JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. PW1 Suresh Singh wrote a complaint to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lansdowne, District Pauri Garhwal on 29.04.1999 against Anoop Singh, Dheeraj Singh and Smt Sushma Devi, which was registered on the self same day at 4:00 P.M., as case crime no. 1/99 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons, namely, Anoop Singh and Dheeraj Singh. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the prosecution opened it’s case, charges for the offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 I.P.C., Section 498-A IPC read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 201 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. were framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 2. PW1 Suresh Singh, PW2 Subhash Chandra Singh, PW3 Smt. Kusum Devi, PW4 Sultan Singh, PW5 Jogendra Singh and PW6 Prem Raj were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 Cr. P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. DW1 Jagdish Singh and DW2 Bali Singh were examined on behalf of the defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court convicted the accused persons, viz., Anoop Singh and Dheeraj Singh of the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 201 and 498-A I.P.C. Accused-appellants were sentenced appropriately. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order dated 5.10.2001, present Criminal Appeal was preferred. 3. Prosecution led the evidence through PW1 Suresh Singh (informant), who said, in his examination in chief that Sushma was his younger sister, who was married to Anoop Singh on 21.5.1998. She was 21 years old when she was married. PW1 went to Ludhiana after the marriage of his sister. On 23.4.1999, he came to know that his sister was killed by her in-laws. PW1 reached his village on 24.4.1999. PW1 went to the matrimonial home of his sister on 25.4.1999. PW1 enquired about the reason of death of his sister. Her in-laws did not disclose anything specific. His sister had told PW1 in October, 1998 that her in-laws demanded colour T.V. In January 1999, his sister told to PW1 that her in-laws complained that no cash was given to them (her in-laws), who harass her on account of the same. PW1 enquired about the reason of death of his sister. Her in-laws did not disclose anything specific. His sister had told PW1 in October, 1998 that her in-laws demanded colour T.V. In January 1999, his sister told to PW1 that her in-laws complained that no cash was given to them (her in-laws), who harass her on account of the same. On 26.9.1999, he went to patwari, who was on strike. PW1 went to S.D.M. Lansdowne, District Pauri Garhwal on 28.4.1999, but S.D.M. was not available. He again went to S.D.M. on 29.4.1999 and gave the complaint (Ext Ka-1). His sister never wrote a letter, because her matrimonial home was only at a distance of 5-6 kms. from her parental home. PW1’s parents died much before Sushma was married to Anoop Singh. Sushma was pregnant by seven months when she died. She was not cremated in PW1’s presence. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that PW1 said in his cross examination that he (PW1) was unemployed when his sister was married to appellant Anoop Singh, who too was unemployed till the incident took place. Learned counsel also drew attention of this court towards the statement in cross examination of PW1 that the marriage of Sushma and Anoop Singh was performed peacefully (without hiccups). The accused persons did not demand dowry on the occasion of marriage of Sushma with Anoop Singh. The baraties came on foot and returned on foot. There appears to be some sense in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that it was not a ‘dowry-death’. 5. PW2 Subhash Chandra Singh supported PW1. He was the brother of deceased and PW1. PW2 also said that when his sister came to her parental home in October 1998, she complained that her in-laws demanded colour T.V. Thereafter, in January 1999, her in-laws demanded cash. She told that her in-laws harass her for not bringing cash. On 20.4.1999, PW2 said that his sister was serious. PW2 withdrew Rs. 5,000/- and went to his sister’s matrimonial home. The villagers told him (PW2) that victim died, as she sustained burn injuries. On 19.4.1999, a quarrel took place between the victim and her husband, which altercation was pacified with the intervention of villagers. Dheeraj Singh informed PW2 that his sister died. Appellant Dheeraj Singh could not disclose the whereabouts of the dead body. PW2 then went to village pradhan. The villagers told him (PW2) that victim died, as she sustained burn injuries. On 19.4.1999, a quarrel took place between the victim and her husband, which altercation was pacified with the intervention of villagers. Dheeraj Singh informed PW2 that his sister died. Appellant Dheeraj Singh could not disclose the whereabouts of the dead body. PW2 then went to village pradhan. Village Pradhan also told that he did not see the dead body of his sister. PW1 then lodged complaint Ext Ka-1. No postmortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased. Dheeraj told PW2 that the victim set her on fire. 6. In the cross examination, PW2 admitted that he knew that accused Anoop Singh was unemployed. He was the only son of his parents. They understood the conditions of both the families, and only then Sushma was got married to Anoop Singh. A conscious decision of marrying Sushma with Anoop Singh was taken only after understanding the (financial) status of both the families. Only three persons came in the engagement of his sister. PW2 also admitted that the baraties accepted whatever was given to them in marriage. Baraties came on foot and returned on foot. The names of the accused persons were written in Ext Ka-1 on the basis of suspicion. He was not aware whether his uncle Bali Singh wrote any letter to Dheeraj Singh or not? 7. PW3 Smt Kusum said, among other things, that Sushma’s in-laws were not happy with her for not bringing dowry. When Sushma came to her parental home after the marriage, she told that her in-laws demanded colour T.V. and a cash of Rs. 50,000/-.Victim’s in-laws complained that victim’s brother did not give anything in dowry. Demand of cash worth Rs. 50,000/- is a later development in the prosecution story through PW 3. 8. PW4 Sultan Singh said that he heard the cries coming from the house of accused appellants on 19.4.1999 at around 9:30 p.m. PW4 went to the house of accused Anoop Singh. He heard that Sushma was screaming that her husband, father-in-law and sister-in-law were beating her. PW4 also said that one Narain Singh (not-examined) also went to accused persons’ house. The matter subsided. Narain Singh and PW4 returned to their houses. On the self same day at around 2:30 P.M., PW 4 heard that the house of Dheeraj was in flames. He heard that Sushma was screaming that her husband, father-in-law and sister-in-law were beating her. PW4 also said that one Narain Singh (not-examined) also went to accused persons’ house. The matter subsided. Narain Singh and PW4 returned to their houses. On the self same day at around 2:30 P.M., PW 4 heard that the house of Dheeraj was in flames. He came out of his house to see that many a people assembled at the house of Dheeraj. People told that Anoop’s wife was dead. The smoke was emanating from the house of Anoop. PW4 himself did not go to Anoop’s house. PW4 did not attend the cremation of deceased. Accused persons did not inform patwari about the death of Sushma. 9. In his cross-examination, PW4 said that appellant Anoop was unemployed. Appellant Dheeraj was employed. He did not attend the marriage of Anoop. PW4 did not even go to take food, which was served after Anoop’s marriage. He even did not know the condition of the family of Dheeraj. He came to know subsequently that the deceased was cremated. PW4 also admitted that he was not aware of the treatment meted out to the victim by her in-laws. PW4 did not know as to how the victim died? PW4 further admitted that he was an aged person and, therefore, he did not visit the house of the deceased. The statements which appeared in the cross-examination of PW 4 indicate that he (PW 4) was not much concerned with the familial affairs of the victim. 10. PW5 Jogender Singh denied that he saw any incident, which took place on 19.4.1999. He heard on 20.4.1999 that Anoop Singh’s wife died because of burns. On 20.4.1999 he saw accused Anoop and Dhreeaj in cremation ground at 3:00 P.M. When PW5 inquired from Anoop Singh and Dheeraj Singh as to why the dead body was wrapped in cloth, Annop Singh removed cloth. PW5 saw that the face of deceased was not burnt. Her hair was not singed. The thread around her neck was also not burnt. PW6 was the investigating officer of the case, who after being satisfied that the accused appellants committed crime, submitted charge sheet against them. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the statement of PW4 was not put to the appellants in statement under Section 313 Cr. The thread around her neck was also not burnt. PW6 was the investigating officer of the case, who after being satisfied that the accused appellants committed crime, submitted charge sheet against them. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the statement of PW4 was not put to the appellants in statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. A simple question was put to them as to what they have got to say in respect of the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 12. DW1 Jagdish Singh proved Ext Kha-1 and Ext Kha-2. DW1 also said that Anoop Singh’s wife did not beget a child. He also said that he went to inform the brother of deceased on 19.4.2000. He also said that Subhash came to attend the cremation. In cross examination, he said that he did not see the condition of dead body. Ext Kha-1 and Ext Kha-2 were not written in his presence. 13. DW2 Bali Singh, who was author of Ext-Kha1 and Kha-2, admitted in his cross examination that the same were written by him under the pressure of accused-appellants. The victim was mentally sound. She passed class XII in Second Division. 14. Learned prosecutor argued that even if the statement of PW4 be ignored, no reason was assigned by the accused-appellants for non-disclosure of the death of victim to the police? Both the accused persons were literate persons. The victim died within a year of her marriage otherwise than under natural circumstances. The burden, therefore was on the accused to show as to how did she die? She was cremated surreptitiously. Even if the victim committed suicide, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, although there was no evidence to suggest the same, yet the onus was on the appellants to prove the same, learned Prosecutor added. The delay in lodging F.I.R. was sufficiently explained. While learned counsel for the appellants contended that appellant Anoop Singh was impotent and unemployed, learned prosecutor argued that there was no evidence to show that appellant Anoop Singh was impotent. If the victim did not beget a child within a year of her marriage, the same is not indicative of the fact that the husband was impotent. Unemployed status of the appellant Anoop Singh had nothing to do with matrimonial discord. 15. Victim was married to appellant Anoop Singh on 21.05.1998. She died on 19.04.1999. The victim had no parents. If the victim did not beget a child within a year of her marriage, the same is not indicative of the fact that the husband was impotent. Unemployed status of the appellant Anoop Singh had nothing to do with matrimonial discord. 15. Victim was married to appellant Anoop Singh on 21.05.1998. She died on 19.04.1999. The victim had no parents. In fact, PW 1 & PW 2 were her guardians. PW 1 was at Ludhiana when his sister died. On receiving the news of death of his sister, he came from Ludhiana, went to the matrimonial home of his sister, enquired about the reason of death of his sister and when the victim’s in-laws did not disclose anything specific to the satisfaction of PW 1, he went to patwari, who was on strike. PW 1 then went to S.D.M., Lansdowne, who was not available on the 1st day. He approached S.D.M. on the following day and gave his complaint regarding ‘dowry death’ of his sister. The delay in lodging the complaint was thus sufficiently explained. The first two limbs of Section 304B IPC were also established, in as much as, the victim died within one year of her marriage otherwise than in normal circumstances. It has come on evidence that her dead body was surreptitiously cremated by the appellants. Had she died a natural death, somebody must have evidenced as to how a young woman in the prime of her youth, died. It was not evidenced that she was suffering from any incurable disease. No doctor was examined to show that she was admitted in some hospital for cure of her ailment. This fact was not brought on record that her dead body was cremated with the concurrence of her parents/brothers. What was the hurry to cremate the dead body? Why did the appellants not inform the police or patwari? Offence punishable under Section 201 IPC therefore, appears to have been proved. 16. The next question which arises for consideration is, whether it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of the husband for, or in connection with demand of dowry? It is stated above that the victim was having no parents when she was married to appellant Anoop Singh. PW 1 and PW 2 took care of their sister as guardians. It is stated above that the victim was having no parents when she was married to appellant Anoop Singh. PW 1 and PW 2 took care of their sister as guardians. Anoop Singh was unemployed when he was married to victim. PW 1 was also unemployed when his sister was married to Anoop Singh PW 2 said that he was informed by the villagers that her sister died as she sustained burns. He also said that on the fateful day a quarrel took place between the victim and her husband, which was pacified with intervention of the villagers. PW 2 was informed by appellant Dheeraj Singh about the death of PW 2’s sister. Appellant Dheeraj Singh could not disclose the whereabouts of the dead body. PW 2 went to village pradhan, who also told that he did not see the dead body of PW 2’s sister. PW 2 admitted in the cross-examination that a conscious decision of marrying Sushma with Anoop Singh was taken only after understanding financial status of both the families. There was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. Baraties came on foot and went on foot. Although an attempt was made by PW 1 and PW 2 to show that their sister complained to them that her in-laws demanded colour television and cash, but it is difficult to accept that victim’s in-laws demanded Rs. 50,000/- from PW 1 and PW 2 as dowry. Considering the background of their families and the way in which the marriage of victim and Anoop Singh was solemnized, it was difficult to comprehend that victim’s in-laws might be asking for Rs. 50,000/- in dowry. 17. Learned AGA’s contention that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband and close relatives of the husband soon before her death is acceptable, but learned AGA’s contention that such cruelty or harassment was for any demand for dowry, is not acceptable in the absence of any cogent evidence. The 3rd limb of ‘dowry death’ is, therefore, not proved. The conviction and sentences awarded to the accused-appellants in this behalf cannot sustain. The accused-appellants are, therefore, exonerated of the charge of offence punishable under Section 304B IPC. The impugned judgment and order is, accordingly set aside to this extent. 18. Accused-appellants were also convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal for the offences under Sections 498-A and 201 IPC. The accused-appellants are, therefore, exonerated of the charge of offence punishable under Section 304B IPC. The impugned judgment and order is, accordingly set aside to this extent. 18. Accused-appellants were also convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal for the offences under Sections 498-A and 201 IPC. It has come on record that the husband and father-in-law of the victim subjected the victim to ‘cruelty’ which also means any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the term to commit the suicide. To bring home the charge under Section 498-A IPC, ‘cruelty’ is a necessary ingredient which is proved in the instant case by the prosecution. Criminal appeal is, accordingly partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is, therefore, upheld and affirmed. No separate punishment was provided to the appellant under Section 498-A IPC because they were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 304B IPC. This court, therefore, proposes to award sentence to the appellants under Section 498-A IPC. 19. There is no evidence on record to show that the husband and father-in-law of the victim made any sincere and serious effort to inform the police or the patwari about the ‘unnatural death’ of the victim. Both the appellants were literate persons. They surreptitiously cremated the dead body of the victim without informing the police or the patwari. Although the appellant Dheeraj Singh said in reply to question no. 5, put to him under Section 313 Cr. P.C. that Subhash Singh and Jawahar Singh gave in writing before the panches and only then the dead body was cremated, but there is no evidence to substantiate the same. The consent letter of Subhash Singh and Jawahar Singh was not brought on record, which denotes that the brothers of the deceased were not taken into confidence before cremating the dead body. The ingredients of offence punishable under Section 201 IPC were, therefore, proved against the accused-appellants. The evidence thus brought on record in this behalf has been appropriately dealt with by the learned Court below. No interference is thus called for in respect of conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 201 IPC. The conviction of the appellants under Section 498-A IPC and Section 201 IPC is affirmed. The evidence thus brought on record in this behalf has been appropriately dealt with by the learned Court below. No interference is thus called for in respect of conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 201 IPC. The conviction of the appellants under Section 498-A IPC and Section 201 IPC is affirmed. While affirming the conviction of the appellants under Section 498-A IPC, each of the appellant is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years (each one of them has already undergone the said term) along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default of payment of which, each one will be required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 20. The accused-appellants were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years by the Trial Court in relation to offence under Section 201 IPC. The same is maintained. The offence is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. The Trial Court has committed a mistake by not imposing the fine upon the appellants. It is, therefore, directed that each one of the appellant shall also pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of which, each one of them shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 21. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The appellants have already undergone the sentence awarded to them. Learned counsel for the appellants brought to the notice of this Court that appellant no. 1 Anoop Singh was arrested on 05.05.1999 and was released on bail on 31.07.2004. Appellant no. 2 Dheeraj Singh was arrested on 05.05.1999 and was released on bail on 13.12.2002. 22. Accused-appellants are on bail. They need not surrender as of now, in as much as, they have already served the sentences as are awarded to them. The appellants are granted two months’ time to deposit the amount of fine, failing which, it will be open to the Trial Court to send them to prison to serve the sentence which is awarded to them in default of payment of fine. 23. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be sent to the Court below for compliance.