JUDGMENT : Heard Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Ruby Pandey, the learned APP for the State. 2. The present criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 16.01.2010 and the order of sentence dated 19.01.2010, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 305 of 2007, whereby and where under, the appellant was convicted under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as per the fardbeyan dated 18.07.2007 of the informant Tulsi Thakur (PW-4) is that his daughter Nilam Devi (deceased) was married with the appellant Arbind Thakur, according to Hindu rites and customs, in the year 2005. Deceased lived peacefully at her matrimonial home for one year, but, thereafter, she was subjected to cruelty by her husband, mother-in-1aw, brother-in-law (bhaisur) and sister-in-law (gotani) for demand of colour T.V., golden chain and golden ring. Informant further stated that he told the accused persons that he had already given dowry according to his capacity and now he is unable to fulfill the further demand of dowry. Informant requested the accused persons not to torture his daughter, but, the accused persons tortured her continuously. Informant received telephonic message in the morning on 18.07.2007 at about 09:45 am, that his daughter was done to death by her in-laws. On such information, the informant along with his wife Gayatri Thakur (PW-1), his son Vinay Thakur (PW-2), Praduman Thakur (PW-3) and Remawatar Thakur, reached at village Jhumrabad, at the matrimonial home of his daughter at about 1:00 pm, and saw that his daughter was hanging from the ceiling of the roof of the house with a rope. Police got down the dead body of the deceased and on query, informant came to know that his daughter was done to death by her husband (appellant herein) and her in-laws. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan, F.I.R. being Jasidih P.S. Case No. 183/07 dated 18.07.2007 under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant Arbind Thakur and against the in-laws of the deceased. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under section 304 B/34 of IPC and cognizance for the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under section 304 B/34 of IPC and cognizance for the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Charge under Section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant and trial was held. At the conclusion of the trial the appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, hence, this appeal. 5. Prosecution had examined altogether five witnesses out of whom PW-4 is Tulsi Thakur, who is the informant of the case and the father of the deceased; PW-1 is Gayatri Thakur, who is the mother of the deceased; PW-2 is Vinay Thakur, who is the brother of the deceased; PW-3 is Praduman Thakur, who is the cousin brother of the informant and PW-5 is Dr. Nand Lal Pandit, who had conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. 6. PW4 Tulsi Thakur is the informant of this case and the father of the deceased. Informant had stated in his evidence that his daughter was married with the appellant Arbind Thakur, in the year 2005 and after marriage his daughter went to her matrimonial home, where she lived peacefully for about one year. Thereafter, husband Arbind Thakur, and in-laws tortured his daughter and demanded colour T.V., golden chain and golden ring. When his daughter came to her parental home, then, she narrated the story to him. Thereafter, informant went to the matrimonial home of his daughter and told them that his economic condition is not well and he is unable to fulfill their demand, but, accused persons continued to torture his daughter. On 18.07.2007, he got information from the villagers that in-laws of the deceased had committed murder of the deceased and hanged her dead body. Then, he along with his wife, son and Praduman Thakur went to matrimonial home of the deceased and saw the dead body hanging. Thereafter, police was informed and then, police came there and got down the dead body. He gave his fardbeyan before the police and he put his signature on the fardbeyan which was marked as Ext.-1. 7. PW1 Gayatri Thakur is the mother of the deceased. She had stated in her evidence that her daughter was married with the appellant Arbind Thakur about two years ago and after the marriage deceased went to her matrimonial home and there she lived peacefully for one year. 7. PW1 Gayatri Thakur is the mother of the deceased. She had stated in her evidence that her daughter was married with the appellant Arbind Thakur about two years ago and after the marriage deceased went to her matrimonial home and there she lived peacefully for one year. But, after one year, in-laws of her daughter demanded golden chain, ring and colour T.V. PW-1 further stated that due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, husband Arbind Thakur, used to torture the deceased. About eight months ago, she got information on telephone that the deceased had been murdered by her husband and his family members. On this information, they went to the matrimonial home of her daughter and saw her daughter was hanging. In her cross-examination, PW-1 had stated that after the marriage her daughter went to her matrimonial home twice and also came back to her paternal home twice. 8. PW-2 Vinay Thakur is the brother of the deceased. He had stated in his evidence that his sister was married to the appellant Arbind Thakur in May, 2005 and after marriage she had gone to her matrimonial home and lived there peacefully for one year. Thereafter, appellant Arbind Thakur and his family members tortured the deceased for colour T.V., golden chain and golden ring. PW-2 further stated that after getting information about the death of his sister, he went to her matrimonial home and saw the dead body hanging. PW-2 had deposed that accused persons demanded dowry for the first time, in the year 2006. 9. PW3 is Praduman Thakur, who is the cousin brother of the informant. He had stated in his evidence that on 18.07.2007, they received information from Jhumarbad (matrimonial home of deceased) on telephone, about the death of the deceased. He saw the dead body of the deceased, which was hanging. 10. PW5 is Dr. Nand Lal Pandit, who had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 18.07.2007. Doctor had found following external findings on the body of the deceased: (i) rigor mortis present in upper limbs (ii) eyes half opened (iii) tongue clinched in between teeths (iv) sign of saliva ticking at the left corner of mouth (v) lacerated cut wound is below 4th and 5th toes of left foot (vi) pupil fixed and dilated (vii) brownish discloured of right side of face. (viii) A black ligature mark obliquely upward above thyroid cartilage up and above ear pinna both the sides. (ix) Neck was stretched.” Doctor further gave following external findings:- (i) On dissection of neck only the ligature mark revealed whitish band of subcutaneous; (ii) Heart-right chamber contains blood clot and left empty blood was dark in colour; (iii) Lungs-congested and liver, stomach, kidneys, spleen, intestines were congested; (iv) Bladder contains some amount of urine; (v) Uterus non graved and small. Doctor stated that time since death is within 24 hours of postmortem examination and cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging. Doctor had proved the postmortem report of the deceased which was marked as Ext.-2. In his cross-examination, doctor deposed that beneath the ligature mark, on dissection, he had found whitish band of subcutaneous tissues and in his opinion the injury was antemortem. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 11. Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has firstly submitted that all the witnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution are the highly interested witnesses because all of them are relatives of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that not a single independent witness of the locality has come to prove the complicity or supported the case of the prosecution. However, the learned counsel has submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that all the witnesses, who were examined in the present case, have specifically stated that the deceased was residing in her matrimonial house peacefully for about one year and in that course of time, there was no demand of any kind of dowry by the accused persons from the deceased or her family members. Further, the learned counsel has submitted that PW3, who happens to be the uncle of the deceased, has specifically stated in his deposition that nobody had demanded dowry from the deceased after solemnization of marriage and the deceased had never complained against her husband and her in-laws for demand of dowry. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there is no specific date and time mentioned by the informant in the first information report regarding demand of dowry. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there is no specific date and time mentioned by the informant in the first information report regarding demand of dowry. There is no evidence that the present appellant or his family members have demanded any kind of dowry and for that all of them had subjected her to cruelty or harassed the deceased or tortured her. It was also argued that it is apparent from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the marriage was solemnized in the year 2005, but after a span of about 3 years of marriage, the deceased was issueless and for that she suffered from mental imbalance and committed suicide by hanging. 13. Learned counsel further submitted that soon before death, the victim must have been subjected to torture in connection with demand of dowry, but, in the case in hand except vague allegations of demand and torture, there is also no date or time given about her torture before her death, which would indicate that no such torture or harassment in connection with demand of dowry had taken place. 14. Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, the learned counsel for the appellant, has then cited the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Major Singh and another v. State of Punjab” reported in (2015) 5 SCC 201 , and pointed out para-16 and submitted that Hon’ble Apex Court in this case had dealt with the issue of “soon before death” and that there must be a live link between her death and the demand of dowry and torture soon before her death. Learned counsel submits that the aspect of soon before her death, the issue of demand of dowry being linked up to torture and harassment must be there, but no date and time has been referred to even once and, therefore, this creates much doubt and on this basis, the benefit can only accrue to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant says that the marriage between the couple took place in the year 2005 and it is admitted that for one year the marriage was peaceful. She died in the year 2007, however, the allegations are made regarding the last year of marriage. The learned counsel for the appellant says that the marriage between the couple took place in the year 2005 and it is admitted that for one year the marriage was peaceful. She died in the year 2007, however, the allegations are made regarding the last year of marriage. Learned counsel says that the date accompanied with time should have been given regarding the demands that were made for dowry and the accompanying torture or harassment but this is not the case and only general and vague accusations are made by the witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of “Sandeep Kumar & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.” delivered on 02.12.2020 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1512-1513 of 2017. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant also argues that it is admitted that death was due to hanging but it cannot be said that the hanging was done by the appellant or his family members. The hanging was done by the woman herself for the reasons only known to her. It is not a suicide for which any abetment has been done by the appellant and, therefore, he cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel has also submitted that the doctor has also clearly said that death was due to hanging, however, there is no evidence that the appellant had assaulted the deceased any time immediately before her death, therefore, her death cannot be linked up with the appellant. There is also no concrete evidence that immediately before her death, the appellant had harassed or tortured her and, therefore, there is no abetment on the part of the appellant for her death. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the case on hand is similar to the Sandeep Kumar (Supra) and also in the current case there are no external injuries. Counsel submits, that the case is that the victim has committed suicide but the appellant has not abetted her for the same and, therefore, he cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code or even under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel submits, that the case is that the victim has committed suicide but the appellant has not abetted her for the same and, therefore, he cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code or even under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel also says that no panchayati was held or no complaint was made to any responsible person of the said village or even to the police prior to this incident. Learned counsel submits that it was a plain case of suicide and it should have been treated as an unnatural death case. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE 17. Mrs. Ruby Pandey, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has, first and foremost, taken to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and pointed out that in the evidence of PW1 Gayatri Thakur, who is the mother of the deceased, it is apparent from paragraph No.1 of her deposition itself that the death had occurred within seven years of marriage and in the first paragraph of her evidence itself, there is reference to dowry demand accompanied by harassment being committed by the appellant or husband. Learned APP further submits that PW1 has in her evidence deposed that they were poor, therefore, they could not give the money to the appellant and his family members. Therefore, the learned APP says that this aspect of being poor or not being able to fulfill the demands was itself resulting harassment by the appellant and his family members. Learned APP has further submitted that PW2 Vinay Thakur, who is the son of the informant Tulsi Thakur, has also in paragraph No.1 of his evidence had deposed regarding the demand of dowry. He had deposed that in the first year only, the marriage was peaceful and then the appellant and his family members started demanding items, such as, colour T.V., golden chain and golden ring and the death of the victim takes place soon thereafter. 18. Learned APP has then referred to the evidence of PW3 Praduman Thakur and submits that even this witness, in his deposition at paragraph No.1, has deposed that the victim's husband used to fight over dowry and demands for colour T.V., golden chain and golden ring. 18. Learned APP has then referred to the evidence of PW3 Praduman Thakur and submits that even this witness, in his deposition at paragraph No.1, has deposed that the victim's husband used to fight over dowry and demands for colour T.V., golden chain and golden ring. This witness has deposed that it was informed that the deceased was killed and thereafter, they had gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased and found her hanging. Learned APP says that the deceased was found hanging which clearly indicates that it was an unnatural death and so another vital ingredient of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code has been fulfilled. 19. Learned APP has also referred to the evidence of PW4 Tulsi Thakur, who is the informant of this case, and pointed out that even this witness in paragraph No.1 has deposed that the appellant Arbind Thakur used to make demand for colour T.V., golden chain and golden ring. In the deposition of PW4, it is also deposed that the informant's father had told the appellant about the bad financial situation and that he could not give such items, but, it was not agreed by the appellant or his family members. Learned APP says that these facts of not being able to fulfill the demand weigh heavily on the victim, leading too much torture and harassment over the demand of dowry. The deposition of PW4 has also clearly indicated that appellant had tortured his daughter and his daughter was killed and her dead body was hanged. 20. Learned APP further argued that all the ingredients of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code are made out and that, first and foremost, the death occurred within seven years of her marriage and the death was unnatural. There is reference to the items demanded by the appellant or his family members, such as, colour T.V., golden chain and golden ring and for this, she was also harassed. Learned APP says that the persistent and insistent demands, which the family of the girl was not in a position to fulfill, was itself leading too much harassment on the part of the appellant and his family member. Learned APP says that the persistent and insistent demands, which the family of the girl was not in a position to fulfill, was itself leading too much harassment on the part of the appellant and his family member. The learned APP says that there is no reference to date and time of demand, which would be a very minor point given the fact that all the ingredients are made out and this would only be a detail that has been omitted which does not detract from the fact that there was an unnatural death. A question definitely would arise as to why she killed herself. Moreover, the body was found in the house of the appellant itself and this requires an explanation, but, no proper explanation has been given by the appellant and merely to say, that she committed suicide and not to give reasons are also being evasive. Learned APP says that this is a suicide matter due to the stress that was given to the victim by the appellant and his family. 21. Regarding no panchayati and no complaints to anyone else and even not to the police, was made in an earlier occasion, the learned APP says that the marriage was not of many years and it is not in the culture of the country that the girl or the victim would immediately rush to the police or even tell all and sundry that she is being harassed for the dowry demands, but families, first and foremost, tries to keep such information within the family itself. 22. Lastly, learned APP has argued that the period of harassment is only indicated as being one year before her death and, therefore, being subjected to demands of dowry and with the harassment that was caused to her, clearly would come within “soon before death”. Learned APP has also added that any reference to her mental status on behalf of the appellant should be accompanied at least with more evidence, properly by some medical certificate to allow them such defence. FINDINGS 23. I have heard both the learned counsels, gone through the records of the case and in the facts and circumstances, it is observed and conclude as follows. FINDINGS 23. I have heard both the learned counsels, gone through the records of the case and in the facts and circumstances, it is observed and conclude as follows. This appeal is against the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and hence, the ingredients of section 304(B) IPC i.e. death of the deceased within seven years of her marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances and soon before the death of the deceased, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for the demand of dowry, needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 24. (i) From the evidence of the informant PW-4 Tulsi Thakur, who is the father of the deceased Nilam Devi, I find that father had deposed that his daughter was married to the appellant Arvind Thakur, in the year 2005 and PW-2, who is the brother of the deceased had deposed that his sister was married in May 2005 with the appellant. As per the fardbeyan of the informant, deceased, died on 18.07.2007 and post-mortem examination of the deceased was done on 18.07.2007. Therefore, deceased was married in the year 2005 and died on 18.07.2007. Hence, it can be easily said that deceased died within seven years of her marriage. (ii) So, far as ingredient of demand of dowry and that soon before her death, is concerned, this court finds from the First Information Report that the appellant used to torture his deceased wife for demand of Colour T.V., Gold ring and Gold chain and informant or father of the deceased had tried to prevent such demand by saying that he had already given dowry at the time of marriage and his situation was not good. Further, what was said by the informant in his fardbeyan, the same has been corroborated by the informant in his deposition, that his daughter had come to her maike and informed them about the demand of dowry and torture and thereafter, informant had gone to her in-laws place and conveyed to them that he was unable to fulfill further demand of dowry, but, the appellant did not heed his request and they tortured the deceased for non-fulfillment of alleged demand. This court finds that the girl was married sometime in May 2005 and she died on 18.07.2007 i.e. deceased died just after two years of her marriage. This court finds that the girl was married sometime in May 2005 and she died on 18.07.2007 i.e. deceased died just after two years of her marriage. PW-1 mother, PW-2 brother and PW-4 father of the deceased in their examination-in-chief had unequivocally deposed that initially deceased lived in her matrimonial home peacefully for one year, but, thereafter, dowry demand and torture for such demand started. PW-2 or brother of the deceased had deposed that his sister was married in May, 2005. It would indicate that till April, 2006 the situation was good and thereafter, the demands were made and she died in July, 2007. So, the crucial period would be from April 2006 to July, 2007 and during this period, demand and torture for Colour T.V., Gold ring and Gold chain were made and during this period as indicated in the fardbeyan as well as in the depositions of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, the aforesaid demands were continuous in nature until the death of the deceased on 18.07.2007. Hence, considering the entire period of marriage, first living in a calm stage, then demands and torture began after a year of her marriage till her death and therefore, it will be difficult to wiggle out with the ground of soon before death, particularly, when harassment accompanying demand was of a continuous nature till the death of the deceased. Based on these facts and circumstances, prosecution has been able to prove the ingredients of demand of dowry and soon before death, deceased was harassed for such dowry demand. (iii) In his external findings, doctor PW-5 had found a black ligature mark obliquely upward above thyroid cartilage up and above ear pinna both sides and her neck was stretched. Doctor stated that cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging. So, from the evidence of doctor and going through the post mortem report Ext.-2, I come to the conclusion that deceased died otherwise than under normal circumstances. 25. Hence, all the ingredients relating to dowry death of the deceased is proved. Appellant has failed to rebut the presumption under section 113 (B) of Indian Evidence Act. Even, in his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C, appellant has simply denied the evidence appearing against him and has not put forward any specific defence. 26. 25. Hence, all the ingredients relating to dowry death of the deceased is proved. Appellant has failed to rebut the presumption under section 113 (B) of Indian Evidence Act. Even, in his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C, appellant has simply denied the evidence appearing against him and has not put forward any specific defence. 26. Therefore, based on the aforesaid reasonings, impugned 2nd judgment of conviction dated 16.01.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 305 of 2007 is sustained and upheld. 27. So, far as sentence of the appellant is concerned, custody report of the appellant Arvind Thakur is on record. By its letter no. 422/2020 dated 02.02.2020, Superintendent, Central Jail, Dumka has reported that appellant has served the sentence of seven years as imposed by the learned trial court for his conviction and has been released from the jail after undergoing the sentence. In view of the above, no further order on sentence is required. Appellant is discharged from the liability of bail bonds. 28. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.