JUDGMENT SURYA KANT, J. 1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated May 27, 1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul whereby the appellant upon conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along with fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 498-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. However, substantive sentences for both the offences were directed to run concurrently. It may be mentioned here that the appellant’s parents - Siri Chand and Smt. Gulabo also faced trial along with him, however, they were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge vide his aforementioned judgment. 2. Smt. Nirmala - since deceased was married to the appellant on 23.11.1985. She, however extinguished the flame of her life by hanging herself from the ceiling on 13.6.1989 at the house of her in-laws. 3. The prosecution was set into motion by Sanwal Ram - the complainant who was one of the brothers of deceased Nirmala. 2. Smt. Nirmala - since deceased was married to the appellant on 23.11.1985. She, however extinguished the flame of her life by hanging herself from the ceiling on 13.6.1989 at the house of her in-laws. 3. The prosecution was set into motion by Sanwal Ram - the complainant who was one of the brothers of deceased Nirmala. According to him, Nirmala was married to the appellant at the age of 17/18 years; sufficient dowry articles were given at the time of marriage, however, the appellant’s father Siri Chand was dissatisfied with the dowry articles and raised demand for a scooter which the complainant could not afford to fulfill; whenever the complainant’s sister Nirmala came to his house after her marriage, she used to complain that she was being tortured by her husband and in-laws for not bringing a scooter; she also told that in case the scooter was not provided to her in-laws, they would kill her or she would commit suicide; the complainant along with his brothers Babu Lal and Jagdev went to the house of Nirmala’s in-laws, 2-3 times in order to persuade them to behave nicely with her and also expressed their inability to give a scooter; in February, 1989 Nirmala gave birth to a son and the complainant took necessary customary gifts for her which were, however, not liked by her in laws who refused to accept the same and insisted upon getting a scooter; after about one and half months, the complainant along with Babu Lal and Jagdev again went to the house of Nirmala’s in-laws where Nirmala again told them that she was being tortured and harassed by her in-laws; the complainant asked her in-laws to send Nirmala with them but the appellant refused to send her. 4. On 13.8.1989 at about 9.30 AM Jhabbu Ram, brother-in-law of Nirmala came to the complainant’s house and told that Nirmala was ill and that his father (Jhabbu Ram’s) was sitting at the bus stop of village Karia and the complainant and his brothers have been called, upon which the complainant and his brothers went to Karia bus stop. While they were going towards the said bus stop, Jhabbu Ram asked them to sit in a Maruti car which they refused and rather arranged a four-wheeler to go to village Beri along with other prominent persons including the Sarpanch and the Panches of their village. While they were going towards the said bus stop, Jhabbu Ram asked them to sit in a Maruti car which they refused and rather arranged a four-wheeler to go to village Beri along with other prominent persons including the Sarpanch and the Panches of their village. When they reached village Beri, they came to know that Nirmala had committed suicide by hanging herself in the morning at about 5.30 AM with the help of two iron chains and a rope. The complainant and the persons accompanying him also noticed ligature marks around the neck of the deceased. The complainant, thus, alleged that since Nirmala - his sister was being harassed and tortured by her in laws for not bringing a scooter, either she was done to death by them or she herself committed suicide on that account. 5. The report regarding occurrence (Ex. PC) was lodged by the complainant on 13.8.1989 itself at about 5.50 PM, pursuant to which SI Karan Singh proceeded to village Beri along with the complainant; prepared the inquest report Ex. PA/4 and also took into possession the chain and string Ex. P1 and P3 vide memo Ex. PD and the dead body was sent for autopsy. The post mortem examination (report Ex. PA) was conducted by a team of doctors. The doctors found a ligature mark 1.4 cm in width around the neck in between thyroid, cartilage and chin. According to the doctors, the cause of death of Nirmala was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. 6. During the course of investigation, two letters Ex. PE and PF were produced before the Investigating Officer by Babu Lal - brother of the deceased on 16.8.1989. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the appellant alone and his father (Siri Chand) was shown in column No.2 thereof. However, after the case was committed to the Court of Session, his parents, were also summoned under section 319 Cr. P.C. and were charged under section 304-B read with section 34 as well as section 498-A IPC to which the appellant and his parents did not plead guilty. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Dr. However, after the case was committed to the Court of Session, his parents, were also summoned under section 319 Cr. P.C. and were charged under section 304-B read with section 34 as well as section 498-A IPC to which the appellant and his parents did not plead guilty. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Dr. V.K. Bansal (PW1), who was a member of the Board of Doctors which conducsted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Nirmala, Sanwal Ram (PW2) and Babu Lal (PW3) - brothers of the deceased, Nagar Mal (PW2) and Babu Lal (PW3) - brothers of the deceased, Nagar Mal (PW4) and SI Karan Singh - the Investigating Officer (PW5). In addition, reliance was also placed upon the affidavits of some formal witnesses. 8. In his statement under section 313 Cr. P.C., the appellant denied the prosecution allegations and took the following plea in his defence :- “I am innocent. After the birth of my son, my wife had brought Pinki, daughter of Babu Lal for helping her lulling the child. On the day of occurrence when I came back from my work, I found Pinki weeping. On my enquiry from Pinki, she told me that her Bhuaa Nirmala had beaten her as the child had fallen from her lap. On this, I reprimanded Nirmala and gave her beating. She felt annoyed and insulted and due to this she committed suicide at night when I was sleeping. We were not residing with our parents as Babu Lal and Sanwal Ram had desired us to do so after 4-5 months of our marriage. My parents reside at the well. My mother had gone to Delhi for her treatment and on that day she was not present in the village.” 9. One Kanhaiya Lal (DW1) was also produced as a defence witness who was earlier cited as a prosecution witness but was given up being unnecessary. 10. As pointed out earlier, the learned Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty of offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC whereas his parents were given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. 11. I have heard Shri Sanjay Kaushal, Learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma, learned Dy. Advocate General, Haryana and have perused the entire record with their assistance. 12. 11. I have heard Shri Sanjay Kaushal, Learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma, learned Dy. Advocate General, Haryana and have perused the entire record with their assistance. 12. In order to attract section 304-B IPC, four essential ingredients, namely; (i) death of a woman not under normal circumstances; (ii) the death has occurred within seven years of her marriage; (iii) she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and (iv) such cruelty or harassment was for and in connection with the ‘demand of dowry’, need to be proved by the prosecution. At this stage, reference to Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act may also be made which lays down that if soon before her death, a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry, then the court shall presume that such person has committed the “dowry death”. 13. Two sets of evidence have been relied upon by the prosecution to make it out as a case of ‘dowry death’. Firstly, the prosecution relied upon the letters Ex. PE and PF. While letter Ex. PE is stated to have been written by the appellant’s father (Siri Chand) to Babu Lal-brother of the deceased, letter dated 25.7.1989 Ex. PF was allegedly written by Nirmala who handed over it to Nagar Mal when he had gone to village Beri and Nagar Mal is stated to have delivered the said letter to Nirmala’s broher Babu Lal. 14. However, in relation to the authenticity of these letters, the learned Sessions Judge, in his impugned judgment has observed that the same are “shrouded in mystery”. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge, on an assumption that even if both the letters were in the hand-writing of Siri Chand and Nirmala respectively, further observed that, “these letters do not in any manner indicate that there was any demand of dowry on the part of the accused persons”. He also observed that from the reading of these letters it cannot be inferred that “the accused persons had been harassing Nirmala in connection with the demand of dowry”. 15. As regard to the oral testimony, the prosecution placed reliance upon the statements of Sanwal Ram (PW2) and Babu Lal (PW3) who are brothers of the deceased. He also observed that from the reading of these letters it cannot be inferred that “the accused persons had been harassing Nirmala in connection with the demand of dowry”. 15. As regard to the oral testimony, the prosecution placed reliance upon the statements of Sanwal Ram (PW2) and Babu Lal (PW3) who are brothers of the deceased. Both the brothers have deposed that Nirmala was be harassed by the appellant and his parents in connection with the demand of dowry who also made a specific demand for a scooter at the time of marriage. Sanwal Ram (PW2) has further deposed that Nirmala had told him that scooter, as demanded by the appellant and his family, be given failing which either they would kill her or she would commit suicide. He has also testified that in February 1988 when Nirmala gave birth to a son, he along with his brother took gifts to her in-laws house, but the gifts were returned and not accepted by the appellant and his parents on the pretext that unless the scooter was given to them, they will not accept other gifts. However, after noticing that the testimony of Sanwal Ram and Babu Lal is ‘divergent on material aspects’ and after relying upon the statement of Kanhaiya Lal DW1 to the effect that Siri Chand and Smt. Gulabo, the parents of the appellant, were living separately and they did not cause any harassment to the deceased, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that it is the appellant alone who had harassed and pressurized the deceased to bring scooter and had also been demanding more dowry. In this manner, the benefit of doubt was extended to the appellant’s parents resulting in their acquittal. 16. Shri Sanjay Kashal, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that once the letters Ex. PE and PF have been discarded and held to be not written by the appellant’s father or deceased - Nirmala respectively, and the fact that on the basis of contents of these letters, the learned Sessions Judge has otherwise refused to draw any inference of ‘demand of dowry’, there was not even in iota of evidence before the trial court to connect the appellant with the offence under section 304-B and/or section 498-A IPC. Learned counsel points out that after noticing contradictions in their statements, the learned Sessions Judge has almost disbelieved the statement of Sanwal Ram and Babu Lal - PW2 and PW3, therefore, nothing remains on the record to implicate the appellant. Reiterating the defence plea taken by the appellant in his statement under section 313 Cr. P.C., reproduced earlier, it was contended by Shri Kaushal that deceased Nirmala was reprimanded by the appellant for giving beatings to Pinki - daughter of Nirmala’s brother who was temporarily staying with Nirmala to look after their newly born baby and on that account Nirmala felt insulted and committed suicide. It is, thus, contended that the cause of committal of suicide by Nirmala has absolutely no concern with the demand of dowry and/or subjecting her to any harassment in that regard. 17. True it is that the learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the letters Ex. PE and PF. The letter Ex. PE which is in Devnagri script, is purported to have been written by Siri Chand - father of the appellant to Baby Lal - the brother of deceased Nirmala. As per the deposition of Sanwal Ram (PW2), when a son was born to his brother Rajender, his another brother Babu Lal had gone to village Beri to bring Nirmala on this occasion but the appellant refused to send her. However, Nirmala came on her own on 17.7.1989. Two days thereafter,. the appellant came to Nirmala’s parental house to take her back and also brought a letter written by his father Siri Chand which he handed over to Sanwal Ram. This is the letter Ex. PE. According to the witness, “the letter is in the hand of Siri Chand accused as I have been reading his earlier letters and also seen him signing and writing”. In the cross-examination, the witness denies the suggestion that the letter was fabricated, rather has reiterated that Sat Narain (appellant) “had given this letter to my brother Babu Lal in my presence.” The contents of letter Ex. PE are also of material importance and the relevant part thereof read as follows ;- “Tum beta Nirmala ko jaroor bhej dena. Aage beta main tumhe vishwas dilata hun ki aage bhavishya mein tumhe koi shikva shikayat sunane ko nahin aayegi. Ab jo bhi ho gaya, uski hum maffi chahte hain or apni yani hamari galtiyon per sharminda hain. PE are also of material importance and the relevant part thereof read as follows ;- “Tum beta Nirmala ko jaroor bhej dena. Aage beta main tumhe vishwas dilata hun ki aage bhavishya mein tumhe koi shikva shikayat sunane ko nahin aayegi. Ab jo bhi ho gaya, uski hum maffi chahte hain or apni yani hamari galtiyon per sharminda hain. Thode likha jyada samajhana.” (You, son, surely send Nirmala. Further, son, I assure you that in future you shall have no cause of grievance. Now, whatever has happened, we cut a sorry finger for that and are ashamed at for our misdeeds . Give a broader thinking to these few lines.) (emphasis applied) 18. Babu Lal (PW3) in his deposition has reiterated that the letter Ex. PE written by the appellant’s father was brought by the appellant when he came to their village to take Nirmala back. He has categorically deposed that he identifies Siri Chand’s hand-writing because earlier also the appellant’s father had been writing letters to them. This witness has further deposed that both the letters Ex.PE and PF were handed over by him to the police during the course of investigation vide memo Ex. PG. The witness has denied the suggestion that the letter Ex. PE is not in the hand of Siri Chand or that it was a fabricated document. Rather, he has further deposed that he had received 2-3 more letters of Siri Chand but fortunately Ex. PE was found. Babu Lal has further deposed that, “Nirmala had studied upto third class. We used to teach her at the house and she knew how to read and write. 2-3 letters were received from Nirmala during the period she remained at Beri. Others letters were not traceable.” He has denied the suggestion that Nirmala was illiterate or that letter Ex. PF was also fabricated by them. 19. No doubt that the letter Ex. PF purported to be written by Nirmala does not bear anyone’s signatures. However, its contents indicate that it was addressed to Babu Lal and after wishing well-being of his family, the author has requested him to take her back as not a single day during last 15 days had gone peacefully. Who else would write this letter to Babu Lal? If a letter like this was to be forged, why signatures of Nirmala were also not appended? 20. Who else would write this letter to Babu Lal? If a letter like this was to be forged, why signatures of Nirmala were also not appended? 20. Unfortunately, the learned Sessions Judge did not address himself to these questions before discarding the letters Ex. PE and PF. It has also been overlooked that the prosecution, by producing the letter Ex. PE, if it was actually not written by father of the appellant, carried the risk of getting the said letter declared as forged and fabricated inasmuch Siri Chand could have come forward and volunteered to get his handwriting compared with that of the said letter in order to show that it did not bear his hand-writing. The witnesses having deposed that they were well conversant with the hand-writing of Siri Chand as they had seen him writing and signing and they had also received some more letters from him. In my view, the prosecution has successfully discharged its burden and established that the letter Ex. PE was written by none-else than Siri Chand-father of the appellant. 21. Similarly, the learned Sessions Judge could not have overlooked the fact that letter Ex. PF was stated to be in the hand-writing of Nirmala, who, according to Babu Lal (PW3), had studied upto third class only. On seeing the letter Ex. PF, it can be safely inferred that it is subscribed by hardly a literate person. The brothers of the deceased before whom she was born and brought-up, have deposed on oath that the letter was written by Nirmala. In the absence of an iota of evidence to cause any suspicion on the said letter, there can be no reason whatsoever to disbelieve its contents or the version of Babu Lal (PW3). In my view, had it been a case of forging the letter, it would have borne meticulously crafted signatures of Nirmala as well as the date. The poor but natural method of delivery of the said letter, as per the prevailing practice in rural areas, namely, sending letter through a known person, is not an unusual circumstance, rather strengthens the genuineness of the letter Ex. PF. 22. Similarly, there is no factual basis to discard oral testimony of Sanwal Ram and Babu Lal or to hold that there was divergence in the version of these two witnesses on any material aspect. PF. 22. Similarly, there is no factual basis to discard oral testimony of Sanwal Ram and Babu Lal or to hold that there was divergence in the version of these two witnesses on any material aspect. In fact, if one reads the statements of these two witnesses, they are untutored and still consistent on all the material aspects. The immaterial inconsistencies in their statements, especially when they deposed after about more than a year or two of the occurrence, are natural and incidental. 23. On a plain reading of the letter Ex. PE, it unequivocally indicates that the father of the appellant had expressed regrets and tendered apology on account of some treatment (obviously mal- treatment) meted out to Nirmala in the past. He, therefore, requested Babu Lal that Nirmala may be sent back. He has further assured that no such incident will re-occur in future. Then, like a wise and experienced elder, he has indicated that everything need not be mentioned in the letter itself. It is, thus, patently clear that the allegation of Nirmala’s brother that the appellant had demanded a scooter in February 1989 and for that reason had been mal-treating Nirmala even thereafter, is neither imaginary nor concocted. It might be that the appellant’s father was not a party to the afore-said demand and it was the appellant alone who was raising it but the fact remains that there was some mal- treatment given by the appellant to the deceased due to which his father had to tender apology to the brothers of deceased Nirmala. The ‘expressions’ and ‘indicative message’ contained in the letter Ex. PE coupled with the oral testimony of PW2 and PW3 leave no manner of doubt that the appellant had not only demanded a scooter in dowry but also caused harassment and mal-treated the deceased at the time when a son was born to her in February 1989 which further culminated into a situation where she took the extreme step of committing suicide. 24. So far as the last contention, namely, the defence plea taken by the appellant in the statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. is concerned, in my view, it simply requires to be noticed and rejected. According to the appellant, deceased Nirmala had brought Pinki - daughter of her brother Babu Lal, for helping in looking after her newly born baby. So far as the last contention, namely, the defence plea taken by the appellant in the statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. is concerned, in my view, it simply requires to be noticed and rejected. According to the appellant, deceased Nirmala had brought Pinki - daughter of her brother Babu Lal, for helping in looking after her newly born baby. It is alleged that since the said Pinki could not hold the child properly who fell down from her lap, Nirmala gave beatings to her due to which she started crying. When the appellant reprimanded and scolded Nirmala for giving beatings to Pinki, she is alleged to have felt annoyed and insulted and committed suicide at night. Had there been even a degree of truth in the aforesaid story, the first person to have supported the appellant, would have been Pinki’s father - Babu Lal (PW3) who has categorically denied the fact that his daughter ever stayed with the deceased after the male child was born to the deceased. No evidence has been led by the appellant in support of the aforementioned contention. That apart, the incident, even if happened, was not of such a grave magnitude that Nirmala would have committed suicide on that count only. 25. From the above resume of discussions, there is no escape but to conclude that the appellant is guilty of causing ‘dowry death’ of Nirmala and has, thus, been rightly convicted and sentenced under section 304-B read with section 498- A IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul. 25. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bounds of the appellant are cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith to serve the remainder of the sentence. -