S. L. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANTS Mohan Lal. Rajendra and Shakuntala Bai stand convicted for offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC and sentenced to R. I. for ten years each, by the impugned judgment and order dated 29-9-1994, passed by Additional sessions Judge. Harda, in Sessions Trial no. 208/92. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that appellant Rajendra is the husband of deceased sushila Bai. Appellant Mohan Lal and Shakuntala Bai are parents of Rajendra. The marriage of Rajendra and deceased sushila Bai was solemnized in June, 1991. The death of Sushila Bai occurred on 24-5-92, otherwise than under normal circum stances. It is alleged by the prosecution that after the marriage of Sushila Bai with appellant -Rajendra and before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants for or in connection with demand for dowry. Whenever the deceased used to go to her parental home, she used to inform her parents and brothers regarding the harassment and demand of dowry the deceased also wrote two letters to her parents wherein she complained about the cruelty and harassment meted out to her by the appellants. ( 3 ) A few days before her death, Narayan (PW-6), the father of Sushila Bai had gone to see her at her marital home, where she expressed him an apprehension that she may be killed and requested him to take her to parental home. Thereupon, the father of the deceased filed an application under Section 97, Cr. P. C. for issuance of search war rant wherein he stated that the deceased is being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband and relatives of her husband for or in connection with demand for dowry. On this application, a search warrant was issued by S. D. M. , Bagli, on 20-5-92 for the production of deceased. On 24-5-92. the deceased was admitted in Government Hospital, harda for treatment of vomitting and diarrhoea. During treatment she breathed her last. ( 4 ) DR. Singhal informed to the S. H. O. of p. S. , Harda regarding the death of Sushila bai. A Marg was registered at the police sta- tion. Inquest was conducted on the dead body of Sushila Bai. The body was sent for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem examination was conducted by a panel of doctors comprising Dr. Ravi Garg (PW-4) and dr. A Marg was registered at the police sta- tion. Inquest was conducted on the dead body of Sushila Bai. The body was sent for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem examination was conducted by a panel of doctors comprising Dr. Ravi Garg (PW-4) and dr. R. K. Patel, who opined that the cause of death of Sushila Bai was asphexia caused by poisoning. Her viscera was preserved. ( 5 ) AN offence was registered at P. S. , harda. During investigation, spot-map was prepared. Copies of search warrant, two letters written by deceased to her parents, affidavits and application under Section 91, cr. P. C. , were recovered from Santosh (PW-10), the brother of the deceased. ( 6 ) AFTER usual investigation a challan was filed against the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 306, IPC. ( 7 ) CHARGES for the aforesaid offences were framed by the learned Additional Sessions judge against the appellant. The appellants abjured the guilt. Their defence was to the effect that the deceased was leading a happy life with them. They examined two witnesses in support of their case. ( 8 ) HAVING concluded the trial, the learned trial Judge acquitted the appellants of the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC, however, found them guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC and accordingly, by the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced them, as indicated above. ( 9 ) AGGRIEVED by the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Harda, the appellants have come up in this appeal. 9a. I have heard Shri H. S. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Divesh Jain, learned Panel lawyer appearing for the State and perused the record of the trial Court. ( 10 ) SHRI Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants led me through the record and contended that the learned Additional Sessions judge erred in accepting the prosecu tion evidence. He submitted that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant are illegal and incorrect, as such arcliable to be set aside. 10 A. On the other hand. Shri Divesh jain, learned State counsel has supported the judgment recorded by the learned trial judge convicting and sentencing the appellant as indicated above. ( 11 ) THE first question that arises for determination is whether the death of Sushila bai occurred otherwise than under a normal circumstance ? 10 A. On the other hand. Shri Divesh jain, learned State counsel has supported the judgment recorded by the learned trial judge convicting and sentencing the appellant as indicated above. ( 11 ) THE first question that arises for determination is whether the death of Sushila bai occurred otherwise than under a normal circumstance ? ( 12 ) THE deceased was admitted in Government hospital, Harda for the treatment of vomitting and diarrhoea and during her treatment she died in the hospital. It is not disputed that death of Sushila Bai occured due to poisoning. ( 13 ) DR. Ravi Garg (PW-4), who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sushila Bai, has stated that on post mortem examination, he found the face. nails and tongue of the deceased blue. Her lungs, liver, spleen and kidney were congested. He preserved viscera of the deceased. In his opinion, the death of Sushila Bai occurred due to asphexia, as a result of poisoning. ( 14 ) FROM the evidence of Dr. Ravi Garg (PW-4) it is quite clear that Sushila Bai died due to consumption of poison, therefore, the trial Court has rightly concluded that the death of Sushila Bai occurred otherwise than under normal circumstance. ( 15 ) THE next question which arises for determination is as to whether the death of deceased occurred within seven years of her marriage ? ( 16 ) SANTOSH (PVV-1), brother of deceased has stated that the marriage of Sushila Bai was solemnized about a year before the incident. The evidence of Santosh (PW-1) has been corroborated by Babulal (PW-2) and rajendra Soni (PW-3), brothers of deceased, kamla Bai (PW-5), mother of deceased and narayan (PW-6), father of the deceased. Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examinations to discredit them. From the evidence of these witnesses, it is established that the marriage between the deceased and appellant Rajendra was solemnized in the month of June, 1991. From the report of dr. Garg, post-mortem examination report, ex. P-9 and the evidence of the parents and brothers of deceased it is well established that the death of Sushila Bai occurred within the period of one year of her marriage. ( 17 ) THIS brings us to the crucial question as to whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants for or in connection with demand of dowry ? ( 17 ) THIS brings us to the crucial question as to whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants for or in connection with demand of dowry ? ( 18 ) IT is not disputed before me that the appellant Rajendra is the husband, appellant mohan Lal is the father-in-law and appellant shakuntala Bai is the mother-in-law of deceased. Thus, they are husband and near relatives of deceased. ( 19 ) NARAYAN (PW-6), who is father of the deceased, has stated that after the marriage sushila Bai came to her parental home 2-3 times and every time complained that the accused persons had subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of cooler, fan and television as dowry. She also expressed an apprehension that in case, demand is not fulfilled, she may be finished in her marital home. The witness has further stated that about a week before the death of Sushila Bai, he along with his wife Kamla Bai had gone to the house of appellants. On that date also the deceased was beaten by the appellants. At that occasion also, the deceased expressed her apprehension that she may be killed. Kamla bai (PW-5), mother of the deceased has also corroborated the testimony of her husband. ( 20 ) THE evidence of parents of the deceased has been further corroborated by the evidence of Santosh (PW-1) and Rajendra soni (PW-3), who have stated that whenever deceased visited them after her marriage, she used to complain regarding harassment appellants for or in connection with demand for cooler, fan and television in the form of dowry. Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to doubt their testimony. ( 21 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses as stated in the Court and in their case diary statements. In the Court, they have stated that the deceased complained about the demand for cooler, fan and television while in their case diary statements, recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. they did not specify the articles which were demanded by the appellants. These contradictions of omissions cannot be said to be material as in the case diary statements also the prosecution witnesses have specifically stated regarding the demand for dowry. P. C. they did not specify the articles which were demanded by the appellants. These contradictions of omissions cannot be said to be material as in the case diary statements also the prosecution witnesses have specifically stated regarding the demand for dowry. It is not very material that the items were not specified in the case diary statements. On careful scrutiny of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses, I find that their evidence is natural and inspires confidence and cannot be said to be concocted or embellished to any extent. ( 22 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that Babulal (PW-2) who is none but the uncle of the mother of deceased, has not stated regarding the demand of dowry by the appellants, therefore, the evidence of parents and brothers of the deceased is suspicious and untrustworthy. This witness has been declared hostile. He was confronted with his case diary statements recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. wherein Instated regarding the demand for dowry. Simply because Babulal has not supported the prosecution case regarding the demand of dowry, the evidence of other witnesses cannot be discarded. It is not necessary that the deceased should have complained to him also regarding demand for dowry as he was a remote relative. ( 23 ) THE evidence of Narayan (PW-6), father of the deceased is further corroborated by the copy of the application filed by him before the S. D. M. , Bagli, (Ex. P-10) wherein he has stated regarding cruelty or harassment meted out by appellants to the deceased for or in connection with demand of dowry. A search warrant for the production of deceased Sushila Bai was issued on 20-5-92, i. e. only four days before her death otherwise than under normal circumstances. ( 24 ) THE version of the parents and brothers of the deceased is further corroborated by the letters Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 alleged to have been written by the deceased to her parents. Santosh (PW-1) has stated that these two letters were received by him in the envelopes Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4. He has further stated that both these letters are in the handwriting of deceased and they bear her signatures. ( 25 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants also submitted that the said letters were handed over to the police after about a fortnight of the incident. P-3 and Ex. P-4. He has further stated that both these letters are in the handwriting of deceased and they bear her signatures. ( 25 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants also submitted that the said letters were handed over to the police after about a fortnight of the incident. These documents have been fabricated after the incident just to involve the appellants in the crime. ( 26 ) THE contention cannot be accepted. Merely because the letters were handed over to the police after some time, it cannot be inferred that they are fabricated. The mental agony of the brothers and parents of deceased, who lost their dear one, can well be understood. In the state of mental agony if there was some delay in handing over the letters to the police, their genuineness cannot be doubted. The deceased was none but the sister of Santosh (PW-1) and it is quite natural for him to identify the writing and signature of her sister. Santosh (PW-1) has stated that the letters were sent by the deceased by post. Narayan (PW-6) has also stated that the letters Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 are in the handwriting of his daughter. Both these letters were received by post in envelopes ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4, which bear the seal of the concerned post office, therefore, their genuineness cannot be questioned. Thus, from the statements of parents and brothers of the deceased and from the contents of the application filed for issuance of search warrant and from the letters Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 written by the deceased to her parents, it is well established that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants. ( 27 ) IT has also been well established by the prosecution that the cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with demand for dowry. The evidence of Narayan (PW-6), kamla Bai (PW-5), Santosh (PW-1) and rajendra Soni (PW-3) clearly establishes that the appellants subjected the deceased sushila Bai to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand for dowry. The deceased used to tell them regarding demand of cooler, fan and television, made by the appellants from her. Their evidence is worthy of credence and supported by the letters Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 and the application for search warrant. The deceased used to tell them regarding demand of cooler, fan and television, made by the appellants from her. Their evidence is worthy of credence and supported by the letters Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 and the application for search warrant. ( 28 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that only general allegations of demand of dowry were made against the husband and his family members and there is no clear and cogent evidence involving them in demand of dowry. In these circumstances, conviction of parents of the husband of the deceased would be improper. ( 29 ) THE contention cannot be accepted. There is specific evidence that all the appel- lants demanded dowry. Thus, there is a reliable evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, mal-treatment or harassment for or in connection with demand for dowry. ( 30 ) THE next question which remains to be determined is : whether cruelty or harassment was meted out to the deceased soon before her death ? ( 31 ) THE death of Sushila Bai occurred within one year of her marriage. Whenever she used to visit her parents, she used to complain them regarding the cruelty or harassment. The expression 'soon before' would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is clear that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death. Only about a week before her death the deceased was beaten by the appellants. This incident was seen by the parents of the deceased. An application for issuance of search warrant was filed soon before the death wherein the allegations of cruelty and harassment were made. Thus, there exists proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. Even otherwise, the death occurred within one year of the marriage. Therefore, incident of cruelty cannot be said to be remote in time and stale. ( 32 ) IN the present case, wife died an unnatural death, evidence is showing that there was demand of dowry and cruelty on the part of the husband and in-laws of the deceased, therefore, the presumption under section 113-B of Evidence Act is also available. Therefore, incident of cruelty cannot be said to be remote in time and stale. ( 32 ) IN the present case, wife died an unnatural death, evidence is showing that there was demand of dowry and cruelty on the part of the husband and in-laws of the deceased, therefore, the presumption under section 113-B of Evidence Act is also available. Frequent demands of dowry were made and threats were given to kill Sushila Bai, in case, the demands were not fulfilled. Therefore, presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act has to be drawn against the appellants. ( 33 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant also contended that the learned trial Judge has wrongly discarded the defence evidence. In view of the defence evidence, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. The learned trial Judge has recorded the reasons for discarding the defence evidence. I do not find any reason to take a different view of the matter, particularly, when the evidence adduced by the prosecution is convincing and worthy of credence. ( 34 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that it was obligatory for the prosecution to prove that there was prior agre- ment between the parties to give valuables at the time of marriage. In support of his contention, learned counsel referred to the definition of 'dowry' as given in Section 2 of dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It is true that the definition speaks of prior agreement but agreement for dowry is not always necessary. In this case, persistent demands for fan, cooler and television was made after marriage either from bride or from her parents. Such demands were only in connection with marriage. It would constitute a case of demand of dowry under Section 304-B, ipc. If any case law is required in this regard, i may refer to Pa wan Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1998 SC 958 : (1998 Cri LJ 1144 ). ( 35 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere in the conviction recorded by the trial Court. If any case law is required in this regard, i may refer to Pa wan Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1998 SC 958 : (1998 Cri LJ 1144 ). ( 35 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere in the conviction recorded by the trial Court. ( 36 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants lastly contended that the sentences awarded to the appellants are too harsh particularly, in view of the fact that the prosecution has not established the part played by each accused and there is no evidence that poison was administered by the appellants to the deceased Sushila Bai. He requested for leniency in the matter of sentence, so far as the appellant Shakuntala Bai is concerned. ( 37 ) THE sentences imposed upon the appellants cannot be said to be harsh or unjust. In case of offence of causing dowry death of woman a stringent view should be taken while imposing sentence. Accused- husband and in-laws of the deceased practised cruelty on deceased for greed, therefore, no lenient view can be taken while imposing sentence. As such, no interference is called for in the matter of sentence also. ( 38 ) IN the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellants as indicated above, is hereby maintained. Appeal dismissed. .