Judgment 1. The appellants impugn the validity of their conviction at the hands of trial Judge on a charge under Sec.304-B/34 IPC, vide judgment dated 5-3-2003. Vide separate order dated 6-3-2003, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each. However, accused Balwinder Singh was given the benefit of doubt and was acquitted. 2. The necessary facts as adumbrated in the impugned judgment are that Chuni Lal, father of Paramjit Kaur, deceased reported to the police of Police Station Dhariwal on 15-3-1999 that his daughter Paramjit Kaur was married with accused Rajinder Pal about one and half year prior to 15-3-1999. About two months prior to the incident, a female child was born to Paramjit Kaur at his house because Rajinder Pal, his son-in-law has already left Paramjit Kaur in her parental house. Thereafter Rajinder Pal took his wife paramjit Kaur to his village. On 14-3-1999, he received a telephonic message that paramjit Kaur had succumbed to fire injuries in her in-laws house. He reached village babri Nangal in a shocked state of mind and he told the police that his daughter got burnt by Stove flames. He made the statement on the information provided by the in-laws of deceased Paramjit Kaur who were present there. Later on, he came to know that all the accused used to harass Paramjit Kaur, deceased for bringing less dowry. The harassment and torture increased when she gave birth to a female child. The torture and harassment was severe to such an extent that deceased Paramjit Kaur, committed suicide. 3. On the basis of above statement of the complainant, a case under Sec.304-B read with Sec.34 IPC was registered against the accused. 4. Postmortem examination on the dead body was got conducted. 5. Investigation in the case was conducted. 6. After the completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the accused persons in the Court. 7. The accused were charge-sheeted accordingly to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. 4. Postmortem examination on the dead body was got conducted. 5. Investigation in the case was conducted. 6. After the completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the accused persons in the Court. 7. The accused were charge-sheeted accordingly to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. In order to substantiate its allegations against the accused, the prosecution examined PW-1 Chuni Lal, complainant, father of deceased Paramjit Kaur, PW-2 Ramesh kumar, cousin brother of deceased Paramjit kaur, PW-3 ASI Kirpal Singh who recorded the FIR, PW-4 Bachni Devi, mother of deceased, PW-5 Constable Avtar Singh who delivered special reports of this case to the higher authorities, PW-6 Dharam Chand, uncle of deceased Paramjit Kaur, PW-7 Jagir singh, Draftsman who prepared scaled site plan of the place of incident, PW-8 Vipan kumar, MHC, with whom the clothes of deceased along with her jewellery were deposited, PW-9 Babu Ram, uncle of deceased paramjit Kaur, PW-10 ASI Sharam Singh, who prepared inquest report of deceased and recorded the statements of witnesses in the proceedings under Sec.174 Cr. P. C, PW-11 Somi Masih, Chowkidar, PW-12, Dr. H. S. Dhillon, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Paramjit Kaur and PW-13 Gopal Singh, retired Inspector, who was then S. H. O. of Police Station dhariwal and the Investigating Officer of the case. 9. During the pendency of trial, accused rajinder Pal expired and as such proceedings against him abated. 10. The accused were examined under section 313 Cr. P. C. They denied the prosecution allegations against them. 11. In their defence, the accused examined DW-1 Resham Singh, Member panchayat of village Tibber. 12. As already noticed above, the accused / appellants were convicted and sentenced while accused Balwinder Kumar was acquitted. 13. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed the instant appeal. 14. In this case, four accused were sent up to stand trial for an offence under Section 304-B/34 IPC. Rajender Pal, husband of the deceased expired during the course of trial and proceedings against him stood abated. Bal winder Kumar, minor brother of Rajinder pal was acquitted by the learned trial Court. Ultimately, after trial, Sewa Ram and Vidya devi were convicted by the trial Court and they have preferred the present appeal. Sewa ram, accused also died during the pendency of appeal and appeal qua Sewa Ram stands abated. 15. Now, the appeal qua Vidya Devi only survives. Ultimately, after trial, Sewa Ram and Vidya devi were convicted by the trial Court and they have preferred the present appeal. Sewa ram, accused also died during the pendency of appeal and appeal qua Sewa Ram stands abated. 15. Now, the appeal qua Vidya Devi only survives. Vidya Devi has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- under section 304-B read with Sec.34 IPC. From the custody certificate placed on the file, it is revealed that Vidya Devi has undergone sentence for a period of 2 years 8 months and 19 days after excluding the period of parole upto 30-3-2006. After that date, vidya Devi is stated to be on bail. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the prosecution story rests on the testimony of PW-1 chuni Lal, PW-2 Ramesh Kumar, cousin brother of deceased, PW-4 Bachni Devi and pw-6 Dharam Chand, uncle of the deceased. It has been submitted that all these witnesses have admitted the fact before the police that paramjit Kaur and Rajinder Pal were living with love and affection and there was no dispute between them. They have further stated before the police that the deceased received accidental burn injuries and no body was at fault. Proceedings under Sec.174 Cr. P. C. were initiated which have been proved on the file as Exhibit DA. Later on, a case for demanding dowry articles by the appellant and other accused was falsely registered at the instance of Chuni Lal, father of Paramjit kaur, deceased. It is further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offence under Sec.304-B ipc. 17. It has been further contended that chuni Lal, in the FIR, itself has mentioned that he made statement before the police that his daughter had died due to accidental stove injuries. So, the prosecution cannot travel beyond the FIR. 18. It is further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offence under Sec.304-B ipc. 17. It has been further contended that chuni Lal, in the FIR, itself has mentioned that he made statement before the police that his daughter had died due to accidental stove injuries. So, the prosecution cannot travel beyond the FIR. 18. The learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that to prove the ingredients of offence under Sec.304-B IPC, the prosecution is required to establish the following ingredients :- (a) That the death of a woman has been caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; (b) that the death of the woman has taken place within seven years of her marriage; and (c) that soon before her death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. It has been contended that the death of paramjit Kaur has taken place otherwise than under normal circumstances is not proved as chuni Lal and other prosecution witnesses, at the initial stage, have stated that the death of Paramjit Kaur has taken place due to bursting of stove. It has been further contended that the prosecution has also failed to prove the fact that soon before her death, the appellant has subjected Paramjit Kaur to cruelty in connection with any demand for dowry articles. 19. It has been submitted that even if the entire allegations made in Exhibit PA are taken as gospel truth, in that case also, it is not proved that the appellant had subjected paramjit Kaur to cruelty on account of demand for dowry articles soon before her death. There are vague allegations against the appellant. It is mentioned in Exhibit PA that son-in-law of complainant and his younger brother whose name he did not know, mother of Rajinder Pal namely Vidya Devi, his father Sewa Ram used to harass Paramjit Kaur on the ground that her parents had not given dowry at the time of marriage and that by the giving birth to a female child, she had put extra burden on them. It is not mentioned in the FIR as to when the factum of not bringing dowry was stated by all the four accused. It is not mentioned in the FIR as to when the factum of not bringing dowry was stated by all the four accused. The criteria of taunting soon before death in connection with the demand for dowry articles is not proved. It is further contended that in the Court, Chuni Lal has made improvements and he has stated that demand of Rs.50,000/- was made for the business of the shop by all the accused but the witness has been confronted with this portion of his statement where it was so recorded. PW-1 chuni Lal, while appearing in the Court has also stated that all the accused started harassing his daughter Paramjit Kaur, soon after the marriage. The accused demanded Rs.50,000/- from Paramjit Kaur for the business of the shop. So according to the testimony of Chuni Lal, the demand of Rs.50,000/- was made immediately after the marriage. Chuni lal has not stated that the appellant had made a complaint for bringing less dowry at the time of marriage. The factum of demand of rs.50,000/- for the shop is not mentioned in the FIR. So, the death of Paramjit Kaur has taken place 1 years after marriage. Demand, according to Chuni Lal, was made 1 years prior to the death of Paramjit Kaur. No other allegation of demand has been made by PW-1 Chuni Lal. 20. It has also been contended that PW-2 ramesh Kumar has not uttered a single word regarding the demand of dowry articles. He has simply stated that he went to the house of the accused and the police obtained his signatures on some papers. He has further stated that he did not know as to what was the behaviour of the accused towards deceased Paramjit Kaur and it might be between her and her parents. Therefore, this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is further contended that PW-4 Bachni devi has levelled imputation that Rs.50,000/-were demanded by all the accused soon after the marriage. It is further contended that in the cross-examination, this witness has demolished the case of the prosecution. She has stated that she correctly stated that her deceased daughter Paramjit Kaur and rajinder Pal lived amicably and there was no dispute between them. It is further contended that in the cross-examination, this witness has demolished the case of the prosecution. She has stated that she correctly stated that her deceased daughter Paramjit Kaur and rajinder Pal lived amicably and there was no dispute between them. It is further contended that this witness has only stated about the demand of Rs.50,000/- immediately after the marriage i. e. about 1 years, prior to the death and she has not stated anything about the demand by the appellant soon after the death of Paramjit Kaur. 21. Pw-6 Dharam Chand and PW-9 Babu ram have also stated in general terms that the accused including the appellant were demanding Rs.50,000/- to install Photography machine immediate after the marriage. 22. So, it has been contended that none of the witnesses has stated even a single word that deceased Paramjit Kaur was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry articles. It is further contended that the demand of Rs.50,000/- was in connection with the setting up of a Photography Machine and it is an afterthought as there was no such mention in the FIR. 23. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following authorities, in support of his contentions :- 1. Public Prosecutor V/s. Shaik Ibrahim and others, 1964 (2) Criminal Law Journal 636 (AP ). 2. Balaka Singh and others V/s. The State of Punjab, 1975 Criminal Law Journal 1734 (SC ). 24. In the end, the counsel for the appellant has prayed for the acceptance of appeal and acquittal of accused. 25. In reply, the learned State counsel has submitted that so far as proceedings under section 174 Cr. P. C. are concerned, the family members of the deceased have made statements to the effect that Paramjit Kaur died due to bursting of stove accidentally, on the asking of the accused. However, later on, it came to the notice of the complainant that deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry articles. As discussed above, all the material witnesses have stated that demand of Rs.50,000/- was made for the installing Photography Machine and the said demand is in connection with dowry articles. It has been further contended that all the ingredients of Sec.304-B IPC are made out. Paramjit Kaur died within seven years of her marriage. She died an unnaturally death by burns. It has been further contended that all the ingredients of Sec.304-B IPC are made out. Paramjit Kaur died within seven years of her marriage. She died an unnaturally death by burns. Burn injuries could not be caused by bursting of stove and she was subjected to demand including Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, all the ingredients of the offence are made out. It has been further contended that the authorities, relied upon by the counsel for the appellant, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 26. Consequently, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of appeal. 27. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both sides and have gone through the record of the case. 28. So, far as the first controversy in the present lis is whether the story propounded by the accused to the effect that Paramjit Kaur deceased died due to accident burn injury, is concerned, the learned trial Court after appreciating whole of the evidence on the file, came to the conclusion that story of getting paramjit Kaur accidental injury is not probable as the bursting of stove is not proved. On re-appreciating that aspect of the case, no interference in the finding of the learned trial Court in this regard, is made out. The nature of burns does not prove the fact that paramjit Kaur could have received such a severe burn injury accidentally, more so, when the bursting of stove is not proved. So, I have no hesitation in holding that Paramjit Kaur received burn injury not accidentally. 29. The other aspect of the case, which has been vehemently argued by the counsel for the appellants is in respect of proceedings under Sec.174 Cr. P. C. No doubt in proceedings under Sec.174 Cr. P. C. , the complainant and his family members have stated that Paramjit Kaur received accidental burn injury and that there was not dispute between husband and wife. But the complainant and other witnesses have explained the reason for making such statement. They have categorically stated that since the accused have convinced them that Paramjit Kaur received accidental injury and on that account the said proceedings under Sec.174 Cr. P. C. were initiated. However, immediately thereafter, FIR in question has been registered. So, the proceedings under Sec.174 cr. P. C. does not create doubt in the prosecution version. They have categorically stated that since the accused have convinced them that Paramjit Kaur received accidental injury and on that account the said proceedings under Sec.174 Cr. P. C. were initiated. However, immediately thereafter, FIR in question has been registered. So, the proceedings under Sec.174 cr. P. C. does not create doubt in the prosecution version. So, the prosecution has been able to prove the first two ingredients successfully i. e. Paramjit Kaur died due to burn injury, otherwise than normal circumstances and that the death has taken place within 7 years of her marriage. 30. The other controversy whether the appellants have been able to prove that "soon before her death" Paramjit Kaur was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants in connection with demand of dowry articles, has to be appreciated in the light of evidence of material witnesses, PW-1 Chuni Lal, PW-2 ramesh Kumar, PW-4 Bachni Devi, PW-6 dharam Chand and PW-9 Babu Ram. 31. Since this is the first appeal, so this court is required to re-appreciate their evidence minutely. 32. Pw-1 Chuni Lal, while appearing as witness of the prosecution has stated that all the accused started harassing his daughter paramjit Kaur soon after marriage. The accused demanded Rs.50,000/- from Paramjit kaur for the business of the shop and complainant being a poor person could not meet that demand. So according to his testimony regarding the demand of dowry articles, husband of Paramjit Kaur, her father-in-law sewa Ram and brother-in-law Balwinder kumar (hereinafter to be mentioned as other accused), made a demand of Rs.50,000/-soon after the marriage of Paramjit Kaur with rajinder Pal. According to the prosecution, that marriage has taken place 1 years prior to the occurrence. However, Chuni Lal was confronted regarding the demand of Rs.50,000/- in his previous statement. The factum of demand of Rs.50,000/- was not mentioned in the FIR. 33. The next witness examined by the prosecution is PW-2 Ramesh Kumar. This witness has not supported the prosecution regarding demand of dowry articles. This witness has stated that he do not know as to what was the behaviour of the accused towards deceased Paramjit Kaur. 34. The next witness examined by the prosecution is PW-4 Bachni Devi, mother of the deceased. This witness has not supported the prosecution regarding demand of dowry articles. This witness has stated that he do not know as to what was the behaviour of the accused towards deceased Paramjit Kaur. 34. The next witness examined by the prosecution is PW-4 Bachni Devi, mother of the deceased. This witness, regarding demand of dowry, has stated that Paramjit Kaur was subjected to physical torture by all the accused soon after her marriage for demand of Rs.50,000/- for opening a shop of photography. PW-6 Dharam Chand has also stated that Sewa Ram, his wife Vidya Devi, rajinder Pal and Joginder Pal used to harass paramjit Kaur. She disclosed him that she was harassed and maltreated to bring Rs.50,000/- for photography machine and that demand was made about 1 - 2 years ago. PW-9 Babu Ram has also stated in the same terms. 35. So, from the perusal of the evidence on the file, none of the witnesses has stated that "soon before her death", appellant has subjected Paramjit Kaur to cruelty on demand of Rs.50,000/-. That demand, according to all the prosecution witnesses was made immediately after the marriage. One of the basic ingredient to complete the offence under section 304-B IPC is that demand of dowry articles should be soon before the death. None of the witnesses has stated regarding any other demand of dowry articles at the part of the appellant. This aspect of the case has been dealt in authority reported as State of Rajasthan V/s. Teg Bahadur 2005 (1) Apex court Judgments 88 (S. C. ). In Paragraph 18 of the judgment, it has been held as under:- "the expression "soon before" is very relevant where Sec.113-B of the Evidence act and Sec.304-B IPC 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 strait-jacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. 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 strait-jacket 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 Sec.113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive Sec.304-B IPC 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 Sec.114 illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It Jays 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 with 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. " 36. According to the said authority, there must be a proximate link between the effect of cruelty of dowry demand in respect of 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, the stale demand of Rs.50,000/- cannot have the proximity with the cause of death. 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, the stale demand of Rs.50,000/- cannot have the proximity with the cause of death. This aspect was again appreciated by the Division Bench of our own High court in the authority reported as Kanwal singh and others V/s. State of Haryana 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 783, in which it has been held as under : "in a case where the bride either commits suicide or is murdered by her in laws family, the tempers run high. So much so that attempt is made to rope in the entire family of the husband of the victim. Almost all the family members of the husband are attributed one role or the other so as to implicate them, although they may not have done anything in the entire occurrence. Under these circumstances duty is cast upon the Court to sift the grain from the chaff and find out if some of the accused have been falsely roped. The facts and circumstances of the present case also point towards the false implication of accused Kanwal Singh, Jaibeer, Bhateri and reena. As has been held above, their part and participation in the occurrence was highly doubtful. Three out of them were also able to prove their respective pleas of alibi. As a measure of abundant caution we extend the benefit of doubt to the four accused, namely Kanwal Singh, Jaibeer, Bhateri and reena, while at the same time we find sufficient evidence to connect Anand Singh accused with the commission of the crime. " 37. So, keeping in view the observations of the Supreme Court and this Court, I am of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offence under Sec.304-B IPC. Consequently, the appellant Vidya Devi, stands acquitted under Sec.304-B IPC. 38. However, the demand of Rs.50,000/-amounts to cruelty, as envisaged under Sec.498-A IPC. So, I am of the considered view that prosecution has been able to prove the offence under Sec.498-A IPC and the appellant Vidya Devi stands convicted for offence under Sec.498-A IPC. 39. Now, the question arises regarding the quantum of sentence. In the charge sheet, which was framed in the year 1999, appellant Vidya Devi has given her age as 65 years. 39. Now, the question arises regarding the quantum of sentence. In the charge sheet, which was framed in the year 1999, appellant Vidya Devi has given her age as 65 years. Now, she must be aged 75 years. According to the conviction slip placed on the file, the appellant has undergone custodial incarceration for a period of 2 years 8 months 19 days, after excluding the period of parole of 4 months 20 days. So, the ends of justice would be met in case she is punished for the period already undergone, as the maximum sentence under Sec.498-A IPC is three years. 40. So, the appeal stands partly accepted, as narrated above, Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information. Order accordingly.