Judgment Pritam Pal, J. 1. By this judgment, we shall be deciding Criminal Appeal No. 586-DB of 2002, filed by appellant Karnail Singh and his father Gurcharan Singh, husband and father-in-law respectively of Jasbir Kaur (25) since deceased against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated August 6, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby appellant-Karnail Singh was ordered to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000.00 and in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for one year under Section 302 of the IPC, whereas appellant Gurcharan Singh was ordered to undergo R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 2000.00 and in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for nine months under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Criminal Revision No. 2431 of 2002 filed by complainant-Padarath Singh for enhancing the sentence to death. 2. Prosecution case, as divulged by the witnesses at the trial is like this: Smt. Jasbir Kaur (25), since deceased, was married to Karnail Singh-appellant on March 15, 1997 in village Pirojwal Mangal Singh, Police Station, Dharamkot. At the time of her marriage, sufficient dowry articles were given to appellant-Karnail Singh and his parents which included motor cycle, coloured TV, fridge, utensils, furniture and gold ornaments weighing 12 tolas, but the bride-groom and his parents were not satisfied. It was about three months prior to the occurrence of this case that Jasbir Kaur had come to her parental village Bizapur and told her brothers and father that her husband Karnail Singh, mother-in-law Kashmir Kaur and father-in-law, Gurcharan Singh were demanding Rs. 50,000.00 more in cash from her. After giving the said information, she had gone back to her in-laws house on the next day. 3. It was on November 12. 1998 that Jagjit Singh, her brother, had gone to village Pirojwal Mangal Singh to see his sister. On his return, he disclosed to his elder brother Padarath Singh-complainant (P.W. 2) that the husband and the parents-in-law of Jasbir Kaur were demanding Rs. 50,000.00 from the sister and on that count, they are harassing her. Thereupon, on November 14, 1998 at about 4 p.m. Padarath Singh-complainant (P.W. 2) who is elder brother of Jasbir Kaur went to the house of the appellants to know about the welfare of his sister. 50,000.00 from the sister and on that count, they are harassing her. Thereupon, on November 14, 1998 at about 4 p.m. Padarath Singh-complainant (P.W. 2) who is elder brother of Jasbir Kaur went to the house of the appellants to know about the welfare of his sister. There in the courtyard of the house, he saw Gurcharan Singh her father-in-law catching hold of Jasbir Kaur from her hair whereas Kashmir Kaur (her mother-in-law) had caught hold of her from her mouth and while appellant-Karnail Singh was seen administering some poisonous substance in the mouth of Jasbir Kaur. On seeing so, he (Padarath Singh-complainant) raised an alarm "Na Maro" "Na Maro" ("Do not kill" "Do not kill"). Then appellant-Karnail Singh threatened him also. Thereafter, due to fear, he came back to his village and disclosed about the incident to his parents and other family members including his brother Jagjit Singh. After that the complainant along with his father and brother Jagjit Singh went to village Pirojwal Mangal Singh, but there none of the appellants was found present in the house. On his enquiry from the neighbourhood about his sister, it was revealed that Jasbir Kaur was taken to somewhere in a Maruti van by Karnail Singh-appellant and his parents. After that they searched for Jasbir Kaur and came to bus stand of village Pirojwal Badah, where a van bearing No. PCO 2855 was found parked. Dead body of Jasbir Kaur was lying there in the said van, driven by Jasbir Singh. At that time, all the aforesaid three accused persons were also standing nearby the said van. On seeing the dead body of Jasbir Kaur, complainant and his family members started weeping and wailing and thereupon, all the three namely Karnail Singh, husband Gurcharan Singh, father-in-law and Kashmir Kaur, mother-in-law of the deceased fled away from the spot. Then Padarath Singh-complainant made his younger brother Jagjit Singh to guard the dead body and left for Police Station, Dharamkot to lodge the report. On his way, he met Baldev Singh Inspector/SHO in the area of Chaudhrywala at 9.15 p.m. on the same day i.e. November 14, 1999. There, he made his statement Ex. P6 in the above narration of facts. Thereupon, he made his endorsement Ex. P6/A thereon and sent the same to the Police Station, on the basis of which, formal FIR Ex. There, he made his statement Ex. P6 in the above narration of facts. Thereupon, he made his endorsement Ex. P6/A thereon and sent the same to the Police Station, on the basis of which, formal FIR Ex. P10 was recorded by SI Amar Singh in Police Station, Dharamkot. Inspector Baldev Singh (P.W. 7) took the investigation of the case in his hand. He along with Padarath Singh-complainant (P.W. 2) reached at the place where dead body of Jasbir Kaur was lying in the van. There, they prepared inquest report Ex. P4 and after that he sent the dead body to Civil Hospital, Zira for postmortem examination through Constables Darshan Singh and Tarlochan Singh. On the next day, he inspected the place of occurrence and wet earth was taken from the spot and the same was made into parcel and sealed with his seal bearing impression "BS" and the said parcel was taken into possession vide memo Ex. P7, attested by Padarath Singh-complainant and ASI Gurcharan Singh. At the spot, Inspector Baldev Singh prepared the rough site plan Ex. P11 with correct marginal notes in his hand. The sealed parcel containing the clothes of the deceased and other items given by the doctor after the post-mortem examination were taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex. P12. On return to the Police Station, the case property was deposited with seals intact with MHC Gurdip Singh. Appellants-Karnail Singh and Gurcharan Singh were arrested on November 17, 1998. Thereafter, investigation of this case was entrusted to Balbir Singh S.I. (P.W. 11). He arrested the third accused Kashmir Kaur on November 25, 1998. After completion of formal investigation of this case, report Under Section 173, Cr. P.C. was filed in the Court by Balwinder Singh, the then S.H.O. Police Station, Dharamkot. 4. All the aforesaid three accused in this case, namely Karnail Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Kashmir Kaur were charge sheeted under Sections 304-B of IPC and Section 302, read with Section 34 of IPC by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide his order dated September 30, 1999, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. Prosecution in order to substantiate its case, examined as many as 12 witnesses in this case, namely P.W. 1 Dr. Raman Aggarwal, he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Jasbir Kaur on November 15, 1998 vide his report Ex. 5. Prosecution in order to substantiate its case, examined as many as 12 witnesses in this case, namely P.W. 1 Dr. Raman Aggarwal, he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Jasbir Kaur on November 15, 1998 vide his report Ex. P2; P.W. 2 Padarath Singh, he is complainant as well as elder brother of the deceased, P.W. 3 Jagjit Singh, he is younger brother of the deceased, P.W. 4 HC Gurdeep Singh, he proved his affidavit Ex. P.8; P.W. 5 HC Kulwinder Singh, he also placed on file his affidavit Ex. P-9. P.W. 6 Constable Gaje Singh, he had taken the Special Report Ex. P10 to the Illaqa Judicial Magistrate on November 15, 1998 at 1.30 p.m.; P.W. 7 Inspector Baldev Singh, he is the main Investigating Officer in this case; P.W. 8 Constable Chanan Singh, he has proved his affidavit Ex. P14 to prove the link evidence; P.W. 9 Gursewak Singh, Draftsman, he prepared scaled site plan Ex. P15 of the place of occurrence, P.W. 10 Gurbachan Singh, he is another brother of the deceased/victim and is running a shop at Dharamkot; P.W. 11 S.I. Balbir Singh, he partly investigated this case at the last stage and P.W. 12 Constable Tarlochan Singh, he had taken the dead body for post-mortem to the Civil Hospital. 6. It is also to add here that third accused namely, Kashmir Kaur had died during the trial. 7. After closure of the prosecution case, appellants-Karnail Singh and Gurcharan Singh were examined in terms of Section 313 of Cr. P.C. All the incriminating evidence appearing against the appellants were put to them to which they denied in toto. In answer to last question, they took similar plea to the effect that they were innocent. In fact, Jasbir Kaur, since deceased, used to remain under depression as her pregnancy was not getting matured. So, her treatment was going on. Further, they also took the plea that Padarath Singh-complainant (P.W. 2) who was serving as Patwari was facing a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in which their distant relatives were the prosecution witnesses and as such, Padarath Singh-complainant was forcing them (appellants) to prevail upon the prosecution witnesses, to which they never agreed. For that reason, they have been involved falsely in this case by the complainant party. 8. For that reason, they have been involved falsely in this case by the complainant party. 8. When the appellants were called upon to enter their defence, they chose in negative. However, a copy of judgment Ex. D4 showing the complainant to have faced a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been placed on the file. 9. The learned trial Court after appraisal of the prosecution evidence and hearing learned Counsel for the parties. convicted and sentenced the appellants, as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, they have come up in this case. 10. We have heard Mr. R. S. Ghai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. H. S. Grewal, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent and with their assistance have carefully gone through the record. 11. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention here that Gurcharan Singh, father-in-law of the deceased also died during the pendency of this appeal and as such, at present, Karnail Singh is the only appellant before us. 12. While defending his innocence, Mr. Ghai has vehemently argued that in this case, the trial Court has erred while holding him (Karnail Singh-appellant) guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. In that, appellant-Karnail Singh was held to have administered some poisonous substance forcibly to Jasbir Kaur and his said act was seen by her elder brother Padarath Singh, complainant (P.W. 2), who on the fateful day had come to ascertain about her welfare at her in-laws house. After putting forth the aforesaid point of argument, learned Counsel assailed the conduct of Padarath Singh (P.W. 2) when he stated that after seeing his sister being murdered, he drove his scooter and went back to his village Bizapur and informed his family members. According to him, his this conduct is quite unnatural and unbelievable. In fact, he was not present at the given date and time at the in-laws house of the deceased. Learned counsel then also made a reference to the medical evidence in the statement of P.W. 1 Dr. Raman Aggarwal who deposed that there was no external mark of injury on the dead body of Jasbir Kaur. In fact, he was not present at the given date and time at the in-laws house of the deceased. Learned counsel then also made a reference to the medical evidence in the statement of P.W. 1 Dr. Raman Aggarwal who deposed that there was no external mark of injury on the dead body of Jasbir Kaur. Learned counsel again assailed the testimony of P.W. 2 Padarath Singh, an eye-witness to the occurrence, on the ground that there would have been certainly some marks of injuries on the person of Jasbir Kaur, had she been administered poisonous substance forcibly in the manner, alleged by the prosecution. At the fag end of his arguments, Mr. Ghai also made reference to some contradictions occurred in the statements of P.W. 2 Padarath Singh-complainant, P.W. 3 Jagjit Singh and P.W. 10 Gurbachan Singh, who are brothers of the deceased. He ultimately contended that there is no cogent and reliable evidence to prove the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 13. On the other hand, Mr. H. S. Grewal, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State of Punjab has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court and then contended that in fact, Jasbir Kaur, a young lady of 25 years was administered poisonous substance forcibly by the appellant, as a result of which she died on the same day. He then also made reference to the statements of P.W. 2 Padarath Singh-complainant and P.W. 10 Gurbachan Singh, before whom victim Jasbir Kaur had stated that she was given poisonous substance forcibly. He contended for maintaining the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant. 14. We have given our holistic view to the points of arguments raised on behalf of the parties and find that as per the medical evidence consisted in the statement of P.W. 1 Dr. Raman Aggarwal, the cause of death of Jasbir Kaur was due to the consumption of aluminium phosphide, a pesticide which was detected by the Chemical Examiner in his report Ex. P1. Further, it is also apparent from the post-mortem report Ex.P2 that there was no external mark of injury on the dead body. Raman Aggarwal, the cause of death of Jasbir Kaur was due to the consumption of aluminium phosphide, a pesticide which was detected by the Chemical Examiner in his report Ex. P1. Further, it is also apparent from the post-mortem report Ex.P2 that there was no external mark of injury on the dead body. In his cross-examination, the doctor while appearing as P.W. 1 has categorically stated that no clothes of the dead body were damaged or torn and that in case, poison is administered forcibly, then there was possibility of some injury on the person of the victim. 15. At this stage, before appreciating the aforesaid medical evidence, let us analyze the statement of P.W. 2 Padarath Singh-complainant, who is the eye-witness to the occurrence. While appearing as P.W. 2 he admitted that the plage of occurrence was an open place being the courtyard and the same was visible from outside. He further stated that he had seen appellant-Karnail Singh administering forcibly some poisonous substance in the mouth of his sister Jasbir Kaur. It is also there in the evidence that the house of the appellant is situated in a thickly populated area but he did not intervene to save his younger sister. Not only that, he also did not call for help any person from the neighbourhood. He also did not go to Police Station, Dharamkot which is just at a distance of three kilometers from the place of occurrence. All his this unnatural behaviour and conduct creates a doubt in our mind about his presence at the place of occurrence on the fateful day. P.W. 2 Padarath Singh-complainant is also an educated man being a Patwari in the nearby village. He was a young man of 33 years at the time of occurrence. To our mind, had he (Padarath Singh) been present at the time of occurrence, he would have come forward for the rescue of his sister. 16. P.W. 2 Padarath Singh-complainant is also an educated man being a Patwari in the nearby village. He was a young man of 33 years at the time of occurrence. To our mind, had he (Padarath Singh) been present at the time of occurrence, he would have come forward for the rescue of his sister. 16. In this view of our foregoing discussion, version of P.W. 2 Padarah Singh with regard to administering of poisonous substance in the mouth of Jasbir Kaur by ap-pellant-Karnail Singh becomes highly doubt-ful, and as such, we have no hesitation to hold that the charge for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, is not established against him beyond any reasonable doubt, but at the same time, we are of the considered opinion that appellant-Karnail Singh cannot escape from the charge framed against him under Section 304-B of IPC inasmuch as it is an admitted fact that Jasbir Kaur-deceased who was also carrying a pregnancy of about eight weeks died an unnatural death in an abnormal circumstances within a period of one year and 8 months of her marriage, that too at the house of her in-laws. As stated above, the cause of death in this case was due to consumption of aluminium phosphide, which is proved to have been detected in the report Ex. P1 of Chemical Examiner. 17. Before we proceed further, let us examine Section 304-B of IPC and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. According to Section 304-B of IPC, which talks of dowry death, this Section lays down "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, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Thus, a reading of the above Section would show that ingredients of this Section are required to prove the offence under Section 304-B of IPC, Firstly unnatural death of a woman within seven years of her marriage; Secondly, she was being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. If we examine even in the light of the ingredients referred to above, it stands established in the statements of the witnesses, namely, P.W. 2 Padarath Singh-complainant, P.W. 3 Jagjit Singh and P.W. 10 Gurbachan Singh that death of Smt. Jasbir Kaur was caused by the consumption of aluminium phosphide. As such, her death had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances and that before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by appellant-Karnail Singh and his parents in connection with demand for dowry. They were not happy with the dowry articles already given to her by her parents at the time of her marriage, that is why they had further raised a demand of Rupees 50,000.00 and for that, she had come to her parental house three months prior to her death. At that time, Jasbir Kaur-deceased had told her brothers and father that the appellants were demanding Rs. 50,000.00 from her. It is further there in the statement of P.W. 3 Jagjit Singh, who had visited in-laws house of his sister Jasbir Kaur two days prior to the date of occurrence to know about her welfare that the appellants were harassing her on account of demand of Rs. 50,000.00 . All this goes a long way to show that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the appellant in connection with demand for dowry. In this connection, we would also like to refer here Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under: Presumption as to dowry death -- When the question Is whether a person has committed the dowry death of woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. 18. This presumption is fully attracted to the facts of the case in hand. 19. 18. This presumption is fully attracted to the facts of the case in hand. 19. Now adverting to the stand taken by the appellant that Jasbir Kaur-deceased used to remain under depression as her pregnancy was not getting matured and as such, her treatment was going on. This version of the appellant is devoid of any merit, inasmuch as it is there in the statement of P.W. 1 Dr. Raman Aggarwal that at the time of her death, she was carrying a pregnancy of eight weeks and nothing is shown to be abnormal regarding her pregnancy. Moreover, in that behalf, no evidence has been led by the appellant in spite of the fact that she was stated to have been treated in Amar Hospital, Ferozepur as well as in some Nursing Home at Moga. 20. In this view of our foregoing discussion. It appears that the aforesaid stand taken by the appellant is an after-thought and as such, the same does not inspire confidence. 21. In the totality of the circumstances, as discussed above, we partly allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant (Karnail Singh) under Section 302 of IPC. However the appellant is convicted under Section 304-B of IPC. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court, reported as Hem Chand V/s. State of Haryana in which it was observed that when a dowry death takes places in a matrimonial home, while awarding punishment, Court should take notice of the fact that Section 304-B of IPC only raises a presumption and lays down minimum sentence of seven years which may be extended to imprisonment for life. Further, the Hon ble Apex Court has held that awarding of extreme punishment of imprisonment for life should be in rare cases and not in every case. Here in the instant case, two of the accused persons namely Gurcharan Singh and Kashmir Kaur, who were parents of the appellant have already expired. Appellant-Kamail Singh is continuously lodged in jail since the date of his arrest. Thus taking an overall view of the matter, we feel that ends of justice would be met if appellant-Karnail Singh is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of eight years Under Section 304-B of IPC. We order accordingly. 22. Appellant-Kamail Singh is continuously lodged in jail since the date of his arrest. Thus taking an overall view of the matter, we feel that ends of justice would be met if appellant-Karnail Singh is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of eight years Under Section 304-B of IPC. We order accordingly. 22. In view of our above observations made in the appeal, Criminal Revision No. 2431 of 2002 filed by Padarath Singh-complainant stands dismissed.