JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Appellants, having been convicted u/s 304-B and 498-A IPC, are in appeal before the Court. Appellant no.1 Ramanand is the husband while appellant no.2 Smt. Haruli Devi is the mother-in-law of deceased Sharda @ Sarita Devi. The couple was wedded on 8.6.1995 with all rituals and customs prevailing between them. The victim lost her life in her matrimonial house within one year and four months of marriage. Since no injury was apparent on her dead body in the autopsy conducted by the government Doctor on 30.9.1996 at 1 PM, her viscera was preserved. As reported by the Public Analyst, Organo Phosphorus Insecticide and Ethyle Alcohol Poison were found in her viscera including the stomach, piece of intestine, liver, bag of pile, kidney and spleen. 2. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 Smt. Hansi Devi (mother of deceased), PW2 Sher Ram (father of deceased) and PW4 Munni Devi (sister of deceased’s father) were examined to prove the insatiable conduct of appellants towards the victim on the question of demand of dowry on several occasions. After the marriage, accused persons used to torture the victim demanding cash and other tangible items in the form of dowry. She disclosed such demands to these witnesses who were none other but her own parents. She came to her parental house at several times/occasions after the solemnization of marriage and every time she disclosed that appellants were pressing her consistently to fetch those tangible items as well as cash from her parents. Even she requested her mother PW1 Smt. Hansi Devi for not sending her to the in-laws house so as to save her life. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that when these demands came into the notice of parents of deceased, they never made any complaint either to the Sub Divisional Magistrate or to the Judicial Magistrate or to the police concerned. So, their failure in reporting the matter to the government officers/officials should be looked into as a doubt in the veracity of such demand. This contention is not acceptable for the reason that after the marriage of daughter, the parents, so as to ensure the peaceful/amicable living of their daughter in her in-laws house, always make efforts to settle the dispute within the four-corners of the house and not to bring it on the road. This contention is not acceptable for the reason that after the marriage of daughter, the parents, so as to ensure the peaceful/amicable living of their daughter in her in-laws house, always make efforts to settle the dispute within the four-corners of the house and not to bring it on the road. In the rural terrains and that too in the hills where education is still a far-cry and most of the population is poverty ridden, they may not be aware about the protection provided to them by the Law in matrimonial matters. Even if they are, to approach the police or the administrative/judicial authorities, is not the immediate and first step on their part, least it would further deteriorate and shatter the mutual matrimonial harmony between them. 4. From the viscera report, it is ample clear that poison was either administered to her or she, on her own, consumed the same to end her life. Even if we accept the things that she herself consumed the poison, then also, the appellants cannot get themselves out from the presumption as envisaged u/s 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act which reads as under: - 113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.- When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. 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 the 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 or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 5. 5. All the witnesses, as afore-named, have categorically deposed that the victim used to narrate the tale of her harassment, at the hands of appellants, on the question of tangible dowry and cash. It would also not be out of place to mention what has been envisaged u/s 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is quoted as below: - “106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” 6. When the death took place in the house of appellants, then the law casts an onus upon them to speak as to how she died. However, they could not offer any acceptable explanation to exonerate themselves from the crime. Nothing has been stated by any of the appellants in their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. except that the evidence of witnesses is false. 7. However, the Court feels that since the evidence, on record, is lacking towards the demand of dowry ‘soon before’ her death, this Court is propensus not to attribute the guilt upon the appellants to the extent of section 304-B IPC but in the opinion of this Court, they cannot get rid of themselves from the offence u/s 306 IPC coupled with section 498-A IPC. 8. Thus, on the grounds as stated hereinabove, the Court allows the appeal, in part, by modifying the conviction and sentence of the appellants from section 304-B/498-A IPC to that of sections 306 and 498-A IPC. For the offence u/s 306 IPC, appellant no.1 Rama Nand is sentenced to three years’ R.I. while appellant no.2 Smt. Haruli Devi is sentenced to two years’ R.I. However, their sentence u/s 498-A IPC is left intact. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Let they be taken into custody to serve out the sentence as modified by this Court. The period already undergone by them shall be adjusted from this count. 9. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned.