JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2.5.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka at Camp Jamtara in connection with S.C. Case No. 164 of 1999, whereby and where under appellant was convicted u/s 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The period already undergone during trial was ordered to be adjusted against the sentence. 2. The case of prosecution as per the fardbeyan of the informant Govind Rajwar PW-4 dated 30.6.1998 in brief is that the deceased Fulo Devi, who was his cousin sister, was married with the appellant three- four years ago as per Hindu custom and rituals. She had four sisters and her parents were very old. The informant further stated in his fardbeyan that after marriage his cousin sister went to her matrimonial home. After one year of marriage her in-laws including her appellant husband Raju Rajwar started torturing the deceased and demanded radio, watch and Rs. 5,000/- as dowry. This demand was informed by the deceased to her parents for which a panchayati was held. Lastly on 16.5.1998, she was sent back to her in-laws house after panchayati and a radio was also given to the accused. However, the accused persons continued quarrelling for further dowry. On 30.6.1998 at about 10 a.m. they got information that his cousin sister was killed by her in- laws. Thereafter the informant along with other co-villagers Bhumi Lal yadav, Gopal Yadav and others went to the matrimonial home of his deceased sister and found his sister lying dead having injury marks on her right and left parietal region and swelling in her neck. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant police registered Jamtara P.S. Case no. 125 of 1998 U/S. 304-B/34 of the IPC against the accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons and after cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused persons u/s 304-B/34 IPC. Trial was held and on the conclusion of the trial the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 4. The prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses in support of his case. PW-4 Govind Rajwar is the informant of this case. Charges were framed against the accused persons u/s 304-B/34 IPC. Trial was held and on the conclusion of the trial the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 4. The prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses in support of his case. PW-4 Govind Rajwar is the informant of this case. PW-1 is Bhumi Lal Yadav, PW-2 is Ratan Rajwar, PW-5 is Jaidev Rajwar. P.W.-6 is Dr. Bali Ram Prasad Gupta who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and P.W.-7 Umesh Ram is the I.O. of the case. P.W.-3 Ganesh Rajwar has been tendered by the prosecution. 5. Defence examined three witnesses in support of his case i.e. D.W.1 Raj Kumar Rajwar, D.W.2 Lakhan Rajwar and D.W. -3 Sarita Devi. 6. P.W.-4 Gobind Rajwar is the informant and cousin brother of the deceased. He reiterated the same in his deposition as stated in his fardbeayn. He stated in his evidence that deceased Fulo Devi was married ¾ years ago prior to her death . Accused Raju Rajwar used to demand radio, watch and Rs. 5,000/- and for this demand he used to quarrel with the deceased and panchayat was also held regarding the same. Deceased was sent to her matrimonial home (bidai) two months before the occurrence. Accused told the deceased if a watch and Rs. 5,000/- is not given then she will be done to death. They got the information that deceased was killed and when they went there, they saw blood in the parietal region and mark on the neck of the deceased. Informant proved his signature on the fardbeyan which was marked as Ext.2. He further stated that only two months back of the death of Fulo Devi a panchayati was held and Santosh Radio was given to Raju Rajwar after which the bidai of deceased took place. 7. PW-1 Bhumi Lal Yadav , PW-2 Ratan Rajwar and PW-5 Jaidev Rajwar are the witnesses who accompanied the informant to the matrimonial home of the deceased on hearing the information of death of the deceased Fulo Devi. PW-1 in his evidence stated that deceased Fulo Devi was married to the accused Raju Rajwar ¾ years ago prior to her death. Both PW-1 and PW-2 have stated that accused demanded watch, radio and Rs. 5,000/- form the deceased and regarding these demands accused tortured the deceased. PW-1 in his evidence stated that deceased Fulo Devi was married to the accused Raju Rajwar ¾ years ago prior to her death. Both PW-1 and PW-2 have stated that accused demanded watch, radio and Rs. 5,000/- form the deceased and regarding these demands accused tortured the deceased. Further both PW-1 and PW-2 have stated that they saw injury mark on the right parietal region and blood in the right ear of the deceased. PW-5 stated in his deposition that he saw mark on the right parietal region and blood oozing out from the ear of the deceased. 8. P.W.-6 is Dr. Bali Ram Prasad Gupta who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Fulo Devi. He conducted the postmortem at 12:30P.M on 1.7.1998 and in external examination of the dead body he found the dead boy in state of decomposition. He further found bleeding from left ear and contusion on right side behind the ear and blood tinged fluid and forth coming out from the mouth. In internal examination on opening scalp and skull he found skull bone was slightly depressed with blood clot dark in colour. He opined cause of death was due to intracranial injury caused by hard and blunt substance. He proved the postmortem report of the deceased Fulo Devi which was marked as Ext.3. 9. P.W.-7 is the I.O. of the case. He stated that he had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant. He has proved the fardbeyan, formal FIR and the inquest report which were marked as Ext.5, Ext. 6 and Ext.7 respectively. 10. D.W.-1 and D.W.-2 have stated that Raju Rajwar lived separately from his other family members. DW-2 stated that he had not seen any injury on the dead body of Fulo Devi. D.W.-3 Sarita Devi stated that she is the cousin sister of deceased. She stated that the house of Fulo Devi was two houses after her house. She further stated that Fulo Devi never complained her. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS: 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was any demand of dowry before the incident of death of the deceased and for which she was ever subjected to cruelty. She further stated that Fulo Devi never complained her. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS: 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was any demand of dowry before the incident of death of the deceased and for which she was ever subjected to cruelty. Learned counsel says that since there is no evidence that deceased was subjected to cruelty regarding the demand of dowry soon before her death therefore presumption u/s 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act would not apply. He has argued that it is imperative that torture or harassment must have taken place with respect to demand of dowry soon before the death of deceased. Learned Counsel submitted that impugned judgment does not address that deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death and there is no concrete evidence for such alleged torture or harassment taking place or even the demand for items for which such torture or harassment took place. 12. Learned counsel further submitted that though there are serious allegations against the accused appellant but the father and mother of the deceased did not turn up as prosecution witnesses in trial to establish the guilt of the accused appellant. 13. Referring to the evidence of informant PW-4 who is Govind Rajwar learned counsel argued that the informant was not so much associated or having knowledge regarding the family affairs or the circumstances about the deceased family and hence the allegations are clearly unfounded and not made out. Regarding the other witnesses, except the doctor and the I.O., counsel said that they have simply re-stated what has been said by the informant in his fardbeyan and therefore, they did not have any evidentiary value. Learned counsel has also argued that there is reference of panchayati having taken place some time before the incident but neither any of the prosecution witnesses have been examined who attended the panchayati nor documentary evidence regarding holding of such panchayati has been brought on record and hence the story about panchayati is thus set up only to strengthen the case of the prosecution. 14. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that apart from the present appellant, five other persons from the family of this appellant were also made accused but all have been acquitted by the learned trial court except this appellant and, therefore, on the same set of evidence this appellant also deserves acquittal. He submitted that only because appellant was husband of the deceased he was convicted by the learned trial court. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that even one cousin sister of the deceased who is DW-3 Sarita Devi is also married in the same village where deceased was married has said that there was cordial relationship between the two families and therefore has categorically said that there was no demand for dowry. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below did not consider that this DW-3 was a relative of the deceased and her evidence should have been given more weightage but this has not been done. Learned counsel for the appellant has then referred to the injury sustained by the deceased on her head and submitted that head injury may have caused to the deceased due to fall of heavy substance on her head. In support of his argument learned counsel for the appellant has cited following cases: (i) 2001 Cr.L.J. 2630, G.Venkatachandra Reddy & others Vs. State of A.P. (ii) 2003 (8) SCC 80 , Hira Lal and others V. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi. (iii) 2013 (9) SCC 800 , Panchanand Mandal @ Pachan Mandal and others V. State of Jharkhand (iv) 2014 (9) SCC 645 , Manohar Lal Vs. State of Haryana. (v) 2016 (3) JLJR 639 , Nageshwar Rajwar and another Vs. State of Jharkhand. (vi) 2017 (1) SCC 101 , Baijnath and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant finally submitted that there is no direct and specific allegation against the appellant and the allegations are of a general nature and therefore his conviction and sentence passed by the learned court below cannot be sustained and be set aside. Moreover, learned counsel argued without admitting guilt of the appellant that the appellant has already undergone about five years in custody and faced the rigor and vigor of trial and therefore these circumstances be kept in mind by this court while deciding this appeal. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE: 17. Moreover, learned counsel argued without admitting guilt of the appellant that the appellant has already undergone about five years in custody and faced the rigor and vigor of trial and therefore these circumstances be kept in mind by this court while deciding this appeal. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE: 17. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that there is specific allegation against the appellant with regard to demand of dowry from the deceased and more so deceased died under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage. He further pointed out that the panchayati was held and radio was given to the appellant but then also appellant continued demanding Rs. 5,000/- and a watch. Learned counsel for the State points out that appellant has tried to make out the case that the informant was disassociated with the family of the deceased but it is seen from the fardbeyan itself that the parents of the deceased were quite old having four daughters and being nephew of deceased father, informant is not only associated with the family but he has assumed full responsibility for the family, therefore, argument of the appellant that informant has no association with the deceased family is simply not tenable. Learned counsel further submitted that from the fardbeyan it is apparent that one year after marriage the demand and torture of the deceased began. The informant further stated in the fardbeyan that the deceased had given information about demands and torture three-four times and for this demand she was also assaulted. Counsel for the state has then argued that date of the death of deceased is 30.6.1998 and informant has stated that bidai was done two months prior to the occurrence and in between radio was given, but demand and torture of the deceased still continued. Information regarding further demands were communicated by the deceased which the informant side assured to fulfill which indicates that even soon before the death the deceased was harassed and tortured for demand of certain items. After hearing the death of the deceased on 30.6.1998 the informant and some other co-villagers went to the matrimonial house of deceased where they found the dead body of the deceased and blood oozing out from the ear and there was mark on the neck and injury on the temporal region. After hearing the death of the deceased on 30.6.1998 the informant and some other co-villagers went to the matrimonial house of deceased where they found the dead body of the deceased and blood oozing out from the ear and there was mark on the neck and injury on the temporal region. Informant PW-4 has fully supported his fardbeyan and there is consistency and corroboration of the same in his deposition. Counsel for the state referred to the evidences of PW-1 and pointed out that this witness has stated that the deceased was married 3-4 years ago and there was demand for radio, watch and Rs. 5,000/-. PW-2 also stated that radio, watch and Rs. 5,000/- were demanded from the deceased. 18. Learned counsel for the state further submitted that from the fardbeyan of the informant PW-4 as well as evidence of all the aforesaid witnesses PW-1,PW-2, and PW-5 all have indicated after marriage demand of watch, radio and Rs. 5000/- were made and that demand for radio was fulfilled and still the demand for remaining watch and Rs. 5,000/- continued even in the period of one and half months before her death. Therefore, the elements of soon before death accompanied with demand and harassment and torture is definitely made out. 19. Learned counsel for the state further referred to Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argued that the questions regarding allegations were put to the appellant but he made no explanatory defence from his side, he has simply denied and appellant did not mention the circumstances in which the deceased died. Lastly learned counsel submitted that impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned court below is proper and shall be sustained and upheld. FINDINGS: 20. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the records of the case and the facts and circumstances of the case. 21. First of all this court will see what were the circumstances that lead to death of Fulo Devi. As per the fardbeyan and deposition of the informant PW-4, who is the cousin brother of the deceased, deceased Fulo devi was married to the appellant three–four years ago prior to her death. Deceased died on 30th June, 1998, indicating that death occurred within three/four years of her marriage. As per the fardbeyan and deposition of the informant PW-4, who is the cousin brother of the deceased, deceased Fulo devi was married to the appellant three–four years ago prior to her death. Deceased died on 30th June, 1998, indicating that death occurred within three/four years of her marriage. Further PW-1 and PW-2 have also stated in their examination-in-chief that marriage of deceased occurred three-four years ago prior to the incident of her death. So the deceased died within a period of seven years of her marriage and on that ground the case needs to be judged. 22. So, till now this court has come to the finding that deceased died within seven years of her marriage. Now, further it is to be seen whether there was demand of dowry and related torture given to the deceased soon before her death and whether death of deceased was unnatural. From the deposition of informant PW-4, I find that informant has stated in his examination–in-chief that deceased was given bidai and she was sent to her matrimonial home two months prior to her death where she died. In her matrimonial home quarrel occurred for watch and Rs. 5,000/- and appellant told that if watch and Rs. 5,000/- is not given she will be done to death. PW-1 and PW-2 have also said in their deposition that appellant demanded radio, watch and Rs. 5,000/-. 23. Regarding death of the deceased, I find from the evidence that along with informant, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 had also gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased on hearing of her death and all these witnesses have deposed that they saw mark of injury on the right parietal region and blood oozing out from the ear of the deceased. Doctor PW-6 also found bleeding from left ear and on opening scalp and skull of the deceased he found right side corners to be blackened and the skull bone was slightly depressed with blood clot dark in colour. Doctor opined that death was caused due to hard and blunt substance. Hence, I find that death of the deceased was not under normal circumstances and she was tortured for demand of dowry soon before her death. 24. Doctor opined that death was caused due to hard and blunt substance. Hence, I find that death of the deceased was not under normal circumstances and she was tortured for demand of dowry soon before her death. 24. In case of G.Venkatachandra Reddy (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, no individual overt acts were attributed to husband of the deceased but in the case in hand in the evidence there is specfic demand and torture attributed to the appellant husband. In Hira Lal (supra) Hon’ble Apex Court held that there must be existence of proximate and live link between the effects of cruelty based on dowry demand and if death concerned the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough it would be of no consequences. But in the case in hand the demand of dowry, related to torture and unnatural death of the deceased totally fulfills the criteria of the expression “soon before death”. In Panchan Mandal (supra) case Hon’ble Apex Court found that there was no evidence on record to suggest that deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment “soon before her death” and the allegation was not specific but in the case in hand evidence of PW-1,PW-2,PW-4 and PW-5 lead to conclusion of persistent demand and torture even after the radio was given to the appellant. 25. There is another aspect that seems to strengthen the case for unnatural death that is in his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant had not taken the defence that deceased fell into the well and therefore being injured and died. Therefore, the defence of falling into the well is subsequent afterthought and cannot be relied on. 26. Hence, as per evidence on record and in facts and circumstances of this case, I find that deceased Fulo Devi died within seven years of her marriage in her matrimonial home and her death was unnatural and also soon before her death she was tortured for dowry specifically for a watch and Rs. 5,000/-.So, Prosecution has proved all the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC against the appellant and hence presumption under section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act for causing the dowry death of his wife arises against the appellant Raju Rajwar and appellant has not rebutted the same. 5,000/-.So, Prosecution has proved all the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC against the appellant and hence presumption under section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act for causing the dowry death of his wife arises against the appellant Raju Rajwar and appellant has not rebutted the same. So, the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under section 304-B of IPC against the appellant. 27. Therefore, based on all the aforesaid reasoning this court does not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned court below and hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2.5.2001 passed by the learned court below in Sessions Case No. 164 of 1999 arising out of Jamtara P.S. Case No. 125 of 1998 is sustained and upheld. The bail bonds of the appellant is hereby cancelled. Learned court below is directed to take steps as per law against the appellant to serve out the remaining sentence. 28. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.