ORDER : A1 [Crl.M.P.No.390 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.31 of 2016] and A2 [Crl.M.P.No.1661 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.115 of 2016] in S.C.No.58 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge [Mahila Court], Salem while canvassing the correctness of their conviction and sentence seeks appeal bail by suspending their sentence under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. 2. PW1's daughter, who was married to A2, son of A1 is no more. It is the case of the prosecution that she committed suicide because of dowry torture. The son and mother were prosecuted for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. 3. The duo have been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence (i) Section 498-A IPC. (ii) Section 304-B IPC (i) 3 years R.I and fine Rs.2000/- i/d 3 month S.I each (ii) 7 years R.I. each Both their sentences were directed to run concurrently. They have paid the fine amounts. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, "soon before death", the deceased has been subjected to dowry torture has to be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. This is a basic requirement for this offence. But, in this case, the evidence adduced and Ex.D2 and D3 would show that the deceased had returned to her father's house in connection with an incident that took place in connection with the tilling of land. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that P.W.18, I.O. in his cross examination admit that he has not diverted his investigation towards the aspect relating to Ex.D2 complaint. PW13-RDO also failed to probe the same during her enquiry and without doing so and without conducting proper enquiry she had concluded that the deceased had died of dowry torture. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would cite Baljinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab [2014 (4) Crime 293 (SC)] and Sher Singh alias Partapa vs. State of Haryana [ (2015) 3 SCC 724 ] and submit that the question of calling upon the accused to prove his innocence will arise only upon the prosecution proving that 'soon before her death she was subjected to dowry torture', however, in this case, the presumption of innocence of the accused is intact. It has not been displaced by the prosecution by letting acceptable evidence. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are having prima facie case in their favour. It has not been displaced by the prosecution by letting acceptable evidence. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are having prima facie case in their favour. They were on bail throughout the trial Court proceedings. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the victim having been put under constant torture for dowry have been stated by PW1 in his Ex.P1 complaint. Unable to bear the dowry harassment, 20 days prior to her death, she was driven out from her matrimonial home and she had committed suicide in her father's house by consuming poison. It is the evidence of PW1 that the accused have demanded Rs.1 lakh and a car as dowry from the deceased to be obtained from P.W.1. In this regard, P.W.1 has been stand corroborated by P.Ws.2 to 4. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that prosecution has clearly established that 'soon before her death', she was subjected to dowry torture by A-1 and A-2. The onus as contemplated under Section 304-B IPC r/w 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act has been clearly discharged by the prosecution, consequently, the burden had shifted to the accused. They did not discharge it. There is no prima facie case in their favour. In the circumstances, the trial Court has rightly convicted them and appropriately punished them. 10. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the trial Court's judgment and the piece of evidence pointed out by either side and also the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 11. In view of the increased dowry deaths, married women consuming poison, kissing ropes, encircling their neck by their sarees, the offence of dowry death has been introduced in Section 304-B in the Indian Penal Code. Since in most of these cases, the dowry torture takes place within the four walls of the matrimonial home, getting direct evidence will be very difficult. The perpetrators will not keep witnesses for such violence committed against women. In the circumstances, presumption in favour of the prosecution has been introduced in Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. 12. Since in most of these cases, the dowry torture takes place within the four walls of the matrimonial home, getting direct evidence will be very difficult. The perpetrators will not keep witnesses for such violence committed against women. In the circumstances, presumption in favour of the prosecution has been introduced in Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. 12. Sum and substance of the offence under Section 304-B IPC is that, if a married woman dies otherwise than in normal course, within 7 years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to torture, then it will be deemed that it is a 'Dowry death'. 13. The said penal provision of law came to be elaborately considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baljinder Kaur's ([2014(4) Crime 293 (SC)]) case. Their Lordships have laid down that there must be live link between the suicide committed by the victim and the dowry torture of the accused. Precisely, there must be proximity between the death and the dowry demand. 14. This position of law has been amplified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent judgment in Sher Singh @ Partapa [ (2015) 3 SCC 724 ]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dissected Section 304-B IPC in the light of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act distinguishing it from Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act and considered the basic principle of English Criminal Law, which has been adopted in India that the accused is presumed to be innocent and also considered the rights of the accused enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and held that it is the basic duty of the prosecution to prove the essential element of the charge, viz., 'soon before her death the victim was subjected dowry torture' beyond all reasonable doubts through acceptable legal evidence. 15. One's presumption of innocence can be displaced only upon prosecution establishing the said essential ingredient of the offence under Section 304-B IPC. Actually, Section 304-B I.P.C. is strengthened by section 113-B Evidence Act and it is a slight departure from our basic Criminal Law and partial adoption of French system of Criminal Law. Shades of this position of law also could be seen in NDPS Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, Electricity Act, etc. Actually, Section 304-B I.P.C. is strengthened by section 113-B Evidence Act and it is a slight departure from our basic Criminal Law and partial adoption of French system of Criminal Law. Shades of this position of law also could be seen in NDPS Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, Electricity Act, etc. 16. Now we will revert back to the case at our hand for a limited purpose whether any prima facie case is in favour of the petitioners to grant them appeal bail. 17. P.W.1 Shanmugam, the father of the deceased set the Criminal Law in motion by lodging Ex.P1 complaint with the police. It is stated that his daughter was subjected to dowry torture. It is also stated that just 20 days prior to her committing suicide she was driven out of her matrimonial home and she came to her house of birth. For the first time before the trial Court P.W.1 had stated that his avaricious son-in-law and his mother have demanded a cash dowry of Rs.1 lakh and a car. There is complete omission of this aspect in the FIR. The importance of F.I.R is such that true version of the case must be brought to the notice of the law enforcing authorities. However, that will not result in rejecting the F.I.R., but it will goes to shake the veracity of the testimony of the witness. This is one aspect of the matter. 18. Prior to P.W.1's daughter committing suicide an unsavory incident took place in between these relatives. A-2 lodged Ex.D2 complaint as against his wife, his father-in-law/P.W.1 and Jayam, the aunt of the deceased. This is in connection with an incident concerning the tilling of some land. Ex.D3 receipt also has been issued by the police. It is stated that the deceased had also sustained injury in this occurrence. There was no love last between both the families. This incident had taken place 20 days prior to the deceased returned to her father's house. It took place about 20 days prior to her committing suicide. P.Ws.13 and 18 are aware of Ex.D2 incident, however, they admits that they did not divert their attention towards this aspect. 19. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that prosecution has not discharged its burden of proving that P.W.1's daughter committed suicide only because of the dowry torture unleashed upon her by A-1 and A-2. P.Ws.13 and 18 are aware of Ex.D2 incident, however, they admits that they did not divert their attention towards this aspect. 19. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that prosecution has not discharged its burden of proving that P.W.1's daughter committed suicide only because of the dowry torture unleashed upon her by A-1 and A-2. He would stress that it was not established beyond all reasonable doubts that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to dowry torture by them. 20. In view of the foregoings, in these Criminal Appeals, there are many arguable points, there are points to ponder over and they need to be examined in detail in the main appeals. 21. In the circumstances, I see prima facie case in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners were also on bail throughout the trial Court proceedings. It is also a fact that disposal of these Criminal Appeals will also take some time. In the circumstances, I am inclined to grant them appeal bail under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. 22. Ordered as under: (i) Appeal bail; (ii) Their sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended; (iii) They shall execute bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each with two sureties shall also execute bond for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Attur. (iv) The petitioners shall appear before the said Judge on the first working day of every month at 10.30 am, until further orders.