JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.2.2001 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, by which the learned Judge convicted the appellants for the offence u/s.304-B Indian Penal Code to ten year rigorous imprisonment and was also convicted for the offence under section 498A Indian Penal Code to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1;000/- in default of payment of fine, further undergo three years simple imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that one FIR was lodged by PW-7 Jetha Ram on 19.4.1999 which he has stated that my niece (Gayatri was killed by all the accused-appellants, the allegation is also made that all these accused demanded dowry and gold and due to this reason, they have killed my niece. Previously, Jethmal and Yogendra threatened us and demanded Rs. 1 lac, ten tolas of gold and also demanded one Hero Honda Motorcycle. About four days back, he telephoned Gayatri.from Barmer, at that time also, she said all accused have beaten her and they might kill her. She also said that she had written acts of the accused on a paper. Gayatri was taken back by Jethmal and other persons and saying that they will not harass her. 3. On this report, police started investigation. After investigation, police filed challan against the appellants for the offences under sections 302, 304-B and 498-A Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, charges were framed against all the four accused-appellants who denied charge and claimed trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses. Accused statements were recorded under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code On the defence side, statements of DW/1 to DW/10 were recorded. After conclusion of the trial, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer acquitted all the accused for the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code but convicted the present appellants for the offences under section 304-B and 498-A Indian Penal Code and passed the sentenced as referred above. 4. Against this judgment, this appeal is filed by the present appellants assailing the judgment of conviction passed against them. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants states that witnesses have given stereotype statements against all the accused-appellants. The independent witness neighbour PW/8 and PW/9 were examined. They have not stated against the present appellants. 4. Against this judgment, this appeal is filed by the present appellants assailing the judgment of conviction passed against them. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants states that witnesses have given stereotype statements against all the accused-appellants. The independent witness neighbour PW/8 and PW/9 were examined. They have not stated against the present appellants. There is no evidence that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty with reference to demand of dowry, so offence under section 304B Indian Penal Code is not at all been against any of the present appellants, as well as in absence of any such evidence, it is not permissible to take recourse to the legal presumption envisaged under section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The rule of evidence is prescribed in law to obviate the prosecution of the difficulty to further prove that the offence was perpetrated by the husband, as then, it would be the burden of the accused to rebut the presumption. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have supported the prosecution story and mentioned that the judgment of the lower Court is well founded, therefore, no interference is called for. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant and given my thouthful consideration. 8. On examination of the prosecution case, it cannot be said that the husband can escape liability of rigour of Section 304-B Indian Penal Code. The responsibility of husband in maintaining cordial atmosphere in matrimonial home is more pronounced then other members of the family. As things stand, the presumption incorporated in Section 304- B Indian Penal Code in case of a case where wife dies under unnatural circumstances, the husband has to explain the circumstances under which wife had taken the extreme step of killing herself. In the statement recorded under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and in reply to the charge, husband has not come out. The explanation given by the husband is to the extent of her desire to go to some other person. In the statement recorded under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and in reply to the charge, husband has not come out. The explanation given by the husband is to the extent of her desire to go to some other person. If that was the state of affairs, then husband should have taken steps to counter or annul those situations but then the evidence produced by the prosecution clearly establishes that there had been a persistent demand of money, motorcycle and other articles resulting into unfortunate incident. Thus, the husband cannot be said to be one who would not be covered by the rigour of Section 304- B Indian Penal Code. Thus, as regards his appeal is concerned, his conviction under section 304B Indian Penal Code is maintained. As regards other accused persons, though omnibus statement is given against these witnesses but it cannot be said that in the background in which the offence is said to have been committed, the rigour of Section 304-B Indian Penal Code can be applied against other accused persons, therefore, they deserve to be acquitted of the offences under section 304- B Indian Penal Code. Further, their conviction under section 498A Indian Penal Code for prosecuting the deceased cannot be said to be un-reasonable because the evidence is sufficient to establish that they had atleast treated her badly. Thus, the cruelty is made out and in this background, their conviction under section 498A Indian Penal Code is upheld. The sentence of period already undergone by them is considered sufficient to meet the ends of justice. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The appeal of accused- Yogendra is dismissed. The appeal of other three accused- appellants-Jethmal, Smt. Sushila Devi and Narendra Kumar is allowed to the extent of offence under section 304B Indian Penal Code. Their conviction under section 304B Indian Penal Code is set aside. However, all the three accused persons are convicted under section 498A Indian Penal Code. Their sentence are reduced to the period already undergone.Appeal partly allowed. *******