JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal, J.: - Assailed in this appeal is the judgment dated 9.9.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, convicting and sentencing the accused Bijender Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 304-B IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 498-A IPC. However, accused Budh Ram was acquitted of the charges framed against him. 2. In nutshell, the facts essential for disposal of the appeal are that Sis Ram complainant had married his daughter Shakuntla aged about 19 years with Bijender accused on 30.6.1999 as per Hindu rites. Sufficient dowry was given in the marriage as per his status and capacity. Immediately after the marriage, the accused started harassing and maltreating her on account of demand of dowry. They placed demand of scooter saying that she had not brought it in the marriage. They also threatened that she would not be rehabilitated unless the demand is met with. Devanand, nephew of the complainant had also gone to visit Shakuntla but the accused thrashed him saying that why she had not been given scooter in the marriage. Despite persuasions made by him, the accused did not agree. Shakuntla also told that the complainant was not in a position to provide them scooter. About twenty days prior to the occurrence, Bijender accused had taken Shakuntla to his house and then he as well as Budh Ram accused again scolded and condemned her for not meeting their demand by the complainant. On 18.9.1999, again Bijender along with Shakuntla came to his (complainant) house and stayed there for a night where he continued pressing Shakuntla to place the demand before the complainant. The complainant tried to prevail upon Bijender accused but he did not agree. On 19.9.1999, Bijender accused went back to village Karola along with Shakuntla. On 20.9.1999, he received the message that Shakuntla had expired. Thereupon, they went to village Karola and saw that dead body of Shakuntla lying in the house. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR Ex.PF was recorded. SI Ramesh Kumar conducted investigation, prepared the rough site plan Ex.PG, inquest report Ex.PC, got conducted autopsy on the dead body and ultimately on completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the court. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR Ex.PF was recorded. SI Ramesh Kumar conducted investigation, prepared the rough site plan Ex.PG, inquest report Ex.PC, got conducted autopsy on the dead body and ultimately on completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the court. 3. Both the accused were charged under Sections 302/34, 304- B/498-A IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges, examined Dr. S.K. Sharma (PW1), C. Sarwan Kumar (PW2), ASI Bhoop Singh (PW3), C. Joginder Singh (PW4), HC Om Parkash (PW5), Abhey Singh (PW6), SI Ramesh Kumar (PW7) and Sis Ram complainant (PW8). 5. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. They further stated that they never raised demand of scooter. They are poor persons. Shakuntla being short tempered committed suicide for no reason contributed by them. Accused Budh Ram further disclosed that he is living separately from Bijender. He being married to the sister’s daughter of Hari Singh, father of Shish Ram (PW8), was the mediator to this marriage. He has five daughters and no son. He has separate ration card, electricity bill, chulha tax etc. No such demand was made. 6. On trial, accused Budh Ram was acquitted, whereas, accused Bijender Singh was convicted and sentenced accordingly. 7. Arguments heard. Record perused. 8. There is no denying a fact that Shakuntla was married to accused Bijender on 30.6.1999. She was quite hale and hearty at the time of marriage and was not suffering from any disease. She died other than in a normal circumstances at the house of the accused on 21.9.1999 i.e. within three months of the marriage. Sufficient evidence has been led in order to prove that the accused Bijender was demanding scooter on the ground that the same was to be given to him at the time of marriage but was not given. Even as per Abhey Singh (PW6), Shakuntla, immediately after marriage, complained to her father that the accused was annoyed over not giving scooter at the time of marriage. It has also come in evidence that Devanand had gone to fetch Shakuntla after marriage, where also the accused remonstrated him for not giving scooter to him. Even as per Abhey Singh (PW6), Shakuntla, immediately after marriage, complained to her father that the accused was annoyed over not giving scooter at the time of marriage. It has also come in evidence that Devanand had gone to fetch Shakuntla after marriage, where also the accused remonstrated him for not giving scooter to him. The evidence further reveals that Shakuntla stayed in the house of her father for about 20 days. Bijender Singh had come there in order to fetch Shakuntla and Shakuntla then left in the company of her husband on the next day. As regards the maltreatment given to her soon before her death on account of demand of dowry it has come in evidence that on 18.9.1999, at about 4.00 p.m. Shakuntla along with her husband came to the house of the complainant’s brother where she had again complained that the accused was harassing and maltreating her on account of non giving of scooter to him. Thus, even despite persuasions, the accused did not agree and after they left the house on 19.9.1999 the accused informed about her death to the complainant on 20.9.1999. Sis Ram (PW8), father of the deceased, has also corroborated the prosecution version in all material aspects. As such, in the given circumstances of the case, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is attracted. The learned counsel for the appellant has also not seriously contested the conviction and has only thrown the accused at the mercy of the court pleading for extending some leniency to him on the quantum of sentence. 9. Keeping in view the nature of allegations, gravity of offence and other attending circumstances of the case, much leniency cannot be extended to him. 10. However, in the peculiar circumstances, the appeal is dismissed with the modification in the the sentence which is reduced to eight years under Section 304-B IPC without any alteration in the sentence for the other offences. 11. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, for compliance. —————————