JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the XLV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru in S.C.No.909/2007 dtd. 17/08/2011, for the offences punishable under Sec. 304B, 498A of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: That the marriage of deceased Geetha and the appellant was performed on 11/4/2004 at Shivaprabha Kalyana Mantapa, situated at West of Chord Road, Bangalore. As per the case of the prosecution, a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 cash and gold ornaments were given as dowry at the time of marriage. After the marriage, the deceased Geetha and accused No.1 were residing in the house of accused No.2, who is the sister of accused No.1. There was constant quarrel and demand of dowry by all the members of the family i.e., accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 to 4. All the accused were demanding additional dowry and also demanding to sell the site belonging to the deceased. As she did not heed their words, they were harassing her and insulting her and not allowing her to live happily in the matrimonial house. 3. As there was a constant harassment and cruelty meted out to the deceased, panchayat was held and it was decided to make a separate house for deceased and Accused No.1. Accordingly, PW10 - father of the deceased arranged a separate house for his daughter and son-in-law at Papaiah Layout, situated at Rajarajeswarinagar. He paid advance of Rs.25,000.00. Both the accused No.1 and deceased started living there separately. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that, the Accused No.1 used to consume alcohol and used to come late in the evening and was assaulting his wife - Geetha frequently. In other words, he was demanding money from Geetha and pressurizing her to sell the site. The deceased was not interested in selling the property. Hence, there was a constant quarrel between Accused No.1 and the deceased. Though P.W.10, his friends and family members tried to pacify the matter, it was not fructified. 5. On 19/7/2008, PW10 - father of the deceased got the information about the death of his daughter and he went there and saw the situation and lodged a complaint against accused No.1 and his family members. Though P.W.10, his friends and family members tried to pacify the matter, it was not fructified. 5. On 19/7/2008, PW10 - father of the deceased got the information about the death of his daughter and he went there and saw the situation and lodged a complaint against accused No.1 and his family members. The police have registered the case in Crime No.70/2007 for the offence under Sec. 498(A), 304(B), 302 R/w 34 of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act and after conducting investigation, filed the charge sheet. 6. After committal to the Sessions Court, the Trial Court framed the charges against all the accused persons and read over and explained to them. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined 21 witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 21 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P36 and material objects marked at M.Os.1 to 5. 8. After having considered the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments of the respective parties, the trial court convicted accused No.1 and acquitted accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offences under Ss. 498A and 304 of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused No.1/appellant has preferred this appeal, seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction. 10. Sri.K.Diwakar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court committed serious error while appreciating the evidence and material on record, as such, the impugned order of conviction of Accused No.1 / Appellant is liable to be set aside. Further, the learned Senior Counsel contended that, the evidence of PW10, who is the father of the deceased, does not corroborate the evidence of other witnesses namely PWs.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 with respect to harassment and cruelty and also demand of dowry. Further, the learned Senior Counsel contended that, there are inconsistencies with respect to harassment, cruelty and demand of dowry between father, mother and brother of the deceased. Though the independent witnesses namely PWs.5, 6 and 7 are said to have supported the case of prosecution, their evidence cannot be considered, as they are friends of PW.10 and are interested witnesses. Further, the learned Senior Counsel contended that, there are inconsistencies with respect to harassment, cruelty and demand of dowry between father, mother and brother of the deceased. Though the independent witnesses namely PWs.5, 6 and 7 are said to have supported the case of prosecution, their evidence cannot be considered, as they are friends of PW.10 and are interested witnesses. Further, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the demand of dowry is absent from the reading of evidence of all the witnesses. At the time of marriage, according to the evidence of friends of PW10, dowry was given in the form of custom and tradition, as such, the demand of dowry at the time of marriage would not arise and the trial court ignored to consider this aspect and the trial court ought to have analyzed the evidence properly in order to arrive at the conclusion, as such, the learned Senior Counsel has sought to set aside the conviction of appellant. 11. Per contra, Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned High court Government Pleader, while justifying the judgment of conviction submits that the trial court has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted accused No.1 and acquitted accused Nos.2 to 4. Further, the learned HCGP submits that there was a constant demand for additional dowry and in that regard, cruelty and harassment was meted out by all the members who had participated in the marriage negotiations. The evidence of PWs.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 are consistent with respect to demand of dowry, harassment and cruelty etc., and interference in such a well-reasoned order is uncalled for by this Court. The learned HCGP further submits that on demand made by Accused No.1, PW10, the father of the deceased arranged for a separate house to the accused No.1 and deceased on rent of Rs.2,300.00 per month and paid the advance of Rs.25,000.00. The same is corroborated by the evidence of PW14 who is the owner of the house. Further, she submits that Accused No.1 was constantly demanding money from the deceased and insisting her to sell the site, as such, there was a constant harassment, cruelty and demand of dowry. The prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt against accused No.1. Hence, she sought to dismiss the appeal. 12. Further, she submits that Accused No.1 was constantly demanding money from the deceased and insisting her to sell the site, as such, there was a constant harassment, cruelty and demand of dowry. The prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt against accused No.1. Hence, she sought to dismiss the appeal. 12. After having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the learned HCGP for the State and after having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, the points that arise for my consideration are: (i) Whether the trial court is justified in convicting the accused No.1 for the offences under Ss. 498A, 304B of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act? (ii) Whether the appellant has made out a ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial court? 13. This court being the first Appellate Court, in order to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and analyze the evidence properly, it is necessary to have a cursory look upon the evidence of all the witnesses, which are re-produced below: (a) PW.1 - Uday - is the witness to the inquest panchanama which is marked as Ex.P1. Supported the case of the prosecution. (b) PW.2 - Narasimha Naik - is the brother-in-law of CW.1 / PW.10. He deposes about the marriage negotiations, demand and acceptance of dowry, further deposed about the conduct of accused No.1 and his family members and also the incident. He has supported the case of the prosecution. (c) PW.3 - Ganganaik C.U. - He is also one of brother-in-law of PW.10. He also deposes about marriage negotiations, demand of dowry, cruelty and harassment. Supported the case. (d) PW.4 - Kullegowda - was working at BEML, Bengaluru, where PW.10 was working. He was the friend of PW.10. He has deposed that he was present along with PW.10 throughout the performance of marriage of the daughter of PW.10 with accused No.1. Further he deposes that PW.1 had bought a site in the name of the deceased and registered the same in the name of deceased and accused No.1. He has supported the case of the prosecution. (e) PW.5 - Beeranna - is also one of the friends of PW.10. He was also present at the time of marriage of the daughter of PW.10. He deposed that there was a frequent quarrel between accused No.1 and deceased. He has supported the case of the prosecution. (e) PW.5 - Beeranna - is also one of the friends of PW.10. He was also present at the time of marriage of the daughter of PW.10. He deposed that there was a frequent quarrel between accused No.1 and deceased. Further he deposes that the in-laws of the deceased, namely, accused No.2 -Geetha, accused No.3 - Kavitha, accused No.4 Aravinda and accused No.5 -Sreekantha were used to harass the deceased for dowry and also insisting her to sell the site given to her by her father PW.10. (f) PW.6 - Sugunaram - was friend of PW.10. He was running Hardware Shop at RR Nagar, Bengaluru. Adjacent to his shop, PW.10 was running Electrical Shop. As such, he was acquainted to PW.10. He deposes that he knows the daughter of PW.10. Further, he says that a site was given to the deceased by PW.10 which was measuring 30' x 50' and the accused No.1 used to insist her to sell the site for his necessities. As she did not heed to his words, there was frequent quarrel between deceased and accused No.1. He supported the case of the prosecution. (g) PW.7 - Lakshmibai - is the wife of PW.10 and mother of the deceased. She deposes that, the accused No.1 and his parents and also sister and other persons, who were present at the time of marriage negotiations, were demanding dowry and it was fulfilled. Further she says that there was a constant harassment, humiliation and also degradation of deceased by the accused No.1 and his parents regarding further demand of dowry. She further says that, deceased Geetha used to tell her in that regard, as such, she came to know about the facts and also they have conducted panchayath several times and tried to pacify the matter between them. She supported the case of the prosecution. (h) PW.8 - Narayana - is the son of PW.10. Reiterated the same facts as that of his mother PW.7 and supported the case of the prosecution. (i) PW.9 - Ramesh.K. - is also one of the sons of PW.10 and PW.7 and also brother of deceased. He has also reiterated the same facts as that of PW.7. He supported the case of the prosecution. (j) PW.10 - Krishnanaik - is the father of deceased and also the husband of PW.7. (i) PW.9 - Ramesh.K. - is also one of the sons of PW.10 and PW.7 and also brother of deceased. He has also reiterated the same facts as that of PW.7. He supported the case of the prosecution. (j) PW.10 - Krishnanaik - is the father of deceased and also the husband of PW.7. He says that he had lodged a complaint before the police and same was marked as Ex.P9. He has deposed that the accused No.1 and parents and also sister and her husband were constantly harassing deceased Geetha to sell the site and give money to them. The same factor was made known to him by the deceased Geetha. Though he tried to pacify the matter several times, the harassment had not stopped. Hence, with the intervention of elders and the panchayath, a separate house was made on rental basis where accused No.1 and deceased were residing. He says that the advance of Rs.25,000.00 was given to the landlord by him. Inspite of he taking care of accused No.1 and also clearing the debt that he had borrowed, accused No.1 was in the habit of consuming alcohol and used to quarrel with deceased Geetha. He has supported the case with regard to cruelty, harassment and also demand of dowry by accused No.1. (k) PW.11 - Sreenivasa - is the signatory to Ex.P14 - spot mahazar under which MO.1 and MO.2 have been seized. Supported the case of the prosecution. (l) PW.12 - Dr.K.V.Sateesh - is the Doctor who conducted postmortem of the body of deceased Geetha and issued report as per Ex.P17. (m) PW.13 - Chandrashekar Murthy - Police Constable of RR Nagar Police Station, has carried the clothes of the deceased after postmortem and produced the clothes before the I.O. (n) PW.14 - Umashankar - was the owner of the house where accused No.1 and deceased were living together lastly. He says that, PW.10 had given Rs.25,000.00 to him towards the advance amount and supported the case of the prosecution with regard presence of deceased and accused No.1 in his house which was rented to them and also amount given to him by PW.10. (o) PW.15 - Peter - is a photographer. He says that photographs of the deceased were captured at the request of I.O. and the said photographs were marked at Ex.P20 to P25. (o) PW.15 - Peter - is a photographer. He says that photographs of the deceased were captured at the request of I.O. and the said photographs were marked at Ex.P20 to P25. Supported the case of the prosecution with regard to scene of occurrence. (p) PW.16 - Prashanth - is a circumstantial witness and a friend of PW.10. He has supported with regard to drinking habit of accused No.1, quarrel between accused No.1 and deceased, and also the site which was standing in the name of deceased Geetha. Partly turned hostile. (q) PW.17 - V.Chandrashekar - Police Inspector of RR Nagar Police Station, he has conducted investigation partly and handed over the investigation to CW.33. (r) PW.18 - Shivayya - was the Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk. He says that he has conducted inquest mahazar as per Ex.P1. Supported the case of the prosecution. (s) PW.19 - K.Narayanagowda - is stated to have registered the case on the basis of the complaint given by PW.10 in Crime No.70/2007 for the offence under Sec. 498A, 304B, 302 read with 34 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of the DP Act. He says that he has conducted partial investigation. (t) PW.20 - Krishnamurthy - Head Constable of RR Nagar Police Station. He says that he was deputed to arrest accused. Accordingly, he traced the accused on 21/5/2007 at about 3.30 p.m. and apprehended him and produced him before the I.O. (u) PW.21 - Ramesh Babu - was working as ACP of Kengeri Gate Division, he says that investigation was carried by him after having taken charge from PW.17. He states that he has filed chargesheet after investigation. (v) DW.1 - Raju Pawar - is the accused. Examined himself as DW.1 and tried to demolish the case of the prosecution. Supported his case/defence. 14. After having gone through the evidence of all the witnesses, it is appropriate at this stage and also relevant to state the definition of Sec. 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Sec. 498-A of IPC reads thus:- Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also liable to fine. Sec. 498-A of IPC reads thus:- Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also liable to fine. Sec. 304B reads thus: "Where the death of woman is caused by any burns, 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." "Whoever commits the 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." 15. The following Ingredients are to be satisfied for dowry death: (a) The death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances, (b) Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage. (c) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. (d) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry. (e) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. 16. Now, it is relevant to note that, the cruelty and harassment by the husband or any relative could be directly relatable to or in connection with, any demand of dowry. The expression "demand of dowry" will have to be construed to the word immediately preceding this expression. Similarly, "in connection with the marriage" is an expression should be given appropriate meaning to avoid undue harassment or advantage to either of the parties. 17. A conjoint reading of sec. 113-B of Indian Evidence Act and sec. 304-B of IPC makes it clear that there must be material to show that soon before death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. "Soon before death" is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case. 18. 17. A conjoint reading of sec. 113-B of Indian Evidence Act and sec. 304-B of IPC makes it clear that there must be material to show that soon before death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. "Soon before death" is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case. 18. The word "Soon before death" cannot be given a restricted or a narrower meaning. A reasonable time would be applicable in such cases. Each case depends on its facts which are to be decided. The court has to look into the facts of each case, conduct of the parties and impact of cruelty and harassment inflicted upon the deceased, in relation to demand of dowry, which is the cause of unnatural death of the deceased. 19. In the case in hand, the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10 are the relatives of the deceased Geetha, their evidence with regard to marriage negotiation, demand of dowry at the time of marriage, cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry are consistent and reliable. After having gone through the evidence these witnesses, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses. Though these witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross - examination, they withstood it and supported the case of the prosecution. Further, they deposed that there was panchayath conducted to pacify the quarrel between the deceased and accused No.1 and his family members. The P.W.10 and his friends have decided to keep the deceased and accused No.1 separately in a rented house, in order to keep them happy in their marital life. P.W.10 further deposes that, he arranged a separate house for his son-in-law and daughter on rental basis. 20. P.W.14 who is the owner of the house where the deceased and accused No.1 last resided together has endorsed it through his evidence. Further P.W.14, being the owner of the house where the deceased and accused No.1 were residing deposes that, the advance amount of Rs.25,000.00 was given to him by P.W.10. However, the agreement had stood in the name of the accused No.1. Though PW.14 was not aware about the reason for suicide, but, he said that, only husband and wife were residing in his house. Further, he says that, the accused No.1 has not paid rent for 6 to 7 months. However, the agreement had stood in the name of the accused No.1. Though PW.14 was not aware about the reason for suicide, but, he said that, only husband and wife were residing in his house. Further, he says that, the accused No.1 has not paid rent for 6 to 7 months. It shows that, how the accused No.1 was negligent towards his family. Even though accused No.1 worked in the Department of Endowment Religious Trust, he was not paying the rent regularly and was not taking care of family necessities, that itself is a harassment. It appears from the evidence of PW.14 that, the accused No.1 had never mended his ways. 21. PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6 are the friends of PW.10 and are independent witnesses. PW.4 and PW.5 were working in BEML along with P.W.10, whereas PW.6 was running Hardware business. PW.6 says that, the shop of PW.10 was situated near his shop, as such, he was acquainted with P.W.10 and his family members. All these three witnesses are consistent with regard to site measuring 30 feet x 50 feet which was given to the deceased by P.W.10. Further, they depose that, they knew about the demand made by accused No.1 to sell the site, and as the deceased had refused to heed to their words, there were frequent quarrel between them in that regard. Merely because they are the friends of P.W.10, their evidence cannot be ignored. Nothing is there to disbelieve their evidence. Hence, the prosecution has established the case with regard to demand of money in the form of dowry, cruelty and harassment etc. 22. Initially, in cases like dowry death, the initial burden is on the prosecution. However, the initial burden need not be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, but, requires preponderance of probability. Once initial burden is discharged, the onus to disprove the same will be shifted to the accused. 23. In this case, the prosecution has proved the marriage between the accused No.1 with deceased Geetha and it was performed three years prior to death of the deceased. There was cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry by the husband and in-laws. PW.10 made separate house to accused No.1 and deceased daughter, after panchayath having been held between the family of accused No.1 and deceased. There was cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry by the husband and in-laws. PW.10 made separate house to accused No.1 and deceased daughter, after panchayath having been held between the family of accused No.1 and deceased. All the witnesses are consistent in their evidence with regard to demand of amount by the accused and pressurizing the deceased to sell the site. PW.14, the owner of the house where the deceased and accused No.1 were living, deposed that, the accused No.1 was not paying the rent regularly to him. The deceased died unnaturally i.e., she has committed suicide. In view of the observation made by this court, I am of the considered opinion that, the primary burden has been successfully proved by the prosecution and onus to rebut the same has been shifted to the accused. In this case, the accused has neither discharged the initial burden nor disproved the allegation, if any. 24. Now, it is relevant to look into the presumption available under sec. 113-B of Indian Evidence Act. The necessity for insertion of the two provisions has been amply analyzed by the Law Commission of India in its 21st Report dtd. 10/8/1988 on "Dowry Death and Law Reform". Keeping in view the impediment in the pre-existing law in securing evidence to prove dowry related deaths, the Legislature thought it wise to insert a provision relating to presumption of dowry death on proof of certain essentials. It is in this background that presumptive sec. 113-B in the Evidence Act has been inserted. The said presumption is rebuttable. 25. Once the initial burden is discharged, the onus would be shifted upon the accused to disprove it. Here in this case, though the accused No.1 examined himself as D.W.1, there was no satisfactory explanation by the accused No.1 to disprove the presumption. The evidence of all the witnesses with regard to harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry is consistent not only by the related witnesses, but also by the independent witnesses like, PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6. 26. The accused, though he was living along with the deceased in a separate house, has not made any attempt to save the deceased or lodged a complaint to the concerned authority. Such being the fact, in view of the deeming provision, the accused No.1 is deemed to have committed dowry death. 27. 26. The accused, though he was living along with the deceased in a separate house, has not made any attempt to save the deceased or lodged a complaint to the concerned authority. Such being the fact, in view of the deeming provision, the accused No.1 is deemed to have committed dowry death. 27. In the light of the observation made above, the points which stated above are answered as follows; a) The Point No.1 formulated above is answered in the affirmative by holding that, the Trial Court is justified in convicting the accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sec. 304-B, 498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. b) Similarly, the point No.2 that arose for consideration is answered in the negative by holding that, the Appellant / Accused No.1 has not made out any ground to interfere in the well-reasoned order passed by the Trial court, convicting the Accused No.1. In view of the above, I pass the following:- ORDER a) The Appeal is dismissed. b) The Judgment and order of conviction dtd. 17/8/2011 passed by the learned XLV Addl. City Civil and Session Judge (CCH- 46), Bengaluru, in S.C No.909/2007 is confirmed. c) The Registry is directed to provide the accused free copy of this judgment. d) The bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled and accused is directed to surrender before the trial court for completing the remaining period of sentence and imprisonment forthwith. e) The Registry is directed to send the original records, along with judgment of this court, to the Trial court to take necessary steps to secure the presence of the accused No.1, if he has not surrendered before the court forthwith.