JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal, under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.08.2003, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No.301 of 1998, whereby said court has convicted accused/appellant Balbir Singh under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC). Accused/appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years u/s 304-B IPC, six months’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- u/s 498-A and one year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- u/s 201 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 17.07.1997 P.W.1 Suba Singh lodged a report at P.S. Nanakmatta, stating therein that marriage of his sister Veero Kaur (deceased) was solemnized with the accused/appellant Balbir Singh three years ago as per Sikh rituals. In the marriage, his parents had given dowry as per their status. However, the accused/appellant and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry and they started committed cruelty with his sister (deceased), due to which last year on 23rd May, 1996, his sister had tried to commit suicide by jumping into Nanaksagar Dam, but fortunately she was saved by the Sewadars of Nanakmatta Gurudwara. After this incident, she was taken to her parental house where she stayed for 5-6 months. His sister had told them that she is subjected to cruelty by her husband (appellant/accused), father-in-law, mother-in-law and her brother-in-law for bringing insufficient dowry. Thereafter, the accused came to take his sister back, and on their persuasion, she went back to her in-laws house. On 17.07.1997, when the complainant returned from Punjab, his father told him that his sister has been murdered by her in-laws. His father told him that blood was oozing out from nose and mouth of deceased. It is also stated that the last rites of his sister were performed by the accused persons without any legal formalities. On the basis of said report, Case Crime No. 16 of 1997 was registered against the present accused and other family members of the deceased, relating to offences punishable under sections 304-B, 201 and 120-B IPC. Investigation was taken up by P.W.5 Suryakant Tripathi. On the basis of said report, Case Crime No. 16 of 1997 was registered against the present accused and other family members of the deceased, relating to offences punishable under sections 304-B, 201 and 120-B IPC. Investigation was taken up by P.W.5 Suryakant Tripathi. He interrogated the witnesses, inspected the spot and prepared site plans (Ex.A4 and Ex.A5), and on completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet (Ex.-A7) against accused/appellant and three others for their trial in respect of offences punishable under sections 304-B, 201 and 120-B IPC. 4. Additional Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. Learned Sessions Judge, Nainital, on 21.11.2000, after hearing the parties, framed charge of offence punishable under section 304-B, 201 and 120-B IPC, against the accused/appellant Balbir Singh and three others, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, got examined P.W.1 Suba Singh (complainant and brother of deceased), P.W.2 Kakka Singh (brother of deceased), P.W.3 Ajeet Singh (Manager, Nanakmatta Gurudwara), P.W.4 Pooran Singh, A.S.I. and P.W5 Suryakant Tripathi (Investigating Officer). 6. Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C, in reply to which they pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in the case. In defence, they produced two witnesses viz. D.W.1 Arjun Singh and D.W.2 Gurcharan Singh. 7. The trial court, after hearing the parties, found that no charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused Ram Singh, Prem Singh and Smt. Buddha Bai. They were acquitted of the charge but accused Balbir Singh (husband) was found guilty of charge of offences punishable under section 304-B, 201 and 120-B IPC. After hearing the convict on sentence, the trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years u/s 304-B IPC, six months’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 498-A and one year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 201 IPC. Aggrieved by said judgment, this appeal has been preferred by the accused Balbir Singh 8. P.W.1 Suba Singh is the complainant. He has proved F.I.R. (Ext.AA). In his statement, he has reiterated the contents of the First Information Report and has supported the prosecution case. 9. P.W.2 Kakka Singh is brother of the deceased. Aggrieved by said judgment, this appeal has been preferred by the accused Balbir Singh 8. P.W.1 Suba Singh is the complainant. He has proved F.I.R. (Ext.AA). In his statement, he has reiterated the contents of the First Information Report and has supported the prosecution case. 9. P.W.2 Kakka Singh is brother of the deceased. He has corroborated the statement of P.W.1 Suba Singh and has supported the prosecution case. 10. P.W.3 Ajeet Singh is Manager of Gurudwara Nanakmatta. He has proved Ext. A2 and stated that earlier deceased Veero Devi had jumped into the Dam and was saved by him and other sewadars of the Gurudwara. He has also stated that on the persuasion of both the parties, the deceased was sent to her in-laws house. 11. P.W.4 Pooran Singh, Head Mohirror, has stated that on the basis of report lodged by the complainant, he had prepared Chik F.I.R., which is Ext. A3. 12. P.W.5 Suryakant Tripathi is the Investigating Officer. He has proved Ext.A4, Ext.A5, Ext.A6 and Ext.A7. 13. It is relevant to mention here that section 113B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that 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. The explanation to the section provides that expression ‘dowry death’ shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of IPC. Section 304B of the IPC defines ‘dowry death’ and provides punishment for said offence. Section 304B IPC provides that 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 other 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. Sub-section 2 of section 304B further provides that whoever commits dowry death shall be punished for imprisonment for a term which may not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. It is relevant to mention here that section 498A provides punishment for an offence of cruelty by husband or a relative of husband of a woman. 14. P.W.1 Suba Singh has stated that marriage of his sister (deceased) was solemnized with the accused/appellant three years ago. After marriage, she was subjected to cruelty for non fulfillment of demand of dowry. Earlier also, the deceased had tried to commit suicide due to harassment committed by the accused for dowry. The deceased had told them that she is subjected to cruelty for non fulfillment of demand of dowry. He has also stated that a compromise had also taken place between the parties wherein it was agreed that the accused will not commit Marpeet with the deceased. He has further stated on the fateful day, he had gone to Punjab. After coming from Punjab, his father told him that his sister has been murdered by her in-laws and that blood was oozing out from the mouth and nose of the deceased and that her last rites were performed without giving any information to the police. The statement of this witness, and the fact of marriage with deceased, cruelty committed upon the deceased for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and death of deceased, has been corroborated by P.W.3 Kakka Singh. As such, it is proved on record that Veero Kaur died within seven years of her marriage for demand of dowry. It is also an admitted case that neither any information regarding death of Smt. Veero Devi (deceased) was given to the police nor any post-mortem on her body was conducted. 15. P.W.1 was cross-examined by the defence. Accused tried to set up a defence that deceased Veero Devi died on 10.01.1997 due to illness. She was taken to Dr. B.D. Joshi for her treatment as she was suffering from pneumonia and was referred to P.H.C. Khatima and also made a suggestion that Veero Devi died due to pneumonia under normal circumstances. 16. Accused tried to set up a defence that deceased Veero Devi died on 10.01.1997 due to illness. She was taken to Dr. B.D. Joshi for her treatment as she was suffering from pneumonia and was referred to P.H.C. Khatima and also made a suggestion that Veero Devi died due to pneumonia under normal circumstances. 16. Initially, it was the defence of the accused/appellant that deceased died due to pneumonia, but when the accused persons lead their defence witness and got examined D.W.1 Arjun Singh and D.W.2 Gurbachan Singh, they changed their version and bank upon that the deceased died due to fits problem. D.W.1 Arjun Singh and D.W.2 Gurbachan Singh stated that deceased was having fits problem and she has died due to this disease. The statement of these two defence witness is contrary to the case set up by the accused in their defence that the deceased was suffering from pneumonia and that she died because of that disease. Thus, the statement given by D.W.1 and D.W.2 are not trustworthy and are no help to the appellant. 17. All the prosecution witnesses have categorically proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry. Therefore, she had also jumped in Nanaksagar Dam but was saved by some sewadars of that Gurudwara at that point of time and after settlement between the parties she was sent with her husband. 18. From the evidence of P.W.1 Suba Singh, P.W.2 Kakka Singh and P.W.3 Ajeet Singh, as discussed above, it is sufficiently shown that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for non fulfillment of demand of dowry. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that Veero Kaur was subjected to cruelty by the accused after marriage, due to which earlier also, she had also tried to commit suicide, whereafter she remained in her parental house for about 5-6 months. This part of statement has been corroborated by P.W.3 Ajeet Singh. 19. There is also one document on record (Ext.A-2), which is proved by P.W.3 Ajeet Singh. This document discloses that on 23.5.1996, Veero Devi (deceased) had tried to commit suicide by jumping into Nanaksagar Dam but was saved by the sewadars of that Gurudwara. In this document, it is also written that the accused regularly gives beating to the deceased for demand of dowry. This fact gets corroboration from the statement of P.W.1 Suba Singh and P.W.2 Kakka Singh. 20. In this document, it is also written that the accused regularly gives beating to the deceased for demand of dowry. This fact gets corroboration from the statement of P.W.1 Suba Singh and P.W.2 Kakka Singh. 20. First Information Report was lodged against four accused persons-husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased and charge were also framed against them. Prosecution led common evidence against all the accused persons, but only husband, the present accused/appellant, has been convicted by the trial court, whereas, on the same set of evidence, rest of the accused have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them. However, no appeal has been filed by the State or the complainant against the acquittal of the other accused. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is not a case of demand of dowry as there is no evidence on record that soon before death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband for demand of dowry. He placed reliance upon a judgment of The Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of T. Arunterunjothi vs. State trough S.H.O. Pondicherry, (2006) 2 SCC (Cr) 528 and has referred para-29 and 30, which are reproduced as under: “29. The essential ingredients of the said offence, therefore, are (i) death of a woman must have caused by any burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) such death must have occurred within seven years of marriage; (iii) soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relative of her husband; (iv) such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand of dowry; and (v) such cruelty is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. 30. The significant words are “soon before her death”. Here, it was, thus, necessary for the prosecution to establish that the deceased must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relative of her husband soon before her death.” 22. The facts of the case cited above are entirely different and the ratio of the judgment (supra) would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is of no help to the appellant. 23. The facts of the case cited above are entirely different and the ratio of the judgment (supra) would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is of no help to the appellant. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on another judgment passed in the case of Hans Raj v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2700 and has referred para-17, which is reproduced hereunder: “17. Having regard to the principles aforesaid, we may now advert to the facts of this case. The learned Trial Judge took the view that since the wife of the appellant committed suicide and since the appellant did nto disclosed as to what conversation preceded her committing suicide and that there were allegations of cruelty against the appellant, it must be presumed under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence that the suicide had been abetted by him. We do not find ourselves in agreement with the finding of the Trial Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and our finding that the prosecution is guilty of improving its case from stage to stage. The allegations that the appellant did not like to keep the deceased with him because she was not good looking, or that he was addicted to liquor or that the deceased had reported these matters to her parents and others, or that the appellant intended to re-marry and had told his wife Jeeto about it, or that the deceased had once come to her father’s house in an injured condition, or even the allegations regarding beatings, do not find place in the statements recorded by the police in the course of investigation. These allegations have been made at the trial for the first time. All that was alleged in the FIR or even at the stage of investigation was that there were frequent quarrels between the husband and wife, somtiems resulting in physical assault, on account of the husband being addicted to consumption of ‘Bhang’. The other allegation that the appellant was aggrieved of the fact that his sister Naro was not being properly treated by Fateh Chand, P.W-3, brother of the deceased, also appears to be untrue because there is nothing on record to show that there was any disharmony in the marital life of his sister Naro. The other allegation that the appellant was aggrieved of the fact that his sister Naro was not being properly treated by Fateh Chand, P.W-3, brother of the deceased, also appears to be untrue because there is nothing on record to show that there was any disharmony in the marital life of his sister Naro. In fact, Fateh Chand, PW-3, her husband, himself stated on oath that he was living happily with his wife Naro, sister of the appellant. On such slender evidence, therefore, we are not persuaded to invoke the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidenced Act to find the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC.” 24. The facts of this case (supra) are again entirely different, that was a case of suicidal death of wife in which there was no evidence of abetment to commit suicide for want of dowry soon before death. The ratio of the judgment is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 25. In view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the present accused/appellant that deceased died within seven years of marriage for demand of dowry and soon before death she was subjected to cruelty for non fulfillment of demand of dowry and further that her last rites were performed by her in-law without giving any information to the police station concerned. 26. For the reasons as discussed above, having re-appreciated the evidence on record, I find that prosecution has successfully proved charge of offence punishable under section 304-B, 498-A and 201 IPC against the accused/appellant Balbir Singh and I concur with the view taken by the trial court with regard to conviction of the appellant under the aforesaid sections. However, as regards to sentence under Section 304-B IPC, minimum punishment provided under this Section is seven years but the learned Trial Judge, without assigning any reason, has awarded ten years’ imprisonment. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that awarding minimum sentence of seven years under section 304-B IPC would serve the purpose. The sentence awarded under section 498-A and 201 IPC does not require any interference. 27. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that awarding minimum sentence of seven years under section 304-B IPC would serve the purpose. The sentence awarded under section 498-A and 201 IPC does not require any interference. 27. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and order dated 08.08.2003, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No.301 of 1998, convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence under section 304-B IPC awarded to accused/appellant Balbir Singh is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. The sentence awarded under section 498-A and 201 IPC is not interfered with. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 28. Accused/appellant Balbir Singh is on bail. His bail is cancelled. He shall surrender before the trial court to serve out the remaining part of the sentence as modified by this Court. Lower court record be sent back so that the trial court may make appellant serve out the remaining part of the sentence.