Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 164-DB of 1998 filed by the accused-appellants Rajesh Kumar, Suresh Kumar and Krishna Devi (hereinafter referred to as the accused) and Criminal Appeal No. 500- DBA of 1998 filed by the State of Haryana against the acquittal of the accused Rajesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar under Section 304-B IPC. 2. Rajesh Kumar (husband) and Suresh Kumar (husbands brother) were convicted under Section 498-A IPC, and Krishna Devi (mother-in-law) was convicted under Section 304-B IPC, vide judgment dated 25/26.3.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, and sentenced as under : Rajesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar U/s 498-A IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Krishna Devi U/s 304-B IPC To undergo life imprisonment. 3. Gone are the days of slavery and replaced by exploitation of the weaker sex at the hands of their custodians after marriage. The menace of dowry is taking the enormous end and becoming graver in nature than that of the evil of prostitution and `sati pratha. The average class of people, in this material world, in a lust for washing out their poverty and the rich to become richer, find good opportunity, to meet with the situation, of putting their male children to sale in the marriage market and exploit for the purpose, and at the same time they also satisfy their sense of ego, dominance and command. Bride burning is a shame on our society. Poor never resort to it, because it is basically an economic complex. Unfortunately, the high price rise and ever increasing cost of living coupled with enormous growth of consumer goods, effacing difference between luxury and essential goods, appear to be luring even the new generation of youth, of the best service to be as much part of the dowry menace as their parents and resultant evils flowing out of it. The egoistic parents-in-law, husband and his other relatives, infested with lust for dowry treat the bride like an alien forget the spirit of `live and let live, misbehave, beat and are not afraid of going to the extent of driving her to commit suicide or they themselves even participate in taking her life. The egoistic parents-in-law, husband and his other relatives, infested with lust for dowry treat the bride like an alien forget the spirit of `live and let live, misbehave, beat and are not afraid of going to the extent of driving her to commit suicide or they themselves even participate in taking her life. It would also not be inappropriate to say that failure to check this evil has given birth to other major problems like "girl foeticide" and "corruption". 4. The present case also relates to a sordid story of an unfortunate bride who could not pass good time at her in-laws house and with the intervention of the Panchayat, she started living separate with her husband. The in-laws became out-laws and having felt annoyed, even went there, beat her and burnt her to death. 5. The brief facts as unfolded by the prosecution which led to the culmination of the trial and conviction of the accused, essential for the disposal of these appeals are that Seema aged about 23 years was bound in nuptial tie with Rajesh Kumar on September 11, 1991. The adequate articles given to Seema at the time of marriage fell short of the expectation of Rajesh Kumar accused and other family members. Resultantly, a crack developed between the family members and Seema. A few months after the marriage, they started harassing and maltreating her for not bringing adequate dowry. They frequently taunted her to bring an amount of Rs. 20,000/-. On failure to fulfill the demands, all the accused felt annoyed and started beating and keeping her starving for days and she was behaved like a maid-servant. The beatings resulted in miscarriage of pregnancy twice. She was turned out of their house in the wearing apparels. Panchayats were convened for persuading them to mend their ways. Compelled by continuous cruel behaviour, Seema had also moved a complaint to S.P. Hisar on 20.11.1995 which was compounded on 28.1.1996. On the assurance given by Garib Dass father of Rajesh Kumar accused that they would not treat her with cruelty in future and place any demand for dowry and also that Garib Dass will keep the ornaments given by him at the time of marriage, whereas the ornaments received by Seema from her father will be kept by her. It was also settled that both Seema and Rajesh Kumar will live separate from their parents-in-law. It was also settled that both Seema and Rajesh Kumar will live separate from their parents-in-law. An embargo was also placed that neither parents of Seema nor of Rajesh Kumar will visit the couple. Thereafter, the couple started living at Hisar, but the said settlement proved to be bad. The unending love of Krishna Devi for her son Rajesh developed extreme hatred and jealousy for Seema. 6. On 13.5.1996 at about 4.20 PM, Seema along with her husband Rajesh Kumar were admitted in the Civil Hospital, Hisar with burn injuries to the extent of 95% and 25% respectively. Dr. Daya Nand (PW1), who had examined them, sent written information Ex. PC and Ex.PC/1 with regard to arrival of the injured, in response to which, SI Rajinder Singh (PW9) visited Civil Hospital, Hisar, made application. Ex. PD regarding fitness of the injured to make statement, on which Dr. Daya Nand (PW1), vide his opinion Ex.PD/1 at about 5.10 PM, opined that both the injured were fit to make statements. At this, SI Rajinder Singh (PW9) recorded statement of Seema in Hindi at 5.20 PM, English translation of which is reproduced as under : "Stated that I was married to Rajesh Kumar four years ago, in 1991. Today, it was 3/3.30. My husband brought my mother in-law Krishna Devi and his younger brother (Suresh) along. They do not allow me to live for the last four years. She harasses me - you belong to a very poor family - you have not brought this or that to my house. First I was beaten with slaps and fists then the door was closed (bolted). Then my mother-in-law poured kerosene upon me. Earlier, Rajesh inflicted a kick on my abdomen. His mother says she would not allow me to live. My mother-in-law ignited the fire and I was burnt. My husband Rajesh and mother-in-law have come with me. I have made a true statement. I have heard the same. I have got my statement recorded in the presence of Doctor Daya Nand M.O. Hisar. Action be taken." 7. After recording the statement and on the advice of Dr. Daya Nand (PW1), SI Rajesh Singh (PW9) moved application Ex.PL, invited Ms. Meenakshi Girdhar, Duty Magistrate, Hisar, who after getting the opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of Seema to make statement recorded her statement Ex. Action be taken." 7. After recording the statement and on the advice of Dr. Daya Nand (PW1), SI Rajesh Singh (PW9) moved application Ex.PL, invited Ms. Meenakshi Girdhar, Duty Magistrate, Hisar, who after getting the opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of Seema to make statement recorded her statement Ex. PL/4 at 7.17 PM, which reads as under : "Question : How did you suffer this injury ? Answer : I married Rajesh in 1991. My mother-in-law has not been treating me properly right since my marriage. She used to beat me; and quarreled and used to say that I belonged to a very poor family; and did not do work properly. Today, afternoon, my mother-in-law and husbands younger brother (Dewar) came to my house. I prepared sweet lemon water for them but they did not consume it and started to leave. My husband stopped them and told me to touch their feet. Then my husband gave me beating mercilessly. My mother-in- law kept telling him to beat me. My husbands younger brother Suresh said that I had few more days (to live). In the meantime many neighbours collected. My mother-in-law poured kerosene upon me; then she threw a lighted match stick on me. My husband came forward to save me. He poured water upon me. My husband, my mother-in-law and my husbands younger brother, all three gave me beating. My husband inflicted a kick blow on my abdomen. In the meantime all neighbours asked them to take me to the hospital. Then my husband and mother-in-law brought me to hospital." 8. However, since the statement of Seema Ex. PE/2 was recorded earlier at 5.20 PM, the same was sent to the police station, on the basis of which FIR Ex. PE/2 was recorded. Seema succumbed to the injuries at 5.25 AM on 14.5.1996, therefore, SI Rajinder Singh conducted inquest Ex. PG and got the postmortem examination of the dead body of Seema conducted from Dr. V.K. Kawatra (PW2). On completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court 9. All the accused were charged under Sections 304-8/498-A IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 10. In order to substantiate the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined Dr. Daya Nand (PW1), Dr. V.K. Kawatra (PW2), ASI Attar Singh (PW3), C. Radhe Sham (PW4), Inspector Ramesh Kumar (PW5), Jagan Nath (PW6), Ram Ditta Sathi (PW7), Ms. All the accused were charged under Sections 304-8/498-A IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 10. In order to substantiate the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined Dr. Daya Nand (PW1), Dr. V.K. Kawatra (PW2), ASI Attar Singh (PW3), C. Radhe Sham (PW4), Inspector Ramesh Kumar (PW5), Jagan Nath (PW6), Ram Ditta Sathi (PW7), Ms. Meenakshi Girdhar (PW8), SI Rajinder Singh (PW9) and Parveen Kumar (PW10). 11. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. However, they further stated that Seema was never harassed by them. She wanted Rajesh Kumar to shift to Hisar from the village Kheri Barki, consequently after shifting she started residing there since 31.1.1996, whereas accused Krishna Devi and Suresh Kumar were still living at village Kheri Barki. Seema never liked Krishna Devi and Suresh Kumar to visit her house On the day of occurrence, when they had gone to the house of Rajesh Kumar to invite him to go to Beas, she created turmoil and out of fit of rage she put herself on fire. In a bid to extinguish the fire, Rajesh Kumar also received burns. They all took her to hospital. The parents of Seema were informed through Suresh Kumar who came in the hospital and turned the appellants out of the hospital. Thereafter, family members of Seema in connivance with Jagan Nath and Ram Dutta implicated them in this case. 12. The trial ended in conviction of the accused Rajesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar under Section 498-A IPC whereas accused Krishna Devi was convicted under Section 304-IPC. They were sentenced accordingly. Hence these appeals. 13. Arguments heard. Record perused. 14. As regards the constituent of maltreatment on account of demand of dowry, we are not short of evidence as Jagan Nath (PW5), father and Ram Dutta (PW7), Jagan Naths sisters husband, are quite consistent in their statements to prove this aspect of the case. They stated that one month after the marriage, being dissatisfied with the dowry, the accused started quarreling with the deceased and placed demand of Rs. 20,000/- and other articles. The matter was taken to Mrs. Kamlesh, the mediator of the marriage and Panchayat was also convened at village Kher Barki. They stated that one month after the marriage, being dissatisfied with the dowry, the accused started quarreling with the deceased and placed demand of Rs. 20,000/- and other articles. The matter was taken to Mrs. Kamlesh, the mediator of the marriage and Panchayat was also convened at village Kher Barki. After the reported Panchayats, the accused assured not to commit the mischief and keep the deceased nicely, but still they did not mend their attitude as a sequel of which a complaint dated 20.11.1995 Ex.P1 was lodged, which was dealt with by Superintendent of Police, Hisar, which ended into a compromise. The other document i.e. are affidavit given by Garib Dass on behalf of the accused on 28.1.1996, assuring that they will not harass Seema and will not raise any demands in future, proves this aspect of the case. Besides the said assurance made on 28.1.1996, it was also decided that the parents of both the spouses would not visit them. It has also come in evidence that consequent upon the compromise, they started living at Hisar w.e.f. 31.1.1996. The greed, ego and endless love with her son Rajesh Kumar did not vanish even after she was separated. It is admitted that accused Suresh Kumar and Krishna Devi visited the house of Seema, where they again picked up the quarrel with her. Both dying declarations also endorse the prosecution version with regard to demand of dowry made by the accused even after the compromise. Though, the prosecutrix while lying on the death bed could not make the statement with mathematical precision or with calculated mind, yet in both the statements Ex. PE and Ex. PL/4 she tore her heart while saying that Krishna Devi accused had been taunting her that she was hailing from a hungry (poor) family and she had been asking to bring one article or the other at times. This part of the dying declaration made by Seema would be safe to conclude that the accused did not stop committing atrocities over the deceased even after she was separated. The dying declaration further highlights another aspect that though Rajesh Kumar accused had separated from her mother, yet he was one with accused in heart, soul and ideas. As such, the argument that after Seema was separated, no demand of dowry was raised and Seema was never harassed on that account, dashes to the ground. 15. The dying declaration further highlights another aspect that though Rajesh Kumar accused had separated from her mother, yet he was one with accused in heart, soul and ideas. As such, the argument that after Seema was separated, no demand of dowry was raised and Seema was never harassed on that account, dashes to the ground. 15. Marathon arguments have been advanced by Mr. R.S. Cheema, challenging both the dying declarations Ex.PE and Ex.PL/4, on the ground that both are manipulated, result of prompting, tutoring and imagination, and both being contradictory, effecting the very constitutional structure of the real dispute, are far from believing. 16. Before we set over to answer the aforesaid twin arguments, we need to bring forward the background facts regarding leading to the recording of two dying declarations. After the incident took place on 13.5.1996 at about 4.00 PM, SI Rajinder Singh (PW9), author of the first dying declaration Ex.PE, while reaching the Civil Hospital, Hisar at about 5.10 PM, got certificate of the doctor that Seema was fit to make the statement and recorded statement of Seema Ex. PE. Subsequently, in order to add quality of evidence, he invited the Duty Magistrate vide application Ex. PL, in pursuance to which Ms. Meenakshi Girdhar (PW8) reached the hospital and after obtaining the opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of Seema to make statement, vide endorsement Ex.PL/3 at 7.00 PM, recorded her statement Ex.PL/4 at 7.17 PM. She also recorded her own certificate Ex.PL/5 that the statement was read over to Seema and she thumb marked the same. The said statement Ex. PL/4 also bears the certificate of the Medical Officer to the effect that Seema remained fit through out the period of her making statement. As a matter of fact, if both the dying declarations Ex.PE and Ex.PL/4 are gone into, then the basic structure of both these documents is the same. The fundamental spirit of both the statements is that the accused had been harassing and taunting her on account of dowry, beating her and burnt her to death. As a matter of fact, if both the dying declarations Ex.PE and Ex.PL/4 are gone into, then the basic structure of both these documents is the same. The fundamental spirit of both the statements is that the accused had been harassing and taunting her on account of dowry, beating her and burnt her to death. While picturising the factual scenario, putting ourselves in that situation, it comes out that the deceased, no doubt, was fit to make the statement but she could not be equated at par with a normal person without having injuries or burns on his/her body, therefore, she could not be expected to make statement with such a mathematical precision and calculations and she could not be expected to have such a calculative brain to set the things sequence-wise and speak the same language at two different times. As such, the contradictions in two dying declarations that, in the first dying declaration she said that her husband brought the two accused with him and in the second dying declaration she stated that all the three accused came at the house. In the first dying declaration, she did not talk of preparing sweet lemon for them. In the first dying declaration she omitted to say that she was asked to touch the feet of Krishna Devi. In the first dying declaration she did not state about coming of the neighbours or that in the second dying declaration it is not mentioned that Krishna Devi told that she will not allow her to live or that in the first dying declaration she did not disclose if neighbours took her to the hospital, are of no consequence but only indicate as to whatever came in her mind she stated in her first dying declaration supplemented in the second dying declaration, but the basic element regarding maltreatment, demand of dowry; name of the accused; parts played by them; manner in which the problem arose and she was given beatings, remained unchanged. Thus, none of the dying declarations could be said to be manipulated or the result of prompting, tutoring or imagination. No question of manipulation arises, rather the Investigating Officer can be said to be very fair in the investigation as immediately after recording statement of Seema at 5.20 PM, sent the same to the police station on the basis of which FIR Ex. No question of manipulation arises, rather the Investigating Officer can be said to be very fair in the investigation as immediately after recording statement of Seema at 5.20 PM, sent the same to the police station on the basis of which FIR Ex. PE/2 was recorded at 8.20 PM, whereas the other statement was recorded within 1-1/2 hours i.e. at about 7.17 PM. Had SI Rajinder Singh intended to have a better statement, then he could manipulate in the statement recorded by him and make it as suiting to him. The recording of the statement by the Magistrate, to our experience, is for the reason that firstly he recorded the statement of Seema under Section 154 Cr.P.C. to make it a basis of FIR, and later on, apprehending that she may not survive, he called the Magistrate to record the dying declaration and also to add value to the statement when it may be put on the parameters of law. 17. Occurrence has also not been disputed by the accused, but they have twisted it in the manner that Seema set herself ablaze, whereas, Rajesh Kumar while trying to extinguish the fire; suffered injuries. But this plea stands unsubstantiated by any evidence. Even from the plea set up by the accused it transpires that Krishna Devi and Suresh Kumar were just gazing at the occurrence and did not make any efforts to put off the fire. Further the dying declaration made by Seema on 13.5.1996 at 7.17 PM is the complete answer to the plea raised by the accused. From her testimony it is established that the accused allowed the deceased to burn and to have injuries to the extent of 95% and after some neighbours collected, the accused Rajesh Kumar came forward to extinguish the fire, which may be a face saving effort. The mischief once done by them could not be condoned by the subsequent step taken by Rajesh Kumar for putting off the fire when she had already suffered 95% burns. 18. The mischief once done by them could not be condoned by the subsequent step taken by Rajesh Kumar for putting off the fire when she had already suffered 95% burns. 18. While deliberating over of the appeal preferred by the State of Haryana, we are not one with the observations of the trial court where it held the accused Rajesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar guilty of the offence under Section 498-A IPC, particularly, when it observed that all the accused treated Seema with cruelty for not bringing adequate dowry, insulted her, deprived her of food for several days, made demand of Rs. 20,000/- and on non-fulfilling their demand, they turned her out from house. Panchayats were convened to resolve the dispute. Having been fed up with the behaviour, Seema lodged a complaint Ex.P1 to Superintendent of Police, Hisar on 20.11.1995, which ended in compromise on 28.1.1996. The compromise as well as affidavit Ex.P1/1 of Garib Dass reveal the acknowledgment of cruelty on account of demand of dowry by all the accused. The aforesaid offence relating to the demand of dowry and cruelty are if read in conjunction with the occurrence on 13.5.1996 when Krishna Devi along with Suresh Kumar and Rajesh Kumar again invited the quarrel while going to Seema in her house, beat her and set her ablaze are sufficient circumstances to hold that all the accused are guilty of cruelty on account of demand of dowry. It may further be observed that trial court fell in error while acquitting the accused Rajesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar under Section 304-B IPC, though Krishna Devi from co-accused was accused of dowry death, for the reasons that the dowry being demanded by the accused was for the benefit of the husband and the family. The accused Suresh Kumar and Rajesh Kumar never objected to ill behaviour at the hands of Krishna Devi. Their participation in the commission of the crime has been duly depicted by Seema in her dying declaration Ex. PE as well as Ex.PU4. The husband being direct beneficiary can be inferred to have made the life of the wife so miserable that she lost her life. Their participation in the commission of the crime has been duly depicted by Seema in her dying declaration Ex. PE as well as Ex.PU4. The husband being direct beneficiary can be inferred to have made the life of the wife so miserable that she lost her life. Silence on the part of the husband is also a circumstance against him, though there are direct allegations only against Krishna Devi in the dying declarations that she was demanding dowry from the deceased and her parents, but the evidence and other circumstances smell that all the accused were party to it. Had it not been correct, then they would have prevented their mother not to do such acts. Even on the day of occurrence, the part played by both of them indicates that they never remained behind. 19. While taking the case from another angle, in order to constitute an offence under Section 498-A IPC, the following essentials are to be completed : 1. The woman must be married; 2. she must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; 3. such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband; 4. the cruelty as referred to in the Section should be of the nature as is likely to derive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to the life, limb or health (whether mental or physical); or 5. this harassment of the woman is with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet such demand of any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her any person related to her to meet such demand. On bare perusal of the aforesaid ingredient it comes out that the cruelty committed by the husband or relative of the husband of a woman on account of demand of dowry is punishable. In order to make the law more strict, Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, relating to presumption has been added, which reads as under : "1136-Presumption as to dowry death. In order to make the law more strict, Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, relating to presumption has been added, which reads as under : "1136-Presumption as to dowry death. - When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has 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." 20. Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC cannot be held to be mutually exclusive. These provisions deal with two different and distinct offences. It is true that `cruelty is a common element in both these sections and that has to be proved. The explanation to Section 498A gives the meaning of cruelty. In Section 304-B there is no such explanation about the meaning of cruelty but having regard to the common background to these offences, the meaning of cruelty and harassment in Section 304-B will be the same as one finds in explanation to Section 498-A under which the cruelty by itself amounts to an offence and is punishable. Under Section 304-B it is a dowry death that is punishable and such death should have occurred within 7 years of the marriage. Both these sections, if read in conjunction with each other it comes out that if the death ensues in pursuance of cruelty (as defined under Section 498-A) committed by the husband or his relatives within 7 years of marriage, other than under normal circumstances, offence under Section 304-B IPC is complete and if there is cruelty and it is of such a nature that it is likely to derive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, then it is simpliciter to an offence under Section 498-A IPC. 21. Here in this case, though the trial Court had observed that the accused committed cruelty but did not take note of the fact that this cruelty has driven Seema to death, thus the Court should not have excluded the remaining two accused from the responsibility of dowry death of Seema punishable under Section 304-B IPC. The conduct of these two accused Rajesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar cannot be segregated from the conduct of their mother Krishna Devi. The conduct of these two accused Rajesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar cannot be segregated from the conduct of their mother Krishna Devi. Sufficient evidence has been led that all the accused have been beating and humiliating the deceased on account of demand of dowry. The dying declarations also refer to the demands made by them. The beatings given by the accused on the day of occurrence also are indicating of the hatred which they were keeping against the deceased and they were bent upon to take her life. No plausible reason has been canvassed in order to establish that why Suresh Kumar and Krishna Devi visited the house of the deceased on the day of occurrence when there was understanding that they will not visit their house. 22. Thus, from the conspectus of the entire evidence as brought forward by the prosecution on the record it would not be unsafe to conclude that the trial court acquitted accused Rajesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar of the offence under Section 304-B IPC without taking the evidence on record in view and legal position as well. Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court to that extent could be said to be not well founded and deserves our interference. 23. Before parting with the judgment, we may observe that the evil of dowry system is a matter of serious concern to every one in view of its ever increasing and disturbing proportions. The legislation on the subject enacted by Parliament i.e. the Dowry Prohibition Act, and far reaching amendments which have been made to the Act by a number of States, have not yet succeeded in curtailing the evil, probably for want of lack of effective sanctions behind it and adequate independent machinery to enforce the same. It may further be pointed out that there is necessity to enlighten the educated youth who is grossly insensitive of dowry and unashamedly contributes to its perpetuation. It is high time for the Government to curb this menace by establishing an independent agency for taking account of the property of the boy eligible or mature for marriage, the property of his family members and also to compile the same after he is married and to seek necessary documents regarding achieving of his property and sources thereof after the marriage. We may also make rules for debarring such a boy from remarriage irrespective of the members of the family who a committed the crime and in violation and penalize the whole family including those who participated in the crime that social ostracisation is needed to curtail in increasing malady of bride burning. Giving advertisement in newspapers, periodical, journals or any other media by any person offering any share in his property or any money in consideration of the marriage of his son or daughter and even the persons giving advertisement and the printer or publisher of such advertisement should also be brought into net penalty for making such advertisement. 24. For the foregoing reasons, while dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 164-DB of 1998 filed by the accused-appellants Rajesh Kumar, Suresh Kumar and Krishna Devi we accept the Criminal Appeal No. 500-DBA of 1998 filed by the State of Haryana against the acquittal of the accused Suresh Kumar and Rajesh Kumar under Section 304-B, IPC and convict these two accused also under Section 304-B IPC and they are hereby called upon for hearing them on the quantum of sentence on 27.09.2007.