JUDGMENT : Rang Nath Pandey, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants Ram Kumar, Khushi Ram and Gomti against judgment & Order dated 17.04.1997 passed by Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in Sessions Trial No. 318 of 1995 whereby and whereunder appellants were convicted under Sections 304 B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, further convicted the appellants under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also convicted the appellants under Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months. 3. During the pendency of the instant appeal, appellant no. 2 Khushi Ram died. The present appeal so far as it relates to appellant no. 2 Khushi Ram is hereby dismissed as abated. 4. This is a case where an innocent lady having been married in the family of the appellants died within two years of marriage. The provisions of criminal procedure code were set into motion on the first information report submitted by Ganga Ram, father of the deceased on 30.07.1994, whereby he had communicated the in-charge of police station regarding the incident. 5. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Geeta Devi daughter of complainant Ganga Ram s/o Itwari r/o Village Ballipur, P.S. Nighasan, was married with the accused appellant no.1 Ram Kumar s/o Khushi Ram, about two years before her death. At the time of solemnization of marriage of the deceased with appellant no. 1, father of the deceased gave dowry according to his capacity, but some time before the death of deceased, Ram Kumar, Ram Samujh, Khushi Ram and Gomti-wife of Khushi Ram demanded Rs.5,000/- from the father of the deceased and said that in case the said amount is not paid, they would kill his daughter. On 30.07.1994, Mela Ram, uncle of the deceased was going to Palia to consult the doctor. On the way, he received the information that Geeta has been murdered. On receiving the information, he went to the house of in-laws and saw that the dead body of Geeta Devi was hanging in the chappar and none of the accused was present in the house and only some villagers were at the place of incident. On the way, he received the information that Geeta has been murdered. On receiving the information, he went to the house of in-laws and saw that the dead body of Geeta Devi was hanging in the chappar and none of the accused was present in the house and only some villagers were at the place of incident. Thereafter, Mela Ram went to his brother in law’s house situated at village Ballipur and from there he gave information to father of the deceased regarding death of his daughter. Further, Mela Ram along with his brother Ganga Ram again went to the village Banghusri at the house of the accused persons and found the dead body of her daughter hanging in the chappar. On the same day i.e. on 30.07.1994, a First Information Report was lodged by father of the deceased Ganga Ram in police station where it was registered as Crime No. 141 of 1994 under Sections 498-A/304-B IPC and under Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, against Ram Kumar, Khushi Ram and Gomti. During investigation, statement of witnesses were recorded and body of the deceased was taken into hospital for post mortem. Post mortem was conducted on 31.07.1994 at about 04:40 P.M by Dr. Shamsuddin. 6. After investigation, charge-sheet under Section 498-A IPC, 304-B IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act was submitted against the accused Ram Kumar, Khushi Ram and Gomti. All the accused denied the charges levelled against them and claimed for trial. 7. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Ganga Ram, P.W.2 Mela Ram, P.W.3 Jitendra Kumar Shahi and P.W.4 Dr. Shamshuddin. No witness has been examined by the accused in defence. 8. P.W.1 Ganga Ram is the complainant and father of the deceased Geeta Devi. He deposed that his daughter Geeta Devi married with the accused Ram Kumar about 2 ½ years back from the date of the incident. All the accused along with her dewar Ram Samujh used to demand Rs.5,000/-. They have also directly demanded the same from him and Khushi Ram used to say that in case the money is not paid, they would kill Geeta Devi to death. On receiving the information of his daughter’s murder, he along with other family members went to the village of his daughter and found that the dead body of his daughter was hanging in chappar. On receiving the information of his daughter’s murder, he along with other family members went to the village of his daughter and found that the dead body of his daughter was hanging in chappar. Thereafter, he got lodged the FIR on the same day. At the time of marriage, he gave watch, cycle and utensils. At that time also, accused demanded money but he could not pay and he promised to give it in future, which he could not fulfill. He had also admitted that at the time of marriage there was no quarrel on the point of demanding money. He further stated that when his daughter came back to her house, she was not happy but she did not make any complaint against her in-laws. 9. P.W.2 Mela Ram, younger brother of the complainant, had deposed that his niece Geeta Devi was married with the accused Ram Kumar two years before her death. Her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and Dewar used to demand Rs.5,000/- from her and when this amount was not paid, all of them used to harass her. The deceased used to tell regarding demand of money and harassment/treating her with cruelty. 10. P.W.3 Jitendra Shahi, had deposed that he started the investigation of this case since 30.07.1994. He noted the chik F.I.R. and the G.D.. He had recorded the statement of S.I. Shiv Veer Singh, who prepared the inquest report and connected papers thereto. He proved the chik F.I.R. prepared by constable as Ext. Ka-2 and copy of G.D. rapat as Ext. Ka-3. He also proved the inquest report and connected papers as Ext. Ka-4 to Ka-8. He had also proved the fard recovery of piece of string as Ext. ka-9. 11. P.W.4 Dr. Shamshuddin, had deposed that on 31.07.1994, he was posted as Child Specialist in Female Hospital, Lakhimpur Kheri. On the said date, he conducted the post mortem of deceased Geeta Devi w/o Ram Kumar. The dead body was brought by constable Ram Tiwari and Manoj Kumar Pandey in sealed condition and it was identified by them. At the time of the post-mortem, age of the deceased was about 18 years and a period of two days had passed after her death. The rigor mortis from upper and lower parts have passed. The P.M. staining was present in the lower part and at the hands. At the time of the post-mortem, age of the deceased was about 18 years and a period of two days had passed after her death. The rigor mortis from upper and lower parts have passed. The P.M. staining was present in the lower part and at the hands. Following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased:- (a) Ligature mark 30 cms. X 1.5 cms over upper part of neck, 5 cm below the chin, 6 cms below the left ear and 3 cms below the right ear, situated above the thyroid cartilage between larynx and chin and running obliquely upwards, following the line of mandible interrupted over left side back of neck and behind the left ear, the mark is grooved, base pale heard and parchment like, margins brown in colour. On dissection subcut. Tissues under the ligature mark is dry, white and glistering. (b) Contusion 6 cms. X 2 cms. over front of left thigh, 14 cms. above left knee, bluish in colour. Age of injury is about two days old before death. (c) Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.3 cm. x muscle deep over dorsum of right foot, 2 cms, above the root of great toe. Fresh clotted blood was present. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the judgment and order passed by trial court suffers from material illegality as there is lack of positive evidence about demand of dowry made by the accused appellants. Further, Sohan Lal, by whom the marriage of the deceased with Ram Kumar was settled, was not examined and his statement was not recorded, which creates doubt over prosecution. The deceased herself has committed suicide and it is a case of suicidal death. As there is no material evidence about the demand of dowry by the appellants as such no complaint prior to this incident was lodged, therefore, the allegations of demand of dowry become unbelievable. There is also no evidence which could show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death. The instant appeal deserves to be allowed and appellants may be acquitted on all counts. 13. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently supported the judgment of the lower court and he replied the arguments of appellant on all counts. The instant appeal deserves to be allowed and appellants may be acquitted on all counts. 13. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently supported the judgment of the lower court and he replied the arguments of appellant on all counts. He supported that there is sufficient material and the trial judge has taken note of all the facts and circumstances of the case and on detail examination, appellants have been convicted. 14. Learned counsel for appellants had submitted that it is suicidal death. There is no case that the deceased had committed suicide. There is no reason or explanation from the side of the appellants for committing the suicide. Even if, it was a case of suicide, there was no need for absconding the appellants from the place of occurrence or from their own home. There is no explanation why the first information report was not lodged in the nearest police station by the appellants in the nearest point of time. There is no explanation as to why the deceased was not admitted in the hospital and there is also no explanation as to why her parental side was not communicated to the fact of death. 15. Further submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that as there was no complaint prior to this incident, therefore, the allegation of demand of dowry become unbelievable. I am not at all convinced with the submission of learned counsel for the appellants. In a matrimonial relationship, the family member of the victim always tries and makes their best efforts for the continuance of the marriage. In case any complaint or any F.I.R. is lodged to this effect then the dispute becomes irreversible and it would further deteriorate the relationship of the wife with her husband and the other family members of her matrimonial home. Due to this reason, the complaint of minor incidents of cruelty with the wife or demand of dowry are not generally reported. The Court is required to appreciate the evidence, keeping in view the prevailing circumstances in the society. Therefore, the ground, which has been taken on behalf of the appellants, has absolutely no force. All the two witnesses have made specific allegation that the demand of dowry was made and the victim was consequently ill treated. She died within seven years of marriage. 16. Therefore, the ground, which has been taken on behalf of the appellants, has absolutely no force. All the two witnesses have made specific allegation that the demand of dowry was made and the victim was consequently ill treated. She died within seven years of marriage. 16. The next submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that there is no evidence on the point that soon before her death, deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry is apparently misconceived. The meaning of the words 'soon before her death' has been considered by the Apex Court in various judgments. In the case of Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2001) 8 SCC 633 , which was followed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2004 (7) SCC 724 and has held as under:- "It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at sometime, if Section 304-B I.P.C. is to be invoked. But it should have happened soon before her death. The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few week before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words "soon before her death" is to emphasis the idea that her death should in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words there should be perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval elapsed between infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide the court would be in a position to guage that in all probabilities the harassment or cruelty would not have been the immediate cause of her death. It is hence for the Court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to sneft its cord from the concept "soon before her death." 17. It is hence for the Court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to sneft its cord from the concept "soon before her death." 17. The ingredient of cruelty is common to Sections 304B and 498A IPC, but the width and scope of two sections is different, inasmuch as Section 304B deals with cases of death as a result of cruelty or harassment within seven years of marriage, Section 498A has a wider spectrum and it covers all cases in which the wife is subjected to cruelty by her husband or relative of the husband which may result in death by way of suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) or even harassment caused with a view to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security. 18. In our country the bride burning, bride hanging or poisoning cases have become common. These kind of offences are not the ordinary crimes committed in anger or for property. These are crimes against society on account of which the entire social fabric is disrupted. Time has come when everybody is to seriously think over the nature and gravity of the crime. It is very pathetic situation when the young girl aged about 20-25 years leaves her parents to serve another family who is totally unknown to her. She is to be extended even more love, affection and the help in comparison to our own daughter as the lady after marriage is just a part of the family where she is married. She takes care of all the members of the family right from young to old, and therefore, any kind of indiscipline, misconduct with the young lady can be termed as inhuman. 19. In the light of facts, this court is of the view that learned trial judge had discussed each and every prosecution witnesses in detail and after proper analysis has drawn a conclusion, which is well permitted in law and found that the death of the deceased was within the purview of dowry death but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and that appellant no. 3-Gomti is the mother and she in her old age, the mother should not be held guilty for the offence as mentioned above in the light of Kans Raj versus state of Punjab Supreme court 2000 (3) 554 wherein Hon'ble Supreme court has observed that father or sister, in-laws of the deceased can not be said to have been involved in the commission of the crime by mere conjecture and implication of such relatives can not implicate them for demand of dowry. A tendency has however been developed for roping in all relations of in-laws of deceased in the matter of dowry death which, if not discouraged is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprit. 20. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the view that appellant no. 1-Ram Kumar has been rightly convicted by the learned Trial Judge. So far as the conviction of Gomti is concerned, in the light of above discussions, benefit of doubt should be given to her and the case of torture or dowry death is not proved against her. Thus, appeal of Gomti deserves to be allowed. 21. The instant appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No.318 of 1995 against Gomti is set aside and she is acquitted from the charges levelled against her. If the appellant-Gomti is in imprisonment, she is liable to be set at liberty at once if not required in any other criminal case and, in case, she is on bail she need not surrender to her bail and the bail bonds are discharged. 22. The conviction and sentence against Ram Kumar is confirmed and the appeal of appellant Ram Kumar is dismissed. Appellant-accused Ram Kumar is in jail. He will serve out his remaining sentence. 23. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned court/Chief Judicial Magistrate Kheri for compliance of this order.