JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. In Sessions Trial No.89 of 2006, accused Ashok Kumar (husband), Surajmani (elder brother-in-law) and Ms. Sona Devi (mother-in-law) were tried for the offence of sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. The said trial pertains to crime no.2 of 2002 at Patwari Circle Udaipur Talla. The trial culminated into the acquittal of Surajmani and Ms. Sona Devi but at the same time, learned Trial Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence of sections 498-A and 306 IPC. Appellant has been sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- u/s 306 IPC and has further been directed to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment u/s 498-A IPC. 2. Deceased Kavita was married to the appellant on 6.12.2000 as per all Hindu rituals and customs prevailing between the parties. She was found dead in the matrimonial house on 23.4.2002, where her dead body was hanging with the ceiling-hook of her room. Thus, she lost her life within one year and five months of marriage. Her father Shivanand Amoli (PW1) succeeded in lodging the first information report (Ex.Ka-1) after running from pillar to post on the next day of occurrence. Chick report thereof is Ex.Ka-13. It was alleged by the complainant that his daughter was subjected to cruelty soon after her marriage on several occasions and she was constrained to face this insatiable conduct at the hands of accused persons consistently till her death. It was further alleged that the accused persons, in order to give a colour as if she committed suicide, have hanged the dead body of his daughter after killing her. Chargesheet (Ex.Ka.16) was submitted on culmination of investigation for the offence of sections 498-A and 304-B IPC r/w section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, however, levelled the Charge only for the offence of sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. At the end of trial, the court below was of the opinion that instead of section 304-B IPC, the offence, which could have been attributed to the accused Ashok Kumar, was in the nature of section 306 IPC, and accordingly, he convicted him, as afore-mentioned. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that on the same set of evidence, two accused persons, namely, Surajmani and Ms. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that on the same set of evidence, two accused persons, namely, Surajmani and Ms. Sona Devi, brother-in-law and mother-in-law respectively, have been acquitted by the court below, so the said evidence cannot be made the basis for attributing the guilt upon the appellant. To strengthen his arguments, he has placed reliance upon a precedent of this Court in the case of Vijay Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal reported in 2013(2) U.D. 233. I am unable to agree with the said contention nor the said precedent is applicable in the present controversy. In the dowry death cases, it is difficult to place the role/attitude of husband towards his wife in parity with that of other family members of in-laws house. In the tradition-bound Indian society, that too of a rural hilly terrain, a wife always looks forward for a kind and sympathetic attitude of her husband. She can ignore the rough, tough and unwarranted attitude of other family members of matrimonial house if her husband treats her affectionately. Moreover, the evidence of PW1 Shivanand Amoli, PW2 Vimla Devi and PW3 Jagdish Prasad, who are the father, mother and brother of deceased respectively, is enough to show that she was facing cruel attitude more rigorously from her husband/appellant. Ever-since she went to her matrimonial house, she was subjected to a continuous torture and atrocious conduct on the part of members of in-laws house in demanding dowry and cash to the tune of Rs.1.00 lakh from her parents and they all, more prominently the husband, was asking her to fetch the aforesaid dowry. Their demand was meted out by PW1 at several times by paying Rs.1,000/- or Rs.3,000/- on many occasions. PW1 also offered them a milk yielding cow in order to satisfy their lust but their demand could not be saturated. 4. Attention of this Court was drawn to the fact that the demand (if any) was to construct a kitchen in the house. In the opinion of this Court, even such demand cannot be placed outside the ambit of dowry. The Apex Court, recently in case of Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana reported in 2014 Cri.L.J. 561, has held that even the demand made for business of accused is covered within the definition of dowry if it has connection with marriage. In the opinion of this Court, even such demand cannot be placed outside the ambit of dowry. The Apex Court, recently in case of Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana reported in 2014 Cri.L.J. 561, has held that even the demand made for business of accused is covered within the definition of dowry if it has connection with marriage. It was further held that the cruelty on any day would be cruelty ‘Soon Before’ her death, and the failure of the brothers of deceased to specify the exact date on which demand was made, is inconsequential. Hon’ble the Supreme Court was of the view that the Penal Statute has to be construed strictly in such a manner that their construction should not defeat its purport. In the instant case, although the Trial Judge has opined that the case is in the nature of section 306 IPC but this Court does not concur with the said opinion. Looking to the evidence of fact witnesses (as stated above), they have deposed in so many words that the husband along with two other accused persons, named above, were not satisfied with the dowry offered to them in the marriage and more particularly, the husband/appellant teased her because she had some burning spots on her skin. All these fact witnesses have categorically stated that before marriage, the fact regarding existence of such spots on the skin of victim, was disclosed to the accused persons. 5. An attempt has been made to show that the victim committed suicide at her own for presence of those spots on her skin. Her frustration was also on the score that her husband was an unemployed youth. It is difficult for this Court to accept this contention for the reason that when her body was found hanging with a ceiling-hook of her room, she did not bolt the door from inside, rather the same was bolted from outside. The same was opened by the appellant only on the arrival of victim’s father and also of the Patwari of the circle. Had she hanged herself from ceiling-hook, there was no reason for her to keep open the door of room. More so, the ligature mark measuring 40 cm x 2.5 cm was in such a fashion on her throat that the same was covering the entire circle of neck/throat. 6. Had she hanged herself from ceiling-hook, there was no reason for her to keep open the door of room. More so, the ligature mark measuring 40 cm x 2.5 cm was in such a fashion on her throat that the same was covering the entire circle of neck/throat. 6. Attention of the Court has been drawn towards the conclusive sentence of PW5 Dr. O.P. Sharma, who conducted autopsy, expressing opinion that the deceased herself committed suicide. The Court is of the view that the doctor has not expressed any such opinion. The words used by PW5 are ‘iksLVekVZe djus ds ckn eSa bl fu”d”kZ ij igq¡pk fd e`rdk us Lo;a Qkalh yxokbZ’. Here, the word is ‘yxokbZ’ and not ‘yxkbZ’. No one, after death, would ask the other person to hang him on the ceiling-hook. It was in the wisdom of culprits to hang her in such a fashion as to give an impression that she hanged herself. 7. Learned counsel has relied upon the following two precedents of the Hon’ble Apex Court: - 1. “Sanjay @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371 . 2. Hans Raj v. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 2790 .” 8. Having gone through the above-precedents, the crux is that the Court is not bound to draw presumption u/s 113-A of the Evidence Act in case of suicide. But the word, used by legislature, is ‘may’ and the other factors to be considered are ‘having regard to all the other circumstances of the case’. Meaning thereby, if the regard is made to ‘other circumstances of the case’ then the Court may presume as to the abetment of suicide by a married woman, provided the death has taken place within seven years from the date of her marriage and her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty. 9. As has been discussed above, the victim was subjected to cruelty more prominently by her husband/ appellant within a short span of one year and five months of her married life. Within this time period, she almost went 4-5 times at her parental house to apprise them about all the tyrannies and tormented attitude of the accused. Every time, she fetched some money, in addition to a milky cow, from her father in order to satisfy the lust of accused persons. Within this time period, she almost went 4-5 times at her parental house to apprise them about all the tyrannies and tormented attitude of the accused. Every time, she fetched some money, in addition to a milky cow, from her father in order to satisfy the lust of accused persons. So, it is enough to show that all the circumstances, she was facing, were enough to attract the presumption not only leading to the gravity of section 306 IPC but to that of section 304-B IPC also. 10. Although, the State has not preferred any appeal against the order of trial court in not finding the appellant guilty under section 304-B IPC but at the same time, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the accused was charged for the offence u/s 304-B IPC and all throughout the examination of witnesses, he was defending himself through cross-examination against the levelling of said Charge. 11. So in the light of above discussion, this Court finds the appellant Ashok Kumar guilty for the offence of section 304-B IPC instead of Section 306 IPC, as held by the court below. Looking to his social circumstances and taking into consideration appellant’s penury position, he is sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under that count. As there is no provision of fine u/s 304-B IPC, hence the fine, as imposed by the Trial Judge u/s 306 IPC, is done away with. However, the punishment, as awarded by the trial court u/s 498-A IPC, will remain intact. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The period already undergone by the appellant shall be adjusted after verifying the records. 12. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 13. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith L.C.R. be returned to the court concerned.