JUDGMENT Mahesh Grover, J.:- This common judgment will dispose of the above mentioned two appeals which have been preferred against judgment and order of sentence dated 1.8.1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) vide which each of the appellants has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for offence under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. and for three years for offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. An amount of Rs.10000/- each has also been imposed upon them as fine. In default of payment of fine, each of them has been further required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. However, the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The deceased- Kusum Lata daughter of PW2-Om Parkash was married to appellant-Rakesh Kumar on 19.4.1988. She had received severe burns in an incident which took place on 21.9.1991 in her matrimonial home at Ambala City. On 24.9.1991, she ultimately succumbed to her injuries in the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (for short, ‘the P.G.I.’). 3. Immediately after the incident, the deceased was taken to Civil Hospital, Ambala City from where, a ruqa was received by the police, on the basis of which a D.D.R. was recorded. The police tried to record the statement of the deceased, but she was not found fit. 4. Since the condition of the deceased was critical, she was removed to the P.G.I. for treatment. 5. On 22.9.1991, a dying declaration (Exhibit DA/4) of the deceased was recorded by an Executive Magistrate at Chandigarh, in which she absolved all the members of her in-laws’ family of any liability towards the incident. 6. The police, on the basis of that dying declaration, prepared a cancellation report. 7. However, due to persistence of PW2- Om Parkash, the F.I.R. was registered on 17.10.1991 against appellant-Rakesh Kumar alone under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the I.P.C. 8. After completion of investigation, a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was submitted. 9. The trial Court charge sheeted appellant-Rakesh Kumar vide order dated 23.12.1993. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 10. On 8.3.1994, the statement of PW2-Om Parkash was recorded in part and thereafter, an application was made by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. for summoning of the remaining accused persons. 9. The trial Court charge sheeted appellant-Rakesh Kumar vide order dated 23.12.1993. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 10. On 8.3.1994, the statement of PW2-Om Parkash was recorded in part and thereafter, an application was made by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. for summoning of the remaining accused persons. The trial Court, vide its order dated 8.4.1994, accepted the said application and summoned Ramesh Kumar, Pardeep Kumar, Poonam, Sita Rani and Om Parkash (appellants in Crl.Appeal No.542-SB of 1996) to face the prosecution. 11. On the same day, the trial Court charge sheeted all the accused persons for having committed offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 12. In order to establish its case against the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses including PW2-Om Parkash (complainant and father of the deceased) and PW3-Dr.J.R.Chauhan, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh, who along with Dr.M.P.Singh conducted post mortem on the dead body of Kusum Lata. Besides, some documentary evidence in the shape of letters having been written by the deceased were also brought on record Exhibits PC and PC/1. 13. The appellants, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., stated that they have been falsely implicated and that there was no quarrel or mal-treatment meted out to the deceased. It was also stated that appellant-Rakesh Kumar was living separately. 14. In defence, the appellants examined six witnesses, namely, DW1-Ashwani Kumar, Executive Magistrate, Chandigarh; DW2-Ronki Ram son of Sita Ram; DW3-Bhajan Singh son of Mangal Singh; DW4- Darshan Lal; DW5-Dr. Atul K. Singla and DW6-Jit Ram, D.S.P. 15. The trial Court, on appraisal of entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the appellants were guilty of the offences alleged against them and accordingly, vide the impugned judgment and order of sentence, convicted and sentenced them in the manner noticed hereinabove. 16. These appeals were on the regular board of this Court and were reflected in the cause list, but no one appeared on behalf of the appellants. Therefore, in order to safe-guard the interest of the appellants, Shri Surinder Singh Siao, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae. 17. 16. These appeals were on the regular board of this Court and were reflected in the cause list, but no one appeared on behalf of the appellants. Therefore, in order to safe-guard the interest of the appellants, Shri Surinder Singh Siao, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae. 17. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that appellants-Ramesh Kumar, Pardeep Kumar, Poonam, Sita Rani and Om Parkash have nothing to do with the commission of the offences in question and they have been falsely implicated as it has come in the statement of PW2-Om Parkash (complainant) himself that the deceased and appellant-Rakesh Kumar were living separately for the last few months. He urged that the prosecution evidence, when read in conjunction, does not specifically indicate the involvement of other relations of the husband of the deceased in causing any harassment to her and, therefore, the aforesaid appellants have been wrongly roped in and their conviction and sentence deserve to be set aside. 18. In so far as appellant-Rakesh Kumar, the husband of the deceased, is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased died on account of the accidental fire and dying declaration Exhibit DA/4 is the testimony to his innocence. Besides, appellant-Rakesh Kumar was not present in the house when the incident took place and, therefore, he could not be convicted and sentenced for having caused the death of his wife-Kusum Lata. Learned counsel for the appellants further pleaded that DW2-Ronki Ram, the owner of the house where appellant- Rakesh Kumar and Kusum Lata were living on rent, has stepped into the witness box to state that he had made an attempt to save the deceased by pouring water over her and he along with appellant-Rakesh Kumar had ultimately taken her to Civil Hospital, Ambala, which conduct is contrary to the role that has been assigned to this appellant by the prosecution. 19. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants argued that for establishing the allegations of harassment on account of demands of dowry, there is no evidence on record either in the shape of documents or complaints and the letters Exhibits PC and PC/1 which are supposed to have been written by the deceased prior to her death, do not inspire any confidence as the handwriting expert – Dr. Atul K. Singla, who appeared as DW5, opined that the handwriting of these letters did not tally. Atul K. Singla, who appeared as DW5, opined that the handwriting of these letters did not tally. That apart, it was argued that the statements of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses are vague as they do not mention any period as to when the demands were raised or the persons to whom the amounts of Rs.10,000/- were paid. It was contended that in view of this ambiguity in the testimony of the witnesses, appellant-Rakesh Kumar cannot be held guilty of the offences for which he has been tried and convicted. 20. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State pointed out that a number of relations of appellant-Rakesh Kumar are police personnel and his brother-Ramesh Kumar is a Head Constable in the C.I.D. Their role is writ large on the facts of the case as even after the incident when the deceased was taken to Civil Hospital, Ambala, the police did not swing into action. The spot was not visited to take into possession the valuable pieces of evidence which could have indicated the role of the persons, who were responsible for having committed the offence. It was then contended that the dying declaration is uninspiring as the same was made before an Executive Magistrate, who has failed to explain as to how he was present in the P.G.I. There is nothing on record to show that an attempt had been made to summon a Judicial Magistrate and in the absence of the presence of such a Magistrate, the services of the Executive Magistrate were taken. 21. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the State vehemently contended that since the deceased had lost her life within just three years of her marriage to appellant-Rakesh Kumar, the presumption of law under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act was straight-away attracted and he cannot escape the penal consequences of such an action. 22. I have head the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 23. In so far as the appellants in Crl. 22. I have head the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 23. In so far as the appellants in Crl. Appeal No.542-SB of 1996 are concerned, there does not appear to be any evidence qua them as the statement of PW2-Om Parkash does not specifically delineate their role either in the commission of the offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 304-B of the I.P.C. Concededly, according to PW2 himself, the deceased and appellant-Rakesh Kumar were living separately for the last few months and in view of this, the prosecution was cast with a serious responsibility to establish the role of these appellants in the commission of the alleged offences. The complainant himself was the best person, who could have given an insight into the role of these persons in making the demands of dowry and consequential mal-treatment meted out to the deceased. Strangely enough, no such mention has been made except making broad allegations which have remained unsubstantiated. 24. Consequently, given the propensity of the complainants in such like cases to implicate as many members of the family as possible, the possibility of the same having been done in the instant case can be strongly inferred from the sequence of the events. 25. Hence, there is little hesitation to accept Crl. Appeal No.542- SB of 1996 and acquit the appellants therein of the charges against them. 26. The case of the husband of the deceased, i.e., appellant-Rakesh Kumar, however, stands on a different footing. The Court also notices with some anguish the manner in which the prosecution has gone about collecting evidence in the first instance. Attempts to scuttle the truth have apparently been made right from the time of the incident. Even though, D.D.R., Exhibit- PK, was recorded, yet, the police made no attempts whatsoever to make any further investigation into the matter. Crucial pieces of evidence, such as the site plan, the position of the stove and other such related evidence have been lost to the prosecution as a result of the attitude of the police, who probably were working to safe-guard the interest of the accused persons. 27. It has come in evidence that the brother of appellant-Rakesh Kumar was a Head Constable in the C.I.D. Two of his relations, namely, Banarsi Lal and Om Parkash (Maternal Uncle) were Deputy Superintendents of Police. 27. It has come in evidence that the brother of appellant-Rakesh Kumar was a Head Constable in the C.I.D. Two of his relations, namely, Banarsi Lal and Om Parkash (Maternal Uncle) were Deputy Superintendents of Police. These facts ipso facto would not have cast any doubt as the accused’s relations in the police would not ordinarily be taken to be interfering with the investigation, but, the facts of this case speaks volumes and the interfering hands of all these persons can straight-away be inferred. It was with much difficulty that the F.I.R. was lodged on 17.10.1991 when the police appropriately had made sure that the crucial evidence was lost to the prosecution. Even the dying declaration on which much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the appellants does not seem to be inspiring any confidence as DW1-Ashwani Kumar, Executive Magistrate, Chandigarh has failed to explain his presence in the P.G.I. All he says is that he was present in connection with the recording of statement in another case, but no details of that case have been given, which certainly casts a doubt in the mind of the Court as to whether he was present or not at all. It is not understandable as to why no attempts were made by the police to get the dying declaration recorded by following due process of law. 29. To the contrary, the statements of PW2-Om Parkash and PW5- Smt.Subhadra Rani, the real aunt (Bua) of the deceased, clearly prove that Kusum Lata was being mal-treated in her matrimonial home on account of bringing less dowry. 30. In the cases of such kind where the demands of dowry have been made and in the absence of any specific role being attributed to other relations, the husband cannot escape the consequences as he is the obvious beneficiary if such demands are met. 31. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of PW2, PW4-Sita Rani, the mother of the deceased, and PW5, it becomes clear that appellant-Rakesh Kumar was, indeed, harassing Kusum Lata for bringing inadequate dowry. 32. 31. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of PW2, PW4-Sita Rani, the mother of the deceased, and PW5, it becomes clear that appellant-Rakesh Kumar was, indeed, harassing Kusum Lata for bringing inadequate dowry. 32. The next question that has to be examined is as to whether appellant-Rakesh Kumar is guilty of committing the offence under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. Although, there is a strong presumption of law against him under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, yet, unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest his presence on the scene of occurrence on the fateful day. Therefore, the Court can not conclusively hold that appellant-Rakesh Kumar had committed any overt act in causing the death of the deceased. 33. But, this does not absolve the Court of the responsibility to examine the matter further as, in any case, an unnatural death had taken place within a short span of marriage and there is clear evidence on record to establish that the deceased was being subjected to harassment. In such like circumstances, the presumption of law under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act is straight-away attracted to the facts of the case, inviting a conclusion that the appellant is guilty of having committed an offence under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. 34. The interregnum between the marriage is not too long, i.e., 3 years and the testimony of PW2, PW4 and PW5 conclusively points out that the deceased was being harassed on account of bringing inadequate dowry. 35. Hence, the appellant is held guilty of having committed an offence under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. His appeal is accordingly dismissed with no interference in the sentence awarded by the trial Court. 36. On the basis of the above discussion, Crl. Appeal No.542-SB of 1996 is accepted and the appellants therein are acquitted of the charges framed against them, whereas Crl. Appeal No.605-SB of 1996 is dismissed. The fee of the amicus is assessed at Rs.Four thousand only. —————————