JUDGMENT T.P.S Mann, J.:- The appellants have filed the present appeal against the judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak on15.4.1994, whereby they were convicted under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for eight years each. 2. The marriage of appellant Sukhbir Singh was solemnized with deceased Smt. Sumitra on 11.2.1989. On the same day itself, younger sister of Smt. Sumitra was also married to om Parkash, younger brother of Sukhbir Singh. Smt. Sumitra started living at the house of her husband in village Matanhel, while the mukfawa ceremony of Geeta, younger sister of Smt. Sumitra, had not taken place. Sukhbir Singh and his mother Phool Kaur, started demanding more dowry, including a colour TV, house-hold goods and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- by way of contribution to the amount of Rs.20,000/-, which the accused had already spent on getting Om Parkash recruited in the Army. The father and uncle of Smt. Sumitra visited her house on a number of occasions when they were apprised by her about her harassment on account of non-fulfilment of the various demands of accused. The accused used to harass and torture her besides giving beatings. On 24.6.1992, when Vijay Kumar, brother of Smt. Sumitra, went to her house so as to bring her for visiting her parents house, instead of his sister being sent with him, he was not even allowed to talk to her. 3. Father and other family members of Smt. Sumitra learnt on 26.6.1992 that she had died an unnatural death. Surat Singh, father of Smt. Sumitra, while accompanied by a number of persons from his village went to village Matanhel and learnt that Smt. Sumitra had been killed on the intervening night of 24th and 25th of June, 1992 and her dead-body cremated by the accused hurriedly. Surat Singh then reached Police Station Sahlawas and apprise the police about the entire situation. His statement EX.PA was recorded on the basis of which FIR No. 59 dated 27.6.1992 registered under Sections 304-B/498-A and 201 IPC. The investigation of the case then started. The police inspected the spot and prepared rough site plan Ex. PF. The bones and ashes were picked up from the site of the pyre in the cremation ground and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PG. Site plan Ex. PH of the said place was also prepared. 4. Vide report Ex. The investigation of the case then started. The police inspected the spot and prepared rough site plan Ex. PF. The bones and ashes were picked up from the site of the pyre in the cremation ground and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PG. Site plan Ex. PH of the said place was also prepared. 4. Vide report Ex. PO, Chemical Examiner, after examining the bones and ashes, gave an opinion that they were of a human being. The investigation was completed and the challan finally presented in the Court of lIaqa Magistrate from where it was committed to the Court of a Sessions. 5. Both the accused were charged for offences under Sections 304 B and 498-A IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Surat Singh, father of the deceased, PW2 Kandh Ram, uncle of the deceased and PW3 Vijay Kumar, brother of the deceased. All of them deposed about the harassment of the deceased at the hands of the accused. The prosecution also examined PW4 Jai Pal, a Compounder in a private hospital of Beri, as per whom Smt. Sumitra was brought to the said private hospital on the night intervening 24th and 25th of June, 1992. He told them that the poison cases were not treated there and advised for taking the patient to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. He stated that he was already known to Sukhbir Singh accused, who was accompanied by his mother in bringing his wife Smt. Sumitra to the hospital. Scaled site plan Ex. PE was proved by Chander Parkash Bhatnagar PW5. The investigation of the case was conducted by SI Pritam Singh, who, while appearing as PW6, deposed about the various steps taken by him during the investigation of the case besides preparation of different documents. 6. After the closure of the prosecution case, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. They admitted that Smt. Sumitra was married to Sukhbir Singh accused and Smt. Sumitra had died on the night intervening 24th and 25th of June, 1992. However, they pleaded that Smt. Sumitra died on account of relapsed typhoid and her death was not unnatural or which could be termed to have taken place under suspicious circumstances. The specific plea taken by Sukhbir Singh is as under: “I am innocent. However, they pleaded that Smt. Sumitra died on account of relapsed typhoid and her death was not unnatural or which could be termed to have taken place under suspicious circumstances. The specific plea taken by Sukhbir Singh is as under: “I am innocent. I and my mother have been falsely involved in this case. In fact Sumitra was never harassed or maltreated by us on account of any dowry demand at any stage prior to her death. She died her natural death on account of prolonged illness in the shape of Typhoid (motizara). As Sumitra had not conceived after the marriage she was getting treatment for the same from one private hospital named “Udham Singh Hospital Dadri.” During the said treatment, Sumitra was caught in the grip of motizara and was being treated for the same along with the other treatments. At the time of death she was carrying a pregnancy of about 4/5 months. About 12 days prior to her death motizara had relapsed and as such she was being treated by the doctors of Civil Hospital, Rewari from 13.6.1992 onwards on different dates and was checked lastly on 22.6.1992 by the said doctors. Sumitra died because of the said ailment, on the night intervening 24 and 25th, June, 1992. The parents of Sumitra were informed on 25th June itself and they had joined the cremation ceremony on the same day. On 26th June, the relations of Sumitra in the shape of panchayat reached our village and said that I should marry Meena, Sumitra’s sister. I turned down that proposal and this annoyed the panchayat of village Majra Dubaldhan and they asked for the return of articles belonging to both the sisters and consequently we returned the same by getting a writing from them. The relations of Sumitra demanded another Rs.15,000/- from us on account of service to marriage party and the same was declined saying that we had also spent equally on this count. This infuriated them and they said that they would manage to take the money in their own way and got us falsely implicated in the present case on 27th of June, 1992, taking the advantage of death of Sumitra within seven years.” Similar plea was also taken by Phool Kaur accused. 7. This infuriated them and they said that they would manage to take the money in their own way and got us falsely implicated in the present case on 27th of June, 1992, taking the advantage of death of Sumitra within seven years.” Similar plea was also taken by Phool Kaur accused. 7. When called upon to lead evidence, the accused examined Umed Singh DW1 and Ishwar Singh DW2 to the effect that Smt. Sumitra died on account of some ailment and the cremation was attended by her parents. Later on, a dispute arose when father and other relatives of the deceased demanded some cash amount spent by them on the marriage, although all the dowry articles and Istri Dhan of Sumitra had already been taken away. On the refusal of the accused to pay the said amount, they were falsely implicated in the present case. The accused also examined Dr. Ramesh Leekha, Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Rewari as DW3, who stated that Sumitra was brought to the hospital on 13.6.1992. as she was suffering from typhoid. She was prescribed certain medicines. She was again brought to the hospital on 18th and 22nd of the same month for treatment. He proved prescription chit Ex. DW3/A. The accused closed their defence thereafter. 8. After hearing the arguments, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak held that the prosecution was successful in bringing home the guilt to the accused. Accordingly, both the accused were held guilty under Section 304-B IPC. No separate conviction under Section 498-A was ordered as the said offence stood merged with the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. They were sentenced accordingly for the offence under Section 304-B as mentioned above. Hence, the present appeal. . 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants never maltreated or harassed Smt. Sumitra. In case they had harassed her, some complaint must have been made by her or her parents to the police, but no such report has been made. Sumitra was suffering from typhoid, as is clear from the prescription chit Ex. DW3/A. She was attended to by Dr. Ramesh Leekha DW3 on 13.6.1992. Though she was prescribed certain medicines, but she was again taken to the said doctor on 18th as well as on 22nd of the same month. Sumitra was suffering from typhoid, as is clear from the prescription chit Ex. DW3/A. She was attended to by Dr. Ramesh Leekha DW3 on 13.6.1992. Though she was prescribed certain medicines, but she was again taken to the said doctor on 18th as well as on 22nd of the same month. On the night intervening 24th and 25th June, 1992, the condition of Smt. Sumitra worsened and she ultimately passed away. Her parents were informed on 25.6.1992, who came and attended her cremation. On 26.6.1992, when the relations of Smt. Sumitra came in the shape of panchayat they said that Sukhbir Singh, should now marry their younger daughter Meena, but he turned down the proposal. Being annoyed, the panchayat of village Dubaldhan charged for the return of articles belonging to both the sisters and the same were consequently returned. The relations of Smt. Sumitra then demanded another sum of Rs. 15,000/- from them on account of expenses incurred at the time of the marriage function. The accused declined to pay the said sum, which infuriated the relatives of Smt. Sumitra, who then got the present false case registered against them. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the appellants be acquitted of the charges against them. 10. Learned State counsel has submitted that both the appellants had been harassing and torturing the deceased by asking her to bring more dowry, including a colour TV, house-hold goods and Rs.10,000/- as contribution towards an amount of Rs. 20,000/-, which had already been spent by them in getting Om Parkash recruited in the Army. When the said demand was not fulfilled, the deceased used to be beaten by the appellants. The death of Smt. Sumitra on 24.6.1992 was an unnatural death. The same having taken place within seven years of the marriage and the accused had been shown to be harassing and torturing her for dowry, their conviction under Section 304-B IPC was liable to be upheld. It was also argued that the accused hurriedly cremated the dead-body of Smt. Sumitra without waiting for her parents and other relatives. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence and documents brought on record. There is no sufficient evidence on the file that the death of Smt. Sumitra was on account of relapsed typhoid or under normal circumstances. Ex. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence and documents brought on record. There is no sufficient evidence on the file that the death of Smt. Sumitra was on account of relapsed typhoid or under normal circumstances. Ex. DW31 A was just an OPD chit issued by Dr. Ramesh Leekha DW3. The same was initially issued on 13.6.1992 and Smt. Sumitra was prescribed treatment by way of taking certain medicines. This treatment was to continue for five days. The follow up visit was on 18.6.1992 when it was prescribed that she should repeat all the medication for the next seven days. Four days later i.e. on 22.6.1992, it was advised that the earlier medicine prescribed be continued for three days more. In case Smt. Sumitra had died on account of typhoid on 24.6.1992, her condition on 22.6.1992. on her visit to Dr. Ramesh Leekha DW3 would have been noticed as quite serious. She would not have been asked to go back and continue with the medication already prescribed for next three days. The defence did not care to ask any question from Dr. Ramesh Leekha DW3 that Smt. Sumitra could die of typhoid on 24.6.1992. On the other hand Jai Pal PW4 who was Working as a Compounder in a private hospital at Seri, attended to Smt. Sumitra on the night interfacing 24th and 25th of June, 1992 and then referred her to be taken to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak on finding it to be a case of poison. All this shows that the death of Smt. Sumitra was on account of poison and it was not natural. 12. It has come in the evidence that Smt. Sumitra was harassed by the accused on account of bringing inadequate dowry. She had told her uncle Kandh Ram PW2 that the accused were demanding colour TV, house hold articles and Rs.10,000/- in cash as contribution towards Rs.20,000/-, which had already been spent by the family of the accused in getting Om Parkash recruited in the Army. Surat Singh PW1, father of Smt. Sumitra deceased was working as a teacher in village Bapau of District Churu in Rajasthan. He, otherwise, belonged to village Dubaldhan. His job required him to stay away from is house most of the time. In his absence, his elder brother Kandh Ram PW2 had been looking after the affairs of the family. Surat Singh PW1, father of Smt. Sumitra deceased was working as a teacher in village Bapau of District Churu in Rajasthan. He, otherwise, belonged to village Dubaldhan. His job required him to stay away from is house most of the time. In his absence, his elder brother Kandh Ram PW2 had been looking after the affairs of the family. He had been going to the matrimonial home of Smt. Sumitra, where he used to be apprised by her about her maltreatment. Even on 24.6.1992, when Vijay Kumar, brother of Smt. Sumitra, went to meet her, Surat Singh was away to the place of his posting. This fact was brought on record by the accused during the cross-examination of Vijay Kumar PW3. Even on that visit, Vijay Kumar was not allowed by the accused to speak to his sister nor his sister allowed to accompany him back to his village. Vijay Kumar PW3 further stated that his sister was harassed by the accused on account of inadequacy of dowry. 13. The death of Smt. Sumitra occurred on the night of 24th and 25th June, 1997. No message was sent by the accused immediately after the death of Smt, Sumitra. The dead­body was then cremated hurriedly by the accused. It is the consistent case of the prosecution that Surat Singh and Kandh Ram learnt about the death of Smt. Sumitra on 26.6.1992 after the dead-body had been cremated by the accused stealthily. The accused produced Umed Singh DW1 in support of their plea. However, Umed Singh did not speak a word about the fact that the parents and other relatives of the deceased attended the cremation of Smt. Sumilra. Ishwar Singh DW2, who did state that he had gone to village Majra to inform the parents of Smt. Sumitra about her death and who then accompaned him and participated in the cremation on 25.6.1992, is closely related to Sukhbir Singh accused, being his uncle. An argument was raised on behalf of accused that there was no allegation of the de­ceased being subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused, for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death. 14. Though, according to Kandh Ram PW2. An argument was raised on behalf of accused that there was no allegation of the de­ceased being subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused, for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death. 14. Though, according to Kandh Ram PW2. he visited the house of the accused on 8.1.1992 when he was apprised by the deceased of being harassed by the accused for want of more dowry but he also stated that accused continued with the same behaviour towards Smt. Sumitra thereafter. Even one month earlier to her death, he had gone along with Chhotu and Bhog Ram to the house of the accused so as to advise them. Even at that time demand was raised by the accused for giving them an amount of Rs.1 0,000/- as contribution towards Rs. 20,000/- spent by them in getting Om Parkash recruited in the Army. Vijay Kumar PW3 had visited the deceased on the day of occurrence itself. Even at that time, the accused refused to send the deceased with him. So much so that the deceased was not allowed to talk to him. This conduct of the accused was in fine with the harassment meted out by them to the deceased in the past. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to establish that soon before her death, Smt. Sumitra was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused for and in connection with demand for dowry. Merely because there had been no written complaint earlier by the deceased or by her parents to the police about the harassment and torture of the deceased by the accused is no ground to hold trat accused did not subject the deceased to cruelty and harassment. There was a complaint that Smt. Sumitra was being harassed by the accused for want of more dowry. On getting this information, Kandh Ram PW2 went to the house of the accused to advise them. When he reached that place, he was informed by his niece Smt. Sumitra that accused had been making demand for more dowry. Kandh Ram tried to advise them but it was all in vain. Even a month earlier to the incident, Kandh Ram repeated his visit to the house of the accused when he was accompanied by Chhotu and Bhog Ram. Even at that stage, the accused remained adamant regarding their demand for more dowry. Kandh Ram tried to advise them but it was all in vain. Even a month earlier to the incident, Kandh Ram repeated his visit to the house of the accused when he was accompanied by Chhotu and Bhog Ram. Even at that stage, the accused remained adamant regarding their demand for more dowry. Finally on the day of the incident, Vijay Kumar PW3 visited his sister at her in-laws’ place so as to take her to his village Dubaldhan Majra. Sukhbir Singh accused declined to sent Smt. Sumitra with Vijay Kumar. She was not even allowed to speak to him. This shows that Smt. Sumitra had been repeatedly informing others about the maltreatment metted out to her by the accused. 15. The Court is, however, not convinced about the involvement of Smt. Phool Kaur in the crime. She is widowed mother of Sukhbir Singh, husband of Smt. Sumitra. The demand for colour TV and house-hold goods would have been made only by Sukhbir Singh and possibly not by Smt. Phool Kaur. Even the demand for Rs.10,000/-as contribution for paying an amount of Rs. 20,000/- for getting younger brother of Sukhbir Singh recruited in Army could be made by Sukhbir Singh himself. Though, Kandh Ram PW2 stated that the demand for Rs.10,000/- was made by Smt. Phool Kaur yet Surat Singh PW1 did not utter a word about the same when he made statement as PW1. Even in FIR EX.PA, no reference was made about the demand of Rs. 10,000/- by Smt. Phool Kaur. On the day of the occurrence i.e. 24.6.1992, when Vijay Kumar PW3 paid visit to his sister in village Matanhel, it was Sukhbir Singh accused, who refused to send Smt. Sumitra with him. The Court has lurking doubt about the involvement of Smt. Phool Kaur in the commission of the crime. The incident in question had taken place in the year 1992 Sukhbir Singh appellant has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution all this while. However, for the offence under Section 304-8 I.P.C., the law prescribes minimum sentence of seven years. Under these circumstances, this Court feels that atleast the sentence of imprisonment of eight years imposed upon Sukhbir Singh appellant ought be reduced to seven years. In view of the above, conviction and sentence of Smt. Phool Kaur are set aside. However, for the offence under Section 304-8 I.P.C., the law prescribes minimum sentence of seven years. Under these circumstances, this Court feels that atleast the sentence of imprisonment of eight years imposed upon Sukhbir Singh appellant ought be reduced to seven years. In view of the above, conviction and sentence of Smt. Phool Kaur are set aside. Conviction of Sukhbir Singh under Section 304-8 IPC is maintained but his sentence of imprisonment is reduced from eight years to seven years. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. —————————