Judgment U.C. Dhyani, J. In the instant case, criminal law was set into motion at the instance of PW1 Sajid Ali. He wrote a complaint to S.H.O., Kotwali Sadar, Dehradun on 14.02.2001, at 09:30 A.M., which was registered as case crime no. 81 of 2001, against Tahir for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC. The allegation against Tahir was that he killed his wife for want of bringing sufficient dowry. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused for the selfsame offences. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial commenced and prosecution opened it’s case, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC and under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act was framed against the accused on 19.05.2001. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 2) PW1 Sajid Ali (informant), PW2 Kalu (maternal uncle of the deceased), PW3 Bashir (father of the deceased), PW4 Israr Ahmad (maternal uncle of the deceased), PW5 Constable Gulab Singh (formal witness), PW6 Constable Urmila Bhandari (formal witness), PW7 Constable Usha Dhyani (formal witness), PW8 Dr. Ajay Kumar Pathak (Medical Officer), PW9 Dr. K.B. Joshi (Medical Officer), PW10 S.I. Bhagwat Singh (formal witness), PW11 C.O. Vijay Gautam (I.O.) and PW12 Constable Soor Singh Negi (formal witness) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which he said that he was falsely implicated in the case. DW1 Smt. Taiyaba and DW2 Smt. Sitara were examined in defence. After considering the evidence on record, accused Tahir was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC and under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304B of IPC; 2 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A of IPC and one year’s rigorous imprisonment under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Convict Tahir was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 498A of IPC and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.09.2001, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge/III F.T.C., Dehradun. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved against said order, present criminal appeal was preferred. 5,000/- under Section 498A of IPC and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.09.2001, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge/III F.T.C., Dehradun. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved against said order, present criminal appeal was preferred. 3) Victim Shehnaz, sister of PW1 Sajid Ali, was married to accused-appellant Tahir on 29.09.1995. Victim died on 14th February 2001 i.e. within seven years of her marriage. PW8 Dr. Ajay Kumar Pathak conducted postmortem on the dead body of Shehnaz. Cause of death was assigned to asphyxia as a result of hanging. Thus, it is established that the victim (Shehnaz) died otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage. Two limbs of offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC were, therefore, established. 4) Now, the next question which arises for consideration is whether it is shown that soon before her death, victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry? If the prosecution is successful in showing the same, then according to the scheme of Section 304B of IPC, such death should be called ‘dowry death’ and husband, in the instant case, shall be deemed to have caused her death. 5) The essential components of Section 304B of IPC are: i) Death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage, ii) Soon before her death she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. When the above ingredients are fulfilled, the husband or his relative, who subjected her to such cruelty or harassment, shall be presumed to be guilty of offence under Section 304B of IPC. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, comes to the aid of prosecution. It provides for 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 had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the ‘dowry death’. Let us see what is in store for the accused-appellant? Let us see what is in store for the accused-appellant? 6) PW1 Sajid Ali, who was the brother of the deceased, said that his sister was married to Tahir on 29.05.1995. Tahir started harassing PW1’s sister for bringing dowry after one year of their marriage. He demanded money through Shehnaz from PW1 from time to time. PW1 used to meet the demand quite often. When the money was finished, then accused used to harass the victim again. PW1 gave Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 1,500/- to Tahir. Accused was unemployed. Accused subjected Shehnaz to cruelty. Tahir castigated Shehnaz that her parents did not give anything in the marriage. About two years ago (from the date of deposition) PW1 gave Rs. 7,000/- to Tahir for purchasing Hero Puch. Tahir purchased the vehicle and later on sold the same. In December 2000, he again raised a demand for Rs. 10,000/- on the occasion of Eid. Shehnaz came to her parental home, asked for Rs. 10,000/- and said that if the said demand was not met, Tahir will kill her. Shehnaz also said that if the money is not paid to Thair, he would compel her to commit suicide. Rs. 10,000/- were demanded for the purpose of purchasing a scooter. PW1 said that he did not have the capacity to pay Rs. 10,000/- therefore, he counselled Shehnaz to go to her matrimonial home. PW1 requested Tahir for one month’s time to arrange for Rs. 10,000/-. PW1 could not arrange the money. In the meanwhile, on 14.02.2001, at 07:00 P.M., PW1 was informed that the condition of Shehnaz was critical. PW1 alongwith his parents and maternal uncle went to the matrimonial home of Shehnaz, only to find that she was dead. Her bangles were broken. There were ligature marks on her neck. Her wrists were bleeding. PW1 had suspicion that Tahir strangulated Shehnaz, or else, compelled Shehnaz to commit suicide. PW1 proved his complaint (Ext. Ka-1). He also said that the inquest report (Ext. Ka-2) was prepared. PW1 was a signatory to Ext. Ka-2. 7) In the cross-examination, PW1 said that the accused used to polish furniture, when his marriage took place. He started earning wages as a labour thereafter. PW1 used to meet his sister once in 3-4 months. Tahir started harassing his sister after a year. Ka-2) was prepared. PW1 was a signatory to Ext. Ka-2. 7) In the cross-examination, PW1 said that the accused used to polish furniture, when his marriage took place. He started earning wages as a labour thereafter. PW1 used to meet his sister once in 3-4 months. Tahir started harassing his sister after a year. When PW1 went to meet Shehnaz after a year of her marriage, she complained that she was living in penury. Tahir demanded money to meet the expenses of the household. The maternal uncle of PW1 went to counsel Tahir on the occasion of Eid. Accused was the only son of his parents. PW1 paid Rs. 1,500/- to Tahir in the year 1996. Thereafter, PW1 paid Rs. 1,000/- or Rs. 1,500/- to Tahir, 8-10 times. PW1 also paid Rs. 700/- to Tahir eight month’s before the death of Shehnaz. Accused also demanded money in December 2000, on the occasion of Eid. Accused left his wife twice in her parental home. Many a suggestions were put to PW1, to which he denied. PW1 also said in the cross-examination, that when he went to see his sister, he found ligature marks on her neck and found her bangles broken. 8) PW2 Kalu also supported prosecution story and said that whenever Shehnaz met him, she used to complain that Tahir demanded money. PW2 counselled Tahir not to harass Shehnaz. He also sought time from Tahir to arrange for money, but before the expiry of one month, he received a phone call that Shehnaz was dead. PW2 also went to Shehnaz’s matrimonial home. Tahir strangulated Shehnaz or compelled her to commit suicide. In the cross-examination, PW2 was asked a question, as to when Shehnaz complained about demand of dowry? When did she ask that Rs. 10,000/- were required to purchase the scooter? PW2 replied that Shehnaz came to her parental house on the occasion of Eid, then she said that Tahir was demanding such sum for the purchase of scooter. Shehnaz was illiterate. This suggestion was denied that Shehnaz was a quarrelsome woman. PW2 also went to her matrimonial home to find that Shehnaz died an unnatural death. 9) PW3 Bashir also supported prosecution story and said that Tahir started demanding money after one year of his marriage. Tahir harassed Shehnaz for non-fulfillment of said demand. PW3 paid Rs. 1,500/-, Rs. 500/- to Tahir. PW2 also went to her matrimonial home to find that Shehnaz died an unnatural death. 9) PW3 Bashir also supported prosecution story and said that Tahir started demanding money after one year of his marriage. Tahir harassed Shehnaz for non-fulfillment of said demand. PW3 paid Rs. 1,500/-, Rs. 500/- to Tahir. PW3’s son Sajid also paid money to Tahir. Tahir purchased a vehicle and sold out the same subsequently. A few days before the death of victim, accused demanded Rs. 10,000/-, which were not given to him. Thereafter, Tahir called Shehnaz. PW3 was also a signatory to the inquest report (Ext. Ka-3). 10) In his cross-examination, PW3 said that both the members of the matrimonial home of the deceased, as well as the members of the parental home of the deceased were in penury. Shehnaz complained to PW3 that she was living in penury. PW3 reiterated that he paid money to Tahir twice, by saving the money. 11) PW4 Israr Ahmad too supported prosecution story. Shehnaz complained to PW4 also that she has hardly any means of livelihood and also complained that her husband demanded Rs. 10,000/- for purchasing a scooter, which demand could not be met. Upon hearing the news of death of Shehnaz, PW4 also went to her matrimonial home and found ligature marks on her neck. PW4 also found that her wrists were bleeding. PW4 was also the signatory of inquest report. Rope (Mat. Ext. 1), bolt (Mat. Ext. 2), broken pieces of bangles (Mat. Ext. 3) and broken pieces of glass (Mat. Ext. 4) were also exhibited before the trial court. In the cross-examination, PW4 said, among other things, that whenever the victim came to met her parents, she used to come to PW4 also. 12) Prosecution story was proved on the strength of the oral testimony of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4. The third limb of Section 304B of IPC was established against the accused-appellant. Although an attempt is made by learned counsel for the accused-appellant to show that Shehnaz was living in penury, but the evidence is also that the accused-appellant demanded dowry from the parents of the victim through her for purchase of scooter. The third limb of Section 304B of IPC was established against the accused-appellant. Although an attempt is made by learned counsel for the accused-appellant to show that Shehnaz was living in penury, but the evidence is also that the accused-appellant demanded dowry from the parents of the victim through her for purchase of scooter. Accused-appellant used to ask for the money, which was usually met by the parents or brother of the victim from time to time, according to their capacity, but the demand for money continued unabated, as a consequence of which the victim died an unnatural death. Whether she committed suicide out of harassment meted out to her by the husband soon before her death for want of bringing dowry or she was strangulated, is immaterial. Either of two reasons will have a bearing upon the criminal act committed by the accused-appellant. 13) The term ‘soon before’ under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is not synonymous with the term ‘immediately before’. The Said term would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of proximate and live link between the two. Burden to prove innocence is more on the accused under Section 113B than under Section 113A, 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. There is no gainsaying the fact that the deceased alongwith her husband was on the brink of starvation. Had she died of penury/starvation only, the matter would have been different. The accused is liable, in as much as, he raised a demand to the members of the parental home of the deceased for fulfilling his demand (of dowry). Accused used to ask for the help from time to time, which was met by the members of the parental home of the victim according to their capacity, but still, the accused persisted with the demand of Rs. 10,000/- for purchase of scooter. Here lies the criminal liability on the part of the accused. Accused used to ask for the help from time to time, which was met by the members of the parental home of the victim according to their capacity, but still, the accused persisted with the demand of Rs. 10,000/- for purchase of scooter. Here lies the criminal liability on the part of the accused. 14) The testimony of PW8 lend support to the prosecution story. While conducting the postmortem on the dead body of Shehnaz, PW8 found ligature mark over the neck of the victim 24 cm x 1 cm above thyroid cartilage, passing backwards and upwards on left side below left ear, horizontally passing backwards towards right side of middle of neck. A gap of 4 cm in ligature mark was present from left mastoid process to continuation of right side ligature mark. On cutting the ligature mark the subcutaneous tissue was congested and haemorrhage. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of hanging. PW9 Dr. K.B. Joshi, who assisted PW8 in postmortem, agreed with the findings of PW8. The remaining witnesses were peripheral witnesses, which included the Investigating Officer. PW6 and PW7 found ligature marks on the neck of the deceased. PW10 was also a signatory to the inquest report. 15) DW1 Smt. Taiyaba as well as DW2 Smt. Sitara said that Shehnaz and Tahir pulled on well. According to DW1 and DW2, Shehnaz insisted Tahir to shift to Vikasnagar after selling off his house. Both DW1 and DW2 said that Shehnaz committed suicide because Tahir refused to shift to Vikasnagar. The evidence has to be adjudged from the point of view of a reasonable prudent person. Will any prudent person believe, that a wife will commit suicide, if her request to her husband to shift to some other place is turned down? The reply is in negative. Prosecution was able to prove it’s case against the accused-appellant beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. The prosecution evidence, as well as the defence evidence, was discussed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge/III F.T.C., Dehradun, in his judgment dated 25.09.2001. There is no reason to disturb the findings of the court below. No interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order. 16) Criminal appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant Tahir by the court below is affirmed. The accused-appellant is on bail. His bail is cancelled. There is no reason to disturb the findings of the court below. No interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order. 16) Criminal appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant Tahir by the court below is affirmed. The accused-appellant is on bail. His bail is cancelled. He is directed to surrender forthwith before the court below to serve out the sentences as was awarded to him. 17) Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the lower court records be sent to the court below for compliance.