JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 16.06.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura, in S.T.03(ST/B) of 2009. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, convicted the Appellants, namely, (1) Sri Babul Das, (2) Sri Prakash Das and (3) Smti Khoki Das, under Sections 498A/304B of the Indian Penal code (hereinafter called 'IPC') and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, suffer rigorous imprisonment for another two months, for their conviction under Section 498A IPC. By the said judgment and order, while the Appellant No. 2, namely, Sri Prakash Das was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for his conviction under Section 304B IP the other two Appellants, namely, Sri Babul Das and Smti Khoki Das, were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years each, for their conviction under Section 304B IPC. It was provided, by the impugned judgment and order aforesaid, that the said sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the Appellants have come up with this appeal, challenging the correctness of the impugned judgment and order. 3. We have heard Mr. A.C. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned Counsel, appearing for the Appellants and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State Respondent. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, as revealed at the trial, may be stated thus: Smti Rinku Das (hereinafter called 'the deceased'), daughter of Sri Subash Das (PW.9) i.e. the informant, was given in marriage to the Appellant No. 2, namely, Sri Prakash Das in the month of As had (Bengali month), 1411 BE, corresponding to the month of June,2004 of the English Calendar. Thereafter, she used to live in her marital house with her husband and other members of her in-laws. After the said marriage, the Appellants used to ill treat her, both mentally and physically, regarding the gift items given by her parents, at the time of her marriage and demanded her to bring money from her parents. Thereafter, she used to live in her marital house with her husband and other members of her in-laws. After the said marriage, the Appellants used to ill treat her, both mentally and physically, regarding the gift items given by her parents, at the time of her marriage and demanded her to bring money from her parents. According to the prosecution, at the time of negotiation of the said marriage, the Appellants demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/-and, accordingly, an amount of Rs.30,000/- was to be paid them at the time of the marriage and the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/-, was paid on demand in two instalments after the marriage. But despite paying the said dowry, the Appellants continued to torture the deceased, demanding more money. Even the presence of the informant (PW.9) also, during the latter's visit to the marital house of the deceased, the Appellants had ill treated the deceased. On 06.06.2007, at about 9/9.30 p.m., the informant came to know from the police of Shantirbazar P.S. that his said daughter had died. According to the informant, the Appellants murdered his daughter due to her failure to meet their demanded for dowry. 5. Initially, on 06.06.2007, police registered a U.D. Case, being U.D. Case No. 24/07, under Section174 of Code of Criminal Procedure and conducted inquest of the dead body of the deceased. The inquest report (Ext.6) reveals that swollen patch around the neck, and saliva in the mouth of the deceased were found. As indicated in the said inquest report, police was informed that the death was caused due to hanging, in her room near the bed stand. Thereafter, on 07.06.2007, upon receipt of FIR from the informant i.e. the father of the deceased, the O/C Belonia P.S., South Tripura, registered a regular case, being BLN. P.S. Case No. 75/07, under Section 304B IPC. During the investigation, police examined witnesses, visited the place of occurrence, prepared hand-sketch map, collected post mortem examination report, prepared by a Board of Doctors, performing the autopsy. As opined by the said Medical Board, which performed autopsy, the cause of death of the deceased was cardio respiratory failure, asphyxia due to strangulation, which was homicidal in nature. 6. At the close of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet, under Sections 304B/498A of IPC, against the Appellants and forwarded them to the Court to stand trial. 7. As opined by the said Medical Board, which performed autopsy, the cause of death of the deceased was cardio respiratory failure, asphyxia due to strangulation, which was homicidal in nature. 6. At the close of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet, under Sections 304B/498A of IPC, against the Appellants and forwarded them to the Court to stand trial. 7. The offence under Section 304B being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, framed charges against the Appellants under Sections 304B and 498A IPC and explained the same to the Appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses, including the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officers, who performed the post mortem examination. 9. At the close of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure They denied the allegations, brought against them, pleaded not guilty and declined to adduce defence evidence. 10. Considering the materials on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused persons guilty of the offences, charged against them, and, accordingly, recorded the conviction and sentences aforesaid, which have been challenged in this appeal. 11. Mr. A.C. Bhowmik, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned Counsel, appearing for the Appellants, has submitted that there is no direct and substantive evidence, against the Appellants and that the learned trial Judge committed error by holding the Appellants guilty of the offences, under Sections 304B and 498A IPC, without sufficient evidence on record. It is also submitted, on behalf of the Appellants, that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself and that the Appellants, at no point of time treated her with cruelty demanding any dowry or for any other reason. 12. Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State-Respondent, controverting the said argument, advanced by the learned senior counsel, appearing for the Appellants, has submitted that there is sufficient reliable and cogent evidence, indicating the involvement of the Appellants and as such the learned trial Judge committed no error by awarding the impugned conviction and sentence aforesaid. 12. Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State-Respondent, controverting the said argument, advanced by the learned senior counsel, appearing for the Appellants, has submitted that there is sufficient reliable and cogent evidence, indicating the involvement of the Appellants and as such the learned trial Judge committed no error by awarding the impugned conviction and sentence aforesaid. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that in view of the unnatural death of the deceased in her marital house, though it was hardly possible to get direct evidence in the form of an eye witness, the evidence given by the parents and other witnesses, who were reported by the deceased about the ill treatment meted out to her and the medical evidence as revealed from the post mortem examination could sufficiently establish, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the Appellants treated the deceased with cruelty and harassment by demanding dowry and as such presumption can be safely drawn that the Appellants were responsible for the death of the deceased. 13. In order to appreciate the arguments, advanced by the learned Counsel, appearing for both the parties and examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, we feel it appropriate to, briefly, recapitulate the evidence on record as below: 14. The father of the deceased, namely, Sri Subhash Das, who lodged the FIR, was examined as PW.9. This witness stated that, at the time of settlement of the marriage of the deceased, the bridegroom party had demanded Rs.50,000/-, for which an amount of Rs.30,000/- was paid along with some other articles. According to this witness, during the initial period of six months, from the date of marriage, though there was no problem, after about six months of the marriage, the parents-in-law of the deceased started inflicting mental torture on the deceased for non-payment of the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- and therefore, he had paid another amount of Rs.10,000/- to Sri Babul Das i.e. the father-in-law of the deceased. According to this witness, the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- was also paid, by his wife (PW.10), to their son-in-law i.e. Sri Prakash Das (Appellant No. 2). This witness further stated that, his daughter i.e. the deceased, who used to inform him about the torture, about 20/25 days, prior to her death, had visited his house and reported about mental torture meted out to her by her in-laws. This witness further stated that, his daughter i.e. the deceased, who used to inform him about the torture, about 20/25 days, prior to her death, had visited his house and reported about mental torture meted out to her by her in-laws. According to this witness, on the night of 6th June, 2007, he got the information about the death of his daughter. He exhibited the FIR, lodged by him as Ext. No. 9, and his signature thereon as Ext. No. 9/1. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the defence. In his cross examination, he stated that the matter regarding demand of Rs.50,000/- was discussed in the house of one Sri Rati Das, in his presence and that at the time of payment of Rs.30,000/-, his wife (PW.10) and other local villagers, namely, Sri Krishna Mahajan and Sri Maran Das were present. This witness denied the suggestions, that he did not pay Rs.50,000/- to the accused persons as dowry and that she had committed suicide on the ground that she was not given in marriage to the boy, with whom she had love affairs. 15. The mother of the deceased, who was examined as PW.10, in tune with the evidence, given by her husband i.e. PW.9, stated that, at the time of the marriage of the deceased a demand of Rs.50,000/- was raised and that Rs.30,000/- was paid in cash. She further stated that the parents-in-law and the husband of the deceased used to torture the deceased due to her failure to pay the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/-, for which the said balance amount was also paid in two instalments. The mother of the deceased, in her evidence stated that, 20 days prior to her death, the deceased, while visiting their house i.e. the house of PW 9 and PW 10, told her (PW 10) about the mental and physical torture meted out to her. Though this witness was cross examined, on behalf of the defence, her evidence remained undemolished. No suggestion was put to her denying her evidence that she was reported by her daughter, during her visit, regarding the torture meted out to her and the demand of money. Of course, suggestion was put to her, on behalf of the defence, denying that the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- was not paid and this suggestion was categorically denied by the said witness. 16. Of course, suggestion was put to her, on behalf of the defence, denying that the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- was not paid and this suggestion was categorically denied by the said witness. 16. Sri Shibu Ranjan Das, who was a relative of the deceased, deposed as PW.11. He stated that, the deceased had reported him about the physical and mental torture committed on her for non-payment of Rs.20,000/-. Though this witness was cross examined, on behalf of the defence, his evidence that he was reported by the deceased regarding the physical and mental torture meted out to her for non-payment of dowry, remained unchallenged. 17. Sri Krishna Mahajan was examined as PW.12. Sri Mahajan, supporting the evidence of PW 9, stated that, at the time of settlement of the marriage, he was present and that the demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/- in cash was made in his presence. He further stated and that, as per the said demand, PW.9 had paid Rs.30,000/- to Sri Babul Das i.e. the father-in-law of the deceased and that, subsequently, he came to know, from the deceased, that she was ill treated by her husband and in-laws for nonpayment of the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/-. This witness further stated that, 20 days prior to her death, the said deceased had reported him regarding the ill treatment meted out to her. He denied the suggestion, put to him, on behalf of the defence, that the amount of Rs.30,000/- was not paid to the Appellants, that the deceased had love affairs with another boy and that she did not report him about the alleged ill treatment. From the above evidence, it is found that PW.12 fully corroborated the evidence of PW.9 and PW 10 regarding demand of Rs.30,000/- and payment of Rs.30,000/- to the Appellants and thus supported the prosecution version with regard to the allegation of ill treatment for non-payment of dowry. 18. Sri Rakhal Chandra Das, who deposed as PW.13, stated that he was informed by the deceased that her mother had paid Rs.10,000/- to her husband and that her father-in-law had abused her. He denied the suggestion, put to him, during his cross-examination by the defence, that the deceased did not report him about the ill treatment received from her husband and in-laws. 19. Smti Billa Rani Das, who is the sister of the mother of the deceased, deposed as PW.14. He denied the suggestion, put to him, during his cross-examination by the defence, that the deceased did not report him about the ill treatment received from her husband and in-laws. 19. Smti Billa Rani Das, who is the sister of the mother of the deceased, deposed as PW.14. This witness stated that, she was informed by the deceased that she was ill treated by her husband and in-laws for non-payment of Rs.20,000/- and that the mother of the deceased had paid Rs.10,000/- to the husband of the deceased. She denied the suggestion, during her cross examination, made on behalf of the defence, that she was not informed by the deceased about the ill treatment, committed by her husband and in-laws. 20. Smti Jamuna Debnath (PW.3), Sri Madan Mohan Das (PW.15), Sri Nirendra Kr. Pal (PW.18) were tendered as prosecution witness and the defence declined to cross examine them. 21. Smti Mira Roy, who was a neighbourer of the parents of the deceased, deposed as PW.16. This witness stated that, during her visit to her parents' house, the deceased used to visit her also, and, during her such visit, the deceased reported her that her husband and in-laws used to torture her, both physically and mentally, due to her failure to take money from her parents. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the defence and she denied the suggestion that the deceased did not tell her about the torture, committed by her husband and in-laws, in connection with the demand of money. 22. Smti Situ Mahajan, who is the wife of Sri Krishna Mahajan (PW.12), deposed as PW.17. She, in her evidence, stated that the deceased, during her visit to her paternal house, informed her also regarding the physical assault committed by her husband and the ill treatment meted out to her by her in-laws, due to her failure to take money from her parents. In her cross examination, made on behalf of the defence, she denied the suggestion, put to her, that she was not informed about the mental and physical torture aforesaid. 23. Sri Manik Das, who was the Investigating Officer, was examined as PW.19. In her cross examination, made on behalf of the defence, she denied the suggestion, put to her, that she was not informed about the mental and physical torture aforesaid. 23. Sri Manik Das, who was the Investigating Officer, was examined as PW.19. This witness stated that, on receipt of the FIR, he visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and collected the report of the post mortem examination as well as the report from the forensic laboratory with regard to the visera of the deceased. In his cross-examination, the Investigating officer stated that this case was initially registered and investigated as U.D. Case. From the cross examination of the Investigating Officer, no material contradiction could be elicited to demolish the evidence, adduced by the prosecution witnesses. 24. Smt. Sabita Debnath and Smt. Bindu Rani Debnath, who were neighbourers of the Appellants were examined as PW 1 and PW 2 respectively. They, hearing hue and cry, visited the house of the Appellants on the fateful day, and found the deceased in unconscious state. According to them, the deceased was shifted to the hospital, wherein she expired. These two witnesses, did not state anything incriminating against the Appellants. Though they were cross-examined by the prosecution, after declaring them hostile, no evidence could be elicited against the Appellants. However, from their evidence, it is found that the deceased was found in unconscious state in her marital house itself and she died on the same night. 25. Dr. Tapash Majumder, who was one of the members of the team, conducting the post mortem examination of the deceased, has been examined as PW.4. This witness stated that, he along with Dr. B.K. Saha and Dr. Sankar Chakraborty, performed the post mortem examination and found the following injuries. (1) One deep ligature mark around the neck, which was prominent on both sides of the neck extending upto mid line of the back of the neck; (2) One scratch mark on the left side of the neck, which was anti mortem in nature; (3) One fracture over the hyoid bone in the left side. The Medical Officer did not find any ligature cord along with the dead body. On dissection of the ligature mark on the neck, the same was found to be pale and dry, which was transverse in type. The Medical Officer did not find any ligature cord along with the dead body. On dissection of the ligature mark on the neck, the same was found to be pale and dry, which was transverse in type. The said Medical Officer further stated that, on dissection of the stomach, undigested food materials were found. According to the Medical Officers (PW 4 and PW 7), who conducted the post mortem examination, the cause of death was cardio respiratory failure, asphyxia due to strangulation, which was homicidal in nature. PW.4 exhibited the post mortem report as Ext. No. 3 and his signature, thereon, as Ext. No. 3/1. In his cross examination, made by the defence, this witness stated that he was informed by one Constable Sri Kamalendu Debbarma and Sri Subash Das (PW 9) i.e. the father of the deceased that, the deceased died by hanging. The said two informants, did not see the deceased hanging. PW 9 arrived at the place of occurrence after the death of the deceased that too on being informed by police. They had no personal knowledge about the cause of death. Therefore, from the said information, received by PW 4, it cannot be concluded that the deceased died by hanging herself. PW 4 denied the suggestion that the fracture of the hyoid bone was due to hanging. He stated that the said fracture was caused due to strangulation. The Medical Officer further stated that he did not know the identity of Sri Subhash Das. He categorically denied the suggestion that there was neither any anti mortem injury, nor the death was a homicidal one. He also denied the suggestion that Sri Sub has Das (i.e. the father of the deceased) was his relative and that the post mortem report was prepared on being influenced by Sri Subhash Das aforesaid. 26. Dr. Sankar Chakraborty, one of the members of the team of doctors, performing the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased who deposed as PW 7, supporting the evidence of PW.4 stated that the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was conducted by a Medical Board of which he was also one of the Members along with Dr. Tapash Majumder (PW 4) and Dr. B.K. Saha. He exhibited the post mortem report as Ext. No. 3 and his signature thereon as Ext. No. 3/1. Tapash Majumder (PW 4) and Dr. B.K. Saha. He exhibited the post mortem report as Ext. No. 3 and his signature thereon as Ext. No. 3/1. Except putting a suggestion, on behalf of the defence, suggesting that the report was prepared falsely at the instance of the father of the deceased, which was denied by this witness, no cross examination was made in respect of the evidence, given by this witness. 27. There is no dispute that, PW.4 and PW.7, being the members of the duly constituted Medical Board, conducted the post mortem examination. Both of them exhibited the post mortem report as Ext. No. 3. The defence version, with regard to the said post mortem report, was that the father of the deceased, namely, Sri Subhash Das, was a relative of PW.4 and as such a false report was submitted. This suggestion was categorically denied by PW.4. PW.4, further stated that he did not know the identity of said Sri Subhash Das. Similarly, PW.7 who was also one of the Members of the Medical Board, supporting the evidence of PW.4, denied the suggestion that the said report was prepared on being influenced by the father of the deceased. Though the defence made an attempt to show that the post mortem report was prepared on being influenced by the father of the deceased, there is nothing substantive, on record, to believe that the said report was prepared on being influenced by the father of the deceased, in any manner. Therefore, we find nothing to disbelieve the evidence given by the said Medical Officers. Ruling out the hypothesis of suicide by hanging, the said Medical Officers', referring to the post mortem examination report (Ext.3), stated that the deceased died due to strangulation and that the fracture of the hyoid bone was caused due to such strangulation. 28. According to the medical opinion aforesaid, the deceased died due to strangulation, but the defence plea was that the deceased committed suicide. Except the said medical opinion, there is no substantive evidence to believe, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the deceased was killed, by strangulation, by the Appellants. The learned trial Judge, taking note of existence of prominent ligature mark around the neck of the deceased, dribbling of saliva from the angle of mouth came to the finding that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. The learned trial Judge, taking note of existence of prominent ligature mark around the neck of the deceased, dribbling of saliva from the angle of mouth came to the finding that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. In view of the above, in the absence of any direct evidence regarding strangulation, the probability of hanging also cannot be safely ruled out. There is no challenge to the said findings, rendered by the learned trial Judge. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in concluding that the deceased died of unnatural death. There is also no dispute that the deceased died in her marital home, that too within three years from the date of her marriage i.e. within the statutory period of 7 (seven) years as prescribed by Section 304B IPC. 29. In the light of the above evidence, we have to examine as to whether the death of the deceased was a dowry death, punishable under Section 304B IPC. Dowry death and the punishment thereto has been defined under Section 304B of IPC, which reads as follows: 304B. Dowry death. - (1) Where 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. Explanation. - For the purpose of this Sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) 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. 30. In case of dowry death, presumption regarding culpability is permissible under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113 of the Evidence Act reads as follows: 113B. Presumption as to dowry death. 30. In case of dowry death, presumption regarding culpability is permissible under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113 of the Evidence Act reads as follows: 113B. 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 has 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. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B, of the Indian Penal code, (45 of 1860). 31. Section 498A of IPC which provides the punishment for treating a married woman with cruelty by or the relative of the husband of a woman reads as follows: 498-A. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, 'cruelty' means - (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of a woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 32. In view of the above provisions of law, it can be understood that if a woman, who dies of an unnatural death, is found to have been subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry, soon before her death, then it is to be presumed by the court that the person(s) demanding dowry had caused the death. In such a situation, the burden to prove innocence shifts to the accused against whom the charge of causing dowry death is brought. 33. "Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short 'Dowry Act') defines "dowry" as under: Section 2. In such a situation, the burden to prove innocence shifts to the accused against whom the charge of causing dowry death is brought. 33. "Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short 'Dowry Act') defines "dowry" as under: Section 2. 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 parents 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 mehr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim personal law (Shariat) applies. 34. For establishing the offence, punishable under Section 304B IPC, the following ingredients are required to be established/proved: (a) that soon before the death of a married woman, she was subjected to harassment or cruelty by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with demand for dowry. (b) that, the deceased died within a period of seven years from the date of marriage; (c) that the death was under unnatural circumstances. 35. In view of the above law, it is settled that once it is established that there was harassment in connection with demand of dowry, followed by unnatural death within seven years of the marriage, the presumption of dowry death under Section 304B IPC is inherent. 36. The provision for presumption of dowry death has been laid down in Section 113B of the Evidence Act in a case where a person has committed dowry death of a woman. To draw presumption under this Section, two facts are required to be proved - firstly, it should be shown that a woman was subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment and secondly, that the cruelty by such person was for/or in connection with any demand for dowry. To draw presumption under this Section, two facts are required to be proved - firstly, it should be shown that a woman was subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment and secondly, that the cruelty by such person was for/or in connection with any demand for dowry. As per the definition of dowry death and the provision of Section 113B of the Evidence Act, the common essential ingredients necessary to attract both the provisions are that the concerned woman, soon before her death has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for/or in connection with demand of dowry and that the woman died within seven years from the date of her marriage. 37. In view of the above statutory provisions it stands settled that where the death of a married woman occurs on account of asphyxia due to hanging within seven years of her marriage i.e. otherwise than normal circumstances, it would be a death coming within the scope of Section 304Bwhen cruelty or harassment by her husband or any members of the family or relative of her husband in connection with demand for dowry is proved. 38. In the case of Hem Chand v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1995 SC 120 , the Appellant was convicted under Section 304B and 498 A IPC. The Doctor, who found several other contusions on the hands, axilla and other parts of the body, opined that the death was due to strangulation. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court, in the said case observed- A reading of Section 304B IPC could show that when a question arises whether a person has committed the offence of dowry death of a woman that all that is necessary is it should be shown that soon before her unnatural death, which took place within seven years of the marriage, the deceased had been subjected, by such person, to cruelty or harassment for on in connection with demand for dowry. If that is shown then the court shall presume that such a person has caused the dowry death. If that is shown then the court shall presume that such a person has caused the dowry death. It can therefore be seen that irrespective of the fact whether such person is directly responsible for the death of the deceased or not by virtue of the presumption, he is deemed to have committed the dowry death if there were such cruelty or harassment and that if the unnatural death has occurred within seven years from the date of marriage. Likewise there is a presumption under Section113B of the Evidence Act as to the dowry death. It lays down that the court shall presume that the person who has subjected the deceased wife to cruelty before her death shall presume to have caused the dowry death if it is shown that before her death, such woman had been subjected, by the accused, to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. Practically this is the presumption that has been incorporated in Section 304BIPC also. It can therefore be seen that irrespective of the fact whether the accused has any direct connect ion with the death or not, he shall be presumed to have committed the dowry death provided the other requirements mentioned above are satisfied. In the instant case no doubt the prosecution has proved that the deceased died an unnatural death namely due to strangulation, but there is no direct evidence connecting the accused. It is also important to note in this context that there is no charge under Section 302 IPC. The trial court also noted that there were two sets of medical evidence on the file in respectively of the death of the deceased. Dr. Usha Rani, PW 6 and Dr. Indu Lalit, PW 7 gave one opinion. According to them no injury was found on the dead body and that the same was highly decomposed. On the other hand, Dr. Dalbir Singh, PW 13 who also examined the dead body and gave his opinion, deposed that he noticed some injuries at the time of re-post mortem examination. Therefore, at the most it can be said that the prosecution proved that it was an unnatural death in which case also Section 304B IPC would be attracted. 39. Dalbir Singh, PW 13 who also examined the dead body and gave his opinion, deposed that he noticed some injuries at the time of re-post mortem examination. Therefore, at the most it can be said that the prosecution proved that it was an unnatural death in which case also Section 304B IPC would be attracted. 39. A careful reading of Section 304B of IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act makes it abundantly clear that the law authorizes presumption that husband or such other relatives of the husband has caused death of a woman who died under unnatural circumstances within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and if there is evidence to show that the woman was treated with cruelty or harassment for/or in connection with demand for dowry. Once it is established that the woman died of unnatural death within seven years from the date of her marriage and if soon before her death there was cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry, the Court can safely presume that the husband or such other relatives of the husband against whom the allegation of cruelty and harassment has been brought, are guilty of the offence under Section 304B and then the burden to disprove the said presumption shifts to the accused person. 40. From the above discussed evidence on record, more particularly, the evidence of PW 9 and PW 10 (parents of the deceased), it is found that the Appellants used to cause physical as well as mental torture on the deceased due to her failure to meet the demand of dowry. PW Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17 supported the evidence of PW Nos. 9 and 10 aforesaid, with regard to the demand of dowry and ill treatment in connection with demand of dowry. From the evidence of the said witnesses, it can be safely held that the cause of physical and mental harassment was the failure of the deceased to meet the demand of dowry. 41. Carefully examining the evidence of the said witnesses, we find sufficient corroboration in their evidence to believe that the deceased had complained that she was assaulted and harassed both physically and mentally by her husband as well as parents-in-law due to her failure to meet their demand of dowry. 42. 41. Carefully examining the evidence of the said witnesses, we find sufficient corroboration in their evidence to believe that the deceased had complained that she was assaulted and harassed both physically and mentally by her husband as well as parents-in-law due to her failure to meet their demand of dowry. 42. It has already been noticed, from the evidence of the above mentioned witnesses, more particularly, the evidence of PW. Nos. 9, 10, 12 and 14, that there was demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/- at the time of marriage and that the bride's parents could initially pay Rs.30,000/- only leaving a balance of Rs.20,000/- and for non-payment of the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/-, the Appellants, who were husband and the parents-in-law of the deceased, used to torture her both physically as well as mentally. Except putting suggestions to the parents of the deceased, to the effect that there was no demand of dowry and that they did not pay Rs.50,000/- or Rs.20,000/-, as claimed by the Appellants, which suggestions were denied by the said witnesses, the defence could not contradict or demolish their evidence regarding payment of dowry and torture. The parents of the deceased forcefully stated that their daughter had informed them about the torture and harassment, meted out to her, but the defence failed to contradict the said evidence. Even no suggestion was put to the said two witnesses denying their said evidence. 43. PW. Nos. 11, 12 and 14 supported the evidence of the parents of the deceased regarding the ill treatment committed to the deceased, and their evidence remained unshaken. PW.11 clearly stated that the deceased had informed her about the physical and mental torture caused by her husband and father-in-law for non-payment of Rs.20,000/- in cash at the time of marriage. She also stated that 20 days, prior to her death, the deceased, while visiting the house of her parents, reported about her unhappiness and the torture caused to her by her in-laws. Though this witness was cross-examined on behalf of the defence, her evidence in this regard was not contradicted. Even no suggestion was put to her, denying her said evidence. Supporting the evidence of PW.11, PW.12 also stated that 20 days prior to her death, the deceased met her on the road and informed about the ill treatment suffered by her in her marital home. 44. Even no suggestion was put to her, denying her said evidence. Supporting the evidence of PW.11, PW.12 also stated that 20 days prior to her death, the deceased met her on the road and informed about the ill treatment suffered by her in her marital home. 44. Both the parents of the deceased, who deposed as PW Nos. 9 and 10 clearly stated that 20/25 days prior to her death, the deceased visited their house and informed them about the mental and physical torture inflicted on her, due to her failure, to meet the demand of dowry and their said evidence remained undemolished. The evidence that the deceased had reported 20/25 days prior to her death about the ill treatment amply indicates that she was treated with cruelty and harassment, soon before her death. The said harassment/cruelty was in connection with demand of dowry. 45. In view of the above discussed evidence, we find sufficient corroboration on material point to believe that the Appellants had demanded dowry from the parents of the deceased and due to their failure to meet their said demand, the deceased was ill treated, causing physical as well as mental torture. 46. From the above discussed evidence, it has been established, as indicated above, that the death of the deceased was unnatural and the same took place within the statutory period of seven years from the date of her marriage with the Appellant No. 2. The prosecution has also been able to prove, by adducing sufficient, cogent and reliable evidence, that the deceased, soon before her death, was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry. 47. In the present case, the evidence, as discussed above, clearly show that the deceased was treated with cruelty and harassment by the accused Appellants in connection with the demand for dowry and she died of unnatural death within the statutory period of seven years. There is evidence that 20/25 days prior to her death also she reported about the harassment and cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. Therefore, the presumption of causing dowry death of the deceased by the accused persons is inevitable and inherent. The prosecution could successfully establish all the ingredients of Section 304B of IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 498A IPC but the defence failed to discharge its burden to prove their innocence. 48. Therefore, the presumption of causing dowry death of the deceased by the accused persons is inevitable and inherent. The prosecution could successfully establish all the ingredients of Section 304B of IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 498A IPC but the defence failed to discharge its burden to prove their innocence. 48. In view of the above discussed evidence we find no difficulty in holding that the prosecution could prove that the accused Appellants committed the offences under Section 498A and 304B of IPC and as such there is no sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned conviction and the sentence. 49. We, accordingly, confirm and uphold the impugned conviction and sentences as indicated above. 50. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Return the Lower Court Records. Appeal dismissed.