Judgment M.M.Aggarwal, J. 1. This is an appeal against judgment/order dated 13.12.1991 of Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby the present appellants were convicted for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. For offence under Section 304-B IPC, they were sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 6 months each. No separate sentence was awarded for offence under Section 498-A IPC in view of sentence awarded for offence under Section 304-B IPC. 2. Prosecution case against the present appellants is that Nirmal Kaur daughter of Balwant Singh-complainant had married Joginder Singh accused- appellant about 1-1/2 years prior to the occurrence. Sufficient dowry was given. However, Joginder Singh husband and Sheetal Kaur mother-in-law and Mela Ram father-in-law (now accused appellants) and Baljit Singh and Giddo, brother and sister of the husband were not happy with the dowry. When Nirmal Kaur had come to her parents house after two months of marriage, she had told this fact to Balwant Singh her father and her mother Surjit Kaur that she was being harassed for bringing less dowry. Then Nirmal Kaur had stayed in her parents house for two months and thereafter she went to her in-laws house. Then she came back to her parents house in April 1990. She told her parents that so long as she lived at her in-laws house, she was being harassed by her parents-in-law, husband, brother and sister of the husband for bringing less dowry and now there was demand of scooter and she had been told that if she could not bring scooter, she should not come back. Then 15 days prior to the occurrence, Nirmal Kaur went back to her in-laws house. Surjit Kaur mother of Nirmal Kaur had accompanied her. Balwant Singh had assured that he will be visiting her in-laws house along with some other persons of the village and would also hold a Panchayat regarding demand of dowry. Then on 16.7.1990, Nirmal Kaur died an unnatural death by burning herself. It was dowry death. Police had registered case for offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC at the instance of Balwant Singh. It was investigated. Present appellants were arrested. They were sent for trial for offence under Sections 120-B, 498- A/304-B read with Section 120-B IPC. Then on 16.7.1990, Nirmal Kaur died an unnatural death by burning herself. It was dowry death. Police had registered case for offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC at the instance of Balwant Singh. It was investigated. Present appellants were arrested. They were sent for trial for offence under Sections 120-B, 498- A/304-B read with Section 120-B IPC. They faced trial and were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 3. Counsel for the appellants had argued that there was no corroborative evidence in this case regarding any harassment or demand of dowry. He also pointed out from the statement of Balwant Singh PW-5 that Nirmal Kaur had come to her parents house in April 1990 and at that time, she had told that accused had demanded a scooter. She had further told that if she does not bring scooter, she would not be allowed to live at their house. Then 15 days before the occurrence, Nirmal Kaur had gone back to her in-laws house but there was no evidence at all that there was any harassment or demand during those 15 days. It was argued that it cannot be said that demand of scooter was soon before the death of Nirmal Kaur. Counsel for the appellants had relied on a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported as Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006(1) RCR(Crl.) 133 (SC) and argued that when there was no incident of cruelty or harassment for a period of three months prior to death, then it cannot be said that cruelty or harassment was soon before the death and offence under Section 304-B IPC was not made out. However, from this judgment, I find that the Apex Court had held that soon before will depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. 4. It was further argued that Joginder Singh husband was in the Army, whereas Mela Ram and Sheetal Kaur were old persons and they would not require a scooter and make such demand. 5. As per statement of Dr. T.L. Galhotra (PW-1) who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Nirmal Kaur, she was aged about 20 years and the body was having 100% burns. It was, therefore, a case of death of a woman by burns and not in normal circumstances. It was within seven years from the date of marriage. As per statement of Dr. T.L. Galhotra (PW-1) who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Nirmal Kaur, she was aged about 20 years and the body was having 100% burns. It was, therefore, a case of death of a woman by burns and not in normal circumstances. It was within seven years from the date of marriage. As per Balwant Singh PW-3, Surjit Kaur, his wife, went with Nirmal Kaur to her in-laws house 15 days prior to the occurrence to leave her there but she could appear in the witness box since she had herself died. But there is positive statement of Balwant Singh that in-laws were not happy with the dowry and they were taunting her that she had brought less dowry. Then in April 1990 Nirmal Kaur had come to her parents house and told that accused had been harassing her for bringing less dowry. They were demanding a scooter and had even said if she does not bring scooter she would not be allowed to live at their house. Then 15 days prior to the occurrence, she had gone back to her in-laws house in the company of her mother. Death, as such, had taken place just in a period of 15 days after she went back to her in-laws house. Demand of scooter made three months back, which was not met, shall have to be taken as demand soon before death and cruelty or harassment as such also soon before death. Nirmal Kaur had to end her life since demand of scooter was not met. It is in the evidence that Joginder Singh husband who was in the Army was on leave from the Army and was in the village on the date of occurrence. 6. However, the fact remains that allegations had been levelled as against Joginder Singh husband, Mela Singh father-in-law and Sheetal Kaur mother-in- law, Baljit Singh and Guddo brother and sister of the husband. Police after investigation, had not challaned Baljit Singh and Guddo and only husband and parents in-law had been challaned. The demand was that of Scooter. 7. 6. However, the fact remains that allegations had been levelled as against Joginder Singh husband, Mela Singh father-in-law and Sheetal Kaur mother-in- law, Baljit Singh and Guddo brother and sister of the husband. Police after investigation, had not challaned Baljit Singh and Guddo and only husband and parents in-law had been challaned. The demand was that of Scooter. 7. From April 1990 onwards, for a period of over three months, Nirmal Kaur had stayed in the house of her parents and she had gone just for 15 days prior to her death in her in-laws house and at that time, husband Joginder Singh had come on leave was in the village. The parents-in-law would not possibly require a scooter for use. There is no corroborative evidence to the statement of Balwant Singh, except his own statement in the Court. The only presumption which can be drawn in this case is that when Nirmal Kaur came back without scooter and her husband Joginder Singh had come on leave, then he caused such cruelty or harassment to Nirmal Kaur which led her to end her life. 8. Under these circumstances, I hold that prosecution case against Mela Singh and Sheetal Kaur for offence under Section 304-B IPC or 498-A IPC was not proved beyond doubt, whereas case against Joginder Singh husband was duly proved. 9. From the above discussion, the appeal is partly accepted. Appeal qua Sheetal Kaur and Mela Singh-appellants is allowed. They stand acquitted. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Whereas appeal qua Joginder Singh- appellant is dismissed. His bail bonds stand cancelled. He shall surrender to undergo the sentence.