ORDER : 1. The Appellant before this Court has challenged the order of the High Court passed in appeal, whereby, the conviction and sentence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against Respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein, was set-aside and they were acquitted for charges under Section 304-B of the IPC. The High Court also upheld acquittal of respondent nos.5 and 6 herein. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the daughter of Mr Shaik Abdul Khadar (appellant herein) married Accused No. 1 – husband on 6th May, 2004. Out of the wedlock they had a one-and-a-half- year-old son at the time of the incident. In the year 2006, it has been alleged that the daughter of the appellant was burned to death by her husband-Accused No. 1, father-in-law-Accused No. 2, mother-in-law-Accused No. 3 and two brothers of the husband being A-5 and A-6. 3. FIR No. 286/2006 was registered at PS Nagarampalem, Guntur and after investigation the police filed charge-sheet dated 26th February, 2007. The Sessions Court, Guntur, convicted the accused No.1 husband, accused no.2 father-in-law and accused no.3 mother-in-law under Section 304-B of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment, but acquitted the other two accused persons being Accused Nos.5 and 6. 4. Regarding the acquittal of the brothers of Accused No. 1 i.e., accused nos.5 and 6, a revision petition was filed by the complainant (appellant herein) and at that time, an appeal was also preferred against conviction by Accused No. 1 to 3, before the High Court. The High Court in its order dated 14th March, 2013, which has been impugned before this Court, has come to the conclusion that although the death has taken place in the matrimonial home of the accused within seven years of marriage, yet the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (‘Evidence Act’) would not have been applicable for the reason that the prosecution has not been able to prove that soon before the death, there was a demand of any dowry. For this reason, the Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case and the offence against the accused persons under Section 304B of the IPC is not made out since the demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased has not been proved by the prosecution. 5. For this reason, the Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case and the offence against the accused persons under Section 304B of the IPC is not made out since the demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased has not been proved by the prosecution. 5. We have gone through the orders of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court as well as the evidence placed on record by the prosecution before the Trial Court, which was also appreciated by the High Court. There is, in our view, a clear statement given by PW-1 (father of the deceased/appellant herein) under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 that soon before the death of his daughter, there was an additional demand of dowry, although the date and amount has not been explained. 6. Be that as it may, while deposing before the Court as PW-1, the appellant in his examination in chief stated that the husband of the deceased (accused no.1) came to know that the appellant (his father-in-law) has given dowry of Rs.8 Lakhs to the husband of the second daughter, at the time of their marriage. Whereas the dowry amount given by the appellant to accused no.1 was settled at Rs. 5 Lakhs. Hence, Accused No.1 made a further demand of Rs. 3 Lakhs from the father of the deceased soon before the death of his wife (daughter of the appellant). 7. There has not been any specific cross examination by the defence on the above-mentioned aspect and it goes unrebutted. Moreover, we have also gone through the post mortem report, which records as under: Injury No. 1 – Right oblique laceration of 2x1 cm. Muscle deep present over right temple 1.5 cm behind the outer canthus of right eye. Injury No. 2 – Horizontal laceration of 8x2 cm. bone deep, present over right parietal region of scalp present 2 cm. below the right parietal eminence. Injury No. 3 – 100% Dermo-Epidermal burns present all over the body, with peeling of skin present here and there all over the body. A heat rupture of 20x6 cm. skin deep, right obliquely placed present over left groin, the scalp hair party burnt and partly signed and completely burnt over the upper part of the scalp. 8. Injury No. 3 – 100% Dermo-Epidermal burns present all over the body, with peeling of skin present here and there all over the body. A heat rupture of 20x6 cm. skin deep, right obliquely placed present over left groin, the scalp hair party burnt and partly signed and completely burnt over the upper part of the scalp. 8. It is very unusual that there are 100% Dermo-Epidermal burns present all over the body of the deceased. What is more alarming is that there is a 8x2 cm. bone deep horizontal laceration, present over right parietal regions of scalp. 9. Be that as it may, even without going into this aspect, the fact of the matter is that Section 113-B of the Evidence Act will come into play once it has been established that there was a demand of dowry soon before the death of the victim. This demand has clearly been made out on the part of Accused No. 1 husband, though there is no evidence that such a demand was made by the father-in-law and mother-in-law. This evidence is only there against the husband of the deceased. 10. Under these circumstances, we partly allow the appeals and set-aside the order of acquittal as regards Accused No. 1 husband, and upheld the order of the trial court against him. The Accused No. 1-husband is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The acquittal of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 being the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, is not being interfered with. Considering the fact that the incident itself has taken place almost 20 years back and the deceased, at that relevant point of time, had a one-and-a-half year old son, (though he is an adult by now), and other mitigating circumstances, we find it appropriate to reduce the sentence to 7 years under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, as regards the Accused No. 1 husband (Shaik Johny Basha), which is the minimum sentence under the said provision. The Accused No. 1-husband is directed to surrender within four weeks from the date of this order and carry out the remaining part of the sentence. 11. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.