JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This Appeal has been preferred against the order and judgment dated 23.12.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Court No.03, Bulandshahr in S.T. No. 403 of 2015, Neeraj alias Kalua Vs. State of U.P. arising out of Case Crime No. 186 of 2015 convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 498-A I.P.C. for two years’ imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in case of default, four months’ additional imprisonment; under Section 304B I.P.C. for 10 years’ imprisonment; under Section 201 I.P.C. for two years’ imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in case of default, four months additional imprisonment; under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act for five years’ imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/-, in case of default, one year additional imprisonment; under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act for one year imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in case of default, two months’ additional imprisonment. All the punishments were directed to run simultaneously. 3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant, Mahesh has lodged First Information Report in Police Station, Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr stating therein that her daughter Shikha, aged about 22 years, got married on 13-11-2013, with Neeraj S/o Murari, Village Akhtiyarpur, District Bulandshahr with Hindu rituals in which he gave articles, jewellery, clothes, motorcycle, etc. in dowry as per his capacity. In all, complainant spent Rs. 7,00,000/- to Rs. 8,00,000/-in her marriage. Even then, in-laws of her daughter were not happy with the dowry given and after some days of marriage, they started beating his daughter. After six months of marriage, Neeraj demanded Rs. 2,00,000/-for purchasing a car which was paid to him by the complainant, after that also, his daughter was continuously beaten, thereafter Rs. 1,00,000/-lakh were given to Neeraj but even after that, he continued beating his daughter. On 14-03-2015, his daughter has been murdered by his son-in-law, Neeraj, his father, Murari, mother, Sheela Devi and brothers, Vishnu and Kuldeep and for hiding his daughter’s body, they cremated her without giving any information to him. It is also stated that complainant sister’s son, Dhara Singh, who resides in the same village, informed complainant regarding the killing and cremation of his daughter. After getting this information, complainant came to the Police Station from Delhi. It is also stated that complainant sister’s son, Dhara Singh, who resides in the same village, informed complainant regarding the killing and cremation of his daughter. After getting this information, complainant came to the Police Station from Delhi. On this first information, Case No. 186 of 2015 under Sections 498A, 304 B, 201 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against above-mentioned accused persons. 4. After investigation, Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against accused Neeraj alias Kalua, Vishnu and Smt. Sheela Devi. Murari and Kuldeep were summoned by the learned trial court for trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned trial court framed charges under Section 498A, 304 B, 201 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused persons and after considering the evidence on record, learned trial court convicted and sentenced only accused Neeraj alias Kalua under Section 498-A I.P.C. for two years’ imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in case of default, four months’ additional imprisonment; under Section 304B I.P.C. for 10 years’ imprisonment; under Section 201 I.P.C. for two years’ imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in case of default, four months additional imprisonment; under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act for five years’ imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/-, in case of default, one year additional imprisonment; under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act for one year imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in case of default, two months’ additional imprisonment. Rest of the accused persons were acquitted by learned trial court, hence his appeal has been filed by appellant, Neeraj alias Kalua. 5. First of all, learned counsel for appellant has argued that in this case prosecution has miserably failed to prove the demand of dowry made by the appellant. Appellant never demanded anything from the deceased-wife or her parents which could be considered as dowry demand. Learned counsel has argued that prosecution has produced two witnesses of facts i.e. P.W. 2, Mohini Devi, who is mother of the deceased and P.W. 3, Mahesh Chand who is father of the deceased. Both the witnesses have stated in their statements that they paid Rs.2,00,000/-to the appellant for starting a dairy. If this statement is assumed to be true, even then, it does not relate to demand in connection of marriage. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred the judgment of Vipin Jaiswal Vs. Both the witnesses have stated in their statements that they paid Rs.2,00,000/-to the appellant for starting a dairy. If this statement is assumed to be true, even then, it does not relate to demand in connection of marriage. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred the judgment of Vipin Jaiswal Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2013) 3 SCC 684 and submitted that if any demand is made for investing money in business then it cannot be said as a dowry demand. Learned counsel further argued that P.W. 3, Mahesh Chand, father of the deceased has said in his statement that only Neeraj used to demand the money for starting milk dairy which he got started, hence, it is admission of father of the deceased that he paid money only for starting a milk diary which had no connection with the marriage at all. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that apart from the payment of Rs. 2,00,000/-, appellant was paid additional Rs. 1,00,000/-also and even after that, appellant continued with maltreatment to the deceased and after that, he pressurized the deceased and her parents to transfer their land in his name which had no connection with any business and for not getting the demand fulfilled, he killed his wife and if it is assumed that deceased committed suicide by setting herself ablazed, even then, suicide was the result of pressure of demand of dowry made by accused and due to beating her regularly. Learned A.G.A. also next argued that deceased died just after one and half years of her marriage and her death was otherwise than in normal circumstances. It was unnatural death occurred within seven years of her marriage and it is proved by prosecution witnesses that before the occurrence, she was subjected to cruelty by appellant in connection with demand of additional dowry, hence in such circumstances as per Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act, a presumption of dowry death will be drawn and the death of deceased, whether it is homicide, suicide or accidental, will be covered under dowry death as envisaged under Section 304 B I.P.C. 8. For ready reference, it is relevant to reproduce Section 304B IPC which reads as under: “304B. For ready reference, it is relevant to reproduce Section 304B IPC which reads as under: “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 purposes of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 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.” 9. For ready reference, Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act is also reproduced which reads as under : “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 304B of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860).” 10. If a married woman dies in unnatural circumstances in her matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage and there are allegations of cruelty or harassment upon such married woman in connection with demand of dowry by her husband or relatives of the husband, the case would squarely come under dowry death. And for that, presumption of dowry death will arise under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act which says that if it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused for, or in connection with any demand of dowry, the Court shall presume that such person has caused the dowry death. Now here comes the question of dowry first. It is obvious that any demand of money or anything else must relate with the marriage. 11. Now here comes the question of dowry first. It is obvious that any demand of money or anything else must relate with the marriage. 11. Learned counsel for appellant has argued that demanding or paying Rs. 2,00,000/- for starting milk diary cannot be said to be demanded in connection with marriage and it will not come under the definition of dowry. 12. PW 2, Mohini Devi, mother of deceased has said in her statement that appellant was not happy with the dowry given in marriage of her daughter and he started demanding additional dowry. P.W. 3, Mahesh Chand, father of deceased also said in his statement that appellant used to beat his daughter for not meeting out the demand of additional dowry. Further, both the witnesses have also said that appellant also put demand before them to transfer their land in his name, hence, it cannot be said that the demand by appellant was confined only to the extent of starting milk dairy but demand of additional dowry in the name of cash and land was connected with marriage also. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 states that the dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to the other party at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of said parties. Thus, the emphasis on property or valuable security given “at or before” or “any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of said parties”. In this case both the witnesses, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have clearly stated that the accused was unhappy with the quantity of dowry given at the time of marriage and demand of additional dowry was being made by appellant and for that reason there was continuous beating of deceased by the appellant, hence, on the basis of facts and evidence of this case, it cannot be said that appellant demanded money only and only to start the milk-dairy, hence, the case laws submitted by learned counsel for the appellant i.e. Vipin Jaiswal Vs. State ofAndhra Pradesh (2013) 3 SCC 684 does not apply in this case. 13. State ofAndhra Pradesh (2013) 3 SCC 684 does not apply in this case. 13. It is an admitted fact that deceased died after one and half years of her marriage i.e. within seven years of her marriage and she died in her matrimonial home and her death was due to burning and it was an unnatural death otherwise in normal circumstances, hence, the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 arises and it shall be presumed that it was a dowry death. It is also a burden of prosecution to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death. In this regard, P.W. 3, Mahesh Chand, father of deceased has said in his cross-examination that before 4-5 days of her death, Shikha (his deceased-daughter) came to his house and told that her in-laws harassed her to the great extent and they were demanding land in additional dowry and if he doesn’t transfer the land in favour of accused, they would kill her. It was the statement of deceased made before 4-5 days of her death. 14. Though the language used is “soon before her death”, but no definite period has been indicated in this regard and the expression “soon before her death” has not been defined in Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act or in Section 304B IPC. Accordingly, the period which can come within the term “soon before her death” is to be determined by the Court depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case because it may vary from case to case but it is necessary that interval between the cruelty or harassment and the death in question should not be very wide. In other word, there must be existence of her proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. In the present case, P.W. 3 has stated in his statement that just before four to five days of her death, her daughter came to his house and complained about the harassment and demand of additional dowry. So it can very well come in the ambit of phrase “soon before her death”. 15. In the light of discussion made above, prosecution has established that the death of the deceased was dowry death. So it can very well come in the ambit of phrase “soon before her death”. 15. In the light of discussion made above, prosecution has established that the death of the deceased was dowry death. The presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act is rebuttable, hence now onus shifts on the accused to prove as to how the deceased died. It is for the accused to show that the death of the deceased did not result from any cruelty or demand of dowry by the accused persons/appellant. 16. Appellant has taken up case that the deceased has herself committed suicide but Hon’ble Apex Court in Surinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab 1999(1) Crimes 429 and Maya Devi and Another Vs. State of Haryana AIR (2016) Supreme Court 125 has held that a homicidal or suicidal or accidental, all three types of deaths come under the purview of dowry death. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused appellant has set up the case and stated that the deceased was of irritating nature and she committed suicide by locking the door of the room from inside and he took her out after breaking the door with the help of villagers. It is also stated in his statement that cremation of deceased was made in the presence of her father and after that, on instigation of his wife, father of the deceased made illegal demand of money from appellant and due to not meeting out that demand, he was falsely implicated in this case. 17. Now, it is the burden on the shoulder of appellant to prove the defence under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which the defence witness, Dalchand was produced as D.W. 1 but this witness has stated in his cross-examination that he does not know as to how Shikha died. At the time of occurrence, he was not there. He has also stated in cross-examination that deceased Shikha was of feeble minded and irritating in nature. She got treatment also for that but he failed to disclose as to which doctor had treated her. Besides this, there is no evidence on behalf of appellant on record, hence appellant miserably failed to prove the reason of committing suicide by the deceased. Moreover, it is not worth-believing that if a person is of irritating nature, he or she will commit suicide only due to that reason. Besides this, there is no evidence on behalf of appellant on record, hence appellant miserably failed to prove the reason of committing suicide by the deceased. Moreover, it is not worth-believing that if a person is of irritating nature, he or she will commit suicide only due to that reason. In Surinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab (Supra),it is also held by Hon’ble Apex Court that husband being the direct beneficiary can be inferred to have caused life of his wife so miserable that she was compelled to commit suicide. 18. Appellant is not able to rebut the presumption of dowry death in this case. 19. Now, here comes the conduct of accused appellant after death of his wife. In this regard, learned counsel for appellant argued that after the death of deceased, her father was duly informed, after that, he came from Delhi and cremation took place with his consent in his presence but I do not agree with this argument from the side of appellant because it is against the evidence on record. P.W. 3, father of the deceased has said in his statement that when he came to the house of her daughter, he did not find the body of his daughter and she had already been cremated while destroying the evidence. He has also stated in his cross-examination that police personnel had already gone after taking the ashes of fire of his daughter even before his reaching there. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, both the witnesses have stated in their statements that when they reached the house of their daughter, she had already been cremated and appellant and his family members have already fled from there. 20. Perusal of record also shows that police went to the house of deceased and collected wooden pieces of door of the room which was half burnt and police also collected some hair, pieces of bangle, burnt pieces of saree etc. from inside the room and police sealed above articles on the spot. This recovery-memo is proved by P.W. 6 as Exhibit-Ka 8 and in this recovery-memo, it is written that when the police physically inspected the place of offence, there was nobody present in the house and all were found absconded. These collected articles from the spot were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra for chemical examination. This recovery-memo is proved by P.W. 6 as Exhibit-Ka 8 and in this recovery-memo, it is written that when the police physically inspected the place of offence, there was nobody present in the house and all were found absconded. These collected articles from the spot were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra for chemical examination. That report dated 22, July 2016 is on record and in this report, it is opined that in pieces of burnt cloth, it could not be opined that there was human skin present in these clothes and whether burnt bones and ashes were of human bones or not but it was opined in this report that the hair was found to be human hair. 21. Investigating Officer also prepared one site plan, Exhibit-Ka 4 which relates to the place of occurrence and in addition to that Investigating Officer also prepared site-plan, Exhibit-Ka 5 which shows place where the dead body of deceased was cremated behind a school, hence it is established and proved by the prosecution that after the death of deceased, her body was cremated without getting the postmortem done to destroy the evidence which is an offence under Section 201 I.P.C. The conduct of accused appellant after the death of his wife also establishes that he had tried to destroy the evidence because if the deceased had committed suicide and appellant was not responsible for that then he would have informed the police but the accused neither informed the police nor informed the parents of deceased and even before arrival of parents of deceased, dead body of the deceased was cremated and accused fled away from his residence. So his conduct is also contrary to the defence taken by him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 22. No other argument has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant before this Court. 23. Hence, keeping in view the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly convicted and sentenced the accused Neeraj alias Kalua. 24. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed.