JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal, J 1. This judgment of mine shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 296-SB of 2000 preferred by Rajnish accused-appellant (herein referred as, 'the accused') and Criminal Revision No. 1347 of 2000 filed by the complainant, against the judgment dated 23.2.2000/7.3.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, vide which Mohinder, Mewa Devi, Binder and Phool Chand were acquitted, whereas, Rajnish accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years under Section 304-B and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 498-A IPC. 2. This is yet another case where Nirmla deceased having failed to bear the maltreatment and torture at the hands of her husband, ended her life within seven months of the marriage. Eventually FIR No.54 dated 25.1.1998 was registered against the accused (husband), his brother Mohinder, his parents Phool Chand and Mewa Devi and Binder wife of Mohinder. The case has been registered at the instance of Jai Pal. The relevant translated extract of the statement made by Jai Pal is as under :- “Jai Pal son of Antu Ram caste Harijan, resident of village Dharaung, Police Station Sadar Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar. I performed the marriage of my daughter Nirmla aged about 20 years with Rajnish Kumar son of Phool Chand Harijan resident of Jarodi P.S. City Jagadhri according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies just seven months ago. After the marriage the deceased stayed at her matrimonial house only for one month. Thereafter she was brought back. At that time Nirmla told us that her father-in-law Phool Chand, mother-in-law Mewa Devi, Binder Jethani and Mohinder brother of her husband Rajnish used to say that her parents had not given the colour TV which was demanded by them and they had further told that she should return with one buffalo. Thereafter, Rajnish and her mother Mewa Devi came to me for taking Nirmla. They also remonstrated for not giving colour TV and a buffalo. We said that we are not in a position to fulfill the demand but we promised to give the same in near future. Saying so, I had sent my daughter with them. Thereafter, Rajnish and her mother Mewa Devi came to me for taking Nirmla. They also remonstrated for not giving colour TV and a buffalo. We said that we are not in a position to fulfill the demand but we promised to give the same in near future. Saying so, I had sent my daughter with them. Thereafter, my daughter used to visit off and on and tell that the accused were saying that she has not conceived so far, therefore, I along with my relative Phool Chand and Rajnish my son in law got my daughter checked up from the doctor who gave the report that she had no defect. About 15 days prior to the occurrence, Rajnish and Mohinder came to take my daughter. I sent her with them. At that time also, they had demanded colour TV and a buffalo. One week thereafter my son Vinod Kumar had gone to see my daughter in village Jarodi but while coming back they told me that in laws of my daughter were complaining for not giving colour TV and a buffalo. Today at about 10.00 AM Mohinder elder brother of Rajnish came to us and informed that Nirmla had expired. He did not disclose any cause of death. I had also disclosed the factum of demand of colour TV and a buffalo to ex-sarpanch Jagmal and Roshan Lal member panchayat. Thereafter, I my brother Dharampal, wife Mera Devi son Vinod Kumar and many persons of the village went to the village Jarodi and, after collecting Panchayat, we enquired the cause of death of Nirmla but they did not give any satisfactory reply.” 3. On the aforesaid statement made by Jai Pal on 25.1.1998, FIR Ex.PF was registered and the case was investigated. ASI Dalip Kumar recorded the statements of the witnesses, got the dead body of Nirmla postmortemed, arrested the accused Rajnish and during interrogation he disclosed that he had kept concealed a rope under an iron box in his house and he could get the same recovered and thereafter he got the said rope recovered which was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. The postmortem report revealed that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation which was anti-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the normal course. On completion of the investigation, challan against all the accused was presented in the court. 4. The postmortem report revealed that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation which was anti-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the normal course. On completion of the investigation, challan against all the accused was presented in the court. 4. The accused were charged for the offences under Sections 304-B/498-A IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. 5. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined C. Jarnail Singh (PW1), C. Mulakh Raj (PW2), C. Mohan Singh (PW3), Jai Pal (PW4), Jagpal (PW5), Dr. Ravi Kansal (PW6), Dharam Pal (PW7), Vinod Kumar (PW8), Inspector Dhanpal Singh (PW9) and ASI Dalip Kumar (PW10). 6. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. They further explained that since the date of marriage of Nirmla with Rajnish, they were living in one house whereas parents of Rajnish along with other members of the family were living separately. They had come to know that Nirmla was eunuch and they had informed about the same to Jaipal who had assured that he would get her treated. Several panchayats were convened in this regard. However, Nirmla committed suicide on account of depression. Rajnish in his statement further added that his wife Nirmla did not allow him to have her access and the marriage was never consummated. On the fateful day. he did not sleep with her and remained present at his father's house. On the day of occurrence, in the morning, when he opened the door, he found Nirmla lying dead on the bed. Thereafter, he informed to her father about it. 7. In defence, they examined Subhash (DW1) and Ram Piari (DW2). They have stated that Rajnish and Nirmla were living separate from the other accused at a short distance. Nirmla was eunuch, therefore, panchayat was convened to solve the matter. Nirmla was shown to a Nurse by her father in law who told that she is an eunuch, therefore, she committed suicide. 8. The trial resulted into conviction of Rajnish whereas the other accused were acquitted. 9. Arguments heard. Record perused. 10. Admittedly, Nirmla was married with the accused on 15.6.1997 and she died within seven years of the marriage other than in normal circumstances at the house of the accused. 8. The trial resulted into conviction of Rajnish whereas the other accused were acquitted. 9. Arguments heard. Record perused. 10. Admittedly, Nirmla was married with the accused on 15.6.1997 and she died within seven years of the marriage other than in normal circumstances at the house of the accused. The occurrence took place in the intervening night of 24/25.1.1998. The allegations against the accused are that they were insisting on fulfilling their demand of scooter which they had raised before the marriage and thereafter they had placed another demand of buffalo, but the complainant failed to satisfy the same. Though the trial court has accepted that it was homicidal death and not suicidal one, yet in view of the absence of the specific evidence against the accused for indicting him for the offence under Section 302 IPC convicted him under Section 304-B IPC. Since it had come to light that the other accused were living separate from Rajnish, the court exonerated them of the offence for which they were charged. 11. I do not find any merit in the contention that the offence against Rajnish accused is also not proved. Dr. Ravi Kansal (PW6), who had conducted the postmortem examination over the body of Nirmla, observed as under : “There was abrasion/contusion 10 cms x 2 cms broad extending from left sternocle-domastoid muscle to right sternocledomastoid, placed over thyroid cartlage almost transverse in position with slight convexity towards the inferior side and on dissection underlying tissues were damaged . 1. Small abrasion left chin, 2. Brown Coloured contusion 2 cms x 1.5 cms right chin, 3. Small abrasion on upper part of neck in the middle 4. Brown colour contusion 2 cms x .5 cm on upper part of the left neck.” 12. The trial court further observed that the abrasions/contusions around ligature mark and abrasions etc. on both sides of chin and at the more than one place are also pointer in the direction that it was not a case of suicide by hanging, but a case of death by strangulation. Dr. Ravi Kansal (PW6) had also given a specific opinion Ex.PE that the death of Nirmla was due to asphyxia by strangulation which was ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of events. Dr. Ravi Kansal (PW6) had also given a specific opinion Ex.PE that the death of Nirmla was due to asphyxia by strangulation which was ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of events. Therefore, it appears that the trial court was correct in its observations that though she was murdered yet in the absence of any specific evidence the accused could not be convicted under Section 302 IPC and it rightly convicted him under Section 304-B IPC. 13. As regards the separate residence of the other accused, (except Rajnish) with the deceased, the trial court has taken note of the statement of Subhash (DW1) and Ram Piari (DW2). The statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and also the statements of Jai Pal (PW4) and Jagmal (PW5) and observed that in view of the aforesaid evidence, it is established that all the five accused and the deceased were not living jointly in one house. The trial court has also rightly ignored the defence plea that since Nirmla was an eunuch and she on account of depression had committed suicide is false on the ground: firstly from the statement of Dr. Ravi Kansal (PW6) who has definitely stated that it was homicidal death; secondly, no such medical evidence has been led by the defence in order to establish that she was an eunuch; thirdly, from the circumstance that if she was an eunuch then the accused Rajnish and Mohinder would not have brought her back within 15 days prior to her death; fourthly, since the accused states that he was not allowed access by the deceased and he never consummated the marriage then how he came to know that she was eunuch. 14. The net result is that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused Rajnish that he contributed to the death of Nirmla by putting her to harassment and torturing her on account of demand of dowry. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused, that the demand of dowry is not proved, is without merit. It is clear that the accused had been torturing Nirmla on account of demand of colour TV and buffalo. It has come in evidence that when the deceased visited the complainant's house after a month of her marriage, then she disclosed about the same. It is clear that the accused had been torturing Nirmla on account of demand of colour TV and buffalo. It has come in evidence that when the deceased visited the complainant's house after a month of her marriage, then she disclosed about the same. Thereafter, 15 days prior to the incident, when Mohinder Singh visited the house of the deceased, the accused had also raised the demand. The trial court after appreciation of the evidence has reached the conclusion that Rajnish and Nirmla were living separately. Nirmla was being harassed at the hands of the accused Rajnish for non fulfillment of the demand of colour TV and buffalo. Besides the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses Jagmal Singh Ex-Sarpanch of the village Dhorang has also stated that after about five months of the marriage, her father had informed him about the maltreatment given to Nirmla by the accused on account of demand of colour TV and buffalo. Such being the position when there is definite evidence of the relation witnesses as well as of Ex-Sarpanch of the village presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act is attached and it is the accused who has to explain as to under what circumstances she had died and it would be presumed that Rajnish had committed dowry death. Reliance in this regard could be placed over the judgment Balwant Singh vs. State of Punjab 1996 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 248 wherein it was observed as under :- “The dead body of Gurdev Kaur was found lying in the house of the accused. Their child was two years old and was seen crying by the side of the dead body. There was no body in the house. In the circumstances the accused is to explain as to how alive body was turned into a corpse or is made to turn into corpse. Here in this case, the explanation offered by the accused is wholly unbelievable. It has been clearly proved that Gurdev Kaur had put to an end to her life by consuming poison. The accused was not found by the side of the dead body when the informant along with his brother-in-law Makhan Singh arrived there nor was he found at the spot when the police officer (PW6) reached there. He was arrested on 12.1.1991. The movement of the accused and situations are incompatible with his innocence. The accused was not found by the side of the dead body when the informant along with his brother-in-law Makhan Singh arrived there nor was he found at the spot when the police officer (PW6) reached there. He was arrested on 12.1.1991. The movement of the accused and situations are incompatible with his innocence. On the contrary, it gives substances to the guilt.” 15. In the instant case also, the accused instead of adjusting her in the matrimonial house had started launching serious allegations that she was an eunuch without any medical evidence in his hand. He was also raising demand of dowry. The accused in his statement has given a strange version that on the day of occurrence, he was not with Nirmla and was present in the house of his father. Though, the prosecution has not come with the story of homicidal death, yet, it would also not be inappropriate to say that the story projected by the accused is false and against the medical evidence which indicates homicidal death. The another circumstance which also goes against the accused is that when her father along with other family members and panchayat reached the house of the deceased, then on enquiry the accused could not give satisfactory reply. In these circumstances, presumption of dowry death as envisaged under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be said to be rebutted. 16. No other argument has been raised. 17. As an upshot of the above discussions, this court concurs with the judgment passed by the trial court and reaches the irresistible conclusion that Nirmla died other than in the normal circumstances within seven months of her marriage, having been harassed and tortured on account of demand of dowry by the accused-appellant. 18. Keeping in view the serious allegations and the manner in which she had been murdered, the sentence awarded to him cannot be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. 19. Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal No. 296-SB of 2000, being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 20. In view of the discussions made above, no grounds for enhancement of sentence are made out. 21. Consequently, the petition No. 1347 of 2000 preferred by the complainant is also dismissed. Petition dismissed.