JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the above titled criminal appeals, hence the same are being taken up together and adjudicated by this common judgment. 2. These appeals bearing CRLA No.301 of 2012 and CRLA No.308 of 2012 are directed against the judgment and order dated 12.10.2010, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No.21 of 2009, whereby the appellants, were charged with and tried for the offences under Section 498-A, 304-B. 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Appellant Diwan Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 304-B of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Appellants Balbir Singh and Smt. Sulochana Devi were convicted and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-(each) and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. The appellants were acquitted under Section 302 of IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that Raghubir Singh submitted a tehrir to SHO, P.S. Devprayag, Tehri Garhwal with allegations that his daughter Rekha got married with appellant-Balbir Singh as per Hindu rites and rituals in the month of February, 2006. They have given sufficient dowry as per their status. However, the husband of her daughter, father-in-law and mother-in-law started harassing and torturing his daughter for bringing insufficient dowry and demanded a Gas-stove, golden necklace and Rs.50,000/-. On 26.03.2009, at about 10:30 PM, Gyan Singh Negi and other residents of Srikot informed that his daughter was missing since 6:00 PM. On 27.03.2009, in the morning, when he reached Srikot, he saw that his daughter was hanging from a tree. The inquest report was prepared. The postmortem examination was conducted on 28.03.2009. The ligature mark present in the neck below chin and above thyroid. It was going obliquely upward and backward. Length of ligature was 30cm width 2.5cm X 4cm dark patchment like skin with abraided, margins. Ligature mark was interrupted posteriorly on left side of neck. The investigation was carried out and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. The prosecution has examined number of witnesses in its support. It was going obliquely upward and backward. Length of ligature was 30cm width 2.5cm X 4cm dark patchment like skin with abraided, margins. Ligature mark was interrupted posteriorly on left side of neck. The investigation was carried out and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. The prosecution has examined number of witnesses in its support. The statements of the appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. According to them, the deceased was ill and they were getting her treatment from Haridwar. They have not demanded any dowry. The appellants have been convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, these appeals. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-appellants. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the judgment dated 12.10.2012. 5. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment and record carefully. 6. PW1 Pushkar Singh has testified that his brother’s name is Raghubir and his daughter’s name is Rekha. Her marriage was solemnized with Balbir in the year 2009. Rekha died on 26.03.2009. He has attended her marriage. They have fulfilled the demand of dowry. However, they could not give golden necklace and Gas-stove. The daughter of Diwan Singh was married after one year. Diwan Singh asked Raghubir Singh to give Rs.50,000/-, since he has paid Rs.50,000/-to his daughter’s in-laws in the marriage. Thereafter, Diwan Singh came to their village and they were apprised that they could not meet the demand and Diwan Singh was insisting them to pay Rs.50,000/-. Rekha used to meet him after marriage. She told him that her in-laws were demanding dowry. On 26.03.2009, the information of the death was received. 3-4 persons have gone to the village and told that Rekha was missing since 6:00 PM. They went to her village. They saw that the deceased was hanging from a tree. The species of tree was Bhimal. It was in front of kitchen at a distance of about 20 foot. The legs of the deceased were bent and touching the ground. Something was written on her left hand. However, he could not read it. According to him, the deceased used to write with left hand. He could not recognize the writing. The inquest report was prepared in his presence. 7. The legs of the deceased were bent and touching the ground. Something was written on her left hand. However, he could not read it. According to him, the deceased used to write with left hand. He could not recognize the writing. The inquest report was prepared in his presence. 7. PW2 Raghubir Singh is the father of the deceased. According to him, the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with Balbir Singh on 21-22.02.2006. He could not give Gas-stove and golden necklace. He has spent lot of money on tent house and food. On the next day of marriage, his daughter came to his house. Diwan Singh and Balbir Singh also came with her. They demanded dowry. The daughter of Diwan Singh was married on February, 2007. He attended her marriage. Diwan Singh told him that he had paid Rs.50,000/-in cash in the marriage of his daughter, therefore he should also give Rs.50,000/-to him. Diwan Singh has purchased a house at Dhalwala for a sum of Rs.11.00 lakh. He was asking for Rs.50,000/-. Diwan Singh was working in Excise Department and his son-in-law is working in hotel. Husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law used to harass his daughter for demand of dowry. On 20-21 February, his daughter told him that the appellants were demanding golden necklace and Rs.50,000/-. The information was received on 26th 2009 about the death of his daughter. Gyan Singh with 2-3 persons came to his house and told that his daughter was missing since 6:00-7:00 PM. He went to the matrimonial village of his daughter. His daughter was hanging from a tree. Her legs were touching the ground. The distance between the house of the appellants and the place of incident was 20-25 foot. Thereafter, they went to the police station. He also apprised the police that the appellant-Sulochana Devi was trying to destroy the evidence. 8. PW3 Satey Singh has corroborated the statement of PW2 Raghubir Singh. He has deposed that he met Rekha on the way. She was upset. She told him that the appellants were demanding dowry. On 26.03.2009 at about 10:30 PM, Gyan Singh and few persons have come to his house. He was the Pradhan of the village. They informed him that the lady was missing since 6:00 PM. He sent them to the house of Raghubir Singh to inform him about the incident. She told him that the appellants were demanding dowry. On 26.03.2009 at about 10:30 PM, Gyan Singh and few persons have come to his house. He was the Pradhan of the village. They informed him that the lady was missing since 6:00 PM. He sent them to the house of Raghubir Singh to inform him about the incident. Thereafter, they went to the matrimonial house of Rekha on 27.03.2009. The distance from the door of 3rd floor was 15-20 feet. 9. PW4 Kunwar Singh has deposed that Rekha was his daughter’s friend. She told his daughter Babli that her in-laws were harassing her and demanding dowry. 10. PW5 Smt. Munni Devi has corroborated the statement of PW2 Raghubir Singh. She has testified that the appellants have killed her daughter and thereafter, hanged her from the tree. Her daughter was harassed for bringing insufficient dowry. However, in her cross-examination, she has admitted that no demand was raised at the time of marriage. 11. PW6 Jagat Singh Dhanola was the Naib Tehsildar. He reached the spot. The dead body was hanging from the tree of Bhimal. They removed the body. Inquest report was prepared. 12. PW7 Dr. Ram Chandra Singh Rawat has testified that the postmortem examination was conducted on the body. Three injuries were found on the person of deceased. The ligature mark present in the neck below chin and above thyroid. He has also noticed two linear abrasions over inner side of middle of both calf muscles. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of anti mortem hanging. 13. PW8 H.C. Darshan Singh testified that he was posted as Head Mohrir at P.S. Devprayag, Tehri Garhwal. Raghubir Singh has submitted a tehrir. He lodged the report in Case Crime No.1004/2009, u/s 304-B IPC. He has proved the chick FIR. He has also registered an application vide Rapat No.17. 14. PW9 Satybir Singh was the Investigating Officer. He has deposed that he reached the spot. He prepared the site map. He arrested the appellants. He has also recorded the statements of the witnesses. 15. PW10 Harish Thapliyal has deposed that Raghubir Singh has come to police station on 27.03.2009. He informed the senior officers. He went to the spot. The Naib Tehsildar also reached the spot. The body was hanging from a branch of Bhimal tree. Her knees were bent. He arrested the appellants. He has also recorded the statements of the witnesses. 15. PW10 Harish Thapliyal has deposed that Raghubir Singh has come to police station on 27.03.2009. He informed the senior officers. He went to the spot. The Naib Tehsildar also reached the spot. The body was hanging from a branch of Bhimal tree. Her knees were bent. There is very short distance between grounds and the legs of the deceased. 16. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently argued that in the initial report, there is no mentioning of demand of dowry. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that Raghubir Singh was upset. He has seen his daughter hanging from a tree. Thus, in these circumstances, in the first report, there was no mentioning of demand of dowry. However, in the FIR, there is specific averment that the appellants were demanding dowry. His daughter was harassed for bringing insufficient dowry. 17. According to the prosecution, Rekha went missing at 6:00 PM. However, the distance between Bhimal tree and the house of the appellants, as per the statements of PW1 Pushkar Singh, PW2 Raghubir Singh and PW3 Satey Singh was only 20-25 feet. The dead body was recovered hanging from Bhimal tree. Thus, it cannot be believed that appellant-Sulochana Devi was not aware of the dead body hanging from the tree just in front of her house. Radha has died due to asphyxia. The ligature mark was present on her neck. PW1 Pushkar Singh, PW2 Raghubir Singh and PW5 Smt. Munni Devi have categorically deposed that the appellants were demanding dowry. The appellant Diwan Singh has asked Raghubir Singh to pay him Rs.50,000/-, since he has paid Rs.50,000/-to in-laws of his daughter. Appellant-Diwan Singh had also visited the house for demanding dowry. 18. Radha Devi had gone missing at 6:00 PM but despite that her in-laws had not informed her father and mother. 19. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued that the information was given to one Gyan Singh. Gyan Singh has informed the family of Rekha. In case, Rekha had gone missing from the house of the appellants, it was the duty of her in-laws to inform her parents directly instead of sending Gyan Singh. It is also unusual behavior on the part of the appellants. 20. Gyan Singh has informed the family of Rekha. In case, Rekha had gone missing from the house of the appellants, it was the duty of her in-laws to inform her parents directly instead of sending Gyan Singh. It is also unusual behavior on the part of the appellants. 20. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has also argued that the deceased has written on her hand that she died due to her ailment. There is no medical to prove that she was suffering from cancer. There is no mentioning of the disease in her note. It is also not the case that Rekha was suffering from any depression. 21. The delay in filing the FIR has been satisfactorily explained. The deceased was subjected to cruelty immediately before her death. She has died within seven years of her marriage. It is also not believable why Rekha would write something on her hand when she could easily write on paper. It has come in the statement of PW1 that the feet of Rekha were touching the ground. Two abrasions were also noticed at the time of postmortem examination on calf muscles of the deceased. The statements of the witnesses are natural. Minor contradictions are required to be overruled. She has died within seven years of her marriage. The respondents have treated the deceased with cruelty for demand of dowry. It is a case of dowry death. 22. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2010) 13 SCC 689 , in the case of Satya Narayan Tiwari @ Jolly and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, have explained the term “soon before” the marriage which reads as under :- “28. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that the proximity test has to be applied keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. Regarding the aforesaid decision, the facts were somewhat different in that the deceased was not shown to have been subjected to cruelty by her husband for at least 15 months prior to her death. On the fact of that case, it was held that Section 304-B IPC was not attracted. 29. On the other hand, the present case fully answers the test of “soon before”. On the fact of that case, it was held that Section 304-B IPC was not attracted. 29. On the other hand, the present case fully answers the test of “soon before”. There is the testimony of demand of Maruti car being pressed by the two accused persons after about six months of the marriage of the deceased (which took place about three years before the incident) and of her being pestered, nagged, tortured and maltreated on non-fulfilment of the said demand which was conveyed by her to her parents from time to time on her visits to her parental home and on telephone. Things had reached to such a pass that on getting a message from her about three months before the incident, Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 accompanied by Jaideo Awasthi PW 2 had to go to her sasural in Farrukhabad in an attempt to dissuade the two accused from pressing such demand, but they (the two accused) humiliated them and turned them out of the house with the command not to enter their house again without meeting the demand of a Maruti car. He did not take any action on the consolation offered by the father-in-law of his daughter and also on the advice of his daughter. It was natural that the victim also did not want her father to take any extreme step against the two accused. She might have thought that things would improve with the passage of time but it seems that that did not happen. 30. Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 was in a helpless state after suffering humiliation at the hands of the accused persons about three months before the actual incident. He could simply wait and watch in the hope of things to improve, but the 24 situation did not improve at all. It, however, cannot be taken to mean that the demand made by the two accused persons had subsided or was given up by them. It can justifiably be inferred from what happened subsequently that they continued to torture the unfortunate lady because of non-fulfilment of the demand of Maruti car. In our opinion, the test of “soon before” is satisfied in the facts, evidence and circumstances of the present case. 55. It can justifiably be inferred from what happened subsequently that they continued to torture the unfortunate lady because of non-fulfilment of the demand of Maruti car. In our opinion, the test of “soon before” is satisfied in the facts, evidence and circumstances of the present case. 55. We are of the view that the presumption of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is attracted in this case and the discussion that we have made hereinabove makes it abundantly clear that the defence could not displace the said presumption. The culpability of the two accused in committing this crime is established to the hilt by the facts and circumstances proved by the prosecution. They undoubtedly are the authors of this crime. 57. To sum up, the prosecution has been able to prove the following: (1) The death of the deceased was caused by strangulation and burning within seven years of her marriage (2) The deceased had been subjected to cruelty by her husband and mother-in-law (the two appellant-accused) over the demand of Maruti car in dowry raised and persistently pressed by them after about six months of the marriage and continued till her death. (3) The cruelty and harassment was in connection with the demand of dowry i.e. Maruti car. (4) The cruelty and harassment is established to have been meted out soon before her death. (5) The two accused were the authors of this crime who caused her death by strangulation and burning on the given date, time and place. 58. In our opinion, the trial Judge recorded an acquittal adopting a superfluous approach without in depth analysis of the evidence and circumstances established on record. On thoroughly cross-checking the evidence on record and circumstances established by the prosecution with the findings recorded by the trial court, we find that its conclusions are quite inapt, unjustified, unreasonable and perverse. Proceeding on a wrong premise and irrelevant considerations, the trial court has acquitted the accused. The accused are established to have committed the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the findings of the High Court are correct.” 23. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2011) 4 SCC 427 , in the case of “Bachni Devi and another Vs. State of Haryana”, have reiterated the principle and explained the term “demand for dowry’ under Section 304 B IPC and presumption. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2011) 4 SCC 427 , in the case of “Bachni Devi and another Vs. State of Haryana”, have reiterated the principle and explained the term “demand for dowry’ under Section 304 B IPC and presumption. Their Lordships have held that as under: - “12. For making out an offence of “dowry death” under Section 304-B, the following ingredients have to be proved by the prosecution: (a) death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or her death must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; (b) such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (c) soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and (d) such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand for dowry. 19. In the backdrop of the above legal position, if we look at the facts of the case, it is clearly established that Kanta died otherwise than under normal circumstances. There is no dispute of fact that death of Kanta occurred within seven years of her marriage. That Kanta was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment by A-1 and A-2 after PW 8 refused to accede to 26 their demand for purchase of motorcycle is established by the evidence of PW 8 and PW 9. Then there is evidence of PW 10 that PW 8 had called him and DW 1 to his house where A-1 had made demand of motorcycle. PW 10 stated that he sought to reason to A-1 about inability of PW 8 to give motorcycle at which A-1 got angry and warned that Kanta would not be allowed to stay in her matrimonial home. It is true that the appellants produced DW 1 in defence and he did state in his examination-in chief that he did not meet A-1 at the house of PW 8 but in the cross-examination when he was confronted with his statement under Section 161 CrPC (portion A to A) where it was recorded that he and PW 10 had gone to the house of PW 8 and both of them (PW 10 and DW 1) counselled A-1 to desist from demanding motorcycle but she stuck to her demand, DW 1 had no explanation to offer. The evidence of DW 1 is, therefore, liable to be discarded. 20. In the light of the evidence let in by the prosecution, the trial court cannot be said to have erred in holding that it was established that unlawful demand of motorcycle was made by A-1 and A-2 from PW 8 and Kanta was harassed on account of his failure to provide the motorcycle and that led Kanta to commit suicide by hanging. Pertinently, the demand of motorcycle by A-1 from PW 8 was for A-2 and when PW 8 showed his inability to meet that demand, A-2 started harassing and ill-treating Kanta. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that there was no demand by A-2. 21. The High Court has also examined the matter thoroughly and reached the finding that A-1 and A-2 had raised a demand for purchase of motorcycle from PW 8; this demand was made within two months of the marriage and was a demand towards “dowry” and when this demand was not met, Kanta was maltreated and harassed continuously which led her to take extreme step of finishing her life. We agree with the above view of the High Court. There is no merit in the contention of the counsel for the appellants that the demand of motorcycle does not qualify as a “demand for dowry”. All the essential ingredients to bring home the guilt under Section 304-B IPC are established against the appellants by the prosecution evidence. As a matter of law, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 is fully attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The appellants 27 have failed to rebut the presumption under Section 113-B. 22. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. Two months’ time is given to A-1 to surrender for undergoing the sentence awarded to her.” 24. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2011) 11 SCC 733 , in the case of “Sanjay Kumar Jain Vs. State of Delhi”, have held that in order to bring home the guilt under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must prove that victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. Such cruelty or harassment was for, on in connection with any demand for dowry. State of Delhi”, have held that in order to bring home the guilt under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must prove that victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. Such cruelty or harassment was for, on in connection with any demand for dowry. Such cruelty or harassment was done within seven years of the marriage. Their Lordships have held that as under :- “48. In State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, this Court observed that crimes are generally committed in the privacy of residential homes and in secrecy and it is difficult to get independent direct evidence in such cases. That is why the legislature has, by introducing Sections 113-A and 113-B in the Evidence Act, tried to strengthen the prosecution hands by permitting a presumption to be raised if certain foundational facts are established that the unfortunate event has taken place within seven years of the marriage. 49. On proper analysis of Section 304-B of the Penal Code and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, it shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution is under an obligation to rule out any possibility of natural or accidental death. Where the ingredients of Section 304-B of the Penal Code are satisfied, the section would apply. If death is unnatural, either homicidal or suicidal, it would be death which can be said to have taken place in unnatural circumstances and the provisions of Section 304-B would be applicable. 50. The death, otherwise than under normal circumstances, under Section 304-B of the Penal Code would mean the death not in usual course either natural or accidental death. Section 304-B creates a substantive offence. The necessity for insertion of the two provisions has been amply enumerated by the Law Commission of India in its 21st Report, dated 10-8-1988 on “Dowry Deaths and Law Reform”. This has been primarily done because of the pre-existing law in securing evidence to prove dowry-related deaths. 51. In order to bring home the guilt under Section 304-B of the Penal Code the following ingredients are necessary: (1) The victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (2) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. 51. In order to bring home the guilt under Section 304-B of the Penal Code the following ingredients are necessary: (1) The victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (2) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was done within seven years of the marriage. In the present case, deceased died within seven years of marriage. She was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and relatives for bringing insufficient dowry.” 25. The prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, there is no merit these criminal appeals and the same are hereby dismissed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds and sureties are cancelled. Let they be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the sentence, so imposed upon them by the Trial Court. 26. Let a copy of this judgment along with LCR be sent back to the trial court for forthwith compliance.