Judgment Nirmal Singh, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 5.8.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (I) Kaithal, vide which he convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :- Mukesh Kumar U/s 302 IPC to undergo RI for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo RI for six months. U/s 498-A IPC to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo RI for three months. Om Parkash/Murti Devi U/s 304-B IPC to undergo RI for eight years each. U/s 498-A IPC to undergo RI for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the defaulter shall further undergo RI for three months each. 2 However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case, in brief is that Rattan Lal, complainant, married his daughter Madhu with Mukesh on 14.2.1999. In the said marriage, he gave sufficient dowry as per his capacity. However, when after 15 days Tirlok Kumar son of Rattan Lal went to Narwana to see his sister, he came to know from her that Mukesh, her husband, Om Parkash, father-in-law and Murti Devi, mother-in-law were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and were harassing and threatening to kill her on that account. They were demanding a motor cycle and Rs. 50,000/- in cash. Due to this reason, Tirlok Kumar brought her sister back. The complainant Rattan Lal sent his daughter with her husband to her matrimonial home with the assurance that after arranging the money, their demands would be fulfilled but again, after 15 days, Madhu, gave a telephonic call to the complainant that her in-laws were harassing and beating her due to non-fulfilment of their demand. Tirlok Kumar then brought Madhu back to her parental house. Rattan Lal again told Om Parkash that he would give motor-cycle and Rs. 50,000/ in cash after making arrangements within few days. 4. On 31.3.2000 at about 10 A.M. Mukesh, son-in-law of complainant came to the house of Rattan Lal in an Esteem Car No. DL-2CB-6833 and repeated the demand of dowry. Rattan Lal again told Om Parkash that he would give motor-cycle and Rs. 50,000/ in cash after making arrangements within few days. 4. On 31.3.2000 at about 10 A.M. Mukesh, son-in-law of complainant came to the house of Rattan Lal in an Esteem Car No. DL-2CB-6833 and repeated the demand of dowry. The complainant sent Madhu with Mukesh on the same day at 5 P.M. on the promise that their demand would be fulfilled within a short period. In the evening, the complainant gave a telephonic call to Om Parkash to know as to whether Mukesh and Madhu had reached Narwana to which Om Parkash replied in negative. During night also, Rattan Lal gave two-three calls to Om Parkash but got the same reply. However, when he gave a telephonic call on 1.4.2000 at 7.00 A.M. Om Parkash told him that Mukesh and Madhu had been found near Cheeka in injured condition. Then, the complainant along with his brother Kuldeep, cousin Kimti Lal and his neighbour Jogi Ram went to Narwana and from there they went to Cheeka via Kaithal. They found car bearing No. DL-2CB-6833 Esteem beyond Peedal towards Cheeka side. They stopped their car and found the dead body of Madhu in a pool of blood lying by the side of drivers seat. Complainant Rattan Lal along with PW-12 Kimti Lal went to lodge the report. When they reached near Peer of Kamal Shah, ASI Hardev Singh met them and they handed over a complaint, Ex. PG/1 to him, on the basis of which formal FIR, Ex. PG was recorded. 5. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented. They were charged under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. To prove the case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. B.B. Kakkar, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Kaithal, PW-2 Dr. Harbans Lal, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Guhla, PW-3 Chander Bhan Patwari, PW-4 Surinder Kumar, Photographer, PW-5 Dilanjir Singh, retired Inspector, PW-6 Satnam Singh, Constable, PW-7 Ramesh Kumar, Head Constable, PW-8 Ishwar Singh, retired Constable, PW-9 Rattan Lal, complainant, PW-10 Tirlok Kumar, PW-11 Kaptan Singh, PW-12 Kimti Lal and PW-13 Hardev Kumar, ASI. 7. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstance appearing in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded innocence and alleged false implication. Mukesh-accused took the following pleas :- "I am innocent. 7. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstance appearing in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded innocence and alleged false implication. Mukesh-accused took the following pleas :- "I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated. My marriage with Madhu was solemnized on 14.2.1999 in a simple manner and there was no demand before marriage, at the time of marriage and after that. On 31.3.2000 I went to take my wife Madhu from my in-laws house in Esteem car bearing registration No. DL-2CB-6833. My wife was pregnant and was of religious nature. We left Tohana at about 6 P.M. on 31.3.2000 and when we are coming from Tohana, my wife told me that she is to perform Pooja in Shivaji Temple in village Sasa- Theh which was about 6-7 km. from village Peedal towards Patiala. We came to Kaithal at about 10-11 p.m. and we took dinner in a Dhaba and thereafter, we left for village Sasa-Theh as the Pooja was to be performed in the early hours. When we reached about 1 km. towards Cheeka from bus stand Peedal, at that time, I driving the car. In the meantime, two persons came on motor- cycle in front of the car and immediately, they came near our car and threatened to death. Both the robbers started removing the ornaments, which my wife was wearing at that time and when my wife and myself resisted immediately, one of the robbers started deflated right back tyre and the other person started causing injuries to my wife. I also gave slap and fist blows to that person but inspite of that, the robbers inflicted injuries on various parts of her body. I was also given injuries by the robbers. That robbers also caught my wife from the neck and caused injuries. In the meantime, a vehicle came from Cheeka side and on seeing the light of the said vehicle, both the robbers ran away from the spot with their motor-cycle. I tried to stop the vehicle which were passing on that route but nobody stopped for about one hour and thereafter, I went in a field near the place, where Ishwar son of Gaje Singh of village Peedal was found present in his fields. I tried to stop the vehicle which were passing on that route but nobody stopped for about one hour and thereafter, I went in a field near the place, where Ishwar son of Gaje Singh of village Peedal was found present in his fields. I narrated the whole episode to that person and thereafter he took me at a Dera from where I informed through telephone to my parents and also to my in-laws and also gave information on telephone to the police of police station Cheeka. After about one hour, in the morning time, the police came at the spot and thereafter, some of the police officials remained at the spot and I was taken by the police in police station, Cheeka. In the morning time, i.e. about 7 a.m. on 1.4.2000 I was brought by the police at the spot, where other police officials were there. After sometime my parents along with my in-laws came at the spot at about 8 a.m. and many persons from Cheeka came at the spot. I along with my parents were falsely involved at the instance of my in-laws. I was taken by the police from the spot in police station, Cheeka in the presence of said Ishwar Singh and Bir Bhan son of Ram Chand of village Cheeka and thereafter, this false case was planted against us." 8. In defence, they examined DW-1 Sat Pal, DW-2 Jaipal Garg, DW-3 Baldev Chand, MHC, DW-4 HC Lekh Ram, DW-5 Constable Sumer Singh, DW-6 Randhir Singh, MHC and DW-7 Om Parkash UGC. 9. The learned trial Court, after hearing the defence counsel and learned PP for the State and appreciating the evidence on record agreed with the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the appellants vide judgment and order dated 5.8.2002 as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment, against which the present appeal has been filed. 10. Mr. R.S. Ghai, Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellants, challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellants on the ground that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in its right perspective. Rather, the appellants have been convicted on the basis of conjectures and surmises. He also submitted that there is no direct evidence on record to prove that appellant Mukesh Kumar had given injuries to deceased Madhu. Rather, the appellants have been convicted on the basis of conjectures and surmises. He also submitted that there is no direct evidence on record to prove that appellant Mukesh Kumar had given injuries to deceased Madhu. He submitted that on the fateful night, the appellant Mukesh along with Madhu was coming from the house of his in-laws situated at Tohana in Esteem car. However, when they reached 1 K.M. towards Cheeka from Bus Stand, Peedal, two robbers on motor cycle met them. They way laid them and started snatching the ornaments worn by Madhu, to which Mukesh and Madhu resisted. Mukesh even gave a slap to one of the robbers, who, in turn, gave injuries to Mukesh as well as Madhu. However, the injuries given to Madhu proved to be fatal, as a result of which she died but complainant Rattan Lal, in connivance with the police, got recorded a false case registered against the appellants. He further submitted that the injuries sustained by the appellant, Mukesh, were not self-suffered, as opined by PW-2 Dr. Harbans Lal. He also submitted that the learned trial Court erroneously, on the basis of presumption, held that Mukesh had given those injuries. He further submitted that appellant No. 2, Om Parkash and appellant No. 3, Murti Devi, were not present at the time of alleged occurrence. There is no evidence on record that Mukesh, appellant, in connivance with appellant Nos. 2 and 3, had killed Madhu. He further submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously convicted and sentenced appellant Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 304-B IPC as there was no cogent and credible evidence to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by appellant Nos. 2 and 3 on account of demand of dowry. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Vashisht, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State, submitted that deceased Madhu was admittedly in the company of Mukesh Kumar, appellant. He submitted that deceased died not only due to the injuries but as per the post-mortem conducted by PW-1 Dr. B.B. Kakkar, she died due to strangulation also. He contended that the deceased was being harassed and tortured on account of demand of motor-cycle and cash, which the complainant, Rattan Lal, could not fulfil. He submitted that deceased died not only due to the injuries but as per the post-mortem conducted by PW-1 Dr. B.B. Kakkar, she died due to strangulation also. He contended that the deceased was being harassed and tortured on account of demand of motor-cycle and cash, which the complainant, Rattan Lal, could not fulfil. He also submitted that Mukesh, in connivance with his parents, brought Madhu from her parental house and then in the way at night time, killed her by strangulation and giving injuries. He thus supported the judgment of the learned trial Court. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record. 13. The first question before us to determine is as to whether the appellant Mukesh committed the murder of his wife, Madhu or Madhu and Mukesh had received injuries at the hands of robbers as alleged by Mukesh, appellant ? 14. From the record, it is established that this is one of the most gruesome and planned murder by Mukesh-appellant. The case put forth by Mukesh was that he left Tohana i.e. house of his in-laws in the company of Madhu at about 6 p.m. on 31.3.2000. In the way, his wife asked him that she wanted to perform Pooja in Shivaji Temple in village Sasa-Theh, which was about 6-7 kms. from village Peedal towards Patiala. Then they came to Kaithal at about 10 or 11 p.m. They took dinner in a Dhaba. Thereafter, they left for village Sasa- Theh as the Pooja was to be performed in the early hours. When they reached about 1 km. towards Cheeka from the Bus stand, Peedal, at that time, two robbers came in front of the car, stopped the same and started removing the ornaments of Madhu, to which both Madhu and Mukesh resisted, on which the robbers gave injuries to them. However, on seeing the light of another vehicle, which was coming to that side, the robbers ran away from the spot. After the occurrence, Mukesh informed Ishwar son of Gaje Singh of Village Peedal, who was present in his field, about the incident. He also informed his parents, in-laws and also the police telephonically about the incident. 15. The plea taken by Mukesh is not plausible and worth reliance. After the occurrence, Mukesh informed Ishwar son of Gaje Singh of Village Peedal, who was present in his field, about the incident. He also informed his parents, in-laws and also the police telephonically about the incident. 15. The plea taken by Mukesh is not plausible and worth reliance. If Madhu had to perform Pooja, then she along with her husband, Mukesh-appellant, could go in the morning as they were having Esteem car. Further, if Madhu had the intention to perform the Pooja at Shivaji temple at Sasa-Theh, then she must have disclosed this fact to her parents, on which they might advised them to go there in the morning. It is also relevant to mention here that complainant Rattan Lal in his cross-examination has stated that he never heard about Shivaji temple at Sasa-Theh. Mukesh Kumar-appellant, has also not stated that his family had faith in Shivaji Temple situated at Sasa-Theh. From this fact it is proved that appellant-Mukesh had just made up this story to save his skin. He had taken Madhu there with a pre-plan to kill her. 16. The version put-forth by Mukesh is also belied from the evidence of ASI Hardev Kumar, who was the Investigator in this case. ASI Hardev Kumar went to the place of occurrence and took into possession the Esteem car bearing No. DL2-CB-6833 along with its registration certificate. From the car, he also took into possession various ornaments i.e. gold bangles, ring, chain, jhumka, koka, lady purse containing Rs. 360/-, Mangal Sootra, plastic bag, VIP Attache, clothes stitched, unstitched suits, saris, chaddar etc. These articles were exhibited as Exs. P-34 to P-53. He also took into possession the ornaments removed from the dead body i.e. silver pajebs, one gold ear ring, two told rings and two silver Chutkis. If the robbers had to rob Mukesh and Madhu, then after removing the ornaments, they must have taken all the items with them and would not scatter the same in the car. This shows that after killing Madhu, appellant Mukesh had removed some of the ornaments from the person of Madhu and scattered the same in the car to make it look as if robbers had killed Madhu. 17. PW-1 Dr. B.B. Kakkar had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Madhu on 1.4.2000. This shows that after killing Madhu, appellant Mukesh had removed some of the ornaments from the person of Madhu and scattered the same in the car to make it look as if robbers had killed Madhu. 17. PW-1 Dr. B.B. Kakkar had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Madhu on 1.4.2000. He found the following injuries on her person : "Multiple small abrasion on the front and right side of neck. Clotted blood was present around all over the abrasions. Incised wound 8 cm. x .5 cm. to 2 cm. x muscle deep (spindle shape) on the left side of neck obliquely placed, on dissection, hyoid bone was fractured. xx xx xx xx Right eye echymosed, swollen, face cynosed in between the teeth, frothy blood-stained discharge coming from the nostrils. An incised wound 7 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep on the ventral aspect of the right hand at middle. Clotted blood was present. Multiple small abrasion present on the left hypo-chondrium region in size 8 x 8 cm. Post-mortem staining present in the back." 18. As per the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death in this case was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling which was ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in normal course of events. He also opined that associate injuries were also ante-mortem in nature. 19. It is not the case of the appellant-Mukesh, that robbers throttled his wife, Madhu (since deceased). From the medical evidence, it is established that deceased Madhu was not killed by giving injuries but before that she was throttled and then injuries were given to her. The time that lapsed between injuries and death was half an hour while (between) death and post-mortem, it was between 18 to 36 hours. As per the version put forth by Mukesh, after the occurrence, he tried to stop the vehicles passing by his side but none stopped. Thereafter, he went to the field nearby the place of occurrence where Ishwar son of Gaje Singh, resident of Peedal was found present. He narrated the whole incident to him, who took him to the nearby dera, from where he informed his parents as well as in-laws telephonically. He also gave a telephonic call to the police of Police Station, Cheeka with regard to the incident. He narrated the whole incident to him, who took him to the nearby dera, from where he informed his parents as well as in-laws telephonically. He also gave a telephonic call to the police of Police Station, Cheeka with regard to the incident. The case of Mukesh is that he had also received injuries in this occurrence. However, we would discuss this aspect in the later part of the judgment. Madhu had died half an hour after receiving the injuries. No doubt, Mukesh had put forth the story that one of the robbers deflated right tyre of the car but the injuries, as suffered by Mukesh, appellant, were not so serious that he could not change the tyre of the car with the spare tyre. Even it is also not the case of appellant, Mukesh that he was not having spare tyre. If Ishwar son of Gaje Singh of Village Peedal was working in the field near the place of occurrence, then on raising alarm by Mukesh or by hearing the shrieks of Madhu, he must have been attracted to the spot and could also call other persons of the village at the place of occurrence for rendering help to Mukesh and Madhu. Moreover, Ishwar was the best witness to prove that deceased Madhu and Mukesh had received injuries on their persons at the hands of robbers but appellant-Mukesh did not examine him as defence witness. It is also not the case of Mukesh that he had told the police that after the occurrence he informed Ishwar, who was working in the nearby field, regarding the incident. Appellant Mukesh had intentionally not examined Ishwar Singh because either there would be no person of such name or if he would examine him, he would not have supported the case of the defence. The plea taken by Mukesh that he informed Ishwar is also falsified on other grounds. As per the statement of Mukesh, after the incident he informed Ishwar Singh who took him to the nearby Dera from where he informed telephonically to his parents, in- laws and police of Police Station, Cheeka, with regard to the incident. Om Parkash-appellant, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C deposed that be received a telephonic call from Mukesh early in the morning on 1.4.2000. Om Parkash-appellant, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C deposed that be received a telephonic call from Mukesh early in the morning on 1.4.2000. Rattan Lal, PW, also deposed that on 31.3.2000 he gave repeated calls to Om Parkash to know about whether Mukesh and Madhu had reached safely at Narwana. However, Om Parkash informed him that they had not yet reached. On the next morning i.e. on 1.4.2000 at 4 a.m., he again telephoned Om Parkash, who informed him that Madhu and Mukesh were lying in injured condition near Village Peedal. If Mukesh had informed Om Parkash in the night of 31.3.2000 telephonically about the incident, as deposed by him in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., then instead of giving a call to Rattan Lal, he should have reached at the spot immediately. Rattan Lal along with other family members, on getting information from Om Parkash, also went to the place of occurrence where they found Madhu lying dead on the front seat of Esteem car. Then, they went to lodge the report and handed over a complaint, Ex. PG/1. On the said complaint, ASI Hardev Singh made endorsement at 11.50 a.m., on the basis of which the case was registered at 12.50 a.m. Had Mukesh informed the police telephonically with regard to killing of his wife by the robbers and also that the dead body was lying in the area of Village Peedal at night time after the occurrence, then the police must have reached at the spot within short while after the receipt of information as the distance of Police Station from the place of occurrence is only 4 km. This shows that police was having no information before receiving information from Rattan Lal, complainant. Even no suggestion was put to ASI Hardev Singh that they had received the information in the light after the occurrence. 20. So far as contention of Mukesh appellant that he had also received injuries in the said incident, the same has no substance. He was examined by PW-2 Dr. Harbans Lal on 1.4.2000, who found the following injuries on his person :- "1. Three multiple incised wounds over anterior aspect of left hand measuring 5 x 0.1 x 0.1 x 4 x 0.1, 3 x 0.1 x 0.1 cm. 2. He was examined by PW-2 Dr. Harbans Lal on 1.4.2000, who found the following injuries on his person :- "1. Three multiple incised wounds over anterior aspect of left hand measuring 5 x 0.1 x 0.1 x 4 x 0.1, 3 x 0.1 x 0.1 cm. 2. Multiple incised wounds over anterior aspect of right hand measuring 3 x 0.1 x 0.1, 3 x 0.1, 1-1/2 x 0.1 x 0.1, 1-1/2 x 0.1 x 0.1 cm. 3. Complaining of pain over right thumb anteriorly, no swelling, no tenderness, no external mark of injury. 4. Multiple abrasions over antro-lateral both sides, 12 in number, abrasion over neck. 5. Abrasion over anterior aspect of right fore-arm near wrist joint." 21. These injuries were simple in nature and were caused within the duration of 24 hours. In cross-examination, the doctor has opined that the injuries on the person of appellant Mukesh could be self-suffered or suffered with the friendly hands. 22. Appellant Mukesh was arrested by PW-13 ASI Hardev Singh, who was produced before him by Labh Singh. At that time, he was wearing blood-stained clothes, which were removed and taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PB. Mukesh was interrogated by him in the presence of PW-12 Kimti Lal and Constable Mahabir Singh. Mukesh suffered a disclosure statement, Ex. PM, that he had kept concealed one knife near Village Peedal in the bushes on the road side, which he could get recovered. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, he led the police party to the place of disclosure and got recovered the knife, Ex. P-13. The knife was sealed in a parcel and sent to the F.S.L., Madhuban. As per the report of FSL, Ex. PN, the knife was stained with blood. The knife was further sent for analysis to the Serologist, who vide his report, pointed out that the knife was stained with human blood. Therefore, after scanning the evidence record, we have no hesitation to hold that Mukesh Kumar, appellant, was the person who firstly strangulated Madhu and then gave injuries to her to make out a case of robbery, in which he has miserably failed. Consequently, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced Mukesh Kumar, appellant. 23. Therefore, after scanning the evidence record, we have no hesitation to hold that Mukesh Kumar, appellant, was the person who firstly strangulated Madhu and then gave injuries to her to make out a case of robbery, in which he has miserably failed. Consequently, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced Mukesh Kumar, appellant. 23. The next question for determination is that when an accused is convicted under Section 302 IPC as to whether he can be convicted for an offence under Section 304-B IPC as well ? Before considering this proposition, it will be appropriate to notice the provisions of Sections 304-B and 300 IPC, which read as under :- "304-B. Dowry Death :- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with, any demand of dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death." Explanation. - For the purpose of this sub-section "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. "300. Murder. - Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or - 2ndly. - If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or - 3rdly. - If, it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or - 4thly. - If, it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or - 4thly. - If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. Exception 1. - When culpable homicide is not murder. - Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. The above exception is subject to the following provisos :- First. - That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person. Secondly. - That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant. Thirdly. - That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Explanation. - Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. Explanation 2. - Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence. Exception 3. - Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and caused death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused. Exception 4. Exception 4. - Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or aced in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation. - It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Exception 5. - Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent." 24. A perusal of the abovesaid provisions would show that Sections 304-B and 300 are independent sections having substantive sentences. 25. In the case in hand, the demand of dowry was the cause of death. A perusal of Section 300 shows that if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention or knowledge of causing death, then it is murder for which the sentence has been prescribed under Section 302 IPC but Section 304-B IPC would be applicable where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Therefore, when the bodily injuries are being given with the intention or knowledge to cause death of a victim, then the accused is to be convicted under Section 302 IPC and not under Section 304-B IPC. Similar view has been taken by the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Patel Pareshkumar Jayantilal v. State of Gujarat, 2000 Crl. LJ 223. 26. In the instant case, it is the admitted position that Om Parkash and Madhu Devi, appellants, were not present at the time of occurrence. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the bodily injuries had been caused by Mukesh to Madhu in conspiracy with appellant Nos. 2 and 3. So appellant Nos. 2 and 3, Om Parkash and Murti Devi, cannot be convicted under Section 304-B IPC. Resultantly, they are acquitted of the charge under Section 304-B IPC. 27. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the bodily injuries had been caused by Mukesh to Madhu in conspiracy with appellant Nos. 2 and 3. So appellant Nos. 2 and 3, Om Parkash and Murti Devi, cannot be convicted under Section 304-B IPC. Resultantly, they are acquitted of the charge under Section 304-B IPC. 27. PW-9 Rattan Lal, complainant, deposed in his statement that after 15 days of the marriage, his son Tirlok Kumar went to the house of the appellants to bring his daughter Madhu. After coming to his parental house, Madhu informed him that her husband and in-laws were not happy with the dowry given in the marriage and were harassing and torturing her to bring a motor-cycle and Rs. 50,000/- in cash as dowry. However, after 15 days, he sent his daughter, Madhu with Mukesh Kumar, appellant, with an undertaking that he would arrange for the motor-cycle as well as Rs. 50,000/- in cash within a short period. Madhu again informed Rattan Lal after a month that if demand of dowry of her in-laws was not fulfilled, then they would kill her. She also requested him to take her back to her parental house. This version given by Rattan Lal, complainant, is fully corroborated by the statement of PW-10 Tirlok Kumar and PW-12 Kimti Lal. From the evidence of the prosecution, it is established that there was harassment to the deceased within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC, which reads as under :- "498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be published with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be published with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means :- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 28. The demand of dowry was the motive for Mukesh Kumar, appellant, to murder Madhu. Madhu was coerced by Om Parkash and Murti Devi, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 also during her life time on account of demand of dowry. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted them under Section 498-A IPC. 29. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly contended that the sentence awarded to appellant Nos. 2 and 3 is harsh and the same may be suitably reduced. The occurrence in this case had taken place in the year 2000 and appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are facing the agony of trial since then both mentally and financially. Therefore, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, age of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and antecedents, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded under Section 498-A is reduced to the period already undergone. 30. The up-shot of the above discussion is that the appeal qua appellant Mukesh Kumar is dismissed. So far as appellant Nos. 2 and 3, Om Parkash and Murti Devi, are concerned, they are acquitted of the charge under Section 304-B IPC but their conviction under Section 498-A IPC is maintained. Om Parkash has undergone one year whereas Murti Devi has undergone about 5 months sentence. Therefore, their sentences are reduced to the period already undergone under Section 498-A IPC. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of in the above terms.