Judgment ARVIND KUMAR, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.9.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, acquitting accused, namely, Om Parkash and Rajiv of the charges but convicting accused-appellants Sanjiv Kumar and Tripta Kumari for offences under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, for which they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and three years with fine of 5,000/- each respectively and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for nine months. Both the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently. The amount of fine, on realization, was ordered to be paid to the parents of deceased Jeevan Jyoti. Brief facts of the case are that Ajay Kumar lodged an FIR on 23.1.1996 alleging that his father Joginder Ram is serving in Saudi Arabia. The marriage of his daughter Jeevan Jyoti was performed with Sanjiv kumar on 14.10.1995. Om Parkash is the father of Sanjiv Kumar, Tripta kumari is the mother while Rajiv Kumar is the younger brother. Sufficient dowry was given to them at the time of marriage. However, after few days, when he (complainant) went to see his sister, Rajiv Kumar who was running a refrigerator shop, had demanded Rs.50,000/- for expansion of his business but in turn he (complainant) told him that his father is out of India and they are not in a position to pay the amount. After some time, accused started cr. A. No.834-SB of 1997 2 2. Maltreating and taunting Jeevan Jyoti and coercing her to bring money from her parents. Complainant again visited his sister s house after about 15-20 days when she again complained of harassment and about the demand of sanjiv Kumar for providing of car from Car Bazar, Ludhiana. He (complainant) suggested them not to maltreat Jeevan Jyoti and should wait for his father for talks. He though made a request to send his sister with him to which they refused. Subsequently, on the occasion of Lohri, Jeevan jyoti had informed through her letter about the harassment and snatching of her gold ornaments. Subsequent thereto, Sheela Rani mother of Jeevan jyoti had visited her along with gifts of Rs.20,000/- for all the family members in her in-laws house. Subsequently, on the occasion of Lohri, Jeevan jyoti had informed through her letter about the harassment and snatching of her gold ornaments. Subsequent thereto, Sheela Rani mother of Jeevan jyoti had visited her along with gifts of Rs.20,000/- for all the family members in her in-laws house. She also requested the accused not to maltreat Jeevan Jyoti and requested them to send Jeevan Jyoti with her, upon which it was remarked that she would be sent only if a car is provided otherwise she can be taken for ever. Sheela Rani on return told this fact to ajay Kumar (complainant) who then went to visit her sister but was not allow to meet her. On 22.1.1996, at about 3 PM, complainant Ajay Kumar received an information on telephone that a hot water geyser had fallen on jeevan Jyoti and he should come immediately. Ajay Kumar and Sheela rani went to Kapurthala where they came to know that Jeevan Jyoti had been removed to C. M. C. Ludhiana and they then went there. Then, it is stated that Jeevan Jyoti regained consciousness and made statement and then expired. A case was registered. The police had conducted the usual formalities on reaching the spot. Post-mortem examination of the deceased was also got conducted. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the accused were arrested. 3. Challan against all the accused was filed and the case was committed to the court of Session for trial. Accused were charge-sheeted under Sec.498-A/304-B read with Sec.34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution had examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of their case. The accused in their statements under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. Their plea was that jeevan Jyoti had committed suicide out of frustration as the marriage was against her wishes. In defence, they examined Nand Kishore as DW-1, sumer Chand as DW-2 and Amarjit Singh as DW-3. Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned Additional Sessions judge, Kapurthala, vide his judgment and order dated 18.9.1997 acquitted cr. A. No.834-SB of 1997 3 4. Om Parkash and Rajiv Kumar of the charge and convicted accusedappellants sanjiv Kumar and Tripta Kumari in the manner indicated above. Sanjiv Kumar and Triptta Kumari have now preferred the present appeal. Counsel for the parties have been heard. A. No.834-SB of 1997 3 4. Om Parkash and Rajiv Kumar of the charge and convicted accusedappellants sanjiv Kumar and Tripta Kumari in the manner indicated above. Sanjiv Kumar and Triptta Kumari have now preferred the present appeal. Counsel for the parties have been heard. Sec.304-B of the Indian Penal Code lays down that 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 in connection with any demand of dowry, such death shall be called dowry death and such husband or the relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Sec.113-B has also been inserted in the Evidence Act. It deals with the presumption of dowry death and proclaims that when the question is whether a person has committed a dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death, such woman had been subjected by such person to demand of dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused dowry death. It can, therefore, be seen that irrespective of the fact whether the accused has any direct connection with the death or not, he shall be presumed to have committed the dowry death provided the other requirements mentioned above are satisfied. 5. Counsel for the accused-appellants has not pressed the appeal of Sanjiv Kumar @ Mintoo on the ground that he has already completed the sentence awarded to him. In view of the said averments, appeal qua Sanjiv kumar @ Mintoo stands dismissed having not been pressed. Coming to the case of Tripta Kumari, she is the mother-in-law of the deceased. Her case so far as demand, cruelty and harassment are concerned, is distinguishable. The allegations as emerged from the statements of PW-2 Ajay Kumar and PW-3 Sheela Rani are omnibus in relation to demand, harassment and maltreatment by her. There are no specific instances attributed against her. The main demand in this case is of car. It is evident from the statement of PW-2 Ajay Kumar that when he visited his sister, she complained that she is being pressed to bring rs.50,000/- and it was only Sanjiv Kumar who demanded car to be purchased from Car Bazar, Ludhiana. There are no specific instances attributed against her. The main demand in this case is of car. It is evident from the statement of PW-2 Ajay Kumar that when he visited his sister, she complained that she is being pressed to bring rs.50,000/- and it was only Sanjiv Kumar who demanded car to be purchased from Car Bazar, Ludhiana. It has also come in evidence that after the visit of his mother, he again visited his sister on 21.1.1996 to meet her as well as Sanjiv Kumar and even on that occasion, Sanjiv Kumar had not permitted him to see his sister and it was only he who had again cr. A. No.834-SB of 1997 4 6. Reiterated his demand of car with a threat that otherwise he will not keep his sister and asked him to take her for ever. Similarly, PW-3 Sheela Rani is very categoric in her statement that it was Sanjiv Kumar who was demanding car. She in her statement while referring to her visit at the matrimonial home of her daughter, though claims that all the accused were sitting when she was told that Jeevan Jyoti will only be sent along with her if car is given otherwise she can take her daughter for ever. Even at that juncture, no specific overt-act had been attributed to Tripta Kumari, the mother-in-law. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has not been able to distinguish her case from that of Om Parkash and Rajiv Kumar. Even a bare perusal of the letter, Exhibit PF, which PW-2 Ajay Kumar (complainant) claims to have been given to him by her sister upon his visit to her, there are no specific allegations against Tripta Kumari, the motherin-law. Even otherwise, she has nothing to do with the car which is primarily for the use of accused Sanjiv Kumar. In Salamat Ali and others V/s. State of Bihar, 1997 SCC (Crl.) 842, it has been held that demand of scooter predominantly must have been raised by the husband. It cannot be expected that the father-in-law would be demanding a scooter for himself or that the mother-in-law needed it for her use and acquitted the father-in-law and mother-in-law and convicted the husband. Thus, following the ratio laid down in Salamat Ali s case (supra), appellant Tripta Kumari deserves acquittal. 7. It cannot be expected that the father-in-law would be demanding a scooter for himself or that the mother-in-law needed it for her use and acquitted the father-in-law and mother-in-law and convicted the husband. Thus, following the ratio laid down in Salamat Ali s case (supra), appellant Tripta Kumari deserves acquittal. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the instant appeal qua appellant Tripta Kumari is allowed, thereby acquitting her of the charges framed against her. Her bail bonds stand discharged. JS