JUDGMENT Mahesh Grover, J.:-Seven persons belonging to the same family, namely, Ram Dia, Anand, Raj Kumar alias Raju, Ompal, Jaigir, Smt. Aasi and Kavita alias Geeta, all residents of village Datoli, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat, were initially arrayed as accused for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 201 of the I.P.C. in F.I.R. No.353 dated 14.12.1995 registered at Police Station, Ganaur on the statement of PW1- Daya Ram son of Bani Singh, resident of Hindalpur, District Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh). 2. As per the allegations contained in the F.I.R., in the night intervening 12th and 13th December,1995, a young woman, who was married just six months prior thereto, met her death in her matrimonial home and was cremated immediately without any post mortem having been done upon her dead body. The name of the unfortunate woman was Sonu, who was the daughter of the complainant and was married to Raj Kumar alias Raju. Prior to her death, she was being harassed by all the accused persons for bringing inadequate dowry. The demands of car were also being made. An amount of Rs.50,000/- was borrowed by the complainant from his brother- Bhagirath (PW2), who had sold a plot and was paid to Raj Kumar alias Raju in the presence of other accused persons at village Datoli, but still the demands persisted and they did not relent in their harassment towards the deceased. Ram Dia, Anand, Raj Kumar and Om Pal are real brothers, whereas Jaigir and Smt.Aasi are their parents and Kavita alias Geeta is the wife of Anand. 3. On 9.12.1995, a few days prior to her death, the deceased is said to have given a telephonic call to her father- Daya Ram expressing her helplessness and insecurity. Upon this, Daya Ram and Bhagirath had gone to village Datoli on 10.12.1995 and talked to the accused persons and tried to make them see reason. They, instead, raised another demand of Rs.50,000/-, upon which the complainant and his brother expressed their inability to pay the same and returned to their village. 4. On 13.12.1995 at about 4.00 P.M., one Shiv Charan, a resident of village Datoli went to village Hindalpur and informed the complainant that his daughter-Sonu had been done to death by the accused persons on the night of 12th December,1995. 4. On 13.12.1995 at about 4.00 P.M., one Shiv Charan, a resident of village Datoli went to village Hindalpur and informed the complainant that his daughter-Sonu had been done to death by the accused persons on the night of 12th December,1995. Upon receiving this information, Daya Ram, Bhagirath and Kusum (mother of the deceased) reached village Datoli and came to know that the dead body of Sonu had already been cremated. 5. The police, who investigated the matter, filed a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. prima facie finding the complicity of six persons, namely, Ramdia, Anand, Raj Kumar alias Raju, Ompal, Jaigir and Smt.Aashi in the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 201 of the I.P.C. 6. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) to whom the case was entrusted, vide order dated 22.4.1996, summoned Gita alias Kavita wife of Anand in pursuance to an application moved by the prosecution, to face trial along with other accused persons. Her name was placed by the police in column no.2 of the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. 7. Thereafter, the trial Court, vide order dated 17.5.1996, charge sheeted all the accused persons under Sections 304-B and 201 of the I.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution produced as many as eight witnesses including the complainant (PW1), his brother-Bhagirath (PW2) and his wife-Kusum (PW3). 9. The accused persons, when examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., took up varying pleas and denied the allegations against them. Raj Kumar, the husband of the deceased, stated that Sonu had died a natural death and that he and his co-accused never subjected her to any sort of demand of dowry. He further stated that members of the family of his wife were satisfied about the natural death and that her dead body was cremated in their presence and after cremation, they stayed in his house in the night of 13th December,1995, but thereafter, on the next day, they fabricated this false case against them. 10. Ram Dia, who is father of Raj Kumar, also took up a similar stand and denied that any amount had been taken by his family. 10. Ram Dia, who is father of Raj Kumar, also took up a similar stand and denied that any amount had been taken by his family. He, in fact, stated that the complainant had taken an amount of Rs.50,000/- from him on 14.12.1995 by saying that it was in lieu of the marriage expenses and further stated that the said money was arranged by selling a tractor which belonged to his c-accused Raj Kumar and Jaigir, but, otherwise the tractor stood in his name. He further stated that another sum of Rs.50,000/- was to be paid at the time of kirya ceremony. 11. The accused- Anand, Ompal and Jaigir also adopted similar stand, whereas accused-Smt.Aasi stated that they were innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. 12. Kavita alias Gita stated that she was innocent and had gone to her parental house about ten days before the death of Sonu and was not not present at the time of her death. She also stated that she had the least concern with the affairs of Raj Kumar accused and his wife Sonu who were residing separately from them. 13. In their defence, the accused persons examined Bishamber Singh, who was Sarpanch of the village, as DW1. He stated that none of the accused had ever harassed the deceased on account of demands of dowry. He further stated that Ram Dia and his sons Anand, Raj Kumar, Ompal and Jaigir were residing separately for the last more than two years. 14. Copy of jamabandi, Ex-DB, was also tendered in evidence showing the land of the father of PW1-Daya Ram (complainant). 15. The trial Court, upon appraisal of the evidence before him, came to the conclusion, vide his judgment dated 7.10.1996, that accused-Raj Kumar was guilty of having committed an offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 201 of the I.P.C. and convicted him accordingly. Accused persons,namely, Ram Dia, Anand, Om Pal, Jaigir and Smt.Aasi were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the I.P.C. and they were convicted for the same, whereas accused-Kavita was acquitted of the charge after giving her benefit of doubt. 16. By his order dated 9.10.1996, the trial Court sentenced accused-Raj Kumar to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and 2 years for the aforesaid offences, respectively and ordered that both the sentences will run concurrently. 16. By his order dated 9.10.1996, the trial Court sentenced accused-Raj Kumar to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and 2 years for the aforesaid offences, respectively and ordered that both the sentences will run concurrently. Accused-Ram Dia, Anand and Om Pal were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each for the offence proved against them, whereas accused- Jaigir and Smt.Aasi were sentenced to the imprisonment already undergone by them. 17. The aforesaid conviction and sentence have been assailed by Raj Kumar, Ram Dia, Anand and Om Pal in the present appeal. 18. At the out-set, learned counsel for the appellants contended that Ram Dia, Anand and Om Pal were convicted only under the provisions of Section 201 of the I.P.C. and during the trial itself, they had undergone about ten months of incarceration. In view of this, he urged that since they were aged 32, 25 and 28 years, respectively, at the time of recording of their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on 9.8.1996 and more eleven years have elapsed till now, their case be considered sympathetically as no fruitful purpose would be served if they are sent to custody in the eventuality of the appeal failing against them. 19. Qua appellant-Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants contended that there is no substantive evidence to establish the demands of dowry. He urged that there are contradictions in the statements of PW1- Daya Ram (complainant) and PW2-Bhagirath in so far as raising of amount of Rs.50,000/- to satisfy the alleged demands of dowry is concerned. PW1- Daya Ram is said to have stated that he had taken loan of Rs.50,000/- from his brother PW2-Bhagirath and had repaid Rs.35000/-, which fact was stoutly denied by the latter casting a doubt on the testimony of these witnesses. He further contended that the family members of the deceased had attended the cremation and the F.I.R. was simply an after-thought which was lodged belatedly as even though, they were present in the village where the occurrence had taken place on 13.12.1995, yet, the report to the police was made on 14.12.1995 at about 2.00 P.M. 20. He further contended that the family members of the deceased had attended the cremation and the F.I.R. was simply an after-thought which was lodged belatedly as even though, they were present in the village where the occurrence had taken place on 13.12.1995, yet, the report to the police was made on 14.12.1995 at about 2.00 P.M. 20. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposed the plea of the learned counsel for the appellants and contended that the death had taken place within six months of the marriage and the conduct of the appellants in hastily cremating the dead body shows that the death was unnatural and, therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court is perfectly justified. 21. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 22. In my opinion, the trial Court has returned a justifiable finding by taking into consideration the tendency of the wronged and aggrieved relations of a victim of such kind to rope in as many relations as one can because the anxiety to bring the wrong-doers to book tends to dim their reasoning which makes little distinction between the actual wrong doers and perceived abetters. In an offence of this kind, when the allegations of demand of dowry are made which are established on record by way of the statements of the witnesses, the obvious beneficiary is the husband and, therefore, he cannot escape the consequences of raising such demands which fact has also been rightly concluded by the trial Court. 23. The deceased-Sonu was said to have married to appellant-Raj Kumar on 20.6.1995 and met her mysterious death in just six months thereof on 13.12.1995. This fact when considered with the evidence of demands of dowry straight-away attracts the presumption of law under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act and establishes the complicity of appellant-Raj Kumar in the commission of the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. 24. The aforesaid provision of law makes a serious onslaught on the person, who faces the brunt of such allegations and it is for him to offset and met the same by bringing cogent evidence on record. 25. When the evidence and the plea of defence is tested against such onslaught of the statute, it falls woefully short. The aforesaid provision of law makes a serious onslaught on the person, who faces the brunt of such allegations and it is for him to offset and met the same by bringing cogent evidence on record. 25. When the evidence and the plea of defence is tested against such onslaught of the statute, it falls woefully short. The evidence on record pointedly establishes the guilt of the appellants and the haste and secrecy which surround the cremation only lends an impetus to the already wellfounded suspicion against them. 26. In view of the above, appellant-Raj Kumar cannot escape the conclusion that he is, indeed, guilty of having committed an offence under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. as the death of his wife-Sonu took place within six months of the marriage on account of her and her family being unable to satiate his desires. He is also equally made himself liable for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the I.P.C. as the dead body was cremated secretly without informing the parents of the deceased. 27. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants contended that seeing the circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to appellant-Raj Kumar may be reduced. 28. I have considered this aspect anxiously, but do not find extenuating circumstances which could warrant such reduction. The persons, who commit such heinous crimes offend the very sensibility of the society and threaten to tear its fabric apart and do not deserve any leniency from the Courts. On the contrary, they shall be dealt with severely so as to send a message across that the retribution of law to the perpetrators of such offences is necessarily harsh. 29. Therefore, the conviction and sentence as awarded to appellant- Raj Kumar are upheld. 30. As far as the plea of the learned counsel for the appellants qua Ram Dia, Anand and Om Pal is concerned, I am of the view that since they have been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the I.P.C. and they have already undergone approximately ten month of imprisonment during the trial and the appeal is of the year 1996, whereas the occurrence took place in the year 1995, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending them to custody now. Accordingly, I maintain their conviction and reduce the sentence to that of already undergone. Accordingly, I maintain their conviction and reduce the sentence to that of already undergone. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ————————