JUDGMENT K.C. Puri, J. - Under challenge in this appeal is the judgment/order dated 31.3.1998/ 1.4.1998 passed by Shri Raj Kumar, Bishnoi, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari whereby both the accused have been convicted under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. A brief resume of the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that Dalip Singh son of Shri Dig Ram, caste Ahir, resident of village Nikhri, was working as a Deputy Superintendent of Police in C.R.P.F. and was posted at Mathura. He was having four daughters and one son. His daughter Kamlesh was married with Satyavart accused about three years prior to the present occurrence. He gave sufficient dowry in the marriage. After some time of marriage, Satyavart and his mother Somwati started maltreating Kamlesh for bringing insufficient dowry. She disclosed about this fact to her mother Sarwan, who then disclosed the same to her husband Dalip Singh when he came on leave. When Dalip Singh complainant was present in his house, his daughter Kamlesh told him that her husband and mother-in-law used to torture her for bringing inadequate dowry but after pacifying her, she was sent to her in-laws house. After about four months prior to the occurrence, when Kamlesh gave birth to a son, her husband Satyavart and her mother-in-law Somwati demanded 41 Tiyals and one scooter etc. At the time of Chhuchhak ceremony, all these clothes were given but the scooter was not given as such accused Satyavart and his mother Somwati accused started maltreating Kamlesh who was then brought to her parents house by her brother Naresh Kumar. 3. It is further alleged that about 15 days prior to the occurrence, Satyavart accused came to their house and took Kamlesh forcibly with him and that about 5 or 6 days prior to the present occurrence, when Naresh Kumar went to see his sister, then Kamlesh disclosed to him that if he wanted to see her alive, they must give a scooter to the accused, otherwise these persons would kill her. 4. It is further alleged that on 1.1.1994, the complainant received a telephonic message about the death of Kamlesh. 4. It is further alleged that on 1.1.1994, the complainant received a telephonic message about the death of Kamlesh. Dalip Singh came to the village and reported the matter to the police. On his statement, the present case was registered at Police Station Sadar, Rewari by Raghubir Parshad, Sub Inspector, who then went to the spot and prepared rough site plan and also recorded the statements of some of the witnesses. 5. Prior to 1.1.1994, Dharam Singh, ASI received a ruqqa from the hospital. He went there and at that time, Satyavart accused, his father Siri Ram and Naresh Kumar, brother of Kamlesh were present there and the dead body of Kamlesh was lying in a tractor. Inquest proceedings were conducted. Postmortem examination on the dead body was also got conducted. 6. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned. Charge under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code was accordingly framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Constable Leela Ram, PW-2 ASI Dharam Singh, PW-3 HC Satbir Singh, PW-4 Dalip Singh complainant, PW-5 Naresh Kumar, PW-6 Sarwan, PW-7 Dr. Mahesh Narang, PW-8 SI Raghubir Parshad, PW-9 SI Niranjan Lal and PW-10 Rajpal, Draftsman. 8. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code were recorded. The incriminating circumstances appearing against them in evidence were put to them. They pleaded innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. 9. Accused Satyavart in his statement has stated that Kamlesh, deceased was brought up in a modern atmosphere, whereas he belonged to strictly Arya Samaj family and used to do agricultural work but Kamlesh did not like such type of work and she wanted to study further but she was got married against her wishes by her parents and for all these reasons, she used to remain under depression and as such she had committed suicide. He has further stated that Kamlesh was kept by them nicely and that the allegations of dowry and alleged letters were false and frivolous. 10. He has further stated that Kamlesh was kept by them nicely and that the allegations of dowry and alleged letters were false and frivolous. 10. Similar was the defence taken by Smt. Somwati accused in her statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code In their defence, the accused have examined Phool Singh as DW-1 who deposed that Kamlesh was married with Satyavart accused in the year 1991 and was being kept nicely by the accused persons and that there was no demand of dowry by any of the accused. 11. I have heard arguments addressed by the counsel for the appellants and the State counsel and have gone through the record of the case. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution has relied upon letter, Exhibit P-1, alleged to have been written by the deceased to her sister. It is submitted that no allegations of demand of dowry articles were made in that letter. The allegation against the mother-in-law was only to the extent that she was not a good lady. There were no allegations of any type against the husband who is now one of the appellants. 13. It is further submitted that so far as accused Somwati is concerned, there is no specific allegation of demand of any article. Demand of customary gifts at the time of marriage i.e. Chhuchhak does not fall with the definition of dowry articles. 14. To support his contention, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon authorities in cases Narayanamurthy v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2008(3) RAJ 454 (SC) and Ran Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr., 2008(1) RAJ 478 (SC). 15. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the prosecution story is doubtful, inasmuch as the cremation of dead body of Kamlesh deceased has taken place in the presence of the family members of the deceased. They have not raised any little finger. Even in the inquest proceedings, the brother of the deceased has not raised any little finger against the appellants and has simply stated that he wanted to wait for his father. The father of deceased is a Police Officer in CRPF and the present false case has been registered at his instance. 16. They have not raised any little finger. Even in the inquest proceedings, the brother of the deceased has not raised any little finger against the appellants and has simply stated that he wanted to wait for his father. The father of deceased is a Police Officer in CRPF and the present false case has been registered at his instance. 16. It is further submitted that so far as accused Somwati is concerned, she was aged 65 years at the time of framing of charge. Now, she is more than 75 years. There is no allegation against her regarding demand of dowry articles "soon before the death" of Kamlesh and as such even if all the allegations are taken as correct, at the most, the offence under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code is made out against her. 17. It is further submitted that there are no allegations of demand of dowry articles "soon before the death" of deceased. The demand of scooter at the hands of husband of the deceased i.e. Satyavart accused was on the occasion of birth of the child and that cannot be said to be demand of dowry articles. So, the ingredients of offence under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code are also not made out against accused Satyavart. 18. It is further submitted that in authority in case T. Aruntperunjothi v. State through SHO, Pondicherry, 2006(2) Apex Criminal 59 (SC), the Honble Apex Court has held that where the dead body was cremated by parents and other relatives of the deceased and no report was lodged by them with the police, subsequent allegations by parents that deceased was harassed due to dowry were not believed by the Honble Apex Court and the conviction of the family members was set aside. 19. Lastly, it has been submitted that the punishment is harsh. In reply to the above-said submissions made by the counsel for the appellants, Mr. Sunil Nehra, AAG Haryana has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court and has submitted that the trial Court has held that demand of scooter was prior to the birth of the child. So, the said demand of scooter by the accused is in connection with the demand of dowry articles. He further submitted that in letter, Exhibit P-1 also, the deceased has specifically mentioned that she was being harassed by her mother-in-law. So, the said demand of scooter by the accused is in connection with the demand of dowry articles. He further submitted that in letter, Exhibit P-1 also, the deceased has specifically mentioned that she was being harassed by her mother-in-law. She also stated in the said letter that it was useless to lead such a miserable life. 20. It is further submitted that in letter, Exhibit P-1, it has been mentioned that her in-laws were not good persons. So, the husband has not been exonerated by the deceased in letter, Exhibit P-1. The mere fact that it is not specifically mentioned regarding the demand of dowry articles does not lead to the conclusion that there was no demand of dowry articles. The fact remains that the deceased was leading a miserable life due to behaviour of her in-laws. The submission made by the learned defence counsel that "soon before the death" of Kamlesh, there was not specific demand of dowry articles by Somwati is without any substance. There was a demand of dowry articles. Admittedly, the deceased died an unnatural death at her in-laws house within seven years of her marriage with Satyavart as she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry articles, "soon before her death". So, the ingredients of offence under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code are made out against both the accused. Therefore, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the appeal. 21. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both sides and have gone through the record of the case. 22. To constitute the offence under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove the following three ingredients : (a) Death of woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances; (b) The death has taken place within seven years of the marriage of the women; and (c) 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 the death." 23. So far as the first two ingredients of the offence are concerned, no argument has been addressed by the counsel for the appellants. So far as the first two ingredients of the offence are concerned, no argument has been addressed by the counsel for the appellants. Even before the trial Court also, no argument regarding points (a) and (b), referred to above, was addressed. 24. PW-4 Dalip Singh, complainant, PW-5. Naresh Kumar and PW-6 Sarwan have proved the fact that deceased Kamlesh was married with Satyavart on 21.1.1991. She died during the night intervening 31.12.1993/1.1.1994 i.e. within seven years of her with marriage Satyavart. Dr. Mahesh Narang, PW-7 has categorically given the opinion that death of Kamlesh was due to aluminum phosphate as per Chemical Examiners report. No cross-examination of PW4 to PW-6 regarding the date of marriage of Kamlesh and cause of death given by PW-7 Dr. Mahesh Narang has been conducted. So, it is proved beyond doubt that Kamlesh died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage with Satyavart. The relations of Somwati with Kamlesh have also not been disputed. 25. The only point contested, during arguments in the appeal, is that the prosecution has failed to prove that Kamlesh was subjected to cruelty by the appellants on account of or in connection with demand of dowry articles "soon before her death". 26. The first point raised by the counsel for the appellants is regarding delay in lodging the FIR and to the fact that the relatives of Kamlesh were present at the time of inquest proceedings but they have not raised any little finger against any of the accused. In this context, inquest report Exhibit PA is relevant. No doubt, from the perusal of inquest report, Exhibit PA, it is revealed that accused Satyavart made statement under Section 175 Criminal Procedure Code It is mentioned in this statement that he was married with Kamlesh about three years back. Kamlesh was suffering from vomiting disease since the date of her marriage. She was treated for that disease from many hospitals. About four months back, a son was born out of her wedlock. After birth also, Kamlesh had been vomiting. On the following night at about 8-00/9-00 PM, Kamlesh started vomiting and at about 11 PM, she was taken to Dr. Sham in a tractor. This statement is also signed by Siri Ram, father of Satyavart. This inquest report has been signed by Naresh Kumar. After birth also, Kamlesh had been vomiting. On the following night at about 8-00/9-00 PM, Kamlesh started vomiting and at about 11 PM, she was taken to Dr. Sham in a tractor. This statement is also signed by Siri Ram, father of Satyavart. This inquest report has been signed by Naresh Kumar. From the inquest report, one thing is clear that Dalip Singh, complainant was not present at the time of inquest proceedings. From the bare reading of statement under Section 175 Criminal Procedure Code made by Satyavart, husband of Kamlesh, it is revealed that Naresh Kumar was told that Kamlesh died due to vomiting. From the inquest report, it is clear that no other person from the relations of the complainant has signed the same. So, their presence, at that time, was not possible. The learned trial Court has held that Naresh Kumar himself was not in a position to lodge the FIR. So, there was nothing wrong in waiting for his father to initiate legal action. At the time of inquest proceedings, the whole show was managed by accused Satyavart and his father Siri Ram. The death of Kamlesh was narrated as natural by accused Satyavart. So, in these circumstances, Naresh Kumar alone had not taken decision to lodge the FIR. It is only after the arrival of Dalip Singh PW, the law was set into motion. 27. So far as submission made by the learned defence counsel to the effect that Naresh Kumar, Dalip Singh and other relatives of the complainant party were present at the time of cremation, the same is not borne out from the record. No doubt, PW-8 SI Raghubir Parshad has stated in his cross-examination that the complainant party attended the cremation but it so seems that he has stated this fact in order to help the accused. His conduct, in this regard, is deprecated. He has, no where stated, that he was present at the time of cremation. So, he was not in a position to depose about the presence of the complainant party at the time of cremation. One glaring fact which he has stated in his cross-examination is that the complainant party desired the marriage of their second daughter in the family of the accused. From the testimony of Dalip Singh complainant, it is clear that Kamlesh was his youngest daughter. One glaring fact which he has stated in his cross-examination is that the complainant party desired the marriage of their second daughter in the family of the accused. From the testimony of Dalip Singh complainant, it is clear that Kamlesh was his youngest daughter. So, there was no occasion for having a talk with the complainant party for the marriage of their second daughter in the family of the accused. This fact has been stated by this witness simply to help the accused. This witness could not have any knowledge about the personal affair of the parties to the lis. No doubt, PW-6 Sarwan has stated that her husband and son have attended the cremation but her statement cannot be given due importance as it has not come any where on the record that she attended the cremation of Kamlesh. When she herself has not attended the cremation of Kamlesh, so she was unable to state about the presence of Dalip Singh, complainant PW-4 and her son Naresh Kumar, PW-5 at the time of cremation of Kamlesh. Moreover, PW-4 Dalip Singh and PW-5 Naresh Kumar have categorically stated that they have not attended the cremation of Kamlesh. So, the learned trial Court has rightly held that delay in lodging the FIR is fully explained. 28. So far as submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that customary gifts given at the time of birth of a son i.e. Chhuchhak do not fall within the ambit of dowry articles is concerned, the same does not help the accused. From the testimony of PW-4 Dalip Singh, PW-5 Naresh Kumar and PW-6 Sarwan, it is am revealed that the accused had demanded 41 Tiyals (pair of clothings for ladies), two Piliyas of Zari (head covering for ladies) and one scooter. According to these PWs, demand of Chhuchhak articles except that of scooter was met. However, from the testimony of PW-6 Sarwan, it is revealed that the demand of scooter was made prior to the birth of the child and according to PW-4 Dalip Singh and PW-5 Naresh Kumar, the demand of scooter was made after the birth also. The said demand was made in the month of December,1993. So, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the demand of scooter was in connection with Chhuchhak (customary gifts) on the birth of a son. The said demand was made in the month of December,1993. So, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the demand of scooter was in connection with Chhuchhak (customary gifts) on the birth of a son. There was a consistent demand of scooter prior to the birth of a son and even after three months of the birth of he child and that demand of scooter cannot be termed as Chhuchhak. So, the appellants cannot take any benefit from authorities in cases Narayanamurthy and Ran Singh and Anr. (supra) wherein it has been held that customary gifts given at the time of birth of a child do not fall within the ambit of demand of dowry articles. 29. First of all, regarding the case of accused Satyavart, the evidence of PW-4 Dalip Singh, PW-5 Naresh Kumar and PW-6 Sarwan is relevant. 30. PW-4 Dalip Singh has stated that Kamlesh was married with Satyavart on 21.1.1991. After one year of the marriage, Kamlesh told him for the first time that her mother-in-law had been telling her that she had brought insufficient dowry in the marriage i.e. clothing and furniture. She had given birth to a son on 14.8.1993 and some Naie (barber) had come to inform them about the birth of a child and he told them to arrange 41 Tiyals, two Piliyas of Zari and one scooter. He came on leave and purchased Chhuchhak articles but he did not purchase the scooter as he could not afford it. His son Naresh Kumar, PW-5 had gone with the Chhuchhak and on his return, he told that mother-in-law of Kamlesh was not happy because scooter had not been given and she also told that the clothings were of poor quality. He has further stated that after about one month, his daughter came to his house and thereafter Satyavart had also come to take her back. He had also come on leave and Satyavart told him as to why he had not given scooter in the Chhuchhak. On 1.1.1994 he had received a telephonic message of his son Naresh Kumar at Mathura that Kamlesh had expired and also told him that postmortem examination on the dead body of Kamlesh be got conducted. He reached his village on 1.1.1994 at about 6.00 PM and his son had not returned from village Dhaliawas. Dead body of Kamlesh was not received at village Dhaliawas. He reached his village on 1.1.1994 at about 6.00 PM and his son had not returned from village Dhaliawas. Dead body of Kamlesh was not received at village Dhaliawas. The dead body was received in the evening. Siri Ram, father-in-law had also come along with the dead body. He had asked Siri Ram as to how Kamlesh had died. Siri Ram told him that she had died due to vomiting. On 2.1.1994, he reported the matter to the police. 31. PW-5 Naresh Kumar, brother of deceased, has stated that Kamlesh told him after the marriage that her mother-in-law and her husband were ill-treating her for giving less dowry. He disclosed this fact to his father and Tau, i.e. elder brother of his father. He went to village Dhaliawas and advised the accused not to torture Kamlesh and he also promised that they would meet their demands. On 14.8.1993, Kamlesh had given birth to a son. The accused had raised a demand of scooter and 41 Tiyals and two Zari Pilias. On 5.9.1993, he had given the sets of clothes but not the scooter. On 1.12.1993, he had brought his sister from Dhaliawas to Nikhri. At that time, Kamlesh deceased told him that the accused were demanding a scooter. On 15.12.1993, accused Satyavart had taken away his sister from village Nikhri to Dhaliawas by force. After about one week, he had gone to village Dhaliawas to enquire about his sister. Kamlesh told him that they should give a scooter to the accused or they would kill her. On 1.1.1994, Hoshiar Singh of Dhaliawas came to village Nikhri and informed them that Kamlesh had died. He informed his father at Mathura. 32. PW-6 Sarwan stated that Kamlesh was married with Satyavart accused about four years back. After the marriage, her daughter disclosed her about regarding torturing her by the accused for bringing insufficient dowry. When her daughter was pregnant, accused Satyavart had come to take her back. The accused stated that if her daughter gave birth to a son, he would have a scooter from her. They had given 41 sets of clothings, two Pilias of Zari in Chhuchhak. When the Chhuchhak was given, the accused expressed dissatisfaction. Two months after Chhuchhak, Omkar was sent to Dhaliawas for advising the accused not to torture Kamlesh. The accused stated that if her daughter gave birth to a son, he would have a scooter from her. They had given 41 sets of clothings, two Pilias of Zari in Chhuchhak. When the Chhuchhak was given, the accused expressed dissatisfaction. Two months after Chhuchhak, Omkar was sent to Dhaliawas for advising the accused not to torture Kamlesh. After about three months of the Chhuchhak, her son had brought Kamlesh but her Devar had come to take her back just after eight days but they told him that they had not purchased clothings. Thereafter, accused Satyavart had come to take Kamlesh and had taken Kamlesh in haste. After 15 days, she sent her son Naresh Kumar to enquire about Kamlesh. Her daughter died and the villagers had not allowed the accused to perform her cremation and then the villagers informed them. Her son went and insisted for post-mortem examination. 33. So, from the close scrutiny of the testimony of PW-4 to PW-6, it is revealed that the prosecution has been able to prove the fact that Satyavart had harassed the deceased in connection with demand of dowry articles. The demand of scooter was made few days prior to the death of the deceased. Therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove the demand of dowry articles "soon before the death" of Kamlesh. So, all the ingredients of offence under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code are complete. Satyavart demanded scooter prior to the birth of the child, at the time of birth of the child and even after the birth of the child. Mere fact that in letter, Exhibit P-1, his name is not specifically mentioned does not absolve him of his liability created by the constant demand of dowry articles. The fact remains that even in letter Exhibit P-1, it has been mentioned that her in-laws were not good persons. The reason as to why her in-laws were not good persons is not required to be given as the deceased was writing letters to her sister. 34. Otherwise also, the prosecution has been able to make out a case for applicability of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act against accused Satyavart. 35. The reason as to why her in-laws were not good persons is not required to be given as the deceased was writing letters to her sister. 34. Otherwise also, the prosecution has been able to make out a case for applicability of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act against accused Satyavart. 35. So far as reliance of counsel for the appellants on authority in case T. Aruntperunjothi (supra), is concerned, the same does not advance the case of Satyavart to draw presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. In that authority, the Honble Apex Court has held that to attract the provisions of Section 113-B, in respect of death of a bride at marital house, presumption of dowry death will be on proof of following essentials : (i) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (The means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304B Indian Penal Code). (ii) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (iii) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. (iv) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death." 36. Hence, all the ingredients mentioned above are fulfilled, so for as accused Satyavart is concerned. So, the conviction of Satyavart accused under Sections 304B Indian Penal Code does not call for any interference and the same stands confirmed. The above-said authority does not help accused Satyavart. However, this authority helps the case of Somwati as cruelty has not been proved against Somwati "soon before the death" of Kamlesh. 37. Now, reverting to the case of Somwati, it is observed that so far as offence under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same is clearly made out from the testimony of PW-4 Dalip Singh complainant. In the letter Exhibit P-1 also, it has been mentioned that mother-in-law of Kamlesh was a bad woman and it was very difficult for her to lead a comfortable life. The demand of Tiyals had been met with. That demand was four months prior to the death of deceased. According to the testimony of above three witnesses, the demand of scooter was raised by Satyavart in the house of complainant and, at that time, Somwati accused was not present. The demand of Tiyals had been met with. That demand was four months prior to the death of deceased. According to the testimony of above three witnesses, the demand of scooter was raised by Satyavart in the house of complainant and, at that time, Somwati accused was not present. So, no specific instance of demand of dowry articles, soon before death, against Somwati has been brought on the file. Therefore, the ingredients of offence under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code are not made out against Somwati as the prosecution was required to prove that "soon before the death", Kamlesh was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry articles. 38. The Honble Apex Court has dealt with the aspect of "soon before death" regarding demand of dowry articles in authority in case State of Rajasthan v. Teg Bahadur, 2004(3) Apex Criminal 611 : 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 88 (SC) in which it has been held as under : "The expression "soon before" is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B Indian Penal Code are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by the prosecution. "Soon before" is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive Section 304-B Indian Penal Code and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" is not defined. A reference to the expression "soon before" used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" is not defined. A reference to the expression "soon before" used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a Court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods, soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for their possession." The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence." 39. So, the prosecution was required to prove that there was existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. So, in the present case, the specific allegation regarding demand against Somwati was made at the time of birth of the son and no specific demand of any article thereafter has been made by her. So, the stale demand of four months is not sufficient to convict Somwati under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code. 40. Therefore, conviction of Somwati accused under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code cannot be maintained. But, she is held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code. 41. Now, reverting to the quantum of sentence, Satyavart has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The trial Court has given his age as 25 years in the year 1998. So, his substantive sentence is reduced to seven years, the minimum prescribed under the Act. 42. 41. Now, reverting to the quantum of sentence, Satyavart has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The trial Court has given his age as 25 years in the year 1998. So, his substantive sentence is reduced to seven years, the minimum prescribed under the Act. 42. So far as accused Somwati is concerned, the trial Court its judgment has stated that she was 65 years old and now she must be more than 75 years. It is stated at the Bar that she has remained in judicial custody for more than one year during the trial and thereafter. So, no useful purpose would be served by sending her to custody again. Therefore, she is sentenced, under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code, to undergo imprisonment already undergone by her. 43. In view of the above discussion, the conviction of accused Satyavart accused under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code stands confirmed but his substantive sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. However, the conviction of Somwati under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code stands set aside but she is convicted under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment already undergone by her. This appeal stands disposed of in the manner indicated above. Order accordingly.