JUDGMENT Per: Hon. Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.10.2016 rendered by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in S.T. No.183/2010, whereby the appellants/accused, who were charged with and tried for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B IPC, were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 304-B of I.P.C. with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. Case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that the FIR was lodged on 4.12.2009 by PW3 Pappu Singh Azad, to the effect, that the marriage of daughter of his brother in law, namely Meera, was solemnized with accused Sonu. Family members of Sonu were not happy with the dowry brought by Meera Devi. They used to harass her and demand a Maruti Car. However, by paying some money, the family of the accused was pacified. After one week, the accused again asked for dowry. Thereafter, the accused, with a common intention, poisoned Meera Devi. She was taken to Roorkee where she died during treatment. 3. The F.I.R. was accordingly registered. Post-mortem on the dead body was conducted by PW1 Dr. Ajay Mohan Agarwal and PW2 Dr. Ajay Agarwal jointly. The matter was investigated and Challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 4. Prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case. 5. Accused were also examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the case of prosecution. They have examined three defence witnesses in their support. 6. Accused were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court, as noticed hereinabove. Hence this appeal. 7. Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 8. Learned Sr. Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State has supported the judgment dated 04.10.2016. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 10. PW1 Dr. Ajay Mohan Agarwal has testified that he conducted the post-mortem on the body of deceased on 5.12.2009. According to the post-mortem report, there was a possibility of administering poison to the deceased. The death was possible on 4.12.2009 at 7 PM. 11. Statement of PW1 Dr. Ajay Mohan Agarwal has been fully corroborated by PW2 Dr. Ajay Agarwal. 12. Ajay Mohan Agarwal has testified that he conducted the post-mortem on the body of deceased on 5.12.2009. According to the post-mortem report, there was a possibility of administering poison to the deceased. The death was possible on 4.12.2009 at 7 PM. 11. Statement of PW1 Dr. Ajay Mohan Agarwal has been fully corroborated by PW2 Dr. Ajay Agarwal. 12. PW3 Pappu Singh Azad ahs deposed that the marriage of daughter of his brother in law was solemnized with Sonu. Family of the deceased was not happy with the dowry. They were harassing the bride. They were demanding a Maruti Car. The respectable members of the family tried to patch up the matter by offering some money to the family of accused. Thereafter, the accused again raised the demand of dowry. They poisoned Meera Devi on 4.12.2009. She died during treatment. He lodged the first information report. 13. PW4 Chaman Lal is the father of deceased. He deposed that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with accused Sonu in the month on 9.12.2008. He had given a motorcycle in dowry and spent a sum of Rs.5.00 lakh in the marriage. In September, 2009, he purchased a Wagon-R Car. Thereafter, the accused also started demanding a car from him. He went to the house of accused along with Pappu Singh. However, they did not listen to him. Information was received by him on 4.12.009 that his daughter was unwell and suffering from loose motions. He went to Pappu Nursing Home where he had a conversation with Dr. Pappu. He was informed by the doctor that it was not a case of loose motion but some chemical had been administered to her. On the advice of the doctor, the victim was taken to Bhatnagar Nursing Home, where she died. There, he came to know that his daughter was poisoned. He has further stated that this daughter was illiterate. She knew only to make signatures. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that in Pappu Nursing Home, accused Rodha and Smriti had met him. Voluntarily stated that they met him outside the Clinic. 14. PW5 Smt. Reeta deposed that the deceased Meera was her sister-in-law. Her marriage was solemnized on 9.12.2008. A sum of Rs.5.00 lakh had been spent in the marriage wherein the fridge, washing machine, motorcycle, sofa, furniture etc. had been given to the accused. Voluntarily stated that they met him outside the Clinic. 14. PW5 Smt. Reeta deposed that the deceased Meera was her sister-in-law. Her marriage was solemnized on 9.12.2008. A sum of Rs.5.00 lakh had been spent in the marriage wherein the fridge, washing machine, motorcycle, sofa, furniture etc. had been given to the accused. However, deceased's husband Sonu and father-in-law and mother-in-law were not happy. On 3.9.2009, her father-in-law bought a car. Thereafter, the accused family also demanded a car. Information was received on 4.12.2009 that Meera Devi was unwell. Her family members went to Pappu Nursing Home at Laksar, where the doctor told that Meera Devi was administered some chemical. She further deposed that Meera Devi informed her that she was administered some chemical. Thereafter, the victim was taken to Bhatnagar Nursing Home, Roorkee where she died at 7 PM of the same day. 15. PW6 Gyan Chand deposed that he went to the Mortuary of Civil Hospital, Roorkee for preparing the inquest. He prepared the inquest report and sealed the dead body. 16. PW7 Constable Kunwar Singh has deposed that he registered the first information report. 17. PW8 Dr. Jagmohan Bhatnagar is the material witness. According to him, on 4.9.2009, one woman aged about 19 years was admitted at 5:30 PM. The woman was serious. She was brought by her father Chaman Lal and other family members. On examining the victim, he found that she was administered aluminum sulfide poison. She died at 7 PM. He has proved the Bed Head Ticket of the deceased. 18. PW9 Pradeep Kumar deposed that he recorded the statement of complainant. Statements of accused were also recorded. 19. DW1 Jagpal deposed that he knew Rodha and his son Sonu. On 1.12.2009, Chaman Lal had given his 22 Bighas of land to Sonu on a contract of Rs.2,000/- per bigha. The contract was reduced into writing. He has proved the Contract dated 1.12.2009. 20. DW2 Abhimanu is the brother of deceased. He deposed that the marriage of his sister was solemnized with Sonu S/o Rodha on 9.12.2008. His sister was very happy with her in-laws. No demand was ever raised for dowry. On 4.12.2009, a telephone call was received to the effect that his sister had consumed some chemical. She was taken to Pappu Nursing Home. His father also reached the spot. His sister was unconscious. His sister was very happy with her in-laws. No demand was ever raised for dowry. On 4.12.2009, a telephone call was received to the effect that his sister had consumed some chemical. She was taken to Pappu Nursing Home. His father also reached the spot. His sister was unconscious. Thereafter, she was taken to Bhatnagar Hospital at Roorkee. His sister had passed Middle Standard in the year 2005. He proved the school leaving certificate. He has also deposed that the suicide note Ex.Kha-1 was written by his sister. He recognized her handwriting. It was written by Pencil. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was matriculate passed and his sister had passed the middle standard examination. He could not disclose the disease of his sister. 21. DW3 Om Prakash has deposed that his house is located near the house of Rodha. Son of Rodha was married to Meera. There was no dispute with regard to dowry. On 4.12.2009 at 1:30 PM, Meera was all alone at home. Rodha's wife had gone to sugarcane field. Meera suffered stomach ache at 1:30 PM and she cried. Thereafter, Rodha came back. Rodha's son, named Lalit, had gone to school. Rodha along with his son Sonu and Smriti took Meera to Pappu Nursing Home. Meera died due to stomach ache. He has given an application on 19.1.2010 to the S.S.P. Haridwar. 22. The marriage between accused Sonu and deceased Meera was solemnized on 9.12.2008. It has come in the statements of PW3 Pappu Singh Azad, PW4 Chaman Lal and PW5 Smt. Reeta that the accused were demanding dowry from the deceased. Father of deceased had purchased a Wagon-R Car on 3.9.2009. Thereafter, the accused family also started demanding a Maruti Car. The respectable members of family of deceased gave some money to the accused family. However, within one week thereafter, the demand of dowry was again raised by the accused from the deceased. According to PW4 Chaman Lal, accused family was demanding Rs.1.00 lakh for harvesting the crop and Rs.4.00 lakh for buying a car. Demand was raised just within three months before the death of deceased. 23. According to PW4 Chaman Lal, his daughter was not educated. She could only sign. He has categorically deposed that one week before hear death, she has told him that the accused family was demanding Rs.1.00 lakh for crop harvesting and Rs.4.00 lakh for purchasing a car. Demand was raised just within three months before the death of deceased. 23. According to PW4 Chaman Lal, his daughter was not educated. She could only sign. He has categorically deposed that one week before hear death, she has told him that the accused family was demanding Rs.1.00 lakh for crop harvesting and Rs.4.00 lakh for purchasing a car. Deceased Meera Devi died within a short span of raising the demand of dowry by the accused. According to PW1 Dr. Ajay Mohan Agarwal and PW2 Dr. Ajay Agarwal, the deceased died by poisoning. PW8 Dr. Jagmohan Bhatnagar has categorically deposed that the deceased was administered aluminum sulfide poison and she died due to poisoning at 7 PM on 4.12.2009. Deceased was earlier taken to Pappu Nursing Home and thereafter the doctor referred the victim for Bhatnagar Nursing Home. 24. Statement of DW1 Jagpal is qua some agreement for managing the fields of PW4 Chaman Lal. DW2 Abhimanu has supported the case of accused but his wife PW5 Smt. Reeta has supported the case of prosecution to the hilt. According to the father of deceased, she was not educated, but her brother Abhimanu has deposed, while appearing as DW2, that she had done her middle examination. Statement of DW3 Om Prakash cannot be believed at all. No plausible explanation has been offered as to how he came to know that the deceased cried at 1:30 pm due to stomach ache and she died of the same. However, the doctors PW1 Dr. Ajay Mohan Agarwal and PW2 Dr. Ajay Agarwal have categorically opined that the deceased died of poisoning. Her viscera was preserved and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra. In the stomach, intestine, liver, kidney and spleen, Organo-Chloro Insecticide Poison was found vide Ex.A-16. 25. Accused were demanding dowry from the deceased family. She was harassed and treated with cruelty for bringing insufficient dowry. Accused were also demanding dowry from the deceased continuously after the marriage. She has died within seven years of her marriage. The family of deceased was not in a position to meet the demand after spending a substantive amount in the marriage. The deceased was administered the poison which led to her death on 4.12.2008. It is a fit case where the provisions of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act are attracted. Deceased has died within seven years of her marriage with accused Sonu. The deceased was administered the poison which led to her death on 4.12.2008. It is a fit case where the provisions of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act are attracted. Deceased has died within seven years of her marriage with accused Sonu. Even according to the inquest report (Ex.A-4), the deceased died due to administering poison to her by her in-laws. 26. Learned Counsel for the appellants has strongly placed reliance upon the alleged suicide note (Ex.B-2) written by deceased Meera Devi. However, the fact of the matter is that the accused have not handed over this suicide note to the investigating officer. Accused have also stated that the deceased was conscious when she was taken to the hospital and she was insisting the accused to explain their position before the police. If that was so, the deceased would have disclosed about the suicide note at that time. But it was not done. It is a forged document prepared by the accused to save themselves. Moreover, the father of the deceased has stated that the victim was uneducated. It is also not believable that Meera Devi has written the suicide note and kept the same with her and it was recovered later on. It is reiterated that there is no reference to the suicide note in the statements of the accorded recorded by the police. 27. In AIR 1991 S.C. 1226 , their Lordships of Hon. Apex Court in the matter of ‘Smt. Shanti & another v. State of Haryana' have held that where the prosecution established beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused have treated the deceased with cruelty for demand for dowry and the deceased died within seven years of her marriage, the case is squarely covered within the meaning of ‘cruelty' which is essential under Section 304B IPC. In paragraph no.5, their Lordships have held as under:- “5. Both the courts below have held that the two appellants did not send the deceased to her parent's house and drove out the brother as well as the father of the deceased complaining that scooter and television have not been given as dowry. In paragraph no.5, their Lordships have held as under:- “5. Both the courts below have held that the two appellants did not send the deceased to her parent's house and drove out the brother as well as the father of the deceased complaining that scooter and television have not been given as dowry. We have carefully examined this part of the prosecution case and we are satisfied that the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellants treated the deceased cruelly and the same squarely comes within the meaning of “cruelty" which is an essential under Section 304B and that such cruelty was for demand for dowry, It is an admitted fact that death occurred within seven years of the marriage. Therefore three essentials are satisfied. Now we shall see whether the other essential namely whether the death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances is also established? From the evidence of P.W.I, the father, P.W.2 the brother, and P.W.3 the mother, it is clear that they were not even informed soon about the death and that the appellants hurriedly cremated the dead body. Under these circumstances the presumption under Section 113B is attracted. The accused examined defence witnesses to rebute the presumption and to show that the deceased suffered heart-attack. We have examined the evidence of D.Ws 2 and 3 and we agree with the courts below that this theory of natural death cannot be accepted at all. No “was placed to show that the deceased suffered any such attack previously. If it was natural re was no need for the appellants to act in such unnatural manner and cremate the body in great and unholy haste without even informing the parents. Because of this cremation no post-mortem could be conducted and the actual cause of death could not be established clearly. There is absolutely no material to indicate even remotely that it was a case of natural death. It is nobody's case that it was accidental death. In the result it was an unnatural death; either homicidal or suicidal. But even assuming that it is a case of suicide even then it would be death which had occurred in unnatural circumstances. Even in such a case, Section 304B is attracted and this position is not disputed. Therefore, the prosecution has established that the appellants have committed an offence punishable under Section 304B beyond all reasonable doubt." 28. But even assuming that it is a case of suicide even then it would be death which had occurred in unnatural circumstances. Even in such a case, Section 304B is attracted and this position is not disputed. Therefore, the prosecution has established that the appellants have committed an offence punishable under Section 304B beyond all reasonable doubt." 28. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants/accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence of Section 304-B IPC. We see no reason to interfere with the findings of conviction recorded by the Court below. 29. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 30. Appellants Rodha and Smt. Simrati are on bail in compliance of the order dated 25.1.2017 passed by this Court. Their bail is cancelled. Their bail bonds and sureties are cancelled. Let they be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence, as awarded by the trial Court. 31. Since the appellant Sonu is already in jail, he shall serve out the sentence, as imposed against him. 32. Let a copy of this judgment and order along with the LCR be transmitted to the Court below for compliance.