeeta had dropped in a well where Sangeeta was preparing cow dung cake, she too died in the well when she jumped to save her child. However, the trial Judge while negativing the defence version, accepted the prosecution case and recorded finding of guilt under Sections 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant, and while for the first count, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, for the second count the sentence awarded was for two years imprisonment with a rider that both sentences shall run concurrently. 3. Referring to narrations made by witnesses at trial, Sri Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant, primarily focused his argument of two premises. Firstly, it was argued that though the prosecution was launched against as many as five persons, the Police had laid chargesheet against appellant alone exonerating the rest from the rigour of trial and this ground alone was eloquent to suggest that the accusation attributed to majority of persons was found untrue even during investigation, and hence there was no assurance that the accusation attributed to the appellant was not untrue. However, on commencement of trial and also on its conclusion, the finding recorded by the Police during investigation was of little significance. However, on commencement of trial and also on its conclusion, the finding recorded by the Police during investigation was of little significance. Other limb of argument was that it is no longer res Integra, crystalised by catena of decisions of Courts that mere unnatural death of a bride in her in-laws house would not be sole ground so as to invoke provision of Section 304B of the Indian Penal code, as there must be a perceptible nexus between her death and dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her, and if interval elapsed between infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death was wide enough, inference can well be drawn that in all probabilities the death would not have been the immediate cause of her death. The last though feeble argument was that since appellant had served incarceration almost for more than four years, on this ground, quantum of sentence be reduced, in case finding of guilt recorded by Courtabelow is upheld. 4. Though narrations made by prosecution witnesses have been fairly spelt out in the judgment of the Court below, a brief resume of them can be discussed with all brevity to appreciate the contentions raised. From the evidence of Shyam Pari Devi, PW 1, who happens to be none else but mother of the deceased Sangeeta, it appears that though she could provide a she-buffalo to the in-laws of Sangeeta after her marriage, the demand for provision of a two wheeler could not be fulfilled, and it was only after two or three months of her going to her in-laws house, that she was strangulated by the in-laws who also cremated the dead body hurriedly. The mother alleges that the in-laws took Sangeeta to their house after marriage, only when they were provided with a she-buf-. falo, However, from the evidence of mother nothing transpires about the period when Sangeeta was tortured by the in-laws. The evidence of Shiv Kumar Chaudhary, PW 2, who happens to be brother of the deceased, was that though Sangeeta was married sometimes in June, 1993 with the appellant, she came to her parents house in February, 1996 and remained for some time there. Then the in-laws began insisting for dowry and on his failure to make provision of sufficient dowry to them, they also threatened to make life of Sangeeta in their house, uncomfortable. Then the in-laws began insisting for dowry and on his failure to make provision of sufficient dowry to them, they also threatened to make life of Sangeeta in their house, uncomfortable. They, however, took Sangeeta to their house, pursuant to which he visited her house in the year 1998 when she complained to him about demand of dowry made by the in-laws, and the inlaws including the appellant assaulting her on that count. The worried father made available to them a she-buffallo, and again when he visited her house in early 1999, they had been insisting for a two wheeler, as by that time he was in job and was financially affluent to make its provision to them. When he was coming from Sangeetas house, she had again expressed her woes about assault on her by the in-laws and it was only on 6th May, 1999 that he received tragic news of unnatural death of Sangeeta in her house. When he along with some villagers visited village Larsa, the in-laws were found absconding having locked the house. The villagers told him that the dead body had been cremated in night itself. When attention of this witness was drawn by the defence to some assertion made by him, he acknowledged to have not made such statement before the Police during investigation. Yet there is evidence of Doman Chaudhary, PW 3, father of the deceased who says that Sangeeta remained in her in-laws house after marriage for about two and half/three years, and when he had gone to Sangeetas house to bring her back in his house, the in-laws had made demand for a she-baffalo and a two-wheeler. However, Sangeeta came and remained for a month with him when she was complaining about torture mated out to her. Again Sangeeta was taken to village Larsa with a threat that in case demands of in-laws were not fulfilled, it would be difficult for Sangeeta to remain there. Even when supply of a she-buffalo had been made, they had been insisting for a two wheeler. When Shiv Kumar Chaudhary had visited village Larsa, he too had stated all these facts before him. 5. Even when supply of a she-buffalo had been made, they had been insisting for a two wheeler. When Shiv Kumar Chaudhary had visited village Larsa, he too had stated all these facts before him. 5. The law recognizes that to invoke the mischief of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, there must be perceptible nexus between death of the bride and dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her, and the interval elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death must not be too wide so as to stretch the period unduly wide. Though the prosecution witnesses had been stating about in-laws including appellant insisting for provision of two wheeler and also a cattle, to me it appears that this demand was made by the in-laws when Sangeeta was taken to her matrimonial house by the inlaws two or three months preceding her death and at that time the parents had made provision of a cattle. 6. In this context, the evidence of Shyam Pari Devi, PW 1, mother of the deceased, can be taken notice of who alleges that pursuant to demands made by the in-laws Sangeeta was taken to in- laws house only when demands were met and shortly after 2/3 months, when Sangeeta went to her in-laws house, she was strangulated. Similar had been the evidence of Shiv Kumar Chaudhary, PW 2, also who happened to be brother of the deceased and from his evidence it would appear that demands were made for the first time at the time of second marriage in the year 1996 when due to financial constraints the demands could not be met. When he visited house Of Sangeeta in the year 1998, she had complained to him about demands made by the in-laws and also torture meted out to her by them. Again in the year 1999 after their demand for a cattle was met, when he visited Sangeetas house, the inlaws had been insisting on him for provision of a two wheeler, as by that time he was in job. Sangeeta too had stated her woes before him about torture meted out to her by the in-laws and shortly thereafter in the month of May, 1999, he came to know about killing of Sangeeta in the in-laws house. 7. Sangeeta too had stated her woes before him about torture meted out to her by the in-laws and shortly thereafter in the month of May, 1999, he came to know about killing of Sangeeta in the in-laws house. 7. Doman Chaudhary, PW 3, too who happened to be father of the deceased, states about demand made by the in-laws at the time of second marriage also, when he had made all entreaties before them. In the year 1999 when Sangeeta was taken to her matrimonial house, demands were repeated by them and at that time he had made provision of a cattle. When Shiv Kumar Chaudhary visited house of Sangeeta in the year 1999 he too stated about all these facts to him. Sanyukta Devi, PW 4, as has been noticed, states that when Sangeeta came to her parentss house shortly aifter birth of a child in the year 1999, she had been complaining about repeated demands made by the in-laws and torture inflicted on her. After Sangeeta was blessed with a child in in-laws house, she came to her parents house when she remained there only for two months and shortly after she went to her in-laws house, the parents had received tragic news of killing of Sangeeta. She was quite emphatic in her assertion that Sangeeta had been complaining about torture meted out to her by the in-laws whenever she came to her parents house either preceding birth of the child or even when she had been blessed with a child and I must say that if narration made by this witness was to be given any significance that prominently signifies the period of two or three months of torture inflicted on her preceding her death when persistent demands for dowry were being made from the bride after marriage or from his parents, it would constitute to be in connection with the marriage and it would be a case of demand of dowry within the meaning of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. It is not always necessary that there be any agreement for dowry. In the instant case, the evidences of the prosecution witnesses are quite clear that after few days of the marriage, the demands continued to be made and torture inflicted on the deceased. It is not always necessary that there be any agreement for dowry. In the instant case, the evidences of the prosecution witnesses are quite clear that after few days of the marriage, the demands continued to be made and torture inflicted on the deceased. The evidence, in my view, qualifies to be the demand of dowry in connection with the marriage and in the circumstances of the case, it constitutes to be a case falling within the mischief of Section 2 of 1961 Act and Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, and that apart, the presumption as envisaged under Section 113B of the Evidence Act can also be drawn. 8. Though two out of three witnesses examined by the defence had been stating about cordial relation between the spouse and also Sangeeta having died when she jumped in well to save her sinking son who had dropped in the well, it had been simply set up by defence to counter the allegations attributed to the appellant. That apart, these witnesses had also acknowledged that Sangeetas parents had not been informed by her in-laws about her death, though it was unnatural. Narration made by prosecution witnesses including that of Sanyukta Devi, PW 4, would manifestly suggest that Sangeeta had complained to her parents for torture and assault for dowry related demand about two or three months preceding her death when she had visited her parents house. True it is that to invoke mischief of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code it must be shown that the cruelty for dowry related demand had been inflicted on the deceased son before her death, the said phrase is an elastic expression, as has been said by the Apex Court, and the proximity of period had neither been defined in the Statute nor it was feasible to do so. However, when interval elapsed between infliction of such harassment or cruelty, and her death was wide, the Court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the dowry, would not have been the immediate cause of her death, and hence much will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether the said interval in a particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept "soon before her death". There has been evidence on the record that Sangeeta was tortured in in-laws house for insufficiency of dowry and she had reported matter to her parents. Even when she came to her parentss house after birth of a child, 3/4 months earlier to her death, she had complained about assault made on her by the in-laws including the appellant for insufficiency of dowry. This suggests proximity between her death and the period of torture and also there being perceptible nexus between her death and dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her, and the interval elapsed between infliction of harassment or cruelty and her death cannot be said to be unduly wide so as to exclude the accusation beyond the purview of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Yet there are other circumstances which too cannot be lost sight of. When parents visited village Larsa on getting news of death of Sangeeta, the house was found locked and in-laws had been absconding. This circumstance too operates adverse to the defence. In case of death of the bride and that too under unnatural circumstances, it was imperative on part of the appellant to inform her parents before the dead body was cremated, but contrary to that they absconded from the house and got the dead body hurriedly cremated. Though there had been good evidence to invoke provisions of Section 304B and also Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code about death of Sangeeta Devi in unnatural circumstances in her in-laws house within statutory period, for torture arising from dowry related demand, there has been no good evidence to make in-laws or appellant answerable for killing of newly born child. The finding recorded by the Court below, in my opinion, hence did not merit interference. 10. In the result, the appeal being meritless is accordingly dismissed.