JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. These two appeals have been filed by accused appellants Bijendar Singh, Smt. Rama Devi, Hari Singh and Sonu, challenging the judgment dated 21.08.2010 whereby the District and Sessions Judge, Dholpur (for short 'the trial court') (i) convicted the accused-appellants Bijendar Singh and Smt. Rama Devi, for offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced each of them to three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default whereof, they were to further undergo three months' imprisonment; (ii) convicted them under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to them life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default whereof, to further undergo six months' imprisonment; (iii) convicted them under Section 120-B IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default whereof, to further undergo six months' imprisonment and (iv) convicted them under Section 201 IPC and sentenced them to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default whereof to further undergo one month's imprisonment. Trial court by the said judgment has also (i) convicted accused-appellant Hari Singh under Section 498-A and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default whereof, he was to further undergo three months' imprisonment; (ii) convicted under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo six months' additional imprisonment; (iii) convicted under Section 120-B IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default whereof, to further undergo six months' additional imprisonment. Trial court has convicted the accused appellant Sonu under Section 201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default whereof, he was to further undergo one month's imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Facts of the case are that a written report(Exhibit P-1) was submitted by Vijay Singh(P.W.1) to S.H.O., Police Station Kanchanpur, Tehsil Badi, District Dholpur alleging therein that his daughter Margshree was married to accused Hari Singh S/o. Bijendar Singh resident of Village Gadi Sukha Police Station Kanchanpur as per Hindu customs and rites. He spent a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- on marriage. Accused Hari Singh was not happy with this marriage, especially after he was appointed with SAF, Madhya Pradesh and since then, he used to frequently beat his daughter. He spent a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- on marriage. Accused Hari Singh was not happy with this marriage, especially after he was appointed with SAF, Madhya Pradesh and since then, he used to frequently beat his daughter. His complaint was that he spent a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in securing aforesaid appointment and he used to pressurise his daughter on demand of dowry of motor cycle and a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The informant earlier also lodged complaint against accused Hari Singh on 13.06.2005 (Exhibit P-5) on allegation of subjecting his daughter to cruelty. Superintendent of Police, Dholpur at that time got the matter compromised between the parties on the assurance of Hari Singh that he would keep informant's daughter happy. On that assurance, the informant sent his daughter with him. But thereafter, Hari Singh again continued to harass the deceased. Informant's daughter made a telephonic call on his cell phone no. 9758722840 at 4.00 P.M. on 21.10.2008 that her husband Hari Singh, father-in-law Bijendar Singh and mother-in-law Smt. Rama Devi were beating her and the informant should come and take her with him. At that time, the informant could not immediately go to his daughter's house because he was not feeling well. On 23.10.2008, the informant along with his son Raghunath and nephew Gopal went to Village Ghadi Sukha at the house of her in-laws, where he found his daughter lying died. There were marks of injuries on her throat and apparently it was a case of putting his daughter to death by strangulation. Besides, there were other marks of injuries on the body of deceased. There were marks of injuries on her mouth and eyes. At that time, there was no one in the house of the accused. It was, therefore, prayed that action be taken against Hari Singh, husband of his daughter, Bijendar Singh, father-in-law and Smt. Rama Devi, mother-in-law and Sonu. 3. That the police, on the basis of aforesaid report, chalked out FIR No. 279/2008 for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 34 IPC and commenced investigation. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused appellants Bijendar Singh and Smt. Rama Devi under Section 498A, 304-B, 201 and 120-B IPC and against accused Sonu under Section 201 IPC, before Judicial Magistrate, Badi. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused appellants Bijendar Singh and Smt. Rama Devi under Section 498A, 304-B, 201 and 120-B IPC and against accused Sonu under Section 201 IPC, before Judicial Magistrate, Badi. Investigation against accused Hari Singh was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The case was then committed to the Court of Sessions, Dholpur. Thereafter, charges against aforesaid three accused-appellants under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 120-B and 201 IPC were framed, which they denied and claimed to be tried. Subsequently, charge sheet against accused-appellant Hari Singh under Section 498-A, 304-B and 201 IPC was also filed before court below wherefrom the case was committed to the trial court. Thereafter, charges against the accused-appellant Hari Singh under Section 498-A, 304-B and 120-B IPC were framed, which he also denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced 25 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents. Thereafter, the accused appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they pleaded not guilty. However, the accused-appellants did not produce any witness but exhibited nine documents. The trial court, on conclusion of trial, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants vide judgment dated 21.08.2010 in the manner indicated above. Hence, these appeals. 4. Mr. Vijay Choudhary, learned counsel for the accused appellants argued that accused-appellant Hari Singh was away on duty in the State of Madhya Pradesh and the deceased committed suicide behind his back in his house at native place. In fact, he was called from the duty to his native place on the said information, then the police arrested him. Allegation of subjecting the deceased to cruelty on demand of dowry soon before the death was neither made against the accused-appellant Hari Singh in the written report (Exhibit P-1), nor otherwise substantiated. Trial court has failed to examine the evidence in this behalf in true perspective. Statements of prosecution witnesses suffer from various contradictions and discrepancies. They have made tremendous improvement over their original versions given to the police in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is argued that all the prosecution witnesses relied by the trial court are interested witnesses. Independent witnesses, Santosh (P.W.4), Rajendra (P.W.5), Dharampal (P.W.6), Parmal (P.W.7) and Shri Krishan (P.W.8) have not supported the case of the prosecution that accused Hari Singh used to harass the deceased on the demand of dowry and subjected her to cruelty soon before her death. Independent witnesses, Santosh (P.W.4), Rajendra (P.W.5), Dharampal (P.W.6), Parmal (P.W.7) and Shri Krishan (P.W.8) have not supported the case of the prosecution that accused Hari Singh used to harass the deceased on the demand of dowry and subjected her to cruelty soon before her death. Charges against the accused-appellants have not been proved by the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel argued that only allegation against the accused-appellants in the FIR is of subjecting the deceased to cruelty. Such information was allegedly given by the deceased to her father at 4.00 P.M. on his cell phone no. 9758722840 on 21.10.2008. Investigating Officer has not conducted any investigation on this aspect inasmuch as he has not proved whether cell phone no. 9758722840, on which the deceased allegedly called the informant, belongs to her father, nor it has been proved that any such information was received by the informant at the given point of time and date. 5. Learned counsel referring to statement of Vijay Singh (P.W.1) submitted that this witness, in the court, has developed a new story by stating in the first part that on receiving information through Suresh, he along with his son Raghunath and nephew Gopal went on motorcycle to the house of accused at Ghadi. They noticed that his daughter was lying in the house of the accused, but none of the accused was present there. Thereafter, they went to Saipau to requisition help from Ran Singh Thakur and to Sahroli from Raghuveer Thakur and brought them to the village of the accused. Then, they noticed that the dead body of his daughter was lying 300 meters away from the house of the accused on road and a tractor was also standing there and the police was already present. It is thereafter that the informant gave the written report to police (Exhibit P-1). Dead body of the deceased was removed from the house of accused and brought on the road, 300 meters away from their house, so as to make it look like a case of accidental death. This was the result of fabrication. In cross-examination, this witness had admitted that accused appellant Hari Singh was appointed in Vth Battalion of S.A.F.B., Murena. Dead body of the deceased was removed from the house of accused and brought on the road, 300 meters away from their house, so as to make it look like a case of accidental death. This was the result of fabrication. In cross-examination, this witness had admitted that accused appellant Hari Singh was appointed in Vth Battalion of S.A.F.B., Murena. In the same statement, he also stated that he was not aware as to where the accused Hari Singh was presently posted but then he also stated that at the time of death of his daughter, Hari Singh was posted at Bhind or perhaps at Kailaras. He also stated that in fact, the police gave them information on telephone and called them to village Gadhi and therefore, this witness along with Raghunath and Rameshwar went there. This witness has thus contradicted himself at more than one place. The fact is that the deceased was suffering from serious ailment and the accused were taking her to hospital on tractor. She suddenly fell from the tractor and was crushed by its tyres and died. It was therefore case of accidental death, not homicidal death. 6. As regards to the alleged criminal complaint (Exhibit P- 5), learned counsel submitted that at that time, no FIR was lodged. Brother of the deceased, Nihal Singh (P.W.3) submitted a written complaint to Police Station Kanchanpur on 13.06.2005. Vijay Singh (P.W.1) as also Nihal Singh (P.W.3) have admitted that dispute between the accused Hari Singh and his wife was settled when the Superintendent of Police, Dholpur persuaded him to compromise the matter and wife of the accused Hari Singh accompanied him to his place. Evidence is also on record to show that thereafter they lived happily together. Prosecution witnesses have also stated that deceased stayed with the accused-appellant Hari Singh at different places of his postings, which would mean that they went from one place to another, without there being any dispute between them. A daughter was also born out of their wedlock, who was more than one year's old at the time of death of Margshree. Vijay Singh (P.W.1) admitted that his daughter stayed with Hari Singh at Bhind. A daughter was also born out of their wedlock, who was more than one year's old at the time of death of Margshree. Vijay Singh (P.W.1) admitted that his daughter stayed with Hari Singh at Bhind. Nihal Singh (P.W.3) has also made general allegations against the accused-appellants of subjecting the deceased to cruelty on demand of dowry alleging that Hari Singh after he secured appointment with the Government used to ask his wife to get a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and a motor cycle as dowry from her parents, saying that he spent a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in securing such appointment. When they failed to fulfil such demand, accused started beating and abusing the deceased. He even alleged that Hari singh used to show photograph of a girl kept in his wallet and used to threaten that if they failed to satisfy his demand of dowry, he would marry that girl and in this manner he, apart from physical cruelty, used to subject her to mental cruelty as well. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that he did not tell police that the accused used to subject the deceased to cruelty for demand of dowry soon before the death and that no information of this sort was given by them to police in writing. Even then, he alleged that the accused ran the tractor over the body of the deceased. 7. Learned counsel submitted that Gopal (P.W.9), cousin of the deceased has also made vague and unspecific allegations against the accused. He has stated that Neeraj, who runs a shop at Sahiya Road Crossing, received a phone call from village Ghadi. Then, he made a telephonic call to his uncle Vijay Singh that Margshree has been put to death. It is thereafter that they went on motorcycle to the house of the deceased. Only Vijay Singh went inside the house. Argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that neither Gopal (P.W.9) nor Raghunath Singh (P.W.10) saw the dead body in the house. Vijay Singh alone cannot be believed that dead body was lying inside the house and not on the road. Only Vijay Singh went inside the house. Argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that neither Gopal (P.W.9) nor Raghunath Singh (P.W.10) saw the dead body in the house. Vijay Singh alone cannot be believed that dead body was lying inside the house and not on the road. Therefore, story developed by Vijay Singh (P.W.1), Nihal Singh (P.W.3), Gopal (P.W.9) and Raghunath Singh (P.W.10) that the dead body was found inside the house when they first visited house of the accused and on second time, dead body was found outside the house of the accused on the road is wholly untrue. Similarly, Raghunath (P.W.10) stated that accused used to subject the deceased to cruelty on demand of dowry and also used to show photograph of a girl from his wallet and threaten that he would marry that girl, which statement does not inspire any confidence. Baby (P.W.12), wife of Nihal Singh, sister-in-law of the deceased has also made general allegation against the accused. In fact, she in cross-examination stated that when they received information, she and her husband were at Agra. In cross-examination she stated that the accused used to harass the deceased by not giving her enough food and toiletries like soap etc. This kind of deposition does not prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry. Kamlesh (P.W.13), sister of the deceased also made general allegations. In cross-examination, she stated that she could not say with certainty whether husband of the deceased was present in the village Gadhisukha at the time when the deceased was put to death. She too has stated that accused used to harass Margshree on demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and motor cycle and even showed her photograph of a girl threatening that he would marry that girl. 8. Learned counsel submitted that despite the fact that several prosecution witnesses have made such allegation, investigating officer has not recovered alleged wallet or the said photograph at the instance of the accused-appellant Hari Singh. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants has further argued that none of the prosecution witnesses have named Sonu on allegation that he was the one, who helped the accused in removing the dead body from the house and taking the same to the road side and then crushing the body by running the tractor over it. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants has further argued that none of the prosecution witnesses have named Sonu on allegation that he was the one, who helped the accused in removing the dead body from the house and taking the same to the road side and then crushing the body by running the tractor over it. In fact, falsity of allegation against accused Sonu is proved by the statement of Saroj (P.W.15), who in her cross examination has candidly admitted that younger brother of her husband told him that she should name Sonu as an accused, but, she did not say whether it was proper or not. Saroj (P.W.15) further stated that the deceased used to stay with her husband Hari Singh at different places where he remained posted. 9. Learned counsel in alternative submitted that so far as accused Bijendar Singh, father-in-law and Smt. Rama Devi, mother-in-law are concerned, they have wrongly been made accused inasmuch as evidence of the prosecution has amply proved that the deceased used to stay independently with her husband wherever he remained posted. Even as per the own saying of the prosecution, in 2005, a criminal complaint was lodged by Nihal Singh (P.W.3) against the accused and at that time also, dispute was compromised between them and the complainant allowed the deceased to accompany her husband Hari Singh. Allegations against the husband, thus, stand on different footings and may be graver than the one against mother-in-law and father-in-law, who have been mechanically named by prosecution witnesses only because they happen to be parents of the accused Hari Singh. Reliance in this connection, has been placed by learned counsel for the appellants on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2000 SC 2324 , wherein it was held that in a case of dowry death, in-laws of the deceased cannot be roped in only on the ground of being close relations of husband of deceased. Overt act attributed to them should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the appellants also cited judgment of this Court in Kaptan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 937/2012 decided on 15.02.2017). 10. Overt act attributed to them should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the appellants also cited judgment of this Court in Kaptan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 937/2012 decided on 15.02.2017). 10. On the quantum of sentence, learned counsel for the appellants cited judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Om v. State of Haryana & Another, (2014) 10 SCC 577 wherein in a case of conviction under Section 304-B IPC, accused was awarded sentence of life imprisonment. The sentence was reduced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. Learned counsel argued that no doubt Section 304-B IPC provides life imprisonment as the maximum sentence, but minimum sentence provided for that offence is seven years and the learned trial court in the present case has not given any reason to justify award of maximum sentence of life imprisonment. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that the marriage between Hari Singh and deceased was solemnised within seven years of death of the deceased. It is argued that there is no evidence whatsoever about the conspiracy hatched up by four accused appellants so as to attract the offence under Section 120-B IPC and learned trial court has mechanically convicted three accused Bijendar, Smt. Rama Devi and Hari Singh for the offence under Section 120-B IPC and awarded sentence of life imprisonment on that count as well. The findings recorded by the learned trial court to that effect are wholly perverse and liable to be set aside. 12. It is, therefore, prayed that present appeals may be allowed and the impugned judgment be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of the charges framed against them. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the appeals and supported the impugned judgment passed by the trial court. It is submitted that evidence in the present case proves beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty on demand of dowry for a pretty long time by the accused. This was continuing ever since Hari Singh secured government job till he succeeded in putting the deceased Margshree to death in otherwise normal circumstances in the house of the accused. This was continuing ever since Hari Singh secured government job till he succeeded in putting the deceased Margshree to death in otherwise normal circumstances in the house of the accused. Harassment meted out to Margshree is substantiated by documents in the shape of written complaint (Exhibit P-5) made by Nihal Singh P.W.3), her brother to S.H.O., Police Station Kanchanpur on 13.06.2005 wherein also it was alleged that after Hari Singh got government appointment in S.A.S.B., Murena, he started beating the deceased Margshree on demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and motor cycle of Hero Honda make. Information with regard to the incident was received by the complainant and when Nihal Singh (P.W.3) along with his relative Satyendra Singh reached house of the accused, they started beating his sister Margshree mercilessly. They even subjected Nihal Singh and Satyendra Singh to beatings. At that time, Superintendent of Police, Dholpur mediated between the parties and got the matter compromised. Complainant allowed the deceased Margshree to go along with her husband Hari Singh, on his assurance that he would not maltreat her in future and with the hope that their matrimonial home is saved. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant submitted that accused Bijendar Singh, Smt. Rama Devi and Sonu have been rightly convicted and sentenced under Section 201 IPC. In this connection, reference is made to statement of Nihal Singh (P.W.3), who alleged that the accused with a view to destroy the evidence, ran the tractor over the body of the deceased. Nihal Singh (P.W.3) stated that the villagers informed him this fact that Bijendar Singh and Smt. Rama Devi were holding the dead body on the tractor and Sonu was driving the tractor. Then, Bijendar Singh and Smt. Rama Devi threw the body of Margshree in front of the tractor and Sonu ran the tractor over it. Reference is made to Parmal (P.W.7), who though turned hostile, but when he was confronted with his police statement (Exhibit P-11A), in which he apart from alleging that the accused used to maltreat and subject the deceased to cruelty, also alleged that accused Sonu in order to conceal and destroy the evidence ran the tractor over the body of the deceased at the instigation of Bijendar Singh. Role of Bijendar Singh is also proved by information under Section 27 given by him to the police (Exhibit P-17) as to the place of incident where the dead body was run over by tractor and also the place where that tractor was concealed and was recovered by the police pursuant to information given by him (Bijendar Singh) (Exhibit P-17). It is, therefore, prayed that present appeals be dismissed and judgment passed by the trial court be affirmed. 14. We have given anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record as also record of the case. 15. On analysis of the statements of the prosecution witnesses relied by the trial court and those relied by learned Public Prosecutor, we find that allegation as to subjection of deceased to cruelty ever since Hari Singh secured employment with government is directed mainly against Hari Singh and the evidence is also to the effect that Hari Singh used to beat the deceased frequently and also threaten that if the demand of dowry was not satisfied, he would marry with some other girl, whose photograph he used to show to the deceased. Evidence also proves that the deceased used to stay with Hari Singh away from her in-laws house, at different places wherever the accused Hari Singh remained posted. Hari Singh directly went to his in-laws to fetch the deceased Margshree, a fact admitted by Vijay Singh (P.W.1) and Nihal Singh (P.W.3) both. Nihal Singh (P.W.3) has proved that earlier also complaint was made to the police (Exhibit P-5), in which he specifically alleged that Hari Singh got the employment with S.A.F.B., Murena, within two years of the marriage and since then he unleashed the reign of cruelty on the deceased. He started demanding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in cash and a Hero Honda motorcycle. When the complainant was unable to satisfy the demand, he subjected her to cruelty. In the complaint, Nihal Singh (P.W.3) also named Bijendar Singh and Rama Devi with Hari Singh, but he has specifically alleged in his complaint that whenever Hari Singh used to come to his village, he used to subject the deceased to merciless beating. Several villagers tried to persuade him to refrain from doing so but he was not moved. The matter, at that time, was compromised between the parties and the accused was allowed to take his wife along with him. Several villagers tried to persuade him to refrain from doing so but he was not moved. The matter, at that time, was compromised between the parties and the accused was allowed to take his wife along with him. 16. Vijay Singh (P.W.1) has stated that after one incident, he brought his daughter back to his house. Hari Singh came to their village after sometime and took the deceased along with him. But then he again started maltreating her. Thereafter, Hari Singh took Margshree to Bhind where he was posted. There also, he used to maltreat his daughter in the sense that he would not give food to her and subject her to beating. Then accused Hari Singh had sent his daughter Margshree to the complainant's house with his brother-in-law (husband of his sister). Thereafter, Hari Singh again came to the house of the complainant after some time and took the deceased with him where he was posted. But then, he again started maltreating her. In cross-examination he stated that Hari Singh was employed in the Vth Battalion of S.A.F.B. at Murena. He also stated that the accused remained posted at Kolaras and thereafter also at Shivpuri. 17. Gopal (P.W.9), cousin of the deceased, has stated that deceased came to her parents house on 3-4 occasions after her marriage till Hari Singh did not get the employment. Till that time, she never complained of any maltreatment or harassment, but after Hari Singh got employment, he started demanding dowry. He further stated that he was not aware who else was residing in the house of the accused with the husband of the deceased. Raghunath Singh (P.W.10), brother of the deceased has also stated that accused-appellant Hari Singh used to maltreat the deceased on demand of dowry. He used to tell the deceased that he had spent a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in getting the employment and therefore she should get a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and motorcycle from her parents. Baby (P.W.12), wife of Nihal Singh has also made similar statement, which is also mainly directed against the husband of the deceased Hari Singh that he used to maltreat the deceased and once even subjected her to severe beating. At that time her mother-in-law and father-in-law brought the deceased Margshree to her parents house. It was further stated that due to beating by Hari Singh, the deceased, who was pregnant, had miscarriage. At that time her mother-in-law and father-in-law brought the deceased Margshree to her parents house. It was further stated that due to beating by Hari Singh, the deceased, who was pregnant, had miscarriage. A complaint was also registered at that time, but then it was compromised and the deceased again came to their house on the promise that he would not in future maltreat her. Kamlesh (P.W.13), sister of the deceased has also made similar statement and alleged that accused Hari Singh used to intimidate the deceased by showing photograph of a girl that he would marry her. Earlier when the police case was once registered, the same was compromised but again Hari Singh started maltreating the deceased. Incidentally, this witness also alleged that father-in-law and mother-in-law also used to maltreat the deceased. Saroj(P.W.15) wife of deceased's brother Mohan Singh also made similar statement that Hari Singh started harassing the deceased after he got the employment. He used to demand a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and motorcycle on the pretext that he had spent a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in getting the employment. Hari Singh used to show photograph of a girl to the deceased and tease her by saying that he would marry that girl. It is also alleged that mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased also used to maltreat her. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that she named accused Sonu because younger brother of her husband had told her to do so. 18. As per the statement of Dr. Gopal Prasad Goyal (P.W.17), who has proved Post Mortem Report of the deceased (Exhibit P-11B), the deceased sustained total 9 injuries, first four of which were ante mortem injuries, but subsequent five injuries were post mortem injuries. Injury No. 5, according to post mortem report, was apparently caused by tyre mark, as a result of which cage of the chest was broken and all the ribs of the deceased were fractured. There was fracture of cricoid cartilage near trachea. Pleura and membranes of lungs of the deceased were crushed. As per medical board, the cause of death given in post mortem report (Exhibit P-11B) was strangulation leading to asphyxia and death. There was fracture of cricoid cartilage near trachea. Pleura and membranes of lungs of the deceased were crushed. As per medical board, the cause of death given in post mortem report (Exhibit P-11B) was strangulation leading to asphyxia and death. Evidence thus shows that the deceased died due to strangulation leading to asphyxia, but she also had certain anti mortem injuries possibly because she was subjected to beating before she was driven to take extreme step of hanging herself, but what is certain is that death of the deceased had taken place by bodily injuries which occurred otherwise than in normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage. It is mainly against accused Hari Singh that it was he, who subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry, which brings the act of the accused Hari Singh within the purview of Section 304-B IPC. At the same time, however, evidence against Bijendar Singh, father-in-law and Smt. Rama Devi, mother-in-law is not adequate to justify their conviction under Section 304-B IPC. But evidence against them is sufficient for sustaining their conviction under Section 498-A IPC. However, evidence also proves that when Vijay Singh (P.W.1), Gopal (P.W.9) and Raghunath Singh (P.W.10) first reached house of the accused, dead body of Margshree was lying therein, but subsequently, when they came with their relatives Ran Singh Thakur and Raghuveer Thakur, her dead body was lying in open in the agricultural field of the accused, which is adjacent to road and had been crushed by tractor. This could not have happened without the active connivance and help of mother and father of the accused Hari Singh. But, there is total lack of evidence against accused Sonu for his role in helping the remaining accused to conceal or destroy the evidence. Evidence thus suggest that Hari Singh used to harass deceased Margshree continuously for a long time till she died and this harassment persisted ever since he got government employment and remained posted at different places where the deceased accompanied him to such different places, so much so, that criminal complaint was also lodged, which was ended into compromise when the accused Hari Singh promised not to maltreat her in future and took her with him. On that solemn understanding, the deceased again started living with him. On that solemn understanding, the deceased again started living with him. Nature of evidence against mother-in-law and father-in-law is different in the present case, which only proves their guilt to the extent of offence under Section 498-A and 201 IPC but not under Section 304-B IPC. 19. In view of aforemade discussion, conviction of accused appellant Hari Singh for offence under Section 304-B IPC is liable to be sustained, but not of Bijendar Singh and Smt. Rama Devi. 20. We are not inclined to uphold the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that marriage between the accused Hari Singh and Margshri was not solemnised within seven years of the death of the deceased. The prosecution in this connection has produced marriage invitation card (Exhibit P-6) which has been proved by Vijay Singh (P.W.1). This proves that the marriage of Hari Singh and deceased was solemnised on 06.12.2001 and death of Margshri took place on 24.10.2008, therefore, the incident has taken place within seven years of marriage of Hari Singh and the deceased. However, we are inclined to uphold the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that there was indeed no justification for the learned trial court to convict the accused-appellants Bijendar, Smt. Rama Devi and Hari Singh for offence under Section 120-B IPC and award them separate sentence of life imprisonment on that count. Though it is true that dispute between the accused-appellant Hari Singh and his wife persisted ever since their marriage especially after Hari Singh secured government job and started demanding dowry in the form of cash, as per some witnesses, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and as per some other witnesses a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and motorcycle, but the evidence of prosecution falls short to prove that father and mother of the accused Hari Singh were also conspirators. Ingredients of Section 120-B IPC are completely missing in the present case. Section 120-B IPC provides that whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in the Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. As held by the Supreme Court in Kehar Singh & Others v. The State(Delhi Admn.), AIR 1988 SC 1883 , to bring the charge within the purview of Section 120-B IPC, it is necessary to establish that there was criminal conspiracy between the parties for doing an unlawful act, which the prosecution has failed to prove in this case. We are, therefore, not inclined to sustain conviction of the accused-appellants under Section 120-B IPC. 21. The Supreme Court in Kans Raj(supra) held that for the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency, however, has developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused. Interpreting phraseology "soon before death" mentioned in Section 304-B IPC, it was held by the Supreme Court that word, "soon before" is a relative term, which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit. This expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance, but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be 'soon before death' if any other intervening circumstances showing the non-existence of such treatment is not brought on record, before the alleged such treatment and the date of death. It does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period. It does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period. Mere lapse of some time by itself would not provide to an accused a defence, if the course of conduct relating to cruelty or harassment in connection with the dowry demand is shown to have existed earlier in time not too late and too stale before the date of death of the woman. 22. Similar view has been expressed by the Supreme Court in Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477 wherein it has been held that the word "soon" in the expression "soon before her death" used in Section 304-B IPC as well as in Section 113-B, Evidence Act is a relative term. But "soon before" is not synonymous with "immediately before". Days or months are not what is to be seen. A fair and pragmatic construction keeping in mind the great social evil that has led to the enactment of Section 304-B IPC would make it clear that the expression is a relative expression. Time-lags may differ from case to case. All that is necessary is that the demand for dowry should not be stale but should be the continuing cause for the death of the married woman under Section 304-B IPC. 23. We now proceed to consider the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that awarding of sentence of life imprisonment in the facts of the case was excessive inasmuch as when the legislature has given the range of choice between minimum seven years and maximum life imprisonment, the trial court was duty bound to give reasons why it has chosen to award maximum penalty of life imprisonment. We may in this connection usefully refer to judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunil Dutt Sharma v. State(Government of NCT of Delhi), (2014) 4 SCC 375 wherein it was held that the power and authority conferred by use of the different expression used in different provisions of the Indian Procedure Code, 1860 including the expression "imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life" used in Section 304-B IPC, indicate the enormous discretion vested in the courts in sentencing an offender, who has been found guilty of commission of any particular offence. Nowhere, either in the Indian Procedure Code, 1860 or in any other law in force, have any prescription or norm or even guidelines governing the exercise of the vast discretion in the matter of sentencing been laid down except perhaps, Section 354(3) Cr.P.C. which, inter alia, requires the judgment of a court to state the reasons for the sentence awarded when the punishment prescribed is imprisonment for a term of years. It was further held that the sentencing power has been a matter of serious academic and judicial debate to discern an objective and rational basis for the exercise of the power and to evolve sound jurisprudential principles governing the exercise thereof. On the basis of the views of the Supreme Court expressed in various judgments, the question that arises is whether the quest and search for a sound jurisprudential basis for imposing a particular sentence on an offender is destined to remain elusive and the sentencing parameters in this country are bound to remain Judge-centric as distinguished from the principle based sentencing policy. The issue though predominantly dealt with in the context of cases involving the death penalty has tremendous significance to the Criminal Jurisprudence of the country. The Supreme Court relying upon its earlier judgments in Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 20 and Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 546 observed that the sentencing principles identified by the Supreme Court could provide a sound objective basis for sentencing thereby minimizing individualised and Judge-centric perspectives. Such principles bear a fair amount of affinity to the principles applied in foreign jurisdictions. Relying on its earlier judgment in State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar, (2008) 7 SCC 550 , the Supreme Court in para 13 of the Report observed as under: "13. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The identified principles could provide a sound objective basis for sentencing thereby minimizing individualized and Judge-centric perspectives. Such principles bear a fair amount of affinity to the principles applied in foreign jurisdictions, a resume of which is available in the decision of this Court in State of Panjab v. Prem Sagar, (2008) 7 SCC 550 . The difference is not in the identity of the principles: it lies in the realm of application thereof to individual situations. Such principles bear a fair amount of affinity to the principles applied in foreign jurisdictions, a resume of which is available in the decision of this Court in State of Panjab v. Prem Sagar, (2008) 7 SCC 550 . The difference is not in the identity of the principles: it lies in the realm of application thereof to individual situations. While in India application of the principles is left to the Judge hearing the case, in certain foreign jurisdictions such principles are formulated under the authority of the statute and are applied on principles of categorization of offences which approach, however, has been found by the Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh to be inappropriate to our system. The principles being clearly evolved and securely entrenched, perhaps, the answer lies in consistency in approach." 24. In Hari Om v. State of Haryana & Another, (2014) 10 SCC 577 , the Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with the question whether the trial court was justified in awarding sentence of life imprisonment in the facts of that case. The Supreme Court taking note of its earlier judgments in Hem Chand v. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 727 , State of Karnataka v. M.V. Manjunathegowda, (2003) 2 SCC 188 , and G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 3 SCC 152 , wherein sentence of ten years was held to be justified, held that sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed only in rare cases and that too for recorded reasons. In the aforesaid matters, the case was held not to fall in the category of rare cases, therefore, sentence of life imprisonment was reduced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. 25. In the present case, we have carefully gone through the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court and do not find any reason assigned therein to determine this one as a rare case or otherwise, to indicate why the trial court has chosen to award maximum penalty of life imprisonment in the present case. Therefore, in our opinion, sentence of life imprisonment awarded to accused Hari Singh deserves to be substituted by rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 26. In view of above discussion, Appeal No. 696/2010 filed by the accused-appellant Sonu is allowed. Judgment dated 21.08.2010 qua accused-appellant is quashed and set aside and he is acquitted of the charge under Section 201 IPC. Therefore, in our opinion, sentence of life imprisonment awarded to accused Hari Singh deserves to be substituted by rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 26. In view of above discussion, Appeal No. 696/2010 filed by the accused-appellant Sonu is allowed. Judgment dated 21.08.2010 qua accused-appellant is quashed and set aside and he is acquitted of the charge under Section 201 IPC. Appeal No. 748/2010 filed by the accused-appellants Bijendar Singh, Smt. Rama Devi and Hari Singh is allowed in part in the following manner: (i) Conviction and sentence of accused-appellant Bijendar Singh and Smt. Rama Devi under Section 304-B and 120-B IPC is set aside. However, their conviction under Section 498-A IPC and 201 IPC along with fine as awarded by the trial court is maintained, but they are sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them. (ii) Conviction and sentence of accused-appellant Hari Singh under Section 120-B is set aside. Conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant Hari Singh under Section 498-A IPC along with fine as awarded by the trial court is maintained. However, his conviction under Section 304-B IPC is maintained but instead of life imprisonment, he is sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine, he would be required to further undergo six month's additional imprisonment. Both the sentence shall run concurrently. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record of connected criminal appeal. Appeal No. 696/2010 allowed.