Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. Though three persons of in-laws house including Saraswati Devi were put on trial on accusation oi causing dowry death of Sanju Kumari, the appellants alone suffered conviction under Sections 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, said Saraswati Devi, mother-in-law, of the deceased having been acquitted of the charges on conclusion of trial by the trial court. The appellants pursuant to their conviction were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years each on the first count, and for the other count, they were sentenced to a term of two years rigorous imprisonment with a rider that both sentences shall run concurrently. 2. At this juncture it would be convenient to notice some salient features of the prosecution case. Sanju Kumari was wed ded to appellant Surya Kant Sharma sometimes in the year 1989. Though parents had made presentationto the in-laws befit-ting to their financial status at the time of marriage, demand of provision of television set, a two wheeler and also cash of Rs. 20,000/- was met at the time of inception of marriage. However, the parents were not possessed of sufficient means and had not been affluent to meet the provision of dowry asked by the in-laws. As in-laws were quite reluctant to take back Sanju Kumari to their house for failure of her parents to make provision of dowry to them, it was after much entreaties that second marriage of Sanju Kumari was performed on 26th October, 1992 when demands for provision of these articles were yet reiterated by the in-laws. This was not the end of episode, as when Rama Kant Chaudhry, brother-in-law of Sanju Kumari, the deceased, visited her house in village Lodipur on 17th November, 1993, demands were again reiterated before him for which Sanju was being tortured in in-laws house, and these disclosures were made to him by none else but the deceased Sanju herself. Allegedly, shortly after three days of visit of Ramakanf Choudhary to village Lodipur, tragic news of death of Sanju was received in her parents house in the morning of 20th November, 2003. The worried family members had rushed to village Lodipur when they came to know about Sanju having been poisoned to death by her in-laws. Allegedly, shortly after three days of visit of Ramakanf Choudhary to village Lodipur, tragic news of death of Sanju was received in her parents house in the morning of 20th November, 2003. The worried family members had rushed to village Lodipur when they came to know about Sanju having been poisoned to death by her in-laws. Wheel of law was put in motion by the brother of the deceased, shortly within few hours of receipt of tragic news of death of his sister. As usual investigation followed, in course of which the Police Officer had recorded statement of witnesses, visited place of occurrence and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the court. The guilt of the appellants was sought to be established by the State with the aid of evidence of six number of witnesses who were family members of the parents house of the deceased, the Police Officer and also some other witnesses. 3. As usual, the defence of the appellants both before the court below and this court had been that of innocence and prosecution was resisted on premises, that as they did not spare ornaments of the deceased to the in-laws, without good excuse, the instant false case has been fastened against them. Grounds of ailment of Saraswati Devi was also highlighted at trial and the trial court, as has been noticed, while acquitting Saraswati Devi, recorded finding of guilt against the appellants and sentenced them in the manner stated above. 4. Since such tragic occurrence usually happens within four walls of the in-laws house, it is not always possible that others may be ocular witnesses to the incident. The victim having suffered onslaught in her house, this may not be known to others in the village, and in that backdrop, to judge culpability of the accused about sufferings and torture of the deceased, evidence and also attending circumstances would merit consideration. The witnesses-by whom guilt was sought to be established by the State happened to be Rama Kant Chaudhary, P.W. 1, Chandra Bhushan Chaudhary, P.W.2, Gautam Chaudhary, P.W.3, Malti Devi, P.W.4, Anita Devi, P.W.5 and the last witness namely Pawan Kumar Singh being the Police Officer. The witnesses-by whom guilt was sought to be established by the State happened to be Rama Kant Chaudhary, P.W. 1, Chandra Bhushan Chaudhary, P.W.2, Gautam Chaudhary, P.W.3, Malti Devi, P.W.4, Anita Devi, P.W.5 and the last witness namely Pawan Kumar Singh being the Police Officer. Scathing comments were made by learned counsel for the appellants on credibility of these witnesses, and with all stress, it was sought to be urged that when some sort of vague and omnibus accusations were sought to be attributed to the appellants with evidence of witnesses about demand of dowry and related torture and harassment meted out to the deceased, simply such narration made by the witnesses about torture to the deceased, without reckoning to the time, which must rehofer to a period "soon before her death", there would be hardly application of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Refer-ring to the evidence of defence witnesses, contentions were raised that if Ram Badan Sharma, D.W.5, one of the appellants, is to be believed, the conduct of the appellant betrays all affection to the deceased, he having deposited Rs. 1000/- which were presented to the deceased at the time of marriage, in the Post Office. Referring to the evidence of Dr. V.Jain, D.W.3, submission was that the defence of the appellants about Sanju having died due to abdominal pain, largely strengthens from evidence of this witness. The finding recorded by the court below as such can be judged on the anvil of testimony of the witnesses. Reiterating his earliest version which he rendered before the Police, Chandra Bhushan Chaudhary, P.W. 2, who was also maker of the written complaint submitted to the police, states that at the time of marriage of Sanju Kumari presentations were made by her parents befitting to their status. However, the demands made by the in-laws about provision of television set and two wheeier could not accomplished due to their financial stringencies. However, shortly after second marriage of Sanju Kumari was performed on 26th October, 1993, demands were reiterated by in-laws who were not willing to take back Sanju Kumari to their house, and it was only on entreaties made by them that they took Sanju Kumari with them. However, shortly after second marriage of Sanju Kumari was performed on 26th October, 1993, demands were reiterated by in-laws who were not willing to take back Sanju Kumari to their house, and it was only on entreaties made by them that they took Sanju Kumari with them. When Rama Kant Chaudhary visited village Lodipur on 17th November, 1993, Sanju had narrated her woes before him, apprehending her killing by the in-laws for failure of her parents to make provision of two wheeler and television set, and only after three days had passed, that the family got the tragic news of sad demise of Sanju in in-!aws house. He along with other persons rushed to village Lodipur where they knew that Sanju was poisoned to death and her dead body had been disposed of hurriedly by the in-laws. He put the wheel of criminal law in motion by filing a written complaint before the Police. 5. Gautam Chaudhary, P.W.3, cousin brother of the deceased states that after marriage of Sanju Kumari, the in-laws had been insisting for provision of television set, two wheeler and cash and for failure of her parents to make provision of these articles, relation of Sanju Kumari with inlaws had not been cordial. The in-laws were not willing even for second marriage of Sanju and it was after much entreaties that second marriage was performed on 26th October, 1993. The witness states that in-laws had been assaulting the de-ceased and had been torturing her. Hi stated to have rushed to village Lodipur along with Chandra Bhushan Chaudhary, Sudarshan Chaudhary and Rama Kant Chaudhary shortly on receipt of news of death of Sanju Kumari, when they knew about killing of Sanju by poisoning. Accu-sations about in-laws insisting for provision) of television set, two wheeler and cash, reiterating their demands on occasions, had reflected also in the evidence of Malti Devi, mother of the deceased, who hap-pens to be P.W. 4 and Anita Devi P.W.5. These two witnesses too tell about receipt of news about sufferings of Sanju Kumari from Rama Kant Chaudhary, when latter had visited her on 17th November, 1993 and assertion made by these witnesses were amply corroborated by Rama Kant Chaudhary, P.W. 1 to whom the deceased had narrated her woes about her sufferings and torture when he visited her house on 17th November, 1993 on instruction from mother of Sanju Kumari. Though attention of these witnesses had also been drawn by the defence ostensibly to impeach their credibility towards their previous statements rendered by them during investigation, but their assertions about sufferings and torture of the deceased communicated to them through Rama Kant Chaudhary would not remain disputed particularly in view of corroboration having been made by Rama Kant Chaudhary. 6. Since much stress has been laid at bar about evidences falling short of requirement to constitute offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, l may profitably refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Satvir Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (2001)8 SCC 633 in which the following observations were made by the apex court: "It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if Section 304-B is to be invoked. But it should have happened "soon before her death". The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicted by that expression. The Legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words "soon before her death" is to emphasise the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry-related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the 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 her death". 7. Evidence of the prosecution witnesses manifestly reflects that shortly after Sanju Kumari went to her in-laws house after marriage and returned to her parents house after only eight days, she had been complaining to her parents about torture and beating by the in-laws for their failure to make provision of sufficient dowry to them. 7. Evidence of the prosecution witnesses manifestly reflects that shortly after Sanju Kumari went to her in-laws house after marriage and returned to her parents house after only eight days, she had been complaining to her parents about torture and beating by the in-laws for their failure to make provision of sufficient dowry to them. The in-laws were not willing to take back Sanju to their house for lapse on their part to respond to their demands, and it was after much entreaties that Sanju was taken back to their house. The worried mother who must be the most concerned person about welfare of her daughter, had sent Rama Kant Chaudhary to village Lodipur and there is no gainsaying that Sanju had ventilated her woes before him about sufferings and onslaught suffered by her by in-laws, and that too for failure of her parents to make provision of sufficient dowry to them, and in my view, evidence of Rama Kant Chaudhary, P.W.1, was of material significance and also sheet anchor of the prosecution version. As evidences suggest, Rama Kant Chaudhary visited Sanjus house only on 17th November, 1993 when Sanju had narrated her woes to him apprehending danger to her life and this must be construed to be cruelty or torture defined in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Though other witnesses too state about assault on Sanju Kumari, even if that be not there, can a conclusion emphatically be drawn that there was no evidence of torture to the deceased immediately preceding her death. Shortly, after Rama Kant Chaudhary returned to his parents house from village Lodipur, tragic news about sad demise of Sanju was received by the family members. Reproducing observation made by the apex court in case of Satvir Singh and others (supra), "the legislative object in such radius of time of applying words "soon before her death" was to emphasise the idea that her death should in all probabilities had been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment", and considering evidence of witnesses including that of Rama Kant Chaudhary, there seems to be perceptible nexus between the death of Sanju and dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. The interval elapsed between infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death was too narrow to be widened any more. 8. The interval elapsed between infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death was too narrow to be widened any more. 8. Yet there is other material evidence which cannot be lost sight of and that is letter Ext. 2, of which the deceased was purported to be the author, and if this letter is to be given any significance accusations attributed to the appellants would become more vulnerable and conspicuous. As has been the evidence, Sanju was not illiterate that she could not have written such letter expressing her woes to her parents. Assertion about receipt of this letter would be reflected from the evidence of Chandra Bhushan Chaudhary, P.W.2, and also Malti Devi, P.W.4. They happen to be none else but brother and mother of Sanju who were most concerned person in her parents house." The significance of this letter cannot be undermined and its credibility would not be impaired for reason that the letter sent was not addressed to any one. The fact remains that the letter was written by the author on 1st November, 1993 and on body of the inland letter which was mailed to the addressee, one may find the name of Chandra Bhushan Chaudhary of village Dhanpatra who is none else but P.W.2. Since author of the letter is no more, this letter can be pressed into service to read its contents in evidence under section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. In view of persisting demands made by the in-laws for television set and two wheeler, sufferings of Sanju Kumari having been reflected in evidence of Rama Kant Chaudhary and also communication made by the deceased to her brother, the inference of guilt drawn against the appellants would not be dislodged. In view of persisting demands made by the in-laws for television set and two wheeler, sufferings of Sanju Kumari having been reflected in evidence of Rama Kant Chaudhary and also communication made by the deceased to her brother, the inference of guilt drawn against the appellants would not be dislodged. This need not be reiterated that cruelty or harassment need not be physical and even if there be solitary instance of torture preceding her death, that would constitute offence within the ambit of section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and for which reliance can be placed on a decision of the Apex Court reported in A.l.R. 1998 SC 958 (Pawan Kumar and others vs.The State of Haryana) Opposed to the prosecution evidences which are so eloquent, evidence of appellants about father-in-law being affectionate to Sanju and she having died of abdominal pain, would neither neutralise the probative value of evidence of the prosecution witnesses not would impair credibility of the witnesses, that being only oath against oath. The doctor simply on strength of prescription has come to say that Sanju had died of abdominal pain and I must say that there in so clinching evidence to strengthen the statement made by the appellant. Likewise, defence of the appellant that a false case had been fastened against them for no excuse, and for their failure to spare ornaments of Sanju Kumari, did not bear much value, such defence usually being taken by appellants in such case to counter accusation attributed to them. 9. Having bestowed my anxious and deepest consideration to the evidences available and also attending circumstances of the case, I am of the view that finding recorded by the court below would not merit interference. The appeal being meritless is dismissed. Since appellant no.1, Ram Badan Sharma, happens to be on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and it is directed that all coercive step be taken by the trial court to get him apprehended and to consign him to custody to serve out remainder of sentence.