Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 808 (ALL)

Shanti Devi v. State of U. P.

2019-04-01

PRITINKER DIWAKER, RAJ BEER SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : Raj Beer Singh, J. 1. The present appeal arises out of impugned judgment and order dated 25.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bareilly in Session Trial No. 1053 of 2003 (State v. Ram Veer Mathur and others), arising out of Crime No. 241 of 2007, under Sections 304-B/34 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kyolidia, District-Bareilly, whereby appellants Ramveer Mathur and Shanti Devi alias Rama Devi have been convicted under Sections 304-B/34 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Appellant Ram Veer Mathur has been sentenced to Imprisonment for life, while appellant Shanti Devi alias Rama Devi has been sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment. For the offence under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, both the appellants were sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they have to further undergo one month additional imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently. 2. In this case, the name of the deceased is Geeta Bharti. Appellants Ram Veer Mathur and Shanti Devi are husband and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively. As per prosecution version, the marriage of Geeta Bharti was solemnised on 20.04.2007 with appellant Ram Veer Mathur, who was working in Indian Army. After some days of marriage, the appellants started demanding a four wheeler (Bolero) vehicle while the complainant has given Rs. 3,15,000/- in cash for a four wheeler vehicle, besides other articles worth Rs. 2,00,000/- in the marriage itself. The appellants-accused harassed the deceased on account of dowry. On 14.09.2007 at about 7:00 a.m., the complainant was informed on the mobile phone by accused Ram Veer Mathur that the deceased has gone somewhere, while he (Ram Veer Mathur) was going to resume his duty. The complainant along with his family members and relatives reached at the matrimonial house of the deceased but the family member of her in-laws were not present there. The dead body of the deceased was lying in the verandah and she has sustained a bullet on her head. 3. The complainant along with his family members and relatives reached at the matrimonial house of the deceased but the family member of her in-laws were not present there. The dead body of the deceased was lying in the verandah and she has sustained a bullet on her head. 3. Complainant/PW-1 Om Prakash submitted a written report Exhibit Ka-1 at Police Station Kyolidia, alleging the above stated facts and on the basis of the complaint exhibit Ka-1, the present case was registered on 14.09.2007 at 4:00 p.m. against the appellants Ram Veer Mathur, Smt. Shanti Devi alias Rama Devi as well as against Ramavtar, Narendra Pal and Kunwar Pal vide FIR Exhibit Ka-5. 4. The inquest proceedings of the deceased were conducted on the same day at 5:00 p.m. and the inquest report Exhibit Ka-9 and other related documents were prepared. The dead body of the deceased was sealed and was sent for the post-mortem. 5. The post-mortem on the body of the deceased was conducted on 15.09.2007 at 2:30 p.m. by PW-4 Dr. K.B. Pathak at District Hospital, Bareilly, vide Exhibit Ka-4. As per Autopsy Surgeon, the following anti mortem injuries were found on the body of deceased Geeta Bharti:-- (i) Fire arm wound of entry of size 2.0 x 2.0 cm x brain cavity deep on left side of head in parietal (Lt.) region, 4.0 cm above Lt. Ear Pinna; margins inverted, singing of surrounding 1 cm area around wound present. Blackening, tattooing present. (ii) Fire arm wound of exit-triangular in shape size 22.0 x 14.0 x 12.0 cm brain cavity deep, Brain matter exploded out partly and partly present in cranial cavity. The site of this exit wound and is on Rt. side of forehead and head, 4.0 cm above right ear and 2.0 cm above right eyebrow cranium fractured; margins inverted. 6. The cause of death of the deceased was coma due to ante-mortem firearm injury sustained in head region. 7. The investigation of the case was conducted by PW-5 Madan Lal, Circle Officer, Nawabganj. He recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared site plan of the spot, vide Exhibit Ka-5. One cartridge of 315 bore was seized from the spot, vide exhibit Ka-2. Samples of simple as well as blood-stained soil were taken from the spot. 7. The investigation of the case was conducted by PW-5 Madan Lal, Circle Officer, Nawabganj. He recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared site plan of the spot, vide Exhibit Ka-5. One cartridge of 315 bore was seized from the spot, vide exhibit Ka-2. Samples of simple as well as blood-stained soil were taken from the spot. The further investigation was conducted by PW-6 Ombir Singh, who has filed Charge Sheet under Sections 304-B/34 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, vide Exhibit Ka-6 against all the five accused persons. 8. Learned trial Court framed charge under Sections 304-B/34 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants and co-accused Kunwar Pal. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 9. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. PW-1 Om Prakash is complainant and father of the deceased, PW-2 Ram Shri Devi is mother of the deceased and PW-3 Narendra Kumar is brother of the deceased. PW-4 Dr. K.B. Pathak has conducted post-mortem and PW-5 and PW-6 have investigated the case, while PW-7 Deen Dayal Yadav is a formal witness, who has recorded F.I.R. and GD entry, vide Exhibits ka-8 and Ka-9. 10. The accused persons were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. wherein they have denied the prosecution evidence. Accused Ram Veer Mathur had filed a written statement wherein he denied any demand of dowry or any harassment. It was alleged that he was employed in Indian Army, but his wife (deceased) Geeta Bharti was not ready to go with him. She wanted to marry someone else but she was married by her family members with him against her wishes. On 13.09.2007, he tried to take her with him at the place of posting but she did not agree. On that night he and his mother have gone to the field for irrigating their land and on the next morning at about 6:30 a.m., his father came at the field and informed that Geeta Bharti has committed suicide by firing a bullet. He has informed her family members but they started beating them and thus, appellant Ram Veer Mathur and his family members went away from there. He has informed her family members but they started beating them and thus, appellant Ram Veer Mathur and his family members went away from there. He further stated that in the night when he returned back to his home, he found a suicide note and he has told the police about the same but police did not investigate on that aspect. 11. The accused persons have examined four witnesses in their defence. DW-1 Nand Lal and DW-2 Suresh Chandra have deposed regarding hand writing and signatures of the deceased. DW-3 Kadhe Ram is neighbour of the appellants, while DW-4 Anoop Singh is hand writing expert. 12. After hearing and analysing the evidence on record, learned trial Court convicted the accused-appellants Ram Veer Mathur and Shanti Devi alias Rama Devi under Sections 304-B/34 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them as stated in the para No. 1 of the judgment, while co-accused Kunwar Pal was acquitted. 13. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the appellants Ram Veer Mathur and Shanti Devi alias Rama Devi have preferred the present appeal. 14. Heard Sri Amit Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri B.A. Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants raised following points:-- (i) That the learned trial court wrongly disbelieved the alleged suicide note of the deceased. Further, at the time of the alleged incident, the appellants were irrigating their land and thus, they were not present at the spot. There is no evidence to sustain the conviction of the appellants. (ii) That on the basis of evidence on record, co-accused Kunwar Pal was acquitted by the learned trial Court while on the same evidence, appellants have been convicted and thus, their conviction is not sustainable in the eyes of law. (iii) That there is no direct evidence against the appellants rather the facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the deceased has committed suicide. (iv) That the deceased was a lady of religious belief and more than often, she used to remain busy in writing her diary and the possibility is that she committed suicide due to some religious belief. This fact is established from the statements of defence witnesses. It was further submitted that deceased was not happy with her marriage with the appellant Ram Veer Mathur. (v) That there are serious contradictions in the statements of witnesses. This fact is established from the statements of defence witnesses. It was further submitted that deceased was not happy with her marriage with the appellant Ram Veer Mathur. (v) That there are serious contradictions in the statements of witnesses. In view of the material contradictions and infirmity, the prosecution version becomes doubtful. 16. On the other hand, refuting the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, it has been submitted by the learned state counsel that the death of the deceased has taken place within seven years of her marriage at her matrimonial home. The deceased suffered death by firearm injuries and thus, the death is otherwise than under normal circumstances. As the death of the deceased took place inside the home of the appellants, thus, they were under an obligation to clarify as to how the deceased has met with death, but the appellants have taken false plea that they were irrigating the field. The version of the appellant Ram Veer Mathur that at the time of the alleged incident he was irrigating field, is not believable. PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Ram Shri Devi have made clear and cogent statements that the deceased was being harassed by the appellants for dowry. The conviction of the appellants is based on evidence and the present appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 17. In the present case, the marriage of the deceased with accused Ram Veer Mathur is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the deceased suffered death by gunshot injuries at her matrimonial home within short span of five months of her marriage. 18. Close scrutiny of evidence reveals that PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Ram Shri Devi, who are father and mother of the deceased, have made statements to the effect that their daughter Geeta Bharti was married with appellant Ram Veer Mathur on 20.04.2007 but after marriage her husband and family members used to demand a four wheeler vehicle (Bolero). On 14.09.2007 at 7:00 a.m., appellant Ram Veer Mathur has informed PW-1 that his daughter has gone somewhere, while he was going to join his duty. When PW-1 and his family members reached there, they found the dead body of the deceased lying in the Verandah and there was gunshot injury at her temple. PW-1 and PW-2 have stated that their daughter Geeta Bharti was murdered by appellant Ram Veer Mathur. When PW-1 and his family members reached there, they found the dead body of the deceased lying in the Verandah and there was gunshot injury at her temple. PW-1 and PW-2 have stated that their daughter Geeta Bharti was murdered by appellant Ram Veer Mathur. The appellants and their family members were not present there. 19. PW-3 Narendra Kumar, who is brother of the deceased, has also made similar statement and stated that appellants and their family members were not happy with the dowry given in the marriage of the deceased and that they used to demand a Bolero vehicle and used to harass the deceased on that account. He further stated that on 14.09.2007 he was informed on his mobile phone that his sister has gone somewhere and thereafter, when his parents reached at the matrimonial home of the deceased, they found that the dead body of the deceased was lying there. Thereafter, PW 3 has also reached there. 20. PW-4 Dr. K.B. Pathak has conducted post-mortem of the deceased and has duly proved the post-mortem report Exhibit Ka-4. 21. The Investigating Officer PW-5 Madan Lal, Circle Officer stated that he reached at the spot and prepared the site-plan of the spot vide Exhibit Ka-5. One empty cartridge which was found on the spot, was also taken into possession. Samples of simple and blood stained soil were also taken from the spot. Further investigation was conducted by PW-6 Om Veer Singh, who has filed charge sheet vide exhibit Ka-6 against the appellants. 22. PW-7 Deen Dayal Yadav is a formal witness who has registered FIR and also proved the inquest report and other inquest papers as Exhibit Ka-9 to Exhibit Ka-14 by way of secondary evidence. 23. To appreciate the arguments of the parties and also the evidence, it is necessary to look into the statutory provisions of Section 304-B of IPC and Section 113-B of Evidence Act. Provisions of section 304-B of IPC reads as follows: "[304B. 23. To appreciate the arguments of the parties and also the evidence, it is necessary to look into the statutory provisions of Section 304-B of IPC and Section 113-B of Evidence Act. Provisions of section 304-B of IPC reads as follows: "[304B. Dowry death.--(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.]" 24. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act reads as follows: "[113B. Presumption as to dowry death.-- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304-B of IPC." 25. It is apparent from the above stated provisions that if it is proved that death of woman is caused by any burn or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death (i) She was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives, or (ii) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, demand of dowry, or (iii) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death; then a presumption has to be raised that accused caused dowry death. 26. 26. In the present case, the statements of PW-1 Om Prakash, PW-2 Ram Shri Devi and PW-3 Narendra Kumar are clear and cogent on the point that after the marriage of the deceased with appellant Ram Veer Mathur, she was being harassed by the appellants and their family members for dowry as they used to demand a four wheeler Bolero. Though PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are not eye-witness of the alleged incident of murder of deceased but their statements are relevant to establish that the appellant and his family members used to demand the Bolero vehicle and they harassed the deceased on that account. These witnesses have been subjected to cross-examination, but no adverse fact could be elicited against their credibility. No important contradiction or inconsistency could be pointed out. Simply because before the alleged incident, no complaint was made by the complainant regarding alleged demand of dowry, the version of these witnesses cannot be doubted. Here it has to be kept in mind that the marriage of the deceased was only five months prior of the incident. In normal course the parents of a newly wedded girl would make effort that the matrimonial life of their girl is run smoothly and the steps of lodging the report is taken when this possibility is ruled out. The evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 is quite categorical that the appellants used to demand a four wheeler (Bolero) as additional dowry. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the deceased was being harassed for dowry. 27. So far as the death of the deceased is concerned, it is not disputed that the deceased suffered death by gunshot injuries at her matrimonial home within five months of her marriage. This fact is also apparent from the medical evidence that the deceased Geeta Bharti had suffered bullet injury and died of the same. One empty cartridge was also recovered from the spot. It is also not in dispute that death of the deceased took place in the intervening night of 13-14.09.2007 and at the time of the incident, the appellant Ram Veer Mathur was on vacation from his Army duty and was visiting his home. Since the death of the deceased took place inside her matrimonial home in night, thus they were the occupants of the house, who have to explain as to how the deceased suffered death. Since the death of the deceased took place inside her matrimonial home in night, thus they were the occupants of the house, who have to explain as to how the deceased suffered death. In case of Amarsingh Munnasingh Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2007) 15 SCC 455 : ( AIR 2008 SC 479 ), while dealing with a similar situation, it was observed by the Apex Court that where the accused husband and wife were living together at the time of death and they were alone in the room, it was for the accused husband to explain as to how the deceased met her death. 28. The case put up by the appellants is that deceased Geeta Bharti was not ready to go with appellant Ram Veer Mathur at the place of his posting and that she wanted to marry someone else but her family members have married with him against her wishes. On 13.09.2007 he tried to take her with him at the place of posting but she did not agree. On that night, he and his mother have gone to the field for irrigating their land and in the next morning his father came at the field and informed that Geeta Bharti has committed suicide by firing a bullet. It was further stated that in the night when he return back at his home, he found a suicide note of the deceased, but it was not investigated by the police. It may be pointed out here that as the deceased has suffered death by gunshot injury and thus, the trial Court must have framed alternate charge under Section 302 of IPC, but it was not done. Be that as it may, it is the case of the appellants themselves that the deceased committed suicide by firing bullet at her temple. The plea of alibi taken by the appellants has not been established. It is well settled that the plea of alibi has to be established by the accused persons but no reliable evidence was led in support of the alleged plea. Though accused persons have examined DW-3 Kadhe Ram, who stated that the applicants have gone to the field to irrigate their land, but he did not make any such statement to the Investigating Officer. He did not bring this version into the notice of any police authorities. Though accused persons have examined DW-3 Kadhe Ram, who stated that the applicants have gone to the field to irrigate their land, but he did not make any such statement to the Investigating Officer. He did not bring this version into the notice of any police authorities. No suggestion was made to PW-1 and PW-2 that at the time of the incident, the accused were at their field. The defence evidence of DW-1, DW-2 and DW-4 was also led to establish the theory that the deceased committed suicide. There is nothing to substantiate the version of the appellants that the deceased committed suicide on account of any religious belief or that she wanted to marry some one else or she was married with the appellant Ram Veer Mathur against her wishes. There is absolutely no evidence in support of these contentions. Even if the version of the appellants is taken into consideration, the fact remains that the deceased died of gunshot injuries at her matrimonial home. It is well settled that suicide also falls within the ambit of death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances, as mentioned in Section 304-B of IPC In other words, if a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and it is established that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives in connection with any demand of dowry, such an offence would fall within the ambit of Section 304-B of IPC. Law is settled on the point that even suicide is an unnatural death for the purpose of offence under Section 304-B of IPC. On this point reference may be made to the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Shanti v. State of Haryana, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 371 : ( AIR 1991 SC 1226 ) and also in the case of M. Narain v. State of Karnataka (2015) 6 SCC 465 : (2015 AIR SCW 3600). In the case of M. Narain (supra), deceased died due to hanging and conviction by High Court was maintained. In view of above, in the present case, even if the version of the defence is believed that the deceased has committed suicide, the death of the deceased would fall within the ambit of Section 304-B of IPC. 29. In the case of M. Narain (supra), deceased died due to hanging and conviction by High Court was maintained. In view of above, in the present case, even if the version of the defence is believed that the deceased has committed suicide, the death of the deceased would fall within the ambit of Section 304-B of IPC. 29. In case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 : (2006 AIR SCW 5300), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime." (See also: Prithipal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 10 ) L (2012 AIR SCW 594). 30. Applying the above stated law in the facts of the present case, it may be observed that it is not in dispute that the appellant Ram Veer Mathur, the husband of the deceased, was residing along with his wife in his dwelling house. Though he was employed in Indian Army, but at the time of incident, he was on vacation and was at his home. The deceased died of gunshot injuries at her matrimonial home within five months of her marriage. The plea of alibi that on that night the appellants were irrigating their field has not been established. The only other explanation offered by the appellants is that the deceased committed suicide. As no charge of Section 302 of IPC was framed against him, thus, even if she committed suicide, it is apparent that the death of the deceased occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. 31. As far as the question that whether soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants-accused is concerned, it is not in dispute that the death of the deceased took place just within five months of her marriage. In case of Satvir Singh and Ors. 31. As far as the question that whether soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants-accused is concerned, it is not in dispute that the death of the deceased took place just within five months of her marriage. In case of Satvir Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. ( (2001) 8 SCC 633 ) : ( AIR 2001 SC 2828 ), the Apex Court held: "22. It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if Section 304-B is to be invoked. But it should have happened "soon before 15 her death". The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words "soon before her death" is to emphasis the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide the court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the death would not have been the immediate cause of her death. It is hence for the court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept "soon before her death". 32. A similar question came up for consideration in Thakkan Jha & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2004) 13 SCC 348 ), wherein the Apex Court held: "This is so because the expression used in the relevant provision is "soon before". The expression is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit. The expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. It cannot be said that the term "soon before" is synonymous with the term "immediately before". The expression is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit. The expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. It cannot be said that the term "soon before" is synonymous with the term "immediately before". This is because of what is stated in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link. Similar view has been taken in Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab [( AIR 2006 SC 680 )." 33. Indisputably, in order to attract the said provision, it is imperative on the part of the prosecution to establish that the cruelty or harassment has been met out to the deceased 'soon before her death'. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that it is a flexible term. Its application would depend upon the factual matrix obtaining in a particular case. No fix period can be indicated there for. It, however, must undergo the test known as 'proximity test'. What, however, is necessary for the prosecution is to bring on record that the dowry demand was not too late and not too stale before the death of the victim. Prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case, presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by prosecution. 'Soon before' is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. In fact, whether the cruelty was soon before death, it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the said expression would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. In fact, whether the cruelty was soon before death, it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the said expression would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. In other words, there must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. These principles have been reiterated in Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828 and Yashoda v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2004) 3 SCC 98 : ( AIR 2005 SC 1411 )." 34. Likewise, there is a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act as to the dowry death. It lays down that the Court shall presume that a person, who has subjected the deceased-wife to cruelty before her death, shall be presumed to have caused the dowry death if it is shown that before her death, such woman had been subjected, by the accused, to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand of dowry. Practically, this is the presumption that has been incorporated in Section 304-B of IPC. It can, therefore, be seen that irrespective of the fact whether the accused has any direct connection with the death or not, he shall be presumed to have committed the dowry death provided the other requirements mentioned above are satisfied. 35. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the death of the deceased took place just within five months of her marriage. As stated earlier, there is cogent and trustworthy evidence that after the marriage, the appellants used to demand a Bolero vehicle in dowry and they used to harass the deceased in that connection. As the deceased has suffered unnatural death within a short span of five months of her marriage and there is nothing to indicate that before her death, the accused-appellants have back-tracked from the alleged demand or from the harassment of the deceased. The inference is that she was being harassed for dowry till her death. As the deceased has suffered unnatural death within a short span of five months of her marriage and there is nothing to indicate that before her death, the accused-appellants have back-tracked from the alleged demand or from the harassment of the deceased. The inference is that she was being harassed for dowry till her death. It also appears from the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 that the deceased was being taken from her parental home only before some days of the incident. There is proximity and live link between the dowry demand and the death of the deceased. The conduct of the appellants also appears to be incriminating. After the alleged incident, the appellants did not report the matter to the police rather they gave false information to the complainant that the deceased has gone somewhere, while the dead body of the deceased was lying in their house. They have also fled from the spot. One fact, to be noticed, is that as per the appellants themselves, the deceased committed suicide by firing with a country made pistol at herself but they did not offer any explanation that from where she found the alleged pistol. More surprising is the fact that after the alleged incident, how that pistol has gone missing. After her death the deceased might not have misplaced the alleged pistol, but there is no recovery of the alleged pistol. The only inference is that the alleged pistol was concealed by the appellants or any of their family members. Thus, their conduct is also incriminating. Considering the evidence as a whole, it clearly emerges that the harassment of the deceased on account of the alleged demand of Bolero vehicle, remained continue till the date of incident. From the evidence, it is also clear that the appellant Ram Veer Mathur has given a false information to the complainant and his family members on the telephone that the deceased had gone somewhere while she has died of gunshot injury and her dead body was lying in his home. Further, the appellants have absconded from the spot after the incident. These facts further support the prosecution version. Further, the appellants have absconded from the spot after the incident. These facts further support the prosecution version. Though no specific role was attributed to the appellants in causing death of the deceased but the appellants are husband and mother-in-law of the deceased and in view of the evidence on record, unless the appellants dispel the presumption of committing dowry death, they are responsible for causing the death of the deceased. Section 304-B of IPC is a special provision which was inserted by an amendment of 1986 to deal with a large number of dowry deaths taking place in the country. 36. So far the argument that on the basis of evidence on record, co-accused Kunwar Pal was acquitted by the learned trial Court while on the same evidence, appellants have been convicted is concerned, it may be observed that Kunwar Pal is the brother-in-law (devar) of the deceased and the learned trial Court has found that he was a student of 12th class and he was pursuing his study at Pilibhit. In view of these facts, the appellants cannot claim parity with him. The contention of the learned counsel has no force. 37. In the instant case, if the circumstances of the case are analysed on the touchstone of Section 304-B of IPC, all the three basic ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are present in the instant case. It is established that there has been persistent demand of dowry and harassment by the husband and her mother-in-law of the deceased. It is correct that no specific role was attributed to appellant Shanti Devi but there is evidence that she also used to demand dowry and thus, being mother-in-law and occupant of the house and in the absence of any plausible explanation that how the deceased has suffered death, she also comes within the purview of Section 304-B of IPC. Keeping in view the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of dowry death and after examining the prosecution evidence, we are of the considered view that all the ingredients to constitute the offence of dowry death were in existence, therefore, learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in convicting the appellants. Keeping in view the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of dowry death and after examining the prosecution evidence, we are of the considered view that all the ingredients to constitute the offence of dowry death were in existence, therefore, learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in convicting the appellants. On the basis of the evidence on record and the discussion made above, we are of the considered opinion that findings of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Panel Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, recorded by the trial Court are well substantiated by the evidence available on record. We do not find any tangible reasons to interfere with the final conclusions recorded for the conviction of the accused appellants. 38. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is correct that the appellant Ram Veer Mathur has been awarded maximum sentence, i.e. life imprisonment under Section 304-B/34 of IPC, but keeping in view the fact that the deceased suffered death due to firearm injuries and that too within just 5 months of her marriage and also keeping in view his conduct, the sentence awarded to him appears to be appropriate. The appellant Shanti Devi alias Rama Devi, who is mother-in-law of the deceased, has been sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B/34 of IPC. Keeping in view all the relevant facts, no interference is called for in the sentence awarded to the appellants. 39. Considering all the aspects of the case, we are of the view that the trial Court was justified in convicting the accused-appellants under Section 304-B/34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Considering the entire facts of the case, the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is also justified. Appeal has no substance and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 40. Accused-appellant Ram Veer Mathur is stated to be in Jail and, therefore, no further order is required in his respect. Appellant Shanti Devi alias Rama Devi is stated to be on bail, her bail is cancelled. She be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence. 41. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned court below for necessary compliance.