The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish the demand of dowry and the circumstances of the unnatural death in cases related to Sec. 304-B IPC.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal has been filed by accused Nand Kishore who is married to Smt. Kiran according to Hindu rites. Smt. Kiran died within three years of marriage under suspicious circumstances. The prosecution case is that her death was within seven years of marriage and in suspicious circumstances, wherein she had died having received numerous ante-mortem injuries including fracture of hybrid bone. It was found that she was hanging when her body was recovered. The prosecution was initiated after lodging of Ex.P/1, a written first information report alleging maltreatment to Smt. Kiran and death within seven years of marriage i.e. after three years of marriage. There were various injuries on her person which were ante-mortem and there was a demand of dowry. After the challan was presented against the accused appellant, charge under Sec. 304-B IPC was framed against the accused appellant. The prosecution case examined as many as 18 witnesses and tendered 20 documents in defence. The accused in his statement under Sec. 313 CrPC submitted that he is innocent. He used to keep her wife with utmost affection and love and he had never demanded dowry. She used to be a sick lady. How she died, he cannot explain. Thus, denial of the accused is plain and simple with no specific defence except that he used to keep her with love and

affection.

3. In the first information report, the first information incorporated an allegation against the accused appellant that the accused had demanded dowry. Specifying, the demand of Maruti car is incorporated in the first information report. The trial Court after considering the prosecution case has come to the conclusion that except few contradictions, the prosecution has come out consistently that it was a case of un-natural death within seven years of marriage and there was contemporaneous demand of dowry and ultimately convicted the accused appellant under Sec. 304-B IPC. On the question sentence, the appellant was heard and after that life sentence was imposed on the accused appellant.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant asserted that it is not a case which can be covered under Sec. 304-B IPC because the prosecution has miserably failed to set up demand of dowry soon before the occurrence as is provided under Sec. 304-B IPC. In absence of establishment of factum of demand of dowry soon before the incident, allegation of prosecution cannot be said to be made out and therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Sec. 304-B IPC is not maintainable. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant PW. 1 Balchand, the first informant, in his examination-in-chief has not specifically stated that there was any demand of dowry and in cross-examination, he has admitted that the accused used to beat the deceased but never used to complain anything due to inboard shyness. Learned Counsel for the appellant further stated that PW. 2 Sohan lal who is the uncle of the deceased has spoken not a word about the incident. He also submitted that when the dead body was handed over to the father of the accused, there was no whisper raised by the parents of the girl because had there been any element of foul play, the father would not have permitted the dead body to be taken by in laws. He would have himself taken the body and performed the last rites. But in this case, the last rites were performed by the in-laws. Their conduct therefore, is of rightcousness and nothing foul can be seen from this kind of conduct of the in-laws of the deceased.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further criticised the statement of PW. 6 Rajendra Suwalka. It is urged that PW. 6 Rajendra should have been examined as PW. 7 because he was the sixth witness in stratum. Be that as it may, the statement of Rajendra Suwalka is treated by us as PW. 6 because he has been marked as PW. 6 by the trial Court and any amendment at this stage would not be proper. Learned Counsel for the a