JUDGMENT Hon. Dharam Veer, J. This appeal, has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, (hereinafter referred Cr.P.C.) against the judgment and order dated 6.10.2001 passed by District and Sessions Judge Nainital, in Session Trial No. 67/2001, State Vs. Ghan Shyam Bhatt and others, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 304-B I.P.C. and 498-A of Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred I.P.C.) and sentenced 10 years R.I. under Section 304-B I.P.C. and one year R.I. under Section 498-A I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of fine to further undergo imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. By this order the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused Govind Ballabh, and Harish Bhatt under Section 304-B I.P.C. and 498-A I.P.C. 2. In brief the prosecution story is this that the deceased Vidhya Devi was married with Ghan Shyam Bhatt in the year 1997. Govind Bhallabh was her father in law and Harish Bhatt was her brother in law. On 31.05.2000 the PW.2 Narayan Dutt has lodged the F.I.R. Ex.Ka-2 to the Patwari Patti Nai, with the information that daughter-in-law of the Govind Ballabh has committed suicide by burning. After that the Patwari has prepared a Panchyatnama on the same day i.e. 31.05.2000 that Panchayatnama is Ex.Ka-3 and the body was sent for the Post Mortem. The Post Mortem was conducted by Dr. A.K. Pant on 1.06.2000 at 2.15 P.M. The Post Mortem report is Ex.Ka-13. Post-Mortem was conducted in the presence of Dr. Rakesh Kumar and Dr. L.M.S. Rawat and Post-Mortem report Ex.Ka-13 was prepared by Dr. A.K. Pant. After that the Patwari has prepared a site plan that is Ex.Ka.9. 3. On 3rd June, 2000 the father of the deceased Ramesh Chand Gunwant has lodged the F.I.R. to the Patwari Patti Nai, Tehsil (Dhari) with the allegations that the deceased Vidhya Devi was married with the appellant Ghan Shyam Bhatt in 1997 and after the marriage the in-laws of the deceased were harassing her mentally and physically and they were demanding dowry time to time. The deceased Vidya Devi told this fact, to the complainant time to time. But the complainant was confident that in-laws of his daughter will take precaution. The deceased Vidya Devi told this fact, to the complainant time to time. But the complainant was confident that in-laws of his daughter will take precaution. On 31.05.2000 the complainant had got the information that his daughter Vidya Devi, had died then the complainant had reached to the house of his daughter where he saw the dead body of his daughter and he was confident that his daughter was murdered by his husband Ghan Shyam Bhatt, father-in-law Govind Bhatt, mother-in-law, sister-in-law Kamla, and brother-in-law Tara Bhatt, Harish Bhatt for the demand of dowry. 4. On the basis of the F.I.R. that is Ex.Ka.1 the Patwari PW.4 Harish Chand Joshi has prepared a chick report Ex.Ka.7. At the same time the entry was made in the G.D. the copy of G.D. is Ex.Ka-8, F.I.R. was lodged on 3.06.2000 at 3.15 P.M. After this the investigation was transferred to regular police, and Deputy S.P. Darshan Lal Chitran, PW.5 had started the investigation. 5. Investigation Officer inspected all the documents, inquest report, Post Mortem report, the chick F.I.R. and he has also inspected the spot and prepared the site plan Ex.Ka.10. After recording the statement of the witness and completing the investigation he has submitted the charge sheet Ex.Ka.11 against the appellant Ghan Shyam Bhatt, Govind Ballabh and Harish Bhatt in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Nainital. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Session for the trial on 3.05.2001. The Sessions Judge Nainital has framed charge against the appellant under Section 304-B I.P.C. and Section 498-A I.P.C. along with the other accused Govind Ballabh Bhatt and Harish Bhatt on 26.06.2001. The charge was explained to the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. The prosecution has examined PW.1 Ramesh Chand Gunwant the father of the deceased. Narayan Dutt PW.2 who has given the information to the Patwari by way of his report Ex.Ka.2. PW.3 Smt. Champa Devi, mother of the deceased. PW.4 Harish Chandra Joshi, Patwari Patti Nai and PW.5 Darshan Lal, Chitran, C.O. Investigation Officer of the case. PW.6 Dr. A.K. Pant who has conducted Post Mortem of the dead body. 8. After that the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. who has denied the allegation made against them. Appellant had not produced any witness in the defence. 9. PW.6 Dr. A.K. Pant who has conducted Post Mortem of the dead body. 8. After that the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. who has denied the allegation made against them. Appellant had not produced any witness in the defence. 9. After examining the above said evidence the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant Ghan Shyam Bhatt, under Section 304-B I.P.C. and awarded a sentence of 10 years R.I. and under Section 498-A I.P.C. and awarded a sentence for 1 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of fine, 3 months imprisonment and rest of the accused Govind Ballabh and Harish Bhatt were acquitted for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. and 498-A I.P.C. against the said order dated 6.10.2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge Nainital in Session trial No. 67/2001. The appellant Ghan Shyam Bhatt has filed the present appeal 10. I have heard Sri S.K. Agarwal, Senior counsel assisted by Shri S.S. Bhandari, counsel for the appellant and Sri Amit Bhatt Addl. GA for the State. 11. PW.1 is Ramesh Chand Gunwant, the father of the deceased Vidhya Devi, has stated that Vidhya Devi was married with appellant Ghan Shyam in the year 1997 and in the marriage he has given the dowry according to his capability. After the marriage Ghan Shyam Bhatt, Govind Ballabh Bhatt, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law Kamla and brother-in-law Tara Dutt Bhatt and Harish Bhatt were harassing her due to the reason that she has not taken the dowry as per their demands. This fact was told to him by his daughter deceased Vidhya Devi. He has also stated that he told his daughter that he had given the dowry as per his capability and he was not in a position to give further dowry. He has further stated that he has got the information of the death of his daughter on 31.05.2000. He had reached in the house of his son-in-law where the dead body of his daughter was lying in the open terrace (Angan) that was in a burnt condition. When he reached there the Patwari was also present there and he had completed the Panchayatnama. Then he told the Patwari that it is not a case of suicide but these appellant and his other relatives had committed the murder of his daughter. When he reached there the Patwari was also present there and he had completed the Panchayatnama. Then he told the Patwari that it is not a case of suicide but these appellant and his other relatives had committed the murder of his daughter. On 3.06.2000, at 3.15 P.M. he has lodged the F.I.R. Ex. Ka.1. He had further stated that Ghan Shyam Bhatt is the husband of his daughter and Govind Bhatt is the father-in-law and Harish Bhatt is the brother-in-law. He has further stated when his daughter used to come in his house she told him that her in laws demanding the dowry and they have tortured her due to this reason. He has further stated about the letter written by her daughter to him. He has given to the Investigation Officer and that letter is Ex. 1. This witness was cross-examined by the defence counsel at length but nothing has come out from his statement, which will create any doubt. The statement of this witness is trustworthy, reliable, believable and natural. 12. PW.2 is Kalyan Dutt who has stated in his statement that he has seen the body of the daughter-in-law of Govind Ballabh in a burnt condition and he has informed to Patwari and given a report to him for this information that is Ex.Ka.2. He has also stated that he had gone to Patwari along with the Pradhan. This witness has simply informed about the death of the deceased to the Patwari. 13. PW.3 is Smt. Champa Devi who is the mother of the deceased. She has stated that about 3 years before her daughter Vidhya was married with Ghan Shyam Bhatt, according to the Hindu customs. She had stated that they have given a dowry according to their capability. After the marriage when Vidhya had come to her house in the first time, she has said nothing but when she had come in the second time after 2 years of the marriage, she told that her husband Ghan Shyam Bhatt, father-in-law Govind Bhatt and brother-in-law Tara Bhatt, Harish Bhatt, sister-in-law Kamla, and the mother-in-law were harassing her due to dowry and they were demanding dowry and asking her that her father had given nothing. Then Smt. Champa Devi, had given six pairs of the clothes to his son in law and she had gone to the house of her son-in-law along with these clothes herself. Then Smt. Champa Devi, had given six pairs of the clothes to his son in law and she had gone to the house of her son-in-law along with these clothes herself. Then her daughter told her that she could not write a letter to her but these people are harassing her for the dowry. She has also stated that they were demanding Rs. 40,000/-. She has further stated that due to non-fulfillment of the demand of the dowry, her daughter had died before one year. This witness was also cross-examined at length by the defence counsel but nothing has come out from the statement which will create any doubt in her statement. The statement of this witness is trustworthy, natural and reliable. 14. PW.4 is Harish Chandra Joshi, Patwari Patti Nai, District Nainital. He has stated that he was posted as Patwari from 31.05.2000 to June, 2001 as Patwari Patti Nai, and he has stated that on 31.05.2000 Narayan Dutt PW.2 has given him a report that the daughter-in-law of the Govind Ballabh had died due to burning. That report is Ex.Ka-2. On the basis of this report he has started investigation and he had reached on the spot where the dead body of Smt. Vidhya Devi was lying. He has prepared the Panchayatnama. The dead body was identified by the appellant Ghan Shyam Bhatt and accused Govind Ballabh. That Panchayatnama is Ex. Ka-3. Another papers Police form No. 33 and letter of Superintendent B.D. Pandey Hospital were also prepared that were marked as Ex.Ka-4 and Ka-5. Dead body was sealed and the sample of seal was also prepared, that is Ex.Ka-6. The dead body was sent for Post Mortem along with the connected papers. He has further stated on 3.06.2000, Ramesh Chandra Gunwant PW-1 had lodged the report. On the basis of that report he had prepared the chick report, and the case was registered in the G.D. the chick F.I.R. is Ex.Ka.7 and the copy of G.D. is Ex.Ka.8. He has also prepared the site plan on 31.5.2000, Ex.Ka.9. On 3.06.2000, the case was forwarded for further investigation to the higher authorities because the offence was related to Section 304-B I.P.C. 15. PW-5 is Darshan Lal Chitran, C.O. who is the Investigation Officer of the case. He has stated that since 30.06.2000 till date he was the C.O. of Bhawali. On 3.06.2000, the case was forwarded for further investigation to the higher authorities because the offence was related to Section 304-B I.P.C. 15. PW-5 is Darshan Lal Chitran, C.O. who is the Investigation Officer of the case. He has stated that since 30.06.2000 till date he was the C.O. of Bhawali. On 30.06.2000, by the order of the S.S.P., the investigation was entrusted to him and he has started the investigation. He has inspected the Panchayatnama, Post-Mortem report, site plan, chick F.I.R. and other connected papers. He has recorded the statement of the complainant Ramesh Chandra Gunwant, and he has prepared the site plan on the pointing out of the Ramesh Chandra Gunwant, Ex.Ka-10. He has further recorded the statement of the other witnesses and during the investigation, the complainant has given him a letter Ex.1 and after completing the investigation he has submitted the charge sheet that is Ex.Ka-11. 16. PW-6 is Dr. A.K. Pant, who has conducted Post Mortem of the dead body. He has stated that on 1.06.2000, he was posted as Medical Officer in B.D. Pandey Hospital, Nainital. On that day he has conducted the Post-Mortem of the dead body at 2.15 P.M. and that dead body was taken to him by Harish Chandra Joshi, Patwari, Patti Nai Tehsil (Dhari) District Nainital along with his Chaprasi (Peon) Puran Chandra Sanwal and they have identified the dead body of Smt. Vidhya Devi. He has received the pieces of the dead body in a sealed condition. He has stated that the time of the death and the age of the deceased could not be ascertained and the dead body was in three pieces in burnt condition. Since the cause of the death could not be ascertained, hence the pieces of the dead body were kept secured and the Post Mortem was conducted in the presence of Dr. Rakesh Kumar and Dr. L.M.S. Rawat, and he has also prepared the report Ex.Ka-13. This witness was also cross-examined by the defence but nothing has come out which will create any doubt in his statement. 17. After that the statement of the appellant Ghan Shyam Bhatt was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has denied the allegations made against him. 18. L.M.S. Rawat, and he has also prepared the report Ex.Ka-13. This witness was also cross-examined by the defence but nothing has come out which will create any doubt in his statement. 17. After that the statement of the appellant Ghan Shyam Bhatt was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has denied the allegations made against him. 18. Sri S.K. Agarwal, learned Senior counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant has submitted that there is no evidence against the appellant under Section 304-B of I.P.C. Section 304-B of the I.P.C. is reproduced as under :- 304-B. Dowry Death (1) where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death 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, such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation - For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. 19. From the evidence of the PW-1 Ramesh Chandra Gunwant, the father of the deceased Vidhya Devi, and PW-3 Smt. Champa Devi who is the mother of the deceased Vidhya Devi, had clearly stated in their statement that soon before her death the deceased Vidhya Devi was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the present appellant Ghan Shyam Bhatt, for the demand of the dowry and it is clear from the statement of Smt. Champa Devi PW-3 that appellant along with his mother, father, brother and sister had demanded Rs. 40,000/- from deceased Vidhya Devi, and just before her death, PW-3 Smt. Champa Devi, had given six pair of clothes to her son-in-law herself. The deceased was also complaining to PW-1 and PW-3 whenever she visited her parent's home that appellant, his mother, father and other relatives were demanding dowry and they were harassing her and torturing her mentally and physically for the demand of dowry. The deceased was also complaining to PW-1 and PW-3 whenever she visited her parent's home that appellant, his mother, father and other relatives were demanding dowry and they were harassing her and torturing her mentally and physically for the demand of dowry. Her body was found in a burnt condition and her death was due to the burning and that was not in the normal circumstances. The death is also taken place in the house of the appellant Ghan Shyam Bhatt, and the death is also within 7 years of her marriage as the marriage was solemnized in the year 1997 and the deceased Vidhya Devi died on 31.05.2000. 20. Thus, from the evidence of Pw-1 Ramesh Chandra Gunwant, and PW-3 Smt. Champa Devi, it is well established beyond the reasonable doubt that deceased Vidhya Devi, had died by burning in the house of the appellant Ghan Shyam Bhatt, within 7 years of the marriage. Before her death she was subjected to cruelty, mentally or physically for the demand of dowry. Hence, the offence committed by the appellant comes under the purview of the dowry death and hence he is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. 21. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that no offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. made out against the appellant. Section 498-A IPC is reproduced as under :- Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - whoever, being the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means - (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 22. The deceased has died not in the normal condition in the house of the appellant by burning. 22. The deceased has died not in the normal condition in the house of the appellant by burning. It is the duty of the appellant to show as to how the deceased had died and why she had died. There is no explanation from the side of the appellant how and why the deceased Vidhya Devi had committed suicide by adopting such a method by way of burning in a living condition. The death by way of burning in a living condition or suicide committed by Vidhya Devi in the circumstances narrated above is due to harassment for dowry from the appellant. Being a husband he is the only person liable for the circumstances and reasons for which Vidhya Devi has committed suicide and he is the only person responsible for it. 23. Any willful conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit the suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman come under the definition of cruelty. Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand shall also come in the definition of cruelty. In this case by demanding dowry just immediate before her death and giving him a physical and mental torture for not fulfilling the demand of dowry by the appellant, the present appellant has committed cruelty being a husband of Vidhya Devi and thus he has committed offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. 24. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 304-B I.P.C. and awarded a sentence of 10 years R.I. and also rightly convicted him under Section 498-A I.P.C. and awarded a sentence of one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of fine to further under go imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 25. For the discussion made above, it is well established beyond reasonable doubt that the case under Section 304-B I.P.C. and 498-A I.P.C. is proved against the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted him and awarded a sentence to him as stated above. 26. Learned Addl. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 25. For the discussion made above, it is well established beyond reasonable doubt that the case under Section 304-B I.P.C. and 498-A I.P.C. is proved against the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted him and awarded a sentence to him as stated above. 26. Learned Addl. GA for the State has filed a fax letter dated 25.04.2007 in which it has been stated that the appellant has been released from jail after completing the sentence as awarded by the Learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment and order dated 6.10.2001. Hence, it is provided that the sentence already served out by the appellant shall be adjusted as per rules after verifying from the records. 27. In view of the above the appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.