JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Hemant Kumar Shikarwar learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Tiwari learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.08.2014, (sentence passed on 28.08.2014) passed by Sri J.P N. Pandey, sessions Judge, Chatra in connection with S.T. No. 101/2011, arising out of Rajpur P.S. Case No. 52/2010, Corresponding to G.R. No. 935/2010, holding the appellant Arun Kumar Singh @ Arun Singh guilty of offence under sections 304B/120 B of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 3. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of written report dated 06.11.2010 of the informant Ram Swaroop Singh, alleging therein that his daughter Pushpa Devi was married to the appellant Arun Kumar Singh @ Arun Singh in 2008. Their marriage was solemnized at Bhadrakali Mandir as per Hindu rites and customs. After one year of marriage appellant started demanding Hero Honda motorcycle as additional dowry and to enforce the demand Pushpa Devi was tortured. It is further alleged that on 02.11.2010 informant had gone to matrimonial house of his daughter where the appellant reiterated his demand for motorcycle and threatened that if his demand was not met by Diwali, Pushpa Devi would not live till the day of Diwali. Informant has alleged that on 05.11.2010 his daughter Pushpa Devi was immolated to death by the appellant and co-accused persons in her matrimonial home. 4. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant on 07.04.2011, while investigation against the other accused persons was kept pending. Cognizance of the case was taken by the learned C.J.M. Chatra on the same day under sections 304B and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Case was committed to the court of Sessions on 19.05.2011 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Chatra. Charge was framed against the appellant on 21.06.2011 under sections 304B/120B of the Indian Penal Code, which was read over and explained to him in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove its case prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. 6. Statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. on 25.02.2014. Defence is general denial of occurrence and false implication. 7. Appellant has examined two defence witnesses. 5. In order to prove its case prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. 6. Statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. on 25.02.2014. Defence is general denial of occurrence and false implication. 7. Appellant has examined two defence witnesses. A case has been made out that the deceased Pushpa Devi had committed suicide by locking herself in the room from where her dead body was recovered in burnt condition. 8. On the basis of both oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra, held the appellant Arun Kumar Singh @ Arun Singh guilty and sentenced him accordingly. 9. Sri Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that independent witnesses have stated that there was Cordial relationship between the appellant and his wife, these witnesses have stated that there was no demand of dowry as alleged by the informant. Attention has been drawn towards deposition of defence witnesses, who have stated that the room from where the deceased was found was locked from inside and it was forced open by the villagers who had tried to douse the fire. Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar further submitted that deceased had committed suicide. She was not immolated by the appellant or his family members. 10. Sri A.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the State, submitted that deceased Pushpa Devi died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage. He has also submitted that the prosecution has been able to show that there was demand of dowry and to enforce the demand, the deceased was tortured soon before the occurrence. Accordingly the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge for offences under sections 304B/120 B of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra does not require any interference. 11. In order to come to a finding that the prosecution has been able to bring home charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and to hold him guilty, provisions of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act has to be read conjointly. It has to be ascertained whether the facts of this case satisfies the provisions enumerated in the aforesaid sections. 12. It has to be ascertained whether the facts of this case satisfies the provisions enumerated in the aforesaid sections. 12. Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code defines and provides punishment for dowry death which reads as under: “where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 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.” Once the prosecution has been able to prove the aforesaid ingredients as provided under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, provisions of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act comes into play. The said provision reads as under: “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 had 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.” 13. It is evident that in order to bring home the charge under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, as discussed above, it has to be decided: (1) Whether the prosecution has been able to prove that Pushpa Devi died within seven years of her marriage? (2) Whether Pushpa Devi was tortured for dowry soon before her death? (3) Whether Pushpa Devi died an unnatural death as contemplated under sections 304B/120B of the Indian Penal Code? If the aforesaid facts are proved then it will be presumed that appellant has caused dowry death of Pushpa Devi. At this stage it has to be ascertained, whether the appellant has been able to rebut the presumption of his guilt. FINDINGS 14. It is a case of the prosecution that deceased Pushpa Devi was married to the appellant Arun Kumar Singh @ Arun Singh and she died within seven years of her marriage. Ram Swaroop Singh (PW-8), the informant of this case has stated that his daughter Pushpa Devi was married to the appellant on 26.04.2008 at Bhadrakali Mandir as per the Hindu rites and customs. Ram Swaroop Singh (PW-8), the informant of this case has stated that his daughter Pushpa Devi was married to the appellant on 26.04.2008 at Bhadrakali Mandir as per the Hindu rites and customs. He has not been cross-examined on this point. All the prosecution witnesses, including the defence witnesses have stated that the deceased Pushpa Devi was the wife of the appellant. Lakshmi Singh (PW-1) has stated that occurrence took place on the day of Diwali in the year 2010. Deonandan Singh (PW-6) has stated that occurrence is of 05.11.2010, when Pushpa Devi was murdered by the accused persons. Ram Sevak Singh (PW-7) has stated that occurrence took place on the day of Diwali. In his cross examination he has stated that Diwali was on 05.11.2010. Ram Swaroop Singh (PW-8), the informant of this case has stated that accused persons murdered his daughter on 05.11.2010. These witnesses have not been cross-examined on the point of the date of occurrence. Shambhu Nath Singh (DW-1) has reiterated that Pushpa Devi died on 05.11.2010. From the aforesaid oral testimony of the witnesses it is apparent that Pushpa Devi was married to the appellant on 26.04.2008. She died on 05.11.2010 and she died within seven years of her marriage. 15. On the point of demand of motorcycle by the appellant as dowry and threat extended by him to ensure that his demand was met and that too, soon before the death of Pushpa Devi, prosecution has adduced oral evidence. Defence has tried to make out a case that relationship between the husband and wife was very cordial and no demand of dowry was ever made. Witnesses Lakshmi Singh (PW-1) and Gobardhan Singh (PW-2) have stated that the accused persons had never demanded any dowry from the informant. Shambhu Nath Singh (DW-1) and Ram Kishun Dangi (DW-2) have stated that appellant had a very cordial relationship with his wife and no demand of dowry was ever made by the appellant. On the contrary, Ram Swaroop Singh (PW-8), the informant of this case has stated that after 2-3 months of the marriage of his daughter with the appellant there was demand of Hero Honda motorcycle and to enforce the demand his daughter Pushpa Devi was tortured by the appellant. On the contrary, Ram Swaroop Singh (PW-8), the informant of this case has stated that after 2-3 months of the marriage of his daughter with the appellant there was demand of Hero Honda motorcycle and to enforce the demand his daughter Pushpa Devi was tortured by the appellant. He has further stated that two days prior to the occurrence he had gone to matrimonial home of his daughter where the appellant again reiterated his demand for motorcycle and threatened that Pushpa Devi would not be able to live till the day of Diwali, if his demand was not met. Witnesses Ramdeo Singh (PW-4), Lawlesh Singh (PW-5) and Ram Sevak Singh (PW-7) all have stated that they are relatives of the informant Ram Swaroop Singh (PW-8). They have stated that the appellant had demanded motorcycle from the informant. He had also threatened that if his demand was not met, Pushpa Devi will not be spared and she will not live till the day of Diwali. These witnesses have been cross-examined at length on the point that demand of dowry was made and that too soon before the date of occurrence. In their cross-examination, Ram Swaroop Singh (PW-8) has stated that the appellant started torturing his daughter after three months of the marriage. He had talked to his son-in-law. He has further stated that just prior to Dhanteras he had gone to matrimonial home of his daughter where the appellant threatened that if motorcycle was not given to him by Dhanteras his daughter will not be able to live till the day of Diwali. Ramdeo Singh (PW-4) at paragraph 53 has stated that he was in touch with the deceased and she used to narrate her miseries to him. Lawlesh Singh (PW-5) has stated that one year prior to the occurrence he came to know that all was not well in the matrimonial life of the deceased. Informant had told him about the demand of motorcycle. Ram Sevak Singh (PW-7) has stated that he cannot specify the date, month and year on which the demand of motorcycle was made. Lakshmi Singh (PW-1) and Gobardhan Singh (PW-2), Shambhu Nath Singh (DW-1) and Ram Kishun Dangi (DW-2) are co-villagers of the appellant. Demand of dowry is not made publicly. The fact that dowry was not demanded in their presence will not mean that demand of motorcycle was not made. Lakshmi Singh (PW-1) and Gobardhan Singh (PW-2), Shambhu Nath Singh (DW-1) and Ram Kishun Dangi (DW-2) are co-villagers of the appellant. Demand of dowry is not made publicly. The fact that dowry was not demanded in their presence will not mean that demand of motorcycle was not made. Evidence of Ram Swaroop Singh (PW-8), Ramdeo Singh (PW-4) Lawlesh Singh (PW-5) and Ram Sevak Singh (PW-7) on the point of demand of dowry and that too soon before the date of occurrence can be relied upon as they are the natural and most relevant witnesses to shed light on this point. Demand was made from the informant, Ram Swaroop Singh (PW-8) as he was father of the deceased. Ramdeo Singh (PW-4), Lawlesh Singh (PW-5) and Ram Sevak Singh (PW-7) being the relatives of the deceased were privy to the demand made by the appellant. Ramdeo Singh (PW-4), in his cross-examination has stated that he had heard Arun Singh demanding motorcycle from the informant on mobile phone as the speaker of the mobile phone was on. All these witnesses have been consistent in their evidence on the demand of motorcycle and have stood the test of cross-examination. There is no incongruity in their statement of such a nature which could discard their testimony. Accordingly, it can be safely concluded that motorcycle was demanded by the appellant and that too soon before the occurrence. Threat extended by the appellant that Pushpa Devi will not live till the day of Diwali goes on to show her plight and mental agony, she would have undergone just before her death. Accordingly, we come to a finding that soon before the occurrence motorcycle was demanded by the appellant and Pushpa Devi was tortured to enforce the demand of motorcycle. 16. It is a case of the prosecution that deceased had died due to burn injuries on 05.11.2010. In order to prove this fact prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. Ram Swaroop Singh (PW-8) has stated that on 05.11.2010 he received telephonic information that his daughter Pushpa Devi was immolated by the appellant and co-accused persons. He has further stated that he, along with some villagers, went to the place of occurrence and found charred body of his daughter which could not be identified. He could identify the dead body by her clothes. He has further stated that he, along with some villagers, went to the place of occurrence and found charred body of his daughter which could not be identified. He could identify the dead body by her clothes. He has identified his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as (Exhibit 2). He has been cross-examined at length. Defence had suggested that deceased had immolated herself. Ramdeo Singh (PW-4) has stated that on the date of occurrence, he came to know that Pushpa Devi was burnt. He alongwith some other persons, went to her matrimonial home and found her dead body in burnt condition. Appellant and none of his family members were present there. In his cross-examination, he has stated that container of kerosene oil was lying near the place of occurrence. There was no sign of fire or smoke in the room where her dead body was lying. Lawlesh Singh (PW-5) has stated that on the date of occurrence, he went to the matrimonial home of the deceased alongwith co-villagers and saw charred body of deceased Pushpa Devi. He had denied the suggestion that deceased had locked herself in the room and immolated herself. Lakshmi Singh (PW-1), Gobardhan Singh (PW-2) and Prasad Thakur (PW-3) who are co-villagers of the appellant have stated that Pushpa Devi had died due to burn injuries but none of them have stated that Pushpa Devi was burnt due to accidental fire. Shambhu Nath Singh (DW-1) and Ram Kishun Dangi (DW-2) have also stated that Pushpa Devi died due to burn injuries, in a room locked from inside. Raj Bahadur Singh (PW-11) is the Investigating Officer of this case. He had prepared the inquest report which is (Exhibit 2). From the perusal of the inquest report (Exhibit 2) it is apparent that entire body of Pushpa Devi from head to leg was burnt. Dr. Nityanand Mandal (PW-9) has stated that he was a member of medical board which was constituted to perform post-mortem of deceased Pushpa Devi. Medical board comprised of Dr. S.N. Singh and Dr. N.K.P. Jaiswal. He has stated that Pushpa Devi had sustained deep burn injuries on her body which was 95% and ante-mortem in nature. Only portion of both feet and toes escaped burning, crackling and fissures were present. Muscles of both thighs were burnt. Smell of kerosene oil was emanating from scalp hair. S.N. Singh and Dr. N.K.P. Jaiswal. He has stated that Pushpa Devi had sustained deep burn injuries on her body which was 95% and ante-mortem in nature. Only portion of both feet and toes escaped burning, crackling and fissures were present. Muscles of both thighs were burnt. Smell of kerosene oil was emanating from scalp hair. Scalp hair was burnt and only the hairs of occipital area escaped. According to this witness cause of death was due to shock out of extensive ante-mortem burn injuries. He has proved the postmortem report which is (Exhibit 3). From the perusal of post-mortem report (Exhibit 3), it is evident that the ocular account of Dr. Nityanand Mandal (PW-9) is corroborated by the findings stated in post-mortem report that deceased died due to burn injuries. From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and also admitted by the defence witnesses, we come to a finding that the prosecution has been able to prove that deceased died due to burn injuries. 17. Defence version of the occurrence is that deceased had committed suicide in a room locked from inside and door was forced open after the occurrence. Ram Kishun Dangi (DW-2) has stated that about four years ago on the date of Diwali at about 04-05 P.M. on hearing that wife of Arun Singh had immolated herself, he went to the place of occurrence, and saw that the room was locked from inside. Door was forced open by cutting the door by an axe. Villagers doused the fire by throwing water on the deceased. Raj Bahadur Singh (PW-11) is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has stated that he had gone to the place of occurrence which is the room in the house of the appellant. He has stated that there was sign of breaking open the door of that room. A wire mesh on the top of the door was found cut and the inside iron strip (Bera) was intact. From the aforesaid oral account of these witnesses, it is apparent that the room in which the deceased had died due to burn injuries was locked from inside and door was forced open by the villagers as narrated by the defence witnesses. Prosecution has not adduced any direct evidence that the Appellant and co-accused persons had set the deceased ablaze. Dr. Prosecution has not adduced any direct evidence that the Appellant and co-accused persons had set the deceased ablaze. Dr. Nityanand Mandal (PW-9) has stated that smell of Kerosene oil was emanating from the body of the deceased. Therefore, the possibility of an accidental death can safely be ruled out. Accordingly, it transpires that Pushpa Devi had committed suicide. At this stage, presumption narrated in section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act comes into play. It will be presumed that appellant is guilty of committing dowry death of Pushpa Devi. 18. Onus to prove that death of the deceased was accidental or for that matter deceased committed suicide due to any cause, other than the torture meted out to her soon before the occurrence to enforce the demand of motorcycle shifts on the appellant. It is case of the appellant that deceased had committed suicide. We have also come to the finding that the deceased had committed suicide. Appellant has failed to show that Pushpa Devi committed suicide due to any cause other than the torture meted out to her soon before the occurrence, to enforce the demand of motorcycle. Appellant has failed to rebut the presumption of his guilt. Accordingly, we come to a finding that the trial court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant under Sections 304B/120B of the Indian Penal Code. Sentence passed by learned court below is also commensurate to the gravity of offence and does not require any interference. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not merit any interference. This appeal is dismissed.