Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 535 (JHR)

Lal Muni Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2019-02-22

RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ratnaker Bhengra, J The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29/08/2002 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 563 of 1995 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years. 2. The prosecution case in brief as per the fardbeyan of the informant Sheela Devi (deceased) w/o Harish Kumar, R/o Shesnagar, Govindpur PS, Dist East Singhbhum, given on 14.04.1995 at 11.30 hrs in the burn unit 2B is that in the last night i.e. on 13/04/1995 at about 9. p.m. her mother-in-law quarreled with her and threatened her to be beaten by her son after his returning and she will be set ablaze. At about 10.30 p.m. her husband Harish who was a convoy driver returned to house. Her mother-in-law told her husband that his wife used to quarrel with her and also did not give proper food to her. After hearing this, her husband became enraged and assaulted her brutally by fists and slaps, dragged her in to the kitchen room where he doused kerosene on her and set her ablaze by lighting match-stick. Informant further said that she was married two years ago and that at the time of marriage the demanded dowry was fulfilled even then she was subjected to cruelty for further demand of dowry. She was not loved by her husband and he did not make physical contact with her so she could not give birth to any child. Her husband had illicit relations with two girls namely Manju and Usha who were his neighbours. Regarding this she had some letters which was kept in her dressing table. When she asked her husband about illicit relation he threatened to kill her. He always tried to get rid of her. Her husband, mother-in-law Lalmuni Devi and his brother –in-law Satish Kumar always subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry. Therefore, this occurrence took place. She claimed that her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and her husband assaulted her brutally and ultimately dousing kerosene oil, set her ablaze. On hulla, the neighbours came then her husband, mother-in-law brought her in serious condition in Telco Hospital on tempo and considering her serious condition she was referred to Tata Main Hospital burn ward in 2B where she was getting treatment. 3. On hulla, the neighbours came then her husband, mother-in-law brought her in serious condition in Telco Hospital on tempo and considering her serious condition she was referred to Tata Main Hospital burn ward in 2B where she was getting treatment. 3. Deceased Sheela Devi’s fardbeyan was recorded in presence of Dr. R. Bharat, Sr. Specialist, Burning and Plastic Surgery, Tata Main Hospital. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the deceased informant Telco P.S. Case No. 64/95 was registered under section 498A/341/323/307/34 of IPC and 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused Harish Kumar, Lalmuni Devi and Satish Kumar. The informant died on 15.4.1995 during treatment and thereafter Section 304B of the IPC was added. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons and accordingly cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The charge was framed against the accused Harish Kumar and Lalmuni Devi under section 304B/34 of the IPC. During trial the accused Harish Kumar died and the proceeding against him was dropped. Hence the trial of the sole accused Lalmuni Devi proceeded. 4. The prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1 Roop Lal Shal and P.W. 4 Gowardhan Gope were declared hostile. P.W. 2 Ram Swaroop Sharma-father of deceased, P.W. 3 Fulmani Devi-Mother of deceased, P.W. 5 Baleshwar Pandey-witness to inquest, P.W. 6 Arjun Prasad-brother of the deceased, P.W. 7-Dr. R. Bharat (Attesting witness to dying declarant), P.W.8 Dr. Y Nath-Held autopsy, P.W. 9 B.B. Tirki-Investigating Officer. 5. P.W. 2 Ram Swaroop Sharma is the father of the deceased. He deposed that on 14.04.1995 he got information that her daughter has been set to ablaze. On receiving information he went to T.M.H. alongwith his wife. He saw his daughter in brunt condition. Sheela said that in the last night she had a quarrel with her mother-in-law. Her mother-in-law threatened that she will be burnt when her son comes. When her husband returned home then her husband Harish by douching kerosene oil set her ablaze. He further deposed that her daughter was subjected to cruelty by her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. 6. P.W. 3 Fulmani Devi is the mother of the deceased. She deposed that on getting information she went to T.M.H alongwith her husband where she found her daughter Sheela in burnt condition. He further deposed that her daughter was subjected to cruelty by her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. 6. P.W. 3 Fulmani Devi is the mother of the deceased. She deposed that on getting information she went to T.M.H alongwith her husband where she found her daughter Sheela in burnt condition. Her daughter Sheela Devi told her that she had some quarrel with her mother-in-law. Her mother-in-law told her that she will be finished when her son comes. When her husband came then her mother-in-law told all the things to him then her mother in-law and brother-in-law caught her and Harish poured kerosence oil on her and set her ablaze. She further deposed that her son-in-law and the mother-in-law of her daughter, used to demand dowry and did not give proper food which was told by her deceased daughter to her. 7. P.W. 6 Arjun Prasad is the brother of the deceased Sheela Devi. He deposed that his sister was marring to Harish in 1992. Harish was convoy driver. He further deposed that on getting information that his sister was burnt he went to T.M.H. He met with doctor and obtained permission to meet with her sister. His sister told her that on 13.04.1995, she had quarrel in the evening with her mother-in-law. Her mother-in-law threatened to kill her when her son comes. When her husband came in night then she was assaulted by Harish and her mother-in-law. She was dragged to kitchen where she was set ablaze. He further said that after burning her they admitted her to hospital where in the morning on 15.04.1995, she died. He identified his signature on the inquest report which was marked as Ext-1/2. He has also proved a letter marked as Ext. 2 written and sent by deceased through post along with envelope marked as Ext.-3 which was marked with objection. He further deposed that prior to occurrence a panchyati was held in which accused Harish had put his signature. The relatives and the local people had also put their signature. This panchayati paper was marked as Ext. 4. 8. P.W. 7 is Dr. R. Bharat, he was a witness to the fardbeyan. He deposed that in his presence officer-in-charge Govindpur police station, Jamshedpur had recorded the statement of Sheela Devi. He further deposed that Sheela Devi was fully in a conscious state of mind when she gave her statement. This panchayati paper was marked as Ext. 4. 8. P.W. 7 is Dr. R. Bharat, he was a witness to the fardbeyan. He deposed that in his presence officer-in-charge Govindpur police station, Jamshedpur had recorded the statement of Sheela Devi. He further deposed that Sheela Devi was fully in a conscious state of mind when she gave her statement. Sheela Devi was admitted in burn unit in TMH due to extensive burn injuries. After recording the statement Sheela Devi gave her thumb impression. Thereafter on her statement he also put his signature and stamp. He has proved his signature on the fardbeyan marked as Ext. 1/3. 9. P.W. 8 is Dr. Y Nath who conducted autopsy on the body of deceased. He had found the dermo epithermal burn over whole body with heat crack over right thigh. He had also found abrasion and internal injuries along with surgical stitched wound over left lower let medial and right leg lower medial. He further deposed that all the injuries including the burn were anti mortem and death was due to the shock of the burn. Injuries other than burnings were caused by hard and blunt substance causing internal pressure over neck. He proved the post mortem report marked as Ext. -5. 10. P.W. 9 is B.B. Tirkey the Investigating Officer of the case. He took the fardbeyan of deceased Sheela Devi in TMH Jamshedpur in burn unit in presence of Dr. R. Bhagat. The fardbeyan was marked as Ext.-6. He deposed that the place of occurrence is the house of the accused Harish Kumar situated within Govindpur P.S. which is a pucca house facing East. In the kitchen room he found kerosene oil, stove, heater and utensils. He also found the residues of broken bangles, matches, burnt clothes, one bottle of Bagpiper from which smell of petrol was coming and one green colour rapper giving smell of kerosene oil which was seized by him. He made seizure list which was marked as Ext.-9. He also proved the formal FIR marked as Ext.-8. ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued and stated that first and foremost there should be a demand of dowry, however, as per the evidence there is no demand, particularly there is no specific demand of any particular items. The father of the deceased has not mentioned any demand in his evidence. ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued and stated that first and foremost there should be a demand of dowry, however, as per the evidence there is no demand, particularly there is no specific demand of any particular items. The father of the deceased has not mentioned any demand in his evidence. The brother of the deceased also has not mentioned any demand in his evidence only the mother of the deceased eluded to demand made earlier but she has given no dates, times or even what specific demands were. Therefore in absence of dowry demands the offence under section 304B cannot be made out. Learned counsel continues and says that the section requires that soon before her death she must have been subjected to some or certain cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand. It was not indicated as to when such dowry demand was made. There is no particular date, month or year even attributed and therefore the criteria of soon before is also not made. The father and the brother of the deceased have not mentioned any dowry demand so the element of soon before is also not met because any harassment or torture has to be made in connection with dowry demand. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that the grievance for the deceased was not in terms of any dowry demand but rather that they have made an allegation of the husband having illicit relationship with certain woman, or two women, and for which she was much aggrieved. The allegations are a result of this supposed illicit relationship. This would not amount to a demand or dowry anyway, and therefore, as per the strict interpretation of section 304B of the IPC the offence would not be made out for such reasons of illicit relationship. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant then argued that the consistent allegation right through the fardbeyan as well as the evidence of the father of the deceased, the mother of the deceased as well as the brother of the deceased is that it was the husband who had sprinkled kerosene oil on the deceased and then it was the husband who had put a light through a match stick on his wife Sheela Devi. So the main allegations and the consequential allegation is actually against the husband or Harish. So the main allegations and the consequential allegation is actually against the husband or Harish. However, he has unfortunately passed away, if not he would have been subjected to the main penal provisions of section 304B of the IPC, if there was any conviction. 14. Learned counsel then argued that if one looks at the evidence of P.W. 8 or Dr. Y. Nath, it is seen that apart from burn injuries which are indicated as dermo epidermal burns, there is also indication or reference of abrasion and also internal injury. These two other injuries are not in the evidences of the mother, father and brother of the deceased and neither are they referred to in the fardbeyan, so even though burning itself is a serious matter, however, there is no reference to any such kind of assault which would have resulted in abrasions or internal injuries. So taken as a whole, there is doubt cast upon the allegation that the husband had sprinkled kerosene on the deceased and burnt her and the evidence of the mother that the appellant had also assisted in doing the same. He also argued that the burn injuries have been referred to as being of 95% burns, if that was the situation she would not have been in any position to have made a statement for the fardbeyan. Therefore, the allegations are based on false and manufactured complaint or fardbeyan. 15. Learned counsel also argued that there is another aspect to the whole incident. Initially the case was initiated or recorded as an accidental death and according to the bed head ticket also it is indicated as accidental with burn injuries. It is only later on it has been developed into a case under section 304 B IPC. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that initially the charges was also under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code as alternative charge and this can be made out in fact from the first few lines of the impugned judgment itself. It is therefore, argued that the offense was initially also regarded as one of murder and something that was much-much more serious. It is therefore, argued that the offense was initially also regarded as one of murder and something that was much-much more serious. On the other hand, it was also indicated in the bed head ticket as an accident and we have conviction under section 304 B /34 of the IPC, and therefore, there is three varied situations and when the main allegation is made out against the husband Harish and not against his mother, the current and surviving appellant, therefore, no conviction and sentence under the section 304 B/34 IPC should be made out against this appellant. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has once again come back to the argument that there was no demand for dowry and whatever offence there is, is in vague and in general terms. There is no item indicated, there is no amount of money indicated, moreover there is no date, or month or even year indicated as to when such dowry demand was made and therefore on this vital element the entire case of the prosecution collapses. It is also agreed that death was within seven years. However, there is no element of such cruelty being meted out in connection with dowry demand soon before her death. This is particularly so because the occurrence is said to be of 13.4.1995 but nowhere from the evidence or evidences that have been placed on record is it indicated as to when such dowry demands were made. It is also not indicated as to when by date or by month as to which the harassments and torture were made. Therefore, the very vital criteria of harassment and torture in connection with dowry demands being made soon before death is not made out and for the application of section 304 B IPC, all the ingredients of the section need to come into play and in the absence of even one ingredient the case the prosecution case will collapse. The argument here is that soon before such occurrence there was no harassment or torture in connection with dowry demand is absent, therefore, the entire case against the sole appellant also collapses. 17. In support of his arguments and to buttress his case in favour of the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant has also cited the following judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court; M. Srinivasulu Vs. 17. In support of his arguments and to buttress his case in favour of the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant has also cited the following judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court; M. Srinivasulu Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2007(4) Eastern Criminal Cases, 121 (SC), Tarsem Singh V. State of Punjab reported in 2010(1) Eastern Criminal Cases 280(SC) and Baijanath and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2017)1SCC 101. ARGUMENTS OF THE APP 18. Learned counsel for the State, learned APP has argued there is one important vital aspect which has not at all been referred by the counsel for the appellant and this is that it is not an ordinary fardbeyan, rather the fardbeyan is in the form that can be construed as a dying declaration. The dying declaration has been made by Sheela Devi, the deceased while she was in hospital and is an injured and burnt condition prior to her death. Moreover, the dying declaration gives a vivid account of what the relationship was between Sheela Devi, the deceased and her husband, Harish and her mother-in-law and it also indicates what had happened and there is a reference to dowry demand at least three times in the dying declaration. Therefore, it has to be considered at par with depositions made in court during the course of trial. The dying declaration was made in the presence of P.W. 7, who is Dr. R. Bharat and P.W. 9 B.B. Tirkey, who was Officer-in-Charge and investigating officer of the case. As per the deposition of the Dr. R. Bharat, P.W. 7 he said that the statement of Sheela Devi was recorded on 14.4.1995 at 11.30 a.m. This tallies with the opening lines of the fardbeyan wherein it has also been stated that it was noted down on 14.4.1995 at 11.30 hrs. by B.B. Tirkey, Officer-in-Charge of Govindpur police station. P.W. 7 has deposed that Sheela Devi was fully in a conscious state of mind when her statement was recorded. After recording her statement Sheela Devi gave a thumb impression on her statement. The doctor has also deposed that he had put his signature and stamp upon the statement which has been marked as Ext.-1/3 and he has proved the same. In cross examination, he has again deposed that Sheela Devi was in full senses when statement was recorded. After recording her statement Sheela Devi gave a thumb impression on her statement. The doctor has also deposed that he had put his signature and stamp upon the statement which has been marked as Ext.-1/3 and he has proved the same. In cross examination, he has again deposed that Sheela Devi was in full senses when statement was recorded. P.W. 7 further said that even in 100% burn cases, a person may be in a position to speak at least for some hours. Therefore, the fardbeyan is actually a dying declaration and it is so also because it was recorded by the Officer-in-Charge of Govindpur Police Station in the presence of the doctor or P.W. 7 who is also the head of the burns unit in the hospital and he has fully testified to her being in a fully conscious state and frame of mind when giving statement. Since the dying declaration has a very high evidentiary value, this fardbeyan is a most useful piece of evidence for the conviction of the appellant under the section 304 B of the IPC and also for the upholding of the sentence already imposed. 19. Learned counsel for the State then submitted that from her dying declaration there are at least three reference to dowry being demanded. She has said initially in the fardbeyan that at the time of marriage the dowry items asked by the inlaws were given to them but in spite of this they always continued to ask for dowry and money and they used to beat her for this. Continuing, learned counsel further said that again in the fardbeyan or the dying declaration at the end of the fardbeyan also Sheela Devi, the deceased has said that her claim is that her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law harassed and beaten her for dowry demands and sprinkled kerosene on her body and tried to burn her. Continuing, learned counsel further said that again in the fardbeyan or the dying declaration at the end of the fardbeyan also Sheela Devi, the deceased has said that her claim is that her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law harassed and beaten her for dowry demands and sprinkled kerosene on her body and tried to burn her. Counsel says from the fardbeyan or the dying declaration the element of dowry demand is totally made out and also it is indicated that she was harassed and tortured for the same and was also beaten by all three and this was not only done on the penultimate day when she was finally killed by her mother-in-law and her husband, but apparently from the fardbeyan it seems that this used to happen and all the three accused used to participate in the harassment and torture meted out to Sheela Devi. Continuing, learned counsel for the State, learned APP argued that from the evidence of P.W. 3 Fulmani Devi or the mother of the deceased, it is made out from her evidence in para 1 that the daughter had conveyed to P. W. 3 that her son-in-law and mother-in-law used to demand for dowry. They had conveyed to them that they had already given them dowry once and wherefrom will they give them dowry again. This witness has further deposed that her daughter’s mother-in-law used to make things difficult regarding intake of her food and her daughter had told her about this. Learned counsel thus says that from the dying declaration and from the evidence of P.W. 3, Fulmani Devi mother of the deceased it is clear that her daughter was being harassed and tortured in her matrimonial home for demand of dowry. The death which has taken place is within seven years and it is also under abnormal or not under normal circumstance, therefore, from the evidences the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that because of demands being made pertaining to dowry, on the daughter she was harassed and tortured for the same and which ultimately resulted in her murder or her dowry death. Learned counsel for the State, learned APP has also referred to the evidence of brother of the deceased that is P.W 6 and pointed out that in paragraph 7 it is referred that there was marpitor assaults made by the accused on his sister and that they used to be prevented from going to the police by the accused persons and it was only because they were prevented from going to the police that the panchyati took place. The accused persons said that we will settle the matter in the panchyati. It is not that the family of the deceased was not aware what was happening in the matrimonial home of the Sheela Devi, they were fully aware of it. However, since it was their daughter who was married into the house of the accused, they also felt and it would be wiser and better if the matter would be settled by panchyati. State continuing has then referred to Ext.-4 which is a document which was made at on the day of the panchyati and it is dated 26.9.1994 and in which about a dozen or so persons have signed along with the husband of the deceased. Harish signed on this document and he is the in fact the main signatory and he had given an undertaking and assurance in the panchyati paper that he is forgetting all incidents and he is accepting Sheela Devi as his wife and in future for any harm he will be responsible. From this panchyati note, it is clear that the wife or the deceased was being tortured and harassed in her matrimonial home and the husband had finally come to the panchyati and accepted that he is going to forget all incidents and that no harm or ill-will, will fall on his wife in future. Unfortunately that was not the case, the accused parties continued with the harmful activities against Sheela Devi ultimately, resulting in her murder and death by burning. Therefore, bringing it fully within the offence of section 304 B IPC. 20. Learned counsel for the State has also argued that an attempt has been made to nullify the offence by saying that the criteria of “soon before” is not made out. Counsel says that the marriage is as per evidence of the year 1993 and the offence is of the year 1995. 20. Learned counsel for the State has also argued that an attempt has been made to nullify the offence by saying that the criteria of “soon before” is not made out. Counsel says that the marriage is as per evidence of the year 1993 and the offence is of the year 1995. The panchyati has taken place on 26.09.1994 and her death occurs on 14.04.1995. Therefore, from the time of the panchyati which was in the month of September, 1994 till the time of death, which is in April 1995 about six to seven months had passed. She was only married in 1993 so the marriage and incidents had occurred within seven years of marriage, so it falls within the criteria within seven years as made out under section 304B of the IPC. Given the evidence that she was being tortured and harassed and given the short period from marriage till her death wherein the occurrence has taken place and the incident of burn and death has taken place then soon before death cannot be narrowly interpreted and pinpointed on to a particular date, when the entire period of itself is from the date of marriage in 1993 till her death on 14.4.1995. Hon’ble Apex Court has also said that it is difficult to give a precise period or time to soon before death. 21. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that from the arguments of the counsel for the appellant they have themselves admitted that the husband was the main accused because he was responsible for the death of the deceased by sprinkling kerosene oil on her and setting her aflame by lighting a match stick. If that is the case, the conviction or the guilt of the remaining appellant cannot be excused because the conviction has been done with the assistance of section 34 IPC and in such situation the conviction of the sole appellant will still be sustained as well as the sentence. 22. Counsel has then taken us to sections 107 and 109 of the IPC, which reads as follows. 107. 22. Counsel has then taken us to sections 107 and 109 of the IPC, which reads as follows. 107. Abetment of a thing:-A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First: -Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly: -Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly: -Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation1:-A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2: -Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. 109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence, and where no express provision is made for its punishment: -Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence. Explanation: -An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid, which constitutes the abetment. Learned counsel for the State argued that it has consistently come from the evidences of all the witnesses as well as the dying declaration that on the 13.4.1995 in the evening there was a quarrel between the daughter-in-law and the mother-in-law and the mother-in-law the present appellant had said that wait till my sons come and that she will get her beaten and she will be killed by burning. Knowing the nature of the son, on his arrival she provokes him by telling that she has been mistreated by his wife and she has not been given food and so on and the son being provoked then assaults and finally sprinkles kerosene on her and burns her. Knowing the nature of the son, on his arrival she provokes him by telling that she has been mistreated by his wife and she has not been given food and so on and the son being provoked then assaults and finally sprinkles kerosene on her and burns her. Without the instigation of the appellant in such manner it is not believable that the burning and the death would have occurred. It is only her provocation and instigation that has resulted in the death of Sheela Devi, the deceased and therefore her conviction under the said section with the assistance of section 34 IPC needs to be fully sustained along with the sentence imposed. 23. Learned counsel for the State has also argued that when the ingredients of section 304B of the IPC that is death occurred otherwise then under normal circumstances and death was within seven years of marriage and in this particular case within almost two years and that from the dying declaration and the other evidences it is apparent that she was being harassed and tortured and also there was demand for dowry then the presumption under section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act arises to the already existing ingredients of the section 304B IPC which has already been made out, and therefore, conviction and sentence needs to be fully upheld. 24. Learned counsel for the State, APP had also finally argued that even her statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., she has not really given any defense or explanation against the allegation against her, there are only simply denial and this denial simply contradictory to the dying declaration and the evidences that have been placed on record and assist the prosecution side. CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS 25. Having heard both counsel; having gone through the records of the case and the evidences and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that first and foremost it is important to note that the fardbeyan is not a just a fardbeyan but rather it is a dying declaration by the informant Sheela Devi who is also the deceased. It is seen that the dying declaration can be considered as such, because it was made before Sub Inspector B.B. Tirkey, Officer-in-Charge of Govindpur Police Station on 14.4.1995 at 11.30 hours in the burn unit of Tata Main Hospital. It is seen that the dying declaration can be considered as such, because it was made before Sub Inspector B.B. Tirkey, Officer-in-Charge of Govindpur Police Station on 14.4.1995 at 11.30 hours in the burn unit of Tata Main Hospital. This fardbeyan was made in the presence of P.W. 7 who is Dr. R. Bharat. Dr. R. Bharat has deposed that while making the fardbeyan, she was in a conscious state of mind and gave her statement. He has further stated that after recording the statement Sheela Devi gave her thumb impression. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the State in his cross examination, P.W. 7 Dr. R. Bharat has again deposed that Sheela Devi was in her full senses when her statement was recorded and that even in 100% burn cases a person may be in a position to speak at least for some hours. It is seen that this fardbeyan was made in the presence of the doctor P.W. 7 who has deposed regarding the mental state of mind during the time when it was being made and it was made to S.I. or the Officer-in-Charge of Govindpur Police Station and therefore, it can be considered a dying declaration. For the offence of section 304 B of the IPC the ingredients of unnatural death and that the death has taken place within seven years and that it has been in connection with harassment and torture which has been made in connection with demand for dowry and such torture, harassment and demand has also been made soon before the death all these ingredients should be existing. If one looks at the fardbeyan itself, it is seen that there was description regarding what the deceased had undergone, maybe she has not been able to pin point all the dates that could be understood because of the situation she was in, but, nevertheless, the main substance of her dying declaration is that in which at least three times she has mentioned that there was dowry has been demanded and at the same time, she was also harassed and tortured at home and also beaten. Considering the fact that she was only married in 1993 and she dies on 15.4.1995 then the period in which the entire occurrence took place is very short and from the fardbeyan it seems that after marriage or sometime after marriage, harassment had become a part of her existence and she apart from being physically tortured and harassed, she was always in a disturbed and frightened state of mind, so within this short period, it will be inappropriate to try to fix a date to arrive at ‘soon before’ criteria that is required in the section. The law as it is has rightly been pointed out that one cannot pin point a time or period with certainty but rather the facts and circumstances have to be looked in totality and in this aspect when we go through the dying declaration, along with the other evidences of the other prosecution witness and circumstances, it is seen or can be concluded that since she was married in 1993 and passed away on 15.4.1995, being a very short period, during which, she underwent all these harassment and cruelty in relation to demand for dowry, then the ingredients of section 304B IPC are fully made out. From the evidence of P.W. 3, Fulmani Devi, it is revealed that her daughter had said to her that she was subjected to cruelty by not giving her proper food and demand of dowry was made by her son-in-law and mother-in-law. Taken with this, it is seen from the fardbeyan or the dying declaration that the mother-in-law had first threatened her daughter-in-law that when her son comes, she will complain to him and that he will deal with her, beat her and further that she will be set ablaze. When deceased husband came in night as per the dying declaration, then the mother-in-law complains to her son and tells him that she is not being treated properly by the daughter-in-law and also food is being denied to her. Appellant by complaining to her son in such a manner actually instigates her son. Then as per the dying declaration, the son then takes the kerosene oil douses her and sets her ablaze. 26. The evidence of deceased brother, P.W. 6 is also revealing. Appellant by complaining to her son in such a manner actually instigates her son. Then as per the dying declaration, the son then takes the kerosene oil douses her and sets her ablaze. 26. The evidence of deceased brother, P.W. 6 is also revealing. P.W. 6 or the brother of the deceased has corroborated deceased fardbeyan or dying declaration because when he met her in the hospital he was informed by his sister regarding what she has stated in her dying declaration. P.W. 6 has also deposed about a panchyati that had taken place prior to the occurrence in which the accused-husband has put his signature. This document which is a panchyati document which has been exhibited as Ext.-4 reveals that the husband has said that he has given an undertaking and assurance that he is forgetting all incidents and he is accepting Sheela Devi as his wife and in future of any harm, he will be responsible. As pointed out by the counsel for the State that it is clear from this panchyati note that the deceased-wife was being tortured and harassed in her matrimonial home and the husband had finally come to the panchyati and accepted that he is going to forget all the incidents and no harm and ill-will take place against his wife in future. This exhibit-4 suggests that the situation was not well at home and she was ill-treated and taken along with the other evidences and particularly dying declaration, it can be concluded that the ill treatment that was meted out by the husband was definitely also in the knowledge of his mother or the husband’s mother or appellant and she also threatened and instigated for much of the ill will. 27. It is seen from the record, available that the husband Harish is no longer. If he was alive, he would have definitely been tried for the same offence, however, we see that the appeal before us is one of Lal Muni Devi. However, the conviction which she has undergone is under section 304B IPC along with section 34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out section 107 of the IPC and highlighted parts of it which reads as abatement of a thing-a person abate for doing of things, who instigates any person to do that thing. However, the conviction which she has undergone is under section 304B IPC along with section 34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out section 107 of the IPC and highlighted parts of it which reads as abatement of a thing-a person abate for doing of things, who instigates any person to do that thing. Counsel for the State pointed out that the defendants themselves have admitted that the husband was the main accused because he was responsible for the death of the deceased by sprinkling kerosene oil on her and setting her aflame and lighting a match stick which subsequently resulted in her death. Counsel says that in the case on hand, the conviction was done of Lal Muni Devi with the assistance of section 34 IPC which means it was done in association with her son. Counsel has therefore rightly pointed out section 107 IPC for the abatement of a thing. In the reading of the dying declaration, we see that before the incident of burning take place, the present appellant who is the mother-in-law of the deceased threatened her daughter-in-law that you wait till her son comes and she will complain to him she will get her beaten and burnt to death. When her son comes she complains to her son and knowing very well the nature of the son, immediately he assaults the deceased and then son Harish takes kerosene oil, poured it upon the deceased and burns her. In later part of fardbeyan deceased said that her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law tortured her for dowry and assaulted her and tried to burn her pouring kerosene oil on her. So, we see deceased was threatened, subsequently when the son came appellant instigated her son and the consequences follow. Therefore, the conviction under sections 304B/34 IPC can rightly said to have been done. 28. Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants M. Srinivasulu (supra), Tarsem Singh (supra) and Baijnath and others (supra) does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In M. Srinivasulu (supra) case, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that in the letter written by the deceased there was no allegation for the demand of dowry. In the case in hand, deceased in her dying declaration has mentioned about the demand for dowry and for the same she was harassed and tortured. 29. In M. Srinivasulu (supra) case, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that in the letter written by the deceased there was no allegation for the demand of dowry. In the case in hand, deceased in her dying declaration has mentioned about the demand for dowry and for the same she was harassed and tortured. 29. Accordingly based on aforesaid observations and reasoning, the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 29.8.2002 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in S.T. No. 563 of 1995 whereby appellant has been convicted under section 304B/34 of the IPC and sentenced undergo R.I. for 7 years is sustained and therefore, this judgment and sentence dated 29.8.2002 is upheld. 30. Appellant, is on bail, her bail bonds are cancelled. Learned concerned or successor court below is directed to take steps for her arrest to serve out the remaining sentence. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.