The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions related to dowry death, including the demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment, and the presumption under section 113-B of the Evidence Act.

Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J.

1. Both the aforesaid appeals arise out of same sessions trial and as such, both the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. Under challenge in both the appeals is the judgment and order dated 29.10.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 35, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No. 1154 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No. 1093 of 2010, Police Station Loni Katara, District Barabanki whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence under sections 304-B/34 read with section 498-A I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. They were further convicted for the offence under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six month and also with fine of  Rs.2,500/- each with default stipulation of one and half months rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. In brief the case of the prosecution was that deceased Sangeeta was married with appellant Ranjeet about five years prior of her death. Appellant Ranjeet and his mother Malti Devi, after the marriage, were pressurizing the complainant to give a motorcycle in dowry. The daughter of the complainant had told them that the financial condition of her father is no so well as to give a motorcycle. In order to pressurize this demand of dowry, the victim was frequently harassed and treated with cruelty. On 10.9.2010 at about 7: 00 a.m., the complainant received an information on phone that the condition of her daughter Sangeeta is not well. When the complainant side came to the matrimonial home of the deceased, then they found that the deceased was lying dead and there was bleeding from her mouth and there was some spot on her neck. When they enquired then they were told that the victim had fallen on a "thali". The F.I.R. of this case was lodged on the same day at 13: 30 hours. The distance from the police station to the place of occurrence was only one and half kilometre. After the aforesaid information, the inquest proceedings were conducted and the deceased was sent for postmortem. The postmortem was conducted by two doctors, namely, Dr. Sunil Kumar and Dr. R.B. Singh. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 11.9.2010 at 2: 45 p.m. and four injuries were found on the body of the deceased and injuries were also found on the neck. Hyde bone and other bones under the injury of neck were found fractured. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation. The Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence and prepared its site plan.

3. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants.

4. The case of the defence was that they are innocent and the deceased had died because she slipped from the ladder and fell on the utensils, which were kept on the floor because of which she died. The case of the Malti Devi was that after the family partition, she was living separately from the co-accused.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined, P.W. - 1 complainant Ram Naresh, father of the deceased, P.W. - 2 Dr. Surendra Kumar Gupta, who has given evidence that he had conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased. P.W. - 3 Constable Prahlad, who has prepared chik report and G.D. of this case. P.W. - 4 Shreesh Tripathi, Naib Tehsildar, who has prepared the inquest report. P.W. - 5 Circle Officer Puran Singh Sagar, who has investigated this case. P.W. - 6 Deshraj, brother of the deceased.

6. No evidence in defence was adduced on behalf of the appellants.

7. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court has convicted the appellants as above, hence the instant criminal appeals.

8. Submission of learned Counsel for the appellants is that in this case there was absolutely no evidence that soon before her death, the victim was treated with cruelty in connection with t