JUDGMENT 1. Appellant, Anil Chaudhary who has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 304(B), 498(A), 201 of the IPC vide judgment dated 27.07.2011 and sentence to undergo R.I. for 10 years, R.I. for 3 years, R.I. for 3 years respectively with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide order dated 29.07.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-IIIrd, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No.563 of 2001 has preferred instant appeal. 2. Lalan Kumar (PW-8) filed a written report on 01.07.2000 disclosing therein that his sister Nilam was married with Anil Chaudhary, son of Diplal Chaudhary of village- Simri Chahuta in the year 1994. Just after marriage, her Sasuralwala began to torture her as well as she was also subjected to physical assault. In due course of time she had begotten a child namely Jyoti Kumari. About 4 or 5 days ago, he (informant) had received one unstamped letter through post office written by Nilam disclosing the fact that her Sasuralwala had brutally assaulted her. It has further been disclosed that on 30.06.2000, one person has telephoned him and said that his sister has got badly burnt. On this, he immediately rushed and reached on 01.07.2000 at about 07:00 AM. On query, he came to know that she died due to burn and her dead body was disposed of by her Sasuralwala. It has further been disclosed that on earlier count also, he had received unstamped letter of his sister wherein torture at the end of her Sasuralwala was mentioned. He has also disclosed that the letter also contained the request of his sister to call her otherwise her Sasuralwala would commit her murder. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, Aurai P.S. Case No.55 of 2000 was registered under Sections 302, 201, 498A, 34 of the IPC followed with investigation and after concluding the same, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 306, 498A of the IPC, however, during course of framing of charge appellant was charged for an offence punishable under Section 498A, 304B, 201, 120B of the IPC and faced trial thereafter, wherein he got convicted and sentenced in a manner as indicated above, subject matter of instant appeal. 4. The defence case, as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as from the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is of completely denial of occurrence. 4. The defence case, as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as from the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is of completely denial of occurrence. Furthermore, the deceased died on account of her accidental fire while preparing food which was properly intimated to Lalan Kumar, the informant who participated in funeral. However, subsequently developed ill motive and got this case filed with false and frivolous allegation. 5. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution had examined altogether nine PWs out of whom PW-1 is Ram Chandra Choudhary, PW-2 is Jagdish Choudhary, PW-3 is Siyabar Saran Sah, PW-4 is Ram Dayal Choudhary, PW-5 is Lal Babu Choudhary, PW-6 is Dinkar Rai, PW-7 is Chandeshwar Paswan, PW-8 is Lalan Kumar, informant and PW-9 is Ram Padarath Jha. Now coming to status of the witnesses, it is evident that PW-1 to PW-7 being the co-villager of accused have gone for hostile while PW-8 happens to be Lalan Kumar the informant and PW-9 Ram Padarath Jha a formal witness whose examination was on account of non-presence of Investigating Officer. 6. PW-1 denied his knowledge with regard to occurrence, however, during course of cross-examination, he had stated that there was cordial relationship amongst the spouse. During course of preparation of food she caught fire. While she was lifted to Aurai Hospital, she died during midst of way. Her brother came and participated in funeral. 7. PW-2 in examination-in-chief disowned with regard to any kind of knowledge with regard to the occurrence in question however during course of cross-examination he had stated that there was cordial relationship amongst the spouse. While the deceased was being carried for treatment she died. Her brother participated in funeral. 8. PW-3 had deposed in similar way while during course of cross-examination, he had stated that at the time of occurrence, he was away from village, Anil Chaudhary happens to be his co-villager. There was cordial relationship amongst the spouse. Anil happens to be unemployed and on account thereof, she was feeling pity. 9. PW-4 in similar way deposed. During course of cross-examination he had stated that accused happens to be his co-villager. He is a labourer. He has deposed for the first time in court. 10. PW-5 again had deposed in similar manner. During cross-examination, he had stated that accused happens to be his co-villager. He spent his life by doing menial work. 11. During course of cross-examination he had stated that accused happens to be his co-villager. He is a labourer. He has deposed for the first time in court. 10. PW-5 again had deposed in similar manner. During cross-examination, he had stated that accused happens to be his co-villager. He spent his life by doing menial work. 11. PW-6 had not stated anything either in examination-in-chief or in the cross-examination regarding occurrence. 12. PW-7 is the Chowkidar. He had deposed that during course of patrolling, he came to the house of Anil Choudhary after hearing hue and cry where he found wife of Anil Choudhary dead. She died of burn. He came to know that she died as stove burst. Then thereafter, he was declared hostile. During cross-examination he stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, Anil Chaudhary was not present at his house. He had gone to sell articles a day prior to the occurrence. He had not seen couple quarreling any time before the occurrence. He had further stated that deceased was not in a fit mental condition. 13. PW-9 is the formal witness who had simply exhibited formal FIR as Ext.2. 14. PW-8 is the sole witness over occurrence. He had deposed that Nilam, deceased, was his sister. She was married with Anil Chaudhary in the year 1994. Just after marriage his sister had gone to her Sasural. There, she was regularly tortured, and physically assaulted. There was demand of vehicle as well as cash. She regularly used to inform him. She had also written letters. He used to go to the place of his sister where she always narrated her woo. In his presence also the accused persons used to advance demand. She was compelled to demand from me. On 30.06.2000 all the accused persons murdered his sister. Villagers have informed on the following day over which he came and inquired. He had not found his sister. They have disposed of her dead body. Then he had filed written report before the police. Accordingly been exhibited. During cross-examination at para-2 he had stated that at the time of marriage there was no dispute. She was living at her Sasural since 7-8 years. He along with other family members used to go to place of his sister. His sister used to address letter. He used to feel pain after going through the letter. Accordingly been exhibited. During cross-examination at para-2 he had stated that at the time of marriage there was no dispute. She was living at her Sasural since 7-8 years. He along with other family members used to go to place of his sister. His sister used to address letter. He used to feel pain after going through the letter. Then he had stated that there happens to be no letter in front of him. Then had denied the suggestion that because of the fact that there happens to be no complain in the letter, therefore the same was not produced. He further stated that his father is now dead. In para-3 he had stated that his sister used to inform on telephone as well as through letter. His mother is alive. The villagers confidentially informed regarding death of his sister. 5-6 persons have come along with him. He had not met with his brother-in-law. He had further disclosed that financial condition of his brother-in-law happens to be lower than him. She had further disclosed that no Panchayati was effected till survival of his sister. He had further disclosed that he had with co-villager of his sister. He had not filed any complaint. Then had denied the suggestion that it is false to say that his sister had died due to illness and information was given by her Sasuralwala. He had further denied the suggestion that it is wrong to say that he had participated in funeral and subsequently thereof, demanded money illegally. 15. From perusal of the evidence of the PWs also discussed above, it is evident that all the PWs, although have not supported the case of the prosecution but PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-7 were consistent about the death of deceased on account of burn injury. PW-7, Chowkidar had stated that deceased died as stove burst but he had not stated whether smell of kerosene oil was coming out nor he stated regarding stove having present around in broken condition. From the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 they had spoken regarding lifting of deceased to hospital while PW-7 had said that deceased was already dead when he came to her Sasural house. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 have not spoken with regard to absence of appellant while PW-7 had deposed like so. 16. From the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 they had spoken regarding lifting of deceased to hospital while PW-7 had said that deceased was already dead when he came to her Sasural house. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 have not spoken with regard to absence of appellant while PW-7 had deposed like so. 16. So far evidence of informant, PW-8 is concerned, although the written report is not an exhibit instead thereof, his signature has been only marked as Ext.1. After going through the same, it is evident that there happens to be complete absence of demand of dowry as well as torture her (deceased) with regard thereto. However, during course of evidence of PW-8 he had narrated the demand and also supported torture on that very pretext. However, from the cross-examination, it is apparent that defence had not drew his attention towards the contents of written report and on account thereof, the defence is precluded from taking any benefit therefrom. From the cross-examination, it is also evident that defence had not challenged the year of marriage as well as death occurred within 7 years of marriage. In likewise manner defence had not cross-examined this witness on the factum of demand of dowry as well as torture inflicted upon deceased with regard to procurement of demand of dowry. Furthermore, PW-8 was suggested different from the evidence of other PW-8 regarding cause of death of deceased. 17. From the evidence so referred, it is crystal clear that deceased died otherwise than normal circumstance, due to burn injury within seven years of marriage. The evidence also suggests that she was being tortured on account of demand of dowry which was going on. Whether it should be treated as soon before her death, for that relevant judicial pronouncement is to be seen. 18. Soon before her death has been taken into consideration in Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana reported in 2014 Cr.L.J. 561. “13. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman, and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Section 304B of the IPC states that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Thus, the words “soon before” appear in Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and also in Section 304B of the IPC. For the presumptions contemplated under these Sections to spring into action, it is necessary to show that the cruelty or harassment was caused soon before the death. The interpretation of the words “soon before” is, therefore, important. The question is how “soon before”? This would obviously depend on facts and circumstances of each case. The cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. It relates to the mindset of people which varies from person to person. Cruelty can be mental or it can be physical. Mental cruelty is also of different shades. It can be verbal or emotional like insulting or ridiculing or humiliating a woman. It can be giving threats of injury to her or her near and dear ones. It can be depriving her of economic resources or essential amenities of life. It can be putting restraints on her movements. It can be not allowing her to talk to the outside world. The list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Physical cruelty could be actual beating or causing pain and harm to the person of a woman. Every such instance of cruelty and related harassment has a different impact on the mind of a woman. Some instances may be so grave as to have a lasting impact on a woman. Some instances which degrade her dignity may remain etched in her memory for a long time. Therefore, “soon before” is a relative term. In matters of emotions we cannot have fixed formulae. The time-lag may differ from case to case. This must be kept in mind while examining each case of dowry death. 14. Some instances which degrade her dignity may remain etched in her memory for a long time. Therefore, “soon before” is a relative term. In matters of emotions we cannot have fixed formulae. The time-lag may differ from case to case. This must be kept in mind while examining each case of dowry death. 14. In this connection we may refer to judgment of this Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 207 where this Court considered the term “soon before”. The relevant observations are as under: “… … … “Soon before” is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit. This expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. The term “soon before” is not synonymous with the term “immediately before” and is opposite of the expression “soon after” as used and understood in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. These words would imply that the interval should not be too long between the time of making the statement and the death. It contemplates the reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be “soon before death” if any other intervening circumstance showing the nonexistence of such treatment is not brought on record, before such alleged treatment and the date of death. It does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period. Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough.” Thus, there must be a nexus between the demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment, based upon such demand and the date of death. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough.” Thus, there must be a nexus between the demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment, based upon such demand and the date of death. The test of proximity will have to be applied. But, it is not a rigid test. It depends on facts and circumstances of each case and calls for a pragmatic and sensitive approach of the court within the confines of law.” 19. The court had also noticed the import of the Section and deal with under para-19 thereof. “19. While we reiterate what this Court has said in Appasaheb that a penal statute has to be construed strictly, in light of Kisan Trimbak and Natwarlal Damodardas, we are of the opinion that penal statute, even if it has to be strictly construed, must be so construed as not to defeat its purport. Harassment of a married woman in an Indian household is a peculiar phenomenon. In most cases it is seen that the husband or the members of his family are never satisfied with what they get as dowry. The wife’s family is expected to keep fulfilling this insatiable demand in some form or the other for some period of time after marriage. Such demands are also fulfilled by parents of the wife for fear of their daughter being ill-treated. The courts of law cannot lose sight of these realities. The presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the presumption under Section 304B of the IPC have a purpose. These are beneficent provisions aimed at giving relief to a woman subjected to cruelty routinely in an Indian household. The meaning to be applied to each word of these provisions has to be in accord with the legislative intent. Even while construing these provisions strictly care will have to be taken to see that their object is not frustrated.” 20. The court had occasion to see the propriety, impact of solitary eye witness. In Veer Singh and others v. State of U.P. reported in 2014 Cr.L.J. 1083 has explained the same under para-17 thereof in following manner:- “17. Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. The court had occasion to see the propriety, impact of solitary eye witness. In Veer Singh and others v. State of U.P. reported in 2014 Cr.L.J. 1083 has explained the same under para-17 thereof in following manner:- “17. Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is not the number of witnesses but -quality of their evidence which is important as there is no requirement under the Law of Evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. Evidence must be weighed and not counted. It is quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided under Section 134 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. (Vide: Vadivelu Thevar and Anr. vs. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614 ; Kunju @ Balachandran vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2008 SC 1381 ; Bipin Kumar Mondal vs. State of West Bengal AIR 2010 SC 3638 ; Mahesh and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 9 SCC 626 ; Prithipal Singh and ors. vs. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 1 SCC 10 ; Kishan Chand vs. State of Haryana JT 2013 (1) SC 222 and Gulam Sarbar vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) – 2013 (12) SCALE 504): (AIR 2013 SC (Cri) 2322).” 21. Although, dead body was not recovered but the fact remains even from the evidence of hostile witnesses that wife of appellant had died at her Sasural due to burn injury and for that appellants was under obligation in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain the same. However, appellant failed to discharge his obligation. 22. In likewise manner, when all the ingredients of dowry death that means to say death within 7 years of marriage, death otherwise than natural circumstance, demand of dowry even soon before her death, and treating the deceased with torture therefore, the presumption in terms of Section 113(B) of the Evidence Act has to be inferred subject to rebuttal at the end of accused. Again the appellant failed. Again the appellant failed. Even hostile witnesses were not cross-examined on the score that there was no demand of dowry at the end of appellant from the deceased during her lifetime. The most crucial aspect on this score appears to be from the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. whereunder appellant denied in dispassionate way without any explanation. 23. In Anjanappa Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2014) 2 SCC 776 at para-30, it has been observed: “30. Besides, the conduct of the appellant speaks volumes. He was absconding and could be arrested only on 19-02-1992. Moreover, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code he has not explained how the deceased received burn injuries. He did not set up the defence of alibi. It was obligatory on him to explain how the deceased received burn injuries in his house. His silence on this aspect given rise to an adverse inference against him. It forms a link in the chain of circumstances which point to his guilt.” 24. As such, no infirmity is found in the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by learned trial court. Consequent thereupon, instant appeal sans merit and is dismissed. Appellant is under custody, hence will served out the remaining part of sentence. Appeal dismissed.