JUDGMENT : G.R. Moolchandani, J. The appellant has challenged the legality of the judgment rendered by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.80/2009 State Vs. Kuna Ram decided on 15.5.2010 and awarding conviction under Section 304-B of I.P.C. for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and further to undergo simple imprisonment for six months in default of payment of fine and sentencing to undergo 3 years' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and further to undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine under Section 498A of I.P.C. 2. The prosecution version in brief is as follows. The complainant Maanga Ram S/o Keshar Ram, father of deceased “Gobardi” @ Gomti, lodged a FIR Exhibit-1 with Police Station Dechu stating that marriage of his daughter “Gobardi” was solemnized two years back with Kuna Ram S/o Magna Ram at village Balesar, at the time of marriage, he had bestowed dowry within his capacity and had given ear studs (Totia), Nutth and 4 rings of silver with ankle Kada Gajariya and two bracelets, two kandoras and his daughter “Gobardi” was tortured and harassed by her husband Kuna Ram, Devar Chhaganaram and Jethani after marriage for dowry and they used to beat her, one year back, “Gobardi” was ousted after giving beating. Gomadram S/o Hansa Ram Meghwal fetch my daughter to Balesar and we did not register case to avoid social disgrace and she was sent back after panchayat, but these fellows did not stop beating, so he brought “Gobardi” to Balesar. Ten days ago, husband of Gobardi, Kuna Ram came to Balesar and after fighting, forcibly took away his daughter, today on 3.9.2008, a jeep came to us at Balesar and we were told that Gobardi, his daughter is no more and asked us to go along. We have developed full doubt that Kuna Ram and his family members have murdered “Gobardi” because they have earlier beaten his daughter and have hitherto tortured and harassed her because of dowry, so they have killed his daughter, hence, it is requested to register a case of murder against greedy persons for dowry and legal action be taken against them. 3. 3. Advancing the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant accused has contended that basic ingredients to constitute offence under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code dose not exist, since there is no evidence with respect to demand of dowry, soon before the alleged crime, the learned trial Court has just discussed the evidence without any reasoning and evaluation. Quoting contents of evidence of several prosecution witnesses, learned counsel has submitted that none of the witness ever stated accusation of the demand of dowry, soon before the alleged offence. Referring to the morgue proceedings conducted under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., learned counsel has pointed out that PW-6 Smt. Manju Devi has asserted that fact of demand of dowry was not communicated to the Executive Magistrate conducting enquiry into the cause of unnatural death. Learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the following precedents:- 1. Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2324, 2. State of Rajasthan vs. Girdhari Lal, 2013 Cr.L.R. (SC) 1187, 3. Hazarilal vs. State of M.P. 2007 Cr.L.R. (SC) 500, 4. Kishori Lal vs. State of M.P., 2007 Cr.L.R. (SC) 502, 5. Satvir Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. & 6. Tejinder Pal Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2002 SCC(Cri) 48. It is contended that on the basis of the evidence, offence under section 304B of IPC cannot be inferred to have been committed, if alleged accusation of beating is contemplated, even then it may go up to the extend of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of IPC, so, the learned trial Court has defaulted and has wrongly appreciated the evidence erroneously. Learned counsel has further argued that allegations regarding beating or cruelty could confine to Section 498A of IPC only. The appellant has already remained in custody for more than six years, and has further contended that the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed, so, the appeal be accepted and the impugned conviction order and sentence passed be set aside and quashed. The appellant has already remained in custody for more than six years, and has further contended that the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed, so, the appeal be accepted and the impugned conviction order and sentence passed be set aside and quashed. Learned public prosecutor has conversely contended that there is no error in the impugned conviction order, while referring evidence of father, parental uncle and parental aunt of the deceased, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that there is ample evidence available on the record of the trial Court, since all the witnesses have specifically narrated accusation of demand of dowry and cruelty subjected soon after the marriage and throughout the marital span, even deceased was badly beaten by the appellant accused at several occasions and on every visit to her parental home, deceased complained and informed her family members the fact of cruelty perpetrated upon her by appellant, whose accused husband insisted demanding money, even before her death, she was beaten and when she was brought to her parental house, where her family members found injuries on her body of beating and an amount of Rs.20,000/-was informed to have been demanded then, the accused did not yield with sheer beating but came again to victim's parental home near Rakshabandhan and beatingly dragged her back home, the appellant-accused has murdered her wife within a period of seven years and there was a perennial demand of dowry throughout the marital relations and doctrine of presumption of bride killing arises. Learned trial court has not committed any fault or error in passing the impugned conviction order, so the appeal of the appellant-accused be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-accused and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record thoroughly. By dint of Ex.1, tehareri (written report), a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered on 3.9.2008 at 5:15 PM and subsequently after enquiry conducted under Section 174 Cr.P.C. for Morgue No.134/2008 a case was registered under Sections 498A and 304B of I.P.C. on 21.10.2008 on a report sent by the S.D.M. and the enquiry papers tendered by the executive Magistrate were kept appended with the investigation. 5. During the trial proceedings, documents comprises of morgue enquiry were referred and exhibited in the trial. Exhibit-3 is Soorat hall of corpse, Exhibit-4 Panchnama, Exhibit-5 letter of body consignment. 5. During the trial proceedings, documents comprises of morgue enquiry were referred and exhibited in the trial. Exhibit-3 is Soorat hall of corpse, Exhibit-4 Panchnama, Exhibit-5 letter of body consignment. Exhibit-6 request tendered by S.D.M. to medical officer requesting to conduct post mortem and Exhibit-7 is post mortem report of the deceased “Gobardi” alias Gomati W/o Kuna Ram Meghwal aged 21 years. The cause of death of deceased “Smt. Gobardi” is mentioned as uncertain, visceras forwarded for examination to F.S.L. Exhibit 16 F.S.L. Report dated 13.2.2009 pertaining to Morgue No.15 dated 3.9.2008 concludes as a result of examination, portions of viscera (1 to 4) comprises of three packets marks 2, 1 and 3 gave positive test for the presence of Organophosphorus insecticides. 6. It is pertinent to mention that the marriage of deceased “Gobardi” is stated to have taken place about two years before and the conclusion of FSL report and Morgue proceedings coupled with information, tendered to lodge FIR indicates enough that “Gobardi” died an unnatural death and Organphosphorus poison was detected in her viscera. 7. Dr. Dinesh PW-14 has clearly deposed that on 3.9.2008, he had conducted, post mortem of deceased “Gobardi” alias Gomti W/o Kuna Ram Meghwal, aged 21 years and exhibit 7 post mortem report is written by him, its FSL report Exhibit 16 indicates that Organophosphorus insecticides was detected in her viscera and “Gobardi” died because of consumption of Organophosphorus insecticides. 8. With respect to link evidence regarding collection, submission and deposit of these viscera samples, witness relating to this has specifically stated as Dr. Dinesh Nagar has said that after preservation samples of viscera, it was sent for further examination and its FSL report is exhibit 16. PW-13 Babu Singh has said that on 15.9.2008, he was posted as a police constable at Thana Dechu and S.H.O. Dechu, Hari Singh had sent him to CHC Dechu to bring viscera bottles of Morgue No.15/2008, after obtaining the said 3 bottles of viscera he deposited them with Malkhana incharge and these bottles remained sealed and intact during custody and he deposited them well secured. PW-11 Bhawani Singh has said that on 8.10.2008, he was posted in the S.P. Office, Jodhpur Rural and on that day Bhera Ram Constable of Dechu Police Station had brought three bottles of preserved viscera relating to morgue No.15/2008 to deposit in F.S.L. he got a forwarding letter prepared and delivered the bottles to Bhera Ram intact to deposit in the F.S.L. its receipt is exhibit P.17. Exhibit P.19 road certificate, forwarding letter Exhibit P.18, containing signature of Derawar Singh from A to B. C to D Bhera Ram's signature and E to F are his signatures. PW-15 Bhera Ram has said that he was Constable at Thana Dechu on 8.10.2008 and after obtaining three bottles mark 1 to mark 3 relating to Morgue No.15/2008, well secured from Malkhana incharge Mala Ram with their documents with a road certificate No.20 and deposited them with F.S.L. Jodhpur after getting its forwarding letter, throughout, the sample bottles remained intact, Exhibit-17 is F.S.L. receipt, Exhibit 18 is forwarding letter, Exhibit 19 is road certificate and Exhibit 19 contains my signature from C to D, in cross-examination, he has said that he deposited the samples in F.S.L. Office, himself. PW 16 Mala Ram is constable of Police Station Dechu And this witness has said that he had deposited 3 glass Bottles marked 1 to 3, pertaining to Morgue 15/08 of viscera at Malkhana, which has got and entered in Malkhana register and these three bottles were given to Constable Bhera Ram with papers vide road certificate No.20 for depositing with FSL and Bhera Ram deposited them in F.S.L., after getting its receipt. The bottles remained intact with me during my custody and those were given to Bhera Ram in secured position. Exhibit 17 is its receipt, road certificate is exhibit 19 and arrest memo is exhibit-20. 9. Scrutiny and evaluation of aforesaid factual aspect gives rise to a conclusion that procurement, deposit and further deposit with FSL of the FSL samples has remained integral and the evidence with respect to this has remained clinchingly well connected and there is no breakage in the link evidence. 10. 9. Scrutiny and evaluation of aforesaid factual aspect gives rise to a conclusion that procurement, deposit and further deposit with FSL of the FSL samples has remained integral and the evidence with respect to this has remained clinchingly well connected and there is no breakage in the link evidence. 10. PW-1 Maanga Ram, complainant, father of the deceased “Gobardi” has stated that, “deceased Gobardi” was his daughter, she was married with Kuna Ram 3 years back, at the time of marriage, “Gobardi” was given Natth, gold fini, gold madaliya, silver chhara, bangles, silver pot, utensils, bed etc within competence and capacity, he has also said that twelve months later to marriage, my daughter “Gobardi” said that her in-laws' complains of deficient dowry and asked bring more, she also informed about demand of 50,000/-, deceased Gobardi was beaten in her in-laws' home when my daughter “Gobardi” was brought by my uncle to her parental home, even then “Gobardi” informed that her in-laws' demanded dowry and used to beat her, then, Kuna Ram came to us and implored by saying that she will not be given beating again and he sworn, so I had permitted “Gobardi” to go with Kuna Ram, after lapse of two months, “Gobardi” came to us and on Rakshabandhan, which occurred prior to her death, I brought my daughter from her in-laws' home to my home, one day before Raksha Bandhan accused Kuna Ram came to my home under intoxication and beaten me and took away “Gobardi” and 10 to 15 days later, death message of “Gobari” struck, then, I alongwith 8 to 10 other men went to “Gobardi's” in-laws' home with Hansa Ram and found Gobardi's dead body lying in courtyard there, froth was coming out of her mouth, accused Kuna Ram killed “Gobardi” because of dowry after torturing and harassing her. I, lodged report with Dechu thana, its exhibit-1, which contains my thumb impression at X. Spot inspection is exhibit-2 and Fard Surathal is exhibit-3 Panchanama exhibit-4, fard of dead body is exhibit-5, in cross-examination, this witness has again reiterated that “Gobardi” was subjected to beating by her in-laws' and it was narrated to me by her brothers. I, lodged report with Dechu thana, its exhibit-1, which contains my thumb impression at X. Spot inspection is exhibit-2 and Fard Surathal is exhibit-3 Panchanama exhibit-4, fard of dead body is exhibit-5, in cross-examination, this witness has again reiterated that “Gobardi” was subjected to beating by her in-laws' and it was narrated to me by her brothers. He has also said that Kuna Ram visited two days before Rakshabandhan and took away “Gobardi”, one day before Rakshabandhan, he has also said that I am illiterate and I have not drafted Exhibit 1 and has got it drafted from Shera Ram. 11. PW-2 Shera Ram, who is cousin of Maanga Ram has said that marriage of “Gobardi” was solemnized one and half years back with Kuna Ram. Gobardi's husband used to beat her and harass her, about one year back, we got information that “Gobardi” is not well and she has died, then Manga Ram and I had went to Gobardi's in-laws' home, where we found her dead body-lying, froth was coming out of her mouth and she died of certain poison and because of torture by her husband. 12. PW-3 Kishna Ram and PW-4 Pokar Ram are witnesses of Exhibit-5 Panchanama and Exhibit-3 Surathal, Exhibit-4 Panchnama and Exhibit 5 Surathal laash. Pokar Ram has also admitted his signature on Exhibits 3 and 4. PW-8 Nathha Ram has said that spot map Exhibit 2 was prepared before him, which contains his thumb impressions. 13. PW-9 Chuna Ram is Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who has conducted Morgue enquiry under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and he has said that he prepared Exhibits 3, 4 and 6 and post mortem report is Exhibit 7, he also recorded the statements of witnesses, which are exhibits 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, which contains his signature from A to B and has also said that on the basis of his enquiry, he found a case of dowry demand and harassment. He has also said that he sent a letter Exhibits 13 and 14 to S.H.O. Dechu to register a case, nothing abnormal has come out from his cross-examination. 14. PW-5 Bharu Ram, uncle of the deceased, has said that “Gobardi” was daughter of my elder brother Manga Ram, whose marriage was performed 2-3 years ago with Kuna Ram, who is present in court. 14. PW-5 Bharu Ram, uncle of the deceased, has said that “Gobardi” was daughter of my elder brother Manga Ram, whose marriage was performed 2-3 years ago with Kuna Ram, who is present in court. At the time of marriage, “Gobardi” was given gold and silver ornaments, utensils and bister etc. Kuna Ram started beating “Gobardi” after one month of marriage tormenting and taunting for deficient dowry and used to say her to bring more money from her father. He has narrated a significant fact that “whenever Gobardi used to come to her parental home, she tells me that her husband Kuna Ram torture and beats her and demand dowry and used to say to bring money from parental home”. Gobardi had come about 10 days ago from her in-laws' home and her husband Kuna Ram forcibly took her away beatingly. He has also said that “even at that time Gobardi had informed us by saying that her husband demands dowry and beats her because of this”. He has also said that “Gobardi” has been killed because of dowry demand. He has also said that every time, whenever “Gobardi” visited us, Kuna Ram used to come and after beating forcibly took her away. He has also said that whenever “Gobardi” asked for money I could not pay because I was to support my wife and my kids. He has also asserted recording of his testimony by the Executive Magistrate. 15. Smt. Manju Devi (PW-6) aunt of deceased “Gobardi” has said that “Gobardi” was daughter of my Jeth and was married with Kuna Ram 2 to 3 years ago. She remained happy upto 3 to 4 months. After that, her husband used to demand Rs.20,000/- in dowry and used to beat and torture her, whenever “Gobardi” visited us, she informed us regarding torturing. Three months prior to her death, Gobardi was brought by her father, then she informed me and to her father and uncle that her husband used to give beating to her and her thighs were having beating and thrashing signs and s later to her departure from our home, we d that she is no more. Three months prior to her death, Gobardi was brought by her father, then she informed me and to her father and uncle that her husband used to give beating to her and her thighs were having beating and thrashing signs and s later to her departure from our home, we d that she is no more. She was driven to son because of torture by her husband, in her husband used to give beating to her and her thighs and back were having beating and thrashing signs and about 10 days later to her departure from our home, we were informed that she is no more. She was driven to consume poison because of torture by her husband, in he cross-examination, she has said that Rs.20,000/-were demanded by Kuna Ram himself and he used to beat her on non-fulfillment of this demand. Smt. Manju Devi has also said that “Gobardi” apprised me that she was subjected to beating and the beatings were given to latent parts, which are even not worthy to be disclosed and informed that her husband used to beat her at thighs and at dorsal. Smt. Manju Devi has also uttered a significant say by saying that when “Gobardi” came to her parental home 4 to 5 months later to her marriage, then she conveyed me, the event of beating and torturing, she has also said that she had conveyed this to police and S.D.M. as well. Smt. Manju Devi aunt of deceased “Gobardi” has also observed that she was lacking so unable to pay Rs.20,000/-, therefore, could not pay because they were to support their family, this witness has disclosed that “Gobardi” used to say her, “Kaaki”, you give me Rs. Smt. Manju Devi aunt of deceased “Gobardi” has also observed that she was lacking so unable to pay Rs.20,000/-, therefore, could not pay because they were to support their family, this witness has disclosed that “Gobardi” used to say her, “Kaaki”, you give me Rs. 20,000/- otherwise he will beat me and she used To render her money concealingly and has said that ^^xkscjM+h gedks ;g dgrh Fkh fd dkdh vki 20000 :i; nks ugha rks esjs lkFk dwVekj djsaxs] eSa bl ij Nkus Nqids iSls nsrh Fkh Lo;a dgk fd vf/kd iSls rks eSa dgka ls ykrhA eq>s bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugha gS fd dqukjke vius llqj dks ;g dgrk gks fd [kkfu;ka esjs uke djks] Lo;a dgk fd gj ckr esjs ls FkksM+s gh dgh tkrh gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd dqukjke eq>s chl gtkj :i;s ekaxus dh ckr ugha djrk Fkk vkSj ugha nsus dh /kedh nsrk FkkA Lo;a dgk fd og ;g ckr xkscjMh dks dgrk Fkk vkSj xkscjMh gedks vkdj ;g ckr dgrh Fkh^^ , and this witness has denied the factum of any support from Kuna Ram to his father-in-law. 16. PW-7 Devendra Sharma is Circle Officer, conducting the investigation and this witness has uttered the sequence of investigation and has specifically narrated that he had recorded police statements of several witnesses and after investigation offence under Section 498A coupled with Section 304 B I.P.C. was found proved. PW-12 Alsa Ram is a witness of arrest, who has said that Kuna Ram was arrested vide Exhibit-20, which contains my signature. PW-10 Hari Ram is incharge of Police Station Dechu, who registered Exhibit-1 Morgue No.15/08 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and has said that said FIR No.134/2008 Section under 498A, 304B I.P.C., is exhibit-1, having an endorsement G to H to register a case and chak FIR is exhibit 15. He has also said that the preserved samples were sent for chemical examination for FSL and Exhibit-16 is its F.S.L. report, this Investigating Officer has revealed that after investigation a case under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. was found proved against Kuna Ram and challan was submitted before the Court. 17. After careful examination of the aforesaid evidence, it is manifestly clear that the deceased “Gobardi” was subjected to constant repeated dowry demands and was beaten by her husband on several occasions. 17. After careful examination of the aforesaid evidence, it is manifestly clear that the deceased “Gobardi” was subjected to constant repeated dowry demands and was beaten by her husband on several occasions. All her family members, her father Maanga Ram, her aunt Smt. Manju Devi and uncle of the deceased have made categorical utterances with respect to demand of dowry and beating, even before her death, a demand of Rs.20,000/- was made by her husband, which is duly narrated by the deceased to her aunt Smt. Manju Devi. Manju Devi has even said that “Gobardi” asked her to pay this money of Rs.20,000/- and had requested that otherwise, she will again be given beating by her husband Kuna Ram and Manju Devi has expressed her inability to meet the demand for paying this amount of Rs.20,000/- because of poor funds and necessity to support her family. Manju Devi has said this fact as well that she used to give demand money to Gobdi latently. 18. Provisions of Section 304B and its related presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act defines as under:- Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code 304 B. Dowry death.- (1) 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. Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.] Section 113B in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 113B. Presumption as to dowry death. (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.] Section 113B in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 113B. Presumption as to dowry death. - 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 had 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. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in section 304B, of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860). 19. In catena of judgments Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the provisions of dowry death and presumption thereto and in Durgaprasad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 (7) SRJ 306, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in order to hold an accused guilty of an offence under Section 304-B, it has to be shown that apart from the fact that the woman died on account of burn or bodily injury, otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of her marriage, it has also to be 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 in Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2010 (10) SRJ 68. It has been observed that harassment for non-payment of dowry-there was specific demand of Rs.5000/- twenty days prior to death-Dowry is not restricted to agreement or demand for payment of dowry before and at the time of marriage but even include subsequent demands-Argument that there was inordinate and unexplained delay in registering the FIR is without any substance-Incident occurred at 4 P.M. on 16.05.1988 whereafter the family of the deceased was informed-It is a normal conduct of a normal person that the entire concentration would be upon looking after and saving the deceased rather than to run up to the police or other persons instantaneously and in another case, while discussing dowry death in Rajbir @ Raju and Anr. Vs. Vs. State of Haryana 2011 (2) SRJ 505 Hon'ble Apex Court has observed serious view in the matters of crimes against women should be taken and harsh punishment should be awarded and in Sanjay Kumar Jain Vs. State of Delhi, 2011 (3) SRJ 143, the Apex Court has held pertaining to circumstantial evidence-strangulation-death within 1½ years of marriage-Evidence of parents that appellant's continuous harassing and beating the deceased in connection with demand of dowry-Victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives-Ten ante mortem bodily injuries, which were found on her body at the time of her death-If death is unnatural, either homicidal or suicidal, it would be death, which can be said to have taken place in unnatural circumstances and the provisions of Section 304-B would be applicable, so conviction under Section 302 set aside and was confirmed under Section 304-B. 20. While, interpreting concept of “soon before her death”, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in Udai Chakraborty & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal 2010 Criminal LJ 3862 that Expression 'soon before her death'-Legislature has not specified any time which would be the period prior to death-Concept of reasonable time would be applicable and in one another precedent Apex Court, while deciding Amar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan with State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish & Anr. AIR 2010 SC 3391 has observed that statements by mother and brother of deceased that deceased was taunted by husband and in-laws for not bringing dowry-Made month prior to incident-Relates to cause of her death-Is admissible in evidence-Harassment for dowry soon before incident thus stands proved-Presumption of dowry death therefore arises-No evidence led to rebut presumption-Accused husband liable to be convicted. 21. The defence has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court AIR 2000 SC 2324 Kans Raj Vs. 21. The defence has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court AIR 2000 SC 2324 Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., wherein in head note 'D' definition of "soon before death" has been interpreted and it has been held continuous harassment connected with demand of dowry shown to be in existence till date when deceased reported to have met parents two days before her death-No intervening circumstance showing settlement regarding demand of dowry brought on record-Existence of harassment would be deemed to be "soon before her death"-Accused liable to be convicted and in head note 'F' definition of "otherwise than under normal circumstances"-Would mean the death not in usual course but apparently under suspicious circumstances, if not caused by burn or bodily injury-Death of wife by suicide occurring within seven years of marriage-cannot be stated to have occurred in normal circumstance. 22. On face of the aforesaid evidence, read in conjunction with the statements of PW-1, 2, 4 and 6, we are convinced that ingredients of 304-B have been satisfied in the present case, victim died on account of insecticide, otherwise then in normal circumstances, within seven years of her marriage, it has also been established that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and a constant demand of dowry was made, which has been categorically stated by all the relative witnesses of the deceased, even PW-6 Manju Devi aunt of the deceased has very much explicit in saying that "Gobardi" had asked her to pay Rs.20,000/- since, the money was demanded by her husband Kuna Ram, and said else she would be thrashed by Kuna Ram and this narration was communicated her during the last visit near Raksha Bandhan, when her husband Kuna Ram came and forcibly took her away after scuffling, soon after, she died an unnatural death within a period of seven years. We are of opinion that the aforesaid judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant-accused are of no assistance to appellant, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, however, we have noticed the observations made in Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 2324 (Supra). We are of opinion that the aforesaid judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant-accused are of no assistance to appellant, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, however, we have noticed the observations made in Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 2324 (Supra). Totality of the evidence, there emerges a definite inference and conclusion that deceased “Gobardi” was under constant pangs of dowry demand, she was being tormented, tortured, harassed and beaten, even the beatings left scars on her thighs and at dorsal, which were said to and were witnessed by several family members, prior fetching her forcible from her parental home near Raksha Bandhan, she was coercively taken away by accused Kuna Ram and her father Maanga Ram was also beaten, so, it is established that deceased “Gobardi” subjected to constant torture and repeated beatings because of demand of dowry 'soon before her death' and died and unnatural death during the period of seven years of marriage. The presumption as enunciated under Section 113B of Evidence Act arises positively and suffice is to say that the deceased felt a victim to dowry death, as such, prosecution has succeeded in establishing charge, beyond reasonable doubt, proved against the appellant-accused Kuna Ram and this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment, so find no reason to interfere with the same. Thus, the instant appeal lacks merit and being bereft of merit, is hereby dismissed.