Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2113 (ALL)

ABHAY SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-05-31

PRATYUSH KUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Pratyush Kumar,J. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and orders dated 22.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Varanasi in S.T. No. 319 of 2011 (State Vs. Abhay Singh) arising out of case crime no. 58 of 2011, P.S. Bhelupur, District Varanasi, whereby the appellant was convicted under under sections 498A, 304B IPC 4 Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment of six month; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years'; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment of three months, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Heard Sri Sameer Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, Km. Anjum Haq, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. On behalf of the appellant the impugned judgment and orders have been challenged on the ground of legal and factual infirmities. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the present case prosecution could not prove demand of dowry in connection with marriage. It could also not prove that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty/harassment in connection with such demand. FIR has been lodged with delay. Inquest proceedings have been held on the information of the appellant. The death of the deceased took place due to ante mortem hanging. It was a case of suicide without any element of harassment or cruelty by the appellant but the learned trial Judge has ignored all these relevant factors and convicted the appellant erroneously. On behalf of the State-respondent these arguments have been repelled and it has been submitted that findings recorded by the learned trial Judge are well substantiated from the record. All the ingredients to constitute dowry death by the appellant have been proved by the prosecution and the impugned judgment suffers with no infirmity either legal or factual. In the appeal facts of the prosecution case may be summarized as under: That on 7th February, 2011 at 9.35 P.M. Kumar Ashwani gave a written report at police station Bhelupur, Varanasi stating therein that his elder sister Dr. Jyoti, B.D.S. was married with Dr. In the appeal facts of the prosecution case may be summarized as under: That on 7th February, 2011 at 9.35 P.M. Kumar Ashwani gave a written report at police station Bhelupur, Varanasi stating therein that his elder sister Dr. Jyoti, B.D.S. was married with Dr. Abhai Singh, MBBS, MS on 5th June, 2006 at Temple of Ghui Baba according to Hindu customs at District Mirzapur. At that time his father was no more. Due to financial constraint dowry could not be given according to wishes of the family of the bridegroom and for that account they were very annoyed. His sister was taunted, humiliated and scolded by them. When his mother came to know about these, she called Jyoti to Anpara there she resumed her earlier service. Dr. Abhai Singh had gone to complete his M.S. from Jhansi. Dr. Jyoti was pregnant. Due to complication she was taken to Varanasi, Ashirwad Nursing Home. She was attended by famous Dr. Usha Gupta where Udai Singh, brother of Dr. Abhai Singh was Ansthesist. Dr. Jyoti on gave birth to a female child called Mithi 11th February, 2007. After some time Dr. Jyoti with her daughter came back to Anpara. After doing MS Dr. Abhai Singh wanted Dr. Jyoti to live with him but his mother declined on the ground that Dr. Jyoti was insulted in her sasural. In the last, Dr. Abhai Singh joined the service at hospital Anpara and started to live with Dr. Jyoti but after some time without any reason without resigning he went to Gujarat and returned in the month of August, 2010 to Varanasi. There he called Dr. Jyoti who was living with her daughter alone at Anpara. She joined her husband at Varanasi and left her job at Anpara. After some time Dr. Abhai Singh, Dr. Udai Singh, Vijay Singh, Smt. Kiran Singh asked Dr. Jyoti that her mother had received Rs. 25 lacs as fund. Her brother Ashwani was earning lacs of rupees, at the time of marriage they could not give adequate dowry. Now ask her mother and brother to arrange 15 lacs rupees so that clinic could be started. Dr. Jyoti refused to do so, thereafter she was subjected to torture. She was beaten. All these things Dr. Jyoti communicated to him, his mother and sister. Now ask her mother and brother to arrange 15 lacs rupees so that clinic could be started. Dr. Jyoti refused to do so, thereafter she was subjected to torture. She was beaten. All these things Dr. Jyoti communicated to him, his mother and sister. On 25th November, 2010 his young sister Divya was marred at Varanasi there Jyoti made the similar complaint to the family members. After this marriage Dr. Abhai Singh became more aggressive and started to say that in the marriage of Divya Dr. Jyoti's family members had spent so much money but in his marriage they did not do so. Dr. Jyoti was pressurized to bring 15 lacs rupees. All these things were communicated by Dr. Jyoti to him and his family members. He came to Varanasi to reason with husband of his sister and family members of Dr. Abhai Singh but they did not agree to mend their ways and ultimately he went back frustrated. The ill treatment of Dr. Jyoti continued. On 2nd February, 2011 Dr. Jyoti visited house of her mausa Keshav Prasad Singh at 4.45 p.m. where she expressed apprehension that in case money was not paid she would be killed. There 15-20 minutes after Dr. Jyoti was called back by Dr. Abhai Singh. That day at 11.19 p.m. he was informed by Smt. Kiran Singh that Jyoti had died. On 4th February, 2011 at 4 p.m. he came to Varanasi and saw her dead body at mortuary. During investigation Kumar Ashwani submitted notarized affidavits sworn by him and his mother Kamala Singh reiterating these facts. During autopsy cause of death was found to be ante mortem hanging. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against Dr. Abhai Singh. He was tried by the Court of Session on the charges under sections 498A, 304B in the alternative 306 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. On denial besides documentary evidence in oral evidence the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses. Out of these Kumar Ashwani P.W.1 is the first informant and brother of the deceased who reiterated the facts stated in the first information report. Smt. Kamla Devi the mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.2 and aunt of the deceased Smt. Krishna Singh was examined as P.W.3. All these witnesses have supported the prosecution version. Constable Brij Mohan Singh P.W.2 is the bearer of the dead body and also witness of inquest report. Dr. Smt. Kamla Devi the mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.2 and aunt of the deceased Smt. Krishna Singh was examined as P.W.3. All these witnesses have supported the prosecution version. Constable Brij Mohan Singh P.W.2 is the bearer of the dead body and also witness of inquest report. Dr. D.B. Singh P.W.5. is the Dr. who conducted postmortem of Dr. Jyoti Singh on 4th February, 2011 at 4 p.m. Constable Ghan Shyam Singh P.W.6 is the scribe of chick FIR. He has proved chick FIR Ext. Ka-7. Copy of the report of the general diary Ext. Ka-11. S.I. Rajesh Yadav P.W.7 is the police officer who in the presence of ACM first had conducted the inquest proceedings and inspected the spot. He has proved inquest report Ext. Ka-5, identified the cloth sheet found hanging in the room. He has also proved other papers accompanying the dead body. Circle officer Vishal Pandey, P.W.8 is the investigating officer who gave details of steps taken in the course of investigation and proved the charge sheet Ext. Ka-18. Suresh Narayan Pandey P.W.9 A.D.M. Finance has conducted the inquest proceedings and proved its papers. The appellant in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted that upto June, 2010 the deceased was employed at Anpara. Thereafter she lived with him at Sri Ram Nagar Colony. He has further admitted his marriage with the deceased took place on 3rd June, 2006 and further admitted that Dr. Udai Singh and Vijay Singh were his elder brothers and Kiran Singh was his bhabhi. Rest of the facts stated by the prosecution witnesses have been denied by him. Inquest proceeding was held by Suresh Narayan Pandey P.W.9. According to him Dr. Jyoti, the deceased committed suicide. His marriage with her was solemnized in a mandir without any dowry. After completing his studies he was employed at SPGI, Lucknow, thereafter at Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi and thereafter at Anpara. He has also stated that in April, 2009 he accepted employment in Shivanand Eye Hospital, Nagar Rajkoat. There he undegone training in lazer feco surgery. In August, 2010 he had inaugurated his clinic in the name of J.K. Nethralaya and Dental Care Centre constructed with his own earned money and they both started practicing there. On 3rd February, 2011 at 4.15 p.m. he called Dr. Jyoti to attend a patient. He cremated her. There he undegone training in lazer feco surgery. In August, 2010 he had inaugurated his clinic in the name of J.K. Nethralaya and Dental Care Centre constructed with his own earned money and they both started practicing there. On 3rd February, 2011 at 4.15 p.m. he called Dr. Jyoti to attend a patient. He cremated her. According to him in order to bring illegal pressure on him to pay money a false FIR was lodged. In his additional statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. he has reiterated these facts with the addition that when he opened his clinic Dr. Jyoti the deceased was living alone at Anpara with her daughter for this reason he called her to Varanasi. Dr. Jyoti was annoyed with his mother because she left her at Anpara alone and had gone to Mumbai to live with her son Ashwani. Dr. Jyoti was earning 30-40 thousand rupees at Anpara. She did not want to live at Varanasi but her mother wanted her to live at Varanasi and look after cases filed by her. His relations with the family members of the deceased were cordial. Practice of Jyoti at Varanasi was negligible. On this account she was in stress on 3rd February, 2011 she had gone out alone to visit house of her aunt. When patient came at the clinic he called Jyoti on phone. After having dinner at 8 p.m. They looked television, Dr. Jyoti told him that her job at Anpara had been terminated and at Varanasi she had no patient. She had become a household woman. He consoled her. At 9.30 p.m. Jyoti took his leave saying that she was going to talk a walk on the roof. When she did not come back, he found door of the roof locked. After climbing the wall he reached the first floor and saw tin shade room was locked from the inside. When after calling her, door was not open he telephoned his elder brother. His elder brother, sister-in-law, neighbours and other relations came there. Door was forcibly opened and Dr. Jyoti was found to be hanging with a bed sheet tied with the angle of the tin shed. Her brother was telephonically informed. He performed her last rites. Thereafter her brother Ashwani took the daughter of the deceased with him and demanded Rs. 80 lacs for her studies and marriage. Door was forcibly opened and Dr. Jyoti was found to be hanging with a bed sheet tied with the angle of the tin shed. Her brother was telephonically informed. He performed her last rites. Thereafter her brother Ashwani took the daughter of the deceased with him and demanded Rs. 80 lacs for her studies and marriage. When he refused, false FIR was lodged on 7th February, 2011. Jewelry of the deceased was taken by Ashwani from his house. In defence seven witnesses were examined. Lok Nath Mishra, D.W.1 is the witness of the marriage of the appellant with the deceased. He deposed that marriage was performed happily without dowry at the temple. Malti Devi D.W.2 is the maid servant of the deceased. She has deposed that the appellant and Jyoti had no disagreement about dowry. They never quarreled on this score. Dr. Jyoti had very few patients for this reason she disturbed. On the day she died, in her absence one patient came and the appellant called her by phone. Till she was in the house there was no discord between the appellant and the deceased. Professor Ram Pal Singh, D.W.3 has deposed that he knew Dr. Abhai Singh, his brother Dr. Vijay Singh and deposed that he had attended the marriage of the appellant and it was performed without dowry and in a cordial atmosphere.Dr. Jyoti had committed suicide. When he heard about false FIR he gave an application to DIG, Varanasi. Dr. Daya Shankar Singh, D.W.4 has given similar statement. Shyam Lal Yadav D.W. 5 is the driver of the appellant. He has also given similar statement as given by Smt. Malti P.W.2. Samsudeen D.W.6 is also participant in the marriage of the appellant with the deceased. He is also a witness of the inauguration of the clinic by the appellant and the alleged stressed mental state of Dr. Jyoti. According to him relations between the two were good. Dr. Sacchidanand Rai D.W.2 is the neighbour of the appellant. They were on family terms. He has deposed that he heard the appellant on the fatal night calling Jyoti-Jyoti. Thereafter he received telephone of Udai Singh and on his call he along with his wife reached there and door was forcible opened which was locked from the inside. Jyoti was found hanging. They were on family terms. He has deposed that he heard the appellant on the fatal night calling Jyoti-Jyoti. Thereafter he received telephone of Udai Singh and on his call he along with his wife reached there and door was forcible opened which was locked from the inside. Jyoti was found hanging. In order to save her the appellant took down the body of Jyoti and laid it on the bed. There after he checked the pulse and heart beat but found her dead. Thereafter Udai Singh informed the police. With the consent of counsel for both the parties this appeal has been heard on merit. Heard Sri Sameer Jain, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Abdul Mazid, Advocate learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the record. The learned counsel for the appellant while questioning the correctness of the impugned judgment and orders has submitted that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence in legal fashion i.e. subjecting it to critical scrutiny and accepted the prosecution evidence as gospel truth. He has further submitted that without any reason the defence evidence has been disbelieved. His second ground of attack is that the FIR has been lodged after four days. This in itself shows that false and fictitious case has been concocted by the first informant in order to extract large amount of Rs.80 lac from the appellant. He has further submitted that deceased committed suicide due to her disturbed mental state, it was the elder brother of the appellant who immediately informed the police in this regard. These facts were not considered by the learned trial Judge. His specific ground of attack is that there was no demand of dowry. The appellant committed no cruelty or harassment of the deceased. Their marriage was solemnized at the temple without any dowry. On behalf of the State-respondent the learned AGA has repelled these arguments. He has criticized the defence evidence on the ground that it is not clinching to show that deceased had committed suicide due to her disturbed mental state and she was not subjected to demand of dowry and harassed and ill treated on this account. According to him the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge are well substantiated from the record. Correct law has been applied by the learned trial Judge and the impugned judgment needs no interference. According to him the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge are well substantiated from the record. Correct law has been applied by the learned trial Judge and the impugned judgment needs no interference. The main charge against the present appellant is of causing dowry death of his wife Dr. Jyoti. Dowry death has been made a separate offence by section 304B IPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kashmir Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 1039 has enumerated the main ingredients to constitute dowry death in accordance with section 304B IPC. They are gainfully reproduced as under: (a) that soon before the death the deceased she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry, (b) the death of the deceased woman was caused by any burn or bodily injury or some other circumstance which was not normal, (c) such death occurs within seven years from the date of her marriage, (d) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, (e) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry, and (f) it should be established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death. Vide Kashmir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab (supra). In the appeal on behalf of the appellant death of the deceased by ante mortem hanging, within seven years of her marriage have not been disputed. As an appellate court in view of duties of an appellate court hearing the appeal against conviction I have gone through the evidence adduced by the parties. Statements of Kumar Ashwani P.W.1, Smt. Kamla Singh P.W.2 and Smt. Krishna Singh P.W.3 reveal date of marriage of Dr. Jyoti with the appellant to be 3rd June, 2006. In his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. the correctness of the date of marriage on behalf of the appellant has not been disputed. Therefore, date of marriage of Dr. Jyoti is established to be 3rd June, 2006. From the medical evidence comprising statement of Dr. D.B. Singh P.W.5 and postmortem report Ext. Ka-6 it is also established that Dr. Jyoti died due to asphyxia as a result of hanging which had taken place on 3rd February,2011. In this way death of Dr. Jyoti under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage stands proved. From the medical evidence comprising statement of Dr. D.B. Singh P.W.5 and postmortem report Ext. Ka-6 it is also established that Dr. Jyoti died due to asphyxia as a result of hanging which had taken place on 3rd February,2011. In this way death of Dr. Jyoti under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage stands proved. Now remains to be seen whether deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry and further such cruelty or harassment was made soon before her death. On the first count we have statements of three witnesses; Kumar Ashwani P.W.1, Smt. Kamla Singh P.W.2 and Smt. Krishna Singh P.W.3. It is admitted to both the parties that marriage was solemnized at the temple without any dowry, reason was the death of the father of the first informant and the deceased soon before solemnization of the said marriage. All the three named prosecution witnesses have categorically made statement that the appellant demanded Rs. 15 lacs for establishing clinic. This demand was originated on account of this fact that after death of the father of the deceased, his retiral benefits could not be paid to the mother of the deceased when she was married. After their marriage and between her death the mother of the deceased was paid retiral benefits and she solemnized marriage of her younger daughter Divya Singh on 25th November, 2010 at Varanasi with fanfare. The deceased and the appellant also attended that marriage and after marriage the appellant ventilated his grievance that on the marriage of Divya lot of money had been spent but he was married without any money and he started to pressurize Dr. Jyoti to bring 15 lac rupees and when Dr. Jyoti communicated this demand to her family members they consoled her that after arranging some money they might pacify the appellant. In the mean time on 3rd February, 2011 Dr. Jyoti had died. On behalf of the appellant contradictions in the statements of these prosecution witnesses have been referred to impeach their testimonies. These contradictions have been ignored by the learned trial Judge. I have gone through the cross examination of these witnesses. Cross examination of Kumar Ashwani P.W.1 runs into 45 pages. At eight dates he was cross examined and the result was an admission that at the time of marriage of Divya clinic of the appellant had started. These contradictions have been ignored by the learned trial Judge. I have gone through the cross examination of these witnesses. Cross examination of Kumar Ashwani P.W.1 runs into 45 pages. At eight dates he was cross examined and the result was an admission that at the time of marriage of Divya clinic of the appellant had started. On behalf of appellant on this account demand of dowry of Rs. 15 lacs is said to have been improbable but I find that when Kumar Ashwani P.W. In his statement at page 41 has admitted this fact that clinic has started he also explained that in order to equip further the clinic demand of Rs. 15 lacs was made. His testimony has been impeached on two other grounds that he visited the appellant in the jail and demanded Rs. 80 lac and further he took the jewelry of the deceased from the house of the appellant and kept it with him. In order to appreciate the evidence of this witness properly it would be necessary to have the family background of this witness. His father retired on 31st July 2003. He died leaving behind him his widow, four daughters and one brother. Eldest daughter Renu Singh was married in April, 2006 almost two years after his father had gone missing and died. On 3rd June, 2006 he married Dr. Jyoti. It has also come out that due to some inquiry retiral benefits of the father of the witness were withheld and they were released in favour of the widow after the marriage of Dr. Jyoti. When he lodged the FIR he was working as Assistant Manager in Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Mumbai. His devotion to his family can be deduced from his statement. He married his sister Divya on 25th November, 2010. He took his widowed mother from Anpara with him and he is still unmarried and has one sister to marry. Each time the witness had to come from Mumbai to Varanasi. His each visit would cost him leave as well as expenses for journey. I am not willing to accept that such a devoted person would ask for Rs. 80 lac from the appellant against whom he had lodged the FIR. Taking of jewelry of the deceased may be seen in the light that he took the baby girl of the deceased with him. I am not willing to accept that such a devoted person would ask for Rs. 80 lac from the appellant against whom he had lodged the FIR. Taking of jewelry of the deceased may be seen in the light that he took the baby girl of the deceased with him. It is natural for the relation to pass on the jewelry of the deceased mother to the daughter. For these reasons I am not convinced that bonafide of this witness could be impeached by the defence during cross-examination. Rather successfully facking the long cross examination shows that he is a trustworthy witness. Kamla Singh, P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased. She has supported the version contained in the FIR. Her cross-examination also runs into 37 pages that too on various dates. For this reason contradiction occurring in her testimony are natural and they deserve to be ignored. After going through her cross examination though I would not place her in the same category with Kumar Ashwani P.W.1 in terms of trustworthiness but being mother she is a natural witness of the facts communicated to her by her deceased daughter and she has faced the test of cross-examination successfully, I find her to be a reliable witness. Smt. Krishna Singh, P.W.3 is the aunt of the deceased. She was also living at Varanasi. Besides marriage she has also deposed occasional visits by the deceased to her house. She has answered the questions put to her in a straight forward manner. She also faced a fairly lengthy cross-examination on three dates but her testimony remained unshaken. Being resident of the same city she was in a position to know about the state of affairs of married life of her niece. She has no reason to depose against the appellant who belonged to a very good family having much influence in the city. By giving her statement she has shown courage to incur annoyance of the family of the appellant but she never deviated from her affidavit which she filed pursuant to written report dated 7th February, 2011. She also appears to be a trustworthy witness. Now it has to be considered whether facts stated by these witnesses are sufficient to show that demands for dowry in connection with marriage were made by the appellant and further on this account the deceased was harassed and tortured that too soon before her death. She also appears to be a trustworthy witness. Now it has to be considered whether facts stated by these witnesses are sufficient to show that demands for dowry in connection with marriage were made by the appellant and further on this account the deceased was harassed and tortured that too soon before her death. It is admitted that after marriage Dr. Jyoti had gone to Anpara and took employment there. After completing his studies the appellant joined her company there and accepted a service at Anpara. It is also admitted that after some time he left Anpara and the information left by him gave impression that he had gone to Gujarat and started to serve there. The details of his absence from Anpara till he came back to Varanasi as disclosed by him before the trial court reveal that perhaps he had not communicated his whereabouts to his deceased wife. This shows strained relations between the husband and the wife. In August, 2010 the appellant came back to Varanasi and invited Dr. Jyoti to come there and live with him. Soon thereafter marriage of Divya was solemnized on 25th November, 2010 with fanfare. Thereafter the appellant also made demand of Rs. 15 lac cash and he justified his demand that when his marriage took place retiral benefits were not paid. Now this amount should be paid to him. At page five of his statement brother of the deceased has narrated how Dr. Jyoti was tortured for this reason. According to him Dr. Jyoti had shown marks of injuries inflicted on her person by the appellant. She also communicated to him on mobile about her difficulty on account of demand for dowry and pleaded with him to persuade her mother that some money should be paid to the appellant but before it could be done on 3rd February, 2011 the life of the deceased was terminated. Kamla Singh P.W.2 has also narrated the bad treatment given to her deceased daughter. According to her the appellant wanted Rs. 15 lac be paid to him for clinic though it is shown that clinic was inaugurated on 15th August, 2010 but this fact does not falsify the statement of this witness that the appellant demanded money for his clinic because for newly established clinic there always remains requirement for new and more equipments. According to her the appellant wanted Rs. 15 lac be paid to him for clinic though it is shown that clinic was inaugurated on 15th August, 2010 but this fact does not falsify the statement of this witness that the appellant demanded money for his clinic because for newly established clinic there always remains requirement for new and more equipments. It is noticeable that these two witnesses have not made any allegation that before the marriage of Divya on 25th November, 2010 the appellant himself made any demand for dowry. There is interval of more than three years and five months between the marriage and the demand for dowry but withholding of retiral benefits acts as bridge to cover this period. The demand for Rs. 15 lac made by the appellant is directly connected with his marriage that took place on 3rd June, 2006 without any dowry on account of non payment of retiral benefits of the deceased father of Dr. Jyoti. There is a proximity and direct connection between the demand for dowry and marriage of the deceased. Dr. Jyoti joined the appellant at Varanasi on his request shows that till that moment she had hope that her matrimonial life could be continued but after marriage of Divya the life of the deceased was so much disturbed that Smt. Krishna Singh P.W.3 had perceived that she was unable to stay with her aunt for more than 25-30 minutes. On 3rd February, 2011 she was called back by her husband and threatened to come back. She was scared and subdued. She merely took leave of her aunt by saying that now she was going back but she apprehended that in case of non fulfilment of demand she would be killed. On the same night she died. Before I express any opinion that whether prosecution could successfully prove the aforequoted ingredients, I would like to discuss the evidence adduced by the defence. Lokendra Nath Mishra, D.W.1 is simply a witness of marriage between the appellant and deceased which was admitted solemnized at the temple without any dowry in a cheerful atmosphere. His testimony needs no comment. Malti Devi, D.W.2 is said to have employed by the deceased as maid servant for four months. She frankly admitted that she was not aware that couple was living there only for two months. His testimony needs no comment. Malti Devi, D.W.2 is said to have employed by the deceased as maid servant for four months. She frankly admitted that she was not aware that couple was living there only for two months. She also admitted that she did not remain there for 24 hours. Though she claims herself to be on family terms with the deceased but according to her Dr. Jyoti was irritable in nature and prone to anger. These two contradictory statements lead me to infer that witness is a procured one. Whatever statements she had made at the best can be called to be her opinion. I do not think she can be treated to be a truthful witness. Professor Ram Pal Singh D.W.3 is a witness of this fact that marriage was performed without dowry and without dispute and he had submitted an application along with other respectable persons to D.I.G., Varanasi that this case was false. He is honest enough to admit in the cross examination that he does not know what transpires in the house of the appellant. He also admitted that he does not interfere in the family matter. Though he is relative of the appellant but his frank statement shows that he is a truthful witness and marriage of the appellant was performed without any dowry. About rest of the facts he has no personal knowledge. Dr. Daya Shankar Singh D.W.4 is a similarly placed person with D.W.3. He says in the cross examination that he is not a relative of the appellant. He had no relation with the family of the deceased. He has also admitted that he believed the family members of the appellant on the basis of discussion made after the death of the deceased. He was not aware under what metal stress Jyoti had lived her life. Since the witness is not acquainted with the family matters of the appellant and the deceased, his statement is reliable only to the extent of marriage of the appellant was performed without any dowry in a cheerful manner. Shyam Lal Yadav, P.W.5 admits that he never told the police that he was driver of Dr. Udai Singh, brother of the appellant. Shyam Lal Yadav, P.W.5 admits that he never told the police that he was driver of Dr. Udai Singh, brother of the appellant. He admits that he had served with the appellant for five years but he does not remember that at the date of his statement the sojourn of the appellant at Varanasi was less than five years which shows that he is also a procured witness. No reliance can be placed on his testimony. Samsudeen D.W.6 is a witness of simple marriage and of the fact that he was assistant at the clinic. According to him very few patients came to consult Dr. Jyoti and for this reason she was mentally disturbed. When subjected to cross-examination he has admitted that basically he had undergone training as technician to ophthalmology. He has not done any course in dental surgery. He was not interrogated by the investigating officer. He is neighbor of the appellant. For these reasons I do not think he can be called a reliable witness to prove mental state of Dr. Jyoti. Dr. Sachindra Nath Rai is the neighbor of the appellant who deposed before the court that he heard shouts of the appellant and asked him about that. Thereafter he gave his version. When subjected to cross examination he has admitted that he gave an affidavit in favour of the appellant. He knew Dr. Udai Singh from the year 2000. He denied his statement recorded by the investigating officer. At the most he can be called a witness who was provided an opportunity to see that door was locked from the inside which could be easily opened after the witness reached there. I do not think his evidence amounts to much. When the credibility of the defence evidence is found wanting and evidence of the three witnesses, discussed above, appears to have ring truth and sincerely I do not think defence version explaining the suicide by Dr. Jyoti on account of visit of very few patients or her alleged apprehension that she would be involved in any inquiry about the payment of retiral benefits to her mother, can be accepted. As against this, the prosecution has successfully proved all the aforequoted ingredients and the appellant has failed to discharge the burden placed on him by section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. As against this, the prosecution has successfully proved all the aforequoted ingredients and the appellant has failed to discharge the burden placed on him by section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. In view of above, the arguments advanced in support of the appeal appears to have no substance. The appeal is bereft of merit. The prosecution has successfully proved all the necessary ingredients to constitute dowry death against the present appellant and he has failed to disprove the charge. His conviction under two other sections also appears to be well substantiated. He has been awarded sentences commensurate with his crime. Findings recorded by learned trial Judge are well substantiated from the record. He has referred the legal positions and given reasons in support of his finding. The conviction of the appellant under section 498A, 304B IPC and section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act and sentence awarded thereunder are hereby affirmed. Appeal is dismissed. He is in jail. The appellant is directed to serve the sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge and affirmed by this Court. The period already undergone by him in the present case shall be adjusted in accordance with section 428 Cr.P.C. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned for compliance forthwith and to send back the lower court record.