JUDGMENT 1. - The accused appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 22.7.2004 passed by the leaned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Sikar, Camp Neem Ka Thana, Sessions Case No. 2/2004, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under: (1) Anand: Under Section 304-B I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further under go simple imprisonment for six months. Under Section 498-A I.P.C.: to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. (2) Smt. Savitri: Under Section 304-B I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to further under go simple imprisonment for six months. Under Section 498-A I.P.C.: to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that a written report came to be lodged by Lekhram (PW-2) which formed the of the First Information Report (Ex.P-4), at Police Station Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar on 27.7.2003 at about 2.30 am. The said report related to an incident which took place on 26.7.2003. As per the report, the informant is resident of village Najtehad, District Mahendragarh (Haryana). His daughter was married to appellant Anand on 10.5.2002. Further, It is stated in the report that he had given dowry at the time of marriage of his daughter, in accordance to his capacity. It is also stated that after some time, appellant Anand raised demand for motorcycle and a cash of Rs. 50,000/-. When the informant was unable to meet the said demand, it is alleged that Anand and his mother Smt. Savitri started beating his daughter Mukesh and continued to demand dowry.It has also been mentioned in the report that when the arm of Anand was fractured, it was the informant who got the medical treatment done. 50,000/-. When the informant was unable to meet the said demand, it is alleged that Anand and his mother Smt. Savitri started beating his daughter Mukesh and continued to demand dowry.It has also been mentioned in the report that when the arm of Anand was fractured, it was the informant who got the medical treatment done. At a later point of time, a Panchayat was called with regard to dispute between appellant and the deceased and when Anand tendered apology, the deceased Mukesh was sent with him in the evening of 26.7.2003, as stated in the report, a telephonic call was received by the informant that his daughter was ill and in case he wants to meet her then he should come immediately Thereafter, the complainant alongwith Shojaram, Phool Singh and Dayaram reached the house of the accused appellants and found that Mukesh had died. As per the case of the complainant; Gokul (Father-in-law), Anand (Husband), Smt. Savitri (Mother-in-law), Mamta (Sister-in-law) had murdered Mukesh. On the basis of the report, a case came to be registered for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304B I.P.C. 3. On registration of the report, the investigation commenced and after conclusion of the same, the police filed challan against the accused appellants Anand and Savitri for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. Thereafter, the case was committed and the trial commenced with framing of charges against the. accused appellants for the said offences. The accused appellants denied the charges and claimed, for trial. In support of its case, prosecution got 18 witnesses examined before the learned trial Court and produced the documents collected during investigation, which were duly exhibited. The statements of the accused appellants were then recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and 10 witnesses were examined in defence and some documents were also filed. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences aforementioned. Hence, the appeal before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the accused appellants has tried to assail the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court on various grounds. He has submitted that so far as the accused Smt. Savitri wife of Gokul is concerned, there is no iota of evidence against her so as to bring home the offence alleged by the prosecution. 4. The learned counsel for the accused appellants has tried to assail the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court on various grounds. He has submitted that so far as the accused Smt. Savitri wife of Gokul is concerned, there is no iota of evidence against her so as to bring home the offence alleged by the prosecution. He has also submitted that a bare perusal of the prosecution evidence on record would go to show that the allegations against the mother-in- law Savitri is general In nature and evidence on material facts is lacking. He has also submitted that if the prosecution evidence on record, is taken on its face value then the allegations against the father-in-law and sisters-in-law (Nanad), are of the same nature as that of the accused Smt. Savitri. But the said members of the family have not been made accused in this case.Learned counsel for the accused appellants has also submitted that the prosecution had initially come with a case of death of deceased Mukesh by poison. In support of the submissions, reference has been made to the statements of Rajkumar, brother of the deceased (PW-17) and bayaram (PW-4), uncle of the deceased. Similar averments have been made in the inquest report. But strangely the prosecution has ultimately proved a case of death of the deceased by asphyxia. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellants has also invited the attention of the Court to the testimony of Dr. S.C. Sharma (PW-1) and Dr. C.M. Agarwal (PW-6) and has tried to convince that even according to them, there was no injury on the neck and the cause of death by asphyxia was not found. Therefore, he has submitted that in the instant case, the cause of death is wholly uncertain. However, in regard to the accused appellant Anand, the learned counsel has submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of evidence on record, it is a fit case for reduction of sentence. In support of the submission, he has placed reliance on the case of Marimuthu & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2008-09 (Suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC) 687 . 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. In support of the submission, he has placed reliance on the case of Marimuthu & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2008-09 (Suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC) 687 . 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Further, he has submitted that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-13 I.P.C. have been proved by the prosecution. He has also submitted that apart from the fact that cogent: evidence has been brought on record, there is a legal presumption' because in the Instant case, the marriage had taken place on 10.5.2002 and the death of the wife Mukesh had occurred on 26.7.2003. It has also been submitted that undoubtedly the death of Mukesh was not a natural one. Therefore, he has submitted that taking Into consideration the relevant provisions of the Act as well as the settled principles of law, the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the offence of dowry death. Therefore, the appeal filed by the accused appellants deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have throughly considered the submissions made by the counsels for the respective parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record of the learned trial Court. It is an undisputed position that the marriage between the accused Anand and Mukesh had taken place on 10.5.2002 and the death of wife Mukesh had occurred on 26.7.2003. Mukesh did not die a natural death. Therefore, in the instant case, presumption under law is also attracted. 7. However, as regards the prosecution case against the accused Smt. Savitri, mother-in-law, a perusal of the evidence on record goes. to show that the allegations are general in nature. The allegation are that the accused had demanded a motorcycle and a cash of Rs. 50,000/- or consideration of the prosecution evidence on record, it is further revealed that the allegation against the other family members like father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law (Nanad), etc. are of similar nature. It is an admitted position that the prosecution Itself had not implicated any other family members as accused in this case, except the mother-in-law. The prosecution case against the mother-in-law is not established in respect of the demand of dowry at the time of marriage or thereafter or soon before death. are of similar nature. It is an admitted position that the prosecution Itself had not implicated any other family members as accused in this case, except the mother-in-law. The prosecution case against the mother-in-law is not established in respect of the demand of dowry at the time of marriage or thereafter or soon before death. No facts or any particulars have been brought on record to show as to when and what items did the mother-in-law demand from the deceased. In respect of harassment and beating, there is no specific allegation against the appellant Smt. Savitri. As mentioned above, the cause of death is. not certain and the same is not in any manner connected with the accused Smt. Savitri.Therefore, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that no case against the mother-in-law Savitri is proved beyond reasonable doubt so as to sustain the conviction and sentence awarded to her. 8. As far as the case against the husband Anand is concerned, it is also an undisputed fact that the death of the deceased Mukesh had taken place at his residence. Further, the death had occurred within a short span of 14 months of marriage. Even though, the cause of death had not been clearly proved on record, but certainly it was not a natural death.. There is evidence to show that demand for dowry vas made and harassment was caused to the deceased. Therefore, the case against the husband Anand from the material on record, is distinguishable from that of the accused Smt. Savitri, the mother-in-law. In my considered opinion, the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the husband Anand and there is sufficient evidence on record so as to hold that the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. is made out. The legal presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, In the facts and circumstances of the ease, is also to be drawn against the husband. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that so far as Smt. Savitri, mother-in-law, is concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the prosecution has proved its case against the accused appellant Anand. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that so far as Smt. Savitri, mother-in-law, is concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the prosecution has proved its case against the accused appellant Anand. Resultantly, the conviction and sentence awarded to Smt. Savitri is not sustainable in law, whereas the appeal filed by the husband Anand has no merit. However, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, a case of reduction of sentence is made out in favour of the appellant Anand. 10. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 22.7.2004 is quashed and set aside to the extent of awarding conviction and sentence to the accused Smt. Savitri. However, the conviction awarded to the accused Anand is maintained. But the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant Anand'by the learned trial Court, by his impugned judgment dated 22.7.2004, is modified and a sentence of seven years' R.I. would serve the ends of justice. 11. In the result, the accused Smt. Savitri is acquitted of all the charges levelled against her and her bail bonds stands discharged. The conviction against the accused Anand is maintained and he is sentenced for a period of seven years' R.I.Appeal partly allowed. *******