Judgment :- 1. This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed against the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli made in S.C.No.92 of 1997 dated 17.11.2005 convicting the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 for offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment; under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced them to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment. 2. The appellants were convicted on the backdrop of the following prosecution case:- 2.1. The first appellant is the husband of the deceased Kanmani @ Maheswari. His mother is the second appellant. On 26.03.1995, their marriage was solemnized at Ilangi and at that time, Kanmani @ Maheswari was given with 35 sovereigns of gold and cash of Rs.35,000/-. The accused weighed the jewels given to Kanmani @ Maheswari through a gold smith and told her father that he did not give jewels as they agreed. The accused was also demanding a Hero Honda motor bike and a cash of Rs.1,00,000/- for getting permanent job for him and the same was informed to her parents. 2.2. On 26.06.1995, at about 6.30 p.m, while the parents were in their village at Kadaiyalurutti, Annamalai Nadar, since deceased, father of Kanmani @ Maheswari received a phone message from Seranthamaram that his daughter was in a serious condition. He immediately proceeded to Seranthamaram along with one Selvaraj, went to his daughter's house and found the body of the daughter suspended from a rope in the bath room situated at the back side of the house. At the same time, the accused was not in the house. They waited, but he did not turn up. Hence, Annamalai Nadar gave a statement, Ex.P.1 to the Village Administrative Officer at 12.00 noon on 26.06.1995. The Village Administrative Officer forwarded the said statement to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Seranthamaram along with covering letter Ex.P.2. P.W.24, Inspector of Police received a complaint and registered a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C and lodged FIR, Ex.P.12. Since the deceased died within three months from the date of marriage, he forwarded the First Information Report to the Sub-Collector, Tirunelveli with a copy to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. 2.3. P.W.24, Inspector of Police received a complaint and registered a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C and lodged FIR, Ex.P.12. Since the deceased died within three months from the date of marriage, he forwarded the First Information Report to the Sub-Collector, Tirunelveli with a copy to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. 2.3. After receiving FIR, P.W.23, the Deputy Collector, Tirunelveli deputed one Parvathynathan, Tahsildar of Tirunelveli to go to the occurrence place and to conduct inquest since she was preoccupied with other official duties. The said Parvathynathan proceeded to the scene of crime and held inquest over the dead body and prepared Ex.P.10 inquest report and entrusted the same to P.W.23. With reference to the same, she sent a report, Ex.P.11 to the District Collector. Since he came to know that the deceased was physically eliminated, she advised the Deputy Superintendent of Police to alter the provisions of IPC. 2.4. One Abdul Sattar, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police was bed-ridden at the time of trial. Hence, his next incumbent P.W.25 deposed on his behalf. He knows the signature of Abdul Sattar. The then Deputy Superintendent of Police inspected the scene of crime and prepared Ex.P.13, Observation Mahazar, examined the witnesses and recorded their statement. On receipt of the inquest report from the Sub-Collector, he sent express report, Ex.P.14 altering the provisions of law as 498-A and 304-B IPC. On 01.07.1995, he arrested the accused and sent them for Judicial custody. The doctor, P.W.15 conducted autopsy over the corpse of the deceased and issued Ex.P.7 post-mortem certificate with an opinion that the death could have occurred between 36 hours to 48 hours prior to post-mortem. He sent viscera for the toxicological examination. Ex.P.8 is the toxicological report. It is stated that poison was not detected in any of the internal organs. Ex.P.9 is the medical report in which it is stated that post-mortem fracture in hyoid bone was noted. The following are the internal injuries found on the dead body by the Doctor:- “Blister present on the both cheeks, both sides of neck, front of neck, upper part of chest. 2) Right upper arm, part of left upper arm, the whole right hand dorsum is swollen. 3) Ligature mark block in colour, present encircling the neck without any interruption one cm breadth at the interior aspect. 2) Right upper arm, part of left upper arm, the whole right hand dorsum is swollen. 3) Ligature mark block in colour, present encircling the neck without any interruption one cm breadth at the interior aspect. It is 4cms below the left ear lobe and the left side of the neck and 6 cms below, the right ear and the right lobe at the right side 4) Hyoid bone is fractured sent for HPE” 2.5. On completion of the investigation, Abdul Sattar laid charge sheet against the accused. They were questioned by the trial Court under Section 313 CrPC with respect to the incriminating materials available in the prosecution case. They denied complicity in the offence and they did not examine any witnesses nor had they produced any documents. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge of the Mahila Court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. Hence, these appellants are before this Court with this appeal. 3. Point for consideration:- “Whether the prosecution has established the charges framed against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?” 4. Point: Pending investigation, the father of the deceased Annamalai Nadar died. The deceased Kanmani @ Maheswari was qualified in M.Sc.B.Ed, while her husband is graduated in B.Sc.B.Ed. It is the allegation in the compliant and in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that both the accused had been demanding the deceased a HeroHonda Motor Bike and one lakh for getting a permanent job for the first accused and she committed suicide by hanging, since she could not bear the cruelty and dowry demand perpetrated on her. But Court has to see whether there had been any demand so as to make the accused the actors of crime under Section 498-A IPC and whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband or in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death in order to attract 304-B IPC. 5. 5. In order avoid the accused from bringing them under the purview of Section 304-B IPC, certain questions were put in the cross-examination of P.W.1, the mother of the deceased that treatment was given to the deceased for her stomach pain which was an outcome of complications during her periods time and it was decided by doctor that she could not give birth to a child, that suppressing the same, she was given in marriage to the first accused and that due to the above said physical defect, she was unable to have intercourse with her husband satisfactorily and that during intercourse, she could not withstand strain and pain while she was in the periods time and hence, she committed suicide. Those suggestions were denied by P.W.1. She also says that the deceased used to tell her friends that the marriage was conducted suppressing material facts and that the deceased was not satisfied in the marriage. In order to show that the deceased was suffering from stomach pain and complication, there is no material before the Court. 6. It is stated that after the marriage, the parents of the first accused asked P.W.11 to weigh the jewels offered to the deceased at the time of marriage. He says that he could not recollect what was the exact weight, but he says that he went to the house of Arunachalam, the father of the first accused and weighing the jewels and that they discussed among themselves that the weight of the jewels was less than what was agreed. His evidence is natural and convincing. 7. P.W.1 has stated that they were informed that there was shortage in the weight of jewels by 30 gms, given to her daughter and within one week, she made good the weight and on the date of giving the remaining jewels, the deceased came to her house and told that her mother-in-law (second accused) abused her that after the engagement for the marriage her husband (second accused) died and that her (deceased) presence to her family was inauspicious. She also adds that her daughter informed that there was demand in their husband's house for a bike and a cash of Rs.1,00,000/-. 8. She also adds that her daughter informed that there was demand in their husband's house for a bike and a cash of Rs.1,00,000/-. 8. Even though P.W.5 turned hostile to the prosecution, his evidence in the chief examination goes to the effect that, on 26.06.1995, he heard a distressing noise in the house of Kanmani @ Maheswari and he rushed to her house and the second accused told him that her daughter-in-law committed suicide by hanging and PW.5 peeped through the key hole in the door and found her body hanging. He was brought to the witness box to say that they were misunderstanding then and there in the family but he said that he did not interfere with it since it was their family affair. However, from his evidence, it is seen that there was noise from the house of the accused on 26.06.1995. 9. The oral evidence of P.W.7 one Mariammal, neighbour of the deceased plays a vital role in this case. She says that out of 90 days, when she lived in her husband's house, after marriage she came to her parents house after picking up quarrel with her husband twice. P.W.7 quizzed her why she came, for which she replied with weeping that her husband and mother-in-law have demanded Rs.1,00,000/- and motor bike that P.W.7 consoled her by stating that it used to happen in every family and the deceased told that her mother-in-law used to say that after the date of engagement, she lost her husband and hence, it was irritating to see her face (deceased) and that four days afterwards, she received information that Kanmani @ Maheswari died. 9.1. Her evidence in the chief examination could not be shattered in any way. She is an independent witness and has no interest in the family of the deceased. There is nothing to disbelieve her evidence. No motive was attributed to her to depose against the accused. Her evidence is natural and convincing which would indicate that soon before the occurrence, the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty with a demand of dowry on the part of the accused. 10. P.W.9 is closely related to the mother of the deceased. His father and mother of P.W.1 are siblings. Her evidence is natural and convincing which would indicate that soon before the occurrence, the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty with a demand of dowry on the part of the accused. 10. P.W.9 is closely related to the mother of the deceased. His father and mother of P.W.1 are siblings. He says that on 25.06.1995, previous day to the occurrence while he reached Seranthamaram bus stand, at about 10.00 p.m, Kanmani @ Maheswari was weeping and the first accused pushed her by her head and the second accused pulled her by hand, that he wanted to inform the same to the father of Kanmani @ Maheswari, but since it was late in the night, every body would be sleeping and that next day morning he was informed that Kanmani @ Maheswari died. Merely because he is related to P.W.1, the Court cannot smell rat on his evidence. It is to be seen whether his evidence is supported by other circumstances. 11. In the considered view of this Court, his oral account is strengthened by the oral testimony of P.W.7. Medical evidence also would connect the accused with the crime to a greater extent. P.W.15, Doctor who held autopsy over the mortal remains of the deceased found blisters on both the cheeks and both sides of leg, front side of the leg and upper part of the chest. He also recorded swellings present in right upper arm and part of left upper arm and the whole right hand dorsum. While he refers to these features in his chief examination, she opines that the blisters appeared as if they were caused by pouring hot waters. In the cross-examination, it is her evidence that it is correct to state that there is likelihood for the blisters to occur 36 hours after the death. 12. But in her further chief examination, after she was recalled, she would remove the cloud found in her cross-examination. She says that if the blister occurred after the death then they would erupt through out the body, that since they were present on the upper part of the body alone they should have occurred prior to the death and that the swelling on her on the dorsal portion should have occurred ante-mortem. She says that if the blister occurred after the death then they would erupt through out the body, that since they were present on the upper part of the body alone they should have occurred prior to the death and that the swelling on her on the dorsal portion should have occurred ante-mortem. While she was again cross-examined by defence side, she has reiterated and confirmed her opinion that if the swelling had to occur as a consequence of death, they should emerge all over the body. It is also her evidence that there is likelihood for eruption of blisters all over the body 18 hours after the death. 13. If it is so, as per her evidence, the blisters should have been spread throughout the body and would not be restricted to the upper portions of the body. The above said portions of oral evidence of the doctor would candidly indicate a fact that swelling and blisters were caused to the deceased earlier to her death. If their occurrence or appearance were natural as a consequence of death, they would appear all over the body. 14. This circumstance would portray a fact that there had been physical harassment on the deceased prior to her death. The combined effect of oral evidence of P.Ws.7 and 11 and the medical evidence would clinchingly establish the nexus of accused to the offences with which they have been charged. Reliable evidence are available to bring both the accused under Section 498-A to the effect that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by abusing words on the part of the second accused and both the accused by demanding dowry. Convincing and satisfactory materials are also on record to establish the fact that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by both the accused in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death. 14.1. It is profitable to extract Section 304-B of IPC. Convincing and satisfactory materials are also on record to establish the fact that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by both the accused in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death. 14.1. It is profitable to extract Section 304-B of IPC. Section 304-B dowry death reads thus:-(i) Whether the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. (ii)Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life” 15. The learned Senior Counsel for the accused Mr.S.Shanmuga Velayutham would place reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2007) 9 SCC 721 , Appasaheb and another Vs. State of Maharashtra, in which it is held that demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. But the facts of this case are otherwise. The demand for dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-for securing a permanent job for the first accused is established. 16. In JT 1997 (3) S.C.91, Sham Lal Vs. State of Haryana, it is observed in paragraph 9 that the preliminary requirements for finding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 304-B IPC are that death of the deceased was caused within seven years of her marriage and that “soon before her death” she was subjected to her cruelty or harassment by the appellant for or in connection with any demands for dowry. In the said case, before the Supreme Court, no doubt it was proved that there had been persisting dispute between two sides regarding the dowry death or to be paid both in kind and in cash and there is nothing on record to show that either she was treated with cruelty or harassed with demand for dowry during the period between her having been taken to the parental home and her tragic end. 16.1. In the case on hand, abundant materials are available in the medical evidence that she had suffered injuries prior to her death, the Court has to conjointly read the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 11 also. Even if the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are not taken into consideration, it could be seen that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death so as to satisfy the statutory requirement in Section 304-B IPC. 17. The learned Senior Counsel has also referred to the decisions of this Court reported in 1995-1-L.W.(Crl) 57(2), Baskaran Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Cuddalore and 1999-1-L.W.(Crl.)127, Ramaiah and others Vs. State by Karambakudi Police Station. 17.1. In Baskaran's case cited supra, it is held that the evidence under Section 304-B is not established in the absence of evidence that accused or his family members were demanding property or cash in connection with the cruelty of the deceased with the accused. 18. In this case, it is shown that the demand of Rs.1,00,000/- and the Hero Honda bike by the accused was in consequence of the marriage and it is relatable to the marriage of the deceased with the first accused. 19. In Ramaiah others case, it is held that in the absence of any evidence of demand, it is not permissible to take recourse to the legal presumption envisaged in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, that Rule of Evidence is prescribed in law to obviate the prosecution of the difficulty to further prove that the offence was purported by the husband, as then it would be the burden of the accused to rebut the presumption. 20. In the said case, even though the death of the deceased was proved, the ingredient in the provision, that soon before her death she was subjected to her death or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry, was not established. 20. In the said case, even though the death of the deceased was proved, the ingredient in the provision, that soon before her death she was subjected to her death or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry, was not established. But, in the present case, evidence is available as adverted to supra, to see that there was cruelty in connection with a demand for dowry soon before her death. 21. It is profitable to extract Section 113(B) of the Evidence Act, which goes thus:- “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 or cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.” 22. In view of the above discussions taken up by this Court on the strength of the evidence, particularly, on the oral evidence P.Ws.7 and 11 and the medical evidence on record, this Court reaches conclusion that both the accused are guilty of the offences under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC. This Court does not find any flaw either factually or legally in the judgment rendered by the learned trial Judge which deserves to be confirmed and it is accordingly confirmed. 23. The charges framed against the accused under the above said sections have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly. While recording the conviction for both the accused under both of the above said sections, this Court is of the opinion that imposing sentence of ten years upon both the accused under Section 304-B IPC appears to be excessive. Suffice it to impose sentences on seven years alone on both the accused which would meet the ends of justice. 24. In the result, the appeal is dismissed as regards conviction and allowed in part as regards period of sentence with following modification under Section 304-B IPC. Accordingly, the sentence portion of the trial Court judgment is modified to the effect that both the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The sentences imposed upon them under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC shall run concurrently. The period of custody already undergone by them shall be given set off. Accordingly, the sentence portion of the trial Court judgment is modified to the effect that both the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The sentences imposed upon them under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC shall run concurrently. The period of custody already undergone by them shall be given set off. The disposal of the case properties shall be in accordance with the trial Court direction.