JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.09.1998, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, convicting and sentencing all the accused-appellants (herein referred as ‘the accused’) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years under Section 304-B IPC. 2. The sad story, relates to unfortunate death of Geeta Rani at the house of accused allegedly at their hands within 11 months of her marriage, therefore, the accused namely Rakesh Kumar, Naresh Kumar and Pushpa Rani being the husband, husband’s brother and husband’s brother’s wife, were prosecuted and ultimately convicted and sentenced accordingly. 3. The facts, as culled out from the statement made by complainant Gurnam Singh (herein referred as ‘the complainant’), father of the deceased, on 06.07.1997 before ASI Jagan Nath, Police Station City Jagadhri, are that he is a Band Master by profession, having 7 children (four daughters and three sons). In the month of August, 1996, he had married his eldest daughter Geeta Rani with Rakesh Kumar and sufficient dowry was given to the accused as per his capacity. However, after three months of the marriage, his daughter came to him and complained that her husband, his brother and his brother’s wife were pressurizing her to bring Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents for the purpose of purchasing the house and they were harassing and maltreating her for not bringing the said amount. He persuaded her regretting his inability to pay as he had not repaid the loan obtained for her (Geeta) marriage, however, he sent her back with the assurance that he would make arrangements if possible. On 11.05.1997, the deceased again came in disturbed condition and disclosed him and his wife that all the three accused were harassing her for not bringing dowry. She also disclosed her apprehension that if the arrangements are not made, they would kill her. She further disclosed that the accused had sold all her jewellery. Gurnam Singh took up the matter with the Panchayat including Pala Ram son of Bachna Balmiki and Gurdial Singh son of Gobind Singh Ramdasia Sikh. Thereafter, as decided, he again sent his daughter to her inlaws house after persuading that they would come to persuade the accused. She further disclosed that the accused had sold all her jewellery. Gurnam Singh took up the matter with the Panchayat including Pala Ram son of Bachna Balmiki and Gurdial Singh son of Gobind Singh Ramdasia Sikh. Thereafter, as decided, he again sent his daughter to her inlaws house after persuading that they would come to persuade the accused. On 30.06.1997, he alongwith his wife, Pala Ram and Gurdial Singh, Panches, went to Jagadhri and tried to persuade the accused not to cause harassment to Geeta Rani whereupon all the accused placed a condition for paying them at least Rs.50,000/- on account of dowry but again he regretted his inability to pay the same on the ground that he is still to discharge the loan and persuade them not to harass her, however, on repeated demands, he agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- at the time of ‘Dusshera’ festival and left Geeta Rani at their house. 4. On the intervening night of 5/6.07.1997 at about 2½/3.00 a.m., Amar Nath, husband of sister in law of the deceased, came and informed him that Geeta had suffered electric current and was lying admitted in the hospital. On receiving this information, he doubted the accused and went in the company of his wife, Pala Ram and Gurdial Singh, Panches, to Jagadhri. Though, they could not find her in any hospital but they found Geeta lying in dead condition in their house and the accused were found absent. On the aforesaid statement, made by the complainant, FIR No.287 was registered at Police Station City Jagadhri, on the same day i.e. on 06.07.1997. Law was set in motion. ASI Jagan Nath conducted the investigation, prepared the enquest report and sent the dead body for autopsy. The doctors opined that death was the result of throttling. 5. On completion of investigation, the challan was presented against the accused. They were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and in the alternative under Section 304-B IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. 6. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. 7. PW1 Dr.B.K.Rajaura, who had examined the uterus of Geeta Rani, opined vide report Ex.PA that there was no evidence of gestation. 6. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. 7. PW1 Dr.B.K.Rajaura, who had examined the uterus of Geeta Rani, opined vide report Ex.PA that there was no evidence of gestation. On 06.07.1997 at 5:30 P.M., Dr.V.K.Sharma, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Radaur, (PW2) conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Geeta and observed as under:- “Body was of young lady moderately built and moderately nourished, wearing brownish yellow printed shirt and salwar, white bra and white underwear, 12 glass bangles and one white metallic kara in right wrist, 11 glass bangles and one white metallic kara in left wrist, white metallic necklace, golden metallic nose-pin and white metallic chutkies in 2nd digit of each foot. Rigor mortis was absent in neck and upper limbs and was present in lower limbs. Left eye ball was protruding and upper and lower eye lids were cut in a circular fashion. Other eye was normal and closed. Mouth was semi-open, teeth were clenched, frothing from the mouth was present. Bleeding from both nostrils was present. On dissection around left eye, no haemotoma was seen in subcutaneous tissue. 1. There was a 4 x 3cms contusion below the chin on right of mid-line. On dissection, subcutaneous tissue contained blood. 2. There was an irregular contusion on front of the neck to the right of mid-line of size 4 x 2 cm. On dissection, soft tissues and muscles, contained blood. On further dissection tracheal cartilage was ruptured and the trachea was full of blood. Both the lungs were congested. On cut section, dark red blood oozed out. Skull, scalp vertebra were healthy. Ribs cartilages, pleurae were healthy. Pericardium was healthy. Heart left chamber was empty and right contained dark red blood. Abdominal wall, peritoneum, mouth, pharynx and Oesophagus and intestines, liver, spleen, kidneys were healthy. Bladder was empty. Internal organs – uterus removed and sent for histopathology.” 8. The doctors opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia caused by throttling which could cause death in the normal course of events. The injury to the neck was ante-mortem in nature whereas injury to left eye was post-mortem in nature. Dr.V.K.Sharma (PW2) proved the inquest report Ex.PD and opinion Ex.PE/1. The doctors opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia caused by throttling which could cause death in the normal course of events. The injury to the neck was ante-mortem in nature whereas injury to left eye was post-mortem in nature. Dr.V.K.Sharma (PW2) proved the inquest report Ex.PD and opinion Ex.PE/1. He further testified during cross-examination that normally rigor mortis remains upto 24 hours and thereafter it starts receding/disappearing and Geeta Rani must have died during the intervening night of 05/06.07.1997 i.e. between 24 to 36 hours as rigor mortis had started receding in this case. 9. PW3 Gurnam Singh, father of the deceased Geeta Rani had narrated all the events happening with Geeta from the date of her marriage till her death regarding the harassment and demand of dowry as also the convening of Panchayat. His testimony stands corroborated by Gurdial Singh (PW4), Panch, an independent witness. He unfolded the prosecution version stating that on 11.05.1997, Gurnam Singh, came and told him that her daughter Geeta was being harassed by the accused persons on account of the demand of dowry. They were compelling her to pay Rs.1,00,000/-. However, he after persuading Geeta, had sent her back to the matrimonial house. At this on or about 01.07.1997, he alongwith Gurnam Singh complainant and his wife Kamla Devi, had gone to the house of accused and persuaded them not to place the demands. On their insistence, complainant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the accused somewhere near Dusshera festival whereas the accused was insisting for paying Rs.50,000/-. He has further stated that after some days, brother- in-law of accused Rakesh came to their house and informed about the incident and then he alongwith Pala Ram and complainant Gurdial Singh went to the house of accused and found Geeta lying dead inside a room. She had an injury on her eye. He also stated that there were some scratches and bluish mark on her neck. None of the accused persons were found in the house. PW5 Constable Satish Kumar, PW6 Constable Mulakh Raj, PW7 Head Constable Sundar Ram and PW8 Constable Ram Mehar are formal witnesses. PW9 Sub Inspector Lahori Lal has proved the arrest of accused Rakesh Kumar and Naresh Kumar on 09.07.1997 and that of Pushpa Rani on 19.07.1997. 10. None of the accused persons were found in the house. PW5 Constable Satish Kumar, PW6 Constable Mulakh Raj, PW7 Head Constable Sundar Ram and PW8 Constable Ram Mehar are formal witnesses. PW9 Sub Inspector Lahori Lal has proved the arrest of accused Rakesh Kumar and Naresh Kumar on 09.07.1997 and that of Pushpa Rani on 19.07.1997. 10. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused Rakesh Kumar while admitting the marriage and his relationship with the coaccused, denied all the other allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. However, he explained that on 30.06.1997, he alongwith Geeta, his brother Naresh, his brother’s wife Pushpa and his brother-in-law Amar Nath had gone to Mata Vaishno Devi and returned on 03.07.1997. His brother Naresh Kumar alongwith his wife Pushpa Rani had gone to Yamuna Nagar to give Parsad to his sister Raj Rani. On 05.07.1997, at about 6:00 P.M., he had gone to the house of his sister at Yamuna Nagar to inform his brother Naresh Kumar that his wife was lying dead inside the house and the door of the room was bolted from inside. Identical pleas have been set up by other two accused. 11. In defence, the accused examined four witnesses. DW1 T.K.Rana, Asstt. Manager, Punjab National Bank, Saharanpur Road, Yamuna Nagar, testified that Naresh Kumar had sanctioned LTC w.e.f. 10.06.1997 to 05.07.1997. He proved the application Ex.DA, tickets Ex.DB to Ex.DF, notice Ex.DG. DW2 Banarsi Dass deposed that Rakesh Kumar and Pushpa Rani are employed as sweepers in the Municipality Committee, Jagadhri and they remained on leave from 01.07.1997 to 05.07.1997. DW3 Amar Nath deposed that all the accused with five children came to his house at Ambala Cantt. on 30.06.1997. Then on 01.07.1997, at about 07:00 a.m., they had boarded a train for Vaishno Devi. They returned on 03.07.1997. He further deposed that on 05.07.1997, he had gone to inform the parents of Geeta about her death. DW4 Balwinder deposed that all the accused are living in the same house and the complainant never convened the Panchayat on 30.06.1997 or prior to that. He further stated that on 05.07.1997 at about 5:00 p.m., he was playing cards with Rakesh and other persons then they received an information through a girl that Geeta Rani had confined herself in a room which was bolted from inside. When they went to the house of the accused. He further stated that on 05.07.1997 at about 5:00 p.m., he was playing cards with Rakesh and other persons then they received an information through a girl that Geeta Rani had confined herself in a room which was bolted from inside. When they went to the house of the accused. They peeped through the door and saw that Geeta Rani had been hanging. 12. After appreciation of evidence, the trial Court convicted all the accused and sentenced them accordingly. 13. Arguments heard. Record perused. Admitted facts, as culled from the case, are that Geeta Rani and Rakesh Kumar were bound in marital tie in the month of August, 1996 and she died on the intervening night of 05/06.07.1997 at the house of the accused other than in normal circumstances. Accused Pushpa Rani and Rakesh Kumar are working as sweepers in the Municipal Committee at Jagadhari. Naresh Kumar was working in a Bank. When complainant alongwith his wife and other members of the Panchayat, reached the house of the accused, they were not found present there. Now the question to be determined in the instant case remains only that “Whether Geeta Rani was treated with cruelty at the hands of the accused for demand of dowry?”. There is consistent evidence on the file, coming from the mouth of complainant and Gurdial Singh (PW4) that the accused had been harassing and demanding dowry from the deceased and her parents. Complainant had also taken up the matter with the Panchayat on 30.06.1997 i.e. five days prior to the death of Geeta Rani. However, Geeta Rani was sent back on the persuasions that they will settle the matter. They had also visited the house of the accused in order to persuade them. Complainant has categorically testified that marriage took place in the month of August, 1996 and the accused started placing the demands just after three months of the marriage and harassing her on that basis. They had sold the jewellary of the deceased and had placed a demand of cash amount for purchase of the house whereas the complainant had pleaded his poverty and regretted his inability saying that he had not so far discharged the debt as taken by him for her marriage. He further stated that Geeta Rani again came to his house on 11.05.1997 and unfolded her woeful story regarding harassment. He further stated that Geeta Rani again came to his house on 11.05.1997 and unfolded her woeful story regarding harassment. She also disclosed that the accused had sold all her jewellery. But still helpless, the complainant had no option but to send her daughter back to stay at her matrimonial house. He took the Panchayat on 30.06.1997 and returned after promising that he would pay Rs.10,000/- around Dusshera festival. The aforesaid factum with regard to harassment and to pay Rs.10,000/- stand corroborated by Gurdial Singh (PW4), who disclosed that he was also informed by the complainant about the strained relations, harassment and demand of Rs.1,00,000/- by the accused. 14. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants that the demand of Rs.1,00,000/- for purchase of the house is not covered by the term “dowry”, as such, it cannot be said to be a dowry death. The argument at the face of it appears to be impressive but when considered, it was found to be hollow from inside and could not convince the conscience of the Court. The accused Rakesh Kumar (husband) and accused Pushpa Rani (husband’s brother’s wife) are working at one place and their close nexus could not be ruled out. They admittedly are living in the same house. The marriage of Rakesh Kumar appears to have been organized much before Pushpa was married which is indicated from the fact that Pushpa Rani was having five children at the time of marriage of Rakesh Kumar accused. The accused Naresh Kumar husband of accused Pushpa Rani was working as a sweeper in a bank i.e. at a different place. Thus, it could well be understood that accused Pushpa Rani and Rakesh Kumar must be having close alliance and relations, therefore, the torture by Rakesh Kumar in connivance with Naresh Kumar and Pushpa Rani to extract money by exploiting the marriage between Rakesh Kumar and Geeta Rani could not be ruled out. No force could be found in the argument that demand of money for purchase of the house cannot be termed as “dowry”. But in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be said that the demand raised by the accused could not be termed as dowry. No force could be found in the argument that demand of money for purchase of the house cannot be termed as “dowry”. But in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be said that the demand raised by the accused could not be termed as dowry. It has come in evidence that the deceased was harassed, maltreated, tortured or otherwise met with cruelty at the hands of the husband and his relatives and the conditions were put to meet their demands for the well being of the deceased, such demands may be in cash or kind could be termed as “dowry”. Be that it may, any demand made out of compulsion for survival or livelihood due to extreme poverty may not fall within the definition of “dowry”. Yet the person having intention to get the undue advantage of his dominance over the weaker sex and to exploit her marriage and her well being places any demand for dowry may be in cash or kind, hence that too, such demand could be termed as “dowry” which may be subject to penalty under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 or the Indian Penal Code whatever the case may be. Such demands certainly could be said to have inextricable nexus with the marriage. If there is a demand after demand or any demand if made under compulsive circumstances from the person not in capacity to pay could also be termed as dowry. Had the complainant been in a position to pay money to the accused and the accused was not in a position to pull on with his life due to poverty, it was with the natural understanding of the two families i.e. accused wanted assistance at the time of dire need then certainly such demand could not be treated as demand of dowry. While examining the instant case, it may be observed that all the three accused were employed and having good salaries. They started placing the demands forthwith i.e. within three months from the date of marriage and the same continued persisting till she breathed her last. The complainant (father of the deceased), to the knowledge of the deceased, was not in a capacity to pay the amount, therefore, she certainly must have been depressed for the reasons that she, even after her marriage was the burden over the family of her parents. The complainant (father of the deceased), to the knowledge of the deceased, was not in a capacity to pay the amount, therefore, she certainly must have been depressed for the reasons that she, even after her marriage was the burden over the family of her parents. The helplessness of the father to satisfy the egoistic and rude attitude of the accused, fell heavily upon her and finding no other way to escape the greedy attitude of the accused, she might have ended her life. 15. The argument that no sufficient evidence has been led in order to establish that the demand could not be proved “soon before the death” in this regard, it may be observed that lot of evidence has been led by the accused that Panchayat was convened even five days prior to the commission of crime, therefore, it was certainly “soon before her death”. However, there is no straight jacket formula, which could be laid down by fixing any time limit for placing demand. It was observed in case Kans Raj versus State of Punjab and others 2000 (2) RCR(Criminal) 695 that demand “soon before her death” is a relative term which is required to be considered, under specific circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time limit. The expression “soon before the death” is not synonymous with the term immediately before and is opposite of expression “soon after” as the accused had understood in Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. 16. Thus, the trial Court was right in coming to the conclusion that Geeta Rani died otherwise than under the normal circumstances as she was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death. The defence plea of the accused also finds no merit. The accused persons have taken the plea that they had gone to Vaishno Devi on 30.06.1997 and came back on 03.07.1997, and Geeta Rani never complained about the maltreatment at the hands of the accused, therefore, question of demanding dowry does not arise. However, Geeta Rani having a doubt that accused Rakesh Kumar was entangled with a girl namely Bimla, she committed suicide. However, Geeta Rani having a doubt that accused Rakesh Kumar was entangled with a girl namely Bimla, she committed suicide. In this regard, it may be observed that evidence reveals that LTC obtained by accused Naresh Kumar was only for seven people i.e. Naresh Kumar, his wife Pushpa Rani and their five children, therefore, how could it be for Rakesh Kumar or Geeta. Even if the evidence of the accused about their LTC and going to Vaishno Devi is believed even then, it does not falsify the visit of complainant alongwith other persons of village to the house of the accused. Gurdial Singh (PW4) has stated that the accused had no enmity with him, therefore, there was no reason for him to depose false against the accused. Even after complainant Gurnam Singh and other Panchayat Members had visited the house of accused on 30.06.1997, even thereafter, the accused Rakesh Kumar, Naresh Kumar and Pushpa Rani could go to Vaishno Devi, as such, the plea of Rakesh Kumar and Pushpa Rani had gone to Vaishno Devi hardly affects the substratum of the case and do not in any way falsify the story of taking the Panchayat. It has also come in evidence that accused Naresh Kumar and Pushpa Rani had returned from Vaishno Devi on 03.07.1997 whereas the occurrence had taken place on the intervening night of 05.07.1997, as such, the defence version, as set up by the accused hardly falsifies the prosecution version. No other point has been raised. It is amply established on the record that all the three accused appear to be in connivance with each other have been torturing the deceased and demanding the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and thereafter when they felt that the complainant may not be able to pay the same, reduced it to Rs.50,000/-. However, finding that the complainant was not ready to meet with the said demand, did not stop their torture. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, while keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also enormity in such crimes in the present day, no leniency could be extended. However, in view of the minimum sentence, as provided for, the trial Court awarded the same to them. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, for compliance. --------------