Judgment 1. The prosecution story has been unfolded by complainant, Baldeva, who has stated before the police, that on Feb. 9, 1987 his daughter, Darshana, was married about 5 years back to appellant Baljeet. He spent about Rs. 30,000.00 on the marriage. After about 1 and 11/2 months of the marriage, Darshana came back to her parents house and told them that the appellants were not happy with the dowry given. Some months later, Darshana narrated her tale of woe again to her parents that, under the influence of liquor, appellant No. 1 mal-treated her and beat her for not bringing enough dowry. After about one year of the marriage, appellant Baljeet demanded a scooter. 2. About six months prior to the occurrence, Darshanas brother Rohtash went to meet her. He saw that the mouth of his sister Darshana was swollen and there was injury on her face. He brought his sister back to her parents house. 3. Appellant Baljeet came to the house of the complainant. He felt regretful. He further demanded Rs. 10,000.00 so that appellant Baljeets brother could get a job. The complainant refused and said that he was not in a position to pay this amount. 4. On 22/01/1987, appellant Baljeet along with some other persons, came to the house of the complainant and pleaded that Darshana be sent with them. He promised to keep her happy. Darshana was told by the complainant and her mother that she should go along with appellant Baljeet. Darshana started weeping and said that they would kill her. 5. On Feb. 8, 1987, Dilbagh, nephew of the complainant, came to know that Darshana had died by taking insecticides pills. He further came to know that on Feb. 6, 1987, Darshana was given beating. Her dead body was disposed of in the night. He informed the complainant about the death of Darshana. The complainant reported the matter to the police. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has laid much stress that the marriage of appellant Baljeet and Darshana deceased took place on 5/05/1978, i.e. about 11 years prior to the occurrence and thus, the case does not fall within the ambit of dowry death, as given in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has laid much stress that the marriage of appellant Baljeet and Darshana deceased took place on 5/05/1978, i.e. about 11 years prior to the occurrence and thus, the case does not fall within the ambit of dowry death, as given in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel has further drawn my attention to the statements of complainant, Baldeva (PW 4) and mother of the deceased, Smt. Sunehri (PW 5), wherein the complainant has stated that the date of marriage has been written in a Bhai, which has not been produced. He further, contended that prosecution was bound to produce this Bahi to prove that the marriage of appellant No. 1 and deceased had taken place within 7 years of the occurrence, so that the offence could fall within the ambit of dowry death. Learned counsel has further laid stress that the death of Darshana is a natural death, as deceased was not keeping good health. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has further drawn my attention to the site plan, Exhibit PR. He has laid a lot of stress, that the site plan was made on the asking of complainant, Baldeva (PW 4). PW 2 Nand Lal, Draftsman, in his statement, has stated that complainant Baldeva (PW 4) was present when the site plan was prepared. It is strange as to how Baldeva had come to know, where the cot was laying and where the body was lying, thus, meaning thereby, that at the time of death of Darshana and at the time of cremation, complainant Baldeva (PW 4) was present. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has further stated that the occurrence had taken place on Feb. 6, 1987 and the formal First Information Report, Exhibit PG, was registered on Feb. 14, 1987 after a delay of 8 days. In this intervening period, complainant was insisting that appellant should be married to the younger insisting that appellant should be married to the younger sister of deceased Darshana. On the appellants refusing, it was then the First Information Report was lodged. 9. Learned counsel for the State has stated that the offence falls within the ambit of dowry death as death has taken place within 7 years. On the appellants refusing, it was then the First Information Report was lodged. 9. Learned counsel for the State has stated that the offence falls within the ambit of dowry death as death has taken place within 7 years. The appellants have specifically taken this plea that the death did not take place within 7 years, but no proof has come forward to prove this aspect. She has further stated that if it was a natural death due to illness, then it was incumbent upon the appellants to produce the medical certificate or at least to produce the doctor, who was treating her, to show that she was seriously ill. 10. Learned counsel for the State has further argued that site plan, Exhibit PR, was prepared on the asking of Baldeva, complainant. By that time when the site plan was made, he came to know, where the dead body was lying and where the cot was lying i.e., Points "A" and "B". 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent, perused the record and gone through the judgment of the learned trial Court. 12. In their testimony before the Court it has been stated by complainant Baldeva (PW 4) and Smt. Sunehri (PW 5), mother of deceased, that marriage had taken place within 5 to 5 11/2 years of the occurrence. They have stated that Bhai has been maintained. As a specific plea was taken by the appellants that the marriage had taken place 11 years prior to the occurrence, there was a duty cast upon the appellants to prove this aspect of their assertion. Cards must have been printed and sent for the marriage. One cannot overlook this aspect that, appellant Baljeet is a Government servant, but no evidence has come forward from the side of the appellants to prove that the marriage of appellant No. 1 and deceased had taken place more than 7 years before the occurrence. The learned trial Court has rightly observed, that at the time of marriage, appellant Baljeet would have taken leave or should have brought forward some other proof, which would be with the departmental authorities that he took leave for his marriage. 13. The learned trial Court has rightly observed, that at the time of marriage, appellant Baljeet would have taken leave or should have brought forward some other proof, which would be with the departmental authorities that he took leave for his marriage. 13. A lot of stress has been laid by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased died as a result of natural death, as she was suffering from a serious illness. DW 1 Dhup Singh has stated in his testimony that the deceased was getting treatment from one Dr. Ram Dhari. No medical certificate has been put on record, not was any effort made to bring Ram Dhari into the witness box, to prove that Darshana, deceased as suffering from some serious illness and was not keeping good health. Doctors testimony would have gone a long way in convincing the Court that she was not keeping good health. 14. Site plan, Exhibit PR, was prepared on the asking of Baldeva (complainant). This was prepared after 1-1 1/2 months delay after the death of Darshana . By this time, Baldeva must have gathered information that the dead body of Darshana was lying at Mark "B" on the ground floor, where the dead body was kept to be taken for performance of her last rites. He also had the information of Mark A on the first floor, where the cot was lying and on the cot, was the dead body of Darshana. 15. After going through the statements of Baldeva, complainant (PW 4) and Smt. Sunehri (PW 5), it comes out that there was a constant demand of dowry by the appellants and also mal-treatment and mistreatment because of the demand of dowry, which was not being met by the complainant. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of Reguri Sampath Reddy V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1996 0 CrLJ 1528. In the judgment cited, the Hon ble Court has held that the demand of cash and other articles allegedly made after marriage, there is nothing on record to assume that it was agreed to be given in connection with marriage. This cannot be termed as dowry. It has been further held that the demand of money and other articles do not constitute dowry in legal and technical sense of the term. This cannot be termed as dowry. It has been further held that the demand of money and other articles do not constitute dowry in legal and technical sense of the term. This judgment does not apply to the facts of the case in hand. In the case in hand, there was nothing agreed, but the demand of dowry was coming constantly after marriage. In defining the word dowry, technicalities cannot be taken into consideration. In the instant case as already stated above, the demand of dowry was constant and death had taken place because of the demand. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants has further drawn my attention to a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Sham Lal V/s. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 1873, wherein their Lordships of the Apex Court have held that evidence by prosecution was only of the fact that there was a dispute between the parties regarding dowry and that wife was sent back to her parents home and was again taken back to nuptial home after Panchayat intervened. These events took place 10 to 15 days prior to the occurrence. As there was no evidence that she was treated with cruelty or harassed with demand for dowry during the period between her taking back to her husbands home and her tragic end, presumption for dowry death cannot be raised. This judgment also does not apply to the case in hand. In the case in hand, demand for dowry was being regularly made by the appellants. It has come in the testimony of Baldeva, complainant (PW 4) and Smt. Sunehri (PW 5) that when Darshana deceased was being sent for the last time to her in-laws house, she pleaded to her parents that they would put her to death. It was at that time also that the appellants made a demand of money. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants has further relied upon a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Rahua V/s. State of Haryana, 1999 3 RCriR 726, wherein it was been held that the prosecution failed to prove that bride died under abnormal circumstances. This citation does not apply to the facts of the case in hand. As going by the evidence, which has come on record, deceased Darshana died under abnormal circumstances. This citation does not apply to the facts of the case in hand. As going by the evidence, which has come on record, deceased Darshana died under abnormal circumstances. Not only that, she died under abnormal circumstances, but the appellants were in a hurry to destroy the evidence i.e. her dead body, and performed her last rites in the night. If it was a natural death, they should have waited. There was no need for them to do everything in a hurry and to perform the last rites in the night. 19. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment dated 15/07/1988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. Appeal is dismissed.