JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Appellant Ram Singh has challenged the judgment and order of conviction under Section 306 and 498A IPC wherefor he has appropriately been sentenced. Vide Sessions Trial No. 35/2001, four accused persons, namely, Ram Singh (husband), Mohan Singh (father-in-law) Smt. Prema Devi (mother-in-law) and Km. Nandi (sister-in-law) were tried for the offences of Section 498A, 306, 304B IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial culminated into the acquittal of the rest of the accused persons from all the offences stated above except Ram Singh, who has been convicted for the offences as aforementioned. 2. Ram Singh was wedded with Ms. Deepa on 13.5.1999. She died in her matrimonial house within a year of her marriage, viz., 13.5.2000. She was a young lady of 19 years as disclosed in the post-mortem report. She was found 100 per cent burnt in her room of matrimonial house. The doctor has disclosed the cause of death as shock and exhaustion as a result of ante mortem burn injuries. Although no smell of kerosene oil could be detected from the burnt body, but the said smell was detected from the bra of the deceased. Accused appellant Ram Singh is an army personnel, who had come to his house on leave from his services. 3. Before this Court, the evidence of PW1 Smt. Lachhima Devi (mother of the deceased), PW3 Gusain Singh (father of the deceased) and PW4 Laxman Singh (uncle of the deceased) have been read over and the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that the day of the incident was Saturday. The deceased was bent upon to leave her matrimonial house to her parent’s house. When she was persuaded not to leave as such because her husband has come to enjoy his leaves, then she closed herself in a room, door was bolted and she set ablazed herself by pouring kerosene oil on her body. This argument is quite unsubstantial looking to the entire facts and evidence available on the record. Firstly, the attempt has been made to argue that door was broken open by some Digar Singh, another villager of the place of incident, but that Digar Singh has never been examined as a defence witness in order to prove this fact. This argument is quite unsubstantial looking to the entire facts and evidence available on the record. Firstly, the attempt has been made to argue that door was broken open by some Digar Singh, another villager of the place of incident, but that Digar Singh has never been examined as a defence witness in order to prove this fact. Moreover, PW3, father of the deceased, has testified that when he reached at the spot on 14th, the door of the room of the incident was not broken at all and it was in a quite working position. PW3 and PW4 have testified in so many words that inside the room of the incident, everything including the bedding, calendars on the wall and other materials available in the room were safe and in ok condition. There was no visible sign inside the room showing as if a human body could have been burnt 100 per cent within it. 4. Argument of the defence that after breaking out of the door, an attempt was made by her husband to save her is baseless for the reasons that had there been a little truth in this story, then an able, healthy army young man would certainly have achieved some success in saving the deceased from being burnt 100 percent and in such attempt there should have been some sign of burn on the body of her husband too, but those signs (if any) have never been brought on the record. It shows that the story of making attempt to extinguish the fire by her husband is a cock and bull story. Further, no attempt has been made on the part of her husband to shift her to the nearby medical centre (whichsoever). 5. PW1 as well as PW3 and PW4, all have proved in so many words that eversince the solemnization of the marriage of Ms. Deepa with the appellant, she was subjected to the consistent traumatized behaviour on the question of demand of dowry. She was tortured a number of times asking her to fetch the dowry from her parents house. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that even if this evidence is relied, then the guilt should have been ascribed to the rest of the accused persons who have been acquitted by the trial court, and on the same set of evidence the Court should not have convicted the appellant. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that even if this evidence is relied, then the guilt should have been ascribed to the rest of the accused persons who have been acquitted by the trial court, and on the same set of evidence the Court should not have convicted the appellant. He has relied upon following two precedents. (i) Anil S/o Shamrao Sute & Another v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 692, (ii) Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 1 SCC (cri) 51. 7. I have gone through the facts of both the above-cited precedents. The Court does not want to burden this judgment and narrate the facts of the above two precedents which are in quite different perspective but still relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant in the instant case. 8. The same set of evidence concept is not at all applicable to absolve the husband while exonerating the mother-in-law, unmarried sister-in-law and father-in-law even at the same time if they all were in the habit of demanding dowry from the deceased because in the Indian customary society, more so in the rural terrains and further the hilly one, if a new bride remains satisfied with the love and affection shown to her by her husband, then she ignores the harsh attitude shown to her by other members of the in-laws house. She feels constraint to take this extreme step of the life in the circumstances when she does not feel a little support and affection from her husband and rather feels that he (husband) also joins the hands in the same fashion raising the demand of dowry nay other treacherous conduct on his part along with other members of the family. Nowhere, the attempt has been shown to prove that on arrival of her husband to enjoy his leaves from the army, the deceased was bent upon to leave her matrimonial house. This is quite unacceptable and unbelievable that during his absence she was living quite contented, but was leaving the house on his arrival there from the place of his job. 9. Learned Counsel has drawn attention of this Court that on 14.5.2000 at 5 AM, the information was given to the Patwari Circle by one Shyam Singh, resident of the same village. 9. Learned Counsel has drawn attention of this Court that on 14.5.2000 at 5 AM, the information was given to the Patwari Circle by one Shyam Singh, resident of the same village. Giving such information by another villager in no way absolves the appellant from the guilt. It would also be pertinent to pay attention towards the statement of PW5 Laxman Nath, the Investigation Officer, who on spot inspection did not find any material prone to fire, nor the matchbox, etc. Had she set fire herself on her body by sprinkling kerosene oil, then certainly there should have been kerosene cane and empty matchbox or matchbox with the left sticks, but no such material could be recovered from the spot. The recovery of a partially burnt torn blanket appears to have been planted after the commission of the incident by the accused. 10. Ms. Deep lost her life within a year of her marriage in her matrimonial house. So, in this regard the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act applies herein, 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 presumed, 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. 11. As regards the cruelty, it has been well proved in the deposition of the witnesses. 11. As regards the cruelty, it has been well proved in the deposition of the witnesses. Moreover, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act also cast a burden on the accused persons to speak as to how she died in their home. They have not offered any understandable much less plausible, cogent and convincing reason that she by her own volition committed suicide in her matrimonial house while leading a happy married life. 12. For the reasons as stated above, I feel that there is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed. Conviction and sentence, as recorded by the Trial Court, are upheld. Impugned judgment is affirmed. Appellant Ram Singh is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled. He shall be immediately taken into custody to serve out the sentence. 13. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the trial court to ensure its compliance. Lower court record be sent back.