Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—Having been convicted for offence under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Dungarpur whereby, for offence under Section 498-A IPC, the learned Judge has sentenced the appellant to three years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and further directed to undergo three months of additional imprisonment in default thereof, and for offence under Section 304B IPC, the learned Judge has sentenced the appellant to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and to further undergo three months' of additional imprisonment in default thereof, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 15.4.2009. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.5.2008, Punjilal (P.W.1) had submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) at Police Sation Sagwara, wherein he had claimed that his daughter, Asha, was married to Sharad Kumar, the appellant, two years prior to the date of the incident. He further claimed that Sharad Kumar had been demanding Rs. 30,000/- by way of dowry. Sharad Kumar asked Asha to go to her parental place and to bring the said money. He further alleged that his daughter would come back home, and tell him and his wife that the appellant is demanding Rs. 30,000/-. As the said amount was not paid to him, Sharad Kumar tend to physically assault her and threatened her that he will kill her. He further claimed that fifteen days ago, his daughter was sent by Sharad Kumar to bring the said amount with her. He also claimed that Sharad Kumar threatened her that in case she did not bring the said amount, he would kill her. According to him, he called up Govind Lal, his brother-in-law, and told him about the illegal demand being made by Sharad Kumar. Govind Lal told him to keep his daughter at home. Subsequently, eight days ago, Sharad Kumar came to pick up his wife. He called Govind Lal. Govind Lal, the complainant and his wife tried to clarify things with Sharad Kumar. They sent their daughter with him. However, when she was leaving, she told her parents that "surely the appellant will kill me". He further alleged that on 12.5.2008 Sharad Kumar, along with Kala Suthar, killed his daughter and hung her from the ceiling. Lastly, he claimed that his daughter studied upto tenth class and used to write with her right hand. However, when she was leaving, she told her parents that "surely the appellant will kill me". He further alleged that on 12.5.2008 Sharad Kumar, along with Kala Suthar, killed his daughter and hung her from the ceiling. Lastly, he claimed that his daughter studied upto tenth class and used to write with her right hand. He also claimed that there is a suicide note written on the palm of the right hand of Asha. But the said suicide note had been written after his daughter was killed. On the basis of the said report, a formal FIR, FIR No. 98/2008, was chalked out for offences under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. 3. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and submitted ten documents. Although the defence did not examine any witness, but it submitted four documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 15.4.2009, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions before this Court; firstly, the FIR lodged by Punji Lal was a second F.I.R. As on 12.5.2008, the appellant's brother had already lodged a F.I.R. with regard to Asha's death. 5. Secondly, although the date of incident is 12.5.2008, although the complainant and his family members had participated in the last rites, the F.I.R. was not lodged till 13.5.2008. Therefore, there is inordinate delay in lodging of the F.I.R. The inordinate delay has not been explained by the prosecution. The non-explanation is fatal to the prosecution. 6. Thirdly, according to Punji Lal (P.W.1) and according to Punji Bai (P.W.2), the couple used to live happily. Thus, there is no evidence of a dowry demand. 7. Forthly, there is no evidence to show that "soon before death", there was a dowry demand. Therefore one of the ingredients of offence under Section 304B I.P.C. is not made out. 8. Lastly, relying upon the case of Vikram Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2007(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 643 = RLW 2007(2) Raj. 1176), Durga Prasad & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010 Cr.L.R. (SC) 754) and Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder & Ors. vs. State of W.B. ( (2008) 1 SCC 202 = 2008(1) RLW 711 (SC)) the learned counsel has contended that although allegedly here was a demand of Rs. 1176), Durga Prasad & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010 Cr.L.R. (SC) 754) and Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder & Ors. vs. State of W.B. ( (2008) 1 SCC 202 = 2008(1) RLW 711 (SC)) the learned counsel has contended that although allegedly here was a demand of Rs. 30,000/-, but such a demand was not "in connection with the marriage". Therefore, the said demand does not fall within the ambit of word "dowry". Since there was no dowry demand, therefore, the case does not fall under Section 304-B IPC. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B IPC is highly misplaced. 9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that considering the fact that the parents of the deceased had come immediately after her death, it was but natural for them to look after the welfare of the body. Moreover, immediately after the incident, on 13.5.2008, the F.I.R. was lodged. Thus, there is no inordinate delay in lodging of the F.I.R. 10. Secondly, Punji Lal (P.W.1) and Punji Bai (P.W.2), Govind Lal (the maternal uncle of the deceased) have consistently testified that the appellant kept on demanding Rs. 30,000/- from them. Since they were extremely poor, since they could not fulfill his demand, the appellant used to torture the deceased. Moreover, just fifteen days before the incident, Asha had come to their house and told her parents that her husband is demanding a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and in case she does not bring the said amount, her husband would kill her. Eight days before the incident when Asha was leaving her maternal home, she told them that although they were sending her with Sharad Kumar, yet he would kill her. Just eight days thereafter, she died. Hence, "soon before her death", here was a dowry demand. 11. Thirdly, the ingredients for offence under Section 304-B IPC have been established by the prosecution as the death has occurred just within two years of the marriage. Moreover, Asha has died under suspicious circumstances and there was a demand for dowry soon before the death. Thus, presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act was rightly invoked by he learned judge, for convicting the appellant. 12. Forthly, in case, Rs. 30,000/- were demanded by the appellant to specific purpose, unrelated to the marriage, then it was within his knowledge as to why Rs. Thus, presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act was rightly invoked by he learned judge, for convicting the appellant. 12. Forthly, in case, Rs. 30,000/- were demanded by the appellant to specific purpose, unrelated to the marriage, then it was within his knowledge as to why Rs. 30,000/- were being demanded. Therefore, in order to rebut the presumption under Section 113-B IPC and in order to discharge the burden which is placed upon him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it was for the appellant to clarify the position in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and to reveal to the Court the specific purpose for which Rs. 30,000/- was being asked for. Since he has not been able to rebut the presumption under Section 113-B I.P.C., the presumption was rightly invoked by the learned trial Court. 13. Lastly, the site-plan clearly reveals that Asha was hanging from a saree and yet one of her feet was touched with the floor. Thus, obviously she had been killed and then hung. For, in case her feet could touch the floor, she would not have died due to hanging. Moreover, since, she used right hand to write, she could not have written the suicide note in the palm of he right hand. Hence, the appellant is trying to make her death appear as "suicidal" in nature rather than "homicidal". Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported impugned judgment. 14. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the record produced before this Court. 15 . A bare perusal of the testimonies of Punji Lal (P.W.1) and Punji Bai (P.W.2) clearly reveal that Asha was married with the appellant just two years prior to the incident. According to them, the appellant kept Asha happily for a period of one year. However, after one year, he started demanding Rs. 30,000/- from her parents. Just fifteen days prior to the incident, Asha came to her paternal place and informed per parents that her husband is demanding Rs. 30,000/-. She also told them that in case she does not bring the said amount, then she would be killed. According to Punji Lal (P.W.1), he called his brother-in-law (Sala), Govind Lal (P.W.4). Govind Lal advised them to keep Asha for few days. He also informed that he would try to arrange the said amount. 30,000/-. She also told them that in case she does not bring the said amount, then she would be killed. According to Punji Lal (P.W.1), he called his brother-in-law (Sala), Govind Lal (P.W.4). Govind Lal advised them to keep Asha for few days. He also informed that he would try to arrange the said amount. However, he could not arrange the said amount. Just eight days prior to the incident, the appellant went to the house of his in-laws to pick up Asha. According to these witnesses when Asha was about to leave her parent's house, she told the witnesses that although they are sending her with the appellant, but he would kill her. Eight days thereafter they received the information that Asha died. The words "soon before death" cannot be straight-jacketed into a formula. The words "soon before death" naturally would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, just eight days prior to her death, Asha had informed her parents and her uncle that the appellant is demanding s. 30,000/- and in case the said amount were not brought by her, he would kill her. Thus, the element of "soon before death" does exist in the present case. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to argue that even the demand of Rs. 30,000/- does not fall within the definition of dowry, as the dowry was not in connection with the marriage. The Explanation appended to Section 304-B clearly states that for the purpose of this sub-section, 'dowry' shall have the same meaning as in Sec.2 of the dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 17. The word 'Dowry' has been defined in Section 2 of 1961 Act as under:- Definition of 'dowry'.—In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly - (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before (or any time after the marriage) (in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include) dower or mahr in the case of persons whom Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies." 18. The learned counsel has tried to argue that the prosecution could not establish that the demand of Rs.30,000/- was "in connection with the marriage". 19. However, Section 106 of the Evidence Act as under : 106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.—When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. 20. It further gives an illustration, illustration (a) when a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him. Thus, in the present case, if the prosecution had alleged that there was a demand of Rs. 30,000/- made by the appellant, it was for the appellant to prove the fact that such demand was not in connection with the marriage, but was for a specific purpose such as establishing a business or for buying a particular commodity or article. Despite the fact that the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is a rebuttable presumption, the appellant has not rebutted the presumption by revealing to the Court the reason for the demand of Rs. 30,000/-. Therefore, the presumption drawn was validly drawn. For, in the present case, Asha died within seven years of her marriage, in suspicious circumstances, and soon before death i.e., just eight days prior to her death, she had claimed that the appellant was asking for Rs. 30,000/- and there is likelihood that she will be killed in case the said demand was not fulfilled. 21. The learned counsel has relied upon the case of Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder (supra). However, the said case is distinguishable from the present case. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "there is practically no evidence to show that there was any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry." 22. In the present case, Punji Lal (P.W.1), Punji Bai (P.W.3) and Govindlal (P.W.4), and even independent witnesses, namely Arjunlal (P.W.3), neighbour of the deceased, Asha, clearly stated that when Asha left the house, she told her parents and relatives that since the demand of Rs. 30,000/- has not been fulfilled, there is a likelihood that she would be killed. Thus, there is ample evidence to show that there was a dowry demand of Rs. 30,000/-. 30,000/- has not been fulfilled, there is a likelihood that she would be killed. Thus, there is ample evidence to show that there was a dowry demand of Rs. 30,000/-. According to the deceased, even on earlier occasion, she had been physically assaulted for dowry demand. Therefore, the present case distinguishable from the case of Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder (supra). 23. The learned counsel has also relied upon the case of Vikram Singh (supra). However, the case is also distinguishable from the present case, on the basis of the factual matrix. In the case of Vikram Singh (supra), on the basis of the same evidence, the trial Court had acquitted the co-accused persons. However, on the basis of the same evidence, it had convicted Vikram Singh. This Court while analyzing the evidence had concluded that the case of Vikram Singh was on equal footing as the case of other co-accused persons, namely, Mannu Singh and Smt. Ratan Kanwar. Moreover, according to the evidence produced by the prosecution, in the form of two letters (Ex.P/3 and P/4), there was only a demand for clothes for the family members of the accused in the function of Akhand Ramayan Katha. This Court did not consider the said demand to fall within the ambit of word "dowry" as defined in the Dowry Prohibition Act. Taking its queue from the case of Satvir Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. ( (2001) 8 SCC 633 ) and K. Prema S. Rao & Anr. vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao & Anr. ( (2003) 1 SCC 217 = RLW 2003(2) SC 200), this Court was of the opinion that a mere demand for cloths that too for a specific religious function does not come within the term 'dowry'. Therefore, this Court concluded that the case does not fall within the ambit of Section 304-B IPC. 24. However, in the present case, there is no evidence to show that the amount of Rs. 30,000/- was being demanded for non-dowry purpose. Therefore, the demand would fall within the ambit of word 'dowry'. Hence, the case of Vikram Singh (supra) does not help the appellant. 25. The learned counsel has also relied upon the case of Durga Prasad (supra). However, this case is also distinguishable on factual matrix. 30,000/- was being demanded for non-dowry purpose. Therefore, the demand would fall within the ambit of word 'dowry'. Hence, the case of Vikram Singh (supra) does not help the appellant. 25. The learned counsel has also relied upon the case of Durga Prasad (supra). However, this case is also distinguishable on factual matrix. In the case of Durga Prasad (supra), only bald statements were made by Vimla Bai (P.W.1) and Ashok Kumar (P.W.2), that the victim has been subjected to physically and mental cruelty prior to her death. But for these bald statements, there was no other evidence to prove that the victim had committed suicide on account of cruelty and harassment to which she was subjected just prior to her death. However, in the present case, not only the testimonies of the relatives of the deceased, but even of the independent witnesses, like Arjun Lal (P.W.3), clearly shows that Asha was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. In fact, she was under a bona fide apprehension that she would be killed. Thus, the case of Durga Prasad (supra) does not hold water. 26. According to the photographs which are available on record, there is a suicide note on the palm of right hand of deceased that she has committed suicide of her own free will. However, according to Punji Lal (P.W.1) his daughter was right handed. It is rather surprising that a person who writes with the right hand would be able to write a suicide note in he palm of right hand. Obviously, the suicide note has been written not by the deceased, but by someone else on her palm of the right hand. Moreover, considering the fact that the body of the deceased was found hanging while one of the feet touched the floor, the site plan and the photographs point to the fact that it was not a case of suicide, but a case of homicide. 27. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. This appeal, devoid of any merit, is, hereby dismissed.