JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants (son and mother) are original accused Nos.2 and 3. They were tried along with original accused No.1 Raosaheb Ghadge, (the father of accused No.2 and husband of accused No.3), and accused No.4 Anita and accused No.5 Baban @ Saprasen, (the daughter and other son of original accused No.1 Raosaheb respectively). The victim of the incident was Mangal (hereinafter referred as “victim), the wife of accused Dhanraj. 2. The five accused were tried in Sessions Case No.30/1993 for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short). The other accused got acquitted of the offence while present appellants- the accused No.2 and accused No.3 were convicted for offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. They were convicted also for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC, but no separate sentence was imposed. Thus, the present appeal. 3. The case of prosecution in brief is as follows :- (a) The victim got married to accused No.2 Dhanraj in February 1992. On 26.2.1993, her brother Ratan Shahaji Pade (P.W.2) filed F.I.R. (Exh. 47) at Police Station, Ambajogai, District Beed, informing that he is resident of Pimpri Shiradhon, Taluka Kallam, District Osmanabad. His sister victim Mangal was married to accused Dhanraj about one year back, on 16.2.1992 (in evidence, this date is stated to be 10.2.1992). However, material is that the marriage took place in February 1992. The F.I.R. claims that, for the purpose of marriage, it was agreed to give Rs.25,000/- cash, one wrist watch and two dresses. Out of the agreed amount, Rs.20,000/- was paid at the time of marriage and Rs.5000/- was to be paid after one year. F.I.R. mentions the names of persons from the village Pimri Shiradhon, who were present, and others. The dowry as agreed was paid at the time of marriage. The victim was treated properly at the place of in-laws for 5-6 months. Thereafter, for the balance amount of dowry of Rs.5000/-, the victim was being given trouble. When the victim came to the place of her parents at the time of Panchami, Diwali, Sankrant, she was telling about the trouble. However, in order to save the relationship, they did not hurt the in-laws and were making their sister understand. Thereafter, for the balance amount of dowry of Rs.5000/-, the victim was being given trouble. When the victim came to the place of her parents at the time of Panchami, Diwali, Sankrant, she was telling about the trouble. However, in order to save the relationship, they did not hurt the in-laws and were making their sister understand. The victim Mangal had trouble at the place of her in-laws, was known to her brothers, parents and others in the brotherhood. On 25.2.1993, at about 11.00 p.m. in the night, one Ramesh Shinde and Jeevan Gite came to the house of complainant and informed that their sister has died and her body was at Dastagirwadi. After getting the information, the complainant along with persons mentioned in the F.I.R. went to Dastagirwadi and saw the dead body of their sister Mangal kept near the wall. They enquired about the death from the accused persons, who only informed that the victim worked till 2.00 o'clock, and in the evening she died at about 4.00 p.m. The complainant had come to the Police Station and was filing the F.I.R. that the victim was given cruel treatment for the balance amount of dowry and getting fed up, she had committed suicide and thus the complaint. (b) The F.I.R. was received by Head Constable Pandharinath Kamble (P.W.9) and the offence came to be registered at 9.10 a.m. on 26.2.1993 as Crime No.52/1993 at Police Station, Ambajogai. The investigation was taken over by P.S.I. Ramchandra Shinde (P.W. 12). He drew inquest panchanama (Exh. 44) and also prepared spot panchanama (Exh. 45). The dead body was sent for post mortem. The post mortem was done by Dr. Satyanarayan Goli (P.W. 11) at the Medical College Hospital, Ambajogai. Initially, the opinion was that the victim died of suspected poisoning with injury to the gravid uterus and contusion under the scalp. After examining the C.A. report and vicera, the final opinion was that she died due to injury to gravid uterus and the contusion under the scalp. The investigating officer Ramchandra Shinde recorded statements of witnesses. The clothes of the deceased were seized under panchanama Exhibit 69. 4. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambajogai. The offence being Sessions triable, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions at Ambajogai. The investigating officer Ramchandra Shinde recorded statements of witnesses. The clothes of the deceased were seized under panchanama Exhibit 69. 4. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambajogai. The offence being Sessions triable, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions at Ambajogai. Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai framed charge against all the accused under Sections 302, 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution brought on record evidence of 12 witnesses. The defence taken by the accused persons was of denial. Brother of accused No.1 D.W.1 Sukhdeo Ghadge was examined to claim that there was no such talk of dowry and the couple was living happily. After the trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai considered that there was evidence to show that original accused No.1 Raosaheb was out of the village for a marriage on the day concerned and that accused Nos.4 and 5 were taking education and accused No.5 was out of station and thus, acquitted those accused while accused No.2 Dhanraj and his mother accused No.3 Kushavati came to be convicted as mentioned. 5. The criminal Appeal raises grounds and it has been argued on behalf of the appellants- accused that the conviction is bad in law. Only the brothers of the victim were examined and not her parents. There is no direct evidence of ill-treatment available. The witnesses had improved their statements. The injury to the victim was possible by fall and doctor had deposed regarding such possibility. The complainant P.W.2 Ratan at one place stated that Rs.20,000/- were given at the time of Tila and at another place stated that the same was given at the time of marriage. He should have been disbelieved. The offence was not established. Although P.W.3 Vishnu Patil (Police Patil), P.W.5 Babruaahan (then Sarpanch) and P.W.6 Baban Pade were disbelieved regarding their evidence of demand and harassment to the victim, still relying on the evidence of the brothers, the conviction has been imposed holding that cruelty and harassment was there in connection with dowry. 6. I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence available on record. Regarding the marriage, there is evidence of P.W.2 Ratan Pade and his brother P.W.4 Sandipan Pade, supported by evidence of P.W.3 Vishnu Patil, P.W.5 Babruvahan as well as P.W.6 Baban Pade, (who is relative). 6. I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence available on record. Regarding the marriage, there is evidence of P.W.2 Ratan Pade and his brother P.W.4 Sandipan Pade, supported by evidence of P.W.3 Vishnu Patil, P.W.5 Babruvahan as well as P.W.6 Baban Pade, (who is relative). The evidence of these witnesses shows that, for the purpose of marriage, between the two sides, there was talk and it was agreed that the girl's side would give dowry of Rs.25,000/- cash, one wrist watch and two dresses to the accused. Evidence shows that, it was agreed that, expenses regarding the marriage ceremony will be borne by the accused's side. The evidence also shows that, when the marriage took place, Rs.20,000/- were paid in cash and Rs.5000/- had remained, which were to be paid in a year. The evidence of these witnesses is consistent regarding the above facts. In the cross-examination, the witnesses were asked various details and on the basis of those details, arguments have been raised that there is inconsistency regarding how many days before the marriage discussion took place; the dowry was paid at the time of Tila or at the time of marriage; who all were present at the time of talks for settlement of marriage and what was the day, date etc. While analysing the evidence, the trial Court observed that, the evidence was being given after 6 to 7 years of the incident and the trial Court did not give much weight to minor inconsistencies. The marriage was performed in February 1992 and the oral evidence before the trial Court started in October 1999. Clearly there was a big time gap and these witnesses are from a small village who are basically agriculturists. Too much of insistence on details would be unfair. The trial Court has analysed the evidence, and I have also gone through the same, and considering the evidence available on record, it must be held that the prosecution proved the facts regarding what was settled to be given as dowry at the time of marriage and the fact that Rs.5000/- remained to be paid as dowry, which became cause of the troubles for the victim. 7. P.W.2 Ratan Pade and P.W.4 Sandipan Pade are the brothers of the victim. The evidence shows that, P.W.2 Ratan Pade is the Karta of the family although parents are there. 7. P.W.2 Ratan Pade and P.W.4 Sandipan Pade are the brothers of the victim. The evidence shows that, P.W.2 Ratan Pade is the Karta of the family although parents are there. The evidence has to be read to mean that he manages the affairs of the family. It is natural that these brothers would be knowing about the married life of their sister. The evidence shows that, initially the victim was treated well. The evidence shows that, the victim had gone to the place of her parents at the time of Panchami, Diwali and Sankrant during one year. It appears that, Dastagirwadi in Taluka Ambajogai, District Beed is about 45 Kms. From Pimpri where P.W.2 and P.W.4 reside. (See cross-examination of P.W.2). P.W.2 Ratan has deposed that, when the victim came for the festivals, she was complaining that her inlaws are demanding the balance amount of dowry and for the purpose, they have started giving her ill-treatment. According to him, the victim told this to him as well as the parents and others in the relationship as well as to the neighbours. This evidence of P.W.3 read with his F.I.R. shows that the F.I.R. did record that initially the victim was treated well and thereafter for the balance amount of dowry of Rs.5000/- she was being troubled. The evidence of complainant Ratan regarding the ill-treatment is that, his sister was being assaulted by fist and kicks and was not provided meals. The F.I.R. did record that the sister complained that she was being given trouble and in order not to spoil the relations, the sister was made to understand and sent back. P.W.2 in evidence gave the details of said trouble as the physical assault. 8. Complainant is supported by P.W.4 Sandipan, who deposed that, when the victim came at the time of Dipawali, she was saying that the in-laws are insisting for payment of balance amount and for the purpose, were harassing her. He has deposed that, he made her understand. The evidence of P.W.4 Sandipan is that he had gone to the house of accused persons at the time of Sankrant to bring the victim. She was in the field and so he went there. He deposed that, nobody from the in-laws of the victim talked with him and so, he had to return back without any talk with the in-laws of the victim. She was in the field and so he went there. He deposed that, nobody from the in-laws of the victim talked with him and so, he had to return back without any talk with the in-laws of the victim. His evidence is that, the in-laws did not let him talk with the victim. He had to come back without her. This evidence of this witness regarding his going at the place of accused at the time of Sankrant to bring her sister and the accused persons not even talking to him, and that he had to return without the victim, needs to be examined. In the cross-examination, there is only a suggestion that it was not true that the people from the place of in-laws did not talk to him. The evidence cannot be said to be shaken. Thus, the evidence survives that this witness had gone to the place of accused to bring the victim, but nobody talked to him and he had to return without being able to bring his sister. When the brother had come to take the victim for Sankrant, if he received such treatment at the matrimonial home of victim, it must be treated as cruelty and harassment to the victim. Evidence shows that, after P.W.4 Sandipan was required to go back without the sister, after 3-4 days the accused did take the victim to Pimpri to the place of P.W.2 and P.W.4. P.W.4 has deposed that, at that time, the accused Dhanraj had told them that the balance amount of dowry should be handed over to him. This evidence of P.W.4 Sandipan also that the accused later on brought the victim and had stated that the balance amount of dowry should be paid to him, also cannot be stated to be denied in the cross-examination and the witness cannot be said to have been shattered on this count. After the marriage in February 1992, the Sankrant would have been in January 1993. It is apparent that, soon before the death of the victim in February 1993 with bodily injuries the death which was not under normal circumstances, the victim was subjected to harassment with relation to demand of dowry. 9. P.W.2 and P.W.4 are supported by P.W.3 Vishnu Patil, P.W.5 Babruvahan and P.W.6 Baban also regarding the fact that after the marriage, the victim was suffering harassment at the place of her in-laws. 9. P.W.2 and P.W.4 are supported by P.W.3 Vishnu Patil, P.W.5 Babruvahan and P.W.6 Baban also regarding the fact that after the marriage, the victim was suffering harassment at the place of her in-laws. The trial Court has no doubt ignored the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 6 regarding harassment in a one line statement that there are improvements in this regard. However, the improvements in evidence appear to be mainly regarding the details. Apart from it, if the evidence of P.W.3 Vishnu Patil is perused in the cross-examination and is read with the evidence of P.W.12 investigating officer Ramchandra Shinde, what can be seen is that, at the time of recording the evidence of the investigating officer, various admissions were taken that the witness P.W.3 Vishnu did not state this or that fact. However, some of the omissions enquired about, do not even appear to have been put up to the witness P.W.3 Vishnu or they were not put up to the investigating officer in the words in which the witness was asked in the cross-examination. For instance, I.O. P.W.12 was asked in crossexamination and he stated regarding P.W.3 Vishnu Patil that, “He had not stated before me that at the time of marriage Rs.20,000/- in cash as a dowry, 2 dresses and wrist watch was given.” If examination-in-chief of P.W.3 is perused, he deposed that :- “In the meeting the marriage was settled and it was agreed to give dowry of Rs.25,000/- cash, one wrist watch and two dresses. Within one month thereafter the marriage ceremony performed. Out of the dowry agreed, Rs.5000/- was remained to be paid and IT Appeal No. was agreed that same could be paid after one year.” In cross examination of the witness for purpose of omission, on this count, what was asked was only that and he stated:- “I had stated before police that it was agreed to pay the balance after one year.” Thus, what was asked to investigating officer is nowhere in evidence of witness in such words. For proving the omissions or contradictions, it is firstly necessary that, with reference to the evidence given by the witness in his examination-in-chief, he is first confronted with his statement to police and the omission or contradiction is got put up to him. For proving the omissions or contradictions, it is firstly necessary that, with reference to the evidence given by the witness in his examination-in-chief, he is first confronted with his statement to police and the omission or contradiction is got put up to him. As cross-examiners, ignoring substance, stick to presence or absence of specific words in statements to police, while recording contradictions/ omissions, it is necessary for Court to highlight the same to have clarity. Witness should be given chance to explain why the complete sentence or highlighted or specific words are not so recorded in Police statement. Then that omission and contradiction is required to be put up to the investigating officer in those specific words. Without confronting the witness with alleged contradiction or omission asking about the same to the investigating office is not helpful. Trial Court appears to have got swayed by such cross-examination of Investigating Officer, regarding P.WS.3, 5 and 6. Without specific omissions and contradictions being put up to witness questions were asked to investigating officer in that regard. Such cross-examination of investigating officer should have been objected to and should be treated as baseless and ignored. I find, P.Ws.3, 5 and 6 corroborating P.Ws.2 and 4 to the main effect that the victim, after marriage was suffering harassment at the place of her in-laws. These P.Ws. were connected with the marriage and in village came to know about the harassment and deposed accordingly. 10. P.W.2 Ratan and P.W.4 Sandipan have deposed that, on the day of incident, they came to know about the death of their sister. It appears, these persons along with other villagers went to the house of accused and saw the dead body of the victim. P.W.5 Babruvahan has deposed that, he had also gone. The evidence of P.W.2 is that, coming to know about the fact from one Ramesh Shinde and Jeevan Shinde, he along with others went to Dastagirwadi. According to him, he made enquiries from the accused and they stated that, the victim worked till 2.00 p.m., and expired at about 4.00 p.m. In the cross-examination of P.W.2 Ratan, details were sought by the accused. It appears that, for going from Pimpri Shiradhon to Dastagirwadi, the way goes from Ambajogai. According to him, he made enquiries from the accused and they stated that, the victim worked till 2.00 p.m., and expired at about 4.00 p.m. In the cross-examination of P.W.2 Ratan, details were sought by the accused. It appears that, for going from Pimpri Shiradhon to Dastagirwadi, the way goes from Ambajogai. P.W.2 admitted in the cross-examination that, after getting the message, while he was proceeding to the house of the accused, he had been to the Police Station, but was advised to first visit the place and then make the report. Even if this was so, I do not find that the F.I.R. filed needs to be doubted. It is natural for the relatives to get disturbed on getting news of sudden death of their sister and if the complainant P.W.2 on the way stopped at the Police Station and was advised to first go and verify, it cannot be said that the F.I.R. is afterthought. It is natural that, at that time, complainant did not have all the details if really the sister had expired as he had heard or what was the cause of death. The F.I.R. (Exh. 47) shows that the complainant could reach the place of accused persons in the night only by about 3.00 a.m. Looking to the incident, naturally some time would get spent at the place of the accused persons and then go back to the police station. The F.I.R. thus filed in the morning around 9.00 a.m. cannot be said to be delayed or to be a result of discussion. At such times, it is natural for the relatives to gather. That by itself does not mean that the F.I.R. claiming that there was harassment and thus unnatural death requires investigation is doubtful. 11. In the F.I.R., no doubt the complainant stated that his sister had committed suicide due to the harassment at the place of in-laws. But, the subsequent medical evidence available shows that the victim suffered bodily injury and the death was not in normal circumstances. There is evidence of P.W.1 Sitaram Mane, who is panch of the inquest panchanama (Exh. 44) as well as the spot panchanama Exh. 45). His evidence shows that, the victim had swelling to her left wrist. Then there is evidence of P.W.1 Dr. Satyanarayan Goli who found that there was abraded contusion to the left forearm of the victim. There is evidence of P.W.1 Sitaram Mane, who is panch of the inquest panchanama (Exh. 44) as well as the spot panchanama Exh. 45). His evidence shows that, the victim had swelling to her left wrist. Then there is evidence of P.W.1 Dr. Satyanarayan Goli who found that there was abraded contusion to the left forearm of the victim. He also found contusion under scalp on left frontal region and behind frontal eminents. On internal examination of the abdomen, he found 100 cc whitish fluid. The uterus was enlarged about 3 months gestation period and products of conception were seen. There was evidence of haemorrhage. The anterior aspect of uterus showed contusion. The initial opinion given by the doctor was of suspicion of poisoning with injury to the gravid uterus and contusion under the scalp. The C.A. report (Exh. 64) did not show any recognisable poison. The final opinion given by the doctor was thus that, the victim died due to injury to gravid uterus and contusion under the scalp. It has been argued that, the injury to the scalp was possible by fall, has been admitted by the doctor. Even if the injury was possible by fall, there is no such defence of the accused. The victim was in the custody of appellants/ accused at the time concerned and the cross-examination of witnesses or statement of accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. does not in any manner explain the cause of injuries found by the doctor in the post mortem. What happened with the victim when she was with both the accused is fact specially within the knowledge of the appellants- accused. The prosecution has proved that within seven years of the marriage the victim suffered death which could not be said to be normal or under normal circumstances and she had injuries. Under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the onus would shift on the accused to explain the injuries of the victim. This has not been done by the accused persons. There is evidence to show that soon before the death the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused persons for the balance amount of dowry. As such, under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, it needs to be presumed that the accused persons caused the dowry death. 12. There is evidence to show that soon before the death the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused persons for the balance amount of dowry. As such, under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, it needs to be presumed that the accused persons caused the dowry death. 12. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to disagree with the trial Court regarding the conclusion that offence under Section 498-A as well as Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code has been established. For the given evidence available on record, findings arrived at by the trial Court, is a possible view and I have no reason to interfere with the same. 13. There is no substance in the appeal. The appeal stands dismissed. The appellants- accused to surrender to their bail bonds to suffer the sentence imposed.