JUDGMENT : (Suresh Kumar Gupta, J.) 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 14.9.2022 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 809 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 51 of 2013 relating to Police Station-Khairabad, District-Sitapur, whereby convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences under section-304-B I.P.C. for fourteen years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default of payment of fine, three months additional simple imprisonment; under Section-498-A I.P.C. for three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-and in default of payment of fine, two months additional simple imprisonment; under Section-201 IPC for two years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-and in default of payment of fine, two months additional simple imprisonment; and under Section-4 of Dowry Prohibition Act for one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, one month additional simple imprisonment. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Qamar Jahan, W/o Imamuddin is a resident of Biswan, Sitapur. The complainant had married her daughter Tarannum with Tajeem (appellant) about 18 months ago. In the marriage, the applicant had given dowry according to her status, but the accused-appellant and her mother Asiya, Aafaq and Aafaq and his wife and Sajia Bano were not happy with the dowry given and the additional dowry demand of motorcycle was being raised. On nonfulfillment of the demand, they used to harass the daughter of the complainant right from the time of her marriage and on 01.04.2013, they killed the complainant's daughter by thrashing her and hanging her with a rope around her neck and buried the dead body secretly. On getting information from others, when the complainant went to matrimonial house of her daughter and inquired about her daughter (deceased), the family members of the appellant chased the complainant away from their house by abusing her and extended threat that if you take any legal action, I will kill you too. On the basis of written report, the First Information Report was registered against the appellant and other family members in Case Crime No. 51 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 201, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on 02.04.2013 at police station-Khairabad, District- Sitapur. 3. On the basis of written report, the First Information Report was registered against the appellant and other family members in Case Crime No. 51 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 201, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on 02.04.2013 at police station-Khairabad, District- Sitapur. 3. During course of investigation, on 3.4.2013 on receiving oral information from the City Magistrate, the Nayab Tehsildar Rohit Kumar Maurya reached the place of occurrence near the cemetery secretariat. The Sub-Inspector Vidyashankar Shukla of Thana Khairabad was already present there. As per the instructions of Additional District Magistrate, Sitapur and City Magistrate, the proceedings of Panchayatnama were conducted by them. An arbitrator was appointed from among the people present there and after taking the opinion of the arbitrators, S.I. Vidyashankar prepared the panchayatnama under his direction. Thereafter, the dead body was sealed and relevant police papers for postmortem were handed over to Constable Vijay Kumar Verma and Pindarlal. After preparing the relevant papers relating to postmortem, the dead body was sent for post mortem and the same was conducted by the PW-4, Dr. Rakesh Kumar, Senior Consultant on 3.4.2013 at district hospital, Sitapur and prepared post mortem report. The doctor opined that the cause of death was due to hanging. The time of death of the deceased may be about three days ago i.e. on 1.4.2013. 4. After completion of the investigation, the investigating officer submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant and other family members including the accused Sajia U/s 498A, 304B, 302, 201, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on 23.6.2013 and 25.7.2013 before the magistrate court who took cognizance and the case was committed to the court of sessions on 26.11.2013 where the case was registered as S.T. No. 809/2013 and thereafter, this case was transferred to the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sitapur for trial. The charges were framed against the appellant and other co-accused U/s 498A, 304B, 302/34, 201, 504, 506 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on several dates i.e. 26.8.2014, 2.4.2015 and 20.4.2015. The charges were read over to the appellant and other co-accused but they denied the charges levelled against them in toto and claimed to be tried. 5. The charges were framed against the appellant and other co-accused U/s 498A, 304B, 302/34, 201, 504, 506 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on several dates i.e. 26.8.2014, 2.4.2015 and 20.4.2015. The charges were read over to the appellant and other co-accused but they denied the charges levelled against them in toto and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined the following witnesses: (i) PW-1, Qamar Jahan who is the complainant as well as the mother of the deceased. She supported the entire prosecution version and proved the written report as Ex-ka-1. (ii) PW-2, Jiyauddin who is the uncle of the deceased. He also supported the entire prosecution version. (iii) PW-3, Imauddin who is the father of the deceased. He also supported the entire prosecution version. (iv) PW-4, Dr. Rakesh Kumar who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased on 3.4.2013 at 05.25 pm and following injuries were found on the body of the deceased: (1) The ligature mark was present in the middle of the neck above the thyroid carlways, which was present around the neck, which was 31 cm in length, 1.5 to 2 cm in width, which was 6 cm below and 5.5 cm below the chin. Mild unitosis was present along the edge of the ligature mark. On cutting the ligature mark, the left half bone was fractured. (2) Multiple lacerations of 6 cm x 4 cm were present on the inner side of the left leg. (3) Multiple lacerations of 5 cm x 3 cm were present on the inner side of the right knee. The Doctor opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was hanging. He proved the post-mortem report as Ex-ka-3. (v) PW-5, Rohit Kumar Maurya, Nayab Tehsildar who proved the panchayatnama report as Ex-ka-3 and relevant police papers as Ex-ka-4 to Ex-ka-8. (vi) PW-6, Radhey Lal, Retired S.I. who registered the FIR on the basis of written report given by the complainant. He proved the copy of chik and G.D. as Ex-ka-9 and Ex-ka-10, respectively. (vii) PW-7, Akhilesh Kumar Chaurasia, Circle Officer who conducted the investigation. During course of investigation, he prepared the site plans of the place where the deceased was buried and the residence of the accused-appellant and proved it as Ex-ka-11 and Ex-ka-12, respectively. He proved the copy of chik and G.D. as Ex-ka-9 and Ex-ka-10, respectively. (vii) PW-7, Akhilesh Kumar Chaurasia, Circle Officer who conducted the investigation. During course of investigation, he prepared the site plans of the place where the deceased was buried and the residence of the accused-appellant and proved it as Ex-ka-11 and Ex-ka-12, respectively. Thereafter on 10.4.2013, he arrested the appellant Tajeem and submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant and other family members on 23.6.2013 and proved it as Ex-ka-13. He submitted another charge-sheet against the accused Sajia Bano on 25.7.2013 and proved it as Ex-ka-14. He also proved the recovery memo of marron, yellow, red, white scarf (dupatta) as Ex-ka-15. (viii) PW-8, Jagdish Yadav, Inspector who recovered the scarf of the deceased in presence of the witnesses namely, Shakil Ahmad and Iliyas and sealed it. He received a letter for ensuring further proceedings from the office of ADM, which was proved as Ex-ka-16. 6. Thus, the prosecution relied on oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-8 as well as documentary evidence of Ex-ka-1 to Ex-ka-16. 7. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the appellant was recorded U/s 313 CrPC in which the accused-appellant denied the charges and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further stated that with their consent, the last rites of the deceased were done in the presence of the witnesses from the mayka side of the deceased. After the last rites, the family members of the deceased were demanding the expenses incurred in the marriage. Due to non-completion, the false and frivolous case was filed against him. The deceased was alone at home at the time of the incident. This incident was committed by unknown persons by entering the house. 8. In defence, the witness DW-1, Shakeel Ahmed was examined, who supported the version of the appellant Tajeem and stated that after the list rites of the deceased, the family members of the deceased demanded the expenses incurred in the marriage from the appellant. When he refused to do so, then the family members of the deceased lodged the false and frivolous FIR against the appellant and his family members. 9. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial court acquitted the other co-accused persons and convicted the appellant vide order dated 14.9.2022, as aforesaid. 10. When he refused to do so, then the family members of the deceased lodged the false and frivolous FIR against the appellant and his family members. 9. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial court acquitted the other co-accused persons and convicted the appellant vide order dated 14.9.2022, as aforesaid. 10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 14.9.2022, this criminal appeal has been preferred U/s 374(2) CrPC. 11. I have heard Mr. Sushil Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Vijay Srivastava, learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the material available on record. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits the trial court has convicted the appellant on the basis of conjecture and surmises. The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record. There are material contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses. It is also submitted that only on the basis of interested witnesses, the trial court convicted the appellant and in this matter no independent witness was produced by the prosecution. The counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of incident, he was not present on the spot when the deceased committed suicide by hanging. It is further submitted that after last rites of the deceased, the complainant and other family members of the deceased demanded the expenses incurred in marriage from the accused-appellant. When he refused to do so, then the FIR was lodged by the mother of the deceased against the appellant. It is also submitted that the last rites of the deceased was performed in presence of the appellant. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is the case of suicide not of dowry death and therefore, the accused is supposed to be given the benefit of doubt as ingredients of 304-B IPC are not made out against him. 13. Learned counsel has further submitted that what was the date of demand is nowhere proved, it is submitted that there is a missing link between the date of demand and the death and therefore, the accused would be entitled to the benefit as propounded by the Apex Court in Hem Chand Vs. State of Harayana (1994) 6 SCC 727 . Thus the prosecution has failed to establish that the death of the deceased (Tarannum) occurred due to cruelty and harassment by the appellant. State of Harayana (1994) 6 SCC 727 . Thus the prosecution has failed to establish that the death of the deceased (Tarannum) occurred due to cruelty and harassment by the appellant. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt. 14. Lastly, the counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since 10.4.2013. Thus, the appellant is lodged in jail since about 10 years. Apart from arguing the merit of the case, learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no evidence against the appellant regarding the cruelty or harassment committed by him. If the Court arrives at a conclusion that the appellant was guilty, his sentence kindly be reduced to the period already undergone U/s 498A, 304B, 201 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 15. Learned AGA submitted that the deceased committed suicide at her matrimonial home and the deceased died under unnatural circumstances. It is further submitted that the prosecution has fully established that the death of the deceased was done under unnatural circumstances right from the time of marriage and soon before her death she was subjected to harassment and cruelty due to demand of dowry and the appellant has been rightly convicted U/s 498A, 304B, 201 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and on perusal of the judgement, it reveals that the prosecution has clearly established the charges levelled against the appellant and thus the prosecution has not failed to establish beyond shadow of doubt and learned trial court rightly convicted and sentenced him, as aforesaid. Thus, in these circumstances, there is no ground for leniency of the Court. 16. To appreciate the argument of the parties, it is necessary to look into the provisions of Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 133 of the Evidence Act. 17. Their Lordship of Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2013 (SC 1039 ) in case of Kashmir Kaur vs. State of Punjab has explained the ingredients of offence under section 304B of IPC which reads as under:- From the above decisions the following principles can be culled out: a) To attract the provisions of Section 304B IPC the main ingredient of the offence to be established is that soon before the death of the deceased she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. b) The death of the deceased woman was caused by any burn or bodily injury or some other circumstance which was not normal. c) Such death occurs within seven years from the date of her marriage. d) That the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. e) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry. f) It should be established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death. g) The expression (soon before) is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no straightjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. h) It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. i) Therefore, the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate or life link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. In other words, it should not be remote in point of time and thereby make it a stale one. j) However, the expression "soon before" should not be given a narrow meaning which would otherwise defeat the very purpose of the provisions of the Act and should not lead to absurd results. k) Section 304B is an exception to the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence that a suspect in the Indian Law is entitled to the protection of Article 20 of the Constitution, as well as, a presumption of innocence in his favour. The concept of deeming fiction is hardly applicable to criminal jurisprudence but in contradistinction to this aspect of criminal law, the legislature applied the concept of deeming fiction to the provisions of Section 304B. l) Such deeming fiction resulting in a presumption is, however, a rebuttable presumption and the husband and his relatives, can, by leading their defence prove that the ingredients of Section 304B were not satisfied. l) Such deeming fiction resulting in a presumption is, however, a rebuttable presumption and the husband and his relatives, can, by leading their defence prove that the ingredients of Section 304B were not satisfied. m) The specific significance to be attached is to the time of the alleged cruelty and harassment to which the victim was subjected to, the time of her death and whether the alleged demand of dowry was in connection with the marriage. Once the said ingredients were satisfied it will be called dowry death and by deemed fiction of law the husband or the relatives will be deemed to have committed that offence. Section 113 B of the Act reads as follows: [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 304 B of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860).] 18. As per definition of dowry death under Section 304 B IPC and the wording in the presumptive Section 113 B of the Act, if it is proved that death of woman is caused by any burn 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 (i) She was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives, or (ii) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, demand of dowry, or (iii) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death; then it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that accused caused dowry death. 19. In [2016 (4) SCC Page 604], in the case of Gajanan Dashrath Kharate v. State of Maharashtra, their Lordships of Hon. Supreme Court have held that the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer explanation. In paragraph no.13, their Lordships have held as under:- "13. As seen from the evidence, appellant Gajanan and his father Dashrath and mother Mankarnabai were living together. On 7-4-2002, mother of the appellant-accused had gone to another Village Dahigaon. The prosecution has proved presence of the appellant at his home on the night of 7-4- 2002. Therefore, the appellant is duty-bound to explain as to how the death of his father was caused. When an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer. On the date of the occurrence, when the accused and his father Dashrath were in the house and when the father of the accused was found dead, it was for the accused to offer an explanation as to how his father sustained injuries. When the accused could not offer any explanation as to the homicidal death of his father, it is a strong circumstance against the accused that he is responsible for the commission of the crime." 20. Now, it has to be seen that just before her death, deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband and any relative of husband in connection with demand of dowry. This element and burden of prove in case of dowry deaths have been dealt with in detail by Hon'ble The Apex Court in Sher Singh @ Pratapa v. State of Haryana 2015 (89) ACC 288 (SC). This element and burden of prove in case of dowry deaths have been dealt with in detail by Hon'ble The Apex Court in Sher Singh @ Pratapa v. State of Haryana 2015 (89) ACC 288 (SC). The Apex Court held as under: 12. In our opinion, it is beyond cavil that where the same word is used in a section and/or in sundry segments of a statute, it should be attributed the same meaning, unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise. The obverse is where different words are employed in close proximity, or in the same section, or in the same enactment, the assumption must be that the legislature intended them to depict disparate situations, and delineate dissimilar and diverse ramifications. Ergo, ordinarily Parliament could not have proposed to ordain that the prosecution should "prove" the existence of a vital sequence of facts, despite having employed the word "shown" in Section 304 B. The question is whether these two words can be construed as synonymous. It seems to us that if the prosecution is required to prove, which always means beyond reasonable doubt, that a dowry death has been committed, there is a risk that the purpose postulated in the provision may be reduced to a cipher. This method of statutory interpretation has consistently been disapproved and deprecated except in exceptional instances where the syntax permits reading down or reading up of some words of the subject provisions. 13. In Section 113A of the Evidence Act Parliament has, in the case of a wife's suicide, "presumed" the guilt of the husband and the members of his family. Significantly, in section 113 B which pointedly refers to dowry deaths, Parliament has again employed the word "presume". However, in substantially similar circumstances, in the event of a wife's unnatural death, Parliament has in Section 304 B "deemed" the guilt of the husband and the members of his family. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word "presume" as: supposed to be true, take for granted; whereas "deem" as: regard, consider; and whereas "show" as: point out and prove. However, in substantially similar circumstances, in the event of a wife's unnatural death, Parliament has in Section 304 B "deemed" the guilt of the husband and the members of his family. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word "presume" as: supposed to be true, take for granted; whereas "deem" as: regard, consider; and whereas "show" as: point out and prove. The Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edition) defines the word "show" as-to make apparent or clear by the evidence, to prove; "deemed" as-to hold, consider, adjudge, believe, condemn, determine, construed as if true; "presume" as-to believe or accept on probable evidence; and "Presumption", in Black's, "is a rule of law, statutory or judicial, by which finding of a basic fact gives rise to existence of presumed fact, until presumption is rebutted." The Concise Dictionary of Law, Oxford Paperbacks has this comprehensive yet succinct definition of burden of proof which is worthy of reproduction: "Burden of Proof: The duty of a party to litigation to prove a fact or facts in issue. Generally the burden of proof falls upon the party who substantially asserts the truth of a particular fact (the prosecution or the plaintiff). A distinction is drawn between the persuasive (or legal) burden, which is carried by the party who as a matter of law will lose the case if he fails to prove the fact in issue; and the evidential burden (burden of adducing evidence or burden of going forward), which is the duty of showing that there is sufficient evidence to raise an issue fit for the consideration of the trier of fact as to the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue. The normal rule is that a defendant is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty; it is therefore the duty of the prosecution to prove its case by establishing both the actus reus of the crime and the mens rea. It must first satisfy the evidential burden to show that its allegations have something to support them. If it cannot satisfy this burden, the defence may submit or the judge may direct that there is no case to answer, and the judge must direct the jury to acquit. It must first satisfy the evidential burden to show that its allegations have something to support them. If it cannot satisfy this burden, the defence may submit or the judge may direct that there is no case to answer, and the judge must direct the jury to acquit. The prosecution may sometimes rely on presumptions of fact to satisfy the evidential burden of proof (e.g. the fact that a woman was subjected to violence during sexual intercourse will normally raise a presumption to support a charge of rape and prove that she did not consent). If, however, the prosecution has established a basis for its case, it must then continue to satisfy the persuasive burden by proving its case beyond reasonable doubt (see proof beyond reasonable doubt). It is the duty of the judge to tell the jury clearly that the prosecution must prove its case and that it must prove it beyond reasonable doubt; if he does not give this clear direction, the defendant is entitled to be acquitted. There are some exceptions to the normal rule that the burden of proof is upon the prosecution. The main exceptions are as follows. (1) When the defendant admits the elements of the crime (the actus reus and mens rea) but pleads a special defence, the evidential burden is upon him to prove his defence. This may occur, the example, in a prosecution for murder in which the defendant raises a defence of self-defence. (2) When the defendant pleads automatism, the evidential burden is upon him. (3) When the defendant pleads insanity, both the evidential and persuasive burden rest upon him. In this case, however, it is sufficient if he proves his case on a balance of probabilities (i.e. he must persuade the jury that it is more likely that he is telling the truth than not). (4) In some cases statute expressly places a persuasive burden on the defendant; for example, a person who carries an offensive weapon in public is guilty of an offence unless he proves that he had lawful authority or a reasonable excuse for carrying it". 14. As is already noted above, Section 113 B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B of the IPC were introduced into their respective statutes simultaneously and, therefore, it must ordinarily be assumed that Parliament intentionally used the word 'deemed' in Section 304B to distinguish this provision from the others. 14. As is already noted above, Section 113 B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B of the IPC were introduced into their respective statutes simultaneously and, therefore, it must ordinarily be assumed that Parliament intentionally used the word 'deemed' in Section 304B to distinguish this provision from the others. In actuality, however, it is well nigh impossible to give a sensible and legally acceptable meaning to these provisions, unless the word 'shown' is used as synonymous to 'prove' and the word 'presume' as freely interchangeable with the word 'deemed'. In the realm of civil and fiscal law, it is not difficult to import the ordinary meaning of the word 'deem' to denote a set of circumstances which call to be construed contrary to what they actually are. In criminal legislation, however, it is unpalatable to adopt this approach by rote. We have the high authority of the Constitution Bench of this Court both in State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory, AIR 1953 SC 333 and State of Tamil Nadu v. Arooran Sugars Limited (1997) 1 SCC 326 , requiring the Court to ascertain the purpose behind the statutory fiction brought about by the use of the word 'deemed' so as to give full effect to the legislation and carry it to its logical conclusion. We may add that it is generally posited that there are rebuttable as well as irrebuttable presumptions, the latter oftentimes assuming an artificiality as actuality by means of a deeming provision. It is abhorrent to criminal jurisprudence to adjudicate a person guilty of an offence even though he had neither intention to commit it nor active participation in its commission. It is after deep cogitation that we consider it imperative to construe the word 'shown' in Section 304B of the IPC as to, in fact, connote 'prove'. It is abhorrent to criminal jurisprudence to adjudicate a person guilty of an offence even though he had neither intention to commit it nor active participation in its commission. It is after deep cogitation that we consider it imperative to construe the word 'shown' in Section 304B of the IPC as to, in fact, connote 'prove'. In other words, it is for the prosecution to prove that a 'dowry death' has occurred, namely, (i) that the death of a woman has been caused in abnormal circumstances by her having been burned or having been bodily injured, (ii) within seven years of a marriage, (iii) and that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, (iv) in connection with any demand for dowry and (v) that the cruelty or harassment meted out to her continued to have a causal connection or a live link with the demand of dowry. We are aware that the word 'soon' finds place in Section 304B; but we would prefer to interpret its use not in terms of days or months or years, but as necessarily indicating that the demand for dowry should not be stale or an aberration of the past, but should be the continuing cause for the death under Section 304B or the suicide under Section 304B of the IPC. Once the presence of these concomitants are established or shown or proved by the prosecution, even by preponderance of possibility, the initial presumption of innocence is replaced by an assumption of guilt of the accused, thereupon transferring the heavy burden of proof upon him and requiring him to produce evidence dislodging his guilt, beyond reasonable doubt. It seems to us that what Parliament intended by using the word 'deemed' was that only preponderance of evidence would be insufficient to discharge the husband or his family members of their guilt. This interpretation provides the accused a chance of proving their innocence. This is also the postulation of Section 101 of the Evidence Act. The purpose of Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B of the IPC, in our opinion, is to counter what is commonly encountered - the lack or the absence of evidence in the case of suicide or death of a woman within seven years of marriage. This is also the postulation of Section 101 of the Evidence Act. The purpose of Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B of the IPC, in our opinion, is to counter what is commonly encountered - the lack or the absence of evidence in the case of suicide or death of a woman within seven years of marriage. If the word "shown" has to be given its ordinary meaning then it would only require the prosecution to merely present its evidence in Court, not necessarily through oral deposition, and thereupon make the accused lead detailed evidence to be followed by that of the prosecution. This procedure is unknown to Common Law systems, and beyond the contemplation of the Cr.P.C. 21. It is well settled principle that once prosecution proved that death was occurred within 7 years of marriage and the deceased/victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and relative of her husband soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry, then heavy burden of proof lies upon accused to adduce evidence dislodging his guilt, beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove his case that why the deceased (Tarannum) herself committed suicide by hanging. 22. Last argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is languishing jail since 10.4.2013. Appellant is a very poor person. It is also submitted that the deceased committed suicide by hanging and, therefore, he prayed for reduction of sentence to the period already undergone in jail. It is evident that the appellant is languishing in jail for about 10 years. 23. The Indian Penal Code, like other major penal statutes, prescribes punishment for various offences created under it. It provides for four kinds of punishments; (i) death; (ii) imprisonment for life; (iii) imprisonment for various terms which may be either simple or rigorous, and(iv) fine. A further peep into the legislative paradigm of the code discloses that certain offences are made punishable with a minimum sentence with a cap qua the maximum, with or without fines, For some offences, it prescribes an upper limits of sentence, leaving the minimum, to the discretion of the court, which may even be of one day. 24. A further peep into the legislative paradigm of the code discloses that certain offences are made punishable with a minimum sentence with a cap qua the maximum, with or without fines, For some offences, it prescribes an upper limits of sentence, leaving the minimum, to the discretion of the court, which may even be of one day. 24. The Code, thus, gives much leeway to, and confers wide discretion on, the judiciary to pick up an opt punishment, if the offence concerned is made punishable by different forms of alternate punishment and a choice is given to it to opt either of them, in isolation or combination, and/or to quantify ''punishment' within the range of ''minimum' and ''maximum' punishment, if any, prescribed for the offence. In the absence of any sentencing policy or standardized guiding principles in India, a court is virtually left to determine sentence which, in its opinion, meets the ends of justice. However, it is the duty of a court to use its judicial discretion to award a sentence that is ''proper' in the backdrop of circumstances of the case at hand, and ''matches' with the guilt of offender. 25. In Gurukukh Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in 2009(11) Scale 688 , the Supreme Court not only emphasized that it is the duty and obligation of every court to award proper sentence but also enumerated various factors that the court is required to consider while determining the sentence. They are (i) motive or previous enmity; (ii) whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment; (iii) the intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury; (iv) the gravity, dimension and nature of injury; (v) the age and general health condition of the accused; (vi) whether the injury was caused without premeditation in a sudden fight; (vii)the nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted; (viii) the criminal background and adverse history of the accused; (ix) number of other criminal cases pending against the accused; (x) incident occurred within the family members or close relations, and (xi) the conduct and behavior of the accused after the incident, whether the accused had taken the injured/ the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that (s)he gets proper medical treatment ? In the same breath, the apex court has made it clear that these factors are only illustrative and not exhaustive. These are some of the relevant factors which are required to be kept in view by a sentencing court. Each case, obviously, has to be seen from its special perspective. The court must ensure that the accused receives appropriate sentence and that it must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by the convict. Proportion between ''crime' and ''punishment' is one of the accepted goals of criminal justice system. The principle of proportion between crime and punishment essentially requires a court to prepare a balance-sheet of mitigating and aggravating circumstances and quantify the ''punishment' based thereon. The principle of proportionality is evolved to remove (or at least to minimize) arbitrariness in the sentencing process. 26. In Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2009(13) SCALE 578 , the apex court further stressed that the imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the courts respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminals. Justice, the court stated, demands that the courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime and conscience of the society. It also reminded the courts of the need that they, while modulating sentence, need to be stern or to be tempered with mercy whenever factual matrix of a case at hand warrants. The nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and other attending circumstances may be necessary pointers for the court in tailoring ''proper' sentence. 27. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the same is a matter of discretion of the learned trial Judge. It is well settled law that when the discretion has been granted to the learned trial Judge, if the same is not arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely but has been properly exercised by accepted judicial norms, the appellate court ought not to interfere to the detriment of the accused person unless there are very strong reasons which are not disclosed on the face of the judgment for the lesser punishment. 28. 28. Considering the above propositions of law and facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the appellant is in jail since 10.4.2013 and as such, about 10 years have already elapsed. So, in the interest of justice, the maximum sentence U/s 304-B IPC from 14 years is reduced to 10 years with all remissions under Section 304-B IPC. But the sentence awarded U/s 498-A, 201 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act shall remain unaltered. All the sentences shall run concurrently. It is made clear that the fine clause shall remain unaltered. 29. The Jail Authority will calculate the period of his incarceration with remission and decide the same in accordance with jail manual. 30. Thus the appeal is dismissed on the point of conviction and partly allowed on the point of sentence. 31. The trial court record be sent back. A copy of this order be also sent to the court concerned as well as District Superintendent of Jail, Sitapur for necessary compliance.