JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the three appellants Hanuman Prasad, Budh Ram and Smt. Sheokauri against the judgment of the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities), Ganganagar dated 10.1.2001, passed in Sessions Case No. 18/98 convicting all the three appellants under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and sentencing each of them to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, for the offence under Section 304-B IPC with a fine of Rs.2000/-, and with rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine they were ordered to undergo two months S.l. on the first count and one month's SI on the second count. 2. The facts of the case are, that on 1.11.1997, at about 4.15 P.M., a report was lodged by the appellant Budh Ram at Police Station Raisinghnagar, alleging interalia, that his son Hanuman Prasad was married six months ago with Kamla D/o Hemraj Suthar r/o Sardarpura PS. Lalgarh, and that in the last evening at abut 12.30 (mid night), she had gone to attend the music programme in the marriage of informant's younger brother's daughter, wherefrom she returned at about 1 in the night and had slept. It was then alleged, that at about 5 A.M., when his other daughter in law woke up, and went to attend the cattle, and his wife (appellant Sheokauri) woke up and called Hanuman Prasad, on opening the door it was found that wife of Hanuman was not available on the cot. Then a search was made for her unsuccessfully, in the vicinity, and in the village, and in that process, when they reached near the Diggi, they found that a green colour Chunni, and sleepers, are floating on the water. Thus, it was apprehended that Kamla has committed suicide by jumping in the Diggi. On this report a "Marg" case was registered, and enquiry under Section 176 Cr.RC. was commended on 2.11.1997. It is in that process, that the dead body was taken out after de-watering the Diggi, Fard Surat Haal Lash etc. were prepared, autopsy on the dead body was got conducted. On this report a "Marg" case was registered, and enquiry under Section 176 Cr.RC. was commended on 2.11.1997. It is in that process, that the dead body was taken out after de-watering the Diggi, Fard Surat Haal Lash etc. were prepared, autopsy on the dead body was got conducted. Then at about 2.45 PM., on 2.11.1997, PW1 Hemraj lodged a report, alleging interalia, that his daughter Kamla was got married with appellant Hanuman on 20.5.1997, who lived at her in-laws house for 15 days, and second there she remained at her in-laws house for 20 days, and she had third time gone to the in-laws' house about 15 days back. It was then alleged, that when she came first time to the parental house, she gave out that the three appellants demand Fridge, whereupon Fridge was sent with her. Thereafter they raised demand of Motor Cycle from the victim. It was also alleged, that about a month ago the informant went to the village of the appellants, that time also, the demand of Motor Cycle was made. Thus it was alleged that the appellants have harassed the deceased, and have either killed her or have forcibly pushed her in the Diggi, and caused her death. It was also disclosed, that his daughter told, that they will kill her, However, the informant advanced good counselling, and assured, that there is a marriage in the family of in- laws, on which occasion they would come, and see that good sense prevails upon them, but then, before he could reach, she has already been killed. 3. On this report, the case was registered for the offence under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC. Both the reports were then investigated together, and after completing investigation, challan was filed in the Court of ACJM Raisinghnagar, who in turn committed case to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, wherefrom it was transferred to the learned trial court. 4. The learned trial court framed necessary charges against the accused persons, which they denied. During trial, the prosecution examined some nine witnesses, and tendered in evidence some 14 documents, while the defence tendered some five documents in evidence. In statement under Section 313 Cr.PC., the accused persons took the stand of denial. 4. The learned trial court framed necessary charges against the accused persons, which they denied. During trial, the prosecution examined some nine witnesses, and tendered in evidence some 14 documents, while the defence tendered some five documents in evidence. In statement under Section 313 Cr.PC., the accused persons took the stand of denial. However, the factum and date of marriage was admitted, and a stand was taken, that they never raised any demand of dowry neither of Fridge, nor of Motor Cycle, rather the Fridge was given at the time of marriage itself, and that, since there was no adequate dialogue between the husband and the wife, therefore, the deceased had committed suicide. In defence the accused persons examined two witnesses, to prove, that the Fridge was given at the time of marriage itself, and that the appellant Sheokauri is a patient of Peptic Ulcer for the last 10 years. The learned trial court after completing the trial, convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. 5. Assailing the impugned judgment, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the factum of marriage of the appellant, Hanuman, with deceased on 20.5.1997, so also the factum of deceased dying an unnatural death, are not in dispute, but then it is contended, that for making out an offence under Section 304-B IPC, the necessary ingredients to be established are firstly that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, or 1 harassment, secondly such cruelty, or harassment should be for the purpose of demand of dowry, and thirdly such cruelty, or harassment should have been administered, 'soon before the death'. According to the learned counsel, any of these three ingredients are not at all established on record, and as such the conviction under Section 304-B IPC is bad. 6. Elaborating this argument, learned counsel for the appellant read to me the provisions of Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 498-A of the Penal Code, and Section 304-B of the Penal Code, and also took me through the entire prosecution evidence. Learned counsel also relied upon two judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Sham Lal v. State of Haryana reported in 1997 SCC (Cri.) 759 , Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2003 Cri.L.J 4321 , and a judgment of this Court, in Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 433 . Learned counsel also relied upon two judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Sham Lal v. State of Haryana reported in 1997 SCC (Cri.) 759 , Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2003 Cri.L.J 4321 , and a judgment of this Court, in Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 433 . In the above background of the legal provisions, and the judgments, it was contended, by the learned counsel for the appellant, that a combined reading of Ex.P/3, P4 and P1 does make it clear, that the story of demand of dowry, i.e. the demand of Motor Cycle, is an after thought story, as it does not find place in Ex.P/3, and after practically everything was over, the report Ex.P1 has been lodged, adding the ground of demand of Motor Cycle. The other submission made is, that collective reading of statements of PW1, PW2 and PW3, does make it clear, that there is no evidence, to the effect, that the deceased was ever subjected to any cruelty, or harassment; inasmuch as, PW2 has deposed, that when the deceased came to the parental house she told that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law harass her and make a demand of Motor Cycle. " ge lHkh dks crk;k fd mldk ifr o lkl] llqj mldks rax ijs'kku djrs gSa vkSj eksVj] lkbfdy dh ekax djrs gSaA " her father in law, mother in law and husband, demand Motor Cycle, and if she does not take it, then she will be killed. It is contended, that this part of the statement of PW2 is not corroborated by the statement of PW1 and PW3, inasmuch as, none of them have deposed about the deceased having informed them, to the effect, that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law harass her " rax ijs'kku djrs gSa " and make demand of Motor Cycle. In that view of the matter, this part of the statement of PW2 cannot be believed and if this is excluded, there is no evidence whatever, to show that the deceased was ever subjected to cruelty, or harassment. It was also contended that from a look at the statement of PW8, it is clear, that till the preparation of Ex.P3, and Ex.P4, Hem Raj and Chandra Bhan have never made any disclosure about Fridge, and Motor Cycle. It was also contended that from a look at the statement of PW8, it is clear, that till the preparation of Ex.P3, and Ex.P4, Hem Raj and Chandra Bhan have never made any disclosure about Fridge, and Motor Cycle. Then another argument was raised, that since the cruelty and harassment should be, for, or in connection with, the demand of dowry, and the term 'Dowry' is to have same meaning as in section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and according to that Section, Dowry has been defined as under:- "2. Definition of 'dowry'. In this Act, 'dowry' means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly- (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before [or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include] dower or may in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. Explanation I - [* * *] Explanation II-The expression 'valuable security' has the same meaning as in section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)" 7. Thus, according to the learned counsel, there has to be an agreement, and since there is nothing to show that the Motor Cycle was ever agreed to be given, it cannot be said, that the alleged demand of Motor Cycle, amounts to making any demand for dowry. Then it was also submitted, that since the cruelty or harassment for dowry, should be "soon before death", for which there is no material on record at all, inasmuch as, even from a collective reading of the statements of PW1, PW2 and PW3, all that ran spires is, that the alleged demand of Motor Cycle also had become a very old story. According to the prosecution, the victim has visited the parental house only twice, and has third time gone to in-laws house, when she died, then the time duration of the living of the victim at the in-laws house, and parental house, as has been deposed by the three witnesses, which if considered makes it clear, that the entire episode was over in around two months, and thus there was no live link in the demand of dowry and her death so as to hold that the cruelty or harassment was "soon before her death". In this regard he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Kaliyaperumal's case. It was then pointed out, that PW1 has tried to develop a story, to the effect, that when the victim disclosed her apprehension to the witness, the witness advanced good counselling, to the effect, that there is a marriage in the family of her in-laws after 4-5 days, to attend which, he would come, and make them convince, while as a matter of fact, it is not shown that there was any marriage at that time, and the alleged marriage, where the deceased is said to have gone, to attend the music programme, does not relate to the dialogue, as the witness wants this Court to believe. Thus, the entire story is not capable to being believed. 8. On the other hand, the learned PR and the learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned judgment. It was argued by the learned counsel for the complainant, that in Ex.P/3 Panchayatnama, it is clearly alleged, that the deceased has been killed and thrown into Diggi. Thus, a foul-play was disclosed, then referring to the statement of PW1, PW2 and PW3 it was contended, that the demand of dowry of Fridge & Motor Cycle was clearly made. Then relying on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raj Gopal Asawa, reported in JT 2004(3) SC 560 it was contended, that for the purpose of attracting Section 304-B, there always need not be agreement, for the property, or valuable, demanded, for the purpose of it being described as dowry. Then relying on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raj Gopal Asawa, reported in JT 2004(3) SC 560 it was contended, that for the purpose of attracting Section 304-B, there always need not be agreement, for the property, or valuable, demanded, for the purpose of it being described as dowry. Regarding harassment, and cruelty, and the requirement of "soon before", statement of witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW3 were again read to me, and it was contended, that the testimony of three witnesses is required to be considered, and appreciated, in a reasonable manner, in which event, it makes it clear, that the victim was clearly apprehensive of the evil designs of the in laws (three appellants), on the ground of their demand of Motor Cycle, and she had clearly conveyed, in whatever manner she could convey. Simply, because, the precise words deposed by the three witnesses are not identical, it cannot be said, that the evidence is contradictory, and should not be believed. It was also pointed out, that calculation of time, as sought to be made by the learned counsel for the appellant, cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, reading of statement of three witnesses together, makes it clear, that there was a clear continuity of coming and going of the victim, and the dialogue, and it was, when she went for third time; the unfortunate event happened, and thus there was a clear 'live link' between the demand, and the death. Some argument was also sought to be raised, disputing the time of death, by making some reference to the post is mortem report, the presence of food particles, and rigour mortis on the dead body, then some submissions were sought to be raised, on the anvil of presence of small quantity of water in the stomach, but then it was realised, that nothing much turns upon it. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the complainant, on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Kans Ram v. State of Punjab, reported in 2000 SCC (Cri.) 935 , to contend that the proximity would depend upon the circumstances of each case, and the statement need not be, in imminent expectation of death, in order to be admissible, rather mere lapse of time by itself would not provide the accused, a defence that cruelty or harassment was not "soon before her death". 9. Learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to para 5 of the judgment of Kans Raj's case, to contend, that in any case the appellants Budh Ram and Sehokauri should not be convicted, as there is no over act attributed to them, and their involvement is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and in view of the growing tendency of over implication, they are liable to be acquitted. 10. I have considered the submissions, and have gone through the various judgments and the record. 11. No doubt, it is true, that for making out offence under Section 304-B, apart from the requirement of the marriage to have taken place within seven years of the incident, and the death being required to have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances, the other three ingredients, are also required to be established, viz. that the victim was subjected to cruelty, or harassment, by the husband, or the relatives of the husband, then such cruelty or harassment was, for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, and the next being that such cruelty, or harassment, was "soon before her death". 12. However, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Raj Gopal Asawa's case, the contention, that since, there was no agreement to give Motor Cycle, the demand of Motor Cycle, would not fall within the ambit of dowry, need not detain me any more. In Raj Gopal Asawa's case, after quoting the provisions of Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and referring to the explanation appended to Section 304-B, and then referring to the earlier judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, i.n Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in JT 1998(1) SC 565 etc. in para 8 it was held as under:- "8. The offence alleged against the respondents is under section 304-B IPC which makes "demand of dowry" itself punishable. in para 8 it was held as under:- "8. The offence alleged against the respondents is under section 304-B IPC which makes "demand of dowry" itself punishable. Demand neither conceives nor would conceive of any agreement. If for convicting any offender, agreement for dowry is to be proved, hardly and offenders would come under the clutches of law. When section 304-B refers to 'demand of dowry', it refers to the demand of property or valuable security as referred to in the definition of 'dowry' under the Act. The argument that there is no demand of dowry, in the present case, has no force. In cases of dowry deaths and suicides, circumstantial evidence plays an important role and inferences can be drawn on the basis of such evidence. That could be either direct or indirect. It is significant that section 4 of the Act, was also amended by means of Act 63 of 1984, under which it is an offence to demand dowry directly or indirectly from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride. The word 'agreement' referred to in section 2 has to be inferred on the facts and circumstances of each case. The' interpretation that the respondents seek, that conviction can only be if there is agreement for dowry, is misconceived. This would be contrary to the mandate and object of the Act. 'Dowry' definition is to be interpreted with the other provisions of the Act including section 3, which refers to giving or taking dowry and section 4 which deals with a penalty for demanding dowry, under the Act and the IPC. This makes it clear that even demand of dowry on other ingredients being satisfied is punishable. It is not always necessary that there be any agreement for dowry." 13. But then since the above noted three requirements have to be established, I proceed to discuss the evidence, and material, available on record, as the legal proposition is no more in controversy. 14. Coming to the evidence, PW1 is the father of the deceased, who has deposed, that Kamla was married with the appellant Hanuman on 20.5.1997, she was given dowry commensurate with his capacity. 14. Coming to the evidence, PW1 is the father of the deceased, who has deposed, that Kamla was married with the appellant Hanuman on 20.5.1997, she was given dowry commensurate with his capacity. Then he has deposed, that after marriage Kamla remained at her in-laws house for 15 days, then his brother Rat' Ram brought her, at that time Kamla informed to him, his brother Surjaram, and his wife, that her husband Hanuman, father-in-law Budhram, and mother-in-law Sheokauri, make a demand of Fridge from her. Thereafter they : sent Fridge with the daughter when Hanuman had come to fetch her. Thereafter Kamla is said to have lived in in-laws house for 20 days, then he went to bring her, there she disclosed, that the three appellants are making demand of Motor Cycle. This is said to have been disclosed by the deceased, after coming to the parental home. Thereafter the witness is said to have gone to meet the in-laws of the deceased, where he met the appellant Budh Ram, and Sheokauri, who maintained, that their son is student of 14th Class, and therefore, he should be given a Motor Cycle, whereupon the witness expressed his inability, thereafter brother of the appellant Hanuman, being Balram, came to fetch Kamla, with whom she was sent. According to this 2 witness, at which time, Kamla is said to have given out, that the demand of Motor Cycle has been made from her, which has not been given by the witness, therefore, his father-in-law, mother-in-law, and husband would physically assault her, and would kill her " eq>s ekjsaxs o ihVsaxs budh fu;r esa QdZ gS " According to the witness, he convinced the deceased, that there is a marriage in the family of the accused after some 4-5 days, wherein he would come, and convince them. Thereafter Khyali Ram and Dilip Kumar, are said to have come, in a Jeep, and informed, that the witness's daughter has fallen in Diggi, where her Chunni and Chappals are lying, thereupon he along with certain persons went to the house of the appellants, from there, they went to Diggi, and found 4 that the villagers were de-watering the Diggi, and the deceased was taken out, and she was found to be dead. According to the witness she was killed and thrown in the Diggi, for the demand of Motor Cycle by the appellants, or she has been forcibly pushed in the Diggi. The witness has then proved, the report Ex.P/1 formal, FIR Ex.P2, Panchayatnama Lash Ex.P3, Fard Surat Haal Lash 4 Ex.P4, and the other memos Ex.P5, and Ex.P6. In cross examination it was deposed, that the deceased lived for 15 days in in-laws' house, and 15 days in the parental house, at that time Fridge was sent with her. 15. He has admitted, that he is illiterate, and that the Fridge was brought by the maternal uncle of the deceased, beina Mahavir. who has Durchased it in 5 the name of the appellant, Budh Ram. Then the witness has voluntarily deposed, that his brother Rati Ram has five daughters, and Surja Ram also has daughters, and told him, that they cannot give Fridge to their daughters, therefore, he should not give Fridge to his daughter, and therefore, Fridge was detained by them. He has admitted, that this thing was not mentioned in Ex.P1, as he was disturbed " ?kcjk;k gqvk Fkk ". It is not in dispute, that the Fridge was purchased before the marriage itself. Then the questions were put, as to how the Fridge was sent, and it is deposed, that it was sent in a hired Jeep, which was brought by the appellant, Hanuman, himself. He has admitted, that in Ex.D-2, the theory of detaining of the Fridge, at the instance of the brothers, has not been mentioned therein. But then he maintains to have mentioned in Ex.D3, though it is not mentioned therein. Then he has deposed, that when the deceased went to in-laws house, second time, she lived there for 20 days, and that, when she came to the parental house second time, she informed about the demand of Motor Cycle. He was confronted with Ex.P1, in this regard, to which the witness has stated that he had mentioned therein, but he cannot say, as to how it has not been mentioned in clear words therein. Then he was confronted with Ex.D2, about the deceased having told him, about the demand of Motor Cycle, but then this fact is not mentioned therein. Then he was confronted with Ex.D2, about the deceased having told him, about the demand of Motor Cycle, but then this fact is not mentioned therein. Then the witness has admitted, that when the victim had come to the parental house, she lived there for about a month, or 20 days. Then the witness has stated, that about 2 months after the marriage, the deceased had told about the demand of Motor Cycle. Then it was suggested to the witness, that since there was little dialogue between couple, as the husband appears to be displeased, and the witness was suggested, as to whether anything was disclosed by the deceased, to which the witness denied, and stated, that she had narrated about demand of Fridge and Motor Cycle. He has, however, denied the deceased to have committed suicide, on account of her husband being unhappy with her. 16. Then comes the evidence of PW2, this witness PW2, is the brother of PW1, and is thus uncle of the deceased. This witness has deposed, that PW1 is his younger brother, whose daughter Kamla was married on 20.5.1997, with the appellant, Hanuman and sufficient dowry was given as per their capacity. Then he deposed that deceased remained 15 days at in-laws house, for the first time, and his brother Rati Ram brought her to parental house, and at parental house Kamla told, that her husband Hanuman, father-in-law Budh Ram, and mother-in-law Sheokauri make the demand of Fridge, to which they agreed, and then when Hanuman came, deceased was sent, and Fridge was also given. It was explained, that the Fridge was the one, which was purchased by her maternal uncle at Ganganagar. According to him, second time the deceased lived at in-laws place for 15 days. Then Hemraj brought her and on foaming she told all of them, that the three appellants harass her " rax ijs'kku djrs gSa " and make demand of Motor Cycle. Then after 15-20 days, brother in law of the deceased, Balram, name to fetch her, but while going, she again told that the three appellants make demand of Motor Cycle, and if she does not take it, then she would be done to death. However, they convinced her, that there is marriage of her sister-in- law, in which they would come, and would convince her in- laws. However, they convinced her, that there is marriage of her sister-in- law, in which they would come, and would convince her in- laws. Thereafter Khyali Ram and one more boy came from her in-laws place, and informed that she is missing, and it is suspected that she has fallen in Diggi, whereupon they went, and found that the villagers were de-watering the Diggi, and the deceased was taken out, who had died. Thereupon they lodged the report. In cross-examination he has stated, that his education is only upto one or two class, and only knows to sign. Then details were asked, about the maternal uncle of the deceased, and purchase by the Fridge, its price, bill etc. However, the witness has deposed, that his brother stated to be having five daughters, and they cannot afford to give Fridge, and therefore, Fridge was not given, and was retained, which remained with them for 15 days, and was sent to the in-laws of the deceased, on their harassing her. He has maintained that they did not purchase second Fridge to be given. He has denied the suggestion, about the Fridge having been given at the time of marriage itself, and about the story, of demand of Fridge, having been falsely prepared. Then he was confronted with his statement Ex.D4, about the omissions, regarding purchase of Fridge at Ganganagar, and production of bill subsequently, and likewise he was also confronted with Ex.D4, about purchase of Fridge by Mahavir. Then he has deposed that Kamla remained in her in-laws house for first time for 15 days, and second time for 20 days, and clarified, that he does not know counting, and he is giving counting by rough estimate, but when she came second time from the in-laws house, then she told about accused's being demanding Motor Cycle. Then he has deposed that after one month, Hemraj went to her in-laws place. He has denied the suggestion about the story of demanding of Motor Cycle, and Fridge, having been falsely cooked up. This is the whole statement of PW2. 17. Then PW3, is the mother of the deceased. Then he has deposed that after one month, Hemraj went to her in-laws place. He has denied the suggestion about the story of demanding of Motor Cycle, and Fridge, having been falsely cooked up. This is the whole statement of PW2. 17. Then PW3, is the mother of the deceased. She has deposed about her marriage, sufficient dowry having been given, and stated that when she came to parental house first time, she was brought by her Devar Rati Ram, she told about the demand of Fridge, to which they agreed, thereafter, after 15 days, the appellant Hanuman came to fetch her, with whom she was sent, and Fridge was also sent, and thereafter the deceased remained at in-laws house for 20 days, and returned with witness husband, and on return, she disclosed about the demand of Motor Cycle, then witness' husband went to 71 L.M.R, to meet the in- laws of the deceased, after about 10-15 days. She has deposed that after return, her husband disclosed, that the in-laws have told that their son is studying in 14th Class, and he should be having Motor Cycle, then he expressed his inability. Thereafter, Bai Ram, brother of Hanuman came to fetch the deceased, and she was sent, while going, the deceased told that since Motor Cycle is not being given, the appellants would harass and kill her. However, she was assured, that they would be coming to attend her sister-in-law's marriage, and at that time they would convince them.Thereafter Khyali Ram, and one more person, came, and informed that Kamla is missing, and it is suspected that she had committed suicide by falling in Diggi. She has also deposed that when the deceased came to her parental house, just before death, while sending her to in-laws house, she had given Rs.5,000/- to her, instead of Motor Cycle. In cross-examination she has been suggested, about the unpleasantness, within the couple, probably in line with suggestion given to PW1, about the son-in-law not having much dialogue with her daughter, and the witness has deposed, that they were on good terms. Then she has deposed that the deceased had come to their house before death, some 20 days ago, thereafter she remained at in- laws place. Then she has deposed that the deceased had come to their house before death, some 20 days ago, thereafter she remained at in- laws place. Then she was cross examined about purchase of Fridge by Mahavir, but then she has denied the suggestion, about the Fridge having been given at the time of marriage itself, and has maintained, that it was given while she was going to in-laws place after she came to the parental house for the first time. She denied the suggestion, about the story of demand of Motor Cycle being a cooked up story. She has also denied the suggestion, about the deceased having committed suicide, on account of, relations between husband and wife being not cordial. She admitted, that no Panchayati was convened on the matter of Motor Cycle. Then she was cross-examined, with regard to the story of Rs.5,000/-, given to the deceased by her. 18. PW4 Dulichand has also come, to corroborate the story, but he has given only hearsay deposition. PW5 is the Doctor, while PW6 is the Police Officer, who had conducted investigation PW7 is the Malkhana Incharge. PW8 is the SDO, who received the copy of the report under Section 174 Cr.RC. He has deposed, that on receipt of the report, he went on the spot, and started enquiry, Site Plan, Halaat Moka, and Inquest Report were prepared by him. Fard Surat Haal Lash was prepared by him. He has also proved memo seizure of Chappals, and garments of the deceased, so also the other articles, found on the person of the deceased. He has proved statement of Hemraj, as Ex.D2, and has proved the Marg Report Ex.P-12, being dated 1.11.1997. In cross-examination he has deposed, that he went on the site at about 9 AM, on 2.11.1997, Panchayatnama was prepared at 9-9.30 AM and that the entire job was over within two hours. He has admitted, that at the time of preparation of Ex.P3, and P4, Hemraj was there on the spot, and after completion of the proceedings, statement Ex.D2 was recorded at 1-2 PM. He has also deposed, that till these documents were prepared, Hemraj did not disclose any demand about Fridge or Motor Cycle. Likewise Chandrabhan also did not disclose the demand of Fridge, or Motor Cycle. Then PW9 is the SHO, who has recorded the report, lodged by Budh Ram on 1.11.1997. 19. He has also deposed, that till these documents were prepared, Hemraj did not disclose any demand about Fridge or Motor Cycle. Likewise Chandrabhan also did not disclose the demand of Fridge, or Motor Cycle. Then PW9 is the SHO, who has recorded the report, lodged by Budh Ram on 1.11.1997. 19. This is the total evidence of the prosecution. 20. Having read this evidence, appreciated, and considered it carefully, in my view, it is sufficiently established, that the deceased was being harassed for the demand of dowry. In the first instance, for Fridge, which was given at once, and Motor Cycle, that was not given. She has died in the circumstances, otherwise than under normal circumstances. From the evidence of these three witnesses, PW1, PW2 and PW3, it is clearly established, that the Fridge was purchased by Mahavir, which was not given at the time of marriage, and was subsequently given, on being demanded by the in-laws. True it is, that the defence has produced evidence of the Barati, to depose, that the Fridge was given at the time of marriage itself, but in my view, that evidence cannot be believed, for the simple reason, that it was not suggested to any of the prosecution witnesses, that the defence witness was Barati. The prosecution witnesses have clearly deposed that the Fridge was subsequently sent in a Jeep, brought by the appellant Hanuman himself.Obviously, the Fridge was given on demand being raised on the side of the appellants. May be, that the parents of the deceased desired to give it, as the maternal uncle of the deceased has purchased the Fridge, but then, the fact remains, that it was not given at the time of marriage, and, it is well nigh possible, that the in-laws may have had a feeling, that the Fridge was purchased to be given, but it was with-held, and therefore, demand was made, and it was given. But, then the demand of Motor Cycle was made, thereafter, which is an important aspect. On this aspect, all the three witnesses are consistent, that when the deceased came second time, from the in-laws place, she disclosed about harassment, caused to her, on the demand of Motor Cycle, and she was apprehensive of the evil intentions of the in-laws, on the ground of demand of Motor Cycle. On this aspect, all the three witnesses are consistent, that when the deceased came second time, from the in-laws place, she disclosed about harassment, caused to her, on the demand of Motor Cycle, and she was apprehensive of the evil intentions of the in-laws, on the ground of demand of Motor Cycle. True it is, that the narration of this, as is said to have been made by the deceased, is not reproduced by the three witnesses in identical words, and as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, that PW2 has deposed about the appellants harassing her " rax ijs'kku djrs gSa " but PW1 has also clearly deposed that since she has not been given Motor Cycle, the appellants would man-handle her, and would kill her, as their intentions are bad " budh uh;r esa QdZ gSA ". Likewise PW3 has also deposed that since the Motor Cycle is not being given, the appellants would harass and kill her. It is significant to note, that technically six months had elapsed, between the date of marriage, and death, and deceased had come to parental house for second time, and she lived at her in-laws house, for about a month or more, and while living for such a small pan of time, if she entertains such a serious apprehensions, about evil intentions of the appellants, and apprehended, that she will be killed, it clearly establishes, that during her stay, at in-laws place, she was subjected to her harassment, for demand of Motor Cycle.It is clearly deposed by PW1, 2 and 3 that the deceased had told that since the Motor Cycle is not being given, she will be subjected to harassment, and will be killed, and her apprehensions had come to be true, when she was reported to have died, otherwise under normal circumstances. True it is, that there is no direct evidence, about cruelty, or harassment, being administered on her by the in-laws, but then, three witnesses have clearly deposed, what was narrated by the deceased. All the three witnesses are illiterate villagers, though PW1 and 2 are technically literate, as they can put their signatures, but then, they have admitted to be illiterate. All the three witnesses are illiterate villagers, though PW1 and 2 are technically literate, as they can put their signatures, but then, they have admitted to be illiterate. In such circumstances, it cannot be expected of them, to make a photographic and computer like, reproduction of what was stated by the deceased to them, about the whole matter PW1 and 3 have clearly deposed that after the deceased narrated the things to them, Hemraj had gone to meet her in-laws, and there also, they reiterated the demand. Nothing was suggested to this witness, that Hemraj had not gone, to the in-laws, or demand having not been made regarding Motor Cycle, except, that he was confronted with Ex.P1, wherein it is not mentioned, that Motor Cycle was demanded as the appellant Hanuman was studying in 14th Class. Significantly, in Ex.P1, nothing has been stated about demand of Motor Cycle, to have been made, when the deceased came to parental house second time. But then, Ex.P1 cannot be expected to be required to contain, all minute details of what happened during the entire period, since she was married, till she died. Thus, the contentions about the absence of evidence, regarding harassment, or cruelty, and the same being for demand of dowry, i.e. Motor Cycle, can not be accepted. 21. Then remains, the contention about the live link, between the demand, and death. In my view, that contention also does not have much force; firstly for the reason, that it is very small span of time, elapsing between the marriage, and the death. In this case, the marriage was solemnised on 20.5.1997, and she is said to be expired on 30.11.1997, and during this short span also twice, the deceased had come to her parental house, and had finally gone third time, thereafter she never returned, and after she went third time, her father had gone to talk about the matter, with the in-laws. Thus, there was a & clear continuity, rather a live link, between the harassment, demand, and the death. It is too much to expect, the day to day continuity, or production of evidence, of harassment in such immediate proximity of death. Had the span, between the marriage, and death been much longer, though technically less than seven years, perhaps the things might have been little different, but here is a case of a very small span of time. 22. Had the span, between the marriage, and death been much longer, though technically less than seven years, perhaps the things might have been little different, but here is a case of a very small span of time. 22. It is required to be comprehended, that after all in consequence of marriage, the girl leaves the parental house, and goes to the in-laws house, which is supposed to become her own house. In such circumstances, it is more sincere a duty of the inmates of the in-laws house to provide, a soft, smooth, and congenial atmosphere, and behaviour, to the new inmate, so as to inculcate affection, and sense of belonging, for the new house, and enable her to adopt it, as her own. As against this, as has been established from the evidence of PW1, 2 and 3 that even during the short span, she had entertained strong feeling, about ill designs of the appellants, to the effect, that she would be done to death as the Motor Cycle is not being given, and ultimately she has died, otherwise than under normal circumstances, from which, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can safely be concluded, to be having a live link, between the harassment, and the death. Thus this submission also has no force. 23. Coming to the contention, about omission to mention, about the demands of Fridge, and Motor Cycle, in Ex.P3 and P4, suffice it to say, that in Ex.P3 there is a mention, about Hemraj and Chandrabhan having given out the deceased to have been killed, and drowned in the Diggi, and then in Ex.P1, the matter about demand, has clearly been mentioned. The time gap, between Ex.P3, and P1, is not long enough, to enable me to conclude, that during this short span of about an hour, Hemraj would have had counselling, and conferences, to cook up the story, about Motor Cycle, and Fridge, rather from the statement of PW8, it would appear, that the commencement of the enquiry, under Section 174, upto lodging of the report Ex.P1, was a continued sequence of events. Statement of Hemraj, being Ex.D2, had been recorded by PW8, and immediately thereafter, the first report had been lodged. Statement of Hemraj, being Ex.D2, had been recorded by PW8, and immediately thereafter, the first report had been lodged. Then it has rightly been considered by the learned trial court, on the authority of judgment of this Court, in Bhagirath Singh v. State, reported in 2000 Cr.LR (Raj.) 675 , that such omission is not of much significance to disbelieve the clear evidence produced during trial. 24. Sc far as the submission made about the requirement of evidence of overt act, on the part of the accused, as per the observations made in para 5 of Kansraj's case, is concerned, in my view, that contention also does not have much force, inasmuch as, the observations have been made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in factual circumstances of that case. In Kansraj's case, the deceased died of asphyxia, and on post mortem, it was found that the deceased had injuries on her person, including a ligature mark 20 cm x 2 cm on the front right and left side of neck, reddish-brown in colour, starting from left side of the neck, 2 cm below the left angle of the jaw, passing just above the thyroid cartilage, and going up to a point, 2 cm below the right angle of the jaw, and the factum of death was never informed to her parents, rather it was, when her brother had come to deliver some customary presents, on the occasion of Karva Chouth, he found the dead body lying in the entrance room, and the respondents were making preparation for cremation. It was in those circumstances, that Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed, that from the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution, including the brother, who had gone to the house, that no incriminating circumstances, attributable to the mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law of the deceased, were brought on record, rather the brother- in-law, and sister-in-law were subsequently summoned as accused. The evidence led was only, to the effect, that after marriage, the husband raised a demand for Rs. 15000/- , for a scooter, and a refrigerator, which was fulfilled. Then it was deposed, that the husband used to threaten the deceased, that she would be done to death, because of having inadequate dowry. The evidence led was only, to the effect, that after marriage, the husband raised a demand for Rs. 15000/- , for a scooter, and a refrigerator, which was fulfilled. Then it was deposed, that the husband used to threaten the deceased, that she would be done to death, because of having inadequate dowry. Thus, it was found, that there was absolutely no evidence against the other accused persons, and it is, in that context, that the observations were made, about the developing tendency of roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased. 25. In the present case, there is consistent evidence, about the three appellants, making of demand of dowry, and harassing her for that. It is significant to note, that as appears from Ex.P12, that another son, and daughter-in-law of the appellant, Budhram, were also living in the same house, and therefore, if the prosecution had been labouring under the tendency of roping in all the relations, then those persons would not have been spared, but then, nothing has been deposed against the persons who were not at fault. 26. I have gone through the judgment of the learned Trial Court, and find, that the learned Trial Court has discussed in detail, the entire prosecution evidence, has closely appreciated, and has given various reasons, for arriving at the conclusion of guilt, which all need not be rebated by me here, though I have once again gone through the evidence, and appreciated it, and find myself at one, with the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court. 27. Regarding the appellant, Sheokauri, much is said on the ground, that she is an old patient of ulcer. In my view, her being an old patient of ulcer, is wholly an innocuous circumstance, so far as the allegations levelled against her are concerned. There is nothing to show, that on account of her ailment, she is disabled in committing the acts alleged against her, thus, this also does not entitle her to any sympathy. 28. Thus, the net result is that the appeal has no force, and is hereby dismissed. The accused appellants, Sheokauri and Hanuman are on bail, they are directed to surrender to the learned Trial Court, to serve out remaining term of sentence within a period of four weeks from today. 28. Thus, the net result is that the appeal has no force, and is hereby dismissed. The accused appellants, Sheokauri and Hanuman are on bail, they are directed to surrender to the learned Trial Court, to serve out remaining term of sentence within a period of four weeks from today. In case, they fail to surrender, their bail bonds shall stand forfeited, and proceedings be taken for recovery of the amount. Learned Trial Court in that event will take steps to apprehend them, to serve out the remaining sentence.Appeal dismissed. *******