Judgment Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J. 1. Anil Kumar is the husband of the deceased Rakhi, whereas Ram Bichari Devi and Ram Sundar are his parents i.e. father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. Chanda Devi and Sunil Kumar are the sister and brother of Anil Kumar i.e. sister-in-law (Nanad) and brother-in-law (Devar) of the deceased. They were charged for committing the offence u/s. 304-B read with Sec. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna by judgment and order dated 19.5.2003 and 24.5.2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 86 of 1999 held them guilty under Section 304-B read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Chandra Devi and Ram Bichari Devi as also Sunil Kumar and Ram Sundar have preferrerd separate appeals, which have been registered as Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 2003 respectively. Appeal preferred by the husband Anil Kumar has been registered as Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 2003. During the pendency of the appeal, Ram Bichari Devi died and, as such, the appeal preferred by her has abated. 2. All the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Prosecution started on the basis of a written report given by Niranjan Prasad Singh (P.W.4), father of the deceased, before the Officer-Incharge of Shastrinagar Police Station on 27.8.1998. According to the written report, informants daughter Rakhi was married to appellant Anil Kumar and after the marriage she used to be assaulted by her mother-in-law Ram Bichari Devi, sister-in-law Chanda Devi, brother-in-law Sunil Kumar, father-in-law Ram Sundar and husband Anil Kumar. Once upon a time, according to the informant, her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and more particularly the brother-in-law Sunil Kumar made attempt to set his daughter on fire but somehow or the other she managed to run away from the matrimonial home and came to his house. Thereafter informant went to the matrimonial home of his daughter and counselled her inlaws but the harassment continued. They used to state that they have not got dowry according to their status. His daughter used to complain that her mother-in-law and brother-in-law Sunil Kumar always used to threaten to poison her to death, which threat has come true. 4. Thereafter informant went to the matrimonial home of his daughter and counselled her inlaws but the harassment continued. They used to state that they have not got dowry according to their status. His daughter used to complain that her mother-in-law and brother-in-law Sunil Kumar always used to threaten to poison her to death, which threat has come true. 4. On 27.8.1998 on hearing the information that his daughter has been poisoned to death, he went to her matrimonial home at Ashiyana Nagar in the town of Patna. According to the written report, the house-hold articles were scattered. On information of the neighbours that she has been poisoned to death, he went to the Patna Medical College Hospital, where he found her dead body at the postmortem-room. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid informantion Gardanibagh (Shastrinagar) P.S. case No. 508 of 1998 was registered under Ss. 304B and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the appellants. 6. Police after usual investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellants and they were ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions to face trial, where they were charged for entering into criminal conspiracy and subjecting Rakhi, married to appellant Anil Kumar on 22.5.1993 to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry resulting in her death on 27.8.1998, punishable under Section 304-B read with Sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. Prosecution in support of its case had altogether examined ten witnesses. Out of whom, P.W. 1 Alok Kumar is the brother of the deceased and son of the informant. P.W. 2 Dr. Arbind Kumar Singh is the Medical Officer, who had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Rakhi, P.W. 3 Pramod Kumar Jha, at the relevant time, was the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory at Patna, who had examined the viscera of the deceased and proved the attested copy of the viscera report (Ext-2). P.W. 4 Niranjan Prasad Singh and P.W. 5 Rajmani Devi are father and mother of the deceased Rakhi, whereas P.W. 7 Ravindra Narain Ravi is her uncle. P.W. 6 P.K.B. Pillai happens to be the friend of the deceased uncle Ravindra Narain Ravi, P.W. 8 Braj Kishore Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case. P.W. 4 Niranjan Prasad Singh and P.W. 5 Rajmani Devi are father and mother of the deceased Rakhi, whereas P.W. 7 Ravindra Narain Ravi is her uncle. P.W. 6 P.K.B. Pillai happens to be the friend of the deceased uncle Ravindra Narain Ravi, P.W. 8 Braj Kishore Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case. P.W. 9 Anand Kishore Prasad, at the relevant time, was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police and had affected seizure of computer, printer and stablizer etc. and proved the same as Material Exhibit, P.W. 10 Md. Eqbal, at the relevant time, was posted as Constable and had taken the sealed jar containing viscera of the deceased from the Patna Medical College & Hospital and had delivered the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Patna. 8. Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution has brought on record various documents as Exhibits which include postmortem report (Ext-1), Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ext-2), written report of the informant (Ext-3), Inquest report (Ext-6) and formal FIR (Ext-7). 9. Appellants denied to have subjected the decased Rakhi to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry but had admitted that the deceased was married to appellant Anil Kumar in the year 1993. From the trend of the cross-examination and the documents brought on record, their defence seem to be that deceased was living happily in the matrimonial home and suddenly on 27.8.1998 at 11 A.M. deceased started vomittingand on enquiry she did not disclose the cause thereof and when she started fainting, taken to the emergency ward of Patna Medical College & Hospital, where she was declared dead. 10. In support of their case, they have examined Anand Narain Sharma, Dina Nath Singh and Dilip Kumar as defence witnesses nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively. Besides the aforesaid, they have also got various documents marked as exhibits including letters (Ext-A to A/1 and E), photographs (Ext-B series), Invitation card (Ext-C), receipt of Railway Recruitment Board (Ext-D), fardbeyan of appellant Anil Kumar dated 27.8.1998 (Ext-F), Inland letters (Exts-G and G/1), diary (Exts-H and H/1), Kisan Vikas Patra (Ext-K series) and shares certificates (Ext-L series) besides other documents. 11. The Court below on appraisal of evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. 12. 11. The Court below on appraisal of evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. 12. There is no dispute, rather it is an admitted position, that the marriage of the deceased Rakhi took place on 22.5.1993 with appellant Anil Kumar son of appellant Ram Sundar and brother of appellants Chanda Devi and Sunil Kumar. In other words the appellants herein are the husband, father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased Rakhi. There is further over-whelming evidence on record that the deceased died while living in the matrimonial home at Ashiyana Nagar in the town of Patna on 27.8.1998 i.e. within seven years of the marriage. However the appellants had denied that the deceased Rakhi was ever subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry. It has also denied that the deceased Rakhi died due to poison. There is over-whelming evidence to show that the deceased died within seven years of the marriage at her matrimonial home but the appellants have not shown or suggested her cause of death. 13. Hence, I deem it inexpedient to consider the evidence brought on record by the prosecution in regard to the date of marriage, the date of death and the relationship of the appellants with the deceased. In view of aforesaid, what is to be seen is as to whether the death of Rakhi occcurred otherwise than in normal circumstances and whether 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. Accordingly I proceed to discuss the evidence of the witnesses on the aforesaid questions. 14. P.W. 1 Alok Kumar is the brother of the deceased and according to his evidence the behaviour of the appellants with his sister after the marriage was not good. They used to coerce her to bring a sum of Rs. 2 lacs and threaten that in case of her failure she will not be allowed to live in the matrimonial home. In the year 1997, he got admitted in a computer course and used to commute daily from his village. However on few occasions when delayed, used to stay at the deceased place. 2 lacs and threaten that in case of her failure she will not be allowed to live in the matrimonial home. In the year 1997, he got admitted in a computer course and used to commute daily from his village. However on few occasions when delayed, used to stay at the deceased place. In his presence appellants had beaten his sister and when he attempted to save her he was also assaulted. According to this witness, the deceased used to run a Nursery school in the ground floor of her matrimonial home at Ashiyana Nagar and for that his father and uncle had given money. His uncle also gave her a computer. Appellants used to take a sum of Rs. 3000/- from his sister as rent for running the school. 15. Once according to this witness appellants attempted to set his sister on fire but she fled to her parents house and disclosed the entire incident. Following day his father took his sister Rakhi to her matrimonial home and thereafter she was subjected to harassment frequently by the appellants. 16. On hearing the news of Rakhis death on 27.8.1998 at 3 P.M. he alongwith his father and mother went to her matrimonial home where he found the articles in her room scattered. They were informed by the neighbours that his sister has been poisoned to death and taken to Patna Medical College & Hospital. Thereafter he alongwith his parents went to the Patna Medical College & Hospital and learnt that postmortem is going on her dead body. He found P.W. 6 P.K.B. Pillai present there but none of the appellants were present there. 17. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he had not met any person who saw Rakhi being poisoned and further did not know the names and address of those neighbours who told him that the deceased was poisoned to death. He denied the suggestion that he did not disclose during course of investigation about the demand of Rs. 2 lacs made by the appellants and there threat not to allow the deceased to live in the matrimonial home on her failure. He denied the suggestion that he did not disclose during course of investigation about the demand of Rs. 2 lacs made by the appellants and there threat not to allow the deceased to live in the matrimonial home on her failure. He asserted that during the course of investigation he disclosed that appellants once attempted to set her ablaze but fled away from the matrimonial home and came to her parents house and on the following day she was taken to her matrimonial home by her father. He had admitted the fact that earlier no information was given to any official about the harassment meted out to her. In the cross-examination he disclosed that after the marriage the deceased stayed in her matrimonial home for about 20 days and after about a month again went there and thereafter used to come to parental home according to her wishes. 18. P.W. 4 Niranjan Prasad Singh is the father of the deceased and informant of the case. According to him, after the marriage, the deceased lived with her husband at the materimonial home and came to the parental house after 20 days. Two months thereafter she again went to the matrimonial home and started living with the appellants. They asked the deceased to get money from her father. According to his evidence she used to be harassed by her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law for dowry. To establish a Nursery school he gave Rs. 75000.00 to her and his younger brother a computer. In the year 1997, according to this witness the younger brother of his son-in-law, namely, Sunil Kumar, appellant herein, was married at Bihta. Sunil Kumar and his family members intended to purchase land in Bihta to establish factory and for that the deceased inlaws started pressing her to get Rs. 2 lacs. They also made attempt to set her ablaze in February-March, 1998 but she fled to her parental home. He went to her matrimonial home and counselled her father-in-law and showed inability to meet the demand. His daughter stayed in the matrimonial home for a couple of months and went to Delhi at her uncles place in the Summer vacation and returned to the matrimonial home on 4.07.1998. Thereafter she was beaten by her in-laws and asked her to get money. 19. His daughter stayed in the matrimonial home for a couple of months and went to Delhi at her uncles place in the Summer vacation and returned to the matrimonial home on 4.07.1998. Thereafter she was beaten by her in-laws and asked her to get money. 19. On 27.8.1998 at 3 P.M. he got information that his daughter has been done to death at her matrimonial home. He alongwith his son Alok Kumar (P.W. 1), wife Rajmani Devi (P.W. 5) and other persons came to the deceased matrimonial home but found the family members absent. There he saw his nephew in the lap of a lady, looking like maid and on enquiry from the neighbours came to know that his daughter was poisoned to death in the morning itself and taken to some Hospital. Thereafter he alongwith other persons went to Patna Medical College & Hospital where he was told that his daughter had died and her dead body sent for postmortem. He went to the postmortem room and found her dead body there. In the cross-examination he had asserted that the appellants had started subjecting the deceased to cruelty immediately after second marriage (Duragaman) from November, 1993 but to prevent separation did not report the matter to the authority. He had reiterated in his cross-examination that once in the year 1998 while she was beaten by her inlaws she came to his house. He saw mark of injuries on her person, clothes torn and hairs scattered. According to him, in order to save the family prestige he did not disclose the incident to any other person. He went to daughters matrimonial home where appellant Sunil Kumar insisted that money has to be paid and caught hold of his collar. He denied the suggestion that his daughter used to regret that her husband is not well read. In the cross-examination he has stated that the marriage of appellant Chanda Devi had taken piace 3 to 4 years prior to the marriage of his daughter. He had denied the suggestion that after the death of his daughter he demanded her ornaments and on refusal the case has been lodged. 20. P.W. 5 Rajmani Devi is the mother of the deceased and according to her evidence after the marriage her daughter was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws for dowry. He had denied the suggestion that after the death of his daughter he demanded her ornaments and on refusal the case has been lodged. 20. P.W. 5 Rajmani Devi is the mother of the deceased and according to her evidence after the marriage her daughter was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws for dowry. Her in-laws used to say that dowry, according to the status, has not been given. They used to coerce the deceased to get money from her parents. Her husband went to the matrimonial home of her daughter and counselled her inlaws, but they did not drop the demand. Her husband gave Rs. 50,000.00 to her daughter in the year 1995 for establishment of the school but thereafter also their demand did not stop. According to her, 6-7 months prior to the death, the deceased had come to her parents place and disclosed that she is being assaulted by her in-laws. Her husband alongwith their daughter went to her matrimonial home and pleaded with her in-law to keep his daughter nicely. 21. According to her evidence, the deceased went to Delhi at her uncles place in the Summer vacation and returned to her matrimonial home in July. After return from Delhi she came to know that appellants had made attempt to set her on fire. In the cross-examination she had admitted that her daughter had not sent any letter making complaint against her in-laws. The suggestion that during the course of investigation she did not disclose that her daughter made complain about harassment has been denied by her. She had also denied the suggestion that deceased did not come to the parents house 6-7 months prior to the occurrence and disclosed about the assault made on her. 22. P.W. 6 P.K.B. Pillai is a friend of deceased uncle Ravindra Narain Ravi (P.W. 7) and had stated in his evidence that the deceased had come to her residence 2-3 times and used to say that her in-laws used to harass her. She used to come when her telephone used to be out of order to talk to her uncle on telephone at Delhi. 23. According to this witness, she asked him to get warm clothes from her uncle at Delhi and on instruction from her uncle on telephone from Delhi he purchased blanket and quilt and gave that to her. She used to come when her telephone used to be out of order to talk to her uncle on telephone at Delhi. 23. According to this witness, she asked him to get warm clothes from her uncle at Delhi and on instruction from her uncle on telephone from Delhi he purchased blanket and quilt and gave that to her. He learnt about the death of Rakhi on telephone from Dehli at about 3 P.M. on 27.8.1998. He went to the Patna Medical College & Hospital and saw her dead body in the postmortem room. In the cross-examination he disclosed that he does not remember as to whether he had disclosed the fact of providing quilt and blanket to the deceased during the course of investigation. 24. P.W. 7 Ravindra Narain Ravi happens to be the uncle of the deceased Rakhi and according to his evidence after about a week of her nieces second marriage (Duragman) in November, 1993, she telephonically informed him that she is being taunted by her mother-in-law for bringing less dowry. Sometimes thereafter her mother-in-law and brother-in-law started beating and harassing her. In February-March, 1994 he advised his niece to pass either M.A. or B.Ed. examination so that she becomes financially independent but that was objected by her mother-in-law, husband and the brother-in-law on the ground that her husband is only a graduate. Rakhi blessed with a son on 23.07.1994 and 2-3 months thereafter harassment and cruelty again started. She used to be abused and her hair used to be pulled. 25. At the commencement of the winter in November, 1994 his niece Rakhi informed him telephonically to send quilt and blanket as the same was not being provided by her in-laws. They asked her to get it from her parents place. He informed his friend P.K.B. Pillai (P.W. 6), who delivered the aforesaid articles to her. 26. He sent form of Indira Gandhi Open University so that Rakhi undergoes correspondence course and passes the Masters examination in May, 1995 but the form was torn by her brother-in-law and she was abused. 27. In Fabruary, 1996 his niece Rakhi and her husband Anil Kumar came to Delhi in connection with establishment of a Nursery school. He gave them a computer for that purpose and his brother a sum of Rs. 50,000.00. 28. 27. In Fabruary, 1996 his niece Rakhi and her husband Anil Kumar came to Delhi in connection with establishment of a Nursery school. He gave them a computer for that purpose and his brother a sum of Rs. 50,000.00. 28. In summer of 1997, according to this witness his nieces brother-in-law appellant Sunil Kumar was married and after that she used to be harassed more frequently. She used to be harassed in presence of her father-in-law appellant Ram sundar but he used to be a silent spectator. 29. In July, 1997 he alongwith his wife came from Delhi and went to the matrimonial home of his niece where he got the form of the Railway Recruitment Board filled by her husband Anil Kumar and requested her father-in-law Ram Sundar and other members not to harass her. 30. In April, 1998 Rakhis father telephoned him from Bihta that she had left her matrimonial home and came to her parents place as attempt was made to kill her, but she was sent to the matrimonial home. He also talked to his niece and lend assurance. She disclosed that her mother-in-law and brother-in-law are making attempt to kill her and she is not being protected by her husband. She further disclosed that her mother-in-law is demanding Rs. 2 lacs to purchase a car. These informations were also given to him by his brother on telephone. 31. According to this witness, appellant Anil Kumar was selected for appointment as Assistant Station Master and thereafter cruelty by her brother-in-law appellant Sunil Kumar became more frequent. He used to beat his niece. He came to know this on telephone from her. 32. In April, 1998 he called his niece to Delhi. She alongwith her child came there where she disclosed the entire incident. Hearing the plight of his niece, he decided to send his niece to the place where her husband will get the job. She stayed with him for about three months but the appointment letter did not come and on 1.7.1998 her husband came to Delhi and took her to Patna. On assurance of her husband, he allowed her to go on 3.7.1998. Within three days of her arrival at her matrimonial home harassment again started. She stayed with him for about three months but the appointment letter did not come and on 1.7.1998 her husband came to Delhi and took her to Patna. On assurance of her husband, he allowed her to go on 3.7.1998. Within three days of her arrival at her matrimonial home harassment again started. He went on tour on 9.07.1998 and when came back, he was informed by his wife that Rakhi had telephoned that she was severely beaten on 7/8.07.1998 and driven out from the matrimonial home by her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and the husband. Rakhi then stayed at Mahabir Asthan and returned to the matrimonial home in the evening. In the evening he talked to her on telephone when she narrated the entire incident. He complained to her father-in-law appellant Ram Sundar and stated that he will lodge report to the police, whereupon he promised that she will not be harassed. 33. On 17.08.1998 telephone of Rakhi came but it was snatched by her father-in-law. He told that his youngest son appellant Sunil Kumar and his wife had gone beyond his control. On 26.08.1998 he was informed by his wife that Rakhis telephone had come and she was scared and disturbed. He telephoned to her father-in-law at 10 P.M. and thereatened that consequences shall be bad if any untoward incident happens with her. He was assured by her father-in-law that nothing will happen to her. 34. On 27.08.1998 at 2.20 P.M. he received telephonic message from her husband that she is no more. On 28.08.1998 he came to Patna and saw her dead body at the Hospital. 35. P.W. 8 P.K.B. Pillai, at the relevant time, was posted at Sub-Inspector of Shastrinagar Police Station and according to him on 27.8.1998 at 3.10. P.M. he received telephonic message that a lady has been poisoned at Ashiyana Nagar and taken to the Patna Medical College & Hospital for treatment, where she had died. He made that entry in the station diary and for its verification, he alongwith the police force went to the emergency ward of the Hospital, where he was told that she was brought by her family members for treatment but she died at about 1.30-2 P.M. and the dead body had been sent for postmortem examination. He went to the postmortem house where he found her parents and brother weeping. He went to the postmortem house where he found her parents and brother weeping. Her father Niranjan Prasad Singh (P.W. 4) gave written report. He also received Inquest report prepared by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Pirbahore Police Station. He proved the Inquest report. 36. He inspected the place of occurrence, sent requisition for sending viscera for chemical examination and also authorised constable Jogendra Ram to take that for examination. He had also affected seizure of computer etc. 37. P.W. 9 Anand Kishore Prasad, at the relevant time, was Malkhana Incharge and had produced the Material Exhibits i.e. computer, printer, key board, stablizer etc. 38. P.W. 10 Md. Eqbal, at the relevant time, was posted as Constable at Shastrinagar Police Station. According to him, on 5.9.1998 he was given command to deliver viscera to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. He went to the Patna Medical College & Hospital and from there took viscera to Forensic Science Laboratory and deposited the same. 39. P.W. 2 Arbind Kumar Singh, at the relevant time, was posted as tutor in the Forensic Medicines Department of the Patna Medical College & Hospital. According to him, on 27.8.1998 at 5.15 P.M. he conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Rakhi, who was identified by her husband Anil Kumar besides a constable. He did not find any mark of injury on her person. He presen/ed viscera and requested the Investigating Officer for its transportation to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. In his opinion physical finding suggested poisoning but he reserved his opinion till chemical analysts report. Time elapsed since death, according to this witness, was within 3 to 12 hours. 40. P.W. 3 Pramod Kumar Jha, at the relevant time, was posted as Assistant Director at Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna. According to him, he received viscera of deceased Rakhi in a sealed jar on 8.9.1998. He found articles of almunium phosphide in the viscera, commercially known as Sulphos. According to him, it is used as grain preservative and highly poisonous. He had proved the photo stat copy of the viscera report attested by Assistant Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory. He had proved his signature and the report (Ext-2). 41. He found articles of almunium phosphide in the viscera, commercially known as Sulphos. According to him, it is used as grain preservative and highly poisonous. He had proved the photo stat copy of the viscera report attested by Assistant Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory. He had proved his signature and the report (Ext-2). 41. D.W.1 Anand Narain Sharma has stated in his evidence that the deceased Rakhi had altercation with the maid of the School as a small child had passed stool, at which the said maid had threatened not to work in the School and demanded her dues. The deceased went upstairs to bring the money but started vomitting and thereafter became senseless and taken to the Hospital for treatment, where she was declared dead. He had also proved the fard beyan (Ext-F) given by the appellant Anil Kumar to the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police R.N. Singh. In the cross-examination he had admitted to have not gone in the cremation or the Shradh of the deceased. 42. D.W. 2 Dina Nath Singh is the brother-in-law (Sala) of appellant Ram Sundar and had proved the writing and signature of the deceased over letters and diary. According to him, he never saw the deceased in pensive mood. 43. D.W.3 Dilip Kumar happens to be the advocates clerk and had proved various applications (Exts-J to J/6) filed in connection with the case. 44. Mrs. Anjana Prakash, Senior Advocate, appears on behalf of the appellants. State is represented by Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor. Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, appears on behalf of the informant. 45. Mrs. Prakash submits that besides other facts, to bring home the offence within the mischief of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove that the death of the woman had taken place otherwise than under normal circumstances. She submits that the original copy of the viscera report has not been placed on record and in the absence of any proof of existence of original document, the photo-stat copy ought not to have been admitted in evidence. She submits that the original copy of the viscera report has not been placed on record and in the absence of any proof of existence of original document, the photo-stat copy ought not to have been admitted in evidence. In support of the submission, she has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of J. Yashoda V/s. K. Shobha Rani, 2007 5 SCC 730 and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from paragraph 9 of the judgment, which reads as follows: "The rule which is the most universal, namely, that the best evidence the nature of the case will admit shall be produced, decides this objection. That rule only means that, so long as the higher or superior evidence is within your possession or may be reached by you, you shall give no inferior proof in relation to it. Section 65 deals with the proof of the contents of the documents tendered in evidence. In order to enable a party to produce secondary evidence it is necessary for the party to prove existence and execution of the original document. Under Sec. 64, documents are to be proved by primary evidence. Section 65, however permits secondary evidence to be given of the existence, condition or contents of documents under the circumstances mentioned. The conditions laid down in the said Section must be fulfilled before secondary evidence can be admitted. Secondary evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted without non-production of the original being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the Section." 46. Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, however, submits that author of the viscera report, namely, P.W. 3 Pramod Kumar Jha has been examined and he had proved photo-stat copy of the report, which was attested by an Assistant Director. 47. Having appreciated the rival submission, I do not find any substance in the submission of Mrs. Prakash and the authority relied on has no bearing in the facts of the present case. P.W. 3 Pramod Kumar Jha is an Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory and he had examined the viscera and given the report. He had proved the photo-stat copy of the viscera report which was attested by another Assistant Director Shri Lakhan Singh. He had proved his signature also. P.W. 3 Pramod Kumar Jha is an Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory and he had examined the viscera and given the report. He had proved the photo-stat copy of the viscera report which was attested by another Assistant Director Shri Lakhan Singh. He had proved his signature also. He had specifically stated that he had prepared the viscera report which was counter signed by the then Director of Forensic Science Laboratory. He had proved the report as Ext-2. In my opinion, when the author of the viscera report himself has been examined and has stated about the report and proved its photo-stat copy, same cannot be said to be inadmissible in evidence only on the ground that its original copy was not produced. 48. Mrs. Prakash, points out that according to P.W. 10 Md. Eqbal, he had received the viscera in connection with the case on 5.9.1998, but the same was received in the Forensic Science Laboratory on 8.9.1998. She submits out that there is nothing on record to show, where the viscera was kept, right from the day when it was taken till it was delivered to the Forensic Science Laboratory and hence the possibility of it being changed cannot be ruled out. She submits that once the prosecution is unable to prove that the viscera report pertains to the deceased Rakhi, conviction of the appellants cannot be allowed to stand. She submits that there is serious doubt as to whether viscera report pertains to the deceased. 49. I do not find any substance in the submission of Mrs. Prakash. P.W. 3 Pramod Kumar Jha had clearly stated in his evidence that viscera was received in a sealed container and after removal of the seal of the container, he found the viscera in a sealed jar. He had also stated that in the container he found a sealed small glass bottle containing the sample of the preservative. In view of the evidence of P.W. 10 Md. Eqbal, who had received the viscera from the postmortem house and the evidence of P.W. 3 Pramod Kumar Jha, an Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory that viscera was received in a sealed jar, there is no scope for the argument that what was examined by P.W. 3 Pramod Kumar Jha was not the viscera of the deceased Rakhi. Accordingly, I reject this submission of Mrs. Prakash. 50. Mrs. Accordingly, I reject this submission of Mrs. Prakash. 50. Mrs. Prakash, then submits that another ingredient necessary to prove the charge u/s. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code is that soon before the death, the women was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with any demand for dowry. She submits that there is nothing on the record to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry. In support of her submission, she has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Satvir Singh and others V/s. State of Punjab and another, 2001 8 SCC 633 , and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 22 of the judgment which reads as follows: 22. It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if Section 304-B is to be invoked. But it should have happened "soon before her death". The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words "soon before her death" is to emphasis the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry-related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide the Court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the harassment or cruelty would not have been the immediate cause of her death. It is hence for the Court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept "soon before her death"." 51. Mr. It is hence for the Court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept "soon before her death"." 51. Mr. Prasad does not dispute the legal position, but submits that in the present case there is over whelming evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry soon before the death. 52. The expression soon before the death occurring in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 113B of the Evidence Act is not defined. In my opinion this term cannot be determined by a mathematical formula. It is to be determined by the Courts depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Broadly speaking the expression soon before shall normally mean that the interval between the cruelty and harassment and the death in question is not very large and there must be existence of approximity between the effect of cruelty and the death concerned. In a case in which the incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough, not to disturb the mental condition of the woman concerned, the death would not bring the offence within the mischief of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. However if the cruelty and harassment is at regular interval and the latest being not very far off, such continuous cruelty and harassment would come within the expression "soon before the death". 53. Bearing in mind the aforesaid when I consider the evidence on record, I find that there is regular chain of harassment to the deceased. It started after the second marriage and went on at regular interval. From the evidence of P.W. 1 Alok Kumar, the brother of the deceased, P.W. 4 Niranjan Prasad Singh, father of the deceased, P.W. 5 Rajmani Devi, mother of the deceased and P.W. 7 Ravindra Narain Ravi, uncle of the deceased, it is evident that the demand of dowry and harassment started two months after the second marriage. After the marriage of the deceaseds brother-in-law appellant Sunil Kumar in the year 1997, she was pressed to bring Rs. 2 lacs for establishment of a factory. There is consistent evidence on record that in February-March, 1998 an attempt was made to set her ablaze but she went to the matrimonial home. After the marriage of the deceaseds brother-in-law appellant Sunil Kumar in the year 1997, she was pressed to bring Rs. 2 lacs for establishment of a factory. There is consistent evidence on record that in February-March, 1998 an attempt was made to set her ablaze but she went to the matrimonial home. Thereafter she went to her uncles place and returned on 4.07.1998. She died on 27.8.1998, P.W. 1 Alok Kumar is a witness to assault and the deceaseds mother and uncle have clearly stated that they knew about the harassment from the deceased herself and they also talked to her in-laws. Thus in my opinion there is clear evidence that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry. 54. Mrs. Prakash draws my attention to the letters marked Exts-A, A/1, G and G/1 and contends that same show normal relationship between the deceased Rakhi with the appellants. Although the prosecution has challenged and contended that the evidence of D.W. 2 Dina Nath Singh, who had identified the writing and signature of Rakhi in the letters and diary, is not fit to be relied on. It has been pointed out that D.W. 2 Dina Nath Singh claims to have identified writing and signature of the deceased as she was a student in the School in which he was a teacher. It has been submitted that no teacher can identify the writing of its pupil after a long time. 55. Even if I assume that the letters produced by the appellants have been written by the deceased Rakhi and by her mother, from that it cannot be inferred that she was not subjected to cruelty and harassment. It is unusual that a woman recently married would complain to her husband against the mother-in-law. Further there is evidence on record that the deceased had facility of telephone so also her uncle and they used to talk on telephone. Further, parents also used to talk to her on telephone. In such circumstances, mere absence of any detail of the torture in the letters and the diary will not lend to the conclusion that the deceased was not subjected to cruelty. 56. Mrs. Prakash has also drawn my attention to some of the photographs of the deceased alongwith family members. Further, parents also used to talk to her on telephone. In such circumstances, mere absence of any detail of the torture in the letters and the diary will not lend to the conclusion that the deceased was not subjected to cruelty. 56. Mrs. Prakash has also drawn my attention to some of the photographs of the deceased alongwith family members. She points out that the photographs of the deceased with her husband and in-laws clearly show that she was happy and pulling on well with her in-laws. This, according to Mrs. Prakash, clearly shows that she was not ever subjected to cruelty and torture. 57. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel. It is not the case of the prosecution that on every day after the marriage she used to be beaten, harassed and assaulted by the appellants. Young couples usually pretend to be happy at the time photographs are taken. From the photographs I am not in a position to conclude that the deceased was not subjected to cruelty. 58. Mrs. Prakash submits that the evidence on record in no way proves beyond reasonable doubt in regard to the harassment to the deceased in connection with demand of dowry so far as the deceaseds sister-in-law Chanda Devi and father-in -law Ram Sundar are concerned. 59. Mr. Prasad as also Mr. Sharma, appearing on behalf of the informant submit that evidence against all the appellants is one and the same and on same set of evidence, the case of these two appellants cannot be distinguished. 60. Having given my most anxious consideration to the submissions advanced, I am inclined to accept the submission of Mrs. Prakash. From the evidence of P.W. 4 Niranjan Prasad Singh, father of the deceased, it is evident that appellant Chanda Devi, the sister-in-law of the deceased, was married 3-4 years before the marriage of his daughter. Excepting the general evidence of P.W. 1 Alok Kumar and P.W. 4 Niranjan Prasad Singh, the brother and father of the deceased, that all the appellants subjected her to cruelty, no specific role of any nature has been attributed to them. P.W. 7 Ravindra Narain Ravi, uncle of the deceased had stated in his evidence that when he made complaint to the father-in-law of the deceased Ram Sundar, he replied that his wife and son Sunil Kumar have gone beyond his control. P.W. 7 Ravindra Narain Ravi, uncle of the deceased had stated in his evidence that when he made complaint to the father-in-law of the deceased Ram Sundar, he replied that his wife and son Sunil Kumar have gone beyond his control. From his evidence, it seems that the father-in-law of the deceased was helpless spectator in the entire game. The deceased had stayed with her uncle for few months immediately before her death at Delhi and had returned to her matrimonial-home only few days before her death. He had narrated specific instances of cruelty so far as the husband and brother-in-law of the deceased are concerned. Hence it can not be said that evidence against all the appellants are common. In the face of it, I do not feel it safe to sustain the conviction of appellants Chanda Devi and Ram Sundar, the sister-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased. 61. So far as the appellant Anil Kumar i.e. the husband of the deceased and appellant Sunil Kumar, brother-in-law of the deceased are concerned, there are over whelming evidence on record to show that they had subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry. There is specific evidence of P.W. 4 Niranjan Prasad Singh that he went to the matrimonial home of his daughter, appellant Sunil Kumar insisted for payment of money and caught hold of his collar. It has further come in the evidence of P.W. 7 Ravindra Narain Ravi, the uncle of the deceased, that her mother-in-law and brother-in-law used to beat her. From the evidence of P.W. 4 Niranjan Prasad Singh and P.W. 7 Ravindra Narain Ravi, it is clear that an attempt was made to set her on fire by her mother-in-law and brother-in-law and were demanding Rs. 2 lacs. Similar evidence has come against the husband of the deceased. 62. Accordingly, in my opinion, the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the husband and the brother-in-law, namely, -appellant Anil Kumar and Sunil Kumar beyond all reasonable doubt. 63. In the result : Criminal appeal no. 284 of 2003 preferred by appellant Chanda Devi @ Chandra Mishra @ Chanda Mishra is allowed. Her conviction and sentence is set aside. She is on bail, she shall be discharged of her bail bonds; Criminal appeal no. 63. In the result : Criminal appeal no. 284 of 2003 preferred by appellant Chanda Devi @ Chandra Mishra @ Chanda Mishra is allowed. Her conviction and sentence is set aside. She is on bail, she shall be discharged of her bail bonds; Criminal appeal no. 285 of 2003 preferred by appellant Sunil Kumar and Ram Sundar, the brother-in-law and father-in-law respectively of the deceased, is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence of appellant Sunil Kumar is maintained but that to Ram Sundar is set aside. Bail bond of appellant Sunil Kumar is cancelled and he is directed to surrender and serve out the remainder of sentence. Appellant Ram Sunder is on bail, he has be discharged of his bail bonds; Criminal appeal no. 286 of 2003 preferred by appellant Anil Kumar, husband of the deceased, is dismissed. His bail bond is cancelled and he is directed to surrender and serve out the remainder of sentence.