Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. Harvinder Singh (28) was found guilty by learned Sessions Judge, Patiala on February 8, 1995 for having committed the dowry death of his wife Karamjit Kaur who died after four years of marriage on May 20, 1992 of aluminum phosphide poisoning. Harvinder Singh has challenged the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge dated February 8, 1995 through this appeal. 2. Harvinder Singh had been tried alongwith his parents Rajinder Singh and Harpal Kaur on the basis of the complaint filed by Karamjit Kaurs father Harpal Singh. According to Harpal Singh (PW3) Karamjit Kaur was married to Harvinder Singh of Rampur Kalan, Tehsil Rajpura, about 4 years before the occurrence and Chajja Singh (PW-6) was the vichola. Two or three months after marriage Karamjit Kaur had complained to her father that her husband and his parents had been maltreating her on the pretext that she had brought inadequate dowry. She also complained that her husband had demanded a scooter. The matter had been reported to Lambardar Bachittar Singh (PW-4) by Harpal Singh (PW-3). 3. Karamjit Kaur gave birth to a son soon after 2-1/2 years of marriage, a child had been born at Chandigarh since during the confinement Karamjit Kaur had been living with her parents at Hallo Majra, Chandigarh. 4. On May 19, 1992 Karamjit Kaurs brother Didar Singh (PW-5) had taken Karamjit Kaur back to her matrimonial home and left her there. Didar Singh returned to Hallo Majra and complained to his father that the behaviour of Harvinder Singh and others had not been upto the mark. He also told his father the Harvinder Singh and his parents had demanded a scooter. 5. On May 20, 1992 Harpal Singh alongwith Lambardar Bachittar Singh went to Rampur Kalan to enquire about the welfare of Karamjit Kaur. It was at about 12 noon as Harpal Singh and Bachittar Singh were approaching Harvinder Singhs house, they heard shrieks and cries of Karamjit Kaur. They reached the outer gate and jumped over it. They saw that Rajinder Singh had caught hold of Karamjit Kaur from her legs, Harvinder Singh had caught hold of her hands and head and Karamjit Kaur was secured to a cot. Harpal Kaur had a glass in her hands with which she poured something into Karamjit Kaurs mouth. Harpal Singh and Bachittar Singh jumped over the wall and entered the house. They raised an alarm. Harpal Kaur had a glass in her hands with which she poured something into Karamjit Kaurs mouth. Harpal Singh and Bachittar Singh jumped over the wall and entered the house. They raised an alarm. Karamjit Kaur was rendered unconscious and taken to General Hospital, Chandigarh where she reached at 2.05 P.M. and was declared dead 3.00 P.M., Matter was reported to the police on the following morning at 8.00 A.M. and the case was registered. 6. Inspector Dalip Singh (PW-7) prepared inquest report Ex.PC, which was attested by Harpal Singh and Bachittar Singh and thereafter the dead body was sent for post mortem which was conducted by Dr. V.K. Chopra (PW-1) on May 21, 1992, the Medical Officer did not see any external mark of injury. The viscera of the deceased was preserved and sent for examination to the Chemical Examiner who reported that aluminium phosphide had been found in the contents stomach, liver and kidneys. 7. Harvinder Singh and his co-accused were arrested and sent for trial. At the trial charge was framed against Harvinder Singh and his parents under Section 302 I.P.C. (against Harpal Kaur) and under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (against Harvinder Singh and Rajinder Singh). In the alternative, charge was framed against all the accused under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Prosecution examined Dr. V.K. Chopra (PW-1), Dr. Rajiv Vadhera (PW-2), Harpal Singh (PW-3), Bachittar Singh (PW-4), Didar Singh (PW-5), Chajja Singh (PW-6) and Inspector Dalip Singh (PW7). Accused were examined without oath under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Harvinder Singh accused admitted the factum of marriage and birth of child but gave the following version : "I am innocent. My wife was fond of leading city life of Chandigarh. She used to compel me to sell the agricultural land in village Rampur Kalan and shift to Chandigarh. She was putting pressure on the pretext that her son was growing up and for that reason she wanted to impart him studies at Chandigarh. Myself and my father were not agreeable to this demand of my wife. The deceased also compelled me that since I had passed B.A. examination in March, 1992 and thereafter I should shift to Chandigarh and seek employment there, but I was not agreeable to this demand of may wife. Myself and my father were not agreeable to this demand of my wife. The deceased also compelled me that since I had passed B.A. examination in March, 1992 and thereafter I should shift to Chandigarh and seek employment there, but I was not agreeable to this demand of may wife. I wanted to look after my only parents as well as the land which is situated in village Rampur Kalan. The deceased also suggested to me that I should sell the land at Rampur Kalan and build a house at Chandigarh. My in-laws had a suspicion that my mother Harpal Kaur was instrumental in opposing this demand of my wife. Rajinder Singh my father was not residing with me at Rampur Kalan. He was employed at Ropar. My mother used to reside with her husband at Ropar. On 20.5.92 my wife Karamjit Kaur forbade me from going to the fields as I wanted to sow seeds for saplings of paddy crop, but inspite of her objection, I went to the fields in order to sow seeds of paddy crop. My wife Karamjit Kaur became annoyed on account of this. When I returned to the house, I found that my wife had taken some poisonous substance and she was lying on the cot in an unconscious condition and I immediately shifted her to General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh and got her admitted there. I attended her till death. No body else got her admitted in the hospital. After her death I came to village Hallomajra and informed my mother-in-law about the death of Karamjit Kaur. I informed her that Karamjit Kaur had committed suicide by taking poisonous substance. My wife used to extend threats to me several times stating that in case I do not shift to Chandigarh she would commit suicide. My in-laws took away the articles of dowry including our articles in connivance with the police and we have been falsely implicated in this case. I was arrested on 21.5.92 on the basis of suspicion." 9. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the charge under Section 302 against Harpal Kaur and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Rajinder Singh had not been proved. They were acquitted. I was arrested on 21.5.92 on the basis of suspicion." 9. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the charge under Section 302 against Harpal Kaur and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Rajinder Singh had not been proved. They were acquitted. However, only Harvinder Singh was convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code but his co-accused Harpal Kaur and Rajinder Singh were acquitted of the second charge as well. 10. The accused had been called upon to enter defence and examined the Handwriting Expert, Shri Gopal Krishan Sharma (DW-1) to establish that the signatures of Inspector Dalip Singh below the statement of Harpal Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were different from the signatures of Inspector Dalip Singh below similar statements of Lambardar Bachittar Singh and Chajja Singh and certain documentary evidence was also tendered in evidence e.g. Harvinder Singhs B.A. certificate, photostat copies of pension order and photostat copies of registration certificates of vehicle Nos. PAH 7896 and CHH 4461, birth certificate of Sharanjit Singh and birth entry in the register of births maintained by the chowkidar. 11. The learned Trial Judge proceeded to analyse the prosecution evidence after framing two points - (i) whether Karamjit Kaur had been murdered or (ii) whether Karamjit Kaurs was the dowry death. 12. Learned Judge proceeded by noting that the version contained in the F.I.R. that Harpal Kaur had put some poisonous substance in the mouth of the deceased while her co-accused had pinned down the deceased did not look natural or plausible. The basic reason for disbelieving the statements of Harpal Singh and Bachittar Singh was that their arrival at Rampur Kalan was chance one. Learned Judge ruled out the presence of Harpal Singh and Bachittar Singh at Rampura Kalan and supported his findings by the fact that neither of them had accompanied the unconscious Karamjit Kaur to the hospital at Chandigarh where it had been categorically mentioned in the relevant column that she had been brought by Harvinder Singh. Furthermore, after Karamjit Kaur had died at 3.00 P.M., there was no reason why Harpal Singh and Bachittar Singh had delayed reporting the matter to the police until the following morning at 8.00 A.M. From this the inference was that the matter was reported after due consultations. Furthermore, after Karamjit Kaur had died at 3.00 P.M., there was no reason why Harpal Singh and Bachittar Singh had delayed reporting the matter to the police until the following morning at 8.00 A.M. From this the inference was that the matter was reported after due consultations. Neither Harpal Singh nor Bachittar Singh approached any respectable person of Rampur Kalan to inform them of the occurrence. The version that Karamjit Kaur had been pinned down while she was forcibly given poison had not been corroborated by the medical evidence which did not reveal any mark of violence on her body. Learned Judge also noticed that according to the two witnesses Karamjit Kaur had immediately become unconscious which was not likely to happen as poison takes some time to mix in the blood. This also showed that the witnesses had not seen the occurrence. The learned trial judge was of the view that "occurrence had not taken place in the manner as deposed by Harpal Singh and Bachittar Singh. Rather story of the prosecution is brainchild of Harpal Singh, Bachittar Singh and Inspector Dalip Singh. Resultantly I hold that first charge against the accused is not established." 13. After finding the accused nor guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. learned Judge examined the circumstances of the case from the angle of dowry death and came to the conclusion that Harvinder Singh was the only son of his parents and the couple had also been blessed with a son. In these circumstances the learned Judge did not accept that the deceased would possess any tendency to commit suicide or that she did commit suicide. Simultaneously the learned Judge held that there must be some compelling reason that the deceased had resorted to take such a drastic step. It was the insult felt by Didar Singh that had not been tolerated by the deceased. In addition to this demand for a scooter must have been repeated by Harvinder Singh and he must have taunted the deceased and this taunt was an act of cruelty. When Karamjit Kaur was sent to her matrimonial home by her parents she had not been happily received by her husband. Karamjit Kaur took the extreme step by taking tablets containing aluminium phosphide. It was thus held that charge under Section 304-B was made out only against Harvinder Singh and not against Harpal Kaur and Ranjit Singh. 14. When Karamjit Kaur was sent to her matrimonial home by her parents she had not been happily received by her husband. Karamjit Kaur took the extreme step by taking tablets containing aluminium phosphide. It was thus held that charge under Section 304-B was made out only against Harvinder Singh and not against Harpal Kaur and Ranjit Singh. 14. Whether the act of the deceased was dowry death or abetment of suicide is the sole question to be decided in this appeal. Dowry death is an offence which has certain specific ingredients and can be presumed to have been committed if the requirements of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act have been fulfilled. On the other hand abetment of suicide does not contain any specific ingredients but suicide by a married woman can be established with the aid of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. Dowry death is punished for a term of seven years and above, upto imprisonment for life. Abetment of suicide is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years. 15. The learned trial Judge concluded that Karamjit Kaurs was death by suicide and by necessary corollary, the learned Judge had ruled out dowry death. For convicting an accused person under Section 304B what is necessary for the prosecution is to establish is that death of the woman had been caused either by burns or bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. In the present case death had neither been caused either by burns or bodily injury but by consumption of poison. Would such a death still be a death which had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. It seems that deaths which occurred otherwise than normal circumstances are cases where cause of death is somewhat blurred or uncertain. It does not seem that death by consumption of poison would fall under this clause which is in the nature of residuary provisions to cover cases where the woman had died neither due to burns nor bodily injuries. If death occurred under normal circumstances on account of illness or disease then it would not be a dowry death even though the other ingredients of the offence are present. Similar if death occurred due to consumption of poison and was found to be suicide then also the case would not fall under dowry death even though other ingredients are present. 16. Similar if death occurred due to consumption of poison and was found to be suicide then also the case would not fall under dowry death even though other ingredients are present. 16. In the present case and indeed in a large number of other cases where the woman commits suicide it seems that the correct provision to apply would be Section 306 I.P.C. and the accused convicted for abetment of suicide by employing the presumption laid down in Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. 17. All the ingredients of Section 113-A are present in this case. Therefore, the conviction of Harvinder Singh is converted from one under Section 304B to one under Section 306 I.P.C. However the sentence under Section 306 I.P.C. shall remain the same as that which was awarded by the learned Trial Court under Section 304B I.P.C. i.e. rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigour imprisonment for one year. 18. Appeal is disposed of with the above modification. The appellant, if on suspended sentence/bail, shall be taken into custody to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence.