Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 524 (UTT)

Santokh Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2017-10-06

RAJIV SHARMA, SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J This appeal is instituted against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2011, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in Session Trial No.187 of 2010, whereby the respondents-accused, who were charged with and tried for the offences under Section 304B/201 of IPC, have been acquitted. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that an FIR was lodged on 05.05.2010 by Santokh Singh to the effect that his daughter namely Maninder Kaur was married to Parvinder Singh, S/o Nagendra Singh, four years back. He has given the dowry as per his capacity. However, the respondents were not happy with the dowry. His daughter used to be beaten up by the respondents. He has tried to resolve the matter with the help of Paramjeet Singh and Hardeep Singh. His daughter was pregnant. His daughter gave birth to a dead baby. His daughter was also beaten 2-3 months back. She was forced to seek divorce, failing which, she was threatened to be killed. This incident was narrated to him by his daughter on telephone. On 05.08.2010, at about 08:00 AM, he received a telephonic message from Paramjeet that Parvinder, Nagendra and Gurmeet Kaur have killed his daughter. They were trying to cremate her. He reached the spot. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The matter was investigated and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses in its support. The statements of the respondents were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They have denied the case of the prosecution. They have also examined one witness as DW1 Amarjeet Singh. The accused-respondents were acquitted. Hence, this appeal. The appeal qua Nagendra Singh had abated after his death during the court of trial. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondents-accused. Learned Advocates on behalf of the respondents has supported the judgment dated 13.12.2011. 4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment and record very carefully. 5. PW1 Santokh Singh is the father of the deceased. According to him, the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with Parvinder Singh on 12.12.2006. He has given dowry according to his capacity. However, the respondents were not happy with the dowry. 4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment and record very carefully. 5. PW1 Santokh Singh is the father of the deceased. According to him, the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with Parvinder Singh on 12.12.2006. He has given dowry according to his capacity. However, the respondents were not happy with the dowry. His daughter was beaten up by the respondents. They used to chide her for bringing insufficient dowry. He has asked for help from Parvinder Singh to resolve the matter. His daughter was beaten up by Parvinder Singh, Nagendra Singh and Gurmeet Kaur. Four months back, his daughter gave birth to a dead child. He did not lodge the report, since he was hoping that the matter would be resolved and he sent his daughter back to her in-laws house. Respondents were asking for combine harvester. The respondents have tried to cremate his daughter. However, he reached the police chowki Kundeshwari and informed the police. Panchnama was prepared on 05.05.2010 by one of the witnesses. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that respondents have owned 20-22 acre of land. They have 3 combine harvesters. Respondents have raised the demand of dowry after the marriage also. His daughter was beaten up but no report was lodged. His daughter used to tell him about the demand of dowry on telephone. The meeting was to be held on 08.05.2010. He has denied the suggestion that his daughter gave birth to a baby, who died after five days, after delivery in the hospital. The police recovered the rope. The in-laws of his daughter have never informed him about the death of his daughter. 6. PW2 Pancham Singh Rawat has deposed that he knew PW1 Santokh Singh. He also knew the deceased Maninder Kaur since her childhood. She used to come to her uncle’s house. She was the class-fellow of his daughter. She used to visit his house also and narrate that the respondents were harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry. She was beaten up by the respondents. They used to threaten her to seek divorce. Maninder Kaur has visited his house 1-1 ½ months back. She told him that she was being harassed for bringing insufficient dowry. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he has not attended the marriage of Maninder Kaur. 7. PW3 Paramjeet Singh testified that he knew PW1 Santokh Singh. They used to threaten her to seek divorce. Maninder Kaur has visited his house 1-1 ½ months back. She told him that she was being harassed for bringing insufficient dowry. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he has not attended the marriage of Maninder Kaur. 7. PW3 Paramjeet Singh testified that he knew PW1 Santokh Singh. The father has given dowry according to his capacity. However, the respondents were not happy with the dowry. They used to chide her. The respondents have raised the demand of Rs.10.00 lakhs from PW1 Santokh Singh for combine harvester. The father has shown his inability to meet the demands. Panchayat was convened. However, the matter could not be resolved. It was resolved that the matter will be discussed on 08.05.2010. In the meantime, Maninder Kaur was killed on 05.05.2010. He has informed PW1 Santokh Singh about the death of his daughter. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the distance between his house and the house of PW1 Santokh Singh was 12 Kms. He did not know whether the respondents owned combine harvester machines or not. 8. PW4 Dr. Madan Mohan has conducted the postmortem examination. He has proved the postmortem report. According to him, the deceased died due to strangulation. The deceased died 20 hours before 08:00 AM on 05.05.2010. He has noticed ligature marks on her neck. 9. PW5 Madan Mohan Paldiya was the Tehsildar. He has prepared the panchnama. He has sent the body for postmortem examination. 10. PW6 S.I. P.D. Joshi has deposed that a rope was recovered from the floor. It was taken into possession. It was measuring 6 feet. 11. PW7 Kamaljeet has deposed that rope was recovered measuring 6 feet and yellow in colour. 12. PW8 Pankaj Singh and PW9 Dr. Harish Verma are the police witnesses. 13. DW1 Amarjeet Singh has deposed that Surendra Singh Grewal told him that Nagendra Singh’s daughter-in-law has committed suicide. He went to their house. He has also signed as one of the panchas. According to him, Paramjeet Singh was not present on the spot. 14. The marriage between Parvinder and Maninder Kaur was solemnized on 12.12.2006. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the respondents used to torture Maninder Kaur for bringing insufficient dowry. They used to beat her. PW1 Santokh Singh tried to settle the matter. The panchayat was also convened. 14. The marriage between Parvinder and Maninder Kaur was solemnized on 12.12.2006. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the respondents used to torture Maninder Kaur for bringing insufficient dowry. They used to beat her. PW1 Santokh Singh tried to settle the matter. The panchayat was also convened. The matter was referred to be discussed on 08.05.2010. However, in the meantime, Maninder Kaur was killed for bringing insufficient dowry. PW1 Santokh Singh has specifically deposed that the respondents were not happy with the dowry given by him in the marriage of his daughter. According to him, even after the marriage, respondents used to demand dowry. She used to be beaten up. She delivered a dead baby. He was informed by Paramjeet Singh on 05.05.2010 that his daughter was killed. He went to their house. Respondents tried to cremate the dead body of his daughter. He went to the police station. Police recovered the dead body. He has signed the panchnama. The statement of PW1 Santokh Singh has been duly corroborated by PW2 Pancham Singh Rawat. According to him, whenever the daughter of PW1 Santokh Singh used to come to her parental house, she used to narrate the manner, in which, she was tortured by the respondents for bringing insufficient dowry. They used to raise demand of dowry. She has narrated that about 1-1 ½ months before her death, the respondents have demanded dowry. PW3 Paramjeet Singh is also the material witness. He was requested by PW1 Santokh Singh to resolve the matter. He tried to resolve the matter. The meeting was postponed on 08.05.2010. But in the meantime, Maninder Kaur died on 05.05.2010. He has also deposed that respondents used to demand dowry. Maninder Kaur gave birth to a dead baby. Merely saying that the distance between the house of PW3 Paramjeet Singh and the house of PW1 Santokh Singh was 12 Kms. won’t make any difference. He has categorically deposed that his fields were adjoining to the fields of PW1 Santokh Singh. 15. The cause of death, as per the postmortem report is strangulation. There is no merit in the contention of learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents-accused that it was a case of suicide. It was not the case projected even by the respondents before the Trial Court. The replies furnished by them under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were evasive. The cause of death, as per the postmortem report is strangulation. There is no merit in the contention of learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents-accused that it was a case of suicide. It was not the case projected even by the respondents before the Trial Court. The replies furnished by them under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were evasive. The specific question was put to them about the postmortem report. However, they have only said the documents were prepared wrongly. 16. In 2011 (8) SCC 300 , in the case of “Rafiq Ahmad @ Rafi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh”, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that it is true that the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. cannot be the sole basis for conviction of the accused but certainly it can be relevant consideration for the courts to examine, particularly when the prosecution has otherwise been able to establish the chain of events. In this case, the respondents in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and opted not to explain the whereabouts at the relevant time. Their Lordships have held as under:- “66. The above circumstances have to be examined along with the statements of Ved Prakash (PW 2) and Gyan Chand (PW 4), the witnesses who had last seen the deceased with the appellant. The statements of the investigating officer (PW 11) and the witnesses including Pyare Lal (PW 3), in whose presence the dead body was recovered at the behest of the appellant, by means of recovery memo Ext. PW, Ext. Ka-3 are the other material pieces of evidence which would complete the chain of events and point undoubtedly towards the guilt of the accused. The accused, for the reasons best known to him, had taken up a stand of complete denial in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC dated 20-2-1981 and opted not to explain his whereabouts at the relevant time. Furthermore, he was a regular taxi driver at the stand of Agency Chauraha. 67. It is true that the statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot be the sole basis for conviction of the accused but certainly it can be a relevant consideration for the courts to examine, particularly when the prosecution has otherwise been able to establish the chain of events. 67. It is true that the statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot be the sole basis for conviction of the accused but certainly it can be a relevant consideration for the courts to examine, particularly when the prosecution has otherwise been able to establish the chain of events. It is clearly established from the evidence on record that the deceased was a regular trader and used to come to Nehtaur from where he was picked up by the appellant on the fateful day. These were certain definite circumstances clearly indicating towards the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the crime. The prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. There is no significant link which is missing in the case put forward by the prosecution. 70. For the reasons aforerecorded, we are of the considered view that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant by his conviction for an offence under Section 302 IPC though he was initially charged with offences punishable under Section 396 IPC read with Section 201 IPC. Further, the nature of injuries, namely, three incised wounds, three abrasions and severing of the trachea, caused by a sharp-edged weapon as noticed by the High Court in para 34 of its judgment, indicate that the accused knew that the injury inflicted would be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 71. The “prejudice” has to be examined with reference to the rights and/or protections available to the accused. The incriminating evidence had been clearly put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. The circumstances which constitute an offence under Section 302 were literally put to him, as Section 302 IPC itself is an integral part of an offence punishable under Section 396 IPC. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not been able to demonstrate any prejudice which the appellant has suffered in his right to defence, fair trial and in relation to the case of the prosecution.” 17. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not been able to demonstrate any prejudice which the appellant has suffered in his right to defence, fair trial and in relation to the case of the prosecution.” 17. In 2012 (6) SCC 477 , in the case of “Nagesh vs. State of Karnataka”, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that it is also possible and permissible that an accused may remain silent but in that circumstances and with reference to facts and circumstances of a given case, court may be justified in drawing an adverse inference against accused. Their Lordships have held as under:- “29. Another very important aspect of this case is that the accused in their statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) took up the stand of complete denial of their involvement in the crime and offered no explanation before the court. As noticed above, the law required the accused Nagesh in particular to provide some explanation as he was last seen in the room with the deceased. Rather than providing some explanation of the circumstances under which the deceased died, the appellant offered complete denial. But strangely when PW 4, the mother of the deceased, was cross-examined by the defence, they put the suggestion to her that the deceased was having a love affair with a student from her college and her parents had sent her to Belgaum to ensure that the said love affair failed. The deceased had become desperate at Belgaum and had taken poison and died. If this be the stand of the accused, then there was no occasion for the accused to deny every material piece of evidence as well as not to give any explanation when the accused were specifically asked for. 30. The purpose of a statement under Section 313 CrPC is to put to the accused the material evidence appearing in the case against him as well as to provide him an opportunity to explain his conduct or his version of the case. This Court in Asraf Ali v. State of Assam has observed as follows: (SCC p. 334, paras 21-22) “21. Section 313 of the Code casts a duty on the court to put in an enquiry or trial questions to the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any of the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. This Court in Asraf Ali v. State of Assam has observed as follows: (SCC p. 334, paras 21-22) “21. Section 313 of the Code casts a duty on the court to put in an enquiry or trial questions to the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any of the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. It follows as a necessary corollary therefrom that each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused is required to be put to him specifically, distinctly and separately and failure to do so amounts to a serious irregularity vitiating trial, if it is shown that the accused was prejudiced. 22. The object of Section 313 of the Code is to establish a direct dialogue between the court and the accused. If a point in the evidence is important against the accused, and the conviction is intended to be based upon it, it is right and proper that the accused should be questioned about the matter and be given an opportunity of explaining it. Where no specific question has been put by the trial court on an inculpatory material in the prosecution evidence, it would vitiate the trial. Of course, all these are subject to rider whether they have caused miscarriage of justice or prejudice. This Court also expressed a similar view in S. Harnam Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.)16 while dealing with Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (corresponding to Section 313 of the Code). Non-indication of inculpatory material in its relevant facts by the trial court to the accused adds to the vulnerability of the prosecution case. Recording of a statement of the accused under Section 313 is not a purposeless exercise.” 31. Again, in its recent judgment in Manu Sao v. State of Bihar a Bench of this Court to which one of us, Swatanter Kumar, J., was a member, has reiterated the abovestated view as under: (SCC pp. 316-17, paras 1214) “12. Let us examine the essential features of this Section 313 CrPC and the principles of law as enunciated by judgments, which are the guiding factors for proper application and consequences which shall flow from the provisions of Section 313 of the Code. 13. 316-17, paras 1214) “12. Let us examine the essential features of this Section 313 CrPC and the principles of law as enunciated by judgments, which are the guiding factors for proper application and consequences which shall flow from the provisions of Section 313 of the Code. 13. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code is to put all incriminating evidence against the accused so as to provide him an opportunity to explain such incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. At the same time, also to permit him to put forward his own version or reasons, if he so chooses, in relation to his involvement or otherwise in the crime. The court has been empowered to examine the accused but only after the prosecution evidence has been concluded. It is a mandatory obligation upon the court and besides ensuring the compliance therewith the court has to keep in mind that the accused gets a fair chance to explain his conduct. The option lies with the accused to maintain silence coupled with simpliciter denial or in the alternative to explain his version and reasons for his alleged involvement in the commission of crime. This is the statement which the accused makes without fear or right of the other party to cross-examine him. However, if the statements made are false, the court is entitled to draw adverse inferences and pass consequential orders, as may be called for, in accordance with law. The primary purpose is to establish a direct dialogue between the court and the accused and to put to the accused every important incriminating piece of evidence and grant him an opportunity to answer and explain. Once such a statement is recorded, the next question that has to be considered by the court is to what extent and consequences such statement can be used during the enquiry and the trial. Over the period of time, the courts have explained this concept and now it has attained, more or less, certainty in the field of criminal jurisprudence. 14. The statement of the accused can be used to test the veracity of the exculpatory nature of the admission, if any, made by the accused. It can be taken into consideration in any enquiry or trial but still it is not strictly evidence in the case. 14. The statement of the accused can be used to test the veracity of the exculpatory nature of the admission, if any, made by the accused. It can be taken into consideration in any enquiry or trial but still it is not strictly evidence in the case. The provisions of Section 313(4) explicitly provide that the answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such enquiry or trial and put in evidence against the accused in any other enquiry or trial for any other offence for which such answers may tend to show he has committed. In other words, the use is permissible as per the provisions of the Code but has its own limitations. The courts may rely on a portion of the statement of the accused and find him guilty in consideration of the other evidence against him led by the prosecution, however, such statements made under this section should not be considered in isolation but in conjunction with evidence adduced by the prosecution.” 32. It is also possible and permissible that an accused may remain silent but in that circumstance and with reference to the facts and circumstances of a given case, the court may be justified in drawing an adverse inference against the accused. PW 5, Smt Pushpa, is another vital witness who had seen the deceased when she was brought to the Ambassador car and, according to her, lips of the deceased were blackish and her neck had black marks on two sides and when she enquired about her from the accused, she was told that the deceased had taken poison. The statements of PW 1, PW 4 and PW 9 read with the statement of this witness, establish the facts which form the very basis of the case of the prosecution and they have been proved in accordance with law. The trend of cross-examination on behalf of the accused implies admission of the death of the deceased having taken place in the premises in question by taking poison, however, the accused have failed to offer any explanation therefore which was least expected of him.” 18. The trend of cross-examination on behalf of the accused implies admission of the death of the deceased having taken place in the premises in question by taking poison, however, the accused have failed to offer any explanation therefore which was least expected of him.” 18. In 2013 (2) SCC 162 , in the case of “N.V. Subba Rao vs. State, through Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh”, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that statements/answers by accused to questions put under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. can be relevant consideration for courts to examine, particularly when prosecution has established chain of events establishing culpability of accused. Their Lordships have held as under:- “44. Finally, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for A-1 that the statement or answers to the questions under Section 313 of the Code cannot be the basis for conviction of the accused. We have already noted that the prosecution has not only relied on the answers given by the accused but also placed acceptable oral and documentary evidence on record to substantiate the charge. We hold that the statement under Section 313 of the Code can be a relevant consideration for the courts to examine, particularly, when the prosecution has been able to establish the chain of events.” 19. In 2013 (7) SCC 417 , in the case of “Rumi Bora Dutta vs. State of Assam and analogous matter”, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that false answer can also be counted as providing “a missing link” for completing the chain of circumstantial evidence. Their Lordships have held as under: - “9. Thus, from the post-mortem report it is manifest that the FIR lodged by the wife was a maladroit attempt to save her skin. It was totally false. It is interesting to note that she in her statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has disowned the same. We would advert to the effect of the same at a later stage. 21. At this juncture, as mentioned earlier we proceed to advert to the issue pertaining to falsehood. In this context we may fruitfully refer to the authority in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, wherein it has been held that a false answer offered by the accused when his attention is drawn to the circumstances, it renders the circumstances to be of inculpating nature. In this context we may fruitfully refer to the authority in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, wherein it has been held that a false answer offered by the accused when his attention is drawn to the circumstances, it renders the circumstances to be of inculpating nature. In such a situation a false answer can also be counted as providing “a missing link” for completing the chain. In the case at hand, the factum of recovery through the witnesses has been proven that the accused persons had led to recovery. When it was put to them they had given an answer in the negative in a nonchalant manner. The incriminating materials were concealed and they were discovered being led by the accused persons. 22. In Suresh it has been held that there are three possibilities when an accused points out the place where the incriminating material is concealed without stating that it was concealed by himself. Elaborating on the three possibilities the Court proceeded to state as follows: (SCC p. 479, para 26) “26. … One is that he himself would have concealed it. Second is that he would have seen somebody else concealing it. And the third is that he would have been told by another person that it was concealed there. But if the accused declines to tell the criminal court that his knowledge about the concealment was on account of one of the last two possibilities the criminal court can presume that it was concealed by the accused himself. This is because the accused is the only person who can offer the explanation as to how else he came to know of such concealment and if he chooses to refrain from telling the court as to how else he came to know of it, the presumption is a well-justified course to be adopted by the criminal court that the concealment was made by himself.” 20. Maninder Kaur was residing in the house of respondents. It was for them to explain the circumstance, in which, Maninder Kaur has died. Ligature marks were found on the neck of the deceased. Rope was taken into possession by the police from the spot. It was not necessary for the police to examine the mother of the deceased namely Sukhvinder Kaur. 21. It was for them to explain the circumstance, in which, Maninder Kaur has died. Ligature marks were found on the neck of the deceased. Rope was taken into possession by the police from the spot. It was not necessary for the police to examine the mother of the deceased namely Sukhvinder Kaur. 21. 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”. 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. 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. We are of the view that the presumption of Section 113B 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. (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.” 22. 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 304B 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. 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-inchief 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. 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.” 23. In 2016 (4) SCC Page 604, in the case of ‘Gajanan Dashrath Kharate v. State of Maharashtra’, their Lordships of Hon. Supreme Court have held that the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer explanation. In paragraph no.13, their Lordships have held as under: - “13. As seen from the evidence, appellant Gajanan and his father Dashrath and mother Mankarnabai were living together. In paragraph no.13, their Lordships have held as under: - “13. As seen from the evidence, appellant Gajanan and his father Dashrath and mother Mankarnabai were living together. On 7-4-2002, mother of the appellant-accused had gone to another Village Dahigaon. The prosecution has proved presence of the appellant at his home on the night of 7-4-2002. Therefore, the appellant is duty-bound to explain as to how the death of his father was caused. When an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer. On the date of the occurrence, when the accused and his father Dashrath were in the house and when the father of the accused was found dead, it was for the accused to offer an explanation as to how his father sustained injuries. When the accused could not offer any explanation as to the homicidal death of his father, it is a strong circumstance against the accused that he is responsible for the commission of the crime.” 24. In (2015) 4 SCC Page 393, in the case of ‘Ashok v. State of Maharashtra’ their Lordships of Hon. Supreme Court have held that initial burden of proof is on prosecution to adduce sufficient evidence pointing towards guilt of accused. However, in case it is established that accused was last seen together with deceased, prosecution is exempted to prove exact happening of incident as accused himself would have special knowledge of incident and thus, would have burden of proof as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Their Lordships have held as under: - “12. From the study of abovestated judgments and many others delivered by this Court over a period of years, the rule can be summarised as that the initial burden of proof is on the prosecution to bring sufficient evidence pointing towards guilt of the accused. Their Lordships have held as under: - “12. From the study of abovestated judgments and many others delivered by this Court over a period of years, the rule can be summarised as that the initial burden of proof is on the prosecution to bring sufficient evidence pointing towards guilt of the accused. However, in case of last seen together, the prosecution is exempted to prove exact happening of the incident as the accused himself would have special knowledge of the incident and thus, would have burden of proof as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, last seen together itself is not a conclusive proof but along with other circumstances surrounding the incident, like relations between the accused and the deceased, enmity between them, previous history of hostility, recovery of weapon from the accused, etc. non-explanation of death of the deceased, may lead to a presumption of guilt.” 25. The independent witnesses have categorically deposed that the deceased was beaten up by the respondents for bringing insufficient dowry. They were demanding more dowry. It was not necessary for the witnesses to give exact date, year, month or a day or time. It was happening repeatedly. She gave birth to a dead baby due to beatings given to her by the respondents. It was not necessary for the prosecution to give the telephone numbers of Parvinder Singh and Sukhvinder Singh. 26. The case of the prosecution simply was that Parvinder Singh has informed PW1 Santokh Singh about the death of his daughter. PW1 Santokh Singh reached the spot. The respondents, as noticed hereinabove, tried to cremate the dead body of his daughter. The police had recovered the body. Thereafter, they sent the body for postmortem examination. All the circumstances including postmortem report conclusively proved that it was the case of strangulation. 27. It was not necessary for the prosecution to prove the date, on which, the demand of dowry was raised. There was overwhelming evidence that the respondents were demanding dowry. Even, after the marriage, the father has tried to resolve the matter. But in the meantime, his daughter was killed. 28. There are sufficient details in the FIR that the demand was raised for dowry. It is settled law by now that the FIR is not an encyclopedia. 29. Learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution. But in the meantime, his daughter was killed. 28. There are sufficient details in the FIR that the demand was raised for dowry. It is settled law by now that the FIR is not an encyclopedia. 29. Learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution. There is misreading of evidence by the Trial Court. 30. It is the case of dowry death. The respondents have tried to destroy the evidence by cremating the dead body of the deceased before the arrival of the family members of the deceased. The family members have not shown the basic courtesy of informing the parents of the deceased about her death. 31. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussion made hereinabove, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 13.12.2011, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, U.S. Nagar in Sessions Trial No.187 of 2010 is set-aside. The accused-respondents, namely, Parvinder Singh and Smt. Gurmeet Kuar are convicted under Section 304-B read with Section 201 of IPC. 32. Let the convicts be produced before the Court for hearing on the quantum of sentence on October 12, 2017. Production warrant be accordingly prepared by the Registry of the Court ensuring the presence of the convicts for hearing on the quantum of sentence on the next date fixed. 33. Put up on October 12, 2017 for further orders. 34. Let a copy of this judgment along with LCR be sent back to the trial court for forthwith compliance.