Judgment Braj Nandan Prasad Singh, J. 1. The instances of onslaught on females in their matrimonial houses are not very uncommon and large number of dowry deaths do come to notice of Courts notwithstanding there being at tempt to restrict them from social cores. The happiness of Hajara Khatoon, the deceased, wedded to Abul Hassan Ansari too was quite short lived, as allegedly after her marriage she had to face hostile atmosphere in her in-laws house and was even tortured and maltreated by in-laws for failure of her parents to make provisions of sufficient dowry to them, and as the prosecution alleges the in-laws, who are appellants, having killed, dropped her in the well, pursuant thereto having taken out the dead body, buried it, and first information report with more or less these accusations was drawn up on behest of father of the deceased, pursuant to which the investigation commenced. During investigation, the police officer entrusted to onerous task of investigation, collected evidences, recorded statement of witnesses, got the dead body exhumed from the burial ground under supervision of a Magistrate, got autopsy held by the doctor and on conclusion of investigation laid charge-sheet before the Court. 2. In the trial that followed, the State examined altogether ten witnesses and it seems from evidence of P.W. 10 that the doctor who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased could not be examined at trial though the post-mortem report was placed on the record with the aid of evidence of said witness, which, in my view, was admissible u/s. 32 of the Evidence Act. Those examined by the State include father of the deceased who is also maker of the Fardbeyan, the brother and other family members of the deceased and also those who had shown some sort of proximity with the incident of killing of Hajara Khatoon in the in-laws house. 3. The defence of the appellants before the Court below and this Court had been that of innocence and false implication for no good reason. The defence of Nurul Hassan Ansari and his wife was that they were living separately from Abul Hassan Ansari and there was no occasion for them to get involved in killing of Hajara Khatoon. 3. The defence of the appellants before the Court below and this Court had been that of innocence and false implication for no good reason. The defence of Nurul Hassan Ansari and his wife was that they were living separately from Abul Hassan Ansari and there was no occasion for them to get involved in killing of Hajara Khatoon. The other defence of the appellants was that shortly after death of Hajara Khatoon her parents were informed by the in-laws and they too participated in burying the dead body and it was only on account of failure of the in-laws to return ornaments of the deceased to her father that this false case had been concocted against them. The defence too had chosen to examine six witnesses ostensibly to rebut the accusations attributed to them, and from narrations made by the witnesses it would seem that the defence of the appellants was that Hajara Khatoon suffered eclampsia attack and in the process of drawing water, she fell in the well and met her tragic end. Other witnesses examined by the defence were put in the witness box to persuade the Court to believe that after death of Hajara Khatoon, parents were duty informed by the in-laws. 4. Volume of contentions were raised at Bar on behalf of the appellants. Since salient features of the prosecution case have been fairly spelt out in the judgment of the Court below, a brief resume of the same shall be discussed with all brevity to appreciate the contentions raised. 5. The informant (P.W. 8), father of the deceased Hajara Khatoon, reiterating his earliest version which he rendered before the police about killing of Hajara Khatoon in in-laws house for his failure to make provision of sufficient dowry to her in-laws, says that shortly after marriage there had been constant demand of dowry by the in laws of the deceased, for which there was constant torture meted out to her in her in-laws house by all the four appellants. 6. An information was received by him from one Zainul on 25th June, 1996 who came to his house and informed him about killing of Hajara Khatoon in in-laws house. He lost no time and rushed to village Badi Takia and when he questioned the in-laws about cause of death of his daughter, they replied that deceased had jumped into the well. He lost no time and rushed to village Badi Takia and when he questioned the in-laws about cause of death of his daughter, they replied that deceased had jumped into the well. He also states to have learnt about killing of his daughter from some female members of the village, but he could not name the female members from whom he got such information. Soon thereafter, the witness says that he visited house of Zainul, pursuant to which a police case was registered, and under supervision of a Magistrate, the dead body of Hajara Khatoon was exhumed from the burial ground. The witness states to have seen the marks of violence on the dead body of the deceased, and apart from other injuries, there was also ligature mark on the neck. In response to some questions put by the defence, this witness emphatically said that only fifteen days preceding the incident, he had gone to village of Hajara Khatoon where he learnt about maltreatment to deceased by in-laws, and he had also seen scratches on her forehead. 7. Sikandar Azam, P.W. 2, happens to be brother of Hajara Khatoon and he too on receipt of information about killing of Hajara Khatoon by the in-laws, visited village Takia where he was informed by the in-laws that Hajara Khatoon had jumped into the well. The witness says also about a police case, that had been instituted pursuant thereto. As for cause of death of Hajara Khatoon, this witness says that the appellants had been insisting on her for dowry and, even before she met her tragic end when she came to her parents house she had complained about demand of dowry and torture. Jan Mohammad Ansari. P.W. 3, happens to be uncle of the deceased Hajara Khatoon and he too visited village Takia on receipt of information about killing of Hajara Khatoon when the in-laws responded in the same term, on being questioned about killing of the deceased. Then they took recourse to public authority and dead body of Hajara Khatoon was exhumed from burial ground under the supervision of a Magistrate and marks of violence too was writ large as ligature mark was quite visible on the neck. Then they took recourse to public authority and dead body of Hajara Khatoon was exhumed from burial ground under the supervision of a Magistrate and marks of violence too was writ large as ligature mark was quite visible on the neck. The narration in similar terms and veins was made also by Mohammad Hanif, P.W. 4, about dead body of Hajara Khatoon having been taken out from burial ground on which he noticed marks of violence, and about cause of death, this witness says that the deceased had been complaining and had been making all entreaties for giving dowry to the in-laws, who had been torturing her. Nurul Hassan Ansari P.W. 5 too states to have visited village Takia when similar response was made by the in-laws on being questioned made by this witness. This witness also says that when Hajara Khatoon had visited his house after marriage, she was complaining torture meted out to her by the in-laws for failure of his father to make provision of sufficient dowry to them. Attention of this witness had been drawn by defence and from evidence of the Police Officer it seems that almost all narrations made by this witness was sought to be impeached, there being no such parallel statement made before the police during investigation. 8. Other witness happens to be Zainul, P.W. 6, who states about giving information with regard to killing of Hajara Khatoon and also that when he visited village Takia on return from burial ground, the in-laws had responded in the same term about cause of death of the deceased. He stated to have visited village Ledari where he informed about killing of Hajara Khatoon to her father. Haji Ibrahim Ansari P.W. 7. states that the deceased had been always complaining about torture meted out to her by in-laws for demand of dowry, and only fifteen days preceding the incident Akbar Ali Ansari, father of the deceased, had gone to her village. 9. The Police Officer examined by the State, stated to have recorded first information report on behest of father of the deceased and got the dead body of Hajara Khatoon exhumed from the burial ground, on which marks of violence were quite visible and he also prepared inquest report over dead body of the deceased. 10. 9. The Police Officer examined by the State, stated to have recorded first information report on behest of father of the deceased and got the dead body of Hajara Khatoon exhumed from the burial ground, on which marks of violence were quite visible and he also prepared inquest report over dead body of the deceased. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellants with lucid submissions contended that only because the appellar as had been saddled with accusations of killing the bride, that alone would not saddle them with consequences flowing from the Penal Section of sec. 304-B and while relying on a decision of the Apex Court of the land reported in I (2001) DMC 734 (SC)=II (2001) CCR 186 (SC)=III (2001) SLT 771= (2001) 6 SCC 407 , Arvind Singh V/s. State of Bihar, learned Counsel would urge that since husband being a bedroom companion had faced charge of wifes death, but initial burden yet remained on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubts. Contentions raised at bar can be negatived for the simple reason that the husband and the relatives of the deceased would be answerable for unnatural death of the bride for torture in connection with dowry related demand, in cases of marriage within seven years of the incident, and presumption at tracted u/s. 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, would not be dislodged only for the reason that initial burden was on the State to prove the guilt of the accused. Yet it is urged that not only torture meted out to the deceased but the prosecution was also obliged to satisfactorily explain that the torture was meted out to the deceased soon before her death, and while relying on a decision of the Apex Court of the land reported in II (2001) DMC 734 (SC)=IV (2001) CCR 75 (SC)=VI (2001) SLT 303= (2001) 8 SCC 633 , Satveer Singh and Ors. V/s. State of Punjab and Anr., learned Counsel would urge that since witnesses were making narrations before the Court without signifying the period to show proximity of her deaths with the orture meted out to her, even if the evidences were there about killing of the deceased, that would not itself bring the mischief within ambit of sec. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, and to appreciate contention one has to took into the evidences that has been placed on the record. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, and to appreciate contention one has to took into the evidences that has been placed on the record. The brother of the deceased who happens to be P.W. 2 (Sikandar Azam) states that after Hajara Khatoon visited in-laws house, there had been constant demand of dowry, and only four months preceding the incident, when she had visited village Ledari, she was complaining that she was being tortured by the in-laws for failure of her parents to make provision of sufficient dowry to them, and she was so scared that she was apprehending some eminent danger. The evidence of P. W. 3 (Jan Mohammad Ansari) was that only four months preceding the incident, when Hajara Khatoon visited village Ledari she was complaining that she was being tortured by in-law.; for failure of her parents to make provision of sufficient dowry to them. Evidence of P.W. 4 (Mohammad Hanif) was that whenever she came to parents house, she was complaining about torture meted out to her by in-laws for failure of her parents to make provision of sufficient dowry to them. Even P.W. 7 (Haji Ibrahim Ansari) states that only 15 days preceding the incident; father of the deceased had come to him and had requested him to visit village Takia, as Hajara Khatoon was being tortured there, and on his request he had gone to village Takia. The narration made by father of the deceased (Akbar All Ansari, P.W. 8) also can be noticed who says that only fifteen days preceding the incident, he was informed by one Rahimuddin about torture meted out to the deceased by the in-laws and when he visited village Takia, he had witness marks of violence on the forehead of the deceased. 11. The words "soon before her death" occurring in sec. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code may refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it, but for proximity to her death. Courts have held that there should be perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry related harassment and cruelty inflicted on her. If interval elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide, the Court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities, the harassment or cruelty would not have been the immediate cause of death. If interval elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide, the Court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities, the harassment or cruelty would not have been the immediate cause of death. The narrations made at trial do suggest that while some witnesses speak about complain made by the deceased only four months preceding the incident, P.Ws. 7 and 8 state about torture meted out to the deceased by in-laws, only 15 days preceding the incident and if such period was taken into consideration, that cannot be said to be so wide to rule out perceptible nexus between her death and dowry related cruelty inflicted on her. 12. Contentions were raised that though quite a good number of witnesses had been stating about burn injury on the body of the deceased, it was never the case of the prosecution that the deceased was burnt by in-laws. However, while dilating on this issue I have noticed that constant narrations were made by witnesses including that of P.Ws. 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 about there being ligature mark on the neck of the deceased when the dead body was exhumed from the burial ground. True it is that no such parallel statement was made by P.Ws. 3 and 4, about they having stated before the Police about there being ligature mark on the neck of the deceased, no dent has been caused to the evidence of other witnesses who stated about marks of violence on the neck of the deceased. It has been brought to my notice by learned Counsel for the State than even the finding recorded by the doctor was quite in conformity with the ocular testimony of the witnesses who noticed marks of violence and ligature mark on the neck, and the cause of death in opinion of the doctor was asphyxia. Though the defence, to assail the finding of the doctor also examined defence witnesses who state that the deceased fell into the well, due to eclampsia while drawing water from the well that did not militate against the finding recorded by the doctor about death of deceased due to asphyxia, which in all probability would be result of pressure on neck. That apart, there is yet other redeeming feature, which cannot remain unnoticed and that is that even the finding of the doctor is that there was no water in the stomach, and that too runs counter to the defence of the appellants, as only after killing of a person, there was possibility of absence of water in the stomach, if the deceased dropped in the well. 13. The other contentions are that even though some of the witnesses: who visited village Takia had some persons of their affinity in the village, they did not seek any information from them about cause of death of Hajara Khatoon, and it was quite unlikely that they would not seek imformations from them. Though argument seems to be attractive but is devoid of merit in view of weight of mass of evidence. Yet feeble argument was made by learned Counsel for the appellants that it would appear from evidences of P.Ws. 2, 4 and 8 that while they had insufficient landed property, appellants were quite affluent and on these premises it was urged that in that circumstances too it was unlikely for the appellants to insist on parents of the deceased for dowry and this argument too appear to me devoid of merit which did not merit consideration. Apart from narrations made by the witnesses which has been noticed earlier, the other formidable evidence, adverse to the appellants was that the parents were not even informed about death of Hajara Khatoon after her death, and hurriedly buried dead body and under these circumstances too I feel that the presumption under sec. 113-B of the Evidence Act was attracted. 14. I am not oblivious that the direct evidence may not be available but circumstantial evidence with reasonable probity and without a snap in the chain of event would certainly constitute guilt in a case of dowry death. Relying on a decision of Apex Court of the land reported in II (2001) DMC 744 (SC)=IV (2001) CCR 131 (SC)=VII (2001) SLT 220= (2001) 9 SCC 417 Sunil Bajaj V/s. State of M.P., learned Counsel would urge that since provisions of sec. Relying on a decision of Apex Court of the land reported in II (2001) DMC 744 (SC)=IV (2001) CCR 131 (SC)=VII (2001) SLT 220= (2001) 9 SCC 417 Sunil Bajaj V/s. State of M.P., learned Counsel would urge that since provisions of sec. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code was an exception by making deeming provision as to nature of death as dowry death, the Court was required to take greater care and caution while marshalling evidences, and on this score too I find that circumstances placed on the record which are of incriminating nature do unerringly suggest guilt of the appellants. Though there has been some variations in the statement of some witnesses about persons who visited the police station and also those who accompanied the police to the burial ground, when witnesses are speaking in details, diserepancies may occur and if they are not on material issue that would not introduce serious infirmity in the prosecution version. Now considering evidences of witnesses, most of whom are family members of the deceased, there appears no good reason to discredit them on account of their relationship. The unnatural death of the deceased, that apart, had remained unexplained satisfactorily by the appellants. Though some witnesses were examined by the defence to say about natural death of deceased, none of the appellants examined u/s. 313, Criminal Procedure Code had taken their plea about natural death of the deceased or death of Hajara Khatoon due to her ailment and she having fallen in the well while drawing water. 15. Having given my anxious and deepest consideration to the evidences placed on the record and also incriminating circumstances appearing against the appellants, which are quite eloquent, I find that the evidences were meticulously appreciated by the Court below leaving little room for interference. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed and the finding recorded by the Court below about guilt and also sentence, is upheld. Since appellants Nur Hasan Ansari, Najiran Khatoon and Johra Khatoon are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and it is directed that the Court below shall take all coercive steps to consign them to custody to serve out remainder of sentences.