Judgment Nirmal Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30/31.3.1990 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide which the appellants namely, Ashok Kumar, Sher Singh, Naresh Kumar and Kamla Devi have been found guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years each under Sec.304 IPC. The accused have been further senten-ced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.250.00 each under Sec.198-A IPC and in default of payment of fine, the defaulter has been further sentenced to undergo RI for two months. However, both the substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Shakuntla Devi, deceased, was married with accused, Ashok Kumar in April, 1983, who was posted as Taxation Inspector in Gurgaon. The complainant, Banwari Lal, gave dowry in the marriage as per his capacity. After the marriage, it is alleged that Ashok Kumar, Sher Singh, father-in-law of deceased, Kamla, mother-in-law and Naresh Kumar, younger brother of Ashok Kumar, used to torture, teasing and started beating Shakuntla. She wrote some letters to her mother, Indira. Later on, Shakuntla left the job at Gurgaon and got employed her-self as a Teacher in a School at Rayta Kalan. Even after that, all the accused continued to harass the deceased, Sha-kuntla, on account of dowry. 3. Complainants younger brother, Bishamber Dayal and his father Ganeshi Lal went to Rayta Kalan and asked the accused not to harass Shakuntla but to no avail. 4. Shakuntla gave birth to three children, namely, Bharat, Bharti and Annu. 5. On 17.7.1988, 7-8 months prior to the occurrence, Ashok and deceased Shakuntla, with their children had shifted to Gurgaon. Ashok oftenly used to beat Shakuntla and because of this reason, he had to change rented house three/four times as the landlord got the same vacated. The complainant and his wife visited the house of the deceased, Shakuntla, and found that she was being harassed. About 20-25 days before the occurrence, Ashok Yadav, accused, had taken on rent the house of Kali Dass Kharbanda near Geeta Bhawan Mandir in New Colony Gurgaon, and started living there. Sher Singh, accused also started living with them in that house but the quarrel and taunts continued. 6. About 20-25 days before the occurrence, Ashok Yadav, accused, had taken on rent the house of Kali Dass Kharbanda near Geeta Bhawan Mandir in New Colony Gurgaon, and started living there. Sher Singh, accused also started living with them in that house but the quarrel and taunts continued. 6. On 17.6.1988 at about 10.30 A. M. , complainant, Banwari Lal, received a message at his house that his daugh-ter, Shakuntla had caught fire and she had burnt along with her two children. They had been taken to General Hospital, Gurgaon. The complainant, Banwari Lal, went to the hospital and saw that Shakuntla had been badly burnt. She could not talk despite best efforts. Bharti and Bharat had also suffered extensive burn injuries. The complainant went to the house and found Annu lying dead with burn injuries. It is the case of the prose-cution that Shakuntla, deceased, had sprinkled kerosene oil on her person due to the harassment and torture and committed suicide. She also put the kerosene oil on Bharat, Bharti and Annu and they have also received the burn injuries in the same fire and due to these injuries, Annu died. 7. Pw-12 Gian Chand, inspector, who was posted in Police Station City, Gurgaon, received two ruqas Ex. PF/1 and PF/2 from Civil Hospital, Gurgaon, with regard to the admission of Shakuntla along with her children in the hospital. After making entry in the daily diary, he went to Civil Hospital, Gurgaon. In the way, complainant, Banwari Lal, met him. He recorded his statement, Ex. PA. After making endorsement, Ex. PA/1, he sent the statement of Banwari Lal to the Police Station, on the basis of which, FIR Ex. PA/2 was recorded. 8. After completion of the investi-gation, challan was presented before the Ilaqa Magistrate as the case was exclu-sively triable by the Court of Session, which was committed to the said Court. 9. On commitment, this case was entrusted to the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, for trial. 10. From the perusal of the docu-ments and hearing the counsel for the accused and Public Prosecutor, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, prima fade found a case under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 11. To prove the case, the prose-cution has examined PW-1 Dr. S. P. Singh, who medico- legally examined Bharti, Bharat and Shakuntla, PW-2 Dr. 11. To prove the case, the prose-cution has examined PW-1 Dr. S. P. Singh, who medico- legally examined Bharti, Bharat and Shakuntla, PW-2 Dr. R. P. Singh, who had conducted postmortem examination on the dead bodies of Bharti, Annu and Shakuntla, PW-3 Dr. B. S. Sarin, who had conducted post-mortem exami-nation on the dead body of Bharat, PW-4 B. R. Bhatia, Photographer, who had taken the photographs, Ex. P6 to Ex. P15, PW-5 Mool Chand Punia, Draftsman, who had prepared scaled site plan, Ex. PL with correct marginal notes, PW-6 Head Cons-table Ram Singh of Police Station Vinay Nagar, Delhi, who proved copy of report Roznamcha regarding bringing of dead body of Shakuntla and Bharat, PW-7 ASI Rajinder Singh of the same Police Station who had prepared inquest report of Bharat and got post-mortem examination conducted on his, body, PW-8 Smt. Naian Jyoti who narrated how the occurrence took place, PW-9 Banwari Lal, PW1o Bisham-ber Dayal and PW-11 Indira Kumari who stated in detail that Shakuntla was being harassed and beaten by the accused and PW-12 SI Gian Chand who stated in detail about the investigation conducted. 12. When the appellants were exa-mined under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence, they denied simplicitor and alleged false implication. The accused Ashok Kumar took the following plea in his statement: I remained posted most of the time at Gurgaon, District Sirsa, Narnaul and I hardly visited Rayta Kalan from the time of marriage of Sha-kuntla till her death. At the time of marriage of Satish, brother of Shakuntla, Major Banwari Lal PW-9 and his wife Smt. Indira demanded ornaments of Shakuntla from us for giving at the marriage of Satish which were never returned (*sic) in cities and she had no liking for village life. Myself and my wife Kamla Devi are suffering from leprosy and I am also a T. B. patient. Shakuntla hatred us on that account and avoid to live with us. We never demanded any dowry whatso-ever. I have sufficient income from my pay as H. M. as well as I have other property. The whole case has been foisted on us. Shakuntla hatred us on that account and avoid to live with us. We never demanded any dowry whatso-ever. I have sufficient income from my pay as H. M. as well as I have other property. The whole case has been foisted on us. Accused Naresh Kumar took the following plea: During the days of the marriage of Shakuntla till her death, I was studying in Agricultural University, Hissar and at present, I am a student of Law College, Alwar for the last one year. I hardly stayed at home at village Rayta Kalan. I have been falsely implicated in this case. 13. The accused were called to lead evidence in their defence. They exami-ned DW-1 Dr. R. C. Jiloha, DW-4 Dr. S. Butta Ray, DW-6 Dr. V. S. Rastogi who had treated the accused Ashok Kumar for depression, DW-2 Ram Sarup, Superin-tendent in the office of Excise and Taxa-tion Department, Gurgaon, who stated from the record about the posting of Ashok Kumar, DW-3 Shivender Singh, who stated from the record that deceased Bharat was admitted to school on 6.2.1988, DW-5 Dr. MR. Makkar who stated that Shakuntla had delivered three children in his clinic, DW-7 Dr. K. L. Calbotra who stated that the accused Sher Singh and Kamla have been under treatment in Primary Health Centre, Ateli since October 1986, DW-8 Dr. Y. K. Bajaj who stated that Sher Singh, accused remained under his treatment with Distt. T. B. Clinic, DW-9, Mrs. Vimla Mohandass, Manager, State Bank of India, Gurgaon, who stated that Shakuntla had deposited Rs.40,000.00 in two fixed depo-sits of Rs.20,000.00 each, DW-10 Som Nath Aggarwal, Expert, who stated that he compared letters Ex. P1 to Ex. P4 with admitted handwriting-of Shakuntla in letter Ex. D5, DW-11 S. K. Tandon, Princi-pal of Arya College, Alwar, who stated that the accused Naresh Yadav was student of 1st year of LL. P1 to Ex. P4 with admitted handwriting-of Shakuntla in letter Ex. D5, DW-11 S. K. Tandon, Princi-pal of Arya College, Alwar, who stated that the accused Naresh Yadav was student of 1st year of LL. B. during the session 1987-88, DW-12 Shankar Dutt, Teacher from Government High School, Rayta Kalan, who stated from the record that Shakuntla was posted in that school from 6.7.1985 to 26.10.1987, DW-13 Dharam Singh too is uncle of Sher Singh stated that 15 or 20 days prior to the occurrence, he had discussion with Ashok Kumar regarding jewellery and accused Ashok Kumar had told him that jewellery of Shakuntla, deceased, had been entrusted to Banwari Lal, DW-14 Brij Lal Dhamija, official from office of Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, who stated that accu-sed Naresh Kumar was a student of M. Sc. Extensive Education from 2.11.1982 to 2.8.1986, DW-15 Ram Parkash, Assistant Complaints Clerk, office of S. S. P. Gurgaon, who stated that on 25.6.1988, a complaint was received in the office of S. P. , Gurgaon, from Ashok Kumar accu-sed against Banwari Lal Complainant and his wife and others u/ss 406 and 306 IPC and DW-16 Constable Ram Phal from Police Station City, Gurgaon, who stated that application of Ashok Ku mar, accu-sed, was received in the Police Station from the office of S. P. Gurgaon and the complaint along with report was sent back to SP Office, vide dak challan dated 18.7.1988. 14. After recording the prosecution and defence evidence and hearing counsel for the accused and the Public Prosecutor, the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that the deceased Shakuntla was tortured and harassed on account of demand of dowry, as a result of which she committed suicide. There-fore, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated in para No.1 of the judgment. Aggrieved by which, the present appeal has been preferred. 15. Mr. R. S. Cheema, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants, assails the judgment of the learned trial Court on the grounds that the learned trial Court has not appre-ciated the evidence as well as the law in its right perspective. The trial Court has based its judgment on the basis of letters Exhibits P-I to P-4 written by Shakuntla to her mother and letter Ex. P5 written to her father and mother. He contended that in these letters there is not an element of demand of dowry. The trial Court has based its judgment on the basis of letters Exhibits P-I to P-4 written by Shakuntla to her mother and letter Ex. P5 written to her father and mother. He contended that in these letters there is not an element of demand of dowry. These letters show that deceased was a proud of her own heritage and considered her parents family superior than the family of Ashok appellant. In letter Exhibit P-4 written by the deceased to her father that interview letter was received by the deceased on the same day when there was interview. In the same letter, she is referring these people as beggars etc. He contended that in the letter Exhibit P-3,she has not spared even her own mother. He conten-ded that in this letter the deceased had shown her inclination to commit suicide without any rhyme or reason. Even the letter Exhibit P-3 shows that she had made up her mind to kill her own chil-dren and to commit a suicide. In the letter Exhibit P-2 the deceased has pointed out regarding the conduct of Sher Singh appellant in which he has talked about high standard of living of Shakuntla. Letter Exhibit P-I was written on 23.10.1986. As per this letter, the deceased had made up her mind to break the matrimonial alliance and to leave from matrimonial home. He contended that from these letters one of the ingre-dients of Sec.304-B is missing i. e. the demand of dowry. He further pointed out that the offence under Sec.304-B is only made out if the death of a woman is caused by bum injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years after 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. He contended that there is no evidence on the record that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by any of the appellants in connection with demand for dowry. He contended that from the testimony of Banwari Lal (PW9) father of the deceased, Bishamber Dayal (PW10) and Indira Kumari (PW11) mother of the deceased, it stands established that the deceased was living with her husband Ashok appellant in Gurgaon. He contended that from the testimony of Banwari Lal (PW9) father of the deceased, Bishamber Dayal (PW10) and Indira Kumari (PW11) mother of the deceased, it stands established that the deceased was living with her husband Ashok appellant in Gurgaon. He further sub-mitted that the evidence of PW9 Banwari Lal and PW10 Bishamber Dayal is heresay. Bishamber Dayal PW1o has deposed whatever has been told to him by Indira Kumari, he has narrated the same. He submitted that Indira Kumari PW 11 has deposed in her statement that the deceased had written a letter to her intimating that she was being harassed by her father-in-law, mother-in-law, Dewar (husbands brother) and her husband for not bringing dowry of their choice. He contended that in the letters Exhibits P-1 to P-4 there is no mention of any demand of dowry. He contended that (three witnesses) have improved their version on each and every point. He further contended that the appellants also cannot be convicted under Sec.306 IPC as there was no charge nor there is any evidence to the effect that the appellants have abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He contended that till it is proved that the appellants have abetted the deceased to commit suicide, they cannot be convicted under Sec.306 IPC. In support of his argumets, he relied upon Sanju V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh and Swamy Prahaladdas V/s. State of MP. 16. Mr. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants as death in this case was within seven years of the marriage, death was not natural one and it has also been proved that soon before the death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment on account of demand of dowry. He submitted that it has been abundantly proved from letters Exhibits P-1 to P-4 written by the deceased that prior to her death, she was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the appellant and that harassment and cruelty was on account of demand of dowry. He further submitted that Banwari Lal-PW9, Bishambar Dayal-PW1o and Smt. Indira Kumari-PW11 have also deposed in their statements that the deceased was being harassed and beaten for not bringing sufficient dowry. 17. He further submitted that Banwari Lal-PW9, Bishambar Dayal-PW1o and Smt. Indira Kumari-PW11 have also deposed in their statements that the deceased was being harassed and beaten for not bringing sufficient dowry. 17. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by Shri R. S. Cheema, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Shri K. S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and also gone through the record minutely with their assis-tance. 18. Before considering the rival contentions, it will be appropriate to note the relevant provisions of Sec.304-B Indian Penal Code and Sec.113-B of the Evidence Act: 304-B Dowry Death: (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns of bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal cir-cumstances 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 of dowry, such death shall be called dowry death and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.113-B. Presumption as to dowry death When the question is whe-ther 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. Expianation- For the purpose of this section, dowry death shall have the same meaning as in sec. 304-B, Indian Penal Code. The ingredients necessary for the application of Sec.304-B IPC are: (i) that the death of a woman should be by burn or by bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) within 7 years of marriage; (iii) it must be shown that before death the deceased was sub-jected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband or in connection of demand of dowry. 19. In the light of these ingre-dients, the evidence of the prosecution is to be scanned. Ashok appellant was married with Shakuntla deceased in the month of April 1983. Shakuntla had died on 17-6-1988. So, she has died within seven years of the marriage. It is also not disputed that the deceased had not died a natural death. 19. In the light of these ingre-dients, the evidence of the prosecution is to be scanned. Ashok appellant was married with Shakuntla deceased in the month of April 1983. Shakuntla had died on 17-6-1988. So, she has died within seven years of the marriage. It is also not disputed that the deceased had not died a natural death. The only controversy between the party is with regard to the third ingredient as to whether soon before the death, the deceased was harassed and was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. The learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sec.304-B on the basis of letter Exhibits P-I to P-4. In letters Exhibits P-2 to P4 there is no demand of dowry nor it has been mentioned in these letters that she was being harassed on account of demand of dowry. In letter dated 23.10.1986 Exhibit P-i, which is in Hindi version, the relevant portion of. which is duly translated in English, reads as under: Now they have started saying how much amount your father had spent. Since he did not spend any money, she would not go to school and would remain at home. In this letter also there is no specific demand either of money or any dowry article or on account thereof, she was being harassed. 20. Now I come to the oral evidence given by PW9-Banwari Lal, father of the deceased, PW1o- Bishamber Dayal and PW11-Indira Kumari. 21. Pw-9-banwari Lal in his statement has deposed that his wife went to Village Bhakli and met his father and brother and told them the plight of his daughter and asked them to go to Rayta Kalan and advised the in-laws of his, daughter not to tease her as they had already given sufficient dowry and also assured them that they shall continue to offer dowry as per their capacity. His brother, Bishamber Dayal, went to village Rayta Kalan in November 1985 to the house of the in- laws of his daughter and advised them not to tease his daughter. He also met his daughter and she told that all the four accused, namely, Ashok, Sher Singh, Kamla and Naresh used to beat and tease her for want of dowry. The version of Banwari Lal that the accused have demanded the dowry is not belie-vable. In the letters, Exs. He also met his daughter and she told that all the four accused, namely, Ashok, Sher Singh, Kamla and Naresh used to beat and tease her for want of dowry. The version of Banwari Lal that the accused have demanded the dowry is not belie-vable. In the letters, Exs. P-i to P-4, the deceased has not mentioned that she has been tortured or harassed on account of demand of dowry. He has also admitted that his family and family of Ashok Kumar used to exchange greeting cards on various occasions and greeting cards have also been admitted to have been despatched by his family members to Shakuntla. He has not specifically denied that the letters, mark X and Y, are not in the handwriting of his daughter, Shakuntla. These letters show that there was neither any demand of dowry on behalf of the appellants nor Shakuntla, deceased, was harassed on the said account. Even he has admitted that he has not told the police that his daughter had informed his wife that she has not been properly treated or being harassed by her husband after about 6 months of the marriage. He also admitted that he did not see Ashok or any other member of the family after having known the plight of his daughter. He admitted that he did not go to Rayta Kalan to meet any one of the accused. He also admitted that Ashok had remained posted at Sirsa after his marriage. As per his knowledge, Sha-kuntla had also lived with him at Sirsa. He was not sure whether the second daughter was born to Shakuntla at Narnaul in the hospital. He also stated that he did not remember her date of birth. He further stated that he could not confirm nor deny that the third child was born to Shakuntla at Makkar Hospital, Narnaul on 12.7.1987. He stated that at both the times, his son had gone with Shushak. No elder member of the family had gone to see his daughter at the time of either of the delivery. 22. Pw-i0 Bishamber Dayal, who is the real brother of complainant Banwari Lal, has improved his version with regard to the demand of dowry. He has deposed that he does not remember that if he had told to the police in his statement Ex. 22. Pw-i0 Bishamber Dayal, who is the real brother of complainant Banwari Lal, has improved his version with regard to the demand of dowry. He has deposed that he does not remember that if he had told to the police in his statement Ex. PW 10/a, that Ashok used to harass or beat Shakuntla because she had not brought sufficient dowry. 23. Pw-11-indira Kumari is the mother of the deceased, Shakuntla. In her statement, she has deposed that she has got recorded before the police that her daughter, Shakuntla, had came to their house after 3 months of the marriage and told about the teasing by the accused for demand of dowry and she advised her to keep quiet. She also advised her in-laws to behave properly. She was confronted with her statement Ex. PW 11/a, where it was not so recorded. She also deposed that she has told the police that Ashok came to her house after the receipt of the letter and she told him to behave properly with her daughter. She was confronted with her statement Ex. PW11/a, where it was not so recorded. She has also deposed that she has told to the police that she had received a letter from her daughter after two and a half years of her marriage. Then she had gone to Bhakli to ask her father-in-law and they were to go to Rayta Kalan. She was confronted with her statement Ex. PW 11/a, where it was not so recorded. She has also deposed that she told to the police that her Dewar, Bishamber had come to Gurgaon on way back to Rayta Kalan and told her that he had advised Sher Singh and others to behave properly with her daughter. She was confronted with her statement Ex. PW11/a, where it was not so recorded. She also stated that she was told the police that after 3 or 4 months of the previous letter, she had received another letter from Shakuntla about her tale and then she had again gone to village Bhakli and asked her father-in-law to go to Rayta Kalan. She was confronted with her statement Ex. PW11/a, where it was not so recorded. She has also deposed that Ashok had kept a sum of Rs.45,000.00 with her, which she had returned to him at the time when he pur-chased the plot from his house. She was confronted with her statement Ex. PW11/a, where it was not so recorded. She has also deposed that Ashok had kept a sum of Rs.45,000.00 with her, which she had returned to him at the time when he pur-chased the plot from his house. The wit-nesses have improved their version on each and every point. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on such statement. 24. For raising a presumption under Sec.113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the accused can be convicted only if soon before the death, the accused has demanded dowry or on not fulfilling the demand, the woman is being harassed or tortured. In Satvir Singh and others V/s. State of Punjab and another, it has been held as under: It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if Sec.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 indicated 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 death would not have been the immediate cause of her death. It is hence for the Court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept soon before her death. 25. Similar view has been taken in Sham Lal V/s. State of Haryana, which reads as under: It is imperative, for invoking the aforesaid legal presumption, to prove that soon before her death she was subjected to such cruelty or harass-ment. 25. Similar view has been taken in Sham Lal V/s. State of Haryana, which reads as under: It is imperative, for invoking the aforesaid legal presumption, to prove that soon before her death she was subjected to such cruelty or harass-ment. Here, what the prosecution achieved in proving at the most that there was persisting dispute between the two sides regarding the dowry paid or to be paid, both in kind and in cash, and on account of the failure to meet the demand for dowry, Neelam Rani was taken by her parents to their house about one and a half years before her death. Further evidence is that an attempt was made to patch up between the two sides for which a panchayat was held in which it was resolved that she would go back to the nuptial home pursuant to which she was taken by the husband to his house. This happened about ten to fifteen days prior to the occurrence in this case. There is nothing on record to show that she was either treated with cruelty or harassed with the demand for dowry during the period between her having been taken to the parental home and her tragic end. 26. In the case in hand, from the letters produced by the prosecution, Exs. P1 to P4 and the letters Exs. Dl to D4 and from the statement of PW-9 Banwari Lal, PW-10 Bishamber Dayal and PW-11 Indira Kumari, it is established that neither any article nor money has been demanded soon before the death of the deceased. It has also been established from the evidence on record that the deceased was residing separately at Gurgaon with appellant, Ashok. Therefore, no offence under Sec.304-B IPC is made out against the appellants-Sher Singh, Naresh Kumar and Kamla Devi. 27. There is sufficient evidence against Ashok Kumar that he was con-tinuously harassing and giving beating to deceased, Shakuntla even soon before her death. Banwari Lal has written a letter to Sher Singh, father of Ashok Kumar, Ex. P-5, in which he has men-tioned that he is writing the letter to him with great sorrow. He remained mum for three and half years. He further written that Ashok has bad habits. Banwari Lal has written a letter to Sher Singh, father of Ashok Kumar, Ex. P-5, in which he has men-tioned that he is writing the letter to him with great sorrow. He remained mum for three and half years. He further written that Ashok has bad habits. He used to quarrel at his residence many a times with his children and his behaviour towards his daughter Shakuntla, is also very bad and he used to beat her. He has tolerated so much but now it has crossed all the limits. He came to his house at mid-night after taking liquor, which is not tolerable to him and he can live sepa-rately by having a house. He also came to know that still he is beating Sha-kuntla. He is writing the letter for the last time and if anything happened to his daughter, he will be responsible for the same. 28. Banwari Lal also deposed in his statement that Ashok started living in Gurgaon along with Shakuntla and three children in October or November, 1987. He even changed his residence thrice because his behaviour with his daughter was not good and he used to beat her which caused irritation to the landlord. This version given by Banwari Lal has not been challenged. Banwari Lal also admitted in his cross-examination that in 1987, he came to know that Ashok, appellan, was burnt and later on admitted in hospital at Narnaul but he denied that Ashok himself put on fire as he was fed up with the behaviour of Shakuntla. He admitted that he along with his wife had gone to see Ashok at that time. He admitted that Ashok was constructing a house at Gurgaon and he used to super-vise the construction work thereon. This shows that Ashok used to beat his daughter on one occasion or the other without any rhyme and reason. When a woman is given continuous beating without any cause, the same will force her to commit suicide as she has no other alternative. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is established that Ashok has abetted and has committed an offence under Sec.306 IPC. 29. Learned counsel for the appe-Ilants submitted that the trial Court has not framed the charge under Sec.306 IPC. Therefore, the appellants cannot be convicted under the said Section. 30. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is established that Ashok has abetted and has committed an offence under Sec.306 IPC. 29. Learned counsel for the appe-Ilants submitted that the trial Court has not framed the charge under Sec.306 IPC. Therefore, the appellants cannot be convicted under the said Section. 30. I have considered this sub-mission of the learned counsel for the appellants and find the same without any merit. For conviction under Sec.304-B, death should be within seven years of the marriage and has been in connection with any demand of dowry as defined in Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the death should be by burn, bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances. In the dowry death the woman also dies herself by committing a suicide. Once the charge is under Sec.304-B IPC then an accused can be convicted under Sec.306 IPC without framing a charge. The ingredients of Sec.304b and 306 IPC are common. Under both the offences, the deceased commits a suicide. In K. Prema S. Rao V/s. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, the apex Court has held as under: Mere omission or defect in framing charges does not disable the criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet a situation like the one before us. From the State-ment of Charge framed under Sec.304b and in the alternative Sec.498a, IPC (as quoted above) it is clear that all facts and ingre-dients for framing charge for offence under Sec.306, IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention of Sec.306 IPC with 498a IPC does not preclude the Court from convic-ting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the alter-native charge framed under Sec.498a of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit suicide. The provi-sions of Sec.221 of Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safe-guard the powers of the criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. 31. Similar view has been reitera-ted in Hira Lal and Ors. V/s. State (Govt. P. C. take care of such a situation and safe-guard the powers of the criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. 31. Similar view has been reitera-ted in Hira Lal and Ors. V/s. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi6, and it has been held though no charge was framed under Sec.306 IPC that is inconsequential in view of what has been stated by a three-judge Bench of the Apex Court in K. Prema S. Rao and Anr. V/s. Yadla Srinivasa Rao.7 32. From the above discussion, no offence under Sections 304b and 498-A IPC is made out against Sher Singh, Naresh Kumar and Kamla Devi appe-Ilants. Therefore, the appeal qua them is accepted and their conviction and sen-tence is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges framed against them. They are on bail. Their bail bond and surety bonds stand discharged. 33. So far as Ashok Kumar appe-Ilant is concerned, he is acquitted of the offence under Sec.498-A IPC but he is convicted under Sec.306 of the Indian Penal Code instead of Sec.304-B IPC. As regards the sentence of Ashok Kumar appellant, he has been suffering the agony of trial for the last 14 years and has suffered both mentally and finan-cially. Therefore, taking into consideration these facts the appellant Ashok Kumar is sentenced to undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00 under Sec.306 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo RI for three months. Appellant, Ashok Kumar is on bail. His bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled and he be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the remaining period of sentence. Appeal allowed partly.