Ranjan Gogoi, J.;- This appeal is directed against the judg­ment and order dated 19.12.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Ses­sions Case No. 15 of 2005. By the aforesaid judgment and order the three accused/appel­lants have been convicted under Section 304B/34, IPC. While the accused/appellant No.1, Kailash Das, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thou­sand), in default, to suffer rigorous imprison­ment for two months more, the accused/ap-pellantNos.2 and 3, viz. Smti. Ulada Das and Smti. Manomati Das have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7(seven) years each. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction this appeal has been filed. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that PW 1, Giridhar Pathak, elder brother of the deceased Anjali Pathak, lodged an F.I.R. be­fore the Barpeta Police Station at about 6.30 P.M. of 28.8.2001 alleging that on the previ­ous day at about 7/8 P.M. the accused/ap­pellants had tortured his sister to death. In the F.I.R. it was mentioned that Anjali Pathak was married to the accused/appellant No. 1 on 11.12.2000 and immediately after the mar­riage the accused/appellant along with his mother, Ulada Das and sister, Manomoti Dashad been demanding dowry and on fail­ure to pay the same Anjali Pathak was tor­tured to death. In the F.I.R. filed it was fur­ther alleged that at the time of her death Anjali was seven months pregnant. On the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R. Barpeta P.S. Case No.226/2001 under Section 304B, IPC was registered. In the course of the investigation of the case PW 8, Sri Basanta Kumar Bar­man, visited the place of occurrence and pre­pared a sketch map thereof. Inquest was held on the dead body of the deceased; several articles were seized by seizure list exhibited as Exts-4,5 and 8. Statements of a large num­ber of persons were also recorded. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination. On receipt of the post mortem report and on conclusion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused/appellants and one more person i.e. Smti. Minati Das. The offence alleged being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, by order dated 25.2.2005 committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions at Barpeta. On receipt of the post mortem report and on conclusion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused/appellants and one more person i.e. Smti. Minati Das. The offence alleged being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, by order dated 25.2.2005 committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions at Barpeta. In the trial Court charge under Section 304B, IPC was framed against the three accused/appellants and the 4"1 accused i.e. Smti. Minati Das. The accused claimed innocence and wanted to be tried. In the course of the trial eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Thereafter three defence witnesses were also examined. At the conclusion of the trial, by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.12.2006 the accused/appellants have been convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid, whereas the 4"' accused, Smti. Minati, Das has been acquitted. Aggrieved by the afore­said conviction and sentences imposed this appeal has been filed. 3. It will be necessary, at this stage, to briefly notice the core of the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses. PW 1, Sri Giridhari Pathak, is the elder brother of the deceased who in his deposi­tion has stated that the occurrence took place on 27.8.2001. PW I has deposed that the deceased was married to the-accused/appellant No. 1 Kailash Das, in the month of De­cember, 2000. According to PW 1, after about two months of the marriage the accused Kailash Das and the other accused demanded Rs.50,000/- as dowry. This witness has fur­ther deposed that the deceased Anjali used to frequently come to her paternal home to request for payment of the dower amount as demanded. PW 1 has further deposed that as they could not pay the amount deceased Anjali was tortured by the accused persons in her in-laws house. This witness has further deposed that on a particular day about 20 days before her death the accused/appellant No. 1 along with Anjali had come to the pa­ternal home and that the accused/appellant No. 1 left Anjali in her paternal home asking her to come back with the amount of Rs.50,000/-. This witness has further de­posed that the deceased Anjali had come to her paternal house asking for payment of the demanded sum at an interval of every 20 days. This witness has further de­posed that the deceased Anjali had come to her paternal house asking for payment of the demanded sum at an interval of every 20 days. This witness has also deposed that on the fi­nal occasion when the accused/appellant No. 1 come to the paternal home he along with Bhabendra Nath Das (PW 2) and Madhav Das (PW 3) had discussed the matter with the accused/appellant No.1 and PW 3, Madhav Das, had told the accused/appellant No.1 that the amount will be paid by him. This witness has further deposed that the ac­cused/appellant No. 1 was asked not to tor­ture Anjali any more. 4. PW 2, Sri Bhabendra Nath Das, has corroborated the evidence of PW 1 though in his evidence he has deposed only with re­gard to the demand of Rs.50,000/- and not specifically with regard to any torture. 5. PW 3, Sri Madhab Das, has corrobo­rated the evidence of PW 1 in all material particulars including the demand for dowry and the torture meted out to deceased Anjali by the accused persons which fact was re­ported to the witness by the deceased her­self. The evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 further goes to show that the deceased died as are-suit of burn injuries sustained by her and fur­ther that when they had gone to the house of the deceased they could find the dead body fully burnt lying in an isolated room which did not indicate any sign of burning of any other materials found in the room. 6. PW 4, Sri Biren Talukdar, has deposed that on the day of occurrence at about 8.00 P.M. while he heard hullah coming from the house of accused Kailash he went there and found a fire inside the house. PW 4 has de­posed that when he had tried to open the door he found it closed from inside and after kick­ing the door open he had seen Anjaii setting fire on her body. In cross-examination this witness has de­posed that he had not seen any quarrel between Anjali and the accused in respect any demand for dowry and further that Anjali had also not reported any such demand of dowry or torture. 7. PW 5, Sri Phanidhar Deka, is another person who had gone to the house of the accused/appellant Kailash Das on hearing hulla. 7. PW 5, Sri Phanidhar Deka, is another person who had gone to the house of the accused/appellant Kailash Das on hearing hulla. This witness has deposed that from the people who had gathered there he could come to know that deceased Anjali had died by set­ting fire on her body. P W 5 has also deposed that he had seen other articles inside the room where the dead body was found to have suf­fered damage from burning. It is in the depo­sition of PW 5 that he had never seen or heard about any quarrel between the de­ceased and the accused in respect of demand for dowry. 8. PW 6, Dr. Bhupesh Chaudhury, had performed the post mortem on the dead body of deceased Anjali. Deposing from the post mortem report exhibited as Ext-3 PW 6 has proved the following injuries: - "Dead body with 100% burnt, most of the burnt parts are charred and blistered except skin of armpit. Blister contained serrens fluid. Face is swollen and distorted, tongue is perturted, skin of hand detauches like glove, hair singed and blond. Blood clot seen on both nostril. After re­moval of clothes, vigel mueusal (sic) tear is seen. Plura is congested and petechial hemorrhage is seen. Most of the major organs like brain, liver, spleen and kidney, uterus are congested. After dissection of uterus a male fetus is seen. Opinion: In my opinion the cause of death is due to shock, as a result of severe burn. Burn is antimortem. Ext-3 is my P.M. report. Ext-3(1) is my signature. Xxxx xxxx xxxxx I did not state the time of conducting P.M. examination. I cannot give my .opinion as to the time of death. I got partial digested food in small intestine. Ordinarily it takes 3 to 4 hours to digest the food. For full digestion it takes 4 to 5 hours. To the Court: 1 did not state about time passed since death. From the injuries, from other factors also we can ascertain the time passed since death. But in this case I did not state." 9. PW 7, Sri Soneswar Kalita is a police officer who was associated with the investi­gation of the case and so is PW 8, Sri Basanta Kumar Barman. From the injuries, from other factors also we can ascertain the time passed since death. But in this case I did not state." 9. PW 7, Sri Soneswar Kalita is a police officer who was associated with the investi­gation of the case and so is PW 8, Sri Basanta Kumar Barman. From the evidence of PW 8 it is evident that in-the course of investigation glass bottle of different size smelling of kero­sene were seized vide Ext-8. 10. While the accused persons in the course of their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. had denied the charges leveled on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the evidence tendered by the witnesses examined on behalf of the defence will have to be noted in a little more detail. 11. DW1 is the accused/appellant, Kailash Das. In his evidence he has denied the de­mand of Rs.50,000/- and the allegations of torture committed by him on his wife Anjali. 12. DW 2, Harihar Das is the person who had arranged the marriage of the deceased and the accused/appellant No. 1. In his evi­dence DW 2 has stated that to his knowl­edge the relationship between the deceased and the accused was cordial and he did not know about any demand of dowry or com­mission of torture. 13. DW 3, Satya Kalita, has also deposed in a similar manner i.e. that the relationship between the accused/appellant No. 1 and the deceased was good and cordial. 14. Sri J. M. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused/appel­lants, by referring to the judgment of the learned trial Court and the evidence on record, has submitted that the trial court itself had come to the finding that there was no ma­terial to implicate the accused/appellant Nos.2 and 3 except to the extent that they did not prevent the deceased from killing herself. Sri Choudhury has submitted that such an act on the part of the accused/appellant Nos.2 and 3 even if it is to be assumed will not bring home the offence alleged which is under Sec­tion 304B/34, IPC. Sri Choudhury has submitted that such an act on the part of the accused/appellant Nos.2 and 3 even if it is to be assumed will not bring home the offence alleged which is under Sec­tion 304B/34, IPC. Insofar as the accused/" appellant No. 1 is concerned, it is the submis­sion of Sri Choudhury that while the demand for dowry of Rs.50,000/- may be substanti­ated by some evidence there is not an iota of evidence on record to prove commission of torture or harassment by the accused/appel­lant No. 1 on the deceased so as to attract the ingredients necessary to bring home the charge under Section 304B, IPC. Sri Choudhury, therefore, has submitted that the conviction of the accused/appellant No. 1 also is not tenable in law and in any event the im­position of the maximum penalty of life im­prisonment, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not legally warranted. 15. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellants have met with stiff resistance offered by Sri K. C. Mahanta, learned Pub­lic Prosecutor. By referring to the evidence on record Sri Mahanta has submitted that no infirmity can be found in the conclusion re­corded by the learned trial court so as to warrant any interference with the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused/appellants. 16. We have perused the evidence and materials on record and the judgment passed by the learned trial court. We have also con­sidered the submissions advanced at the Bar. 17. Section 304B, I.P.C., which deals with dowry death contemplates that in a situation where a married woman within seven years of her marriage dies in an unnatural circum­stance and it is shown that before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the hus­band in connection with any demand for dowry such death would amount to dowry death and the husband or the relative as may be shall be deemed to have caused her death. Section 113B of the Evidence Act provides that if a question arises 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 to cruelty or ha­rassment in connection with any demand for dowry the Court shall presume that such per­son had caused dowry death. 18. Section 113B of the Evidence Act provides that if a question arises 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 to cruelty or ha­rassment in connection with any demand for dowry the Court shall presume that such per­son had caused dowry death. 18. In the present case the evidence of PWs 1,2 and 3, the core of which have been extracted above, firmly establishes that after about two months of the marriage of the de­ceased and the accused/appellant No. 1 there was a demand of dowry from all the accused. The evidence of the said witnesses also makes it clear that the deceased had frequently come to her paternal home requesting for payment of the amount demanded and that on the last occasion i.e. about 20 days before her death she had come along with her husband and stayed back in her paternal home as she was asked to come back with the demanded amount. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 also makes it clear that as the demand of Rs.50,000/- could not be met the deceased was being tortured by the accused/appellants. The evidence of the said witnesses i.e. PWs 1 and 3 further shows that the aforesaid in-formation was conveyed to the witnesses by the deceased herself. Death of Anjali in un­natural circumstances i.e. burning within about eight months of her marriage is clear and evi­dent from the evidence on record. We have considered the very strenuous arguments ad­vanced on behalf of the accused/appellants that in the present case there is no evidence of torture committed by the accused persons on the deceased in connection with any de­mand for dowry. Not only the clear evidence of PWs 1 and 3 to the effect that the deceased had informed about commission of torture be­lies the argument advanced on behalf of the accused/appellants, it is our considered view that appreciation of evidence of torture or ha­rassment in a case involving dowry death must be made in the right and correct perspective. The best source of such evidence namely the victim herself being no more it is all relevant facts and surrounding circumstances must be duly taken note of by the Court while appre­ciating such evidence. Neither the expression cruelty nor the expression harassment ap­pearing in Section 304B, IPC has been de­fined. The best source of such evidence namely the victim herself being no more it is all relevant facts and surrounding circumstances must be duly taken note of by the Court while appre­ciating such evidence. Neither the expression cruelty nor the expression harassment ap­pearing in Section 304B, IPC has been de­fined. The said expressions, therefore, has to be understood as the circumstances of the case, in the considered view of the Court, would require. From the aforesaid perspec­tive demand of a sum of Rs.50,00/- on a very poor family to which the deceased belong it­self may amount to a torturous act or an act of harassment. Repetition of such a demand compelling the wife (victim) to go to her pa­ternal home to repeatedly ask for payment would certainly be an act of harassment within the meaning of Section 304B, IPC. Keeping the wife in her paternal home to come back with the demanded amount as had happened in the present case would be another instance of commission of torture or harassment within the meaning of the said expressions as ap­pearing in Section 304B, IPC. In the present case the evidence of PWs 1,2 and 3 clearly establishes that there was a demand for dowry on the deceased and her family and that such demand was persisted with by the accused/appellants with continuous rigour compelling the deceased to frequently go to her paternal home to look for the amount. So much so that at one point of time the wife was compelled to stay in her paternal home and come back to the matrimonial home only, on receipt of the money. All the said evidence, in our considered view, conclusively proves the presence of necessary ingredients to at­tract the commission of the offence under Sec­tion 304B, IPC. All the three accused/ap­pellants having been found to be involved in the demand and torture and harassment are liable under Section 304B/34, IPC. 19. We, therefore, find no error in the con­viction of the accused/appellants recorded by the learned trial court. The accused/appellant a No. 1 having been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life we do not find any infirmity in the sen­tence imposed. The accused/appellant Nos. 19. We, therefore, find no error in the con­viction of the accused/appellants recorded by the learned trial court. The accused/appellant a No. 1 having been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life we do not find any infirmity in the sen­tence imposed. The accused/appellant Nos. 2 and 3 having been sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years, in the absence of any appeal by the State against the said sentence, we are not called upon to express our views on the adequacy of the sentence imposed on the ac­cused/appellant Nos.2 and 3. The said sentences, therefore, are maintained in the present appeal which has to be dismissed. 20. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment and order dated 19.12.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 15 of 2005. We are told that the accused/appellant Nos.2 and 3 are presently on bail. Naturally they will now be required to surrender before the trial court and serve out the remain­ing part of their sentence. It is ordered ac­cordingly.