Judgment :- Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the conviction and sentence dated 11.10.2004 passed in Sessions Case No.84 of 2004 by the Additional District and Sessions cum Fast Track Court No.I, Thanjavur. 2. The nubble of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant by name Elangovan is a resident of Puliyangudi Village and he is the maternal uncle of the deceased Babi @ Sudha and she has been given in marriage to the accused on 08.07.2002 and at the time of marriage she has been given 20 sovereigns of gold jewels, cash of Rs.15,000/-, household articles worth of Rs.5,000/-. The deceased has been brought up by the complainant. During the month of Aadi, both the deceased and accused have come to the house of the complainant and the complainant has given a half sovereign gold ring and also new cloths to the accused and deceased. After a lapse of two months, a tussle has arisen with regard to 'seervarisai' stating that the properties given to the accused and deceased are not sufficient. The accused has mortified the deceased very often and directed her to get money and the same has been conveyed to the complainant by the deceased. The complainant and his brother-in-law viz., Venkadapathi have gone to the village of the accused and effected compromise. Even after compromise, tussle has arisen frequently. The accused has pledged all the jewels given to the deceased. On 04.12.2002 the deceased has come to the house of the complainant and asked Rs.10,000/- and the deceased has told the complainant that the said amount has been demanded by the accused. The complainant has replied that he would give the same after one month. The deceased has gone to the house of her senior paternal uncle which situate in Kumbakonam. On 06.12.2002 the accused and his mother have gone to the house of senior paternal uncle of the deceased and taken the deceased to marital abode and on 12.12.2002 at about 11.00 a.m. the complainant has received a phone call stating that the deceased has passed away and subsequently he has given the complaint which has been marked as Ex.P1. 3. 3. On receipt of Ex.P1, the investigating agency has done investigation and after completing the same laid a final report on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Pabanasam and the same has been taken on file in P.R.C.No.23 of 2003. The case has been committed to the Court of Sessions, Thanjavur Division and subsequently transferred to the file of the trial Court in Sessions Case No.84 of 2004. 4. On the basis of the alleged culpability of the accused and other connected documents, the trial Court has framed charges against the accused under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and the same have been read over and explained to him. The accused has denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 14 have been examined and Exs.P1 to P9 and MO.1 series have been marked. 6. When the accused has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crimes. However no oral and documentary evidence have been let in on the side of the accused. 7. The trial Court, after perpending the evidence available on record, has found the accused guilty under Section 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B of the said Code and no separate punishment has been imposed under Section 489-A of the Indian Penal Code. Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the present criminal appeal has been filed at the instance of the accused as appellant. 8. The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is that the deceased viz., Babi @ Sudha has been given in marriage to the accused on 08.07.2002 and at the time of marriage she has been given 20 sovereigns of gold jewels, cash of Rs.15,000/- and household articles worth of Rs.5,000/-and during the month of Aadi both of them have come down to the house of the complainant and he has given half sovereign of gold ring and also new cloths to them. After a lapse of two months from the date of marriage, a dispute has arisen with regard to insufficient 'seervarisai'. After a lapse of two months from the date of marriage, a dispute has arisen with regard to insufficient 'seervarisai'. The deceased has been trounced by the accused very often and directed her to go and fetch money from marital abode and on 04.12.2002 the deceased has come to the house of the complainant and demanded Rs.10,000/- as directed by the accused and subsequently a compromise has been effected and the deceased has gone to the house of her senior paternal uncle. On 06.12.2002 both the accused and his mother have gone to the house of the senior paternal uncle of the deceased and effected compromise and subsequently taken her to marital abode. On 12.12.2002 the complainant has received a phone call wherein it has been informed that the deceased has passed away. 9. Before considering the rival submissions made by either counsel, the Court has to look into as to whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code even without a speck of doubt. 10. The entire case of the prosecution is based upon Ex.P1, complaint wherein it has been stated that after a lapse of few weeks from the date of marriage, the accused has trounced and also mortified the deceased and due to that the deceased has taken extreme step of committing suicide. 11. The author of Ex.P1 viz., complainant has been examined as PW1. The complainant is the maternal uncle of the deceased and he has stated in his evidence that the mother of the deceased has passed away, during childhood of the deceased and due to that she has been brought up by him and she has been given in marriage to the accused on 08.07.2002 and at the time of marriage she has been given 20 sovereigns of gold jewels, cash of Rs.15,000/-and household articles worth of Rs.5,000/- and after a lapse of two months from the date of marriage a despair has been existence with regard to insufficient 'seervarisai' and the accused has very often driven the deceased to marital abode for fetching money and on 04.12.2002 the deceased has come to his house and demanded Rs.10,000/- as directed by the accused and he told the deceased that he would give the same after a lapse of one month and she has gone to the house of her senior paternal uncle. On 06.12.2002 the accused and his mother have gone to the house of the senior paternal uncle of the deceased and effected compromise and subsequently taken her to marital abode and on 12.12.2002 at about 11.00 a.m. he received a telephonic communication to the effect that the deceased has passed away. 12. The father of the deceased by name Muthu Kilakkudaiyar has been examined as PW2. He has stated in his evidence that the marriage between the deceased and accused has been performed on 08.07.2002 and both of them have lived happily for a period of two months and subsequently a tussle has arisen and the accused has pledged all the jewels given to the deceased including 'thali chain'. The deceased has asked PW1 to give Rs.10,000/-. Further the deceased has told PW1 that she has been trounced by the accused by way of demanding money. 13. One Venkadapathi has been examined as PW3. He has stated in his evidence that the marriage between the deceased and accused has been performed prior to 2-1/4 years and both of them have lived happily for a short span and subsequently the accused has demanded money from the deceased. The deceased has met PW1 and demanded Rs.10,000/-as directed by the accused. The deceased has come to his house and the accused and his mother have come and effected compromise and subsequently taken the deceased to marital abode. 14. One Rajasekar has been examined as PW4. He has stated in his evidence that the deceased Babi @ Sudha is the daughter of the sister of his mother and after marriage, the deceased has told him that the accused has demanded money and thereby tortured her. 15. The wife of PW1 by name Sumathi has been examined as PW5. She has stated in her evidence that she and PW2 have gone to the house of the accused and the deceased has told her that the accused has tortured her by way of demanding money. 16. One Mathivanan has been examined as PW6. He has stated in his evidence that the deceased has told him to the effect that her husband demanded money and thereby tortured her. 17. 16. One Mathivanan has been examined as PW6. He has stated in his evidence that the deceased has told him to the effect that her husband demanded money and thereby tortured her. 17. From the evidence of PW1, the Court can easily come to a conclusion that after a lapse of short period from the date of marriage, a despair has been in existence between the accused and deceased with regard to insufficient 'seervarisai' and further PWs.1 to 6 have consistently stated in their evidence that the accused has tortured and also mortified the deceased by way of demanding money. 18. At this juncture, it would be more useful to look into the provisions of Sections 498-A & 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. 19. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows; "Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman; subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extent to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means- (a) any wilful 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." 20. The word “cruelty” mentioned in Section 498-A of the said Code can be construed in two ways. a) If there is any wilful conduct either on the part of the husband or his relative which drives the concerned woman to commit suicide, it amounts to cruelty. b) If any harassment is made in respect of unlawful demand, the same would also amount to cruelty. 21. a) If there is any wilful conduct either on the part of the husband or his relative which drives the concerned woman to commit suicide, it amounts to cruelty. b) If any harassment is made in respect of unlawful demand, the same would also amount to cruelty. 21. Section 304-B of the Indian Penal code reads as follows; "Dowry death.-(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns of 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 purposes 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." 22. From the close reading of the provision of the said Section one can easily discern that if any women is subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry and she committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage such death shall be called as dowry death. 23. Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows; “When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation:- for the purpose of this Section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).” 24. For invoking the said Section, the following aspects have to be proved. a) Firstly, it should be shown that soon before her death such woman was subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment. For invoking the said Section, the following aspects have to be proved. a) Firstly, it should be shown that soon before her death such woman was subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment. b) Secondly, the cruelty by such person was “for or in connection with any demand for dowry”. 25. In nutshell, Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code deals with "cruelty" and Section 304-B of the said Code deals with "dowry death" and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act deals with “presumption as to dowry death”. 26. In the instant case, PWs.1 to 6 have adduced sufficient and trustworthy evidence so as to come to a conclusion that the accused has caused cruelty in connection with demand of dowry which has driven the deceased to commit suicide and the same is attracted the penal provision of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and further the marriage between the accused and deceased has been conducted on 08.07.2002 and the deceased has committed suicide on 12.12.2002. Since the death of the deceased has occurred within 7 years of marriage, the Court can very well invoke the presumption available under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. 27. Therefore, viewing from any angle, the prosecution has clearly established the guilt of the accused under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 28. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has made the following inert attempts so as to supplant the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/accused; a) In Ex.P1, complaint no demand of dowry has been mentioned and therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is liable to be thrown out. b) PWs.1 to 6 have not stated anything about the alleged demand of dowry made by the accused in the statements given to the Revenue Divisional Officer. c) The letter alleged to have been spoken by PW4 has not been produced. d) In the instant case, soon before the death of the deceased, the alleged demand of dowry as well as torture have not been proved by the prosecution. 29. c) The letter alleged to have been spoken by PW4 has not been produced. d) In the instant case, soon before the death of the deceased, the alleged demand of dowry as well as torture have not been proved by the prosecution. 29. In order to repel the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) has also laconically contended that in the instant case, the marriage between the accused and deceased has been performed on 08.07.2002 and both of them have lived happily only for a short period of two months and subsequently the accused has started to demand dowry and since the deceased has not been able to brook the demand made by the accused, she has been driven to her parental home and she met the complainant viz., PW1 and demanded Rs.10,000/-as directed by the accused and on 12.12.2002 the deceased has committed suicide and in order to prove the alleged demand of dowry as well as dowry torture given by the accused, PWs.1 to 6 have given consistent, cogent and trustworthy evidence and the trial Court after considering all the evidence available on record, has rightly found the accused guilty under Sections 498-A & 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are not liable to be interfered with. 30. The first and foremost ground urged on the side of the appellant/accused is that in Ex.P1, complaint no demand of dowry on the side of the accused has been mentioned. Of-course it is true that in Ex.P1, complaint, demand of dowry alleged to have been made by the accused has not been mentioned. But it has been specifically mentioned that after few weeks from the date of marriage, the accused has trounced the deceased. 31. At this juncture, it would be more useful to look into the decision reported in 1998 Supreme Court Cases 1328 (State of U.P. Vs. Naharsingh (died) and Others) wherein the Honourable Apex Court has held that the purpose of recording FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to set the investigating agency in motion for prosecuting the persons responsible for the cognizable offence mentioned in the FIR. Naharsingh (died) and Others) wherein the Honourable Apex Court has held that the purpose of recording FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to set the investigating agency in motion for prosecuting the persons responsible for the cognizable offence mentioned in the FIR. Though FIR should not be too sketchy or vague, yet non mentioning of the details of meticulous particulars is not a ground to reject the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the omission to assign weapon or role of accused in FIR is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. 32. It is an everlasting principle of law that the First Information Report is nothing but an instrument which set the wheels of law in motion and all details of a particular case need not be mentioned in it. 33. In the instant case as pointed out earlier, the details of demand of dowry made by the accused have5 not been mentioned in Ex.P1. However in Ex.P1, it has been clearly mentioned that after few weeks from the date of marriage, the accused has used to trounced the deceased and due to that the deceased has taken the extreme step of committing suicide. Therefore, the first ground raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused cannot be accepted. 34. The second ground raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused is that PWs.1 to 6 have not stated anything about the alleged demand of dowry by the accused to the Revenue Divisional Officer and therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is liable to be jettisoned. 35. In support of the said contention, the decision reported in 2007(1) M.L.J. (Crl.) 1142 (Appasaheb and Another VS. State of Maharashtra) is relied upon, wherein the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows; "It is important to note that in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which was recorded on the very next day of the death of Bhimabai, this witness did not state that the cause for ill-treatment was "a demand for money and a consequent beating". State of Maharashtra) is relied upon, wherein the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows; "It is important to note that in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which was recorded on the very next day of the death of Bhimabai, this witness did not state that the cause for ill-treatment was "a demand for money and a consequent beating". The evidence on record does not indicate that the police had any reason to favour the accused and deliberately omitted to mention about the alleged demand of money while recording the statement of PW.5 Sumanbai under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The evidence shows that the accused come from very humble background and they could not have exerted any kind of influence, financial or otherwise, upon the police so as to manage a statement favourable to them when in the course of investigation the statements of witnesses were being recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C." 36. In the instant case, PWs.1 to 6 have given statements to the Revenue Divisional Officer and all of them have uniformly stated about the alleged demand of money by the accused from the deceased and further most of them have stated about the same aspect in their statements given under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But, in the decision referred to above, it has been clearly stated that the concerned witnesses have not stated anything about the alleged ill-treatment with regard to the demand for money in their 161 statements. Under the said circumstances, the Honourable Apex Court has held that the concerned accused is entitled to get acquittal. 37. Even at the risk of repetition, the Court would like to point out that in the present case, replete evidence are available so as to come to a conclusion that the accused has made persistent demand of money by way of dowry from the deceased after a lapse of few weeks from the date of marriage. Therefore the second ground urged on the side of the appellant/accused also goes out without merit. 38. The third ground is that PW4 has given clear evidence to the effect that the deceased has left a letter and the same has been burked for the reason best known to the prosecution. 39. Therefore the second ground urged on the side of the appellant/accused also goes out without merit. 38. The third ground is that PW4 has given clear evidence to the effect that the deceased has left a letter and the same has been burked for the reason best known to the prosecution. 39. Of course it is true that PW4 has stated in his evidence to the effect that the deceased Babi @ Suidha has left a letter, wherein it has been stated about the torture given by her husband and mother-in-law. But, unfortunately the same has not been marked on the side of the prosecution. Simply because, the letter spoken by PW4 has not been marked on the side of the prosecution, the Court cannot belittle the evidence adduced by other witnesses with regard to alleged demand of money by the accused from the deceased. Therefore, the third ground urged on the side of the appellant/accused is not sustainable. 40. The fourth ground urged on the side of the appellant/accused is that the prosecution has failed to establish that soon before the death of the deceased, the accused has made dowry torture. 41. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has drawn the attention of the Court to the following decisions; a) In 2009(2) MLJ (Crl.) 850 (SC) (Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab) it has been held that there is nothing on record to show that any demand of dowry was made soon before the death and there was no evidence on record to show that cruelty or harassment was meted out to the wife for bringing insufficient dowry. b) In 2007(2) MLJ (Crl.) 376 (SC) (Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder and Others Vs. State of West Bengal) the Honourable Apex Court has held that under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code there is practically no evidence to show that there was any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry. This efficiency in evidence proves fatal for the prosecution case. Even otherwise mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to bring in application of Section 304-B I.P.C. It has to be shown in addition that such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with the demand for dowry. Conviction cannot be maintained. 42. This efficiency in evidence proves fatal for the prosecution case. Even otherwise mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to bring in application of Section 304-B I.P.C. It has to be shown in addition that such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with the demand for dowry. Conviction cannot be maintained. 42. In the instant case, as pointed out in many places, plethora of evidence are available through PWs.1 to 6 that after a lapse of few weeks from the date of marriage, the accused has started to demand money stating that "seervarisai" given at the time of marriage is insufficient. It is crystal clear from the evidence of PW1 that the accused has made demand of money from the deceased in connection with dowry. Further the marriage between the appellant/accused and deceased has been performed on 08.07.2002 and after a lapse of 5 months, on 12.12.2002 the deceased has committed suicide. PW1 has clearly stated in his evidence that on 04.12.2002 the deceased has been driven to his house and asked Rs.10,000/- from him as demanded by the accused and within 8 days from 04.12.2002 the fateful occurrence has taken place on 12.12.2002. 43. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) has befittingly drawn the attention of the Court to the latest decision reported in 2009(1) Crimes 243 (S.C.) (Deen Dayal and others Vs. State of U.P.) wherein the Honourable Apex Court has held that the words 'soon before her death' occurring in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code are to be understood in a relative and flexible sense. Those words cannot be construed as laying down a rigid period of time to be mechanically applied in each case. Whether or not the cruelty or harassment meted out to the victim for or in connection with the demand of dowry was soon before her death and the proximate cause of her death, under abnormal circumstances, would depend upon the facts of each case. There can be no fixed period of time in this regard. 44. It has already been pointed out that the specific evidence of PW1 is that the deceased has met him on 04.12.2002 and demanded Rs.10,000/-as directed by the accused and within a period of 8 days, i.e, on 12.12.2002, the deceased has committed suicide. There can be no fixed period of time in this regard. 44. It has already been pointed out that the specific evidence of PW1 is that the deceased has met him on 04.12.2002 and demanded Rs.10,000/-as directed by the accused and within a period of 8 days, i.e, on 12.12.2002, the deceased has committed suicide. Therefore, it is quite clear that the death of the deceased has occurred only due to the torture alleged to have been made by the accused for or in connection with demand for dowry. Therefore, the entire argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused are not having merit. 45. The trial Court after analysing all the evidence available on record has rightly found the accused guilty under Sections 498-A & 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 46. In view of the foregoing elucidation of both the factual and legal aspects, this Court has not found even a flimsy ground to make interference with the well merited judgment passed by the trial Court and altogether the present criminal appeal deserves dismissal. 47. In fine, this criminal appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No.84 of 2004 by the Additional District and Sessions cum Fast Track Court No.I, Thanjavur are confirmed. If the appellant/accused is not in duress, the trial Court is directed to incarcerate the accused in prison to serve out the remainder of sentence.