JUDGMENT : Joymalya Bagchi, J. At the outset, we are informed that the appellant No.2, viz., Smt. Tumpa Hazra in C.R.A.378 of 2013 has expired. Death certificate is placed on record. Hence, the appeal abates so far as appellant no.2, Smt. Tumpa Hazra is concerned. 2. The appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 29.04.20135 and 30.04.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bishnupur, Bankura in Sessions Trial Case No. 01(03)/2009 arising out of Sessions Case No.06(05) 2008 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 304B/498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing Pradip Pal, Manu Pal and Rekha Pal (appellants in C.R.A. 595 of 2013) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to suffer further imprisonment for six months each for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer simple imprisonment for three years each in default to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to undergo further imprisonment for one more month each for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing Rumpa Shyam and Tumpa Hazra (since deceased) (appellants in C.R.A. 378 of 2013) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer imprisonment for six months each more for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer simple imprisonment for three years each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer further imprisonment for one month more for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences to run concurrently. 3. Prosecution case, as alleged against the appellants, is to the effect that Piyali Sham was married to Pradip Pal on 4th Ashar 1412 B.S. according to Hindu rites and customs. A sum of Rs.40,000/- in cash, golden ornaments, golden rings and other items were given as dowry at the time of marriage. After few days, the appellants started torturing Piyali on the demand of a motor cycle by her husband Pradip. They asked her to go to her parental home and bring a motor cycle for her husband. After 2/3 months unable to bear such torture, she returned to her parental home. After few days, the appellants started torturing Piyali on the demand of a motor cycle by her husband Pradip. They asked her to go to her parental home and bring a motor cycle for her husband. After 2/3 months unable to bear such torture, she returned to her parental home. Dipak Sham, father of the victim (P.W.2) tried to mediate and paid Rs.10,000/- in cash. He also promised to pay the remaining amount in 2-3 months. Thereafter, Piyali returned to her matrimonial home. Torture upon Piyali, however, continued. Finally on 4th Ashar, 1413 B.S. i.e. 19.6.2006 Piyali was tortured and forced to consume poison. At 10.00 P.M., P.W.2 received information of the incident. They rushed to Patrasayer hospital and thereafter to Bankura hospital where they found Piyali lying dead. He lodged first information report at Patrasayer Police Station resulting in Patrasayer Police Station Case No.24 of 2006 dated 21.6.2006 under Sections 498A/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants under Sections 498A/306/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bishnupur, Bankura for trial and disposal. 4. In the course of trial, charge was framed against the appellants under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove its case, prosecution examined 17 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. 5. In conclusion of trial, the trial judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 29.04.2013 and 30.04.2013 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. 6. Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants argued that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to torture and harassment for or in connection with dowry has not been proved beyond doubt. Allegations of torture are vague and omnibus. Independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. It is strenuously argued that the live link between the alleged demand of motor cycle and the unnatural death of the victim/housewife has not been established. Relationship of the couple was cordial and the internal injuries found by the post mortem doctor may have been caused due to tossing and turning of the victim prior to her death. It is strenuously argued that the live link between the alleged demand of motor cycle and the unnatural death of the victim/housewife has not been established. Relationship of the couple was cordial and the internal injuries found by the post mortem doctor may have been caused due to tossing and turning of the victim prior to her death. It is further argued that Tumpa Hazra (since deceased) and Rumpa Shyam, sisters-in-law of the victim/housewife did not reside at the matrimonial home and had been falsely implicated in the instant case. He relied on Baljinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 2 SCC 629 , and Vipin Jaiswal Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 3 SCC 684 , in support of his submissions. Hence, the appeals may be allowed. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Sudip Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the State submitted that the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.8 clearly narrated the painful existence of the victim/housewife at the matrimonial home. She was subjected to continuous torture including physical assault. Her husband demanded a motor cycle which was supported by the other appellants. All the appellants subjected her to torture. As a result, her father P.W.2 was compelled to pay Rs.10,000/- as dowry. Torture continued unabated and even one month prior to the incident, P.W.8, Rima Shyam saw that there was trouble and quarrel in the matrimonial home of the victim/housewife. She was brutally assaulted as would appear from the internal injuries found on her head and unable to bear such torture she committed suicide. Hence, the prosecution case is proved beyond doubt and the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 8. P.W.2, Dipak Sham is the father of the victim and the de-facto complainant in the instant case. He deposed at the time of marriage, he paid Rs.40,000/- in cash to the husband and five tolas of gold ornaments as dowry. Other valuable articles like gold rings were also gifted. He deposed soon after the marriage his son-in-law Pradip created pressure on his daughter to bring a motor cycle. Due to poor financial condition, his daughter expressed her helplessness in the matter. As a result, Pradip and his parents subjected her to torture. She was assaulted by the accused persons. He tried to conciliate the matter but to no avail. Whenever his daughter visited his house, she complained of physical and mental torture by the accused persons. Due to poor financial condition, his daughter expressed her helplessness in the matter. As a result, Pradip and his parents subjected her to torture. She was assaulted by the accused persons. He tried to conciliate the matter but to no avail. Whenever his daughter visited his house, she complained of physical and mental torture by the accused persons. Finally, he took his daughter to the matrimonial home and paid Rs.10,000/- to the accused persons and requested them not to torture her. He assured them that they would pay further amounts upon collecting the money. However, the appellants continued to torture and assaulted her. As a result, she was compelled to commit suicide. On 4th Ashar 1413 B.S., he received information that his daughter had consumed poison. He went to Patrasayer BPHC and was informed that she had been shifted to Bankura Medical College and Hospital. He went to Bankura Medical College and Hospital and found the dead body of his daughter. He did not find the in-laws at the hospital. His brothers had accompanied him to the hospital. Post mortem was held in the hospital on 5th Ashar 1413 B.S. After cremation of the body of the victim, he lodged first information (Ext.3) report on 6th Ashar 1413 B.S. which was scribed by P.W.3. 9. In cross-examination, he admitted that the sisters-in-law were married prior to the marriage of his daughter. 10. P.W.4, Susanta Sham is the brother of P.W.2. He has corroborated the evidence of the latter. He deposed that the husband had demanded a motor cycle from P.W.2 who was able to pay only Rs.10,000/-. The appellants tortured the victim on demands of further dowry. As a result, Piyali was compelled to consume poison. He was a signatory to the inquest conducted on the body of Piyali. 11. In cross-examination, he stated that there was a visiting terms between the families. 12. P.W.8, Rina Shyam is the mother of the victim. She corroborated the evidence of her husband with regard to the demand of motorcycle and the torture meted out to her daughter on such score. Due to non-fulfilment of such demand she deposed that parents-in-law and husband of her daughter used to assault at the matrimonial home. She had gone to her matrimonial home and her daughter narrated the incident of physical torture on her. Due to non-fulfilment of such demand she deposed that parents-in-law and husband of her daughter used to assault at the matrimonial home. She had gone to her matrimonial home and her daughter narrated the incident of physical torture on her. Her daughter had visited their residence after Astomongola and on another occasion thereafter. Her husband paid Rs.10,000/- against the demand of motorcycle. However, torture continued and her daughter was compelled to suicide within one year of her marriage. 13. In cross-examination, she stated that in the month of Jaistha she had visited the matrimonial home of her daughter and had to leave as there was trouble and disturbance at the matrimonial home with her daughter. 14. P.W.13, Dr. Pravash Ch. Chakraborty is the P.M. doctor, who held P.M. examination over the dead body of the victim. He found following injuries:- 1. One scalp haematoma of 2" X 1" at voult of scalp, from junction of corona suture and suture to posterial part overmidland; 2. sub-arachnoid haemorrhage, 2" X 2" on left parietal lobe and 2" X 1" on right parietal lobe; 3. Haematoma is dark red in colour with extra vasation of blood sub-arachnoid hemorrhage is bright red, defused in character. Injuries show vital reaction. Stomach contained 250 gm. Of semi liquid food with granular blakish substance, abhared to wall of stomach and suspended in food, offensive smell. Wall of stomach is congested. Sub-mucosal hemorrhage at one place -- 1" X 1" area. These injuries show vital reaction. 15. He opined in the P.M. report that the cause of death would be given upon receipt of chemical examinee's report. Upon receipt of chemical examination report (Ext.8) which showed phorate (an insecticide) in the viscera of the victim. He further deposed that the death was due to effect of phorate which is ante mortem in nature. He also deposed that the injuries on the scalp were ante mortem in nature 16. In cross-examination, he stated that injuries on the vault of the head was caused of trauma due to hard and blunt substance. He clarified if deceased became restless in pain she may receive injuries on the back of elbow, back of trunk, back of the head but not on the vault of the scalp. 17. From the evidence on record, it appears that the victim suffered unnatural death in her matrimonial home within one year of her marriage. He clarified if deceased became restless in pain she may receive injuries on the back of elbow, back of trunk, back of the head but not on the vault of the scalp. 17. From the evidence on record, it appears that the victim suffered unnatural death in her matrimonial home within one year of her marriage. Her short matrimonial life was punctured with torture meted out by the husband and her parents-in-law over demand of a motorcycle for her husband. P.Ws.2, 4 & 8 have in unison spoken of continuous physical and mental torture meted out upon her over demands of dowry. Unable to bear of such torture the victim sought refuge at her parental home. P.W.2 tried to conciliate the matter and in order to deescalate torture on her daughter he paid Rs.10,000/- against the demand of dowry, as aforesaid. However, such payment did not satisfy them. Husband and parents-in-law of the victim continued torture upon her and even a month prior to the incident P.W.8 who had gone to her matrimonial home found that they were quarrelling and misbehaving with her daughter. It has been argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that soon before her death the victim was subjected to harassment and cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry. I am unable to accept such contention. The words "soon before" occurring in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code does not yield to a mathematical calculation with regard to the number of days or months between the torture or cruelty meted out to the victim for demand of dowry and the unnatural death of the housewife. It is a relative expression which depends on the facts of each case with regard to the existence of a proximate live link between cruelty based on dowry demands and the unnatural death of the victim. When the evidence on record is assessed from such perspective, a continuous thread between the torture perpetrated upon the victim and her unnatural death is well-established. Her husband raised a demand of a motorcycle soon after her marriage. Such demand could not be met and the victim was subjected to torture including physical assault by her husband and parents-in-law. In order to placate them, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid two months prior to her death. Her husband raised a demand of a motorcycle soon after her marriage. Such demand could not be met and the victim was subjected to torture including physical assault by her husband and parents-in-law. In order to placate them, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid two months prior to her death. However, torture continued unabated and ultimately on 19.06.2010 she was subjected to physical assault at her matrimonial home which compelled her to commit suicide. Evidence of physical assault on the date of her unnatural death is clear from the haemotoma noticed by P.M. doctor in the vault of her head. It was argued that such injury may have been caused due to tossing and turning of the victim in pain. Such submission stands wholly negated by the opinion of the P.M. doctor who unequivocally stated that injury on the vault of the scalp could not be caused due to tossing or turning. Hence, brutal physical torture meted out to the hapless lady by her husband and parents-in-law on account of further demands of dowry on the day of the incident had compelled her to commit suicide by consuming poison. The authorities relied on behalf of the appellants are inapplicable in this case. In Baljinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 2 SCC 629 , there was no evidence that the victim had been subjected to torture or cruelty due to demand of golden karra which was made two months prior to her death. In Vipin Jaiswal Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 3 SCC 684 , it was held that demand of Rs.50,000/- and a computer for business did not amount to a dowry demand. In Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477 , a three-judge bench of the Apex Court held that any demand made by the husband and in-laws upon the housewife or her family members which is followed by her unnatural death would fall within the definition of 'dowry' for the purposes of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, I have no doubt in my mind that the continuous and unbearable torture and assault meted out upon the victim by the husband, her parents-in-law over demand of motorcycle even on the day of the incident driving her to self-extermination would amount to dowry death in terms of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, I have no doubt in my mind that the continuous and unbearable torture and assault meted out upon the victim by the husband, her parents-in-law over demand of motorcycle even on the day of the incident driving her to self-extermination would amount to dowry death in terms of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. It has been argued that the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. It is a reality that the cruelty and torture upon a housewife occurs within the four corners of the matrimonial home. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that co-villagers of accused persons tend to remain mum or alternatively side with them in cases involving torture or even dowry death of housewife belonging to a different village. Hence, it is not unnatural that the witnesses hailing from the village of the appellants turned hostile. They were extensively cross-examined with regard to their previous statements to police and the hollowness and untruthfulness of their depositions stand squarely exposed. Hence, I choose not to pay heed to the unreliable evidence of the said hostile witnesses with regard to the cordial relationship between the couple as argued on behalf of the defence. 18. However, I find from the evidence on record that sisters-in-law of the victim, namely, Rumpa Sham and Tumpa Hazra (since deceased) had been married prior to the marriage between the victim and her husband. They used to reside in their matrimonial homes and only occasionally visited the matrimonial home of the victim. There is no cogent evidence on record implicating the said appellants in the torture of the victim save and except omnibus statements that they also participated in torture whenever they came to her matrimonial home. In the absence of any specific overt act of cruelty attributed to them, I am unwilling to rely on such stray pieces of evidence to record a finding of guilt against them. It is also relevant to note that there is absolutely no evidence on record that the aforesaid appellants were present on the date of occurrence at the matrimonial home of the victim. Hence, I am inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to the said appellants and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 19. It is also relevant to note that there is absolutely no evidence on record that the aforesaid appellants were present on the date of occurrence at the matrimonial home of the victim. Hence, I am inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to the said appellants and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 19. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, while conviction and sentence of the appellants, namely, Rumpa Sham and Tumpa Hazra (since deceased) are set aside, convictions imposed on the appellants, namely, Pradip Pal, Manu Pal & Rekha Pal under Section 304B and under Section 498A of the IPC are upheld. 20. Coming to the sentences imposed on the appellants, namely, Pradip Pal, Manu Pal & Rekha Pal, I find that the maximum sentence of life imprisonment has been awarded to them for the offence under section 304B IPC. Although some injuries were found on the body of the victim, however, P.M. doctor (P.W. 13) opined that the death was a suicidal one. Hence, I am of the opinion that the aforesaid sentence imposed on the appellants may be modified. Accordingly, I direct that the appellant Pradip Pal shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer further imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code and to suffer simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer further imprisonment for one month more for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and I direct that the appellant Manu Pal and Rekha Pal shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to suffer further imprisonment for six months more for the offence punishable under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code and to suffer simple imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to suffer further imprisonment for one month more for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 21. Save and except the aforesaid modification as to sentence, CRA 595 of 2013 is dismissed. CRA No. 378 of 2013 is allowed so far as appellant no.1, Rumpa Sham is concerned and abates so far as appellant no.2, Tumpa Hazra (since deceased) is concerned. 22. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 21. Save and except the aforesaid modification as to sentence, CRA 595 of 2013 is dismissed. CRA No. 378 of 2013 is allowed so far as appellant no.1, Rumpa Sham is concerned and abates so far as appellant no.2, Tumpa Hazra (since deceased) is concerned. 22. Rumpa Sham (appellant no.1 in CRA No.378 of 2013) is acquitted of the charges levelled against her. She shall be released forthwith from custody upon execution of a bond to the satisfaction of the trial court which shall continue for six months in terms of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if not wanted in any other cases. 23. Period of detention suffered by the appellants, namely, Pradip Pal, Manu Pal and Rekha Pal during investigation, enquiry or trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence imposed upon them under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.. 24. Copy of the judgment along with L.C.R. be sent down to the trial court at once. 25. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. I agree.