Judgment M.M.Aggarwal, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 6.9.1994 of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby the accused Raj Kumar and Ram Piari had been convicted for offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. For offence under Section 304-B IPC, the appellants had been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and for the offence under Section 498A IPC, they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. The sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The deceased in this case is Daya Kaur aged about 18 years d/o Sucha Singh R/o Balheri. Sucha Singh father of the deceased is the complainant in this case. The death had taken place on 24.3.1992 just after 5-6 months of the marriage in matrimonial house in village Bishangarh about 18 kms. away from the village of the complainant. The FIR was lodged on 25.3.1992 on the statement made by Sucha Singh. Accused Raj Kumar happens to be the husband whereas Ram Piari is the mother-in-law. Raj Bala, the married sister of the husband had also faced trial but she was acquitted. The death in this case had been by consumption of Sulphas Tablets. The factum of death otherwise than under normal circumstances and within seven years of marriage is not disputed. 3. The material witnesses had been Sucha Singh, the father of the deceased PW2. Lachmi Devi is the mother of the deceased (PW3). PW 8 is Sham Lal, brother of Sucha Singh and Joginder Singh appeared as PW 9, the Sarpanch of village Balheri. 4. Shri R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant had argued that Sucha Singh (PW 2), the father of the deceased and the complainant of the case had not supported the prosecution case. He argued that there was no earlier history of demand. There was no evidence that there was any demand before the marriage or at the time of marriage or at the time of any ceremonial occasion. There was no evidence of ill treatment. Further there was no evidence of mode of harassment or cruelty. It was also not specifically stated by any of the witnesses as to who out of the accused had made that demand. There was no evidence of ill treatment. Further there was no evidence of mode of harassment or cruelty. It was also not specifically stated by any of the witnesses as to who out of the accused had made that demand. He pointed out from the statement of witnesses, that it would come out that the father of the deceased was just a labourer having five children whereas the father of Raj Kumar was a permanent Beldar. He was having agricultural holding also, which was being irrigated by canal. From the statement of Sucha, it was pointed out that 4-5 days prior to the occurrence Sucha and Lachmi had visited the house of the accused in connection with engagement of the brother of Raj Kumar accused. At that time, Daya Kaur had just asked Sucha to get her a T.V., cycle, a wrist watch and a fan. Sucha had stated that Daya Kaur must have been harassed by the accused to get these things as she would not have otherwise demanded these things. Sucha had stated that Daya Kaur had never complained of any thing earlier and that the accused was raising any demand. Sucha had further stated that when he asked Daya Kaur to identify who had actually demanded those articles then Daya Kaur told that Sucha should not be concerned about this fact. From this, it was vehemently argued that throughout the period of marriage, there had been no demand on earlier occasion nor there was any complaint. It was argued that Daya Kaur might have asked for the articles of her own since it was quite possible that the brother of Raj Kumar was engaged and those articles may be coming as dowry at the time of marriage of brother of Raj Kumar and Daya Kaur may be feeling lower in status if the articles were not there. It was argued by learned counsel for the appellant that in the circumstances not much reliance can be placed on testimony of Lachmi Devi (PW3). From the statement of Sham Lal PW8, who is the brother of Sucha, it was pointed out that Smt. Lal had visited the house of the accused one and half month after the marriage and at that time nothing had happened. From the statement of Sham Lal PW8, who is the brother of Sucha, it was pointed out that Smt. Lal had visited the house of the accused one and half month after the marriage and at that time nothing had happened. It was argued that Daya Kaur was living happily throughout and there was no occasion even for the parents to visit earlier than that engagement ceremony or to bring Daya Kaur due to any complaint. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on judgments in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others, 2000(2) RCR(Crl.) 695 (SC) : AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2324, Salamat Ali and another v. State of Bihar, AIR 1995 SC 1863, Pawan Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana, 1998(1) RCR(Crl.) 758 (SC) : AIR 1998 SC 958. 6. I have gone through all the judgments, however, these are on their own peculiar facts and circumstances. 7. Lachmi Devi (PW3) who happens to be the mother of the deceased stated that after the marriage, she and her husband had visited the house of the accused on the engagement of the brother of the accused Raj Kumar. On that visit, Daya Kaur told her that the accused was demanding a Television, Cycle, Wrist Watch and a fan. Daya Kaur was crying when she brought those facts to her notice. She stated that she assured her that she could fetch the articles after few days. Lachmi further stated that Daya Kaur wanted her to be taken along as the accused were harassing her due to non-fulfilment of the demand. In the cross- examination, she had admitted that Daya Kaur had never any complaint prior thereto. She admitted that her husband was a daily wager and his right arm was not functioning properly whereas the father of Raj Kumar was permanent employee as Beldar and there was also agricultural holding. She admitted that the accused Raj Kumar had invited her and her husband to attend the function and the function was also attended by a large number of biradari people. 8. It is a fact that Daya Kaur died just after 3-4 days of the engagement ceremony. She admitted that the accused Raj Kumar had invited her and her husband to attend the function and the function was also attended by a large number of biradari people. 8. It is a fact that Daya Kaur died just after 3-4 days of the engagement ceremony. Lachmi Devi, the mother of Daya Kaur is quite clear that on that visit at the time of engagement ceremony of the brother of Raj Kumar, Daya Kaur had told her that the accused were demanding Television, Cycle, a wrist watch and a fan. Daya Kaur was crying when she talked about these facts to her mother Lachmi. Daya Kaur wanted to be taken along as the accused were harassing her due to non-fulfilment of the demand. She, however, had admitted that Daya Kaur had never made any complaint prior thereto. This shows truthfulness in the statement of Lachmi Devi. If she was to tell lie, she could say that earlier also there was harassment or demands. A girl will normally not talk in detail to her father whereas she can always open her heart and talk everything to her mother. Sucha (PW2) deposed that Daya Kaur asked him to get a Television, Cycle, a wrist watch and a fan and she did not complain on earlier occasion that the accused were raising any demand and when she was asked to identify who had actually demanded these articles, she told that he should not be concerned about that fact. That also shows that he had spoken truthfully as Daya Kaur might not have talked in detail with him and had talked everything with her mother. She had cried also and had told about the factum of harassment. The statements of Sucha (PW3) and Lachmi (PW2) repose confidence and they are to be believed in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The statement of Sham Lal does not discredit the prosecution case in any way as there had been no demand in one and half month after the marriage. 9. Whether accused were in better financial position than father of the deceased is not very important as a demand could still be made. This could lead to strain & death which took place within just 3-4 days. 10. In the present case, Raj Kumar, husband and Ram Piari, the mother-in-law and Raj Bala married sister-in-law had faced trial. 9. Whether accused were in better financial position than father of the deceased is not very important as a demand could still be made. This could lead to strain & death which took place within just 3-4 days. 10. In the present case, Raj Kumar, husband and Ram Piari, the mother-in-law and Raj Bala married sister-in-law had faced trial. The father-in-law was never named. The married sister of the husband has since been acquitted. Only the husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased are the accused-appellants. According to Lachmi, Daya Kaur had told her that the accused were demanding a Television, Cycle, a wrist watch and a fan. Daya Kaur was crying and wanted to be taken along. Under these circumstances, even if it was not specifically stated, who had actually made the demand or caused harassment or cruelty, it will not make much difference when the case now is only against the husband and mother-in-law, who are close relatives admittedly living together in the same house with the deceased. The death had been soon after she had been subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry. 11. In view of the above, I hold that the case against appellants was duly proved and they had been rightly convicted for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The appellants shall surrender to undergo the sentence.