JUDGMENT B.P. RAY, J. 1. These three appeals having arisen out of the common judgment dated 18-1-1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh in Sessions Trial No. 100/24 of 1990 have been heard together and the common judgment to follow shall dispose of all the three. Seven accused persons in to were tried for the offence under Ss. 304-B/201 of Indian Penal Code and under Ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh. All of them were acquitted of the charges under Ss. 304-B/201 of Indian Penal Code and under S. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Government Appeal No. 30 of 1991 is against the said order of acquittal. The accused-Banamali, Madhusudan and Suru alias Sadhucharan alias Radhamohan were convicted under S. 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence the above three accused persons have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1991. State has also preferred Government Appeal Nos. 22 and 30 of 1991 challenging the said judgment on the ground of inadequacy of sentence awarded for the conviction under S. 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that in the month of January, 1989, deceased-Urmila was given in marriage to Suru alias Sadhucharan alias Radhamohan. From the side of the groom, there was demand of one Yezdi motor-cycle and 8 tolas of gold. The father of the deceased had given only four tolas of gold and one moped. The in-laws were not satisfied with the same and started ill-treating the deceased. The deceased stayed in her matrimonial home only for seventeen days. She came to her fathers house and stayed there for 22 days. She was reluctant to go to her in-laws- house for the torture meted out to her. However, she was persuaded by her family member and was taken to her in-laws house. Seven days thereafter the father of deceased got the death news of his daughter from his brother-in-law (wife brother). On reaching the house of the accused persons, he could know that they have already cremated the dead body of his daughter. The informant suspecting foul play lodged the FIR on 20-3-1989 in Bheden Police Station which was registered under Ss. 498-A/304-B of Indian Penal Code and under Ss. On reaching the house of the accused persons, he could know that they have already cremated the dead body of his daughter. The informant suspecting foul play lodged the FIR on 20-3-1989 in Bheden Police Station which was registered under Ss. 498-A/304-B of Indian Penal Code and under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After registration of the case as the investigation was not conducted properly by the Officer-in-Charge, Bheden Police Station, the same was handed over to the Circle Inspector, Bargarh. Still there was laxity in investigation which gave rise to a large scale resentment from the public. The investigation was ultimately transferred to the Crime Branch which submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons to stand their trial. 3. The plea of the accused persons was one of the denial. Further, they have stated in their statement under S. 313, Cr. P.C. that the deceased was sick and she died due to her ailment. 4. Prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all. P.W. 1 is the sister-in-law (bhauja) of the deceased, P.W. 2 is the mother, P.W. 5 is the father of the deceased, P.W. 3 is a friend of deceased, P.W. 4 is a lecturer in F.M.T., Burla Medical College Hospital who had examined the seized bones and opined that the same were of a woman, P.W. 6 is a relation of accused person who carried the dead body for cremation, P.W. 7 is the driver of the jeep in which the dead body of the deceased was brought from Burla to the place where the body was cremated, P.W. 8 fetched petrol for accused-Hadu, P.W. 9 had supplied logs for burning the dead body at the request of accused-Hadu, P.W. 10 is the brother-in-law of deceased (married her cousin) who had left the deceased in her matrimonial home before her death, P.W. 11 is the Circle Inspector, Bargarh, P.W. 12 is the Officer-in-Charge of Bheden Police Station and P.W. 13 is the Inspector, Crime Branch who had taken part in the investigation. Defence examined one witness who has deposed that the deceased was suffering from stomach pain and headache. 5. Facts not disputed are that the deceased-Urmila married accused-Suru alias Sadhucharan alias Radhamohan in January, 1989. She stayed in her in-laws house for only 17 days. Defence examined one witness who has deposed that the deceased was suffering from stomach pain and headache. 5. Facts not disputed are that the deceased-Urmila married accused-Suru alias Sadhucharan alias Radhamohan in January, 1989. She stayed in her in-laws house for only 17 days. After coming to her fathers place she remained there for twenty two days and then was taken to her matrimonial home. Seven days later she died and her dead body was burnt at Talpali instead of the village of accused persons. 6. Admittedly, the death of the deceased took place within two months of her marriage. In order to bring the same within the mischief of S. 304-B, I.P.C., two essential ingredients need to be proved (i) the deceased died out of burn or bodily injury or the death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances and (ii) soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand of dowry. 7. As regards demand of dowry, it is the consistent evidence of the prosecution that the husband and other in-laws were demanding gold and motorcycle and for non-fulfilment of the said demand, deceased was being subjected to cruelty and harassment. P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 are the mother and father of the deceased respectively. Their evidence are that the deceased was unhappy and mentally upset when she came to their house. When they asked for the reason she kept quiet and cried. It was ascertained that the accused persons namely, her husband, brother-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law were torturing her. The evidence of P.W. 1 who happens to be the brothers wife (bhauja) of the deceased gave out a detailed account of ill-treatment. She had stated in her evidence that when the deceased came on 16th day after her marriage to her parent- s house, she was in a state of depression. She was weeping and feeling morose. The deceased disclosed before her that her in-laws used to assault her due to non-giving of dowry dues like gold and motorcycle. P.W. 3 is a sworn friend of the deceased. The deceased disclosed before her that she was disliked by her husband and other in-laws on account of non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry. The deceased disclosed before her that her in-laws used to assault her due to non-giving of dowry dues like gold and motorcycle. P.W. 3 is a sworn friend of the deceased. The deceased disclosed before her that she was disliked by her husband and other in-laws on account of non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry. P.W. 10 who had taken the deceased to her matrimonial home has deposed in his evidence that the deceased reported that she was given in marriage in a very bad family where she could never be happy. Further, she had disclosed that the accused family members were demanding gold and motorcycle and always abusing her for their non-compliance. From the above evidences, it can safely be concluded that there was demand of dowry and for that count she was subjected to cruelty and harassment. There are no infirmities in the evidences of the prosecutions witnesses which would render them unworthy of credence. Omission here and there does not shake the substratum of the prosecution case. Minor omissions and contradictions are bound to occur as the mental faculty of all persons are not equal, who can memorize the things and depict the same in identical manner. If the omission and contradiction are not material or insignificant, they do not mar the intrinsic worth of the testimonies of the witnesses. In the instant case, the contradiction is to the effect that the witnesses did not say that the deceased wept while disclosing her torture. This is very trivial which did not dislodge the prosecution case at all. 8. At this state an important aspect needs to be looked at. After lodging of FIR, investigation was not taken up with all promptitude as was taken up by the Circle Inspector but things did not improve. Finally, the Crime Branch took up the investigation when there was public clamour about the inaction of the local police. When the investigation has become perfunctory, omission and contradiction lose their significance. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Baladin and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 181 has held that if the police records become suspect or unreliable on the ground of the same being perfunctory or dishonest, it loses much of its value and the Court judging the case of the particular accused has to weigh the evidence given against him in Court. 9. 9. It is also well settled in law that there can hardly be any direct evidence available in case of death of a young married lady which occurred by commission of suicide or otherwise than under normal circumstances. In such cases, circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the accused persons are taken into consideration for adjudicating upon the truthfulness of the prosecution case (Gurbachan Singh vs. Satpal Singh and Others, (1989) 3 SCJ 413 : AIR 1989 SC 209. There is no dispute that the death of the deceased occurred within two months of her marriage. Circumstance leading to her death is a tell-tale that the same was under grave suspicion. The dead body of the deceased was cremated hastily in a surreptitious manner. Plea of the accused persons is that the deceased died out of her ailment. None had disclosed what her ailment was. A feeble attempt had been made to explain the circumstance that the deceased vomited blood and while she was shifted to Burla breathed her last. This plea has no substance at all. There is no evidence that the deceased was suffering from any kind of ailment whatsoever. All of a sudden, she vomited blood and died within hours, is hard no digest. The deceased was not taken to any doctor. No medical certificate had been obtained about the cause of death. Cremation of the dead body has been done so hurriedly lest their misdemeanour should be made public. Had it been a normal death, in all fairness and bona fide conduct, the accused persons would have waited till arrival of the family members of the deceased. Cremating the dead body of the deceased clandestinely speaks volume. 10. Admittedly, the accused persons have not cremated the dead body in their village. In order to hoodwink their guilt and cause disappearance of the evidences, they took the dead body to a different place and burnt there. A false and thoroughly artificial plea has been taken to the effect that while they were coming from Burla the vehicle got disordered, as a consequence they could not reach their village and the dead body was cremated there. This is falsified through the evidence of none other than the driver of the vehicle whom the prosecution has examined as P.W. 7. This is falsified through the evidence of none other than the driver of the vehicle whom the prosecution has examined as P.W. 7. He has deposed that on being requested by two persons he carried the dead body to village Talpali as per their direction and unloaded the same there. This witness has categorically denied the suggestion made by the accused that tyre of the jeep was punctured on the way near Talpali and he told them that he could not go any further. This important aspect of the prosecution case has been lost sight of by the learned trial Court who has mechanically accepted the frivolous plea advanced by the accused. This circumstance leads to the irresistible conclusion that the dead body of the deceased was not cremated as the vehicle got disordered at Talpali but it was a deliberate act/commission to avoid the notice of others more particularly the family members of the deceased. Plea and conduct of the accused persons and circumstances of the case raises finger at the accused persons. Culpability of the accused persons being amply established the only conclusion which can legally be deduced that they are guilty of the offences alleged. 11. Death of a newly married lady preceded by torture and harassment by husband and in-laws for demand of dowry constitute the offence of dowry death as defined under S. 34-B of Indian Penal Code. Greed for dowry has brought an untimely death to a woman who had come to the matrimonial home with a lot of dreams and hopes. Before the bridal colours could be faded from her palm and feet the deceased was done to death as her parents could not meet the demand of the accused persons. 12. Accused persons have adduced evidence in their favour by examining one Jasoda Dash. She has deposed that the deceased had taken two tablets for headache. There was distention in her abdomen and she vomited undigested food with blood. On the basis of this statement, the accused persons advanced their plea that the deceased died due to her ailment. The ailment about which the defence witness said was only headache. This cannot be the cause of death. Further, the defence has brought on record that two Stopache-tablets were alleged to have been consumed by the deceased. This could not be the proximate cause of death. The ailment about which the defence witness said was only headache. This cannot be the cause of death. Further, the defence has brought on record that two Stopache-tablets were alleged to have been consumed by the deceased. This could not be the proximate cause of death. There is no evidence that the deceased had taken the said medicine. If at all the deceased had consumed the same there is no medical/expert opinion that the consumption of two Stopache-tablet would take away the life of a person like the deceased. The evidence neither inspires confidence nor gets any support from any quarters. 13. Apart from that, the evidences adduced by the prosecution has brought home the charge u/s. 304-B, I.P.C. against the accused persons namely Banamali, Madhusudan and Radhamohan as there is a statutory presumption under S. 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act to hold them guilty of the offence alleged. Death of a married lady having taken place otherwise than under normal circumstances barely within two months of her marriage who was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her in-laws for dowry before her death, the presumption would be that the same was Dowry death as defined under S. 304(B) of Indian Penal Code and the accused persons named above have not been able to rebut the said presumption. There are copious materials that these accused persons have disposed of the dead body of the deceased in order to cause disappearance of evidence with the motive/intention to escape from the criminal liability constitute the offence under S. 201 of Indian Penal Code. 14. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in right perspective and overlooked the mandatory requirement of law as contemplated under S. 113-B of the Evidence Act. The impugned judgment would show that much emphasis has been put on minor discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and with an hyper-technical approach the trial Court sought to disbelieve the prosecution version. In view of the discussion made hereinbefore, the prosecution is found to have brought home the charge under Ss. 304-B/201, I.P.C. against the accused persons, namely, Banamali, Madhusudan and Radhamohan. 15. In view of the discussion made hereinbefore, the prosecution is found to have brought home the charge under Ss. 304-B/201, I.P.C. against the accused persons, namely, Banamali, Madhusudan and Radhamohan. 15. There is positive evidence on record that the husband and in-laws of the deceased had taken dowry and being not satisfied with that amount of dowry, they demanded more, and their greed for dowry, ultimately, furnished motive for doing away with the life of the deceased. The learned trial Court though rightly convicted the above named three accused under S. 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, acquitted them of the charge under S. 4 of the said Act. Regard being had to the evidence on record, the said order of acquittal of those three accused persons is reversed, and they are held guilty under S. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 16. Since Banamali and Madhusudan, who are the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1991, respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in Government Appeal No. 22 of 1991 and respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in Government Appeal No. 30 of 1991, are dead, the Criminal Appeal and the Government Appeals abate as against them. The Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1991 is dismissed and the conviction of the appellant-Suru alias Sadhu alias Radhamohan Nanda under S. 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is confirmed. Insofar as the Government Appeal No. 22 of 1991 is concerned, keeping in view the proviso appended to S. 3(1) of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the grounds furnished by the trial Court while imposing less than the minimum of sentence of imprisonment, I am not inclined to interfere with the said sentence. But the law under the said section does not empower the Court to relax or dispense with the minimum sentence of fine which shall be not less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more. In that view of the provision of law, the convict Radhamohan is sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and pay fine of Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of one year for his conviction under S. 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Government Appeal No. 22 of 1991 is allowed hence. The said convict (Radhamohan Nanda) is also convicted under Ss. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of one year for his conviction under S. 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Government Appeal No. 22 of 1991 is allowed hence. The said convict (Radhamohan Nanda) is also convicted under Ss. 304-B/201, I.P.C./S. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months for his conviction under S. 304-B, I.P.C., and to undergo R.I. for one year and pay fine of Rs. 1000/- (rupees one thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for three months for his conviction under S. 201, I.P.C. and also to undergo R.I. for one year and pay fine of Rs. 1000/- (rupees one thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of three months for his conviction under S. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently subject to the rule of set off in view of S. 428, Cr. P.C. The Government Appeal No. 30 of 1991 is disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.