JUDGMENT (Per: U.C. Dhyani J.) In the instant case, criminal law was set into motion on the complaint (Ext. Ka-6) dated 02.10.1987 of Somdutt Bharadwaj s/o Roop Chand r/o Mohalla Shekhupura within the jurisdiction of P.S. Kankhal, district Haridwar. Chik FIR (Ext. Ka- 12) was lodged on 02.10.1987 at 4:40 pm at P.S. Kankhal which was registered as case crime no. 108 of 1987 under Sections 498A, 307 IPC. Occurrence took place on 02.10.1987 at 10:30 am. The distance between the place of occurrence and P.S. concerned was 1/2 kilometer and hence there appeared to be no delay in lodging FIR. 2. It was the cousin of deceased who initiated proceedings by filing complaint (Ext. Ka-6). Prosecution story was that victim Hridyesh Kumari d/o Shri Chand Sharma r/o Mohalla Chakteerth Soron, district Eta (UP) was married to appellant Jitendra Kumar s/o Kanti Prasad r/o Mohalla Lalkuan, Kankhal, Haridwar in April 1982. They lived happily for a few days but after that appellant Jitendra Kumar and his mother, appellant Premlata started harassing the victim on account of bringing lesser dowry. Appellants demanded VCR. Victim could not resist harassment and went to her parental home. On the intervention of the relatives, victim came back to her appellant-husband. 3. On 2nd October, 1987 at 10:30 am, appellants (husband and mother-in-law of victim) set her on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her. She cried for help and came out of her house. Witnesses Nathhuram r/o Gauri Shankar, Dayaram s/o Lakshmi Chand and several others came on the spot and extinguished fire. Appellants dragged victim back into the house. In the meantime, informant also reached there. Informant saw his cousin in pathetic condition and she was admitted in G.D. Hospital, Haridwar. There were remote chances of her survival. 4. After investigation of the case, charge-sheet (Ext. Ka- 16) for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was submitted against accused appellants. Charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498A read with Section 34 IPC, 304B read with Section 34 IPC, 302 IPC, 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against the accused persons by the trial court. As many as 14 witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution. Statements of the accused-appellants were taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused-appellants. As many as 14 witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution. Statements of the accused-appellants were taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused-appellants. Both the accused Jitendra Kumar and Premlata were convicted by the trial court for the offences punishable under Section 304B IPC on 03.08.2002. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 03.08.2002, appellants Jitendra Kumar and Premlata preferred present appeals. 5. Victim was married to appellant Jitendra Kumar in the year 1982 and the occurrence took place in the year 1982, hence incident took place within 7 years of their marriage. Postmortem report (Ext. Ka-7) suggests that victim died due to shock as a result of ante-mortem burns. Hence there is no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that victim died under unnatural circumstances. 6. Now the question arises whether victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of non-fulfillment of dowry? 7. Fortunately for the prosecution, documentary evidence was made available in the instant case. Normally in dowry death cases oral evidence/circumstantial evidence is found on the file. Whether the court believes the same or not, that is a different matter. In a good number of cases dying declaration is also recorded. Whether the dying declaration inspires the confidence of the court or not, again depends from case to case. Further in a few cases the correspondence between the victim and her parents is also made available. In the present case such a correspondence has been made available by the prosecution. In letter Ext. Ka-1 victim wrote to her parents as follows: “ ……………. you immediately rush to me. Everybody is after me.…………… nobody talks to me and everybody is after me. Papa (you) take me from here .… you will start weeping after seeing me. I am unable to write more. I am writing this letter in a hurry. You must call me. Your’s faithfully, (daughter).” 8. Vide letter dated 13.10.1985 (Ext. Ka-2) the victim wrote to her parents thus: “……………. as of now I am residing in Yamuna Nagar. ……….. I am writing this letter under compulsion. You had seen (searched) son-in-law for me, but he was demanding VCR & Video from you. Now he has started harassing me and beating me. He says that you ask your father to provide Video otherwise he (my husband) would kill me. ….. as of now I am residing in Yamuna Nagar. ……….. I am writing this letter under compulsion. You had seen (searched) son-in-law for me, but he was demanding VCR & Video from you. Now he has started harassing me and beating me. He says that you ask your father to provide Video otherwise he (my husband) would kill me. ….. (my husband) does not pay any heed to (any advice of) family members………….. If possible, please call me.” 9. Appellant-husband addressed letter (Ext. Ka-3) to his wife/victim as follows : “Received letter of your father…………. I did not go to your father for this relationship. There were so many proposals before me and likewise, there were so many proposals before your father (for you). I would not have accepted relationship with beggars (paupers). If your father is an egoist, let it be. Your father said that he will not come to drop his daughter. He will have to come to drop you. I am also adamant. I will not come to your father……… Handover this letter to your father and say that Jitendra has written it. If anything is to be discussed, (you) come immediately on receipt of this letter. Then only I will talk to your father……… If you want to spent your life with me, you have to decide. I have to say this much. You will be responsible for the decision which you will taking. Ponder over it. It is a question of life and death. Your father told Delhites that I have demanded VCR. Your father is not in a position to provide VCR. I have got everything with the blessings of Almighty. What he will give? Your father wrote a letter that I should take you (to your matrimonial home). If it is so, (I may tell you) that my father was instrumental in facilitating this relationship. I was not at all agreeable to it. I entered into this relationship against my wishes............” 10. Two letters (Exts. Ka-4 & Ka-5) written by informant (victim’s cousin) to his maternal uncle and maternal aunt (parents of victim) have also been made available. In these letters cousin of victim who also happens to be informant of this case wrote letters to victim’s parents. He counselled victim’s parents to insist upon Jintendra (husband of victim) to come and take his wife . In these letters cousin of victim who also happens to be informant of this case wrote letters to victim’s parents. He counselled victim’s parents to insist upon Jintendra (husband of victim) to come and take his wife . They should not send other persons to take her. He also counseled to seek apology in writing from husband, otherwise they will kill her. Instances were quoted whereby daughters of Kankhal, Haridwar were done to death in Dehradun. Informant also expressed apprehensions that victim’s in-laws might harass her for not bringing VCR. Victim’s mother-in-law might castigate her for not bringing VCR. Informant who also happened to be an Advocate by profession, advised parents of victim to remain cautious on this count also. 11. Prosecution allegation is that the appellants were making a persistent demand for making a VCR available to them, as is apparent from the contents of complaint (Ext. Ka-6). PW 1 Shrichand was the unfortunate father of the deceased who said, amongst other things, in his examination-in-chief that initially the appellants did not demand dowry when the marriage took place. When victim came to her parental home for the first time after marriage, then she said that appellants remarked that nothing has come in dowry. “now a days everybody is giving VCR”. Whenever victim came to her parental home she used to say that her husband and mother-in-law make a demand of TV & VCR. Father of victim also presented two letters written by his daughter to him. These letters were exhibited as Ext. Ka- 1 and Ext. Ka-2. According to father, his daughter complained that appellants beat her saying that she should bring VCR and TV. She was also accused of committing theft. Father brought his daughter with him. Thereafter, appellant Jitendra wrote letter (Ext. Ka-3). Jitendra’s grandfather and one Gaurishankar came to his residence to take victim back to her matrimonial home. Next day he received two unstamped letters (Ext. Ka-4 & Ka-5). Father went to see his daughter only to find that she has sustained injuries. Father took daughter along with him. Mother-in-law of victim wrote a letter to his daughter-in-law to come back to her matrimonial home on the pretext that pooja was to be performed. Victim came back to her matrimonial home, stayed there for three months and on 03.10.1987 Police informed unfortunate father that his daughter was dead. Father took daughter along with him. Mother-in-law of victim wrote a letter to his daughter-in-law to come back to her matrimonial home on the pretext that pooja was to be performed. Victim came back to her matrimonial home, stayed there for three months and on 03.10.1987 Police informed unfortunate father that his daughter was dead. Appellants set victim on fire after pouring kerosene on her. The reason was non-fulfillment of dowry. 12. PW 2 Somdutt Bharadwaj was cousin of deceased. Victim’s matrimonial home was situated at a distance of 100-150 yards from PW 2 Somdutt’s house. The witness said in examination-in-chief that for a few days after marriage victim had no qualms against her in-laws. But after some time, victim’s mother-in-law and husband ridiculed her for not bringing sufficient dowry. They started beating her and used to demand VCR and Video. Victim told this witness about the same. On being harassed by in-laws, victim used to come to her parental home. Her in-laws brought her back to her matrimonial home. At the time of victim’s death she had a two year’s old son. Narrating about the incident PW 2 Somdutt said that on 2nd October, 1987 at around 10:30 am he witnessed that appellants were dragging victim inside the house. Victim was burnt. Many a people helped extinguish fire on the body of victim. Thereafter, she was taken to G.D. Hospital for treatment. Her mother-in-law (one of the appellants) also went to hospital. This witness proved his complaint (Ext. Ka-6). He had also written letters (Ext Ka-4 & Ka-5) to the father of victim. Appellant Jitendra remarried on 23rd May, 1991. 13. PW 3 Dayaram did not support prosecution story. He witnessed burning of victim only. He said that victim’s mother-in-law was present but husband was not present there. He had only heard from others about the complaint of harassment of victim by her in-laws regarding non-fulfillment of dowry. 14. PW4 Doctor B. L. Verma conducted postmortem on the dead body of the victim. He found following ante-mortem injury on her body : Ist & IInd degree burns present all over the body except dorsum & sole of both feet. Sculp & pubic hairs seinged. Doctor proved his report Ext. Ka-7 and said that the cause of death of victim was shock as a result of ante-mortem burns. 15. He found following ante-mortem injury on her body : Ist & IInd degree burns present all over the body except dorsum & sole of both feet. Sculp & pubic hairs seinged. Doctor proved his report Ext. Ka-7 and said that the cause of death of victim was shock as a result of ante-mortem burns. 15. PW5 Suresh Chandra was the witness of memo regarding taking into possession of stove, kettle, matchbox etc. Recovery memos (Ext. Ka-5 to Ka- 11) bore signatures of PW 5 Suresh Chandra. He also proved material exhibits 1 to 4 and 9 to 10. 16. PW6 Constable Satyavan Singh proved chik FIR (Ext. Ka- 12) written on the basis of complaint (Ext. Ka-6) of Somdutt Bharadwaj. He also proved copy of G.D. (Ext. Ka-13). 17. PW7 Nathuram saw victim lying in her courtyard in burnt state. PW 3 Dayaram was also with this witness. Like PW 3 Dayaram, this witness Nathuram was also declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution story in its entirety. He came to know that victim was set on fire but he was ignorant about the persons who committed this crime. 18. PW 8 Suresh Chandra Sharma, Naib Tehsildar, Haridwar recorded dying declaration of victim on 02.10.1987 at 12:45 pm. He recorded dying declaration thus: “My name is Hridyesh. My mother-in-law set me on fire. Mother-in-law ’s name is Premlata. She poured kerosene (on me) and set (me) on fire. The kerosene oil was poured (on me) from kettle. (At that time) myself and my mother-in-law alone were there in house. I was married two year ’s ago. A son was begotten from my marriage. My mother-in-law quarreled with me everyday. She used to say that I did not bring VCR (in dowry).” 19. Naib Tehsildar proved dying declaration Ext. Ka-14. He obtained certificate of Doctor O.P.Sharma. He recorded dying declaration of victim in closed room. Naib Tehsildar proved Doctor’s certificate (Ext. ka-15) and envelope (Material Ext.-9). Naib Tehsildar made it clear that right thumb impression of victim was got affixed on dying declaration (Ext. Ka-14) first but since it was burnt and proper thumb impression could not be taken, therefore, left thumb impression of victim was obtained. 20. PW 9 Rakesh Pradhan, Circle Officer was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police at Haridwar in December, 1987 whereupon he started investigation of the case on 18.12.1987. He proved charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-14) first but since it was burnt and proper thumb impression could not be taken, therefore, left thumb impression of victim was obtained. 20. PW 9 Rakesh Pradhan, Circle Officer was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police at Haridwar in December, 1987 whereupon he started investigation of the case on 18.12.1987. He proved charge-sheet (Ext. Ka- 16) submitted by him in the Court. 21. PW 10 Constable Veer Singh proved G.D. on 03.10.1987 as Ext. Ka- 17 whereby the case was converted into one under Section 302 IPC on the death of victim. 22. PW 11 Ajay Kumar was the first Investigating Officer of the case, who proved site plan (Ext. Ka-18), recovery memo of kettle, match box etc. as Exts. Ka-8 to Ka-11. He proved material exhibits 1 to 10. Thereafter, he transferred investigation of the case to C.O., Haridwar. He effected arrest of the appellants on 02.10.1987. 23. PW 12 Doctor O.P. Sharma proved certified copy of medico legal register (Ext. Ka- 19) pertaining to victim. He also proved his endorsement on dying declaration (Ext. Ka- 14) as Ext. Ka- 15. The endorsement made was as below : “Certified that patient remained fully conscious at the time of recording of statement and remained fully conscious during completion of statement.” 24. Doctor O.P. Sharma also proved his signatures Ext. Ka-20 on postmortem report Ext. Ka-17. Photocopy of bed head ticket of victim was also presented before the court by Doctor O.P.Sharma. 25. PW 13 Ajay Kumar said that original copy of bed head ticket of victim was destroyed on 05.10.199 1. Bead head ticket was preserved only for a year. 26. PW 14 SI Bhoop Singh proved panchnama /inquest report (Ext. Ka-2 1) and other papers relating thereto from Exts. Ka-22 to Ka-25. 27. The prosecution in this case was not only armed with oral evidence but was also equipped with strong documentary evidence i.e. letters written by victim to her parents and letter written by husband appellant to his wife/victim. 28. As many as three defence witnesses viz. DW1 Doctor V.K.Tyagi, DW 2 Radheyshyam and DW 3 Purushottam Sharma were produced on behalf of the appellants. The testimony of these three defence witnesses could not create suspicion in the prosecution story. DW 1 V.K.Tyagi told that on the fateful day appellant Premlata came to his clinic for dressing of her fingers. As many as three defence witnesses viz. DW1 Doctor V.K.Tyagi, DW 2 Radheyshyam and DW 3 Purushottam Sharma were produced on behalf of the appellants. The testimony of these three defence witnesses could not create suspicion in the prosecution story. DW 1 V.K.Tyagi told that on the fateful day appellant Premlata came to his clinic for dressing of her fingers. At 10:30 a child aged 7-8 years came to Premlata to inform that a mishap has occurred at her residence. Appellant Premlata left Neeraj Clinic on hearing said news. DW 1 Doctor V.K.Tyagi did not maintain any register nor was having any compounder. His testimony cannot be believed because no Doctor could remember the day and time of coming of any patient with such precision as DW 1 Doctor V.K.Tyagi has remembered and deposed. DW 2 Radheyshyam denied presences of appellants when the incident took place. The testimony of this witness also is not worth credence because he did not remember many a vital information which he was ordinarily expected to remember. He was the tenant in the house of father- in-law of appellant Premlata for aprox 25 years. He had a dispute over tenancy which terminated into compromise between him and appellant Premlata. Likewise, DW 3 Purushottam Sharma also denied presence of appellants when the incident took place but like earlier defence witnesses, he pleaded ignorance on many a vital facts which he was expected to remember, if he was having such a sharp memory. All the witnesses spitted out only that much, for which they were tutored by defence. 29. Marriage of victim took place with appellant Jitendra Kumar in April, 1982. The occurrence took place on 2nd October, 1987 i.e. within seven years of marriage. Charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer under Sections 498A, 302, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Appellants were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 201, 304B IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. After conclusion of the trial, appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 304B IPC and were awarded imprisonment for life vide impugned order dated 03.08.2002. According to the report of FSL (Ext. Ka-27) ingredients of kerosene oil were found on stove and dhoti. No such ingredients were however, found on kettle and match box. 30. After conclusion of the trial, appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 304B IPC and were awarded imprisonment for life vide impugned order dated 03.08.2002. According to the report of FSL (Ext. Ka-27) ingredients of kerosene oil were found on stove and dhoti. No such ingredients were however, found on kettle and match box. 30. The presumption of Section 304B IPC shall be applicable on proof of the following : i. The question before the Court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. ii. The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. iii. Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. iv. Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death. 31. As has been indicated in the course of discussion above that PW 1 Shrichand, the unfortunate father of the deceased said that his daughter was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband and her mother-in-law. Such cruelty /harassment was in connection with the demand for dowry (TV & Video). They used to beat his daughter. Such demand continued and persisted till (soon before) her death. She was taken to her parental home by her father when he found that his daughter / victim sustained injuries in her matrimonial home. On receiving the letter of victim’s mother-in-law that pooja was to be performed at victim’s matrimonial home, victim was persuaded to rejoin her matrimonial home at Kankhal, Haridwar. 32. She died otherwise than under normal circumstances three months hence. Therefore, there were elements of cruelty /harassment meted out to her soon before her death. The ingredients of dowry death have been corroborated by informant/PW 2 Somdutt Bharadwaj in his oral testimony. He supported prosecution version and said that victim’s husband and her mother-in-law committed marpeet with victim because she did not bring VCR and Video in dowry. 33. He was also witness to the gruesome incident which took place on 2nd October, 1987. Informant saw appellants dragging victim inside the house in burnt condition. (It was a different matter that she (victim) took the name of her mother-in-law alone in her dying declaration). In his cross-examination PW 2 Somdutt Bharadwaj said that when he saw victim being dragged by both the appellants, at that time victim was in semi-conscious state. Informant saw appellants dragging victim inside the house in burnt condition. (It was a different matter that she (victim) took the name of her mother-in-law alone in her dying declaration). In his cross-examination PW 2 Somdutt Bharadwaj said that when he saw victim being dragged by both the appellants, at that time victim was in semi-conscious state. PW 3 Dayaram and PW 7 Nathuram had informed him that victim was crying about setting her on fire by appellants. Although, PW 3 Dayaram and PW 7 Nathuram were declared hostile, still both of them saw victim in flames in her matrimonial house. Thus, PW 3 Dayaram and PW 7 Nathuram have supported prosecution story to the extent that victim sustained burns or bodily injury otherwise than under normal circumstances. Appellants could not be permitted to draw any mileage on the ground that PW 3 Dayaram and PW 7 Nathuram have been declared hostile. In fact, they were declared hostile because they pleaded ignorance about the fact whether appellants harassed victim for non-fulfillment of dowry. PW 3 Dayaram also did not see anybody dragging victim. Whether victim committed suicide (out of cruelty /harassment meted out to her for non-fulfillment of dowry or appellants set her on fire for the same reason made no difference), for both the situations lead to presumption and punishment prescribed under section 304B IPC. Moreover, it was nowhere suggested to the prosecution witnesses that victim sustained burns because she tried to commit suicide. PW 4 Doctor B.L.Verma said that victim died because of shock due to ante mortem burn injuries. PW 12 Doctor O.P.Sharma said that burns were possible on 02.10.1987 at 10:30 am. Victim was conscious when her statement was recorded. Victim’s mother-in-law was present when victim was admitted in hospital. PW8 Suresh Chandra Sharma was the author of dying declaration of victim in which she said that her mother-in-law (appellant Premlata) quarreled with her everyday for not bringing VCR and therefore, mother-in-law poured kerosene on victim and set victim on fire. At that time, victim and her mother-in-law alone were present at home. It may be noted here that victim was young lady when such atrocity was committed on her. At that time, victim and her mother-in-law alone were present at home. It may be noted here that victim was young lady when such atrocity was committed on her. Had her mother-in-law alone committed this atrocity, she must have tried to resist the move of mother-in-law and must have tried to save herself from the grip of mother-in-law who was aged 57 years when the occurrence took place. It appears that like a Hindu wife, victim tried to save her husband from the clutches of law and therefore, she did not name her husband in dying declaration. Even if dying declaration of victim is kept aside, the facts and circumstances, otherwise made available on record including documentary evidence in the form of letters fully establish the following: i. Cruelty/harassment was meted out to victim by her husband and her mother-in-law. ii. Such cruelty or harassment was for not bringing VCR. Such cruelty or harassment started after some days of marriage, continued or persisted soon before victim’s death. Thus, there is no escape for the appellants in as much as prosecution has been able to make home the guilt of dowry death against the accused appellants. 34. Impugned judgment, therefore, does not warrant any interference. The appeals of the appellants are thus dismissed. The judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/1st FTC, Haridwar on 03.08.2002 is accordingly affirmed. The conviction and sentence awarded by learned trial court is also affirmed. Accused-appellants Jitendra Kumar and Prem Lata are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the court concerned to serve out the sentence thus awarded by the trial court and affirmed by this court. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent back to the court concerned for compliance.