JUDGMENT : Both the Criminal Appeals have been preferred against a common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both, dated 21.08.2003, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum in Sessions Trial No. 340 of 1999 arising out of Bagbera P.S. Case No. 199/98 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1851/98, whereby the appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 304 B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Since one of the appellant Gupteshwar Singh has died during pendency of the appeal on 25.04.2016, his appeal has been abated as no application for leave has been filed by relative or legal heirs within 30 days of the death of appellant as envisaged under Section 394 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court has awarded a sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the conviction under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also rigorous imprisonment for six months along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They are further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the conviction under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, all the sentences are directed to run concurrently. In case of default of payment of fine, the appellants are directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for each offence and the period already undergone in custody by the accused is hereby set off against the period of imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Anjali Singh, recorded by the police officer on 25.09.1998 at 9.30 a.m. in the Burn ward of Tata Main Hospital (T.M.H), where the informant, in presence of her doctor, Dr. Bharat (P.W. 5), has stated that her marriage was solemnized with Nand Kishore Singh in the month of April, 1996 and from the said wedlock she has been blessed with a girl child aged about three months. The victim has further stated that, while she was residing at her sasural with her husband, her mother-in-law, father-in-law are also living with them. It is alleged that before birth of girl child, her mother-in-law and brother-in-law (Raj Kumar, appellant in Cr. The victim has further stated that, while she was residing at her sasural with her husband, her mother-in-law, father-in-law are also living with them. It is alleged that before birth of girl child, her mother-in-law and brother-in-law (Raj Kumar, appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1276 of 2003) and father-in-law, all used to taunt, torture and made demand of dowry. They were torturing the victim. The victim has further stated that her father has paid Rs. One lakh in cash and price of a scooter and after taking such amount, the accused persons were torturing her for extra dowry. The victim has further stated that after birth of a girl child, her husband was also not happy with her and on trivial issues, he used to quarrel with her and abuse her. On 23.09.1998 at 6.30 am, while the victim was sleeping, her husband started waking her up, he slapped her and also pressed her neck. Somehow informant came out of the room and started crying and thereafter she was dragged inside the room and when she stopped crying all the accused persons i.e. father in law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law along with the husband connived together and decided some strategy. On 23.09.1998 at around 11.30 am. husband NandKishore Singh, father-in-law Gupteshwar Singh, mother-in-law and bother-in-law (Raj Kumar Singh) brought one litre of kerosene oil, kept in a plastic jar and mother-in-law has poured the kerosene oil and the husband has lightened the matchstick due to which fire caught her saree and the victim sustained severe burn injury. Even after raising brawl, she was not allowed to go out of the house nor the accused persons have tried to save her. The victim has stated that all the accused persons, her husband and the in-laws have tried to kill her but could not succeed. On brawl, other persons came and pour water to save the victim by putting the fire off. The victim has further stated that in due course her husband has also sustained injury, the informant has also stated that because of the presence of other people and neighbours, the victim was taken to Tata Main Hospital (T.M.H.) where she was unconscious and that is the reason, she could not know the things in an explanatory manner. Subsequently, she got conscious and gave her statement before the police in presence of Dr. Bharat. 3. Subsequently, she got conscious and gave her statement before the police in presence of Dr. Bharat. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the victim, police registered Bagbera P.S. Case No. 199 of 1998 dated 28.08.1998 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 498 A/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During investigation, the victim died on 08.10.1998 and thereafter, on the request of the police officer Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code has been added. 4. After investigation the police submitted chargesheet vide no. 83 of 1998 dated 31.12.1998 against the appellants Nandkishore Singh (husband) Raj Kumar Singh (younger brother-in-law), Gupteshwar Singh (father-in-law) and Nunu Dai (mother-in-law) who died during trial and her case has been expunged by the learned Trial Court and subsequently during the pendency of the appeal, father-in-law, (Gupteshwar Singh) also died on 25.04.2016, to which a report enclosing the death certificate of the appellant Gupteshwar Singh has been filed and his case has been abated by this Court, as no petition for grant of leave has been filed by the relative or legal heir within 30 days of the death of the appellant as envisaged under Section 394 Cr.P.C. Thus, the appeal of Gupteshwar Singh has been dismissed as abated and the present appeals are being disposed with respect to husband Nandkishore Singh and younger brother-in-law Raj Kumar Singh by hearing both appeals together. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 11.01.1999 and the case has been committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 07.08.1999. The charge has been framed against the appellants under Section 304 B/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act on 31.03.2000 by the learned Trial Court. 6. The prosecution has examined altogether eleven witnesses and exhibited a number of documents in support of its case. Prithvi Raj Singh has been examined as P.W. 1, S.K. Mishra has been examined as P.W. 2, Sunil Kumar Sinha has been examined as P.W. 3, Awadhesh Prasad has been examined as P.W. 4, Dr. R. Bharat has been examined as P.W. 5, Bindeshwari Singh has been examined as P.W. 6, Dr. Prithvi Raj Singh has been examined as P.W. 1, S.K. Mishra has been examined as P.W. 2, Sunil Kumar Sinha has been examined as P.W. 3, Awadhesh Prasad has been examined as P.W. 4, Dr. R. Bharat has been examined as P.W. 5, Bindeshwari Singh has been examined as P.W. 6, Dr. Yogendra Nath has been examined as P.W. 7, Ranjit Kumar Sinha has been examined as P.W. 8, Sambhu Nath Singh has been examined as P.W. 9, Shila Devi has been examined as P.W. 10 and Faizal Ahmed has been examined as P.W. 11 who is the investigating officer of this case. 7. P.W. 5 Dr. R. Bharat is the doctor, who has initially treated the victim and after regaining the consciousness, the victim has stated against, her husband and in-laws and it is the doctor P.W. 5, in whose presence the fardbeyan of the victim was recorded by the police officer, upon which he has put his signature. P.W. 7 is Dr. Yogendra Nath, he is the doctor who has conducted the autopsy of the dead body of Anjali Devi. P.W. 8 is cousin of the victim. P.W. 11 is Faizal Ahmed, who is investigating officer of the case. 8. Exhibit 1 is the record of the patient admitted at Tata Main Hospital (T.M.H.) vide registration no. 220545 and Dr. Bharat (P.W. 5), who has treated her on 24.09.1998 at 9.15 a.m. interrogated her and recorded “Unhappy marriage, three months old child not acceptable in the family, physical assault frequently by mother-in-law and father-in-law”. The recording made by Dr. Bharat (P.W. 5) has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1, at page no. 26 of the said record. The signature of the doctor has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1/1, at page no. 37 of the patient treatment record. The signature of the doctor R. Bharat (P.W. 5) with regard to death summary admitted on 23.09.1998 at 12.19 p.m. with 46% deep burn, cause of death septicemia has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1/2. Signature of Anjali Singh on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2. Signature of Dr. R. Bharat on fardbeyan which was recorded before him has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3, signature of Dr. Signature of Anjali Singh on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2. Signature of Dr. R. Bharat on fardbeyan which was recorded before him has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3, signature of Dr. R. Bharat on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3/1, signature of Bindeshwari Singh on the inquest report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4, formal F.I.R. has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4/1, post mortem report of the deceased has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5, the signature of the Sub-Inspector on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6, forwarding letter of the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-7, the endorsement on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-8 and the inquest report has been marked as Exhibit-9. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellants have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 23.10.2002 where they have admitted the marriage of the deceased Anjali Singh with appellant Nand Kishore Singh in the year 1996 but have not given any explanation about the death of the victim nor any defence witness has been examined on behalf of the defence. 10. After being heard by the learned Trial court, the Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 21.08.2003 holding the appellants guilty under Section 304 B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act along with Gupteshwar Singh who died during pendency of the appeal, as such the present appeal is only on behalf of Nand Kishore Singh in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1518 of 2003 and Raj Kumar Singh in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1276 of 2003 and the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved by the said impugned judgment the appellants have preferred both the present criminal appeals and both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as they are arising out of the same impugned order. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Chandrashekhar Prasad in both the appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is a delay in lodging the First Information Report. Mr. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Chandrashekhar Prasad in both the appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is a delay in lodging the First Information Report. Mr. Chandrashekhar Prasad has further submitted that the victim was unconscious and the occurrence took place as per the statement of the victim on 23.09.1998 at 11.15 p.m. but the statement of the victim has been recorded on 25.09.1998 in presence of the doctor. The father and other relative of the victim have not been examined in this case. The prosecution has only examined Raj Kumar Sinha (P.W. 8), who is cousin of the victim. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that, Prithvi Raj Singh (P.W. 1), Sambhu Kumar Mishra (P.W. 2) and Sunil Kumar Sinha (P.W. 3) are the neighbours of the appellants but they have not supported the prosecution case and said that the relationship of the informant with her husband and in-laws was cordial and they have never heard about any quarrel or torture given to the victim. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that these three witnesses have not been declared hostile by the prosecution and as such there is no reason to doubt the credential of these witnesses and there evidence is fit to be accepted and as such the learned Trial has wrongly convicted the appellant because the conviction is not on the basis of material available on record. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that Awadhesh Prasad has been examined as P.W. 4 and he has been tendered by the prosecution, but during cross-examination this P.W. 4 has also stated that he has never heard that Anjali was tortured by Nand Kishore Singh or his family members. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Trial Court has not scrutinized the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 4 who have not supported the prosecution case and have not been declared hostile by the prosecution. The learned Trial Court has passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which are contradictory to the materials available on record which has been adduced by P.W. 1 to P.W. 4. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that Sambhu Nath Singh (P.W. 9) and Sheela Devi (P.W. 10) have been declared hostile by the prosecution. The learned Trial Court has passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which are contradictory to the materials available on record which has been adduced by P.W. 1 to P.W. 4. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that Sambhu Nath Singh (P.W. 9) and Sheela Devi (P.W. 10) have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that on the basis of statement of Ranjit Kumar Singh (P.W. 8) cousin of the deceased, Dr. R. Bharat (P.W. 5), Dr. Yogendra Nath (P.W. 7) and deposition of the Officer-in-charge, Faizal Ahmed (P.W. 11), the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by the learned Trial Court, where the close relative of the victim has not been examined and as such the impugned judgment of conviction is bad in law and fit to be set aside. 13. Heard Mrs. Lily Sahay, Additional Public Prosecutor in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1518 of 2003 and Mr. Vikash Kishore, Additional Public Prosecutor in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1276 of 2003. The learned Additional Public Prosecutors have vehemently argued the case and has submitted that a lady has been killed by the husband and in-laws by pouring kerosene oil and putting on fire. She was not allowed to go out of the room and she sustained 46 % burn injury, she was admitted in the hospital due to public pressure who have assembled there. The victim has stated before the doctor, after gaining consciousness on 24.09.1998 at 9.15 hrs., on interrogation made by the doctor, regarding “unhappy marriage, three months old girl child not acceptable in the family, dowry demand, physically beaten frequently by mother-in-law and father-in-law”. The death of the lady took place on 08.10.1998 at 1.00 p.m. because of septicemia. Learned counsels for the State have further submitted that Dr. R. Bharat is an employee of Tata Main Hospital (T.M.H.), who is not related either with the informant or the victim and death certificate which has been marked as Exhibit-3, coupled with his evidence is evidence of an independent witness. The police officer has also recorded the fardbeyan of the victim in presence of this doctor P.W. 5 Dr. R. Bharat, which has been marked as Exhibit – 3 and 3/1. Learned counsels for the State have further submitted that doctor who has treated the victim (P.W. 5) Dr. The police officer has also recorded the fardbeyan of the victim in presence of this doctor P.W. 5 Dr. R. Bharat, which has been marked as Exhibit – 3 and 3/1. Learned counsels for the State have further submitted that doctor who has treated the victim (P.W. 5) Dr. R. Bharat, has stated that he was posted in the Burn unit of Tata Main Hospital (T.M.H.) and the victim was admitted on 23.09.1998 at 12.19 p.m. He examined the victim at burn unit of Tata Main Hospital (T.M.H.) and on interrogation of Anjali Singh at 9.15 hrs., he recorded her statement, on the basis of which he made entries in the case sheet in brief, that she was unhappily married life and had three months old girl child, which was not acceptable in the family and there was dowry demand for which she used to be beaten by the mother-in-law and father-in-law frequently. He has proved his entry which is in his writing and signature and the same has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1 in this case. The fardbeyan of Anjali Singh recorded by police in his presence on 25.09.1998 at burn unit. After recording the statement of the victim, the police read over the content of the fardbeyan to her in the presence of the doctor P.W. 5 Dr. R. Bharat and thereafter she (Anjali Singh) signed on the fardbeyan and the doctor identified her signature which has been marked as Exhibit-3. This witness has further stated that he has also signed on the fardbeyan at two places and these are his signature, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3 and 3/1. This witness has reiterated the statement given by Anjali Singh, in his deposition in this Court. The witness has found 46 % deep burn injury, who died on 08.10.1998 at burn unit of Tata Main Hospital (T.M.H.), she was under his treatment, which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. Dr. Sheela Joseph has recorded the death summary of Anjali Singh in the case sheet, which is in her hand-writing. The witness has identified the same and has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1/2. During cross-examination, this witness (P.W. 5) Dr. R. Bharat has stated that victim was fully conscious at the time, when he has made endorsement but at that time, she has not alleged anything against her husband and brother-in-law. The witness has identified the same and has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1/2. During cross-examination, this witness (P.W. 5) Dr. R. Bharat has stated that victim was fully conscious at the time, when he has made endorsement but at that time, she has not alleged anything against her husband and brother-in-law. The endorsement has already been marked as Exhibit-1. This witness, during cross-examination has further stated, that it is not true that fardbeyan was not signed by Anjali Singh, this witness has categorically stated that signature on fardbeyan is of Anjali Singh and is the same persons because of the fact that as per admission register, Anjali Singh has been referred as Anjali Devi. After 24 hours of the endorsement of P.W. 5, made in the case sheet as Exhibit-1, fardbeyan of Anjali Singh was recorded by the police. Before 25.09.1998, the police might have come to record the statement, but could not do so due to her condition. 14. This witness has denied the suggestion given by the defence that the statement made in the fardbeyan of Anjali Devi was not given in his presence. From perusal of the evidence of Dr. R. Bhagat (P.W. 5), that the defence has cross-examined him but nothing has been elucidated by the defence to disbelieve his testimony. The doctor (P.W. 5) being the independent witness has supported the allegation of demand of dowry, torture, unhappiness in the family after birth of a girl child and unhappy marriage of the victim. Learned counsels for the State have further stated that torture as envisaged in the Evidence Act is a relative term and has drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment as reported in (2015) 6 SCC 477 in the case of Rajendra Singh vs. State of Punjab where “soon before” as envisaged under Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act, has been explained as follows:- “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 would make it clear that the expression is a relative expression. Time-lags may differ from case to case. 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 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.” Learned Additional Public Prosecutors for the State have further submitted that from perusal of the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 5) all the ingredients constituting an offence under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code are available on the case record, and ingredients of Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are also available on record, as such the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based on material available on record. The learned counsels for the State has drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment as reported in (1995) 6 SCC 219 in the case of State of H.P. v. Nikku Ram and others whereby an agony has been expressed as follows: “Dowry, dowry and dowry. This is the painful repetition which confronts, and at times haunts, many parents of a girl child in this holy land of ours where, in good old days the belief was: “yatra narayanastu ramante tatra dewata” [Yatra naryastu pujyante ramante tatra dewatah”] (where woman is worshipped, there is abode of God). We have mentioned about dowry thrice, because this demand is made on three occasions: (i) before marriage; (ii) at the time of marriage; and (iii) after the marriage. Greed being limitless, the demands become insatiable in many cases, followed by torture on the girl, leading to either suicide in some cases or murder in some.” Learned counsels for the State have further placed reliance upon the judgment as reported in (2014) 12 SCC 532 in case of Dinesh v. State of Haryana where it has been held: “It must be remembered that since crimes are generally committed in the privacy of residential homes and in secrecy, independent and direct evidence is not easy to get. The existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instances but normally refer to a course of conduct. The existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instances 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 of dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be “soon before death”. Furthermore, learned counsels for the State have further placed reliance upon the judgment reported in (2015) 1 SCC 797 in case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others where it has been held that: “One cannot lose sight of the fact that unfortunately the menace dowry deaths still exists in our society and has been subject of expert studies. The husband is not only primarily responsible for safety of his wife, he is expected to be conversant with her state of mind more than any other relative. Responsibility of the husband towards his wife is qualitatively different and higher as against his other relatives”. 15. Bindeshwari Singh is an inquest witness, and examining as P.W. 6. This witness has put his signature on the inquest report which has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 4. Dr. Yogendra Nath who has conducted the autopsy of the deceased on 09.10.1998 at 1.15 p.m. has been examined as P.W. 7. This witness has prepared and signed the post-mortem report which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5. This witness has categorically stated that victim sustained 50-55 % burn injury, which are ante mortem, death was due to septicemia and toxemia of burn, time lapsed in death is 18-36 hours. During cross-examination, the defence has asked whether he got smell of kerosene oil or not, on which this witness has said that he could not get the smell of kerosene oil on the dead body. Learned Counsel for the State, Mrs. Lily Sahay, Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that occurrence is of 23.09.1998 and the post-mortem was conducted on 09.10.1998, in the mean-time the lady was under treatment and medication and as such the doctor who has conducted the autopsy on 09.10.1998, will not get the smell of kerosene oil and that is not fatal for the prosecution case. Raj Kumar Singh cousin-in-law of the deceased has been examined as P.W. 8. This witness has stated that deceased Anjali Singh is his sister-in-law, whose marriage was solemnized with Nand Kishore Singh. Raj Kumar Singh cousin-in-law of the deceased has been examined as P.W. 8. This witness has stated that deceased Anjali Singh is his sister-in-law, whose marriage was solemnized with Nand Kishore Singh. He got information about the admission of the victim on 23.09.1998 in Tata Main Hospital (T.M.H.) but he could not met her. This witness has stated during cross-examination that on 24.09.1998, he went to see his sister-in-law at Tata Main Hospital (T.M.H.) where he met the brother of Anjali, Radheshyam and Anjali died on 08.10.1998, thereafter her last rites was performed. This witness has stated that Anjali got fire injury at her sasural. Anjali was treated on his card from 24.09.1998, although she was admitted since 23.08.1998. This witness has admitted that on the request of the father and mother, he has permitted to get treatment on his card. 16. P.W. 11 Faizal Ahmed (investigating officer of this case) has proved the formal fardbeyan written by Sub-inspector Jagdish Ram and proved and marked the same, as Exhibit-6, forwarding letter as Exhibit-7, signature of the Officer-in-Charge as Exhibit- 4/1 and its registration as Exhibit-8. The witness has stated that during investigation, he went to the Tata Main Hospital (T.M.H.) and recorded the re-statement of the victim in presence of Dr. Bharat and thereafter statement of Dr. Bharat has been taken. The fardbeyan was recorded by Sub-Inspector Jagdish Ram. This witness has inspected the place of occurrence, on the second day, the room of Nand Kishore is the place of occurrence having dimension of 8 x 10 feet with table, bed and two steel box. The wall were pasted with newspaper but those newspaper has not been burnt. It appears during investigation that place of occurrence has been properly washed and cleaned for disappearance of the evidence of the offence. This witness has not found any remnant of the fire or the kerosene container. This witness has categorically stated in paragraph 12 of his cross-examination that Sheela Devi was asked about the relative of the victim, who disclosed that victim family went to the village, as the father of the victim died because of the death of the victim. Shambhu Nath Singh informed the witness on 11.10.1998, that victim has died and thereafter the inquest report was prepared by Satyendra Prasad, whose signature and hand-writing has been proved and marked as Exhibit-9. Shambhu Nath Singh informed the witness on 11.10.1998, that victim has died and thereafter the inquest report was prepared by Satyendra Prasad, whose signature and hand-writing has been proved and marked as Exhibit-9. This witness has stated that he has perused the record of the burn ward, it appears that victim died on 09.10.1998 and thereafter her post-mortem was conducted on 09.10.1998. On the basis of the investigation and the materials collected during investigation, this witness has submitted chargesheet under Section 304 B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused persons. This witness has stated that P.W. 9 (shambhu Nath Singh) who has been declared hostile by the prosecution has supported the case during his statement before the police by saying that he was the mediator of the marriage and Nand Kishore Singh’s family are greedy of the dowry and by the time of marriage, they have demanded so much things which were fulfilled but he has never said before him that after marriage something was asked from the lady rather has admitted that the girl has asked her brother for some articles and thereafter a bed, television and one lakh rupees was given to the accused persons. She used to visit the house of the witness and used to say that the in-laws are greedy of dowry, they used to give her taunt. The investigating Officer has further stated that Shambhu Nath Singh has disclosed before him that Anjali Singh has disclosed before him in hospital that accused persons have put her on fire for dowry, T.V. and Rs. One Lakh. The investigating Officer in paragraph 18 has further submitted that P.W. 10 Shila Devi, who has been declared hostile by the prosecution has stated that the relationship of Anjali and family members were not cordial, quarrel often took place. This witness has further stated that when the statement of the victim was recorded no persons of her family was present. This witness has further stated that he has not found any remnants of the fire. The door was original, which has not been replaced. This witness has categorically stated that the fardbeyan was not recorded in his presence but he has investigated this case. The suggestion was given with respect to the fardbeyan of the victim, which this witness has categorically denied during his cross-examination. The door was original, which has not been replaced. This witness has categorically stated that the fardbeyan was not recorded in his presence but he has investigated this case. The suggestion was given with respect to the fardbeyan of the victim, which this witness has categorically denied during his cross-examination. On the basis of such material, learned Additional Public Prosecutors have submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based on the material available on record and it requires no interference by this Hon’ble Court, as all the ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is available on record. Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code has the following four ingredients: “(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.” The definition of “dowry” under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act can be broken into six distinct parts: “1. Dowry must first consist of any property or valuable security - the word "any" is a word of width and would, therefore, include within it property and valuable security of any kind whatsoever. 2. Such property or security can be given or even agreed to be given. The actual giving of such property or security is, therefore, not necessary. 3. Such property or security can be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly. 4. Such giving or agreeing to give can again be not only by one party to a marriage to the other but also by the parents of either party or by any other person to either party to the marriage or to any other person. It will be noticed that this clause again widens the reach of the Act insofar as those guilty of committing the offence of giving or receiving dowry is concerned. 5. Such giving or agreeing to give can be at any time. It can be at, before, or at any time after the marriage. It will be noticed that this clause again widens the reach of the Act insofar as those guilty of committing the offence of giving or receiving dowry is concerned. 5. Such giving or agreeing to give can be at any time. It can be at, before, or at any time after the marriage. Thus, it can be many years after a marriage is solemnised. 6. Such giving or receiving must be in connection with the marriage of the parties. Obviously, the expression "in connection with" would in the context of the social evil sought to be tackled by the Dowry Prohibition Act mean "in relation with" or "relating to".” 17. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Chandrashekhar Prasad in both the criminal appeals, Mrs. Lily Sahay, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1516 of 2003 and Mr. Vikash Kishor, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1276 of 2003, perused the record, F.I.R, charge, prosecution witnesses, exhibits, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the impugned order, it is an unfortunate case where a lady died within four years of marriage and after three months of the birth of a girl child by pouring kerosene oil and putting the lady on fire by the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and younger brother-in-law. The victim was taken to Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur, where she disclosed before the doctor that her married life is unhappy, she has been tortured after the birth of the girl child, she has alleged that there is a demand of dowry, but husband and younger brother-in-law is not accepting the allegation that has been made against them. Once a case comes under the purview of under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code, the onus lies upon the defence under Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act to explain that how lady died within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances, where the evidence of torture and demand of dowry are also present. The defence during statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., have not explained that how lady died nor the defence has given any suggestion to the prosecution witnesses regarding cause of death of the lady. The defence during statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., have not explained that how lady died nor the defence has given any suggestion to the prosecution witnesses regarding cause of death of the lady. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 11 (Investigating Officer) Faizal Ahmed, that defence was much more interested in removing and destroying the evidence from the place of occurrence and as such the Faizal Ahmed has found that the room was properly washed and cleaned. The doctor (P.W. 5) Dr. R. Bharat, has examined the victim lady and has mentioned in the case sheet of the treatment of the victim, where Anjali said that she has unhappy married life, three months old girl child not acceptable in the family, dowry demand, physically beaten frequently by the mother-in-law and father-in-law which has been marked as Exhibit- 1. This doctor is one of the signatory in whose presence the fardbeyan was recorded by the police officer of Bistupur Police Station as the Tata Main Hospital lies within the jurisdiction of that Police Station and subsequently the F.I.R. has been instituted as Bagbera Police Station under whose jurisdiction place of occurrence is situated. The post mortem report has been marked as Exhibit- 5 issued by Dr. Yogendra Nath (P.W. 7), who has found that the lady has sustained 50-55% burn injury and in his opinion, which was ante-mortem and due to septicemia the lady died. The evidence of P.W. 5, P.W. 7 and P.W. 11 coupled with other evidences on record and the judgment cited by the learned Additional Public Prosecutors are sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants and thus, the learned Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court affirms and uphelds the same. There is no interference in the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court. 18. In the result, both the criminal appeals preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both, dated 21.08.2003, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No. 340 of 1999 in connection with Bagbera P.S. Case No. 199/98 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1851/98, are hereby dismissed by upholding the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as no interference is required by this Court. 19. 19. The appellants Nand Kishore Singh and Raj Kumar Singh are directed to surrender before the learned court below forthwith to serve out the sentence as awarded by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by this Court, and if, the appellants fail to surrender, the learned Trial Court is directed to take all steps for apprehending the appellants to serve out their sentence. 20. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action.