Judgment KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. Raminder Singh, aged 30 years was named as accused in case FIR No.34 dated 26.06.1993 registered at Police Station Govt. Railway Police, Patiala under Sec.304-B IPC. 2. On 4th October, 1990, appellant was married with Tejinder Kaur at zira. On 30th May, 1993 at 1720 hours, the dead body of Tejinder Kaur was found on the railway line between Railway Station Daun Kalan and Patiala. The deceased was run-over by the train. According to the prosecution, she committed suicide due to harassment caused by her husband on account of demand of dowry, whereas, the defence has projected that it was case of an accident. Railway guard had reported that on 30th May, 1993, a lady was run-over and killed by the train. Since, no identification of the dead body was carried, post mortem of the dead body was got carried and the dead body was cremated. However, before the cremation, for purposes of identification, photographs of the dead body were taken. On 4th June, 1993, relations of the deceased from the photographs, identified the dead body to be of Tejinder Kaur and on 6th June, 1993, statement of Maan Singh PW-7 was recorded, on the basis of which above said FIR was registered. 3. Maan Singh appeared in the Police Station and his statement was recorded on 6th June, 1993 at about 3.15 p. m. Maan Singh stated that he was resident of Zira, District Ferozepur. He had got two sons and two daughters. The eldest daughter Tejinder Kaur was employed as a Teacher in Govt. High school, Bhago Ke, Zira and was married with Raminder Singh on 4th October, 1990. Raminder Singh had not demanded dowry before marriage and at the time of marriage, dowry was given by the complainant according to his capacity. On the very first visit, along with the daughter of the complainant, when the accused visited house of the complainant, he raised a demand for Scooter. The complainant, in consultation with his relations, i. e. Harinder Singh maternal uncle and cousin of the deceased, to save the marriage, agreed to arrange the money for purchase of Scooter. The daughter was sent with the accused on 7th october, 1990. The complainant, in consultation with his relations, i. e. Harinder Singh maternal uncle and cousin of the deceased, to save the marriage, agreed to arrange the money for purchase of Scooter. The daughter was sent with the accused on 7th october, 1990. Thereafter, arrangement of funds was made and a draft amounting to Rs.15,000/- was got issued from Union Bank of India, Faridkot on 9th october, 1990 and the same was remitted to Raminder Singh at Chandigarh for purchase of Scooter. At that time, Raminder Singh was working at diesel component workshop, Patiala. He was staying at Patiala in a Govt. quarter. Whereas, the daughter of the complainant, deceased Tejinder Kaur was serving at zira in a School. During vacations and holidays, Tejinder Kaur used to visit her husband at Patiala or her in-laws place at Chandigarh. On every trip, when she returned, she looked worried and calm. However, she had reposed confidence in her friend Salwinder Kaur and told that her husband is raising demand of dowry and on refusal she was given beating by the appellant. Later Tejinder Kaur had given birth to a son at chandigarh. When she visited her parents at Zira along with her son, a demand was raised by Raminder Singh that the deceased should bring Television on her return, otherwise she should not come. To satisfy this demand, the complainant had given Rs.8000/- and one gold Kara. It was further stated that greed of the appellant was not satisfied and on the occasion of Diwali, he demanded rs.50,000/- for purchase of plot. The complainant was not in a position to fulfill this demand of Rs.50,000/-. The various attempts made by the complainant to pacify Raminder Singh did not bore fruit and demand of rs.50,000/- persisted. The deceased had come to the house of her parents and for 15-20 days Raminder Singh did not come to take her back. Consequently, the complainant had sent his daughter to Patiala and she returned after staying there for 2-3 days. On 16th December, 1992, a death occurred in their relations at Zira and Raminder Singh along with his family came there. The relations were gathered and father of Raminder Singh was requested that better sense should prevail and Raminder Singh should not demand Rs.50,000/- and torture his wife. Meanwhile, Tejinder Kaur was transferred to Govt. On 16th December, 1992, a death occurred in their relations at Zira and Raminder Singh along with his family came there. The relations were gathered and father of Raminder Singh was requested that better sense should prevail and Raminder Singh should not demand Rs.50,000/- and torture his wife. Meanwhile, Tejinder Kaur was transferred to Govt. High School, Mandour and she started residing with her husband in DCW Colony, Patiala. The younger son of the complainant Baljinder Singh was also studying in Patiala in M. A. first year. Whenever he used to meet his sister, he was informed that Raminder Singh was demanding Rs.50,000/- and used to beat her. This was narrated by Baljinder singh son of the complainant to him on his various visits to Zira. On 28th May, 1993, Baljinder Singh witnessed accused beating his sister. However, the accused seeing him, turned him out of his house by giving pushes and hurling abuses. On 31st May, 1993, the accused visited Baljinder Singh in the hostel and asked whether his wife had come to meet him or not and disclosed that tejinder Kaur was not at home. On 4th June, 1993, the complainant along with his relations reached Patiala to ask about the whereabouts of his daughter. However, his son Baljinder Singh had no information. The attempts made by them to locate Raminder Singh also failed to fructify. In the evening on 4th June, 1993, they were informed by the police post of DCW Patiala that one girl had committed suicide by lying herself under the train. From the cloths and photographs, complainant and his relations identified the woman, who committed suicide, to be Tejinder Kaur. It was stated that Tejinder Kaur alias Pinki had committed suicide due to demand of dowry raised by appellant Raminder Singh. 4. The above said FIR was investigated and report under Sec.173 cr. P. C. was submitted. The appellant was charged by the Court of Additional sessions Judge, Patiala on 24th February, 1994 for offence under Sec.304-B ipc on the ground that on 30th May, 1993, Tejinder Kaur died unnatural death and was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused her husband, in connection with the demand of dowry. Thus, he committed offence under Section 304-B IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. On 31st May, 1993, at 1.30 p. m. Dr. Thus, he committed offence under Section 304-B IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. On 31st May, 1993, at 1.30 p. m. Dr. Deepak Walia conducted autopsy on the dead body of un-known female and found following injuries: 1. Left arm was amputated at shoulder level.2. Left fore-arm was amputated at elbow level.3. A lacerated wound 6 cm x 3 cm on right side of fore-head underlying frontal bone was fractured.4. A lacerated wound 7 cm x 3 cm on left side of fore-head underlying frontal and left praitel bone was fractured. Membranes were ruptured and brain tissue was coming out of the skull.5. A lacerated wound 4 cm x 3 cm on left side of face left side of body of mandible was fractured and teeth were also broken.6. A lacerated wound 12 cm x 10 cm on left brest.7. A lacerated wound 1 cm x 4 cm upper one third of left leg. Both bones tibia and fibula were found fractured.8. An abrasion 8 cm x 3 cm back of left scapular region.9. An abrasion 7 cm x 4 cm on right scapular region.10. A contusion 4 cm x 3 cm on right hip joint.11. Fracture of right clavicle present.12. Multiple small abrasions all over the body. The Doctor opined that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the cause of death opined was due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further opined that injuries could be due to railway accident. 6. Pw-2 Narinder Partap Sohal, Accountant, Union Bank of India, chandigarh proved encashment of draft dated 9th October, 1990 drawn for rs.15,000/- in favour of the accused. PW-3 Ashok Seth, Assistant Works Manager, power Pack Shop, DCW Patiala stated that the appellant remained present at his place of posting in the month of May 1993. However, he was absent from duty in the month of June 1993 from 1st June, 1993 to 11th June, 1993. Munshi Ram sharma PW-4 stated that he was Vide President of Municipal Committee, Zira. He was neighbour of Maan Singh. He stated that on Diwali day of 1992, he along with his neighbour Salwinder Singh had witnessed an altercation between the complainant Maan Singh and his son-in-law Raminder Singh, present accused. The altercation had resulted because the accused was demanding Rs.50,000/-. He was neighbour of Maan Singh. He stated that on Diwali day of 1992, he along with his neighbour Salwinder Singh had witnessed an altercation between the complainant Maan Singh and his son-in-law Raminder Singh, present accused. The altercation had resulted because the accused was demanding Rs.50,000/-. Raminder Singh had left the threat that he will not take his wife along with him. PW-5 Sarvinder Kaur was a Govt. Teacher and a co-employee of Tejinder Kaur. She stated that the deceased was her close friend and she treated her as her sister and deceased had disclosed to her that the accused used to give beatings to her and maltreat her. She further shared the grievance that on her each visit to Patiala, a fresh demand is raised by the accused Raminder Singh. PW-6 Mahesh Kumar Sharma was a driver of the diesel train. He stated that on 30th May, 1993 at 4.42 p. m. , he could not save a lady, who died under the train. In reply to the cross examination, he stated that he had not seen whether the woman had jumped or had come under the train. PW-7 maan Singh reiterated what was stated in the FIR. He was subjected to very searching cross examination. He stated that his daughter Tejinder Kaur was b. A. /b. Ed. and after her marriage, she passed the examination of M. A. His son baljinder Singh was called Lovely. Another son Devinder Singh was called Rinto and younger daughter Rupinder Kaur was known as Rimpi. He proved Ex. DA as document signed by his daughter Tejinder Kaur. A perusal of the same reveals that this letter was addressed by Tejinder Kaur to Head Mistress, Govt. High school, Manour submitting her joining report on 17th February, 1993. It was stated that at the time of marriage, Raminder Singh was drawing Rs.4000/- and about 45/50 persons attended the marriage party. He had given dowry according to his means. He along with his family members has attended the reception hosted by the family of the accused on 7th October, 1990. He admitted the letter Ex. DB, which was authored partly by his daughter Rimpi and partly by his wife. This letter was written on 15th January, 1992. Letter Ex. DC was written by his son Baljinder Singh. He along with his family members has attended the reception hosted by the family of the accused on 7th October, 1990. He admitted the letter Ex. DB, which was authored partly by his daughter Rimpi and partly by his wife. This letter was written on 15th January, 1992. Letter Ex. DC was written by his son Baljinder Singh. These letters have been relied by the defence to show that the relations were cordial between the family of the deceased and the accused husband. Various other letters were produced. Signatures thereupon were not admitted by the witness, therefore, they were marked as Mark 1 to 10. He admitted that the application for transfer of the deceased was filed by the accused and her parents. But he explained that this was done as the official had suggested that the application should be filed by the in-laws. 7. To corroborate the testimony of PW-7 Maan Singh, the prosecution examined Ramesh Kumar Grover PW-8, who stated that Tejinder Kaur deceased was the daughter of his mothers sister. She was posted as Math Teacher at Bhago Ke in Zira Tehsil. On all material aspects, he reiterated the version given by maan Singh in the Court. He also identified the photographs of the deceased ex. P1 and her cloths, i. e. underwear Ex. P2, Salwar Ex. P3, Kameej Ex. P4, Chunni ex. P5 and pair of shoes Ex. P6/1-2. He stated in the cross examination that he had contributed Rs.5/7000/- for getting the draft (of Rs.15,000/-) prepared. He stated that he learnt on 1st June, 1993 that Tejinder Kaur was missing. He had not come to Patiala on 2nd and 3rd June, 1993, but he along with Maan Singh came to Patiala on 4th June, 1993. They had gone to lodge the report at DCW police Post, Patiala but they were informed that they should go to Govt. Railway Police, Patiala, as the dead body was recovered by them. The photograph ex. DD, in which the newly born son of the deceased was in the lap of her sister rimpi, was also put to the witness, along with the photograph Ex. DE and DF to show that deceased and accused were living happily. The prosecution gave up harinder Singh and Devinder Singh witnesses being unnecessary. ASI Bachan Singh appeared as PW-9. DD, in which the newly born son of the deceased was in the lap of her sister rimpi, was also put to the witness, along with the photograph Ex. DE and DF to show that deceased and accused were living happily. The prosecution gave up harinder Singh and Devinder Singh witnesses being unnecessary. ASI Bachan Singh appeared as PW-9. He stated that since 6th March, 1993 he was posted as moharrar Head Constable at police post DCW Patiala. On 3rd June, 1993, Raminder singh appellant along with one person came in the police post at 8.00 p. m. He wanted to lodge a report to the effect that his wife was missing since 30th May, 1993. This witness informed the appellant that a woman had committed suicide by throwing herself on the railway track on 30th May, 1993. He enquired from the accused regarding the description and features of his wife. This witness further informed Raminder Singh that govt. Railway Police had conducted the inquest proceedings regarding the dead body and the appellant husband should go to Govt. Railway Police, Patiala. SI som Dutt appeared as PW-10. He stated that on 4th June, 1993, Maan Singh had identified the dead body from the photographs and cloths of his daughter named tejinder Kaur. They told the SI that death of their daughter was result of unnatural circumstances and they will contact the husband of their daughter and thereafter, will make a statement to the police. He further stated that on 6th june, 1993 Maan Singh made statement Ex. PF, on the basis of which FIR Ex. PF/1 was registered. This witness further stated that the appellant was arrested on 20th June, 1993. He denied the suggestion that the death of Tejinder Kaur was a result of train accident. Kuldip Singh Inspector of Works, Railway Department, patiala appeared as PW-11. He prepared and proved the scaled site plan Ex. PH. Prosecution closed the evidence and thereafter, all incriminating evidence was put to the accused and his statement under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. was recorded. The accused in his statement recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. , gave the following version: "i am innocent. I had very cordial relations with my wife and we were living happily. My wife and her other parental family members used to write me letters depicting affectionate and cordial relations. I also got herself transferred from Govt. The accused in his statement recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. , gave the following version: "i am innocent. I had very cordial relations with my wife and we were living happily. My wife and her other parental family members used to write me letters depicting affectionate and cordial relations. I also got herself transferred from Govt. High School, Bhago Ke Distt. Ferozepur to Govt. High school Mandaur, District Patiala. I was serving in Diesel Component Works, patiala. I never demanded any dowry nor ever maltreated or harassed my wife. She had died in an accident and was run over under the train. This false case has been got registered by my in laws after the death of my wife due to extraneous reasons. " In defence, Kamaljit Kaur was examined as DW-1. She stated that her husband and Raminder Singh were working in DCW Patiala. Both were friends and colleagues. Tejinder Kaur was her friend, as they were neighbors and the deceased had never complained to her regarding the conduct of her husband or to the fact that she was maltreated or any demand of dowry was made. However, she stated that during the days of death of tejinder Kaur, she along with her family had gone to a religious tour. She admitted that she had not given any statement to the police at any time. The mother of the accused appellant Iqbal Kaur appeared as DW-2. She stated that relations of the appellant were very cordial with his wife. Both were earning and Tejinder Kaur had given birth to a son at Chandigarh in General Hospital. She proved letter Ex. DJ written by her. However, she stated that she came to know that after the death of Tejinder Kaur, case was being registered against her son but she had not made any attempt to give her version to the police. DW-3 Gopal Krishan Sharma, document expert was examined to prove the letters, which were marked. 8. The trial Court relied upon statement of PW-7 Maan Singh, PW-5 sarvinder Kaur and PW-8 Ramesh Kumar Grover, and held that their testimony aspire confidence and the deceased was maltreated by the accused. DW-3 Gopal Krishan Sharma, document expert was examined to prove the letters, which were marked. 8. The trial Court relied upon statement of PW-7 Maan Singh, PW-5 sarvinder Kaur and PW-8 Ramesh Kumar Grover, and held that their testimony aspire confidence and the deceased was maltreated by the accused. The trial court held as under: " the prosecution has established on the record of the case, by trustworthy and convincing evidence that there were continuing and repeated dowry demands by the accused from the very beginning till the death of Tejinder kaur and further that the accused had been harassing, maltreating and giving beatings to the deceased repeatedly when these dowry demands were not fulfilled. " 9. The trial Court held that delay in lodging the FIR has been explained as it was necessary for Maan Singh to hear the version of present appellant, his son-in-law also before lodging the report to the police. The Court further came to the conclusion that the accused was not available. The Court further held that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage and the death of deceased was not accidental but she had committed suicide. 10. I have heard counsel for the parties. Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior advocate assisted by Mr. Sandeep Gehlawat, appearing for the accused, has emphasized that in the present case, occurrence had taken place on 30th May, 1993. Complainant party had learnt regarding the death of deceased on 4th June, 1993 and they had come forward to lodge the report to the police but told the sho that they will revert back after meeting their son-in-law. Counsel has submitted that the period of two days was used for consultations and deliberations to concoct the story of demand of dowry. It was further submitted that there was no reason for Tejinder Kaur to commit suicide as she was living happily and this fact is evident from the letters produced, exhibited and marked as Mark 1 to 10. It is further submitted that defence had examined the handwriting expert to say that these letters were written by relations of the deceased. Reference has also been made to photographs to say that there was cordial relations between the husband and wife and the demand of dowry was later coined. 11. Mr. It is further submitted that defence had examined the handwriting expert to say that these letters were written by relations of the deceased. Reference has also been made to photographs to say that there was cordial relations between the husband and wife and the demand of dowry was later coined. 11. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, appearing for the State, has submitted that the prosecution had not involved any other member of the family. They have only named the present appellant, therefore, it shows truthfulness of the prosecution version. 12. This Court, after noticing the facts and the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties, is of the view that there is no doubt that in the present case, death had taken place within seven years of marriage. There was no reason for the deceased to go to the Railway line, therefore, the attempt by the defence to say that the deceased died of accidental death is difficult to swallow. Regarding the demand of dowry, harassment and maltreatment, not only father PW-7 Maan Singh and PW-8 Ramesh kumar Grover have deposed, but they have been further supported by PW-5 sarvinder Kaur, who was a friend and co- employee of the deceased. This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that once demand of dowry stated by the witnesses is held to be probable, the presumption under Sec.113-B of Indian evidence Act operates against the appellant. I am not impressed by the argument that simply because FIR was not lodged on 4th June, 1993 when the complainant party had identified the dead body, therefore, their version given on 6th June, 1993 should be out rightly discarded. It is an admitted fact that after the marriage, accused had received Rs.15,000/- by way of Demand Draft from the father of the deceased, PW-7 Maan Singh. As per the prosecution, he was consistently demanding one article or another and was pressing family of the deceased to pay Rs.50,000/- for purchase of Plot. 13. In these circumstances, all ingredients of offence under Section 304-B IPC are not only satisfied but the prosecution version narrated by the witnesses is trustworthy and reliable. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.