JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J. - This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 13-SB of 1991 filed by Rajbir and Criminal Revision No. 206 of 1991 filed by Jugati Ram (PW-5). 2. Rajbir and his mother Bhateri were tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul for the dowry death of Rajbirs wife Satyawati, daughter of Jugati Ram. Judgment was pronounced on December 20, 1990. The learned Trial Court convicted Rajbir under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code but acquitted Bhateri. 3. Rajbir and Satyawati had been married on June 9, 1984. According to the prosecution, Rajbir demanded a motorcycle from Jugati Ram at the time of the departure of the barat. Jugati Ram promised to give a motorcycle later on. Rajbir was not convinced and threatened Jugati Ram that he would have to face the consequences if a motorcycle was not supplied. 4. When Satyawati returned to her parental house she complained that she had been maltreated by Rajbir and his mother. On this visit Rajbir had also accompanied Satyawati and had brought back the radio, which he had received at the time of the marriage, to return it since it was not upto his "status". Jugati Ram gave Rs. 3,000/- to Rajbir on June 12, 1984 for buying a television. When Rajbir and Satyawati left the house, Jugati Ram advised his daughter that her husband was in a superior position so she had to tolerate his taunts. Thereafter Satyawati came to her fathers house on two/three occasions and each time she complained about maltreatment at the hands of Rajbir and his mother. She also complained that her mother-in-law would tell her that she would not get any respect from the family unless the motorcycle was given. 5. Satyawati temporarily separated from Rajbir and stayed with her parents for 1-1/2 years. During this period Rajbir never came to take her back. Then a panchayat was convened by Jugati Ram, as a result, two persons went to Rajbirs village in August 1987 and succeeded in persuading Rajbir to accept Satyawati. Accordingly Rajbir brought Satyawati to his village. Satyawati remained with Rajbir until March 1988. During this time she became pregnant. On a visit to her parents house on December 23, 1987, she told her fahter that her mother-in-law was asking for expenses for the delivery amounting to Rs. 10,000/-. Jugati Ram could also arrange for only Rs. Accordingly Rajbir brought Satyawati to his village. Satyawati remained with Rajbir until March 1988. During this time she became pregnant. On a visit to her parents house on December 23, 1987, she told her fahter that her mother-in-law was asking for expenses for the delivery amounting to Rs. 10,000/-. Jugati Ram could also arrange for only Rs. 5,000/- and he gave this amount to his daughter. The amount was then handed over by Satyawati to Rajbir but Rajbir and his mother were not satisfied. Satyawati was turned out of the matrimonial home in March 1988 in a pregnant condition. 6. Satyawati delivered a girl child at Rohtak on May 15, 1988. Intimation was sent to Rajbir by Jugati Ram. Dalbir and Rajbir went to Jugati Rams village on May 23, 1988 and brought Satyawati and the child back to their village. 7. In the first week of June 1988, Jugati Rams two sons Sat Pal (PW-6) and Ramesh went to Rajbirs village with "chuchak" (customary presents given by the wifes family at the time of the birth of a child). Rajbir was not satisfied with the gifts and asked for a motorcycle again. On June 22, Sat Pal again returned to Rajbirs village and came to know that his sister had died. Jugati Ram ascertained the facts of the case and reported the matter to the police whereupon FIR was registered on June 23, 1988 at 3.30 A.M. at P.S. Narnaul. 8. The Investigating Officer prepared Inquest Report and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. A.K. Arora (PW-4). The Medical Officer found no injuries on the dead body of the deceased. The viscera of the deceased was sent for examination to the Chemical Examiner and gave his opinion regarding the cause of death as "due to organo-phosphorus compound". 9. Rajbir was arrested on June 27. After completion of investigation, accused were sent up for trial. Charges were framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and in the alternative under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined Dr. Narveer Singh (PW-1), Dr. S.P. Mangla (PW-2), Dr. V.K. Bansal (PW-3) (all three of Civil Hospital Narnaul), Dr. Prosecution examined Dr. Narveer Singh (PW-1), Dr. S.P. Mangla (PW-2), Dr. V.K. Bansal (PW-3) (all three of Civil Hospital Narnaul), Dr. A.K. Arora (PW-4) as regards the post-mortem examination, Jugati Ram (PW- 5), Sat Pal (PW-6), Daya Nand (PW-7), DSP Sadhu Singh (PW-8), HC Birbal (PW- 9), SI Ami Lal (PW-10) and Draftsman Pehlad Sharma (PW-11). Thereafter prosecution closed its case. 10. The accused were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and gave the following explanation :- "I brought Satyawati and my child from Nursing Home on 16.5.1988 from Rohtak to my village Chandaliya and I met the expenses of her delivery myself...... .....On 21.6.1988 I was in my fields at about 8.00/9.00 P.M. my father and Dharambir son of Lila Ram came to me and told me that Satyawati was not feeling well. Then I came to my house. I asked her what was the matter. Satyawati told me that due to headache, she had taken one tablet. I immediately took her to Civil Hospital, Narnaul but she died on 22.6.1988 at about 8.30 A.M. I sent intimation to the parents of Satyawati through Ramesh Soni of Sarai Mohalla, Narnaul who took vehicle No. DDQ 8743 to village Kakroli and Jugati Ram and Satyapal came in the hospital and they were present at the time of post-mortem examination and at that time, they did not make any allegation of foul play about the death of Satyawati and they were satisfied about her death. They were also present at the time of cremation. My mother is a chronic patient of asthma." 11. On being called upon to enter defence, the accused examined Ramesh Kumar (DW-1), Mukhtiar Singh (DW-2), Virender Singh, Record Keeper (DW-3) and Dr. Usha Chakkar (DW-4) and tendered into evidence certain revenue records and copies of documents relating to civil litigation. 12. The learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that were a number of circumstances on record to show that Satyawati was victim of maltreatment, harassment and torture at the hands of Rajbir and as a result of instigation she had been driven to consume poison and died an unnatural death. The Court accepted that the evidence on record showed that the parents of the deceased had complied with the demands of dowry but the accused kept on insisting for a motorcycle. The Court accepted that the evidence on record showed that the parents of the deceased had complied with the demands of dowry but the accused kept on insisting for a motorcycle. Therefore, the circumstances on record led to an inescapable conclusion that her death must be attributed to mental torture owing to the presence of circumstances surrounding which led to her committing suicide. The circumstances referred to by the trial Court were : demand of motorcycle on the occasion of the tani (departure of barat), demand of television set after two days of marriage and the demand being satisfied by giving Rs. 3,000/- to Rajbir on June 12, 1984, Satyawatis complaint to her father that her mother-in-law had taunted her by saying that "she was from a hungry house (poor family) and what had she brought," Satyawati being turned out of the house and remaining with her parents for 1-1/2 years upto August 1987 whereafter she went back. In December 1987 she was sent to her fathers house and she demanded Rs. 10,000/- to meet the expense of delivery. Lastly, after the child was born in May 1988 the accused were not satisfied with "chcuchak" and insisted on a motorcycle. 13. The Trial Court convicted Rajbir under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted Bhateri mother of Rajbir. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant has forcibly (forcefully ?) argued that the case did not fall under the definition of "dowry death" because the circumstances mentioned above would not lead to any presumption under Section 113-B, Evidence Act and as a consequence, conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code could not be sustained. 15. The couple was married on June 9, 1984. Satyawati gave birth to a daughter on May 15, 1988 and died of poisoning on June 22, 1988. It may be recalled that Satyawati left her husband in April 1986 and remained with her parents uptil August 1987. Thereafter panchayat had been convened and she returned to Rajbir. She became pregnant and stayed with her husband till March 1988 whereafter she again returned to her parents for the delivery. After her child was born she was taken back by her husband on May 23, 1988. Thereafter panchayat had been convened and she returned to Rajbir. She became pregnant and stayed with her husband till March 1988 whereafter she again returned to her parents for the delivery. After her child was born she was taken back by her husband on May 23, 1988. In such a scenario incidents of harassment and cruelty that had taken place before April 1986 cannot be linked to her death in June 1988 for the obvious reason that incidents were too remote and could not be said to be soon before death. Moreover there was a big gap in the relationship. Much time had passed from April 1986 to August 1987 before the couple was reunited. Therefore, Court should try to reconstruct, from the evidence, the events in the life of the deceased from the time she returned to her husband in August 1987 uptil her death. Out of the incidents narrated above there were only two which occurred during this later period. Deceased demanded Rs. 10,000/- from her father in December 1987 to meet the expenses of the delivery and received Rs. 5,000/-. She was turned out of her house in March 1988 because her husband was not satisfied with the amount given to her. She remained with her parents only for a few days after the birth of the child. The second circumstance of proximate importance was the visit of Sat Pal (PW- 6) and his brother Ramesh to the deceaseds house in June 1988 with "chuchak" when the accused and his mother taunted her and said "she was from a hungry house and what has she brought." 16. Satyawati died of poisoning. There was conclusive evidence that she was brought to Civil Hospital, Narnaul on June 22 at 00.50 A.M. and was treated by Dr. S.P. Mangla (PW-2). She had been brought by her husband Rajbir. She was fully conscious and was complaining of head-ache and vomiting. She was administered medicines; gastric aspiration and lavage was also done. The Medical Officer suspected it to be a case of poisoning and recorded this in the bed-head ticket at 5.00 A.M. when he found that her condition had become serious. The deceased died at 8.30 A.M. Dr. She was fully conscious and was complaining of head-ache and vomiting. She was administered medicines; gastric aspiration and lavage was also done. The Medical Officer suspected it to be a case of poisoning and recorded this in the bed-head ticket at 5.00 A.M. when he found that her condition had become serious. The deceased died at 8.30 A.M. Dr. A.K. Arora (PW-4) conducted post- mortem examination and gave his opinion to the effect that "according to the Chemical Examiner Report death was due to organo- phosphorus poisoning." The report of the Chemical Examiner shows analysis of stomach, small and large intestines, liver, spleen, kidney and blood from heart revealed organo phosphorous compound. However, it is a great pity that the Chemical Examiner did not report the quantity of poison consumed by the deceased. The prosecution also did not try to establish that the quantity consumed was sufficient to kill or the time that elapsed between consumption of poison and death, if the quantity of poison was known. Therefore, the reconstruction of the events which led the deceased to consume poison remains inaccurate and incomplete. Be that as it may, in the present case the deceased did die of organo-phosphorous poisoning. This poison is not something which could be successfully administered as a poison by a murderer because its pungent smell would immediately lead to its rejection by the victim. Nine times out of ten, organo-phosphorous poisons are used suicidally and not for homicidal purpose; this appears to be the case herein. 17. The question before this court is whether suicide committed by the deceased was the result of harassment and cruelty on account of dowry or the lesser form of matrimonial cruelty. Therefore, even if it is accepted that in June 1988 the deceased had been taunted by the remark that she was from a hungry (poor household) and had not brought much, it would not be a such an act of cruelty which could be termed to be a demand for dowry soon before her death although this could still be termed cruelty of the type punishable under Section 498-A Explanation A. In the present case the presumption under Section 113-A may apply but certainly not presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. 18. 18. There also seems to be a significant contradiction between the statement of Jugati Ram (PW-5) and Sat Pal (PW06) as to what transpired when Sat Pal and Ramesh went to present "chuchak". According to Jugati Ram, when Sat Pal and Ramesh returned they told him that Satyawatis in-laws were not satisfied with the "chuchak" and they wanted a motorcycle. On the other hand Sat Pal testified that the accused had repeated maltreatment of his sister and tauntingly said "you are from a poor house, what have you brought." There was no demand of motorcycle by the accused. Therefore, Jugati Rams statement that Sat Pal had told him that the accused had demanded a motorcycle is not supported by Sat Pal. Even Jugati Rams statement that the accused were not satisfied with chuchak has not been directly supported by Sat Pal. Therefore, one is at a complete loss to make out what had transpired during that visit. 19. The other circumstance which occurred after couple had reconciled regarding the expenses of delivery. The deceased had asked her father for Rs. 10,000/- but he had paid only Rs. 5,000/- and the deceased had been turned out of the house as the accused were not satisfied with the amount given. Demand of money for taking care of a pregnant wife, her hospitalization expenses etc. cannot come under a dowry demand by any stretch of imagination. These expenses are normal expenses which have to be incurred and ordinarily expectant mothers go to their parental house for child-birth. Naturally the expenses are also incurred by the parents. For this reason it appears that even if the deceased had demanded money from her father, this was a demand on account of expenses incurred or likely to be incurred during her forthcoming confinement and could not be termed as "dowry demand". 20. As a result of the above discussion it must be held that the incidents most proximate to the death of the deceased did not relate to dowry demands. One was demand for expenses for confinement and second an expression of unhappiness at the presents brought at the time of the birth of the child. The demand of a motorcycle had never been made. This part of the statement of Jugati Ram was at best a concoction and at worst hearsay since Sat Pal never told him about the demand of motorcycle. The demand of a motorcycle had never been made. This part of the statement of Jugati Ram was at best a concoction and at worst hearsay since Sat Pal never told him about the demand of motorcycle. In fact no demand had been made to Sat Pal when he last visited his sister. 21. In view of the above discussion the judgment and conviction of the trial Court is set aside. This appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted. 22. Criminal Revision No. 206 of 1996 filed by Jugati Ram is dismissed. Appeal allowed.