DINESHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

                    [2014] 7 S.C.R. 321


                           DIN ESH                              A
                              v.
                    STATE OF HARYANA
             (Criminal Appeal No. 578 of 2011)
                      APRIL 25, 2014
                                                                 B
          [DIPAK MISRA AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]

     Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304-8 - Evidence Act, 1872 -
s. 113-8 - Suicide committed by married woman within 4
years of marriage - Death caused due to consumption of C
pesticide - Conviction of husband-appellant - Justification -
Held: Justified - Defence of appellant that death was caused
due to some complication at advanced stage of pregnancy,
without any basis - Evidence of the witnesses sufficiently
established that there was persistent demand for dowry from D
the side of the accused persons and for non-fulfilment of their
demand, the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and
harassment - Proximate connection between cruelty,
harassment and death of appellant's wife - Sufficient materials
showing that the accused persons started demanding E
television and gold chain etc. after marriage and that their
demand continued and the parents were not allowed to meet
their daughter unless their demands were fulfilled - Appellant
guilty of offence uls.304-8 /PC - Presumption contained in
s. 113-B of the Evidence Act fully applicable to the facts of the F
case.

     Penal Code, 1860 - s.304-B - Evidence Act, 1872 -
s. 113-8 - Dowry death - Requirement of prosecution to prove
that soon before death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or
harassment - Expression "soon before" - Meaning of - Held: G
It is a relative term required to be considered under the
specific circumstances of each case and no straight jacket
formula can be laid down - Determination of the period which
can come within term "soon before" left to be determined by
                             321                               H
    322      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A courts depending upon the facts and circumstances of each
  case - In case of dowry death, circumstances showing the
  existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not
  restricted to a particular instances but normally refer to a
  course of conduct - Such conduct may be spread over a
B period of time - If cruelty or harassment or demand of dowry
  is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be "soon
  before death".

       The appellant's wife committed suicide within four
  years of marriage. The death was caused by
C consumption of organophosphorus compound. The It
  was alleged that the deceased was compelled to commit
  suicide as appellant-accused and his two brothers were
  persistently harassing her for not bringing dowry to their'
  satisfaction; and also did not permit the parents of the
D deceased to meet her for several months prior to the
  incident.

      The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections ·•
  498A and 3048 IPC but acquitted his two brothers. In '
E appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction of
  appellant by placing reliance upon the evidences of PW.1
  (mother of the deceased), PW2 (one of the mediators in
  the marriage) and PW5 (deceased's father).

        In the instant appeal, it was contended on behalf of
F   the appellant that the High Court completely overlooked
    the most essential ingredient i.e. soon before her death
    the deceased must have been subjected to cruelty or
    harassment in connection with demand for dowry; and
    that by no stretch of imagination it could be held that
F   soon before her death the deceased was subjected to
    cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for_
    dowry.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
          DINESH v. STATE OF HARYANA                   323


     HELD: 1. Section 304-8 IPC and Section 113-8 of the A
Evidence Act, 1872 were inserted by the Dowry
Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986 with a view to
combating the increasing menace of dowry death. The
legislative intent of enacting these provisions is to curb
the menace of dowry death. From a reading of the B
aforementioned two provisions i.e. Section 304-8, IPC
and Section 113-8 of the Evidence Act, it is evident that
the, prosecution must have brought on record /the
materials to show that soon before her death the victim
was subjected to cruelty or harassment. [Paras 10, 11, 12 c
and 13] [329-G; 330-D, F-G; 332-8]

      1.2. The expression "soon before" is a relative term
 as held by this Court, which is required to be considered
 under the specific circumstances of each case and no
,straightjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time D
 of allotment. It can be said that the term "soon before" is
 synonyms with the term "immediately before". The
 determination of the period which can come within term
 "soon before" is left to be determined by courts
 depending upon the facts and circumstances of each E
 case. [Para 15] [332-E-F] ·

    1.3. In case of dowry death the circumstances
showing the existence of cnie'tty or harassment to the
deceased are not restricted to a particular instances but F
normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may
be spread over a .period of time. If the cruelty or
harassment or demand of dowry is shown to have
persisted, it shall be deemed to be "soon before death".
Prima facie, this Court is of the view that neither definite G
period has been indicted in the aforementioned section
nor the expression "soon before" has been defined.
[Paras 16, 17] [332-G-H; 333-A
                                               -
     State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh AIR (1991) SC 1532: 1991.
                                                                H
    324     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A   (2) SCR 790; Ramesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar (2005) 2
    SCC 388: 2005 (1) SCR 903; Kanas Raj v. State of Punjab
    and Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 207: 2000 (3) SCR 662 and Dhian
    Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab (2004) 7 SCC 759: 2004
    (3) Suppl. SCR 442 - relied on.
B
       2. In the present case, it has been sufficiently proved
  that the death was caused due to consumption of
  organophosphorus compound which is a pesticide.
  Admittedly, the marriage was solemnised before four
C years from the date of occurrence. The defence of the
  accused that the death was caused due to some
  complication developed at the advanced stage of
  pregnancy, is without any basis. The mother of the
  deceased, who was examined as PW-1, deposed that at
  the time of marriage dowry was paid as per their financial
D position. After the marriage the deceased visited her
  paternal home and informed her parents that her husband
  and his two brothers were ill-treating her for not bringing
  television and gold chain in dowry. This was brought to
  the notice of two p~rsons, who acted as mediators at the
E time of settlement of marriage proposal and requested the
  accused persons not to harass the deceased but they did
  not heed to it. PW-1 further deposed that the accused
  person did not allow them to meet their daughter. The
  evidence of PW- 1 was corroborated by PW-5, who also
F reiterated that the accused persons were demanding
  television and a gold chain and the deceased was
  subjected to cruelty for not bringing enough dowry. PW-
  5 further deposed that when he went to the house of
  accused persons at the time of marriage of his brother, he
G was again reminded that he should come to their house
  only after giving television and gold chain. From the
  evidence of other witnesses, it is sufficiently established
  that there had been persistent demand for dowry from the
  side of the accused persons and for non-fulfilment of their
H demand the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and
          DINESH v. STATE OF HARYANA                    325


harassment. Because of persistent demand for dowry and          A
continuous torture, harassment and cruelty meted out on
the deceased, she died by consuming pesticide. [Para 18]
(333-F-H; 334-A-F]

    3. Considering the evidence and the conduct of the          8
accused persons, there cannot be any difficulty in
holding that the deceased died because of cruelty,
harassment and demand for dowry. There is a proximate
connection between cruelty, harassment and death of the
deceased. There are sufficient materials showing that the       C
accused persons started demanding television and gold
chain etc. after the marriage and that their demand
continued and the parents were not allowed to meet their
daughter unless their demands were fulfilled. [Para 19]
(334-G-H; 335-A-B]
                                                                D
    4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, both
the Sessions Court and the High Court have come to the
correct finding that the accused is guilty of offence under
Section 304-B of the IPC and that the presumption
contained in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is fully         E
applicable to the facts of the case. [Para 20] (335-B-C]

                    Case Law Reference :
    1991 (2) SCR 790             relied on        Para 12
                                                                F
    2005 (1) SCR 903             relied on        Para 14
    2000 (3) SCR 662             relied on        Para 16
    2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 442 relied on             Para 17
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal            G
No. 578 of 2011.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2010 of the
High.Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal
No. 1006-SB of 1998.                                            H
    326      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A         Rishi Malhotra for the Appellant.

          Ramesh Kumar, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B      M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed
  against the judgment and order dated 17th F_ebruary, 2010 of
  the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.
  1006-SB of 1998 whereby learned Judge of the High Court
  dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant challenging the
C judgment of conviction/sentence passed by the trial court.

        2. The prosecution version in a nutshell is that marriage of
  Manju Bala was solemnized with Dinesh, appellant-accused
  about four years before her death. Dowry in accordance with
D their financial capacity was given by her parents at the time of
  marriage. However, appellant and his two brothers, namely
  Vinod Kumar and Rakesh, were not satisfied with the dowry
  and started harassing her for not bringing dowry to their
  satisfaction. Although, mediators also requested accused
  persons not to harass the deceased Manju Bala, their requests
E fell flat. It has also been alleged that the accused persons,
  apf',ellant and his two brothers, did not permit the parents of
  Manju Bala to meet her for the past several months prior to the
  death.

F      3. Manju Bala was carrying a pregnancy of about eight
  months when accused Vinod went to the house of her parents·
  on the fateful day i.e. on 7.6.1994 and informed them that Manju
  Bala was seriously ill. When Manju Bala's father Ram Naresh
  and brother Raman were going to the house of accused
G persons for seeing her, they noticed accused Dinesh and his
  mother carrying Manju Bala in a tractor to Civil Hospital
  Fatehabad. Driver of the tractor ignored their signal to stop,
  tractor. On arriving at Civil Hospital, they learnt that Manju Bala·
  had died before reaching the Hospital. Munni Bai - mother of
H the deceased suspected that her daughter was murdered by
             DINESH v. STATE OF HARYANA                        327
                   [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]

  her husband Dinesh and his brothers, namely Vinod and                A
  Rakesh, for not satisfying their demand for dowry. On her
  statement, FIR No.441 dated 8.6.1994 under section 498-A
. and 304-B, Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') was registered
  in the Police Station, Fatehabad and all the.three accused \'."ere
  arrested. On finding a prima facie case under aforesaid              B
  sections, the accused persons were charge sheeted.

      4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined nine
 witnesses and closed the evidence. Factum of marriage
 between Manju Bala and Dinesh was admitted when the
accused persons were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. C
 However, it was denied that Manju Bala was ever harassed for·
 bringing dowry. Accused controverted the allegations and
 claimed that they had good relations with Manju, who at the time
 of first delivery developed complication and child died.
 Thereafter, when she was about to deliver child, she again D
·developed complication and resultantly she died. During trial,
 the accused examined three witnesses in their defence.

      5. The Trial Court after concluding the trial found the charge
 under Sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC framed against accused            E
 Dinesh proved. The Trial Court opined that the prosecution
 failed to prove the charges under aforesaid sections against
 the other two accused Vinod and Rakesh and accordingly
 acquitted them of the charge. The Additional Sessions Judge
 convicted Dinesh and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year         F
 under Section 498-A and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of
 payment of fine, the accused-appellant was further directed to
 undergo RI for six months. He was further sentenced to undergo
 RI for ten years under Section 304-B, IPC. Both the sentences
                                                                           •
 were ordered to run concurrently.
                                                                       G
      6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Trial Court,
 appellant approached the High Court preferring Criminal
 Appeal ~o. 1006 of 1998. After hearing learned counsel for the
 parties and going through the essential ingredients of Section
 304-B, IPC, learned Judge of the High Court dismissed the             H
    328     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A appeal observing that there is evidence with regard to the
  factum of persisting demand of dowry and on account of failure
  to meet the demand for dowry, Manju Bala was compelled to
  commit suicide within a period of four years of marriage, though
  the precise date of her marriage is not in evidence but both
8 sides admitted that marriage was solemnized about four years
  prior to her death.

        7. We have gone through the judgment passed by Trial
  Court and also by the Appellate Court. Both the Courts on
  appreciation of entire evidence came to the conclusion that the
C prosecution has proved the charges against the appellant. The
  High Court while affirming the judgment of the Trial Court has
  considered the provision of Section 304-B, l.P.C. and Section
  113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The High Court relied upon
  the evidences of PWs.1, 2 and 5 to come to the conclusion
D that there had been persistent demand for dowry and also the
  complainant was not allowed to meet the deceased and further
  the death was caused by the consumption of
  oreganophosphorus compound, which conclusively establishes
  the appellant guilty under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal
E Code. The High Court further recorded the findings that the
  totality of evidence reveal persisting demand for dowry and on
  the failure of the complainant to meet the demand, the
  deceased was compelled to commit the suicide within the
  period of four years of marriage.
F
         8. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction, Mr.
  Rishi Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
  firstly contended that in absence of evidence that the deceased
  soon before her death was subjected to cruelty, the conviction
  of the appellant under Section 304-B, IPC cannot at all be
G sustained. Learned counsel also submits that Munni Bai,
  mother of the deceased, who was examined as PW-1 deposed
  that she was not aware about the reason of the death of the
  deceased. The witness was declared hostile by the prosecution
  and during her cross-examination she categorically admitted
H
           DINESH v. STATE OF HARYANA                    329
                 [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
that the police did not record her statement according to her A
narration. Learned counsel has further drawn our attention to
the evidence of these witnesses on cross examination where
she was confronted with the fact of alleged demand for dowry
where the witness admitted that she had not stated before the
police that accused were demanding T.V. and a golden chain. 8
 Learned counsel contended that PW-2 Rak.esh Kumar, who
was one of the mediators in the said marriage, wrongly stated
 that the alleged demand for dowry by the accused persons were
 made approximately four years before the date of occurrence.
 On the basis of these evidence, learned counsel contended      c
 that the courts below without looking into the various material
 contradictions have passed the impugned order of conviction.
 Learned counsel submitted that the High Court completely
 overlooked the most essential ingredient i.e. soon before her
 death the deceased must have subjected to crualty or
                                                                 0
  harassment in connection with demand for dowry. Lastly, it was
 contended that even admitting the evidence on record the
 demand, if any, was made about four years before the death
 of the deceased even then by no stretch of imagination it can
  be held that soon before her death the deceased was
  subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the E
  demand for dowry.

    9. Per contra, Mr. Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for the prosecution, has supported the impugned
judgment by drawing our attention to the material evidence      F
brought on record by the prosecution.

     10. Before we discuss the facts in evidence brought on
record, we wish to discuss the relevant provisions which are
involved in this case. As noticed, the appellant is convicted G
under Section 304-8of1.P.C. The said section reads as under:-

     "304-8- Where the death of a woman is caused by any
     burns 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 she was         H
    330       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A         subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
          relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any
          demand for dowry, such death shall be called" dowry
          death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to
          have caused her death. Explanation.- For the purposes of
B         this sub- section," dowry" shall have the sallle meaning as
          in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of
          1961 ).

          (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
          imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven
c         years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."

         11. Another relevant provision which needs to be
    discussed is Section 113-8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
    The said provision is quoted hereinbelow:-
D
          "113-8. 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 had been subjected by such person to
          cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any
E
          demand for dowry, the cqurt 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 section 3048 of the Indian Penal
          Code."
F
        12. These two provisions in Indian Penal Code and Indian
   Evidence Act have been inserted by the Dowry Prohibition
   (Amendment) Act, 1986 with a view to combating the increasing
   menace of dowry death. The legislative intent of enacting these
G provisions is to curb the menace of dowry death. This Court
   while considering the legislative intent in the case of State of
 · Punjab vs. Iqbal Singh, AIR (1991) SC 1532 observed as
   under:-

          "8. The legislative intent is clear to curb the menace of
H
        DINESH v. STATE OF HARYANA                         331
              [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
  dowry deaths, etc., with a firm hand. We must keep in mind       A
  this legislative intent. It must be remembered .that since
   crimes are generally committed in the privacy of residential
   homes and in secrecy, independent and direct evidence
   is not easy to get. That is why the legislature has by
   introducing Sections 113-A and 113-B in the Evidence Act        B
   tried to strengthen the prosecution hands by permitting a
  ·presumption to be raised if certain foundational facts are
. established and the unfortunate event has taken place
   within seven years of marriage. This period of seven.years
   is considered to be the turbulent one after which the           c
   legislature assumes that the couple would have settled
   down in life. If a married women is subjected to cruelty or
   harassment by her husband or his family members Section
   498-A, IPC would be attracted. If such cruelty or
   harassment was inflicted by the husband or his relative for,
                                                                   0
   or in connection with, any demand for dowry immediately
    preceding death by burns and bodily injury or in abnormal
    circumstances within seven years of marriage, such
    husband or relative is deemed to have caused her death
    and is liable to be punished under Section 304-B, IPC.
    When the question at issue is whether a person is guilty
                                                                   E
    of dowry death of a woman and the evidence discloses
    that immediately before her death she was subjected by
    such person to cruelty and/or harassment for, or in
    connection with, any demand for .dowry, Section 113-B,
 · Evidence Act provides that the court shall presume that         F
    such person had caused the dowry death. Of course if
    there is proof of the person having intentionally caused her
    death that would attract Section 302, IPC. Then we have
    a situation where the husband or his relative by his wilful
    conduct creates a situation which he knows will drive the      G
    woman to commit suicide and she actually does so, the
    case would squarely fall within the ambit of Section 306,
    IPC. In such a case the conduct of.the person would
    tantamount to inciting or provoking or virtually pushing the
    woman into a desperate situation of no return which would      H
    332      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A         compel her to put an end to her miseries by committing
          suicide."

         13. If we read the aforementioned two provisions i.e.
    Section 304-B, IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, it
    is evident that the prosecution must oave brought on record the
8
    materials to show that soon before her death the victim was
    subjected to cruelty or harassment.

       14. In the case of Ramesh Panjiyar vs. State of Bihar,
  (2005) 2 SCC 388, this Court held that the prosecution has to
C rule out the possibility of a natural or incidental death so as to
  bring it within the purview of "Death occurring otherwise than
  in the normal circumstances". The expression "soon before" is
  very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and
  Section 304-B, IPC are pressed into service. Hence, the
D prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence
  there was cruelty or harassment only attracting the provision of
  Section 113-B.

       15. The expression "soon before" is a relative term as held
E by this Court, which is required to be considered under the
  specific circumstances of each case and no straight jacket
  formula can be laid down by fixing any time of allotment. It can
  be said that the term "soon before" is synonyms with the term
  "immediately before". The determination of the period which
                                            1
  can come within term "soon before" is le1' to be determined by
F courts depending upon the facts and circumstances of each
  case.

       16. In the case of Kanas Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors.,
  (2000) 5 sec 207, it was held that in case of dowry death the
G circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment
  to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instances but
  normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be
  spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or harassment or
  demand of dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be
H deemed to be "soon before death".
           DINESH v. STATE OF HARYANA                      333
                 [M.Y. EQ8AL, J.]
     17. Prima facie we are of the view that neither definite A
period has been indicted in the aforementioned section nor the
expression "soon before" has been defined. In the case of
Dhian Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab, (2004) 7 SCC 759,
this Court held that:- ·
                                                                   8
     "The contention of the appellant's counsel is that even if it
     is proved that there was cruelty on account of demand of
     dowry, such cruelty shall be soon before the death and
     there must be proximate connection between the alleged
     cruelty and the death of the deceased. It is true that the C
     prosecution has to establish that there must be nexus
     between the cruelty and the suicide and the cruelty meted
     out must have induced the victim to commit suicide. The
     appellant has no case that there was any other reason for
     her to commit suicide. The evidence shows that the first
     appellant had demanded dowry and he had sent her away D
     from his house and only after mediation she was taken
     back to the appellant's house and death happened within
     a period of two months thereafter. These facts clearly show
     that the suicide was the result of the harassment or cruelty
     meted out to the deceased. The presumption under E
     Section 113-8 of the Indian Evidence Act could be invoked
     against the appellant and the Sessions Court rightly found
     the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section
     304-8 IPC and Section 201 IPC."
                                                                   F
     18. Coming to the facts of the present case, it has been
sufficiently proved that the death was caused due to
consumption of oreganophosphorus compound which is a
pesticide. Dr. S.P. Mimani and Dr. S.P. Dadich (PW-9)
conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the G
deceased. They collected viscera including parts of stomach,
intestine, lung, kidney and blood. On examination of the viscera
it was found containing oreganophosphorus compound which
is a poisonous substance. In the opinion of Dr. S.P. Mimani
(PW-9) the death was caused by the aforementioned H
     334      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A    compound. Admittedly, the marriage was solemnised before
     four years from the date of occurrence. The defence of the
     accused that the death was caused due to some complication
     developed at the advanced stage of pregnancy, is without any
     basis. The mother of the deceased, who was examined as PW-
B    1, deposed that at the time of marriage dowry was paid as per
     their financial position. After the marriage the deceased Manju
     Bala visited her paternal home and informed her parents that
     her husband Dinesh and his brothers Vinod Kumar and Rakesh
     were ill-treating her for not bringing television and gold chain in ·
c    dowry. This was brought to the notice of Suresh and Rakesh,
     who acted as mediators at the time of settlement of marriage
     proposal and requested the accused persons not to harass the
     deceased but they did not heed to it. PW-1 further deposed that
     the accused person did not allow them to meet their daughter.
     The evidence of PW- 1 was corroborated by Ram Naresh (PW-
0
     5), who also reiterated that the accused persons were
     demanding television and a gold chain and the deceased was
     subjected to cruelty for not bringing enough dowry. PW-5 further'
     deposed that when he went to the house of accused persons
     at the time of marriage of his brother Vinod, he was again
E    reminded that he should come to their house only after giving
     television and gold chain. From the evidence of other witnesses,
     it is sufficiently established that there had been persistent
     demand for dowry from the side of the accused persons and
     for non-fulfilment of their demand the deceased Manju Bala was
F    being subjected to cruelty and harassment. Because of
     persistent demand for dowry and continuous torture,
     harassment and cruelty meted out on the deceased Manju Bala,
     she died by consuming pesticide.

-G         19. Considering the evidence referred to hereinbefore and
     the conduct of the accused persons, there cannot be any
     difficulty in holding that the deceased died because of cruelty,
     harassment and demand for dowry. We are also of the
     considered opinion that there is a proximate connection
H    between cruelty, harassment and death of the deceased as
             DINESH v. STATE OF HARYANA                         335
                   [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
   discussed above. There are sufficient materials showing that A
   the accused persons started demanding television and gold
·. chain etc. after the marriage and that their demand continued
   and the parents were not allowed to meet their daughter unless
   their demands were fulfilled.
                                                                        B
         20. In the facts and circumstances of the case, both the
   Sessions Court and the High Court have come to the correct
' finding that the accused is guilty of offence under Section 304-
    B of the IPC and that the presumption contained in Section 113-
    B of the Evidence Act is fully applicable to the facts of the case. C

      21. In our considered opinion, therefore, the judgment of
 conviction passed by the courts below needs no interference
 by this. Court. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal and is
 accordingly dismissed. The appellant shall be taken into
 custody forthwith to serve the remaining sentence.             D
 Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                               Appeal dismissed .




                                                                 . ':