JUDGMENT I.P. SINGH & P.N. YADAV, JJ.-AII the five appellants have been convicted under sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, however, appellant no. 1 Hare Ram Jha and appellant no.2 Durga Nand Jha have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and appellant no.3 Meera Devi, appellant no4 Asha Devi and appellant no.5 Mithilesh Devi have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. However, no separate sentence has been passed against any of the appellants under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the Fardbeyan of the informant Meena Devi (P.W.5) is that her niece Sudhia Devi was married with appellant nO.1 Hare Ram Jha 3-4 years back. At the time of occurrence she was pregnant. On 22.9.1997 she learnt that the members of her matriomonial family were assaulting. She on this information went to see her along with her sister-in-law and neighbours, namely, Arjun Mishra, Satyanarain Mishra, Kunwarje and Sarv Narain Mishra. It has been stated that when they reached there the mother-in-law of the deceased Jeewachhi Devi alias Meera Devi informed her that Sudhia Devi was in the process of delivery. When she insisted to see her the sister of the husband of deceased Sudhia Devi, namely, Asha Devi and Mithilesh Devi obstructed her on the door having la/hi in their hands and also threatened her with dire consequences if she tried to enter into the room. There was altercation between them and appellants Durga Nand Jha\ Hare Ram Jha. mother-In-law Meera Devi, Hare Ram Jha and his nephew Saroj Jha also arrived there having lathi in their hands. They all were at the verge of assaulting them. By that time there was hulla in the village that Hare Ram Jha and his family members have already killed deceased Sudhia Devi. The villagers assembled there and thereafter the informant with the help of the villagers entered into her room and found that her niece Sudhia Devi was already lying dead in the house on a cot. When she wanted Meera Devi to get further information about her death, they all managed to flee away steathily taking advantage of crowd assembled there. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement a case was lodged and the police after completion of investigation submitted chargesheet against the accused persons. When she wanted Meera Devi to get further information about her death, they all managed to flee away steathily taking advantage of crowd assembled there. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement a case was lodged and the police after completion of investigation submitted chargesheet against the accused persons. Accordingly, the cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Session for trial. Accordingly the appellants were put on trial who pleaded not guilty and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. Ultimately, the trial concluded and ended in conviction and sentence of the appellants. 4. The prosecution in support of its case altogether examined 18 witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 Sarv Narain Mishra, P.W. 2. Arjun Mishra, P.W.3. Kunarjee Mishra, P.W.4. Satya Narayan Mishra, PW 5 Meena Devi, PW8 Vibha Devi, P.W.7.. Bimala Devi, P.W.8 Shyamanand Jha, PW 9 Ratan Yadav and P.W 10 Mohan Mishra did not support the prosecution case and thus they were declared hostile by the prosecution, P;W 11 is Ram Saran Mishra, father of deceased, PW 12 is Chaudhary Gyani Paswan, Chowkidar, PW 13 is Jeevo Devi, mother of deceased, PW 14 is Baidyanath Mishra, PW 15 is Phoolo Devi, Mousi of deceased. PW 16 is Dr. Dhrub Kumar Dheeraj, who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Sudhia Devi, P.W. 17 is Bhuneshwar Prasad Singh, who was the 1.0. of the case and PW 18 is Lakshman Sah. a constable. 5. PW 11 Ram Saran Mishra. father of deceased Sudhia Devi has fully supported the case of the prosecution According to him he was living at Dhanbad along with his family members. He has stated that love affairs started between his daughter Sudhia Devi and Hare Ram Jha and thereafter he took both of them to Jhanjharpur court where marriage was solemnised and Sudhia Devi went. to her Sasural. After some time dispute started on account of demand of dowry and accordingly a Panchaiti was also held and the Panches settled the matter and he was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 51.000/- to Durganand Jha, father-in-law of the deceased. to her Sasural. After some time dispute started on account of demand of dowry and accordingly a Panchaiti was also held and the Panches settled the matter and he was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 51.000/- to Durganand Jha, father-in-law of the deceased. He has stated that even after payment of money, again demand for Television, Freeze and Godrerj Almirah was made which could not be fulfilled by him and the in-law's and other family members of his daughter Sudhia Devi again started some trouble with her. According to him his daughter became ill. Then he took her to Dhanbad and she was treated there. Thereafter his son-in-law Hare Ram .Jha came and took her to his house. He has stated that her daughter stated that if they will not give articles so demanded she would be killed and in this connection she also wrote letters i.e. Ext. 2. He has fruther stated that one Mohan Mishra (P.W. 10) informed him that his daughter has been killed. There upon he came to the village along with his family and• then 8ame to know from the villagers that the accused persons had killed his daughter. Meena Devi who is the wife of his brother has also narrated the entire incident and she told that she had lodged a case- also. In his cross examination he has stated that both the family belongs to the same Gotra and the marriage of the persons of the same Gotra is not permissible. 6. P.W. 12 Chaudhary Gyani Paswan) has supported the case of the prosecution that the marriage was performed 2-3 yeas prior to the occurrence. He has also supported the case about the Panchaiti which was held between the accused and the family members of the deceased .According to him on the day of occurrence heard some rumour that deceased Sudhia has been killed. He went to the house of Durga Nand Jha where he saw the dead body of the deceased Sudhia Devi. He further stated that the Sub Inspector of Police had prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. 7 P.W. 13 Jeevo Devi, mother of deceased Sudhia Devi has also supported the version of the prosecution case. According to her also the marriage was performed between Sudhia Devi and Hare Ram Jha in court. He further stated that the Sub Inspector of Police had prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. 7 P.W. 13 Jeevo Devi, mother of deceased Sudhia Devi has also supported the version of the prosecution case. According to her also the marriage was performed between Sudhia Devi and Hare Ram Jha in court. Thereafter there was some dispute about the dowry and accordingly a Panchayati was held and a sum of Rs. 51,000/- was paid to the father in-law of the deceased and even then the family members of the in-laws of her daughter started demanding T.V. freeze etc. which were not given due to financial difficulties. She has stated that her daughter remained in her Sasural for about six months for the first time and for about one year on the second occasion. Sudhia Devi had come to her paternal house for treatment and thereafter her son-in-law Hare Ram Jha took Sudhia Devi to her matrimonial house. She had stated that the in-laws of Sudhia Devi started assaulting her. She has also written letter in this connection. According to her, daughter Sudhia Devi was having pregnancy of nine months at the time of her death. When the came to know about her death, she along with her family members came to the village and thereafter the entire incident was narrated by Meena Devi regarding death of her . daughter Sudhia Devi. In her cross examination also she has supported the marriage, demand of dowry, holding of Panchayati and payment of Rs. 51000/- to the father-in-law of her daughter. 8. P.W. 15 is Phulo Devi. She is mousi of the deceased. She has also supported the case of the prosecution. According to her also marriage of Sudhia Devi was performed with Hare Ram Jha in Jhanjharpur. Thereafter duragman vjas held and a panchaiti also took place wherein a sum of Rs. 51,000/- was paid to Durga Nand Jha, father-in-law of the deceased as dowry. Even then the in-laws of the deceased started demanding T.V:, freeze etc. which was not fulfilled and for that she was subjected to torture and thereafter she was killed. 9 P.W. 16 Dr. Dhrub Kumar Dheeraj who was Associate Professor of Forensic Medicine at Darbhanga Medical College. 51,000/- was paid to Durga Nand Jha, father-in-law of the deceased as dowry. Even then the in-laws of the deceased started demanding T.V:, freeze etc. which was not fulfilled and for that she was subjected to torture and thereafter she was killed. 9 P.W. 16 Dr. Dhrub Kumar Dheeraj who was Associate Professor of Forensic Medicine at Darbhanga Medical College. Hospital, Laherisarai had conducted autopsy the dead body of Sudhia Devi and found the following injuries on her person: "Postmortem epidermal burnt 4" x 3"x3"x 2" was seen on the upper part of the abdomen. A faint ligature mark was seen in the upper part of the neck on the left lateral aspect 3 1/2"x1/2" and lateral and posterior part of the back of neck on right side 3"x1 /2". In other parts ligature mark was discontinues. No abrasion or associated conclusion of the ligature mark was found nor was there any deeper corresponding neck injury. Hyoid bone was found intact. In the chest contusion of the right chest wall in an area of l" x 3" was noted which extended up to the lower part of the neck on right side causing contusion of the neck muscle underneath. Upper lobs of both lungs were found bruised. Internal organs were also conjested. Approximately 50 C.C. fluid blood was found inside the right chest cavity. Trachea, Bronchia and larynx were also intensively conjested showing presence of bloody froths over inner wall. Liver bore no injury. Stomach mucusa was congested and showed submuscus haemorrhages. Stomach contains approxiamately 50 C.C. partly digested rice. pulse and vegetables. Left side of the heart was empty and 'right was partially full. Urinary bladder was empty. The uterus was enlarged from which a dead female foetus about 36 weeks of intra uterine age was delivered. No injury to the external genitala were noted. No fracture of the major bone were found. Neck muscles of the left lower part were also contused. Skull was normal and the brain conjested." 10. According to the opinion of the doctor the death resulted from combined effects of traumatic asphyxia and strangulation. Hanging was post mortem in nature. 11. P.W. 17 Bhuneshwar Prasad Singh is the 1.0. of this case. He has also supported the prosecution version. Skull was normal and the brain conjested." 10. According to the opinion of the doctor the death resulted from combined effects of traumatic asphyxia and strangulation. Hanging was post mortem in nature. 11. P.W. 17 Bhuneshwar Prasad Singh is the 1.0. of this case. He has also supported the prosecution version. He has stated that when the case was entrusted to him for investigation, he reached to the village Bahuarwa and prepared inquest report and thereafter sent the dead body for post mortem examination. He also recorded the Fard-beyan of the witnesses. He has also prepared seizure list and took statement of Meena Devi. the informant. He also seized a copy which contains writings of the accused and thereafter recorded the statements of the witnesses. In his cross examination too he remained un-shaken. 12. Other witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1 to 10 have been declared hostile by the prosecution and have not supported the case of the prosecution. They all have supported the fact that deceased Sudhia Devi was married to Hare Ram Jha about three years earlier and she died. Their attention was also drawn to their earlier statement that they gave before the I.O. about the demand of dowry and holding of Panchayati and on that account the in-laws of Sudhia Devi were torturing her. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that no case under section 304-B or 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is made out rather it is a case under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On this it has been further submitted that there was no legal marriage between app0ellant Hare Ram Jha and deceased Sudhia Devi. The marriage can legally be performed either by Hindu Marriage rites permissible under Hindu Marriage Act or through the Court but the marriage of Sudhia Devi was solemnised by the Notary Public affidavit which has been supported by the father of the deceased Ram Saran Mishra, PW: 11.That apart 'sagotry' marriage is not permissible by Hindu Marriage Act. As such they were not legally married and thus there was no question of dowry death insuch cases. The doctor did not find any (nark of ligature and no tissue was found broke~ and rupture. The doctor found that it was a• case of traumatic asphyxia and strangulation. The learned counsel has also submitted that date of marriage must also be proved by the prosecution. The doctor did not find any (nark of ligature and no tissue was found broke~ and rupture. The doctor found that it was a• case of traumatic asphyxia and strangulation. The learned counsel has also submitted that date of marriage must also be proved by the prosecution. In this case since there was no valid marriage as such there was no question of proving the date of marriage. However all the witnesses have stated that it was 3-4 years prior to the occurrence that the marriage was solemnised even though that was not legal but the occurrence has taken place very much within seven years from the date of alleged illegal marriage. On the other hand learned counsel for the informant has drawn my attention towards the decision of the Supreme Court about legality of marriage in the case of Reema Aggarwal Vs Anupam and Ors. reported in 2004 Cr. L.J. 892 [: 2004(2) PLJR (SC) 64] in which in a similar fact of .a case it was held that if the validity of the marriage itself is under legal scrutiny the demand of dowry in respect of an invalid marriage would be legally not recognizable but even then the purpose of sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and also section 113-8 of the Evidence Act cannot be lost sight of. Further it was held that the objective of introducing the above provision was to prevent harassment to a woman "" 10 entered into a marital relationship with a person and later on becomes a victim of greed of money. It was also observed that can a person who entered into a marital arrangement be allowed to take a shelter behind a smokescreen to contend that since there was no valid marriage the question of dowry death or torture on that count does not arise. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that no case is made out under section 304-8 of the Indian Penal Code on the plea of invalid marriage is not sustainable in view of the ratio held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision. 14. The submission of the learned counsel that apart from the validity of marriage the prosecution also could not .prove the harassment and cruelty meted out to the deceased soon before her death. 14. The submission of the learned counsel that apart from the validity of marriage the prosecution also could not .prove the harassment and cruelty meted out to the deceased soon before her death. In this connection the evidence of P.W.11, father of the deceased and P.W. 13, mother of the deceased, should be referred to From their evidence it appears that there was demand of money and other articles also. On this point there was Panchayati also and the poor father has to pay Rs.51,000/-. The deceased was also threatened to be killed if dowry was not paid. It is also evident from the records Ext.2 that the deceased had also written letters to her parents about the harassment and ill treatment. 15. The I.O. P.W. 17 has also stated that the informant and other witnesses have _ stated during investigation that she was being tortured for the demand of dowry and other articles. They were also threatening her to be killed. As such there is sufficient evidence to prove that there was demand of articles and money and on that account she was being tortured by her in-law. 16. Though the doctor has opined that the death was due to traumatic asphyxia and strangulation but the learned counsel has tried to explain the causes of traumatic asphyxia. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that such asphyxia could be caused by attack of asthma and also on hearing sudden good or bad news but in cross examination of doctor such question was not put by the defence to explain other reasons which may also cause such traumatic asphyxia. Since the opinion of the medical expert about the other cause of traumatic asphyxia. was not sought for and there is also no evidence that she was suffering from asthma, now this argument would 'not be considered in favour of the appellants. The other contention of the learned counsel that the doctor did not find any mark of ligature and no tissue was found ruptured, the doctor has found some injury post mortem which was created intentionally to ,I confuse the case. Since it was not a case of death by, hanging as such the mark of ligature and rupture of tissue was not expected in that case. Since it was not a case of death by, hanging as such the mark of ligature and rupture of tissue was not expected in that case. I find there is unnecessary argument about the cause of death where charge is under section 3048 of the Indian Penal Code. Only this has to be seen whether it was a natural death or not. Any way, it was an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage and there is also evidence of torture and cruelty of the victim before her death. In such a situation the presumption under section 1138 of the Indian Evidence Act against the appellant is attracted and he has to prove his innocence also as the victim died in the house of the appellants. The onus was on them to prove their innocence. 17. We are of the opinion that on the appreciation of the evidence adduced and in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts that the death of deceased Sudhia Devi was not under natural circumstance •and she died within seven years of her marriage and she was also subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and other members of her in-laws, Accordingly, the court below rightly convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under sections 304-8 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction and sentence passed by the court below is hereby upheld and this appeal is dismissed.