Judgment U.C. Dhyani, J. PW1 Bant Ram, father of the victim, gave a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) to Station House Officer, police station Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun, alleging the facts contained therein that his daughter was married to Lakhvinder Singh on 14.12.1997, at Dehradun. He himself was a resident of District Patiala (Punjab). PW1 gave gifts and articles in the marriage of his daughter, to the best of his capacity, but the husband and in-laws of his daughter continued to demand the same even after marriage. They assaulted his daughter on the pretext of not bringing sufficient dowry. Informant’s daughter was beaten on 14.06.1999 as well. The incident was disclosed to PW1 by the neighbours of matrimonial home of his daughter. PW1’s daughter was killed on 16.06.1999 by pouring kerosene oil and setting her on fire. The accused persons, who were involved in the crime, were –husband Lakhvinder Singh, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased. The victim died in the hospital. On the basis of the complaint (Ext. Ka-1), chik FIR (Ext. Ka-14) was lodged in respect of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC. After the investigation, a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-8) was submitted against all the accused persons namely, Lakhvinder Singh, Shyam Singh, Smt. Harbans Kaur and Km. Parvinder. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 2) When the trial commenced and prosecution opened it’s case, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC was framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As many as 18 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. They were – PW1 Bant Ram, PW2 Ravindra Singh, PW3 Gurditta Ram, PW4 Ram Saran, PW5 Ramjee Das, PW6 Dr. Alok Tevatiya, PW7 Kamal Kumar, PW8 Smt. Kaushalya, PW9 Smt. Santosh, PW10 Krishna Lal, PW11 Gulvindra Singh, PW12 Paramjeet Singh, PW13 Smt. Kasturi, PW14 S.I. A.K. Gautam, PW15 Constable Heera Singh, PW16 Constable Jogendra Singh, PW17 Constable Sant Ram and PW18 A.S.P. Ajay Rautela. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. DW1 Nahar Singh, DW2 Jaspal Singh and DW3 Amarjeet Singh were examined in defence. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. DW1 Nahar Singh, DW2 Jaspal Singh and DW3 Amarjeet Singh were examined in defence. 3) After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court found accused Lakhvinder Singh guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC and awarded him rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years (under Section 304B of IPC) and rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (under Section 498A of IPC). The other co-accused were exonerated of the charge levelled against them. Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 08.10.2001, present Criminal Appeal was preferred by Lakhvinder Singh and present Government Appeal was filed on behalf of the State against the accused-respondents Shyam Singh, Smt. Harbans Kaur and Km. Parvinder Kaur. 4) The victim (Simran Kaur) was married to accused Lakhvinder Singh on 14.12.1997. The victim died on 16.06.1999, at 09:45 A.M. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted by PW6 Dr. Alok Tevatiya, who in his examination-in-chief, proved postmortem report (Ext. Ka-3). Following ante mortem burn injuries were sustained by the victim: “Superficial to deep burn involving the entire body except sole of both feet and external genitalia. Smell of kerosene oil was present. Blackening on the burn parts was also present. Singeing of the hair, eyebrows, scalp and hair was present, line of redness was also present around burn areas.” According to PW6, the cause of death of the victim was shock as a result of ante mortem burn injuries. Thus, it is clear that the victim died otherwise then under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage. Two limbs of Section 304B of IPC are therefore, established. 5) Let us have a closer look at the evidence of prosecution witnesses in order to find out whether the third limb of ‘dowry death’ is proved against the accused persons or not? Aprat form listening the rival submissions made at the Bar, this Court also considered the rulings submitted by them. 6) According to PW1 Bant Ram, informant and father of the victim, his daughter Simran Kaur was married to Lakhvinder Singh on 16.12.1997. PW1 gave the articles and the gifts in the marriage according to his capacity. His daughter continued to come to her parental home for a year. 6) According to PW1 Bant Ram, informant and father of the victim, his daughter Simran Kaur was married to Lakhvinder Singh on 16.12.1997. PW1 gave the articles and the gifts in the marriage according to his capacity. His daughter continued to come to her parental home for a year. The daughter of PW1 complained that the accused persons harassed her for not bringing sufficient dowry. Daughter of PW1 told him that her in-laws castigated her for not bringing adequate dowry. PW1 came to know that his daughter was set on fire. PW1 alongwith his wife, his son and brothers reached Dehradun. When PW1 enquired about the death of his daughter, her in-laws started abusing him. PW1’s daughter was cremated on the next day. PW1 knew Gurumukhi only. He got the complaint scribed by someone and append his signatures. The mohallites told PW1 that the in-laws of the victim used to assault her and they set her on fire. 7) PW2 Ravindra Singh was the brother of the victim Simran Kaur, who was married to Lakhvinder Singh on 14.12.1997. In his examination-in-chief, PW2 also supported the prosecution story and said that gifts and articles were given in the marriage of his sister, according to the capacity of her parents. His sister complained that her in-laws used to harass her. Harbhajan Singh informed PW2 that the victim sustained burn injuries. PW2 alongwith his family members went to the matrimonial home of the victim, who was set on fire. The mohallites told PW2 that the victim was assaulted very badly and was set on fire in the night. 8) PW3 Gurditta Ram evidenced that the victim was not happy at her matrimonial home, in as much as, her in-laws harassed her for bringing lesser dowry. They were demanding scooter and mattresses. 9) PW4 Ram Saran found kerosene oil, stove etc. in the kitchen of deceased. He was signatory to the recovery memo (Ext. Ka-2) of the said articles. PW5 Ramji Das said that the victim complained after her marriage that her in-laws assaulted her. They raised a demand of Dunlop mattresses. PW7 Kamal Kumar was although declared hostile by the prosecution, nevertheless, he said that the victim came out from her room saying – ‘uncle, save me, save me’. PW7 also said that the accused and Simran lived in the same house. They were trying to get the door of kitchen opened. They raised a demand of Dunlop mattresses. PW7 Kamal Kumar was although declared hostile by the prosecution, nevertheless, he said that the victim came out from her room saying – ‘uncle, save me, save me’. PW7 also said that the accused and Simran lived in the same house. They were trying to get the door of kitchen opened. PW8 Smt. Kaushalya was also declared hostile, but, nevertheless, she said that the accused persons were trying to get the door of the kitchen open where the victim was set on fire. Victim was screaming for rendering her help. PW9 Smt. Santosh also did not support the prosecution story, but saw the victim screaming – ‘help me, help me, I have committed a mistake’. PW10 Krishna Lal was the owner of three-wheeler scooter on which victim was taken to hospital. On way to hospital, victim was requesting them to save her. Victim said that she would not repeat the mistake. PW13 Smt. Kasturi, mother of the victim, alleged that the victim complained to her that the accused persons demanded motorcycle and mattresses and harassed the victim for want of bringing the same. 10) The aforesaid witnesses, with the exception of those who were declared hostile, said, in unequivocal terms that the victim was assaulted for not bringing sufficient dowry. A demand for scooter and mattresses was also raised, which the parents of victim did not fulfill. The fact remains that the victim died of ante mortem burn injuries. PW6 Dr. Alok Tevatiya found superficial to deep burn in the entire body except sole of both feet and external genitals. The smell of kerosene oil was distinct. Blackening of burn parts, apart from singeing of her eyebrows, scalp was present. Line of redness was also present. It may be underlined here that, as per the opinion of PW6, the cause of death of victim was shock as a result of ante mortem burn injuries. 11) Having found evidence of cruelty or harassment meted out to the victim by the accused persons in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death, the third limb of Section 304B of IPC i.e. ‘dowry death’ has been proved against the accused-appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. It has already been indicated that the death of victim was caused within two years of her marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances. It has already been indicated that the death of victim was caused within two years of her marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances. 12) Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, comes to the aid of the prosecution, which Section says that when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person 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. 13) In the instant case, prosecution witnesses had shown that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand for dowry. The presumption, therefore, is that the accused persons caused the dowry death. 14) The marriage survived hardly for 1½ years. The term ‘soon before’ under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972, is not synonymous with the term ‘immediately before’. The said term would clearly imply existence of a proximate and live link between the two. Burden to prove innocence is more on the accused under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, than under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which places a far lighter burden on the accused. In Section 113A, which relates to Section 306 of IPC, the Court ‘may presume’, having regard to ‘all the other circumstances of the case’, but in Section 113B, which is relatable to Section 304B of IPC, the Court ‘shall presume’ and further there is no reference to the circumstances of the case. 15) The argument that the victim committed suicide because she could not conceive a child within 1½ year of marriage is not acceptable in the absence of any evidence in support of the said contention. Otherwise also, now-a-days conceiving of a child within such a short span of marriage is not taken as an exception. 16) Whereas the offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and 304B of IPC were proved against the accused-appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, and, although the offences against the accused respondents appear to have been proved, but learned trial court, at internal pages no. 16) Whereas the offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and 304B of IPC were proved against the accused-appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, and, although the offences against the accused respondents appear to have been proved, but learned trial court, at internal pages no. 8 and 9 of the impugned judgment, highlighted the distinction between the case of accused Lakhvinder Singh (husband), on the one hand and that of accused person Shyam Singh, Harbans Kaur and Parvinder Kaur, on the other hand, which persuaded this Court to take a view in favour of the accused-respondents. Learned trial court came to the conclusion, on the basis of evidence on record, that Lakhvinder Singh used to reside separately with the deceased, though in the same matrimonial house. His kitchen was separate. The same was evident from the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., as also from separate ration cards. The incident of burning took place in a small kitchen, which was adjacent to the bedroom of the deceased. On close scrutiny of the evidence, learned court below also held that the members of the family other than the husband of the victim were living separately and they were not the beneficiaries of the demand of scooter/motorcycle or mattresses. Said articles were meant to be used by the married couple. It was also held by the court below that the accused persons, other than the husband of the victim, had no relation with the demand of mattresses and scooter. At internal page no. 10 of the impugned judgment, it was said that it was only accused Lakhvinder Singh, who insisted for such a demand and none else. Learned trial court, therefore, held the husband guilty and exonerated other accused persons of the charge levelled against them. The reasons for convicting accused Lakhvinder Singh and exonerating others were highlighted at internal pages no. 12 to 18 of the impugned judgment. Whether the victim committed suicide, or she was set on fire, made no difference to the gravity of the offences alleged and proved against the husband of the victim. The trial court has appropriately dealt with the evidence with the help of the rulings submitted by learned counsel for the parties in this behalf. Prosecution was able to prove it’s case against accused-appellant Lakhvinder Singh beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. The trial court has appropriately dealt with the evidence with the help of the rulings submitted by learned counsel for the parties in this behalf. Prosecution was able to prove it’s case against accused-appellant Lakhvinder Singh beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. As said earlier, learned trial court acquitted other accused persons of the charge levelled against them. It is settled law that when two views are possible, then the one taken by the trial court, should be accepted. Keeping in view the entire conspectus of facts and circumstances enumerated above, this Court is of the view that the criminal appeal preferred by accused-appellant Lakhvinder Singh should be dismissed and, at the same time, the Government Appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of other accused persons should also be dismissed, giving them benefit of doubt. 17) The criminal appeal filed by accused-appellant Lakhvinder Singh as well as Government Appeal filed by the State are accordingly dismissed. 18) Accused-appellant Lakhvinder Singh is on bail. His bail is cancelled. Accused-appellant is directed to surrender before the court below forthwith to serve out the sentences as awarded against him by the court below. 19) Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the lower court records be sent to the court below for ensuring compliance.