JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J. Heard Sri Harish Chandra Tiwary, learned amicus curiae for the appellant, Sri B.D. Nishad, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant Anees against the judgment and order dated 10.11.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Ghaziabad, in Session Trial No.1034 of 1999 (State Vs. Anees) arising out of Case Crime No.288 of 1999 under Section 304 B IPC, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 B IPC The facts relevant as discernible from record appear to be that the first information report was lodged by the informant Nisar Ahmad son of Asatullah Khan, resident of Mohalla Aryanagar, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, at the aforesaid police station on 31.05.1999 at 4:30 p.m. to the effect that the informant's sister Firdosh entered into nuptial knot with the accused-appellant Anees two years prior to the incident and gave articles in the dowry as per his capacity. The elder brother of the accused and his wife maltreated the informant's sister for not bringing enough dowry and they demanded scooter and cash. The informant arranged residence of her sister at Mohalla Aryanagar because the accused-appellant used to quarrel with the informant's brother and mother and he was residing in a rented house of Sarfaraj in Mohalla Aryanagar and he was not visiting at the house of the informant's sister and the informant was not allowed to meet his sister. Today, an information was given by the owner of the house about some stinking smell emanating from room of Firdosh whereupon the looked door was broken when the dead body of Firdosh was found lying beneath the table. The death of Firdosh has been caused avariciously for not fulfilling the demand of dowry. The written report is Ext. Ka-1. Contents of the aforesaid information were taken down in the concerned Check FIR at Case Crime No.288 of 1999 under Section 304 B IPC, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad on 31.05.1999 at 4:30 p.m. Check FIR is Ext. Ka-4. The death of Firdosh has been caused avariciously for not fulfilling the demand of dowry. The written report is Ext. Ka-1. Contents of the aforesaid information were taken down in the concerned Check FIR at Case Crime No.288 of 1999 under Section 304 B IPC, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad on 31.05.1999 at 4:30 p.m. Check FIR is Ext. Ka-4. On the basis of entries so made in the check F.I.R., a case was registered against the accused-appellant in the relevant G.D. at serial no.31 on 31.05.1999 at 4:30 p.m. at aforesaid case crime number at Police Station Loni under aforesaid section of I.P.C. against accused-appellant. Copy of general diary is Ext. Ka-5. Thereafter, the investigation ensued. In the process, inquest report of the deceased Firdosh was prepared on 31.05.1999 itself. It commenced at 5:15 p.m. and completed at 6:30 p.m. This inquest report is Ext. Ka-2. In the opinion of witnesses of inquest report it was thought appropriate to send the dead body for post-mortem examination for ascertaining real cause of death. Relevant papers, for sending the dead body for autopsy, were prepared. In the process relevant papers prepared are Police Form - challan dead body Ext. Ka-11, letter to the Chief Medical Officer Ext. Ka-8, Photonash Ext. Ka-9, specimen seal Ext. Ka-10. Thereafter, post mortem examination on the cadaver of the deceased Firdosh was conducted by Dr. Harish Chand Saxena, on 01.06.1999 at 5:00 p.m. in the mortuary at Ghaziabad. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage. Duration was noted 3 to 4 days old. This post mortem examination report is Ext. Ka-3. As the investigation proceeded further, the Investigating Officer prepared site plan of the incident besides recording the statement of various witnesses. The site plan is Ext. Ka-6. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet (Ext. Ka-7) was filed against accused-appellant by the Investigating Officer. Pursuant thereto, proceedings were committed to the court of Sessions from where it was transferred for conduction and disposal of the case to the aforesaid trial court of III-Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad who in turn heard both the sides on point of charge and was prima-facie satisfied with case against the accused-appellant, accordingly, framed charges under Section 304 B IPC. Charge was read over and explained to the accused-appellant who abjured charge and opted for trial. Charge was read over and explained to the accused-appellant who abjured charge and opted for trial. In furtherance of the proceedings the prosecution produced in all 6 witnesses. A brief sketch of witnesses is ut-infra:- Yunus PW-1 is brother of the deceased Firdosh. Nisar PW-2 is informant and also brother of the deceased. Dr. Harish Chand Saxena PW-3 has conducted post mortem examination on the cadaver of the deceased. Constable Brij Pal Singh PW-4 has noted contents in the concerned Check FIR and general diary Ext. Ka-4 and Ext. Ka-5. Ashok Kumar PW-5 is the Investigating Officer, he has conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused-appellant. Constable Surendra Kumar PW-6 has proved relevant papers Ext. Ka-8, Ext. Ka-9, Ext. Ka-10 and Ext. Ka-11. Except as above, no other evidence was adduced by the prosecution. Therefore, evidence for the prosecution was closed. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he has given various reasons for false implication and he has submitted that the deceased was having illicit relationship with one Jaipal. The deceased was carrying three months pregnancy at the time of marriage with him. The deceased and her mother were ladies of loose character. Six months prior to the incident, some quarrel took place with Yunus, the brother of the deceased. The two brothers of the deceased, Yunus and Nisar after beating him ousted him from their home. The mother of the deceased had borrowed money from the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant used to bear expenses of the mother and sister of the deceased. He used to live separately at Meerut since one month prior to the incident and he was constructing his own house. No evidence was led in defence. The case was heard on merit by the learned trial Judge who after appraisal of facts and circumstances and evaluation of the evidence of the case, recorded conviction against the appellant and sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 B IPC, vide judgment and order dated 10.11.2005. Consequently, this appeal. No evidence was led in defence. The case was heard on merit by the learned trial Judge who after appraisal of facts and circumstances and evaluation of the evidence of the case, recorded conviction against the appellant and sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 B IPC, vide judgment and order dated 10.11.2005. Consequently, this appeal. It has been contended by the learned amicus curiae for the appellant that in this case, conviction recorded under Section 304 B IPC is vitiated in the eye of law on account of fact that all the essential ingredients as described under Section 304 B IPC have not been proved and one of the ingredients - that soon before her death the victim was subjected to any cruelty - is altogether missing and what to say about factum of cruelty being perpetrated on the deceased. The demand of dowry has not been proved even in the least that it was so raised and the death was caused on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. While concluding argument, it has been contended that the court below did not consider the aforesaid factual as well as legal aspects of the case and has wrongly returned the finding of conviction and awarded sentence against him, which finding of conviction is based more on conjecture and surmises than on evidence on record. While retorting to the aforesaid argument, learned AGA has submitted that the prosecution witnesses have consistently proved all the essential ingredients described under Section 304 B IPC and specific averments have been made and the testimony on record is clinching and the same cannot be doubted regarding the demand of dowry and cruelty being perpetrated on the deceased. Learned AGA summed up by adding that there is no point in sparing real culprit and implicating an innocent person in this case. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses of fact does inspire confidence and there is no element of doubt in their testimony. The instant appeal lacks force. Also considered above submissions. The moot point involved for adjudicating this appeal relates to the fact whether the prosecution has been able to establish charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt ? The testimony of the prosecution witnesses of fact does inspire confidence and there is no element of doubt in their testimony. The instant appeal lacks force. Also considered above submissions. The moot point involved for adjudicating this appeal relates to the fact whether the prosecution has been able to establish charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt ? As per testimony of the two brothers of the deceased namely Yunus PW-1 and Nisar Ahmad PW-2, it is obvious that the factum of marriage of Firdosh with the accused-appellant having taken place within seven years of the incident has been sufficiently established by them. Their testimony on the whole is indicative and suggestive of fact that soon after the marriage, the accused-appellant began to reside with his wife and cruelty was perpetrated on their sister by the accused-appellant, his brother and his Bhabhi and they demanded scooter and cash (as above). Both the brothers have testified to fact that the accused-appellant was in the habit of quarreling with them, therefore, they ousted the accused-appellant along with his wife (victim) whereupon the accused-appellant started residing in a rented house of Sarfaraj in Mohalla Aryanagar. It was on 31.05.1999, Sarfaraj came to them and informed about odorous / stinking smell emanating from inside the locked room of the accused-appellant and the deceased, whereupon they went up to the room of the accused-appellant where the door was locked, therefore, lock was got broken and upon reaching to the spot badly damaged/mutilated dead body of the deceased Firdosh was found lying beneath the table. This factual aspect of the case is virtually established against the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant has taken plea of ali bi but has not brought any circumstance or testimony on record which may justify fact that he, at that particular time when the incident took place, was not residing with the deceased in the rented house in Mohalla Aryanagar, therefore, the plea of ali bi is not sustainable in the eye of law. The accused-appellant has taken plea of ali bi but has not brought any circumstance or testimony on record which may justify fact that he, at that particular time when the incident took place, was not residing with the deceased in the rented house in Mohalla Aryanagar, therefore, the plea of ali bi is not sustainable in the eye of law. The entire factum of demand of dowry and cruelty being perpetrated on the deceased Firdosh and fact of marriage having taken place within seven years of the incident and fact of death being unnatural stood established then presumption laid down under Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act is drawn against the accused-appellant and he is required to establish the circumstances leading to death of his wife Firdosh. Upon wholesome scrutiny and consideration of testimony and facts and circumstances of the case on record, nothing is reflected to the sort that the accused-appellant did not reside with his wife at the time of the occurrence, therefore, by way of presumption, inescapable conclusion follows that the accused-appellant alone is the author of causing dowry death of his wife Firdosh. Section 304 B IPC stipulates in clear cut terms that in case the death of a woman takes place by any injury or burn or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances of the case and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with any dowry of demand, the same shall be called dowry death. Therefore, it is proved in this case that the accused-appellant has committed dowry death. Thus, all the essential ingredients as contained under Section 304 B IPC - i.e. - the death being unnatural, demand of dowry, perpetration of cruelty soon before her death and perpetration of cruelty have been reasonably proved. That way consistent finding of conviction has been recorded by the trial court and the same cannot be said to be not based on material on record. In view of above scrutiny, I find that testimony on record qua circumstances are sufficiently proved to establish charge under Sections 304 B beyond reasonable doubt. That way consistent finding of conviction has been recorded by the trial court and the same cannot be said to be not based on material on record. In view of above scrutiny, I find that testimony on record qua circumstances are sufficiently proved to establish charge under Sections 304 B beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial Judge has taken correct view of the fact, circumstances and evidence on record and has recorded just finding and has rightly sentenced the accused-appellant which order of conviction and sentence needs no interference by this Court. Thus the judgment and order dated 10.11.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Ghaziabad, in Session Trial No.1034 of 1999 (State Vs. Anees) arising out of Case Crime No.288 of 1999 under Section 304 B IPC, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, is affirmed and upheld. In view of above, the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. Pertinent to mention that in this case, vide information furnished by Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Agra, through letter dated 13.08.2017, it is reflected that the accused-appellant on account of suffering his entire sentence of ten years has been released from jail on 13.09.2008. Let a copy of this judgment be certified to the trial court for necessary information and follow up action.