JUDGMENT Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.— Challenge in this appeal is the order passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Section 304 B and 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC). Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chitradurga had imposed life sentence for the first offence but no separate sentence was imposed for the later offences. The appellant A-1 is the husband of Rekhamma (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’). The marriage between A-1 and the deceased took place on 27.3.1991. Accused No. 2 Gangama is the mother of A1 and A3 and A4 were the brothers and A5 is the sister of the accused. The trial court held that out of the five accused persons who faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 304, 498A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short ‘DP Act’) read with Section 34. Only present appellant was guilty of offences punishable under Sections 304B & 498A IPC. The trial court placed reliance on the prosecution evidence as tendered and held that the accusations were clearly made out so far as the present appellant is concerned. In appeal, the High Court while maintaining the conviction reduced the sentence to seven years and the High Court also imposed sentence of three years in respect of offence punishable under Section 498 A IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that for substantiating commission of an offence under Section 304B dowry death has not be established. Section 304B was introduced w.e.f. 19.11.1986. Simultaneously Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ( in short the ‘Evidence Act’) was introduced. Presumption is available to be drawn under Section 113B, if the evidence in that regard is established. It is to be noted that the High Court held that the there was no proof of any demand of dowry to bring in application under the DP Act. The High Court held that the view of the trial court in that regard was not correct. It is to be noted that the High Court held that the there was no proof of any demand of dowry to bring in application under the DP Act. The High Court held that the view of the trial court in that regard was not correct. Even though there was no challenge by State questioning the acquittal of offence relatable to Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the DP Act, the High Court found that the prosecution has proved the charges imposed against the accused in relation to the said offence. Having done so, the High Court did not impose any sentence in respect of the offence relatable to the DP Act. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the factual scenario goes to show that the offences relatable to Section 304B are not established. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that in view of the Explanation (a) and (b) of Section 498A IPC, cruelity has to be clearly established. The only to examine the complainant and the witnesses under Section 202 of Code, the Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offence and he was not considering the sworn statements of the witnesses at the pre cognizance stage. Learned Single Judge felt that enquiry was mandatory after 23.6.2006. 3. The legal position is unexceptionable. 4. In the background facts we do not think that any exception can be taken to the transfer as directed by learned Single Judge. The observations regarding the conduct are unnecessary and stand deleted. Learned Single Judge has directed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall have discretion to record further sworn statements if necessary in case he decides to take cognizance of the offence. The aforesaid observations and directions are also in order. 5. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. ***********