Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 940 (JHR)

Govind Gope v. State of Jharkhand

2018-04-27

RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Ratnaker Bhengra, J. This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 09.08.2002 and order of sentence dated 12.08.2002, passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in S.T. No. 35 of 2001, arising out of G.R. Case No. 2302/99, Churchu P.S. Case No. 9/99, corresponding to T.R. No. 942/2000, whereby and whereunder, the learned Court has been pleased to hold the appellants guilty under Section 304B and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years for the offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of prosecution as per the written report of the informant Mahavir Yadav, PW-6 is that his sister Nagiya Devi aged about 19 years was married to accused Mahendra Yadav in the year 1997. After 7-8 months of marriage Mahendra Yadav, his mother Kishni Devi, his elder brother Govind Gope, his Bhabhi Muniya Devi, Prameshwar Gope and his wife Jhalo Devi told the victim girl Nagiya Devi to bring a sum of Rs.20,000/- and a T.V. from her parental home. This information was sent through the victim girl Nagiya Devi to her parents. As they could not fulfill such demand Nagiya Devi was subjected to torture physically and mentally by beating and abusing her. It is also stated that the deceased Nagiya Devi when she came to her parental house on the occasion of ‘Karma Puja’, she narrated to her parents and brothers about the demand of the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a T.V. as a dowry. Thereupon the informant Mahavir Yadav along with Punit Yadav went to the sasural of his sister and discussed the matter about dowry whereupon accused specifically stated to the informant that anything could happen to his sister on failure to meet the aforesaid demands. It is alleged that in the evening of 24.12.99 accused Govind elder brother of the husband of the victim Nagiya Devi came to the informant house and informed that deceased Nagiya Devi had left the house and gone somewhere else. On receiving this information, the informant Mahavir Yadav started making enquiry from Govind. It is alleged that in the evening of 24.12.99 accused Govind elder brother of the husband of the victim Nagiya Devi came to the informant house and informed that deceased Nagiya Devi had left the house and gone somewhere else. On receiving this information, the informant Mahavir Yadav started making enquiry from Govind. Thereupon Govind Gope became nervous. Thereafter, the informant made search of his sister Nagiya Devi in the house of his relatives but victim girl Nagiya Devi could not be traced out. Thereafter, the informant Mahavir Yadav along with his brother-in-law Prayag Yadav, cousin brother Gobardhan Yadav, one Dashrath Yadav and 6 to 7 villagers went to the sasural (in-laws home) of his sister Nagiya Devi and met with her husband Mahendra Yadav and other members and made enquiry from them but they did not give any satisfactory explanation about the disappearance of her sister Nagiya Devi. Thereafter, the informant Mahavir Yadav went to Churchu P.S. and lodged a written report. The informant Mahavir Yadav had the belief that accused persons had murdered his sister Nagiya Devi due to demand of dowry of T.V. and Rs.20,000/- and her dead body was concealed somewhere by the aforesaid accused persons. 3. On the basis of the said written report filed by the informant Mahavir Yadav, Churchu P.S. Case No. 9/99 for the offence under Sections 304B, and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted. The learned C.J.M. took cognizance of this case and committed this case to the court of sessions. Charges were framed and trial was held and at the conclusion of trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 4. Prosecution had examined altogether nine witnesses in support of the case. 5. PW-6 Mahavir Yadav is the informant and brother of the deceased Nagiya Devi. He deposed that his sister Nagiya Devi was married to the accused Mahendra Yadav in the year 1997. His sister Nagiya Devi was subjected to cruelty and harassment by abusing and beating her by accused for a sum of Rs.20,000/- and a T.V. as a dowry. Thereafter, he went to the matrimonial house of the deceased Nagiya Devi along with PW-7 Punit Yadav. There he informed about the demand of dowry of Rs.20,000/- and a T.V. to the Chaukidar and villagers. Thereafter, he went to the matrimonial house of the deceased Nagiya Devi along with PW-7 Punit Yadav. There he informed about the demand of dowry of Rs.20,000/- and a T.V. to the Chaukidar and villagers. On 24.12.1999 the accused Govind came to his house and informed about the missing of the deceased Nagiya Devi. On interrogation the accused Govind Gope did not reply satisfactorily about missing of the deceased Nagiya Devi and left the house. Thereafter, he along with his relatives and neighbours went to the matrimonial house of the deceased Nagiya Devi on 25.12.1999. He made enquiry from the family members of the deceased Nagiya Devi and villagers but no satisfactory explanation was given by them. He further deposed that becoming suspicious about the murder of his sister Nagiya Devi and the disappearance of her dead body, he went to Churchu P.S. and lodged a written report. His signature on the written report was marked as Ext.4. In paragraph-6 of his evidence, he deposed that he went to the sasural of the deceased Nagiya Devi to bring her twice, at one time on the occasion of ‘Karma Puja’ and the other time after two months of her marriage. He further deposed that dispute arose after 8 months of her marriage. In his cross-examination, he answered that a Panchayati was held. In paragraph-14 of his evidence, he said that he came to know from PW-9, Beni Mahto, a co-villager from the matrimonial village of the deceased, about the harassment of the deceased Nagiya Devi in the year 1998. 6. PW-3 Gobardhan Yadav is the cousin brother of the deceased Nagiya Devi. He deposed that the deceased Nagiya Devi was married to the accused Mahendra Yadav three years prior to her death. Accused Govind came to his village and informed about missing of the deceased Nagiya Devi. On this information, they went to the sasural of Nagiya Devi and interrogated her husband and other members about the missing of the deceased Nagiya Devi but no satisfactory reply was given by them. Search of Nagiya Devi was made in the village, but they found no trace of Nagiya Devi. He further deposed that the accused had demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- and a T.V. as a dowry for which a quarrel had taken place. Search of Nagiya Devi was made in the village, but they found no trace of Nagiya Devi. He further deposed that the accused had demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- and a T.V. as a dowry for which a quarrel had taken place. In his cross-examination, he stated that Nagiya Devi had come to her parent’s house on the festival of ‘Karma’ and she had narrated about the demand of sum of Rs.20,000/- and a T.V. and that threat was also given to take her life. In paragraph-9 of his evidence, he deposed that demand of T.V. and money was made in his presence when he had gone to the sasural of the deceased Nagiya Devi. 7. PW-4, Umesh Yadav, is the brother of the deceased Nagiya Devi. He deposed that the deceased Nagiya Devi was married to Mahendra Yadav three years prior to her death. His sister came to his house and in tears she had narrated about the demand of Rs.20,000/- and a T.V. and said that on failure to meet the aforesaid demand her life would be at stake. Thereupon he along with others went to the sasural of Nagiya Devi and settled the matter by giving assurance that the demand of money and T.V. would be fulfilled. He further deposed that the accused Govind, who is the bhaisur of deceased, came to his house and informed about the missing of the deceased Nagiya Devi. On receiving the said information, he made enquiry from Govind who did not reply satisfactorily and left the house. Then he along with others went to the matrimonial home of his sister and made enquiry from the villagers but they did not give any satisfactory explanation for the missing Nagiya Devi. He suspected that his sister was murdered and her dead body was hidden. In cross-examination, he said police had pulled out the dead body of the deceased Nagiya Devi from a well and took his statement on the well itself. 8. PW-5 is the brother-in-law (bahnoi) of the deceased Nagiya Devi. He deposed that deceased Nagiya Devi was married to the accused Mahendra Yadav three years prior to her death. The deceased Nagiya Devi was subjected to harassment for demand of dowry of Rs.20,000/- and a T.V. by the accused. Accused Govind Gope had informed about the missing of the deceased Nagiya Devi. He deposed that deceased Nagiya Devi was married to the accused Mahendra Yadav three years prior to her death. The deceased Nagiya Devi was subjected to harassment for demand of dowry of Rs.20,000/- and a T.V. by the accused. Accused Govind Gope had informed about the missing of the deceased Nagiya Devi. Thereupon he along with others went to the matrimonial house of deceased Nagiya Devi situated at village Dighwar. The accused did not reply satisfactorily about the deceased on enquiry made by them. Thereafter, they went to Churchu P.S. and lodged FIR. In cross-examination, he deposed to have seen the deceased Nagiya Devi drowned in the well. He further said that in his presence demand of dowry was made by the accused persons and a Panchayati was held in the village of the accused in respect of demand of dowry. 9. PW-7, Punit Yadav is the cousin brother of the deceased Nagiya Devi. He deposed that the deceased Nagiya Devi was married to the accused Mahendra Yadav in 1997. After five months of her marriage quarrels used to take place for demand of dowry of Rs.20,000/- and a T.V. The deceased Nagiya Devi was threatened for demand of the aforesaid dowry. They went to the matrimonial house of the deceased Nagiya Devi for settlement of the dispute. On the occasion of ‘Karma Festival’ Nagiya Devi came to her parental house and narrated about torture meted out to her. Bhaisur of Nagiya Devi came and informed them about missing of the deceased Nagiya Devi. On enquiry made by them, he did not give any satisfactory reply and left the house. Thereafter, this witness and others went to the sasural of Nagiya Devi and made enquiry from his family members and neighbours. But no fruitful reply was made by them. Thereafter, they along with Mahavir Yadav and others went to Churchu P.S. and FIR was lodged there. 10. PW-8 Chamru Ram is the inquest report witness and Sarpanch of the Dighwar village. He deposed that in his presence police had pulled out the dead body of the deceased from a well and police had prepared inquest report and on which he had put his signature marked as Ext.2/1. 11. PW-9 Beni Mahto is the inquest report witness. 10. PW-8 Chamru Ram is the inquest report witness and Sarpanch of the Dighwar village. He deposed that in his presence police had pulled out the dead body of the deceased from a well and police had prepared inquest report and on which he had put his signature marked as Ext.2/1. 11. PW-9 Beni Mahto is the inquest report witness. He deposed that police had pulled out a dead body from the well of one Prayag Ram and prepared inquest report of the said dead body on which he had put his signature marked as Ext.2/2. 12. PW-2 Dr. Bimal Kumar Verma is the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Nagiya Devi. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on her bodies: (i) Lacerated wound red in colour 4” x 2” at right cheek bone deep; (ii) Bruise around the right eye with red colour; (iii) Sub conjuctival hemorrhage marked present; (iv) Blister not present on body; (v) Hyoid bone intact not fractured; (vi) Bruise on back of hip 4” x 2”; (vii) Skin of palm and foot sole corroborated. According to him, time since death elapsed 2 to 4 days and cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning. This witness has proved the post-mortem report marked as Ext.3. This witness has suggested that external injuries which have been found on the dead body of the deceased Nagiya Devi may be caused due to fall on the substance. 13. PW-1 Srikant Singh is the Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that while he was posted at Churchu P.S. on 25.12.1999 PW-6 Mahavir Yadav came at Churchu P.S. and lodged a written report on the basis of which this case was registered and FIR was drawn (Ext.1). He visited the place of occurrence which is the cemented well of Prayag Ram situated at Simratar in the village Dighwar under Churchu P.S. The dead body of the deceased Nagiya Devi was pulled out from the well with the help of ‘Jhagar’, ‘rope’ and ‘ladder’ in the presence of accused Mahendra Yadav and villagers. The dead body was identified by her husband Mahendra Yadav and brother of the deceased Mahavir Yadav, Sarpanch (PW-8) Chamru Ram and other villagers. Inquest report was prepared and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag. The dead body was identified by her husband Mahendra Yadav and brother of the deceased Mahavir Yadav, Sarpanch (PW-8) Chamru Ram and other villagers. Inquest report was prepared and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag. In paragraph-11, he deposed that the said well was situated at one thousand (1000) metre away from the house of the accused and there was no house nearby the said well. He further deposed that he recorded the confessional statement of the accused Mahendra Yadav. In paragraph-8 of his evidence, he deposed that as per confessional statement of Mahendra Gope there is another place of occurrence which is the house of accused Mahendra Gope. He further said that house of the accused is built of mud and it is said that the deceased Nagiya Devi was murdered in the said house and from there the dead body of Nagiya Devi was thrown in the well. Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants: 14. Learned counsel for the appellants initially highlighted what he considered inconsistencies or contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He submitted that PW-6 or Mahavir Yadav, the informant has deposed that the people from the village of the in-laws of the deceased had told him about the harassment given to the deceased but none of the village persons were examined on this point. In paragraph-10, informant has deposed that Beni Mahto PW-9 from the village of the in-laws had complained to him but the said PW-9 in his cross-examination has said that he did not hear about dowry demand and assault. In paragraph-13 of the deposition of the informant, there is a reference to holding of panchayati, but there is no documentation about it. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants has then referred to the evidence of PW-9, Beni Mahto and submitted that in paragraph-3 he deposed that he had not heard about any demand for dowry and neither about any assault. Regarding, PW-4, Umesh Yadav, learned counsel said that he had deposed in paragraph-10 that in his presence there had been no dispute and fight. 16. Referring to the evidence of PW-5, Paryag Yadav, appellants' counsel submitted that in paragraph-7 of his evidence, he has deposed about holding of panchayati in accused village, but, there is no documentary evidence of such panchayati. 16. Referring to the evidence of PW-5, Paryag Yadav, appellants' counsel submitted that in paragraph-7 of his evidence, he has deposed about holding of panchayati in accused village, but, there is no documentary evidence of such panchayati. In paragraph-8 of his deposition, he deposed that no complaint against accused persons or appellants were made prior to the death of the deceased. Learned counsel has also pointed out paragraph-10 of his deposition where it is said by this witness that after murdering Nagiya Devi, her dead body was thrown in the well and her dead body was found tied with stone and wood and police had pulled out the dead body tied with stone and wood, but, the Investigating Officer has not deposed so. Learned counsel further submitted that PW-7, Punit Yadav, who is cousin brother of the deceased, has also deposed that no earlier complaint regarding demand of money and television was given to the police. Learned counsel further submitted that PW-8, Chamru Ram, who is an inquest report witness, had deposed that he did not know about any dowry demand or assault on the deceased. 17. Referring to the evidence of PW-2, Dr. Bimal Kumar Verma, appellants' counsel submitted that even the Doctor has opined that deceased died of “asphyxia” due to drowning, so the appellants cannot be blamed, and the external injuries were due to her falling into the well. About the evidence of the Investigating Officer, PW-1, counsel submitted that in para-15 he had deposed that the husband of the deceased accused Mahendra lived separately from his father. 18. Continuing further, learned appellants' counsel further submitted that no specific dates or times have been indicated for the demand of dowry accompanying cruelty. There is also no specific description of cruelty, such as, what was the nature of cruelty indicated and nor had it been indicated by whom the cruelty was meted out, rather, on the other hand, PW-6 has said there was cordial relationship between the deceased and the appellants. Learned counsel further referring to deposition of the informant PW-6 at paragraph-11 submitted that when the informant had come on 'Karma Festival' to her matrimonial home, there was no cruelty meted out to her and that is why deceased did not make any complaint. Learned counsel further referring to deposition of the informant PW-6 at paragraph-11 submitted that when the informant had come on 'Karma Festival' to her matrimonial home, there was no cruelty meted out to her and that is why deceased did not make any complaint. In absence of specific timings and dates of the cruelties alleged, the only conclusion is that such cruelties are not proved and, therefore, the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 19. Continuing further, counsel for the appellants has submitted that of particular relevance is the post-mortem report, wherein it has been indicated that the deceased died of asphyxia due to drowning, hence, there is no involvement of human efforts or hands indicated in such death. 20. Regarding the conviction of appellant No.1, Govind Gope, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that he was only convicted because he informed at deceased person’s paternal home about the missing of the deceased Nagiya Devi. Moreover, there is no documentary evidence of any panchayati being held in this regard to prove that there was a meeting held to discuss the dowry accompanying cruelties, prior to the death of the deceased. 21. Appellants have cited the rulings in “Baljeet Singh and another versus State of Haryana”, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 1230 para-17; “Balwant Singh and another versus State of Punjab”, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 7477 para-11 and “Bhola Ram versus State of Punjab”, reported in 2014(1) JBCJ 389 (SC) para-30 to help support his case. Arguments of the learned A.P.P., appearing on behalf of the State: 22. Learned A.P.P., appearing on behalf of the State, has argued that ingredients of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code are fully made out in the alleged involvement of the appellants. Learned A.P.P. has said that the deceased-woman had died due to circumstances that was not natural and that deceased had ante-mortem injuries of laceration and bruise on various parts of the body, as indicated by PW-2, Dr. Bimal Kumar Verma who had held post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. Before her death, deceased was subjected to cruelty in relation to demand of dowry in the manner of Rs.20,000/- and a T.V. accompanied by cruelty and harassment and her death was within seven years of her marriage. Bimal Kumar Verma who had held post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. Before her death, deceased was subjected to cruelty in relation to demand of dowry in the manner of Rs.20,000/- and a T.V. accompanied by cruelty and harassment and her death was within seven years of her marriage. Learned A.P.P. has further said that presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act is quite natural and obvious in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned A.P.P. has further argued that except minor inconsistencies, which can be attributed to the illiteracy or lack of education of the witnesses, the evidence for the ingredients of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code are sufficient. 23. Learned A.P.P. has further submitted that PW-3 in para-2 has said that there was demand of dowry and disputes used to occur regarding dowry and that this is definitely cruelty and harassment. Learned A.P.P. says that the demands were made and deceased was threatened that if the demands were not met then she may loose her life and this definitely amounts to mental cruelty. Learned A.P.P. has then said that in para-9 of the deposition of this witness, it has been indicated that demands were made in his presence many times. 24. Pointing to the evidence of PW-4, learned A.P.P. has said that in para-2, it has been indicated that the deceased had shed tears while informing about the demand for Rs.20,000/- and a T.V. as well as that her life is in danger. Subsequently, they had gone to the place of the in-laws of the deceased where they had tried to make the accused understand. Learned A.P.P. has then referred to the evidence of PW-5 at para-2 and once again, he pointed out the demand for Rs.20,000/- and a T.V. and named the accused, who were making the demand. From the evidence of this witness, it has come that deceased was deeply disturbed and harassed by the behaviour of the in-laws. In para-7, this witness has also said that demands were made in his presence and this was done three or four months before the incident. Learned A.P.P. has, at this juncture, stressed that three or four months before this incident means before the death of the deceased and therefore, it comes easily within seven years of her marriage and also soon before her death. Learned A.P.P. has, at this juncture, stressed that three or four months before this incident means before the death of the deceased and therefore, it comes easily within seven years of her marriage and also soon before her death. Pointing to para-10 of the evidence of PW-5, learned A.P.P. says that the crime and culpable nature of a death is obvious because her body was weighed down in the well with the help of stone and wood. 25. Referring to the evidence of informant, PW-6, learned A.P.P. has said that in para-2 of his evidence, reference of abuses and the demand for Rs.20,000/- and a T.V. is mentioned. Further referring to the evidence of PW-7, who is the cousin brother of the deceased, learned A.P.P. has said that it has come in para-2 of this witness that the deceased had informed that if the demand of dowry is not fulfilled then accused would not allow her to live in peace. Learned A.P.P. referring to para-3 of his evidence said that it is clear that prior to her death, on 'Karma Festival', deceased had come to her parental house and she had conveyed to them about the assaults made on her. Lastly learned A.P.P. submitted that judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the learned court-below is proper and requires no interference. REASONS 26. Having heard both the counsels, gone through the evidences, records of the case, and from the written-report of informant PW-6, Mahavir Yadav and prosecution witnesses, it is seen that there was a demand of Rs.20,000/- and T.V. along with harassment meted out to Nagiya Devi, later on deceased, by the accused. Information regarding such demands and harassment was conveyed by the deceased to her family. 27. As per the written-report and prosecution witnesses, on the occasion of ‘Karma Puja’, deceased had come to her parental home and there she narrated her ordeal to her parents and brothers about the demands of Rs.20,000/- and T.V. along with harassment. Then, informant PW-6, Mahavir Yadav and PW-7, Punit Yadav had gone to the house of the in-laws of the deceased to discuss the matter about dowry. Subsequently, accused Govind Gope had informed about deceased, leaving the house of the in-laws. 28. PW-3, Gobardhan Yadav, has also in his evidence mentioned about the dowry demands. Then, informant PW-6, Mahavir Yadav and PW-7, Punit Yadav had gone to the house of the in-laws of the deceased to discuss the matter about dowry. Subsequently, accused Govind Gope had informed about deceased, leaving the house of the in-laws. 28. PW-3, Gobardhan Yadav, has also in his evidence mentioned about the dowry demands. In his cross-examination, he has also mentioned that in the ‘Karma Festival’, when deceased Nagiya Devi had come to her parental home she had told about the dowry demands and her ordeal. 29. PW-4, Umesh Yadav, who is the brother of the deceased Nagiya Devi, just like other witnesses, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-3 has also corroborated the same allegations and supported the prosecution case about both demands and harassments. PW-5, who is the brother-in-law (bahnoi) of the deceased Nagiya Devi, has also corroborated about the dowry demands and harassments. 30. It is pertinent to note that Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with dowry death, reads as under: “304-B. Dowry death.- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.” 31. Therefore, I see that deceased Nagiya Devi died otherwise under normal circumstances and admittedly, it occurred within seven years of marriage and soon before her death also, she was subjected to much harassment in relation to demand of dowry i.e. Rs.20,000/- and television. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code are amply made out. 32. Therefore, I see that deceased Nagiya Devi died otherwise under normal circumstances and admittedly, it occurred within seven years of marriage and soon before her death also, she was subjected to much harassment in relation to demand of dowry i.e. Rs.20,000/- and television. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code are amply made out. 32. There is no eye-witness in this case so far as the actual death of the deceased is concerned, so to arrive at the conclusion, the circumstances have to be taken into account, along with whatever evidences are available. Convictions are under Sections 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Regarding Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, if the ingredients of the Sections are met, then strong presumption is indicated about the crime. 33. Regarding Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, since no one has actually seen the girl being pushed into the well, a question does arise as to whether she was pushed into the well and then death resulted by asphyxia due to drowning , or was it to conceal the body, or is it simply a case where she was pushed into the well leading to her death, and concealment of her body was co-terminus or occurred at the same time because of the manner of assault. However, no one has seen the actual manner of assault and also whether the body was concealed. Circumstances, however, do not omit foul play. Therefore, based on the aforesaid facts and reasons, the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code does not seem to be made out against both the appellants. 34. Regarding the appellant Govind Gope, the consistent evidence against him is that he had only gone to inform the family members of the deceased about her missing, which by itself does not lead to his guilt in the offences. The learned trial court had acquitted the four other accused on the ground that there was simply a general allegation against them for the demand of dowry and the prosecution miserably failed to bring cogent evidence against them. The same reasons apply to this appellant also, so conviction of appellant Govind Gope is not sustainable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 35. The same reasons apply to this appellant also, so conviction of appellant Govind Gope is not sustainable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 35. Regarding the appellant Mahendra Yadav, from the written report as well as evidences of the prosecution witnesses, it is revealed that after 7-8 months of marriage demand of Rs.20,000/- and television was made. Further, it has been revealed that on the last ‘Karma Puja’ or festival, when the deceased girl had come to her parental home, then she had narrated about the continuing demand of Rs.20,000/- and television. The persistent demands must have caused much mental harassment to the deceased. The nature of such demand would bring it squarely within the presumption of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. On the basis of the evidence of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7, the conclusion of guilt of the appellant Mahendra Yadav is forcefully arrived at. The appellant Mahendra Yadav, being the husband and the direct beneficiary of the said demands, I find no reason to differ with the conclusion of the learned court-below regarding his conviction and sentence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 36. Regarding the judgments cited, para-17, in Baljeet Singh and another (supra), unlike the cited case, the date of marriage has not been an issue, and death in the instant case has occurred within seven years of marriage. About the next case cited, para-11, in Balwant Singh and another (supra), unlike the cited case where whether the cruelty occurred soon before death was doubted, in the instant case, the period of making demands with accompanying harassment was over a fairly long period, and finally culminating after the ‘Karma Puja’ in the same year of her death. The aspects of demand with its accompanying harassment, was of a continuing nature. Marriage was solemnized in the year 1997 and death occurred in 1999. Prosecution witnesses say demands began some months after marriage. The demand was of the nature that it created much mental pressure and continouus harassment of the deceased. Further the victim in this case, when she came to her parental home at the time of the “Karma Puja” then also she had narrated to her family members about the demands and accompanying harassment. This “Karma Puja” event, as said by PW-3 in para-6, happened in same year, she died. Further the victim in this case, when she came to her parental home at the time of the “Karma Puja” then also she had narrated to her family members about the demands and accompanying harassment. This “Karma Puja” event, as said by PW-3 in para-6, happened in same year, she died. Similarly, Bhola Ram (supra) para-30 is also not of much aid to the appellant Mahendra Yadav because the demand for money and T.V. was accompanied by harassment that amounts to mental cruelty. It was not merely a case of request or demand for certain items. 37. Accordingly, appellant No.1, Govind Gope is acquitted of offences both under Sections 201 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. He is discharged from his liability of bail bonds. 38. As regards, appellant No.2, Mahendra Yadav, his conviction and sentence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is sustained and remains. His conviction under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. He is directed to serve out the remaining sentence. Learned successor court-below is directed to take steps to procure the arrest of appellant No.2, Mahendra Yadav for serving out the remaining sentence as awarded. His bail bond is cancelled. 39. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed.