1. Appellants are before this Court in appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence under S.304B / 34 of the IPC.

2. Appellants are the father - in - law and mother - in - law and they have been convicted for committing dowry death.

3.As per the fardbeyan, daughter of the informant was married to Mukesh Paswan in 2013. After the marriage, his daughter commenced her normal marital life in her matrimonial home. It is alleged that after some time, her in - laws and husband started harassing her for a motorcycle. This was complained by the deceased to her parents. It was more than two years after marriage, and insinuations were made against her for failing to bear a child. On the eve of marriage of the daughter of appellants, a demand of Rs.10,000/- was made. It is alleged that for the demand of motorcycle, his daughter was done to death by her husband and in - laws.

4. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Devipur P.S. Case No.85/15 was registered under S.304B / 34 of the IPC against the husband of the deceased - Mukesh Paswan, appellants and their son Ram Vilash Paswan. Police submitted charge sheet against the appellants and Ram Vilash Paswan, while keeping investigation pending against Mukesh Paswan. Ram Vilash Paswan was declared juvenile and his trial was separated and sent for enquiry to the Juvenile Justice Board. Appellants were put on trial for offence under S.304B / 34 and 302/34 of the IPC.

5. Altogether eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and relevant documents including post - mortem examination report and fardbeyan were adduced into evidence and marked as exhibits.

6. Judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed on the ground that there was contradictory evidence with regard to the dowry demand. In the fardbeyan, there is specific reference to demand of Rs.10,000/- in connection with marriage of daughter of the appellants which will not come within the definition of dowry. It is argued that there is no evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in reference to dowry demand soon before her death.

7. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence.

8. Death was caused by burn injury, is not in a shadow of doubt and has been duly proved by the post - mortem examination which was conducted by a Medical Board of three Doctors. One of the Members of the Board (P.W.7) has proved the post - mortem examination report which has been marked as Exhibit 3, 3/1 and 3/2. As per the post - mortem examination report, it was a case of 100% burn injury. No offensive or defensive injury was found over the body. On behalf of the defence, it was suggested that burn was accidental, possibility of which was not ruled out by the Doctor.

9. It is also not disputed that the unnatural death took place within seven years of marriage. Place of occurrence has been established by the consistent account of the witnesses, the description of which has been given by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8) in para 6 of his examination - in - chief to be situated in the house of the appellants. Her dead body was found in a burnt condition in the house in front of the door.

10. Unnatural death within seven years of marriage is thus proved beyond any iota of doubt.

11. Dowry deaths are committed within the four corners of the matrimonial home and therefore, there is always difficulty in getting direct evidence regarding the circumstances resulting death. S.113B of the Evidence Act has been enacted to plug this gap and statutory presumption of dowry death arises, once the foundational facts are proved. It is immaterial whether death was suicidal or homicidal in nature. If death takes place within seven years of the marriage preceded by dowry demand and there is evidence of the deceased being subjected to cruelty in connection to it, soon before her death, presumption under S.113B of the Evidence Act shall be raised that it was a case of dowry death. This presumption is a rebuttable presumption an