JUDGMENT : RATNAKER BHENGRA, J This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9.7.2001 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in S.T. Nos. 196 of 1993/74 of 2001 whereby and where under appellant was convicted u/s 304-B and 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs. 5000/- u/s 304-B IPC and in default of payment of fine R.I. for one year. Appellant was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years with fine of Rs. 1000/- u/s 498-A IPC and in default of payment of fine appellant had to undergo R.I. for six months. The sentences so passed were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of prosecution is based on the written report dated 24-2-1993 of Pankaj Kumr Gun PW-1 who is the brother of the deceased Anita Kar. Informant has stated in his written report that on 23rd February, 1993 his younger brother Shymal Kumar Gun (PW-2) had gone to Poraiyahat from his village Jarmundi to take his sister home. However, his brother-in-law accused Shyam Chandra Kar along with his family members refused to allow bidai of his sister Anita Kar. There Anita Kar told her brother (PW-2) that the accused persons used to assault her and had threatened to do away with her life and also said to bring Rs. 5000/- from Jarmundi. Deceased also said that she often had quarrel with his father-in-law, mother-in-law and her husband for such demand and hence to take her to Jarmundi. The further case of the prosecution is that Anita was assaulted by her husband in the presence of her brother (P.W.-2).The informant further stated that when his brother returned home at night he told about the incident. Then informant along with his uncle reached Poraiyahat on 24.2.1993 where they were informed by Prahlad Kumar Rooz, Nimai Sen, Subodh Chandra Kar, Bishwanath Kar and Vindayachal Kar all resident of Poraiyahat and other villagers that Shyam Chandra Kar and his family members have murdered Anita Kar and were burning the body to destroy the evidence. Informant further stated that incident is of 23.2.1993 at 8 p.m. 3. On the basis of the written report of the informant Poraiyahat P.S. case no. 35 of 1993 was registered under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 201/34 of IPC. Informant further stated that incident is of 23.2.1993 at 8 p.m. 3. On the basis of the written report of the informant Poraiyahat P.S. case no. 35 of 1993 was registered under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 201/34 of IPC. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted and cognizance of the offences were taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. Charges were framed against six accused persons under sections 304-B/34, 498-A/34 and 201 of IPC to which the appellant claimed to be tried. Accordingly, trial was held and after conclusion of the trial five accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment of the learned court below but the appellant herein was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 4. (i) Prosecution examined altogether 19 witnesses to prove its case. PW-1 Pankaj Kumr Gun is the informant of this case and brother of the deceased. PW-2 Shyamal Kumar Gun is also the brother of the deceased, PW-3 is Mihirkant Gun, PW-4 is Asim Kumar Gun and PW-5 is Samir Kant Gun. PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 are the uncle of the deceased. (ii) Postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by team of doctors consisting of PW-6 Dr. Satyendra Mishra being the team leader, PW-7 Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sinha and PW-8 Dr. Ajit Kumar. (iii) The other set of prosecution witnesses are from the village of appellant who are PW-9 Subodh Chandra Kar, PW-10 Ajit Kumar Kar, PW-11 Bhola Nath Kar, PW-12 Nimai Chandra Sen, PW-13 Bhuvan Chandra Dey, PW-14 Bishwanath Kar, PW-15 Prahalad Kumar Kar, PW-16 Vindhyachal Kar out of which PW-11 is a tender witness and PW-12, PW-14 and PW-15 are hostile witnesses. (iv) PW-17 Sudeshwar Prasad Yadav is bench clerk of JM Court Godda. PW-18 is the investigating officer of the case and PW-19 is ASI. 5. PW-1 Pankaj Kumar Gun is the informant of the case and brother of deceased Anita Kar. He has stated in his evidence that his sister was married to the accused Shyam Chandra Kar. She was married 8-9 months before her death. PW-1 further stated that his brother Shyamal Kumar Gun (PW-2) had gone to matrimonial home of his sister at Poraiyahat on 23.2.1993 for her bidai but bidai was not done by the accused persons. They demanded Rs. 5,000/- of due dowry amount. She was married 8-9 months before her death. PW-1 further stated that his brother Shyamal Kumar Gun (PW-2) had gone to matrimonial home of his sister at Poraiyahat on 23.2.1993 for her bidai but bidai was not done by the accused persons. They demanded Rs. 5,000/- of due dowry amount. Then Shyamal Kumar Gun (PW-2) returned home and informed that accused Shyam Chandra told him to give Rs.5000/- the due dowry amount and then only Anita will be sent. Shyamal Kumar Gun (PW-2) also told him that accused along with other family members assaulted Anita in his presence. PW-1 further stated in his evidence that he along with Shyamal Kumar (PW-2), Samir Kant Gun (P.W.-5), Mihirkant Gun (PW-3) and Asim Kumar Gun (PW-4) reached Porahyat from Jarmundi on 24-3-1993. There he was informed by the co-villagers that Anita Kar was killed by the accused persons and fled away leaving the dead body. Then, he went to Poraiayhat police station and saw the dead body of his deceased sister which was in burnt condition. Thereafter, written report was filed by him at the police station. PW-1 has proved his written report which was marked as Ext.1. In his cross-examination PW-1 stated that after one and half months of her marriage Anita Kar once came to her parental home. 6. PW-2 Shyamal Kumar Gun is also the brother of deceased. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that deceased was married to the accused 8-9 months before her death. After her marriage deceased started leaving at her matrimonial home. She came to her parental home only once after her marriage. PW-2 further stated that on 23-2-1993 he had gone to Poraiyahat for the bidai of her sister but bidai of her sister was refused. Accused with other family members demanded Rs.5000/- as a dowry. Accused Shyamchandra Kar assaulted Anita with rod in his presence. Thereafter, PW-2 returned to his house and informed the matter to his brother and uncle. On 24-2-1993 he along with PW-1 Pankaj Gun, Mihir Gun PW-3, Samir Gun PW-5 and Asim Gun PW-4 reached Poraiyahat where he saw crowd and there he came to know that accused persons had killed the deceased and were burning the body which was taken by the police to the police station. On 24-2-1993 he along with PW-1 Pankaj Gun, Mihir Gun PW-3, Samir Gun PW-5 and Asim Gun PW-4 reached Poraiyahat where he saw crowd and there he came to know that accused persons had killed the deceased and were burning the body which was taken by the police to the police station. In his cross-examination, he stated that he is not definite as to whether he had made statement before the police or in the court, prior to this evidence, that his brother Pankaj Kumar Gun PW-1 used to go to Poriyahat and after returning from there informed that dowry amount of Rs.5000/- will be given at Anita's in-law's place as in-law's members used to assault Anita. 7. PW-3 Mihirkant Gun, PW-4 Asim Kumar Gun and P.W.-5 Samir Kant Gun are the uncle of the deceased. PW-3 stated in his evidence that deceased Anita was married to the accused 8-9 months before her death. He further stated that he had gone to Poraiyahat for panchayati as accused Shyam Chandra Kar had told that when due amount of dowry Rs.5000/- will be paid then only bidai of Anita will be done. PW-4 and PW-5 have stated in their examination-in-chief that their nephew Shyamal Kumar Gun (PW-2) had gone to the matrimonial home of his sister Anita at Poraiyahat for her bidai on 23-2-1993 where accused Shyam Chandra Kar demanded due amount of dowry Rs.5,000/- and said unless the due amount of dowry is paid bidai of Anita will not be done. PW-4 and PW-5 further stated that Shyamal Kumar Gun (PW-2) returned to Jurmundi and informed them about the said demand by accused Shyam Chandra Kar and hence they had gone for panchayati to Poraiyahat where they came to know that accused persons had killed and burnt Anita and body was in police station. Then they went to police station and saw the body of Anita. 8. P.W.-9 Subodh Chandra Kar is a co-villager. He has stated in his evidence that on the day of death of deceased and before her death he had gone to the house of Ganga Mohan Kar and there he had seen that the accused Shyam Chandra Kar was assaulting his wife with an iron rod and his wife was screaming and collapsed on the ground. He has stated in his evidence that on the day of death of deceased and before her death he had gone to the house of Ganga Mohan Kar and there he had seen that the accused Shyam Chandra Kar was assaulting his wife with an iron rod and his wife was screaming and collapsed on the ground. Further, in paragraph-2 he deposed that at 7-8 p.m. in the evening he again came to his brother Ganga Mohan Kar where he sensed foul smell. Boys were saying that the accused Shyam Chandra Kar is burning the deceased and he himself saw the burning taking place. People started gathering there. In his cross-examination PW-9 stated that he had seen the accused Shyam assaulting his wife from the house of his brother. When accused Shyam's wife collapsed due to assault by rod then accused took her inside dragging her. 9. PW-12 is Nimai Chandra Sen. Though he is a hostile witness but he has stated in his examination-in-chief that at the time of occurrence he was going to betel shop. He heard an alarm that fire had taken place. When he went to the house of accused Shyam Chandra Kar he saw wife of Shyam Chandra was burning. 10. PW-16 is Vindhyachal Kar. He has stated in his evidence that on alarm he had gone to the house of accused Shyam Chandra and there he saw Anita was burning and thereafter she died. He has proved his signature on inquest report and seizure list which was marked as Ext.-3/B and Ext.-3 respectively. 11. PW-18 Gajadhar Nath Mishra is the investigating officer of the case. In paragraph-2 of his examination-in-chief he stated that at the place of occurrence he found some kalikh, burnt clothes and burnt cotton and half burnt pieces of blanket. The dead body of the deceased Anita was found in room in burnt condition. The smell of kerosene oil like substance was emanating from that room. In paragraph-5 he stated that the inquest report and seizure list is in the writing of ASI Ram Mangal Sharma (PW-19). He has proved the inquest report which is marked as Ext-X and seizure list which is marked as Ext.-7. The smell of kerosene oil like substance was emanating from that room. In paragraph-5 he stated that the inquest report and seizure list is in the writing of ASI Ram Mangal Sharma (PW-19). He has proved the inquest report which is marked as Ext-X and seizure list which is marked as Ext.-7. In para-17, PW-18 further stated that Shyamal Kumar Gun had not stated before him that his elder brother used to frequently go to Poraiyahat to the matrimonial home of Anita and after returning from there he informed them that Rs. 5000/- will be given by selling the land as Anita was continuously threatened. He further deposed that Shyamal Kumar had not informed him about incident of 23.2.1993. 12. PW-19 is ASI Raj Mangal Sharma, who at the time of occurrence was posted in Poraiyahat Police Station. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that inquest report of the deceased was prepared by him on 23-2-1993 at the place of occurrence. He has proved the inquest report written and signed by him which is marked as Ext.-8. He also prepared the seizure list which was signed by the witnesses Prahlad Kumar Rooz(PW-15) and Vindhyachal Kar(PW-15). 13.(i) Postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by team of doctors consisting of PW-6 Dr. Satyendra Mishra being the team leader, PW-7 Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sinha and PW-8 Dr. Ajit Kumar. (ii) P.W.-6 Dr. Satyendra Mishra stated in his evidence that on 25-2-1993 he along with PW-7 Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sinha and PW-8 Dr. Ajit Kumar conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased.P.W.-6 further deposed that dead body had extensive burn injuries involving whole of the body except feet. Burn injuries on close inspection revealed that the body was burnt after death. Body had pugylistic attitude due to heat stiffening, eyes were closed, moth was open, tongue was swollen and protruted smell of kerosene oil was coming from the clothing which were burnt. (iii) Doctor found following ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased : (i) Incised wound 5'' x 4''x 1½'' on the left elbow crease extending down to upper third of forearm (ii) Incised wound of 4''x 3"x 1 ½'' on the left axilla. (iii) Incised wound 3''x1 ½'' x1'' on the right elbow crease. (iv) Incised wound 2 ½''x1''x1'' on the right axilla (right anterior axillary line). (iii) Incised wound 3''x1 ½'' x1'' on the right elbow crease. (iv) Incised wound 2 ½''x1''x1'' on the right axilla (right anterior axillary line). (iv) Doctor PW-6 further stated in his evidence that injuries were caused by heavy sharp cutting weapons. The burn injury were caused by dry heat. The laceration of paratracheal muscles of neck is suggestive of strangulation. Time elapsed since death- within 48 hours. Cause of death in the opinion of the team of doctors was due to asphyxia from strangulation. He has proved the Post mortem report of deceased which was marked as Ext.-2. (v) In his cross-examination PW-6 stated that the percentage of burn was 99%. PW-6 further stated that percentage was not written on the post mortem report but except feet whole of the body was burnt and so it was 99% burn injuries. There was no ligature mark on the neck of the deceased. As there was contusion and laceration of paratracheal which suggested strangulation. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS: 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted following defense in support of the appellant case : I. Six accused persons including the appellant were charged for the offences under sections 304-B, 498-A and 201/34 of IPC out of which five accused persons were acquitted of the charges but only the appellant was convicted under section 304-B of IPC. So, when accused five persons were acquitted on the basis of same set evidences then appellant also on the same set evidence deserve acquittal. Hence, learned court below erred in convicting the appellant under section 304-B and 498-A of IPC. So, appellant shall also be acquitted of the charges by this court. II. The written report of the informant it is not corroborated by the evidence of prosecution witnesses as in the written report informant has made general allegation on the appellant and his family members but the learned trial court has singled out only the appellant and convicted him whereas other accused persons were acquitted by the learned trial court. III. There is no direct and specific allegation regarding demand of dowry against the appellant. Prosecution has failed to prove that there was any demand of dowry before the incident of death of the deceased and regarding the same deceased was subjected to cruelty. IV. III. There is no direct and specific allegation regarding demand of dowry against the appellant. Prosecution has failed to prove that there was any demand of dowry before the incident of death of the deceased and regarding the same deceased was subjected to cruelty. IV. There is no evidence that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment regarding the demand of dowry soon before her death therefore presumption u/s 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act would not apply against the appellant. V. PW-18, the investigating officer of the case in para-17 of his evidence has stated that PW-2 Shyamal Kumar Gun, the brother of the deceased, had not stated before him that his elder brother(PW-1) used to frequently go to Poraiyahat to the matrimonial home of Anita and after returning from there he informed that Rs. 5000/- will be given by selling the land as because members of Anita's matrimonial home used to continuously threaten her. Investigating officer also stated that PW-2 did not tell about the occurrence of 23-2-1993. VI. PW-6 Doctor had stated in his evidence that dead body had extensive burn injuries but in his cross-examination doctor has stated that he had not written the percentage of burn in the postmortem report of the deceased. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following judgments in support of his case- 1. Manohar Lal v. State of Haryana, (2014) 9 SCC 645 , 2. Hira Lal and others v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 80 3. Baijnath and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2017) 1 SC 101, 4. State of Rajasthan v. Girdhari Lal, (2013) 15 SCC 269 5. Bhola Ram v.State of Punjab, (2013) 16 SCC 421 , 6. Major Singh and Another v. State of Punjab, (2015) 5 SCC 201 7. Nageshwar Rajwar v. State of Jharkhand, 2016(3) JLJR 639 16. Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the Judgment of Manohar Lal(supra) and Hira Lal(supra) regarding the expression "soon before her death" and submitted that in the case in hand prosecution has not established live link between effect of cruelty based on demand and death of the victim and hence impugned judgment be set aside. Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the Judgment of Manohar Lal(supra) and Hira Lal(supra) regarding the expression "soon before her death" and submitted that in the case in hand prosecution has not established live link between effect of cruelty based on demand and death of the victim and hence impugned judgment be set aside. Relying on the judgment of Baijnath(supra) learned counsel submitted that mere factum of unnatural death in matrimonial home within seven years of marriage is not sufficient to convict the appellant under sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC as prosecution has not proved cruelty/harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before her death. 17. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the occurrence is of the year 1993 and more than 26 years have passed till now. Five accused persons have been acquitted by the learned court below and hence on the basis of same set of evidence this appellant also deserve acquittal and hence this court shall set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE 18. On the other hand learned counsel for the State, learned APP, submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant is based on evidence and hence it shall be sustained by this court also. PW-1 and PW-2 who are the brothers of the deceased and PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 who are the uncle of the deceased have supported the prosecution case. All these prosecution witnesses have stated in their evidence that accused appellant had demanded dowry of Rs.5000/- and said if the due amount of dowry is not paid then bidai of the deceased will not be allowed. Learned Counsel further submitted that team of doctors who had conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased had found four ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased. Doctor PW-6 found extensive burn injuries involving whole of the body except feet which is also corroborated by the evidence of PW-9 and PW-16 who are the eye witnesses to the burning of the deceased. Regarding, cause of death doctor opined that death was caused due to asphyxia from strangulation and hence deceased died under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage. Regarding, cause of death doctor opined that death was caused due to asphyxia from strangulation and hence deceased died under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage. Before her death deceased had told his brother PW-2 that accused used to assault her and was demanding Rs.5000/- which indicates that even soon before her death deceased was harassed and tortured for demand of Rs.5000/-.Learned counsel for the State has relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2015) 6 SCC 477 regarding the expression 'soon before' and submitted that Apex Court in this case has held that there must be a nexus between the demand and date of death. The test of proximity will have to applied. Learned counsel submitted that in the case in hand nexus between demand and date of death of the deceased is proved by the proved evidence of PW-1and PW-2 who are the brothers of the deceased. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned court below is proper and requires no interference by this court. FINDINGS 19. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the records of the case and the facts and circumstances of the case I find from the examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses PW-1 and PW-2, who are the brothers of the deceased, that deceased Anita was married to the appellant 8-9 months before her death. From the evidence on record, I also find that deceased Anita died on 23-2-1993. So, the deceased Anita died within a period of seven years of her marriage and on this ground the case needs to be examined. 20. Regarding, demand of dowry, I find from the evidence of brother of the deceased PW-2 who has stated in his evidence that on 23-2-1993 he had gone to matrimonial home of his sister at Poraiyahat for her bidai but bidai of his sister was refused by the accused. Accused appellant with other family members demanded Rs.5000/- as a dowry. Accused appellant Shyamchandra Kar assaulted Anita with rod in his presence. Accused appellant with other family members demanded Rs.5000/- as a dowry. Accused appellant Shyamchandra Kar assaulted Anita with rod in his presence. Further, informant PW-1, who is the elder brother of the deceased, has also in his evidence stated that his brother Shyamal Kumar Gun (PW-2) had gone to matrimonial home of Anita at Poraiyahat on 23.2.1993 for her bidai but her bidai was refused by the accused appellant and appellant Shyamchandra Kar told his brother PW-2 to give due amount of dowry of Rs.5,000/-. PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5, who are uncles of the deceased, have stated in their evidence that dowry amount of Rs.5000/- was demanded by the accused and accused had said if dowry of Rs. 5,000/- is paid then only bidai of Anita will be done and for the said dispute they had gone to matrimonial home of deceased at Poraiyahat for panchayati where they came to know that Anita was done to death by the Accused. 21.(i) Regarding death of the deceased, I find from the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 that on 24-2-1993 they reached the matrimonial home of their sister where they came to know from the persons of locality that their sister was killed by the accused and police has taken the body to police station. Then they went to the police station and there they saw dead body of their sister which was in burnt condition. PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5, who are uncles of the deceased and had come for panchayati to the matrimonial home of the deceased have also stated that they saw the body of the deceased at police station. (ii) PW-9, PW-12 and PW-16 are the prosecution witnesses from the locality of the accused appellant and they have stated in their evidence that they saw wife of the accused appellant was burning. In the case in hand PW-12 is a hostile witness and hence here it will be fruitful to note the view of Hon'ble Apex Court on hostile witness. In case of Mrinal Das and others v. State of Tripura reported in (2011) 9 SCC 479 Apex Court has held at paragraph-67 of its judgment that evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon at least up to the extent, hostile witness supports the case of prosecution. In case of Mrinal Das and others v. State of Tripura reported in (2011) 9 SCC 479 Apex Court has held at paragraph-67 of its judgment that evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon at least up to the extent, hostile witness supports the case of prosecution. Hence, deposition of PW-12 to the extent he saw deceased was burning can be taken into account as it supports the prosecution case to this extent. (iii) Further, postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was done by a team of doctor and PW-6 was the team leader. PW-6 had found four ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased - (i) Incised wound 5'' x 4''x 1 ½'' on the left elbow crease extending down to upper third of forearm,(ii) Incised wound of 3''x 4"x 1 ½'' on the left axilla,(iii) Incised wound 3''x1 ½'' x1'' on the right elbow crease and (iv) Incised wound 2 ½''x1''x1'' over the right axilla (right anterior axillary line). Doctor also found extensive burn injuries involving whole of the body except feet on the dead body of the deceased. Doctor stated that laceration of paratracheal muscles of neck is suggestive of strangulation and opined that cause of death was due to asphyxia from strangulation. (iv) In summing up PW-1 and PW-2 have said that they saw the body of the deceased in burnt condition in the Police station.PW-9 , PW-12 and PW-16 are eyewitness to the burning of deceased who have stated in their evidence that they saw deceased was burning. Doctor apart from extensive burn injuries on the dead body of the deceased had also found as many as four ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased. Doctor found contuition and laceration of paratracheal muscles of neck and hence came to conclusion that it was suggestive of strangulation and opined that cause of death was asphyxia from strangulation. Hence, the ocular evidence of prosecution witnesses is supported by the medical evidence of doctor. So, the death of deceased was due to bodily injury and hence homicidal. Doctor found contuition and laceration of paratracheal muscles of neck and hence came to conclusion that it was suggestive of strangulation and opined that cause of death was asphyxia from strangulation. Hence, the ocular evidence of prosecution witnesses is supported by the medical evidence of doctor. So, the death of deceased was due to bodily injury and hence homicidal. 22.(i) Learned counsel for the appellant has laid much stress on para-17 of the cross-examination of PW-18, who is the investigating officer of the case and has submitted that investigating officer of the case in para-17 of his evidence has stated that PW-2 Shyamal Kumar Gun, the brother of the deceased, had not stated before him about the incident of 23.2.1993 and that his elder brother (PW-1) used to frequently go to Poraiyahat to the matrimonial home of deceased Anita and after returning from there he informed that Rs. 5000/- will be given by selling the land as because members of Anita's matrimonial home used to continuously threaten her. (ii) The above deposition of investigating officer given at para-17 of his cross-examination can be seen in the light of judgment of hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of A. Shankar v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 6 SCC 279 wherein Apex Court at para-22 of its judgment has held regarding omission, inconsistencies and improvement in the deposition of the witnesses that minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. Paragraph-22 of A. Shankar(supra) case is reproduced herein below- "22. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety." (iii) Hence, on the basis of aforesaid ratio of Apex court as laid down in A. Shankar(supra) case and also on reading of para-17 of the cross-examination of investigating officer PW-18 and examination-in-chief of PW-2 Shyamal Kumar Gun, the brother of the deceased, it can be said that statement of PW-2 was merely an improvement/inconsistency and hence evidence of PW-2 cannot be rejected in its entirety because there are several other prosecution witnesses, as discussed above, who have supported the case of the prosecution. 23. The case of Manohar Lal(supra) and Hira Lal(supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the expression "soon before her death" is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand as in the case in hand prosecution has established link between effect of cruelty based on demand and death of the victim as PW-1 and PW-2 who are the brothers of the deceased have stated in their evidence that accused appellant demanded the due amount of dowry of Rs.5000/- and had said that if Rs. 5000/- is not paid then bidai of deceased will not be allowed. Further, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 who are the uncle of the deceased have also stated in their evidence regarding the demand of dowry of Rs. 5000/-. They had gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased at poraiyahat for attending panchayati with regard to bidai of the deceased but on reaching there they came to know that deceased was done to death by the accused appellant. Likewise, judgment of Baijnath (supra) is also not applicable in the case in hand as PW-2 has stated in his examination-in-chief that accused appellant had assaulted deceased in his presence by rod and accused appellant said that if due amount of dowry of Rs. Likewise, judgment of Baijnath (supra) is also not applicable in the case in hand as PW-2 has stated in his examination-in-chief that accused appellant had assaulted deceased in his presence by rod and accused appellant said that if due amount of dowry of Rs. 5000/-is not given then deceased will not be allowed to go to her parental home and for resolving the said dispute PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 had gone for panchayati to the matrimonial home of the deceased. Hence, prosecution has been able to prove that deceased was subjected to harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before her death. The case of State of Rajasthan (Supra) is also not applicable in the facts of the case in hand as in State of Rajasthan (Supra) case appellate court therein had found suicide abetted by the respondent husband but in the case in hand death of the deceased is homicidal as discussed in preceeding paragraph of findings. 24.(i) I have also perused the statement of accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. In his examination under 313 of Cr.P.C accused appellant has said that at the time of burning of his deceased wife he was at his cycle shop where he received information that his house was burning and when he reached his residence burnt body of his wife was already removed. (ii) But the team of doctors who conducted postmortem examination of the deceased had found as many as four ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased which has not been answered by the accused appellant. Doctor also opined that death of the deceased was caused by asphyxia from strangulation. Hence, non-explanation of ante-mortem injuries strengthens the case of unnatural death of the deceased. 25. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that five other accused persons were acquitted by the learned court below on the basis of same set of evidence and hence appellant also deserves acquittal, is not applicable in the case of appellant. Learned court below had acquitted the five accused persons who were the family members of the appellant as there was no consistent evidence against them regarding demand of dowry of Rs.5,000/-. But, in regard to appellant there is evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 for demand of Rs.5,000/-and this has been supported by PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5. Learned court below had acquitted the five accused persons who were the family members of the appellant as there was no consistent evidence against them regarding demand of dowry of Rs.5,000/-. But, in regard to appellant there is evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 for demand of Rs.5,000/-and this has been supported by PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5. Moreover, it was the appellant who would have been directly benefited if the demand of Rs.5,000/-would have been fulfilled. 26. In summing up from the evidence on record and in the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that deceased Anita Kar died within seven years of her marriage in her matrimonial home and her death was unnatural (homicidal) and also soon before her death she was tortured for dowry specifically for Rs. 5,000/-. So, Prosecution has proved all the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC against the appellant and hence presumption under section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act for causing the dowry death of his wife Anita Kar arises against the appellant Shyam Chandra Kar and appellant has not been able to rebut the same. Hence, the prosecution has been able to prove the charges under sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. 27. Therefore, based on all the aforesaid reasoning this court does not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned court below and hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9th July, 2001 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in connection with Sessions Trial Case Nos. 196 of 1993/74 of 2001 is sustained and upheld. The bail bonds of the appellant is hereby cancelled. 28. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.