JUDGMENT : Om Prakash-VII, J. Present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 28.4.1988 passed by the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 177 of 1987 (State v. Ramu Seth and others) convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offence under Section 304-B IPC for a period of seven years R.I. and under Section 498-A IPC for a period of two years R.I. 2. Appellant no. 1 Ramu Seth and appellant no. 4 Smt. Radhika Devi have expired during the pendency of the appeal, hence appeal filed by them was abated vide order dated 19.1.2017. Thus the appeal remains to be decided in respect of appellant no. 2 Rajendra Seth and appellant no. 3 Ashok Kumar. 3. Prosecution story in brief are as follows : On 9.2.1987 informant Radhey Shyam moved written report Ext. Ka-2 at police station concerned mentioning therein that deceased Shakuntala Devi daughter of the informant was married with Rajendra Seth, (appellant no. 2) in the month of July, 1986. Appellant Rajendra Seth and his father Ramu Seth demanded a motor cycle at the time of marriage but the informant could not fulfil the demand at that time. Deceased had gone to her in laws house after "Bidai". Informant had also given sufficient dowry according to his capacity but appellant and his father Ramu Seth were repeatedly demanding motor cycle and also causing threat. Appellant was not in a position to fulfil the demand hence denied to give motor cycle. Husband of the deceased, her in laws, brother in law and sister in law were causing cruelty and harassment due to non fulfilment of the demand. Informant visited the matrimonial house of his daughter to pacify the matter but the husband of his daughter and his other family members were adamant for fulfilling the demand and they also extended threat for dire consequences. Informant and his son whenever visit to the matrimonial house of the deceased they were never permitted to meet the deceased and were asked by the family members and husband of the deceased to bring the motorcycle first and thereafter they will be permitted to meet the deceased. They also declined to send her back. Informant thought that the matter will be subside with the passage of time and due to that reason he could not take any action against the appellants. They also declined to send her back. Informant thought that the matter will be subside with the passage of time and due to that reason he could not take any action against the appellants. On 8.2.1987 information was received through a relative that his daughter (deceased) was done to death by her husband, his father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law and sister-in-law. When informant reached at about 5 P.M. at the in laws house of his daughter the neighbourers told him that on 7.2.1987 deceased was done to death by the accused persons by burning her and dead body of the deceased was kept in mortuary of Kabir Chaura Hospital. Later on dead body was sent for post mortem examination to B.H.U. Hospital. Thus prayer was made by the informant to lodge the F.I.R. and to take action against accused person. On the basis of the written report Ext. Ka-2 chik F.I.R. Ext. Ka 3 was registered at the police station concerned on 9.2.1987 at 14.00 hrs. G. D. Entry as Ext. Ka-4 was also made. Investigating Officer prepared the inquest report Ext. Ka-1 and also prepared the police papers, kept the dead body in the sealed cover i.e. photo nash Ext. Ka 7, Form No. 13 Ext. Ka -8, letter to S.O. Concerned Ext. Ka-9 etc. Dead body was carried by the constables of the police station concerned to the post mortem house. Post mortem was conducted on 9.2.1987 on the dead body of the deceased. Post mortem report Ext. Ka-6 was also prepared. Investigating Officer also visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan. After interrogating the witnesses and fulfilling the entire formalities charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Concerned Magistrate after registering the case took the cognizance in the matter and case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. Appellants appeared before the court concerned and charge against them for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, 498-A read with Section 34, 304-B read with Section 34 IPC were framed. Appellants denied from the charges levelled against them and claimed their trial. 4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined P.W.-1 Makund Lal; P.W.-2 Radhey Shyam; P.W.-3 Krishna Kumar; P.W.-4 Constable Fundan Singh; P.W.-5 Dr. Appellants denied from the charges levelled against them and claimed their trial. 4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined P.W.-1 Makund Lal; P.W.-2 Radhey Shyam; P.W.-3 Krishna Kumar; P.W.-4 Constable Fundan Singh; P.W.-5 Dr. M. A. Siddiqui; P.W.-6 Constable Indrajeet Yadav; P.W.-7 S.I. Krishna Kant Tiwari; P.W.-8 Constable Sardar Singh. After prosecution evidence statement of the accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they pleaded that deceased was cooking food and fire caught in her sari. When she cried appellant Radhika Devi (since deceased) poured water and thereafter she was taken to the hospital by her in laws to save her life but she succumbed to her injuries. It was an accidental death. Statement made by the witnesses against them are false. They have not committed any offence. 5. No evidence was adduced by the appellants in their defence. 6. Learned trial court after hearing the parties vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellants as above, hence this appeal. 7. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri R. D. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State. 8. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants are innocent and have not committed the present offence. F.I.R. was lodged belatedly. No plausible explanation is afforded to explain the delay. It was an accidental death. Appellants tried to save the life of the deceased and they immediately took her to the hospital. Further submission is that the parents of the deceased were present at the time of inquest and funeral but no complaint was made by them, as has been mentioned in the Ext. Ka-2 written report. Brother of the deceased was also present at the time of preparing the inquest report but he also did not disclose that fact. Entire prosecution story is false. Prosecution was not able to prove the nexus between the cause of death and the demand of the dowry. Further submission is that the death of the deceased is not the result of the cruelty and harassment said to have been made in connection with the said demand soon before her death and offence under Section 304-B IPC could not attract. It is further argued that offene under Section 498-A IPC is also not made out as essential ingredients to constitute this offence is not available in the present matter. It is further argued that offene under Section 498-A IPC is also not made out as essential ingredients to constitute this offence is not available in the present matter. Burden lies on the prosecution was not discharged. Hence the findings recorded by the trial court are illegal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the following case laws : 1. Bakshish Ram and another v. State of Punjab reported in (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 328. 2. Rama Shankar and others v. State of U. P. reported in 2017 (98) ACC 191. 10. Learned A.G.A. argued that death of the deceased is unnatural one. She died within seven years of her marriage in the house of her in laws. Prosecution was able to establish that repeated demand of motor cycle was being made on behalf of the appellant from the deceased and her parents and due to that reason she was being subjected to cruelty and harassment and death of the deceased is unnatural i.e. due to burn injuries. Thus there is no illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial court. Appellants were involved in making repeated demands and causing cruelty and harassment soon before her death in connection of such demand hence presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act shall be made for causing dowry death of the deceased. 11. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record including the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. In this matter, as is evident from the record deceased Smt. Shakuntala Devi was married with appellant Rajendra in the year 1986 and she died on 8.2.1987. Cause of death was due to extensive burn injuries all over the body. Post mortem was done on 9.2.1987. Deceased was aged about 17 years. Probable time of the death is shown as 7.2.1987 at 10.45 P.M. At the time of preparing the inquest report brother of the deceased Krishna Kumar was present. Nothing was disclosed by him about the commission of offence to the police personnel who prepared the inquest report on 8.2.1987. Written report Ext. Ka 2 was moved on 9.2.1987 disclosing the fact of commission of the present offence. First information report was lodged on 9.2.1987. 13. Trial court was of the opinion that delay in lodging of the F.I.R. was properly explained. Written report Ext. Ka 2 was moved on 9.2.1987 disclosing the fact of commission of the present offence. First information report was lodged on 9.2.1987. 13. Trial court was of the opinion that delay in lodging of the F.I.R. was properly explained. Cause of death was the burn injuries. Prosecution was able to establish the demand of dowry, cruelty and harassment caused to the deceased in connection with such demand soon before her death. Thus appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC on the basis of presumption made under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. 14. In the above back drop it is to be seen whether the findings recorded by the trial court are correct or not. First of all the court proceed to deal with the submission of delay in lodging of the F.I.R. As has been mentioned above F.I.R. was lodged on 9.2.1987. Incident is said to have taken place on 7.2.1987. Information to the informant was received on 8.2.1987. Reason for delay in lodging the F.I.R. is given that informant and his family members were in shock. Therefore, they could not lodge the F.I.R. immediately. As soon as they settled themselves they immediately lodged the F.I.R. Trial court found the explanation satisfactory. If the finding of the trial court and the explanation offered by the prosecution witnesses in regard to delay in lodging the F.I.R. are compared with each other, no illegality or infirmity is found on this score. Parents may loose their senses in such type of incident, therefore, delay of few hours in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be taken to be fatal to the prosecution case. It is also pertinent to mention here that if nothing was disclosed at the time of inquest report about the cause of death, on this ground alone the whole prosecution evidence cannot be brush-aside or disbelieved. Thus the findings recorded by the trial court regarding the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. need no interference. 15. It is also pertinent to mention here that if nothing was disclosed at the time of inquest report about the cause of death, on this ground alone the whole prosecution evidence cannot be brush-aside or disbelieved. Thus the findings recorded by the trial court regarding the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. need no interference. 15. So far as the demand of dowry is concerned, no complaint was earlier made by the parents or brother of the deceased to the competent authority regarding demand of dowry prior to the lodging of the F.I.R. Although it is the case of the prosecution that the appellants were making the demand of motor cycle since the date of marriage and they were causing cruelty and harassment in connection with the said demand repeatedly. Written report Ext. Ka-2 was moved on 9.2.1987 in which it was specifically mentioned that on the day of marriage appellants Rajendra Seth and Ramu Seth (since deceased) were making repeated demand of the motor cycle. With regard to cruelty and harassment general allegation has been levelled against the other family members also. P.W.-1 Makund Lal made the statement before the court that he never met with the deceased after her marriage. He heard from others about the demand of motorcycle being made on part of the appellants. He also admitted that at the time of inquest parents of the deceased were present. Thus the statement made by Makund Lal, P.W.-1 in regard to demand of dowry and cruelty is based on the knowledge of other persons. Who acknowledged him about the said demand and cruelty is not clear from his statement. P.W.-2 Radhey Shyam who is the father of the deceased made allegation regarding demand of motorcycle against the appellant Rajendra Seth and Smt. Radhika Devi (since deceased) at the time of marriage. Other allegations about causing threat, cruelty or harassment in connection with such demand of motorcycle was also levelled against these two accused persons. P.W.-3 Krishna Kumar who is the brother of the deceased has specifically stated that appellants Ramu Seth (since deceased) made demand of motorcycle at the time of marriage. Appellant Rajendra Seth did not object it. There is general allegation against the appellant Ashok Kumar in the statement of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3. No specific role was assigned regarding demand of dowry and causing cruelty to the appellant Ashok Kumar. Appellant Rajendra Seth did not object it. There is general allegation against the appellant Ashok Kumar in the statement of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3. No specific role was assigned regarding demand of dowry and causing cruelty to the appellant Ashok Kumar. The question is whether there was any nexus between the demand of motorcycle and causing cruelty and harassment with the death of deceased in respect of the appellant Ashok Kumar and the finding recorded by the trial court regarding guilt of Ashok Kumar is correct. At the outset it may be mentioned here that trial court held guilty to the appellant Ashok Kumar only on the basis of being family member. Neither he was involved with regard to said demand at the time of marriage nor any specific role was assigned to him for causing threat or making repeated demand or causing cruelty or harassment. If there is no nexus between the said demand and cruelty and harassment caused to the deceased with the appellant Ashok Kumar who is the brother-in-law of the deceased and he could not be directly benefited with the said demand, thus in the opinion of the court finding recorded by the trial court regarding guilt of the accused appellant Ashok Kumar for committing the offence under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC is not sustainable and is illegal. 16. As far as the role of the accused appellant Rajendra Seth is concerned, he is the husband of the deceased. Deceased died within seven years of her marriage due to burn injuries occurred in the house of the appellant Rajendra Seth. Specific allegation from the very initial stage has been made against the appellant Rajendra Seth that he was involved in making the demand of motorcycle. Merely on this basis that the appellants had taken the deceased to the hospital just after the incident he cannot be exonerated in this matter. During the course of the trial and argument before the trial court two different pleas have been taken on behalf of the appellants. First is that deceased died due to accidental death as and when she was brooming her sari caught fire from the lamp. Second plea is that when she was cooking food her clothes caught fire from the lamp. Trial court did not find the explanation given by the appellants satisfactory. 17. First is that deceased died due to accidental death as and when she was brooming her sari caught fire from the lamp. Second plea is that when she was cooking food her clothes caught fire from the lamp. Trial court did not find the explanation given by the appellants satisfactory. 17. Keeping in view the demand of motorcycle from the date of marriage and also few days earlier from the death of the deceased and also the cruelty and harassment caused to the deceased in connection with the said demand, the finding recorded by the trial court regarding guilt of the accused appellant Rajendra Seth for the offence under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC cannot be held illegal. If the trial court did not frame the charge for the offence under the D.P. Act, findings recorded by the trial court for the offence under Section 498-A, 304 -B IPC on this sole ground cannot be set aside especially when there is sufficient evidence on record in support of the findings of the trial court. Thus the court is of the view that there is a proximate live link between the effects of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. It is not remote in time and had not become stale enough. Death of the deceased occurred otherwise than in normal circumstances. All ingredients required to constitute the offence under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC were fully established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Thus the appeal in respect of the appellant no. 2 Rajendra Seth is not liable to be allowed but the appeal in respect of appellant no. 3 Ashok Kumar for the reason mentioned above is liable to be allowed. 18. Thus the appeal is allowed in part. Appellant no. 3 Ashok Kumar is hereby acquitted from all the charges framed under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC against him. He is on bail, he need not to surrender. Personal bond and sureties bonds are cancelled. Sureties are discharged from their liabilities. 19. Prayer made in respect of the appellant no. 2 Rajendra Seth is refused. He has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 304-B IPC for a period of seven years which is the minimum sentence provided for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. Personal bond and sureties bonds are cancelled. Sureties are discharged from their liabilities. 19. Prayer made in respect of the appellant no. 2 Rajendra Seth is refused. He has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 304-B IPC for a period of seven years which is the minimum sentence provided for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. Thus the appeal filed in respect of the appellant Rajendra Seth is dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court upon him is hereby confirmed. He is on bail. He is hereby directed to surrender immediately before the court concerned to serve out the remaining sentence. 20. A copy of this order and the record of the lower court be sent to the court concerned for compliance immediately.