JUDGMENT S.L. Jain, J. Appellants Rajkumar alias Raju Yadav, Prakash Yadav, Ramraj Yadav and Laxmi Bai alias Chandrani, stand convicted for the offences punishable under sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for seven years each for the offence punishable u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment and order Cri. Appeal No. 4 of 2002 decided on 8-4-2004. (Jabalpur) dated December 27, 2001, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Trial No. 21/99. No separate sentence has been awarded to the appellants u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case, in brief, is that appellant Rajkumar alias Raju Yadav is the husband of deceased Anita Bai. Appellant Laxmi Bai is the aunt of appellant Rajkumar and appellants Prakash and Ramraj are the cousins of appellant Rajkumar, being the sons of appellant Laxmi Bai. Marriage between the deceased and appellant Rajkumar was solemnized in the year 1994, i.e. before about four years of the incident. The appellants used to ask the deceased to bring money from her parents. Occasionally, the parents of the deceased used to give some money to the appellants as per their demand. Whenever the parents of the deceased failed to accede to the wishes of the appellants, they used to harass the deceased with a view to coerce her and subjected her to cruelty. Appellant Rajkumar used to beat her. Other appellants used to exhort appellant Rajkumar to beat her. A day prior to the date of incident, when Rakesh (PW-5), the brother of deceased Anita, went to the nuptial home of the deceased at village Sagra to bring her, the appellants demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from him to open a shop. The brother of the deceased expressed his inability to give the money, therefore, the appellants did not send the deceased with him. On the next day, i.e. on 1-6-1998 the death of Anita occurred otherwise than in normal circumstances by burns and bodily injury. When the parents of the deceased learnt about the unfortunate death of Anita, her father and uncle went to village Sagra. On 1-6-1998 itself the father of deceased gave a written report, Ex. P-7, to S.H.O., P.S. Maharajpur. An inquest of dead body of Anita was conducted by Virendra Singh Rajput, S.D.O.P., Deori (PW-9), and Panchnama, Ex. P-6 was prepared. When the parents of the deceased learnt about the unfortunate death of Anita, her father and uncle went to village Sagra. On 1-6-1998 itself the father of deceased gave a written report, Ex. P-7, to S.H.O., P.S. Maharajpur. An inquest of dead body of Anita was conducted by Virendra Singh Rajput, S.D.O.P., Deori (PW-9), and Panchnama, Ex. P-6 was prepared. The dead body of Anita was sent for post-mortem examination. Dr. K.C. Gupta (PW-10), Medical Officer, C.H.C., Deori, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Anita, found 97% flame burns of IInd, IIIrd and IVth degree. The burns were mainly anti-mortem, but at some places burns were post mortem. Dr. Gupta also found one contusion measuring 2 cms. x 2 cms. at left side of forehead, 1.5 cMs. below the hair-line of the deceased. Smell of kerosene was present over hair (occipital area) and other parts of the body. Dr. Gupta opined that the cause of death of Anita was shock and dehydration as a result of extensive burns. The death occurred within 6 to 12 hours of the post-mortem examination. The burnt clothes found on the dead body of Anita were recovered. Viscera of the deceased was preserved by Dr. Gupta. During investigation, spot map was prepared. A plastic can and some partly burnt match-sticks were recovered from the spot as per Ex. P-10. A stove and pieces of bangles were also recovered from the spot as per Ex. P-11. Seized articles viscera, some burnt clothes of the deceased, pieces of bangles, some partly burnt match-sticks, stove with some kerosene in the tank thereof and a plastic can were sent to F.S.L., Sagar for examination. As per the report of F.S.L. the seized stove was in working order. The fuel in the tank of stove was having the smell of kerosene. Clothes of the deceased and the plastic can were giving smell of kerosene. After usual investigation, a challan was filed against the appellants and Manohar Lai, the husband of appellant Laxmi Bai and uncle of rest of the appellants in the Court for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 306 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed a charge against the appellants and Manohar Lal for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 306 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons abjured their guilt. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed a charge against the appellants and Manohar Lal for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 306 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons abjured their guilt. During trial, accused Manohar Lal died and, therefore, the case against him stood abated. The case of other accused was that Smt. Anita died due to the accident. The parents of Anita wanted to marry their daughter with appellant Ramraj. Since the proposal was not accepted by the accused party, relatives of the deceased have falsely implicated them. In support of their case accused persons examined three defence witnesses. After concluding the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the incident occurred within seven years from the date of the marriage of the deceased with appellant Rajkumar. He also held that soon before her death, Anita was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband and other appellants who are relatives of her husband for or in connection with demand for dowry. The learned trial Judge accordingly, by the impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above, for the offences punishable 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. It is against this judgment and order that the appellants have come up in this appeal. I have heard Shri S.C. Datt, learned senior counsel with Shri K.K. Gautam, advocate, appearing for appellants and Smt. Chanchal Sharma, learned panel lawyer for the State; and perused the record of the trial Court. Shri Datt led me through the record and contended that the learned Sessions Judge erred in holding the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences. He submitted that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant are improper, bad and illegal and as such, are liable to be set aside. As against this, learned Panel Lawyer supported the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court. I have given my attention and consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as also judgment of the trial Court. Hari Bai (PW-4), the mother of the deceased, has stated that the marriage of her daughter, Anita, was performed with appellant Rajkumar before about five years of the date of recording of her evidence. After about two years of her marriage when Anita came to her parental home, she informed her that accused persons used to harass her. Hari Bai (PW-4), the mother of the deceased, has stated that the marriage of her daughter, Anita, was performed with appellant Rajkumar before about five years of the date of recording of her evidence. After about two years of her marriage when Anita came to her parental home, she informed her that accused persons used to harass her. They used to ask her to bring money from her parents. Sometimes, they used to ask for Rs. 10,000/- and sometimes for Rs. 20,000/-. Occasionally they gave money to her daughter as per the demand of the accused persons. She has also stated that a few days before the date of incident her son Rakesh had gone to the marital home of the deceased to bring her but Anita was not sent by the accused persons with him. Appellant Rajkumar demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- but Rakesh expressed his inability to pay the amount. Rakesh (PW-5) has also stated that the accused persons used to harass the deceased for or in connection with demand for dowry. Sardar Singh Yadav (PW-6) has also supported the prosecution case in this respect. Inder Singh (PW-3), the father of the deceased, has also stated that his wife and son used to tell him that Anita complaints against the accused persons that they harass her for or in connection with demand for dowry. Rakesh (PW-5) and Inder Singh (PW-3) have also stated that only a day prior to the date of incident, Rakesh went to the marital home of the deceased to bring her but the appellants did not send her along with Rakesh as he expressed his inability to give the money to the appellants. The witnesses have further stated that on the date of incident they received information that Anita died due to burn. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that to attract the provisions of section 304B of the Indian Penal Code it is necessary to establish the date of marriage. Where the date of marriage is not correctly ascertainable, the death of Anita cannot be said to have occurred within seven years of her marriage. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Inder Singh (PW-3) has admitted in paragraph 19 of his deposition that the marriage of Anita was performed in the year 1991. Where the date of marriage is not correctly ascertainable, the death of Anita cannot be said to have occurred within seven years of her marriage. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Inder Singh (PW-3) has admitted in paragraph 19 of his deposition that the marriage of Anita was performed in the year 1991. Hari Bai (PW-4), the mother of the deceased, also admitted in paragraph 4 of her statement that the marriage of Anita was performed in the year 1990. The above referred admissions of the witnesses should be examined in the light of their earlier statements in the examination-in-chief. Inder Singh (PW-3) has stated in his examination-in-chief that the marriage of Anita was performed six years prior to the date of recording of his statement. Similarly, Hari Bai (PW-4), in her examination-in-chief has stated that the marriage of Anita and Rajkumar was solemnized about five years prior to the date of recording of her evidence. Both the witnesses are rustic villagers and, therefore, they are not certain and not expected to understand the span of a year exactly. Rakesh (PW-5) has stated that marriage of Anita was performed with Rajkumar before about five years of the recording of his statement. Sardar Singh Yadav (PW-6) who being a Veterinary Surgeon is an educated person, has given the year of marriage of Anita. According to him, the marriage of Anita and Rajkumar was not solemnized in the year 1991 but was solemnized in the year 1994. The appellants, in answer to Question No. 4 of their examination u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have categorically admitted that the marriage of Anita and Rajkumar was performed in the year 1994. In this background, learned counsel for the appellants cannot be allowed to make a mountain of a mole hill. On the basis of some error on the part of the parents of the deceased in mentioning the exact year of marriage of deceased with appellant Rajkumar, their evidence cannot be thrown out. If we look to the evidence of Inder Singh (PW-3) and Hari Bai (PW-4) as a whole, we find it clear from their evidence that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage. The trial Court has discussed the evidence in this respect in detail and I do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the matter. The trial Court has discussed the evidence in this respect in detail and I do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the matter. This brings us to the crucial question as to whether death of Anita was caused due to burns and bodily injury or it occurred otherwise than in normal circumstances? From the evidence of Dr. K.C. Gupta (PW-10), who conducted the post-mortem examination, it is established beyond any shadow of doubt that the deceased died due to burns. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that from the evidence of defence witnesses it is established that the death of Anita was accidental. Kadori Lal (DW-1) has stated that he was called at the house of Anita during day time at about 12 O'clock. When he reached, he found many persons including Hira Lal, Udal and Panna Lal present there. On being asked by Hiralal, Anita informed him that when she was warming the milk on the stove, she caught fire from the stove. Thereafter, Anita was shifted to Deori. Gulab Singh (DW-2) has stated that on hearing the cries he went to the house of Rajkumar in the midnight. On being asked, Anita informed the villagers that she caught fire from the stove while warming the milk. Hira Lal (DW-3) has also stated that when he reached the house of Rajkumar at 1.00 A.M., Anita informed the villagers that her Sari caught fire when she was warming the milk. There is material contradictions in the evidence of aforesaid defence witnesses. While other witnesses state that Anita was asked during night hours, Kadori Lai (DW-1) has stated that she was asked during day time. This material contradiction makes the evidence of defence witnesses unreliable. From the evidence of Dr. K.C. Gupta (PW-10) it is also clear that at the time of post-mortem examination the hair of the deceased were giving smell of kerosene. If the deceased would have caught fire through the flames of the stove, the kerosene would not have been found in the occipital area. The presence of kerosene in the hair and other parts of the body rule out the possibility of catching fire through the flames of the stove. If the deceased would have caught fire through the flames of the stove, the kerosene would not have been found in the occipital area. The presence of kerosene in the hair and other parts of the body rule out the possibility of catching fire through the flames of the stove. If Anita was warming the milk, some pot containing the milk or some milk on the floor would have been found in the room where the deceased caught fire, but no such pot or milk was found on the spot. In this background, the learned trial Judge rightly disbelieved the theory of burn due to accident. Dr. Gupta has also stated that in the post-mortem examination he also found one contusion measuring 2 cms. x 2 cms. on the left side of forehead of the deceased. This contusion was anti mortem. This injury also speaks volumes against the appellants. From this injury the only inference which can be drawn would be that the deceased was assaulted before her death. Therefore, the conclusion of the trial Court that death of Anita was caused by burns or bodily injury or the same occurred otherwise than in normal circumstances cannot be found fault with. This brings us to the question as to whether Anita, soon before her death, was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants for or in connection with demand of dowry? From the evidence of Inder Singh (PW-3). Hari Bai (PW-4), Rakesh (PW-5) and Sardar Singh Yadav (PW-6) it can be gathered beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants used to ask the deceased to bring money from her parents. From the evidence of Rakesh (PW-5), which is corroborated by the evidence of his parents, it can also be gathered beyond any shadow of doubt that a day before the date of incident also the appellants asked Rakesh to give Rs. 50,000/-. The expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between alleged cruelty or harassment and the death, in question. There must be existence of proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on demand of dowry and the concerned death. In the present case, there is positive evidence that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty. There must be existence of proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on demand of dowry and the concerned death. In the present case, there is positive evidence that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty. In the present case, the evidence shows that there was demand of dowry and cruelty on the part of the accused persons and presumption u/s 113B of the Evidence Act is available. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that even if the prosecution version is accepted that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was demanded for opening the shop, it cannot be said to be demand for dowry. For the purpose of section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, "dowry" has the same meaning as in section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and according to this definition the prosecution must prove that there was a prior agreement between the parties to pay valuables or money at the time of marriage. Any demand made subsequent to the amount agreed at the time of marriage is excluded from the definition of "dowry". Only the property or the valuable securities given or agreed to be given at or before the marriage comes within the meaning of "dowry". Demand of amount for business cannot be termed as "dowry". The above contention of learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. Expressions "dowry" and "demand for dowry" are distinguishable. Agreement of dowry is not always necessary. Persistent demand of money from bride after marriage or from her parents can be said to be in connection with marriage. It would constitute a case of demand of dowry within section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that at the time of inquest Inder Singh was present but he did not inform the S.D.O.P. conducting the inquest, regarding the demand for dowry. A complaint Ex.P-7 was handed over to S.H.O. on 1-6-1998 itself. The purpose of inquest is not to hold a detailed investigation, therefore, even if the fact of the demand for dowry does not find place in inquest Panchanama it does not make the evidence of Inder Singh doubtful. The object of inquest is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or a natural death and if so, what is apparent cause of death. The object of inquest is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or a natural death and if so, what is apparent cause of death. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted, who assaulted her or under what circumstances he was assaulted are foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings u/s 174, Code of Criminal Procedure. This report is made just to indicate what the Investigating Officer found on the body of the deceased person. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the statement of Rakesh (PW-5), the brother of deceased was recorded during investigation after a long lapse of time. It is true that Investigating Officer must record statements promptly in order to inspire confidence in such statements, but Rakesh (PW-5) has explained that when the police came to record statements of his parents he was not available in the village. No question was put in the cross examination of the Investigating Officer as to the cause of delay in recording the evidence of Rakesh. The question of delay in recording statements of witnesses is material only if it is indicative and suggestive of some unfair practice by the investigating agency, therefore, the Investigating Officer should be asked specifically about the delay and reasons therefor. In the present case, a complaint in writing was made by Inder Singh on the date of incident itself, therefore, it cannot be said that the investigator deliberately marked time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case, therefore, delay in recording statement of Rakesh (PW-5) does not cast any cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the prosecution story. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly contended that even if Rajkumar, the husband of the deceased is responsible for dowry death, other appellants cannot be held responsible. Other appellants are not the parents of the husband. They are aunt and cousins of the husband. As per the prosecution witnesses themselves they were living separately. Kadori Lal (DW-1) and Hira Lal (DW-3) who have stated that appellant Rajkumar lives separately from other appellants. At the time of incident also he was living separately. This contention also cannot be accepted. Kadori Lal (DW-1) in his cross-examination has accepted that Rajkumar and other appellants live in the same house in different portions. Kadori Lal (DW-1) and Hira Lal (DW-3) who have stated that appellant Rajkumar lives separately from other appellants. At the time of incident also he was living separately. This contention also cannot be accepted. Kadori Lal (DW-1) in his cross-examination has accepted that Rajkumar and other appellants live in the same house in different portions. Hari Bai (PW-4) has categorically stated that they live in the different portions of the same house. They have a common kitchen. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellants other than Rajkumar were living separately at distant places and they have been falsely implicated by the relatives of the deceased. If the relatives of the deceased had any intention to falsely implicate innocent persons, they would not have spared the parents of Rajkumar against whom they did not make any allegation. On the contrary, they have stated that the parents of Rajkumar were living at Deori and not at Sagra. About other appellants only they have stated that they live in the same house. Learned counsel for the appellants also invited attention of this Court to paragraph 10 of the statement of Rakesh (PW-5) wherein he has categorically stated that his sister Anita told him that Manohar, Prakash, Ramraja and Laxmi never assaulted her. It was only Rajkumar, who used to assault her, but in the next sentence itself the witness has stated that other appellants used to exhort Rajkumar to beat the deceased. Thus, from the above discussions, it is clear that the appellant Rajkumar, the husband of the deceased and other appellants who are relatives of Rajkumar subjected Anita to harassment with a view to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand for valuable security. It is also proved that the death of Anita was caused by burns or bodily injury and occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants for or in connection with demand of dowry. Therefore, the appellants shall be deemed to have caused the dowry death. For the reasons stated above, I find no scope for interference in the order of the trial Court convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the appellants shall be deemed to have caused the dowry death. For the reasons stated above, I find no scope for interference in the order of the trial Court convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. So far as sentence is concerned, the law requires that in a case of dowry death punishment should not be awarded for imprisonment of less than seven years. Therefore, the sentence imposed upon the appellants by the trial Court is the minimum sentence which could have been awarded to the appellants. Sub-minimum sentence cannot be awarded against the mandate of law. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of the trial Court is hereby maintained. Final Result : Dismissed