Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 473 (PNJ)

Sunil v. State of Haryana

2003-03-31

R.L.ANAND, VARENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - Sunil son of Om Parkash (husband of Smt. Anita, deceased) has filed the present Criminal appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and order dated 27.11.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, who held the appellant guilty for the commission of offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. 2. It may be mentioned here that in the trial Court along with the appellant, his parents Om Parkash and Smt. Kela were also tried for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, but vide impugned judgment those had been acquitted. 3. Sunil and his parents were chargesheeted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that on 30.5.1994 in the area of village Rohna Smt. Anita daughter of Hoshiar Singh, resident of village Sankhol died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage and that soon before her death appellant Sunil being the husband along with his parents subjected her to harassment/cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Statement Ex. PB in this case was made by Manoj Kumar son of Hoshiar Singh resident of village Sankhol, real brother of the deceased, and this statement was so made before ASI Ram Chander of Police Station, Kharkhoda and it has been stated by the complainant that he is a resident of village Sankhol and is a student of B.A.Part-III. He has three brothers and two sisters. The name of his elder sister is Asha while the name of his younger sister is Anita who was aged about 22 years at the time of her marriage. She was married with Sunil appellant resident of Rohna about 6/7 months before her death as per the prevalent customs. Dowry was also given to her and a list of those dowry articles was prepared which was in his possession. The complainant alleged that his brother-in-law Sunil appellant had earlier purchased a car. Anita deceased used to tell her mother and complainant off and on that her husband Sunil had raised a demand for money and he pressurised her to arrange the money from the house of her parents. The complainant alleged that his brother-in-law Sunil appellant had earlier purchased a car. Anita deceased used to tell her mother and complainant off and on that her husband Sunil had raised a demand for money and he pressurised her to arrange the money from the house of her parents. Consequently, he and his mother brought this matter to the notice of Hoshiar Singh, father of the deceased, who was employed somewhere. The deceased even called her father and the complainant in village Rohna on the excuse of her illness. There also the deceased Anita told to the complainant that her husband had raised a demand for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and that he had been harassing her continuously. Upon this the complainant and his father brought Anita to village Sankhol. After one or two days Sunil come to village Santokh in order to take his wife Anita. He again made a demand of money from the complainant in the presence of his mother. They told to the appellant that they are poor persons, and they are unable to meet this demand of money. Thereafter the appellant took Anita with him to his house. On 31.5.1994 the complainant came to know that his sister Anita had been murdered on the previous day and her dead body had been set on fire for not arranging the desired amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Besides Sunil, other members of his family are also party to the crime. When the complainant was proceeding to the police station, he met the police party headed by ASI Ram Chander at Thana Chowk, Kharkhoda where it was present in connection with patrolling. Consequently, Manoj Kumar made statement Ex. PB. It was read over and explained to him and he signed the same in token of correctness. Thereafter the Thanedar made endorsement underneath the said statement Ex. PB and it was sent to the police station for registration of a case under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of which formal FIR No. 112 of 1994 was registered. 5. PW6 ASI Ram Chander took up the investigation of this case and after recording the FIR he went to village Rohna where the dead body of Anita was present in the house of the appellant. Consequently, he prepared inquest proceedings Ex. 5. PW6 ASI Ram Chander took up the investigation of this case and after recording the FIR he went to village Rohna where the dead body of Anita was present in the house of the appellant. Consequently, he prepared inquest proceedings Ex. PD and on the same day he dispatched the dead body for post mortem examination through Constable Om Parkash along with request Ex. PE. He also prepared rough site plan. He lifted a pair of Chappals vide memo Ex. PG. The appellant and his parents were arrested on 11.5.1994. 6. PW7 Dr. D.N. Tehlan on 31.5.1994 at 12.15 P.M. conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Anita along with Dr. Shanti Gupta and found that the dead body had almost 100% burns which were post-mortem in nature. According to the doctor the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of smothering which was ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The time that elapsed between the injuries and death was a few minutes and between the death and post mortem was 24 hours. Rigor mortis was present in all the four limbs. Tongue was protruding between the teeth. Ex. PH is the correct carbon copy of the post mortem report. After conducting the post mortem examination, the stitched dead body of Anita was handed over to the police along with copy of the post mortem report and the inquest papers. 7. On completion of the investigation of the case the appellant and his parents were challaned in the court of Area Magistrate at Sonepat who supplied the copies of the documents as required under the law and vide commitment order dated 8.9.1994 committed the accused to the Court of Session to face trial under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Vide orders dated 10.10.1994 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat framed charge under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and his parents. The charge was read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. 9. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined PW1 Mohinder Singh who simply stated that on 28.6.1994 on police request he inspected the spot and prepared scaled site plan Ex. PA depicting the place of incident correctly according to the situation. 9. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined PW1 Mohinder Singh who simply stated that on 28.6.1994 on police request he inspected the spot and prepared scaled site plan Ex. PA depicting the place of incident correctly according to the situation. PW2 is Manoj Kumar complainant who has supported his case as contained in his statement Ex. PB. The statement of PW2 is further corroborated by Smt. Murti Devi, mother of the deceased and wife of Hoshiar Singh who appeared as PW3. PW4 Jai Singh stated that on 31.5.1994 at about 9.30 p.m. when he was posted in Police Station, Kharkhoda as MHC he received statement Ex. PB of Manoj Kumar with endorsement Ex. PB/1 made by ASI Ram Chander and on the basis of that statement he formally recorded FIR No. 112 under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code vide Ex. PB/2. He further deposed that on the same day a plastic can and a pair of Chappals were deposited with him by ASI Ram Chander. PW5 is Constable Satwant Singh who deposed that on the night intervening 31st of May and 1st of June, 1994 he was on general duty to Police Station Kharkhoda and on that day he was handed over a copy of the FIR at about 9.45 p.m. and he delivered the same at the residence of the Area Magistrate at 12.30 a.m. on 1.6/.1994. PW6 is ASI Ram Chander, the Investigating Officer of this case. The prosecution gave up PWs Dhara Chowidar, Chander Bhan, Gopi Ram and Rajinder Singh on the plea that these witnesses have been won over by the accused, while Hoshiar Singh, constable Om Parkash and SI Pradhan Singh were given up as unnecessary. PW7 is Dr. R.N. Tehlan who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Anita along with Dr. Shanti Gupta. Thereafter the prosecution closed its case. 10. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to them. Accused denied those circumstances and the plea of Sunil is as follows :- "It is a false case. I am innocent. I do not know as to why the witnesses are deposing against us and as to why they had implicated us in this case. On the date of death of Anita I was in Delhi. Accused denied those circumstances and the plea of Sunil is as follows :- "It is a false case. I am innocent. I do not know as to why the witnesses are deposing against us and as to why they had implicated us in this case. On the date of death of Anita I was in Delhi. Anita used to remain ill. We had obtained treatment for her in Kharkhoda also and then my father- in-law had taken her by saying that he was to obtain treatment for her. Then I was called by him on 29.5.1994 and asked to take Anita as her condition was critical. My father-in-law had got the child aborted on account of which her condition had worsened. She remained properly with me in the night and then cooked food for me in the morning. Thereafter, I went to Delhi and come to know later on that she had ended her life by setting herself to fire. When I had expressed my disinclination to take Anita with me on 29th of May on account of her bad condition then Manoj Kumar PW had threatened that I should take her and otherwise it will not be proper for us." 11. We need not reproduce the pleas taken by Om Parkash and Kela, the parents of Sunil appellant as they have been acquitted by the trial Court and there is no State appeal against them. 12. When called upon to enter into defence, accused did not lead any oral evidence. 13. The learned trial Court believed the storey of the prosecution in part and appellant Sunil was convicted and sentenced in the manner as stated above. It may also be mentioned here that in the impugned judgment the learned Addl. Sessions Judge at one point of time came to the conclusion that in fact it was a case of murder, but as the accused have not been charge sheeted for that offence, therefore, he is recording the conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. But in the matter of sentence the learned trial Court did not show any leniency as is evident from the order of sentence and the maximum sentence contemplated under Section 304-B was awarded to the appellant. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the present appeal by Sunil. 14. We have heard Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the present appeal by Sunil. 14. We have heard Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Sanjay Vashist, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. 15. First of all, we would like to refer to the statements of Manoj Kumar and his mother Murti Devi, who appeared as PW2 and PW3, respectively. As per Manoj, Anita deceased was his sister and she was married with appellant Sunil on 24.11.1993. It is further stated by the complainant that Sunil and his parents used to make a demand of money from his sister after the marriage and Anita used to tell this fact to him and his parents. Manoj also deposed that the appellant had taken a car on loan and he also needed money for payment of loan instalments. On 24.5.1994 Anita called him and his father to village Rohna under the pretext of illness and told them that the appellant and his parents were demanding a cash amount of Rs. 20,000/- from her and she is being harassed in that connection. Thereafter the complainant and his father brought Anita to village Sankhol. It is further stated by Manoj that on 29.5.1994 the appellant came to village Sankhol and he further reiterated his demand of Rs. 20,000/- in their house. They could not meet that demand. However, Anita was sent along with her husband. On 20.5.1994 he came to know that Anita had been murdered by setting her on fire. On 31.5.1994 he lodged FIR by making statement Ex. PB before the police at 9.30 p.m. when the police met him in the chowk. 16. The aforesaid statement of Manoj has been corroborated by PW3 Smt. Murti Devi, who firstly deposed about the marriage of her daughter with Sunil in the month of November, 1993 and then stated that the appellant and his parents had been raising a demand of cash amount of Rs. 20,000/- from her daughter who told the same thing to her. She further stated that rest of the harassment caused to Anita is known to her son Manoj as she used to tell her grievances before him. It has also come in her statement that on 24.5.1994 her son and husband went to the house of the appellant as they were called under the pretext of illness. She further stated that rest of the harassment caused to Anita is known to her son Manoj as she used to tell her grievances before him. It has also come in her statement that on 24.5.1994 her son and husband went to the house of the appellant as they were called under the pretext of illness. Anita came back with them and at that time also she told that the appellant and his parents were demanding Rs. 20,000/- from her and they given her beating. On 29.5.1994 the appellant came to her house and on that day also be made a demand of money. The appellant was made to understand and Anita was sent along with him. On 30.5.1994 her daughter was murdered and she came to know about this fact on the same day. She further deposed that Anita was set on fire by the appellant and his parents. The statements of both these witnesses have been corroborated by the medical evidence of PW7 Dr. R.N. Tehlan, who deposed that the dead body was having 100% burns which were post-mortem in nature and the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of smothering which was ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. Meaning thereby that the cause of death was on account of asphyxia as a result of smothering and thereafter an effort was made by the accused to show as if it was a case of suicide. In this context the observation of the trial Court was not correct that though it was a case of murder yet he is recording the conviction under Section 304-B because no charge under Section 302 has been framed. The learned trial Court could amend the charge or add the charge of murder in the alternative. Be that as it may, we have now to examine whether there is enough evidence on the record to suggest and prove that appellant sunil is guilty for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court could amend the charge or add the charge of murder in the alternative. Be that as it may, we have now to examine whether there is enough evidence on the record to suggest and prove that appellant sunil is guilty for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304-B lays down as follows :- "304-B. 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 purposes 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." 17. The reading of above section would show that three ingredients are supposed to be proved by the prosecution : (1) That the death of the woman has been caused by any burn or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances. (2) That the death had taken place within seven years of her marriage. (3) The prosecution would also show that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Along with this section we are inclined to refer to Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, which 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". As per the Explanation added to Section 113B, for the purpose of this Section "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act have to be read together in order to determine whether the case of the prosecution is covered under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 18. It is proved on the record and is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the marriage of Anita took place on 24.11.1993 with Sunil appellant and the date of death of Anita is 30.5.1994, just within six months of her marriage and she died in the house of her in-laws. Even the statements of PW2 Manoj Kumar and his mother PW3 Smt. Murti Devi conclusively establish that the marriage of Anita took place on 24.11.1993 and they came to know about the death of Anita on 30.5.1994. 19. The second ingredient is that the deceased died under unnatural circumstances. There are two aspects of this case for discussion under this point : (1) The death in this case had taken place in the house of appellant Sunil. (2) The FIR had been lodged by Manoj Kumar, who is not an eye witness of this case. In fact, neither he nor his parents are the eye witness of this case. In the FIR the case set up by the complainant is that he came to know on 31.5.1994 that her sister had been murdered on the previous day, i.e. on 30.5.1994 and then set on fire for not arranging the desired amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Whether the death had taken place by way of strangulation or whether it had taken place on account of burning, in both these eventualities the death had taken place otherwise than under normal circumstances. As per the opinion of PW7 Dr. R.N. Tehlan, the burn injuries are post-mortem while the strangulation act is ante-mortem. If all the concession is given to the appellant that burns are post-mortem, then it is a case of strangulation. Again, we have to see whether it is a strangulation on account of suicide or it is strangulation done by the appellant or his relations. R.N. Tehlan, the burn injuries are post-mortem while the strangulation act is ante-mortem. If all the concession is given to the appellant that burns are post-mortem, then it is a case of strangulation. Again, we have to see whether it is a strangulation on account of suicide or it is strangulation done by the appellant or his relations. If it is an act of strangulation, it will amount to murder and the motive for the murder would be considered as demand of money. If it is a case of suicide then that act on the part of the deceased has to be looked into with reference to the demand of dowry with which the deceased was subjected to maltreatment and cruelty. Be that as it may, even in the case of strangulation, homicide strangulation or suicide strangulation, still the death would be otherwise than normal circumstances. Therefore, the second ingredient for the offence under Section 304-B is also proved. 20. The third ingredient on which there was a debate between the learned Senior counsel for the appellant and the learned Deputy Advocate General is whether soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant for or in connection with the demand of dowry. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that when the inquest proceedings were prepared by the Thanedar, the statement of Hoshiar Singh, father of the deceased, was recorded and in that statement he has nowhere alleged that this daughter was ever subjected to maltreatment by the appellant or by his parents in connection with the demand of dowry. The counsel submitted that even Manoj Kumar while appearing as PW2 has admitted that he, his father and brother went to the village of the accused on 30.5.1994 itself and they saw the dead body of Anita. The learned counsel wanted to built an argument on the premises that even on 30.5.1994 there was no story of the prosecution to say that the deceased was subjected to maltreatment or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. Secondly, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Anita deceased had read up to 11th standard and she had been writing letters to her parents. Secondly, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Anita deceased had read up to 11th standard and she had been writing letters to her parents. Even Manoj Kumar while appearing as PW2 has admitted in cross-examination that the deceased had written letter to her parents but in that letter she did not narrate her grievance against the accused. The learned counsel wanted to show from these two pieces of evidence that the story of the prosecution that deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry or the alleged demand of dowry of Rs. 20,000/- is in fact an after thought made on 31.5.1994 by Manoj Kumar who has been created as a complainant because Hoshiar Singh could not become the complainant on account of his earlier statement made before ASI Ram Chander in the inquest report. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that in view of the direct evidence of Manoj Kumar and that of Smt. Murti Devi, PW2 and PW3, respectively, it stands proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death and thus the third ingredient also stands proved. 21. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and in our opinion there is no merit in the contentions raised by Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the appellant. First of all, we may say that we are dealing with the situation as to whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry or not soon before her death. In such situation we have to see many things. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the death of Anita had taken place within six months of her marriage. A young girl, whether she hails from a poor family or backward family or a high family, has some ambitions and hopes while going to the house of her in-laws. The very fact that Anita died inside the house of her in-laws within six months of her marriage raises a reasonable suspicion that everything was not well qua the deceased in the house of the appellant. Secondly, when a young girl is not happy in the house of her in-laws, she would naturally complain to her brothers, sisters, parents and other close relatives. She will repose confidence in them. Secondly, when a young girl is not happy in the house of her in-laws, she would naturally complain to her brothers, sisters, parents and other close relatives. She will repose confidence in them. She would tell the tale of her woes, miseries and she would confide in her brothers, brothers wives, sisters and parents. Therefore, we have to give reliance to the statements of Manoj Kumar and Smt. Murti Devi and both of them have stated with one voice that earlier the appellant had purchased a car on instalment basis and in order to clear the instalments he made a demand of Rs. 20,000/-. The matter was brought to the notice of the complainant and his family members. So much so the deceased called them to her matrimonial house on the pretext of her illness. The deceased again repeated the allegation of demand of money. So much so the deceased was taken to the house of her parents. Appellant Sunil went to the house of his in-laws and repeated the demand and all this had taken place on 29.5.1994 just one day before the death of Anita. 22. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements of Manoj Kumar and his mother Murti Devi with regard to the statement of Hoshiar Singh recorded in the inquest report. We all know the importance of such statement. The object of conducting of proceedings under Section 174 Criminal Procedure Code has been explained by the Honble Supreme Court in Podda Narayana and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1252. Their Lordships had held that the scope of the proceedings under Section 174 Criminal Procedure Code is very limited. The details of overt acts in the inquest report are not necessary. It stands observed in para 11 of the judgment as follows :- "The proceedings under Section 174 have a very limited scope. The object of the proceedings is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of the death, the question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under Section 174. Neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the police to mention those details in the inquest report. It is therefore not necessary to enter all the details of the overt acts in the inquest report. Their omission is not sufficient to put the prosecution out of Court." When the inquest report is prepared by the Thanedar even in the presence of the relatives of the deceased, at that time we have seen that the relatives are under shock. By the side of the dead body very little enquiries are made by the Thanedar to ascertain the cause of death of the deceased. The Thanedar generally tries to incorporate the contents of the FIR by way of brief facts and tries to record the statement of one or two witnesses including the relations for the purpose of identification of the dead body and their thumb impression/signatures are obtained on the report by way of attestation. Exactly this happened in the present case. If we read the statement of Hoshiar Singh in the inquest proceedings, it is stated by him that he has identified the dead body of his daughter and in his presence the police has taken into possession one empty plastic can of kerosene of 5 Ltr. capacity, a box and one burnt nylon Chappal, etc. Hoshiar Singh was never interrogated especially about the cause of death of his daughter. As the statement of Manoj Kumar and his mother Murti Devi had never been recorded nor they were questioned on the point of motive, therefore, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the third ingredient in this case is not established or proved. 23. The learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that Hoshiar Singh has been given up by the prosecution for the apparent reason that had he appeared in the witness-box, he would be in a difficulty. This submission is not acceptable to the Court. There was hardly anything for the defence with which Hoshiar Singh could be confronted with his previous statement recorded in the inquest proceedings. He has exonerated the appellant Sunil in his statement recorded in the inquest proceedings. This submission is not acceptable to the Court. There was hardly anything for the defence with which Hoshiar Singh could be confronted with his previous statement recorded in the inquest proceedings. He has exonerated the appellant Sunil in his statement recorded in the inquest proceedings. In fact, he was not questioned on the question of motive by the Investigating Officer because the object of the proceedings under Section 174 Criminal Procedure Code is very limited as stated by the Honble Supreme Court. With regard to the criticism of the appellant qua PW2 and PW3 that they did not make any statement in the inquest report, there is no merit. At that time the matter of identity was in question and from the statement of Hoshiar Singh the identity of Anita was well established. Therefore, if the Investigating officer had not recorded the statement of Manoj Kumar and Murti Devi in the inquest report, the appellant cannot take the advantage. 24. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the FIR in this case was not lodged by the complainant on 30.5.1994, but it has been lodged on 31.5.1994. This time has been taken by them just to coin out a story. This contention may look alluring at the first instance but on our deeper scrutiny we found it without any merit. We all know that in such a situation if the death of a daughter of a family has taken place, the first anxiety of the relations would always be to cremate the dead body. At that time the atmosphere of the family is so surcharged that everybody is busy in weeping, veiling and condoling and especially in our conservative society. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that the parties in this case belong to low strata of society. They are Harijans and being poor persons, sometimes the police does not take prompt initiative in lodging the FIR lest the parties may compromise, if they want to do so. The criticism of Mr. Baldev Singh that Anita was an educated girl and she wrote one letter to her parents but did not make a narration that she is being tortured on account of dowry or that the appellant raised a demand of Rs. 20,000/-, cannot be accepted. Here is a case where the marriage has survived for six months only. Baldev Singh that Anita was an educated girl and she wrote one letter to her parents but did not make a narration that she is being tortured on account of dowry or that the appellant raised a demand of Rs. 20,000/-, cannot be accepted. Here is a case where the marriage has survived for six months only. The deceased was a young girl of 20/21 years. To make allegations at the early stages of marriage and that too against the husband and his family members is a very risky affair. It all depends upon individual to individual. One would like to give in writing and one may make only oral complaint. The evidence on the record is that the deceased made a pretext of illness and called her parents to listen to her grievances and she did not lose such time by stating her father and brother that she is being harassed in connection with the demand of money which will be considered as demand of dowry. So much so on 29.5.1994 this demand was repeated and the death of the deceased took place on 30.5.1994. There is no explanation coming forth from the side of the appellant that the deceased had committed suicide or she had the tendency to commit suicide or that the deceased was being medically treated earlier to her death on account of depression, etc. Thus, in our opinion, all the three essential ingredients required for proving the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code are established with the aid of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that in the present case the offence under Section 304-B is proved beyond reasonable doubt and we affirm the order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court. 25. Reverting to the quantum of sentence, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that if his efforts and endeavour for acquittal do not prevail upon the mind of the court, then the substantive sentence of the appellant may be reduced. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that moral considerations have prevailed upon the trial Court in awarding life imprisonment. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that moral considerations have prevailed upon the trial Court in awarding life imprisonment. Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code provides that "whosoever 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." We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent that the cases of dowry death are on increase. Young brides at the threshold of their youths die in abnormal circumstances within seven years of their marriages in connection with the demand of dowry. Though the victims had not relished or enjoyed their lives perhaps on account of the maltreatment and ill-treatment given to them by their husbands or the relatives of their husbands, yet the legislature in its wisdom thought it proper that the minimum sentence in such cases should be seven years but the upper limit is life imprisonment. In our opinion when such is the language provided by the legislature, the upper limit should be adopted only when an extreme case of maximum imprisonment is made out. In Hem Chand v. State of Haryana, 1994(3) Recent CR 625 (SC) the Honble Supreme Court held that "As mentioned above Section 304-B Indian Penal Code only raises presumption and lays down that minimum sentence should be seven years but it may extend to imprisonment for life. Therefore awarding extreme punishment of imprisonment for life should be in rare cases and not in every case". Following the above ratio of the Honble Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellant is on the higher side. We accordingly, while confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, reduce the sentence of imprisonment for life to ten years rigorous imprisonment as was so done by the Honble Supreme Court in the cited case. 26. Resultantly, the substantive sentence of the appellant stands reduced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. With this modification in the matter of sentence, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Let intimation about the dismissal of the appeal and reduction of sentence be sent to the jail authorities and the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. In case the appellant is on bail, he shall be taken into custody so that he may be able to serve the sentence. With this modification in the matter of sentence, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Let intimation about the dismissal of the appeal and reduction of sentence be sent to the jail authorities and the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. In case the appellant is on bail, he shall be taken into custody so that he may be able to serve the sentence. Appeal dismissed.