Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 330 (PNJ)

Maya Devi v. State Of Haryana

2010-01-14

HEMANT GUPTA, JASWANT SINGH

body2010
Judgment HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. This order shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.488-DB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.208 of 2000. 2. Challenge in the appeal is to the judgment and order dated 22/27.9.1999, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted under Sec.304-B and 498-A ipc and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sec.304-B ipc and also to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Sec.498-A IPC and in default of payment of fine, both the accused were further ordered to undergo RI for three months each. Both the accused have been furthered ordered to pay compensation of rs.5000/- each to the parents of Kavita deceased. Criminal Revision has been filed by the complainant with a prayer for setting aside the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, to the extent of acquittal of the respondents- Dharamvir and Paramvir. 3. The marriage of Kavita alias Kusum, deceased was solemnised with Karamvir-appellant No.2 on 17.7.1994. It was on 26.9.1996, Kavita died after consuming celphos (aluminium phosphide) at about 11 p. m. while staying in the staff quarters at Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. The fir (Exhibit PG/2) was lodged on 27.9.1996 on the basis of complaint of the father of the deceased- Kanwar Singh at about 3.30 a. m. . The special report to the Magistrate was sent at 8.00 a. m. on the same day. 4. The allegations in the complaint Exhibit PG, the basis of FIR, inter-alia, are that the son-in-law of the complainant is working as a clerk at Maharishi Dayanand University (MDU) and he has given dowry on the eve of marriage beyond his means. After 20-25 days of marriage, Karamvir, husband of the deceased, mother-in-law-Maya Devi (appellant No.1), brothers- Paramvir and Dharamvir and sister Sonika, started harassing his daughter and demanded dowry. On the visit of Kavita to her parental home, she narrated the entire tale of woes to her parents and brothers. The mother-in-law and the husband were said to be confronted by the complainant. The mother-in-law has said that her son is in need of money as he is new in service and that they have to perform the marriage of their daughter. A sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid to Karamvir i. e. husband and mother-in-law so that the daughter of the complainant is not harassed. The mother-in-law has said that her son is in need of money as he is new in service and that they have to perform the marriage of their daughter. A sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid to Karamvir i. e. husband and mother-in-law so that the daughter of the complainant is not harassed. He further stated that a letter was received from his daughter regarding demand of dowry and of beatings. Another sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid for the purchase of refrigerator and gold chain to Karamvir. Kavita was sent with her husband on his assurance that his family would not harass her. In the year 1995, on the occasion of Sakranti, when the brother of deceased visited his sister, karamvir and his family members gave threat that household articles of kavita shall be thrown out. The entire incident was narrated to the complainant at Delhi. A demand was raised that he should meet the kitchen expenses or pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as lump sum. Since the said demand was not met, the daughter was left with the father at Delhi in the month of april. Subsequently, the complainant requested to compromise the matter, but he was told to feel sorry. He tendered his apology in writing. Thereafter, it was in June, 1996, Kavita was brought to Rohtak by Karamvir and his mother. After some days, when the complainant visited his daughter at rohtak, he was informed that situation has not changed and whenever she brings money, the peace returns for 10-20 days, otherwise, she is beaten and sent outside at night. He returned back after counseling Karamvir and his mother. It was on 26.19.1996 at 11 p. m. , he received information about the death of his daughter. 5. Section 304-B in the Indian Penal Code and Sec.113-B in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , were inserted by the Criminal Law (Second amendment) Act, 1986 (Act No.43 of 1986 ). He returned back after counseling Karamvir and his mother. It was on 26.19.1996 at 11 p. m. , he received information about the death of his daughter. 5. Section 304-B in the Indian Penal Code and Sec.113-B in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , were inserted by the Criminal Law (Second amendment) Act, 1986 (Act No.43 of 1986 ). While interpreting the scope of the aforesaid provisions, the Honble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar V/s. State of Haryana, AIR 1998 SC 958 delineated necessary ingredients for the application of Sec.304-B i. e. (a) when the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury, or (b) occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances; (c) and the aforesaid two facts spring within 7 years of girls marriage; (d) and soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative and (e) this is in connection with the demand of dowry. 6. It was held that if the aforesaid conditions exist, it would constitute a dowry death and the husband and/or his relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death. It was also held that in case of dowry death, the evidence is mostly confined within four walls of a house where all likely accused reside. The deeming clause inserted vide Act No.43 of 1986, has a role to play and cannot be taken lightly and ignored to shield the accused, otherwise the very purpose of the amendment will be lost. It was held that of course, the prosecution has to prove the ultimate essential ingredients beyond all reasonable doubt after raising the initial presumption of deemed dowry death. In cases of dowry death and suicides, circumstantial evidence plays an important role and an inference can be drawn on the basis of such evidence, which can be direct or indirect. The word agreement referred to in Sec.2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ( for short 1961 Act) has to be inferred on the facts and circumstances of each case and that even demand of dowry on other ingredients being satisfied is punishable. It was held that the demands of television and scooter made from the bride after the marriage or from her parents, would be constituted to be in connection with the marriage and it would be a case of demand of dowry within the meaning of Sec.304-B IPC. It was held that the demands of television and scooter made from the bride after the marriage or from her parents, would be constituted to be in connection with the marriage and it would be a case of demand of dowry within the meaning of Sec.304-B IPC. It was held that the cruelty or harassment need not be physical. Even a mental case of torture would be a case of cruelty or harassment. It was held to the following effect:- "15. Applying this principle, it is clear that the earlier law was not sufficient to check dowry deaths hence aforesaid stringent provisions were brought in, so that persons committing such inhuman crimes on married women should not escape, as evidence of a direct nature is not readily available except of the circumstantial kind. Hence it is that interpretation which suppresses the mischief, subserves the objective and advances the remedy, which would be acceptable. The objective is that men committing such crimes should not escape punishment. Hence stringent provisions were brought in by shifting the burden onto the accused by bringing in the deemed clause. As aforesaid, the definition of "dowry" was amended with effect from 19.11.1986, to include the period even after the marriage. xx xx xx 7 In cases of dowry deaths and suicides, circumstantial evidence plays an important role and inferences can be drawn on the basis of such evidence. That could be either direct or indirect. It is significant that section 4 of the 1961 Act, was also amended by means of Act 63 of 1984, under which it is an offence to demand dowry directly or indirectly from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride. The word "agreement" referred to in section 2 has to be inferred on the facts and circumstances of each case. The interpretation that the appellant seeks, that conviction can only be if there is agreement for dowry, is misconceived. This would be contrary to the mandate and object of the Act. "dowry" definition is to be interpreted with the other provisions of the Act including Sec.3, which refers to giving or taking dowry and Sec.4 which deals with penalty for demanding dowry, under the 1961 act and the Indian Penal Code. This makes it clear that even demand of dowry on other ingredients being satisfied is punishable. "dowry" definition is to be interpreted with the other provisions of the Act including Sec.3, which refers to giving or taking dowry and Sec.4 which deals with penalty for demanding dowry, under the 1961 act and the Indian Penal Code. This makes it clear that even demand of dowry on other ingredients being satisfied is punishable. This leads to the inference, when persistent demands for TV and scooter are made from the bride after marriage or from her parents, it would constitute to be in connection with the marriage and it would be a case of demand of dowry within the meaning of Section 304-B IPC. It is not always necessary that there be any agreement for dowry. xx xx xx we find that according to Sec.8-A of the 1961 Act which came into force w. e. f.2.10.1985 for taking or abetting any dowry, the burden to explain is placed on such person against whom the allegation of committing an offence is made. Similarly, under Explanation to Sec.113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, which was also brought in by the aforesaid Act 43 of 1986, there is presumption that such death is on account of dowry death. Thus, the burden, if at all, was on the accused to prove otherwise. 8. In Kans Raj V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324, the phrase "soon before her death" appearing in Sec.304-B IPC came up for interpretation. It was held to the following effect:- "14. . . . . . . . . . "soon before" is a relative terms 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. This expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. The term "soon before" is not synonymous with the term "immediately before" and is opposite of the expression "soon after" as used and understood in Sec.114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. These words would imply that the interval should not be too long between the time of making the statement and the death. It contemplates the reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case. These words would imply that the interval should not be too long between the time of making the statement and the death. It contemplates the reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be soon before death if any other intervening circumstance showing the non- existence of such treatment is not brought on record, before the alleged such treatment and the date of death. It does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period. Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough. " 9. In Anand Kumar V/s. State of M. P. , (2009) 3 SCC 799, Honble supreme Court, while considering Sec.113-B of Evidence Act, 1872 held that it places much higher onus on accused to rebut the presumption as against the onus to rebut the presumption under Sec.113-A of the Evi-dence Act. The relevant extract is:- "12. Ms Makhija has then placed reliance on the pre- sumption raised in a case of abetment of suicide by a married woman, as envisaged under Sec.113-A of the Evidence act to contend that the onus lay on the accused to prove his innocence. She has in this connection re- ferred us to Iqbal Singh case to emphasise that the legis- lative intent in the introduction of Sections 113-A and 113-B of the evidence Act was to strengthen "the prosecution hands by permitting a presumption to be raised if certain foundational facts are estab- lished and the unfortunate event has taken place within seven years of marriage". (Iqbal Singh case, (1991) 1 SCC 1) 10. (Iqbal Singh case, (1991) 1 SCC 1) 10. She has accordingly submitted that in the light of this presumption it was for the accused to prove that nothing amiss had happened at their instance. 13. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid provisions do raise a pre-sumption but the facts of the case cannot be ignored. The different terminology of Sections 113-A and 113-B itself brings out the real purpose behind the two provisions and whereas Sec.113-B places a heavier onus on an ac- cused, the onus placed under Sec.113-A is far lighter. We reproduce the two sections hereunder to focus on this distinction: "113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her hus- band and it is shown that she had committed sui- cide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.113-B. Presumption as to dowry death. When the question is 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 by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. " (emphasis supplied) 11 A comparative reading of the two provisions (particu-larly the underlined* portions) would highlight that un- der section 113-A the court "may presume", having re- gard to all the other circumstances of the case, an abet- ment of suicide as visualised by Sec.306 ipc but in Sec.113-B which is relatable to Sec.304-B the word "may" has been substituted by "shall" and there is no reference to the circumstances of the case. " 12. Now the facts of the present case are required to be examined in the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments. 13. " 12. Now the facts of the present case are required to be examined in the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments. 13. The statement of PW3- Kanwar Singh, father of the deceased is to the effect that the deceased came to his house after 1-1/2 months of the marriage and has disclosed that the present appellants are harassing her on account of demand of dowry and that the articles of dowry entrusted at the time of marriage such as scooter and T. V. are not of the required standard. After few days, Paramvir Singh- brother of Husband and his mother have visited the witness at Delhi, where a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid. The witness has stated to the following effect, when translated in English:- ". . . . After few days accused Karamvir and his mother came to my house to take my daughter. The accused admitted the demands as told to my daughter by them. They further made out that they require money for the marriage of their daughter and Karamvir was employed in the recent past, at which I gave rs.20,000/- to Paramvir and his mother. I further told them to keep my daughter happy as money was no consideration. The accused Karamvir and his mother took away Kavita with them. This entire talk took place with me at Delhi. After few days I received a letter from my daughter, letter is Ex. PF (photo copy of letter was on the file, original produced by the witness to identify the writing of his daughter. Objected to by the defence on the ground that it has seen the light of this court for the first time ). In the meantime my daughter came to Delhi and after few days accused Karamvir came to take my daughter back. On my asking as to why my daughter has been harassed by the accused. " 14. In the cross-examination, the question put to the witness is that he has not stated before the police that daughter had come to the house after 1-1/2 months of the marriage and thus, he has not been told that the scooter and refrigerator are not of standard. The said part is inconsequential as in the complaint, it is mentioned that she narrated the entire tale of woes when she came to the house of the complainant after marriage. 15. The said part is inconsequential as in the complaint, it is mentioned that she narrated the entire tale of woes when she came to the house of the complainant after marriage. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the statement of the witness is that money was demanded for the marriage of the daughter i. e. sister of the husband. Therefore, the said demand cannot be treated as the demand of dowry within the meaning of Sec.2 of 1961 act. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon Virender Singh V/s. State of Haryana, 2004 (1) RCR (Criminal)625; State of Punjab V/s. Daljit Singh, 1999 (2) RCR (Criminal) 690 and appasaheb and another V/s. State of Maharashtra, (2007)9 SCC 721. 16. In Virender Singhs case (supra), it was found that demand of rs.20,000/- for financing a film cannot be said to be a demand of dowry. By virtue of explanation to Sec.304-B IPC, the dowry in sub-section (1) of the Act, has the same meaning as given in Sec.2 of the 1961 Act. The dowry in Sec.2 of the 1961 Act, means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or by parents of either party to marriage to or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person. A perusal of the said definition would show that any property which is given or agreed to be given even indirectly in connection with the marriage would be a dowry. A demand raised from wife or her parents arises only in connection with the marriage. Had the parties not married, the question of payment for the performance of the marriage of the sister-in-law of the deceased would not have arisen. It is not a demand raised by the husband or his family members from a stranger, but from a wife or her family members. Therefore, though demand raised in Virender Singhs case (supra), was for financing a film, which would be of different nature, but even if it is considered to be proximate with the issue raised in the present case, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Single judge. 17. Therefore, though demand raised in Virender Singhs case (supra), was for financing a film, which would be of different nature, but even if it is considered to be proximate with the issue raised in the present case, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Single judge. 17. In Daljit Singhs case (supra), it was found that the allegations of demand of dowry were brought at the time of trial and are an afterthought. It was found that no such allegations were made while lodging the FIR. Therefore, it was held that the offence under Sec.304-B ipc is not made out, but the offence under Sec.498-A IPC is clearly made out. In Appasahebs case (supra), it was found that the demand for money on account of financial stringency or to meet some urgent domestic expenses or purchase of the car cannot be termed as demand of dowry. 18. It is question of fact in each case, whether the particular demand is in connection with marriage and is dowry. There cannot be any strait jacket formula to determine nature of demand and that such demand alone would be dowry. In the facts of the present case, demand has been raised soon after marriage. Such demand is not to meet out any emergent expense or any financial stringency. Therefore, it cannot be said that the payment of Rs.20,000/- after about 1-1/2 months of marriage was not to meet out the demand of dowry. 19. The complainant has further averred in his complaint Exhibit pg, on the basis of which FIR was lodged, that he has received a letter from his daughter, wherein demand of more dowry was raised. Thereafter, when the husband came to his house to take the deceased, a sum of Rs.25,000/-was given for the purchase of refrigerator and gold bangle. Kanwar Singh, while appearing as PW3 has deposed to the following effect:- "karamvir put up a demand for Rs.25,000/- and assured me that in future none of the accused will harass my daughter on account of demand of dowry. I gave rs.25,000/- to accused Karamvir and asked him to purchase refrigerator and gold bangle and that accused should not harass my daughter. I sent my daughter with accused Karamvir. " 20. I gave rs.25,000/- to accused Karamvir and asked him to purchase refrigerator and gold bangle and that accused should not harass my daughter. I sent my daughter with accused Karamvir. " 20. The witness has been cross-examined on the question that he has not stated before the police as to when he has given Rs.25,000/- to karamvir Singh and his mother. No doubt, specific date has not come on record, but the fact remains that the payment of the aforesaid amount is before the month of January, 1995 as is apparent from the averments made in the FIR as well as the subsequent part of the statement on oath. In normal circumstance, one is not expected to maintain a diary of the financial transactions with in-laws of a daughter. Therefore, the failure to disclose date of payment does not materially affects the prosecution case. 21. Pw3-kanwar Singh has further deposed that his son Pankaj kumar (PW4) went to the house of the accused on the eve of Sakranti festival in January 1995. On return, the witness has been informed by his son that the accused was not satisfied with the articles given. The witness has further deposed that in April 1995, the appellants brought deceased to his house and sought meeting of the household expenses by giving lump sum amount of Rs.30,000/-. The accused left deceased at his house since he expressed his inability to fulfil the demand. The deceased has remained in the house of her father till June, 1996. Kanwar Singh has deposed that he had taken Panchayat to the house of accused many times for compromise during the period, the deceased was with him. An apology was sought from the witness. He has deposed that "to purchase peace for my daughter, I gave the said writing". Exhibit DA, is the said writing dated 7.1.1996, wherein the witness has written that he would never send his brother Chand and son pankaj, to see deceased and that he will not commit the said mistake again. Though the said writing is dated 7.1.1996, but the deceased remained with her father till June, 1996, when the appellants had taken the deceased to rohtak. 22. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the mistake admitted by the father was of supplying medicines to the deceased for the disease of the mental depression, the fact withheld from the appellants. 22. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the mistake admitted by the father was of supplying medicines to the deceased for the disease of the mental depression, the fact withheld from the appellants. To support that the deceased was suffering from depression, the appellants have relied upon medical prescription Exhibit DC dated 26.8.1996 from Dr. V. P. Mehla, a private medical practitioner having his clinic opposite Civil Hospital. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that in the said prescription, the deceased has made complaints against her in-laws and the husband i. e. "bat Nahin Mante" i. e. her wishes are not honoured. She was diagnosed of moderate depression. It is, thus, argued that the deceased has committed suicide as she was suffering from depression and that she has not complained of any demand of dowry. 23. The statements of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased was with her parents from April, 1995 till June, 1996 is not controverted. There is no explanation on the part of the appellants as to why the deceased remained with her parents for more than a year. There is no explanation as to why for more than five months of having executed apology, the deceased did not join matrimonial home. The writing Exhibit DA is witnessed by luxmi Narain, Dharam Pal, Jagdish Kumar and many others, who have not been examined by the appellants to prove the nature of mistake. There is no evidence of any medical treatment taken by the deceased before marriage or after the marriage except the prescription Exhibit DC dated 26.8.1996. 24. Dr. Mehla has been examined as DW2. He has admitted that the patient came to him only on 26.8.1996 and that there is no pagination of the patient register and there is only one entry of 26.8.1996 and that too on the fag end of the page. Exhibit DC advises tablet "fluter" and also "attendants to take care of her, follow up after 20 days". There is no evidence that the medicines prescribed were in fact purchased and the deceased was taken for a follow up treatment again after 20 days. 25. It is not in dispute that from 26.8.1996 till her death, the deceased was living in her matrimonial home at Rohtak. There is no evidence that the medicines prescribed were in fact purchased and the deceased was taken for a follow up treatment again after 20 days. 25. It is not in dispute that from 26.8.1996 till her death, the deceased was living in her matrimonial home at Rohtak. In absence of purchase of medicines; follow up action by her husband and the fact that the entry appears at the fag end of the page and that is the only entry on the aforesaid date, the medical evidence produced can not be said to be reliable and trustworthy. 26. It may be mentioned that Exhibit DD contains history of the patient, as informed by the husband and by herself. As per the history, produced by the appellants, it is said to be the first episode. In fact, the document Exhibits DC and DD do not support the defence version that the deceased was suffering from mental depression for which medicines were being sent through her brothers as it is said to be first episode. Certificate exhibit DD does not contain either the signatures of the husband or of the deceased, though there is a column for such purpose. The statements of the father of the deceased appearing as PW3 and brother appearing as PW4, thus, cannot be disbelieved. The presumption under Sec.113-B of the indian Evidence Act, 1872 can not be said to be rebutted in any manner 27. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that between June, 1996 till 26.9.1996, when the deceased consumed celphos tablet, there is no allegation of demand of dowry or harassment. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demands of dowry soon before her death. 28. In Kans Rajs case (supra), the phrase "soon before death" has been examined. It has been held to be not synonymous with the term immediately before and is opposite to the expression soon after as used and understood in Sec.114 illustration (a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 . It was held therein that existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally referred to a course of conduct and such course of conduct may spread over a period of time. It was held therein that existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally referred to a course of conduct and such course of conduct may spread over a period of time. It appears that though the deceased has resumed matrimonial home, but the peace was temporary as deposed by PW3 Kanwar Singh. The statement in vernacular is to the effect that when he came to Rohtak to meet his daughter 15-20 days before her death, she informed him that after payment, there was peace for sometime, thereafter, the accused have started harassing her and giving beatings. Such instances of harassment and beatings were attributed to Karamvir and his mother. He has deposed that he advised accused not to cause harassment and she should be permitted to stay in peace. 29. Though, the prosecution has not set up a case of specific demand of dowry after the deceased went to matrimonial home in June, 1996, but the fact remains that the deceased has stayed with her husband for a period of approximately 11 months i. e. after excluding the period from april, 1995 till June, 1996 in her marriage of two years and two months. In such short duration, the prosecution has proved the demand of dowry three times i. e. Rs.20,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.30,000/-. The payment of dowry of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- is proved as well. Apart from such demand of dowry, the letter of apology was written by father not for any ostensible mistake as propounded, but to buy peace in the family of his daughter. 30. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that Maya Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased, is employed at Delhi and is staying at Delhi; therefore, the demands of dowry attributed to her are unbelievable and unreliable. It is argued that the fact that she is working and residing at delhi is apparent from the statement of PW-3 and that of DW-3 Smt. Raj bala. From the testimony of PW3- Kanwar Singh, it is clear that a sum of rs.20,000/- is purportedly paid to Paramvir and to Maya Devi at his house in Delhi. There is no allegation of demand in respect of Rs.25,000/- by maya Devi, but again there is statement of Kanwar Singh in respect of demand of Rs.30,000/- in lump-sum by Karamvir and his mother Maya devi. There is no allegation of demand in respect of Rs.25,000/- by maya Devi, but again there is statement of Kanwar Singh in respect of demand of Rs.30,000/- in lump-sum by Karamvir and his mother Maya devi. Though, appellant Maya Devi might be residing separately, but the demands of dowry are not required to be made at a place, where the deceased was residing. Still further, the distance between Rohtak and Delhi is not much, which make difficult for Maya Devi to come to Rohtak, when her daughter and two other sons were residing with Karamvir at Rohtak. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that Maya Devi has neither demanded dowry nor harassed the deceased. 31. Therefore, we find that the findings recorded that the appellants have harassed, maltreated and demanded dowry which led to suicide by the deceased, do not warrant any interference in the present appeal. 32. The prayer made in the Criminal Revision No.208 of 2000 is misconceived. The learned trial Court has examined the entire evidence in minute detail to return a finding that there is no specific allegations of demand of dowry or harassment by the brothers and sister of the husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us to the evidence but could not point out any specific role attributed to such persons in raising demand of dowry or harassment. Thus, we do not find any error in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, which may warrant interference in the revision Petition. 33. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that sentence to undergo life imprisonment is harsh punishment. It is argued that the minimum punishment for the offence under Sec.304-B IPC is 7 years whereas in the case of the appellants, maximum punishment i. e. imprisonment for life has been awarded. The appellants are undergoing the agony of trial for last more than 10 years. Taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the case is pending for the last 10 years, we modify the sentence for an offence under Sec.304-B IPC to that of 10 years rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the sentence of fine and sentence in respect of other offences.