JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant Bhera @ Bheru Lal against the judgment dated 19/12/2011, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No. 3, Udaipur Headquarter, Salumbar in Sessions Case No. 50/2011, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 3000/- 3 months R.I. 304-B IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 3,000/- 3 months R.I. 498-A IPC Two and half years rigorous imprisonment Rs. 1,000/- 15 days R.I. 2. The prosecution story as narrated in the written complaint (Ex.P.5) filed by Narayan (PW.3), father of the deceased Reena on 01/03/2011 wherein he stated that his daughter Reena @ Veena was married to the appellant Bhera ten months ago. When his daughter came home on the occasion of Rakhi, she informed that the appellant was harassing her with a demand of Rs. 20,000/-. Since, he had no money, therefore, she went back empty handed to her in-laws house after staying with him for five days. Again a demand of Rs. 15,000/- was raised by the appellant but since he had no money, the same could not be fulfilled. Two days prior to the date of incident, his daughter came and took away her entire jewelery. On being asked, she informed that her in-laws had asked her to bring the same. A day later, brother-in-law of his daughter Veena informed that she had sustained burn injuries. The same was informed to him by his wife on telephone at Ahemadabad where he was working as a labour. On getting the information, he and his cousin brother Jeevat Ram etc. went to Udaipur. When they saw Veena in the hospital, she was not in a position to speak. He suspected that his daughter had been burnt by the appellant when the demand of dowry was not fulfilled or she might have committed suicide on being harassed by the appellant. 3. On the aforesaid complaint, a formal FIR No. 55/2011 was registered against the accused for the offence under Section 304- B IPC at the Police Station Kherwada, District Udaipur. During the course of investigation, the police added Section 498A IPC in the matter. 4. After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498A IPC. 5. During the course of investigation, the police added Section 498A IPC in the matter. 4. After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498A IPC. 5. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offences under Sections 302, 304B and 498A of I.P.C to the accused appellant who denied the charges and sought trial. 6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. Two witnesses Jeeva DW.1 and Bhera DW.2 were examined in defence and as many as 3 documents were exhibited. 7. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial to which he denied and stated that he was innocent and falsely implicated in this case. 8. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the documentary evidence and the statement of witnesses, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 19/12/2011. Hence this appeal. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the appellant and the complainant belong to Meena Community of Kherwada District Udaipur where there is no custom of giving dowry. More over, in the present case, dowry was neither asked for nor the same was given at the time of marriage by the complainant. He further submits that the allegation of demand of dowry as portrayed in the statements of PW.3 Narayan Lal, PW.4 Jeevat Ram and PW.5 Mani Devi is false and frivolous. He further submits that it has come on record that a Bajanti (traditional ornament) was presented by the family of the appellant to father of the deceased, Narain Lal. Besides this, other gifts were given to the deceased Veena from the matrimonial side at the time of marriage. Counsel submits that neither any complaint was made nor any Panchayat was held with respect to demand of dowry being raised or harassment being meted out to the deceased by the appellant and his family. He, therefore, submits that the allegation of harassment or demand of dowry is sheerly a false and fabricated. 11. Counsel submits that neither any complaint was made nor any Panchayat was held with respect to demand of dowry being raised or harassment being meted out to the deceased by the appellant and his family. He, therefore, submits that the allegation of harassment or demand of dowry is sheerly a false and fabricated. 11. Learned counsel further argues that the deceased was suffering from Epilepsy for which she was taken to Ahemdabad and other places by the accused and expenditure of treatment was borne mostly by the family of the appellant. The relationship between the appellant and his wife and other members of the family was cordial. Immediately on getting the information that the deceased sustained burn injuries, it was the appellant and his family members who rushed her to the hospital and informed the mother and father of the deceased on telephone. Had there been any ill-will on the part of the appellant, he would not have immediately informed the parents of the deceased. 12. Learned counsel on the strength of these arguments submits that the prosecution could not prove beyond the pale of doubt that present appellant was guilty of the offences alleged in the present case and therefore, the learned trial court committed grave factual and legal error while convicting and sentencing the accused- appellant for the alleged offence as above vide Judgment dated 19/12/2011, which warrants interference by this Court and the accused-appellant may be acquitted from the charge levelled against him. 13. On the contrary, learned public prosecutor submits that within a short span of ten months of marriage, Smt. Veena wife of the appellant died in unnatural circumstances, therefore, the presumption of an unnatural death within a period of seven years clearly brings the appellant within the ambit of Section 304B IPC. He further submits that the allegation that the deceased was harassed and humiliated in the matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry is proved conclusively by the evidence of PW.3 Narayan Lal, father of the deceased; PW.4 Jeevat Ram, uncle of the deceased; PW.5 Smt. Mani Devi, mother of the deceased and PW.6 Mani Lal, uncle of the deceased. Thus, as per him, the prosecution has been able to prove the charges levelled against the appellant by clinching evidence and by virtue of the presumption under Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, as per him, the prosecution has been able to prove the charges levelled against the appellant by clinching evidence and by virtue of the presumption under Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act. The testimony of these witnesses is thoroughly corroborated by the medical evidence in the form of statement of PW.9 Dr. Anupam Johari who conducted the autopsy of deceased Veena and stated that the cause of death was shock and secondary bacterial infection which developed in the extensive burn injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Besides this, the postmortem report (Ex.P.9) also shows the cause of death was shock due to septicemia caused by secondary bacterial infection over the extensive burn area sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He urged that the learned trial Court, after analyzing the evidence on record and appreciating the facts of the case, has rightly convicted the appellant vide judgment dated 19/12/2011 which calls for no interference by this Court. 14. We have considered the submissions made at bar and closely scrutinized the record of the trial Court. 15. PW.3 Narayan Lal, being the father of the deceased stated that Reena was married to the appellant ten months before the incident and all throughout this period, she was harassed by the appellant for bringing Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-. She was assaulted on three occasions and on each time, Reena came to his house and was counselled and sent back. Last time when she came, she took away the ornaments. She was burnt alive after pouring kerosene on her body. When the incident happened and his wife informed him about the same, he was at Ahmedabad. He lodged the report to the police under his signatures. 16. In the cross-examination, this witness deposed that at the time of marriage, he asked the appellant for a Bajanti (traditional ornament). He further stated that although there was custom of taking Dapa from the grooms family but he did not take any Dapa in the marriage and, no other custom was prevalent in their community. His daughter was quite fair and beautiful but the accused was very ordinary looking and had her daughter seen the appellant Bhera beforehand, she would not have married him. His daughter was quite fair and beautiful but the accused was very ordinary looking and had her daughter seen the appellant Bhera beforehand, she would not have married him. Neither any complaint was lodged for harassment being meted out to his daughter for not bringing dowry nor any Panchayat was held for the same. 17. PW.4 Jevat Ram, being the uncle of the deceased stated almost on the same lines as stated by PW.3 Narayan Lal. He stated that neither any complaint was lodged against the appellant or his family for harassing the deceased Veena nor was any Panchayat held for such allegations. 18. PW.5 Smt. Mani Devi, mother of the deceased also stated almost on the same lines as deposed by PW.3 Narayan Lal. However, in the cross-examination, she stated that when her daughter Veena went to her matrimonial home, she was not keeping well. For treatment of Veena, she was taken to Village Godi where her in-laws also accompanied them and they also spent about Rs. 700-800. Thereafter, there was significant improvement in her health. She was taken to different temples and offerings were made. 19. PW.6 Manilal, uncle of the deceased also deposed on the same lines as stated by PW.3 Narayan Lal. He also admitted that no complaint was ever lodged before any authority regarding harassment against her in-laws. 20. PW.9 Dr. Anupam Johari who conducted the postmortem stated that body of deceased Veena was 95% burnt and cause of death was shock and infection because of excessive burn injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 21. PW.10 Jeevan Singh is the Investigating Officer who investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, he recorded statements of witnesses, collected samples, prepared memos in accordance with the provisions of law and submitted the charge sheet before the Court of competent jurisdiction. 22. D.D.1 Jeeva, father of the accused appeared and deposed before the Court that Veena was suffering from illness right from inception of her marriage. The illness was something like Epilepsy due to which she used to suffer from convulsions and would often fall down while walking. He took her to Ahemdabad for treatment along with her father and his son. She was also taken to different temples including one at Village Godi. The relationship between her and her husband was quite normal and cordial. The illness was something like Epilepsy due to which she used to suffer from convulsions and would often fall down while walking. He took her to Ahemdabad for treatment along with her father and his son. She was also taken to different temples including one at Village Godi. The relationship between her and her husband was quite normal and cordial. At the time of incident, he was in Ahemdabad and on getting the information, he reached to the hospital at Udaipur where he was informed that Veena had caught fire while preparing tea and was burnt. 23. D.D.2 Bheru also stated similar to the statement made by his father D.D.1. He further stated that while preparing tea on stove, his wife caught fire and sustained burn injuries. He took her to the hospital and informed his in-laws. 24. Postmortem Report is Ex.P.9 wherein the cause of death was shown as "shock due to septicemia caused by secondary bacterial infection over extensive burnt area sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature by its own". 25. On a close scrutiny of the testimony of PW.3 Narayan Lal and PW.5 Mani Devi, we note that the allegation of demand of dowry is wholly unfounded because no custom of dowry is prevalent in the community to which the parties belong and on the contrary it has come on record that at the time of marriage, the family of the boy brings and offers ornaments, clothes etc. for the girl i.e. bride and this custom is called Dapa. Therefore, the allegation of demand of dowry is not really made out. It has also come on record that father of the deceased asked the appellant to bring Bajanti (traditional ornament) for his daughter Veena. 26. We further note that because of the illness of deceased Veena, she was taken for treatment at different places. It has come in the statement of PW.5 Smt. Mani Devi that the in laws not only accompanied Veena but they also spent certain amounts for her treatment. Therefore, it can reasonably be inferred that the relationship between deceased Veena and her in-laws including her husband was not strained on account of demand of dowry as alleged in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, it can reasonably be inferred that the relationship between deceased Veena and her in-laws including her husband was not strained on account of demand of dowry as alleged in the statements of prosecution witnesses. On a conjoint reading of the statements of PW.3 Narayan Lal, PW.4 Jeevat Ram and PW.6 Mani Lal, it is also clear that no complaint was ever made for subjecting the deceased to maltreatment by appellant and his family members. Not only this, no Panchayat was held for the purpose in their Village or Society. Hence, we are persuaded to take a view that never was any dispute between the two families on account of demand of dowry. 27. We note that Veena was fair and beautiful and whereas the appellant was of dark complexion and, therefore, it was probably a mismatch of personalities between husband and wife, on account of which there might have been altercations and possibility of disputes and quarreling between the husband and wife on trivial issues cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, the fact that the deceased was suffering from an epilepsy type illness and the her parental family members tried to hide this fact is also a significant circumstance which creates a doubt on the bonafides of the prosecution case. The possibility of strained relationship between the appellant and his wife because of her illness which caused her to suffer frequent bouts of convulsions and fainting can also not be ruled out. To say the least, we are not convinced that the prosecution has been able to bring home the allegation of harassment to the deceased Veena for demand of dowry or not meeting the demand for payment of cash. 28. In this background, we feel that rather than it being a case of suicide committed by the deceased owing to harassment for demand of dowry, it is a case wherein, the apparent disparity in the build and complexion of the spouses and the ailment being suffered by the deceased led to some altercations and the things went beyond tolerance of the deceased who took the extreme step of ending her life by self immolation. Thus, the case at best travels within the preview of instigation meted out by the accused to the deceased for committing suicide punishable under Section 306 IPC. Further the presumption of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act supports our observation in the present case. 29. Thus, the case at best travels within the preview of instigation meted out by the accused to the deceased for committing suicide punishable under Section 306 IPC. Further the presumption of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act supports our observation in the present case. 29. For the foregoing reasons, we feel persuaded to convert the conviction of the appellant from the charges under Sections 302, 304-B to one under Section 306 IPC. 30. In view of the discussion made herein above, the present appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 19/12/2011 is modified and while acquitting the appellant from the charge under Sections 302/304 B IPC, his conviction is altered to the offence under Section 306 IPC and he is sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default to payment of fine, he shall further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. His conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 498A IPC is maintained. The record of the trial court be returned forthwith.