Bansi Lal vs State of Uttrakhand

Hon''ble J.C.S. Rawat, J.—This is a criminal appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 20,9.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Almora in ST No. 16/2001, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has convicted the accused-appellants for the offence punishable u/s 304-B IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of seven years and fine of rupees one thousand only. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge further directed that in default of payment of fine, the appellants would undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of three months. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant-Krishna Ram who is the uncle of the deceased Hema, lodged a report of the Nayab Tehsildar, Almora on 23.12.2000 at about 1715 hours against the accused-appellants in connection with the death of his niece/the deceased-Hema who got married with the accused-appellant Bansi Lal on 04th June, 2000 was found dead on 22.12.2000 under mysterious circumstances, as her body was found hanging on a tree nearby her matrimonial house. It has been alleged by the complainant-Krishna Ram that the appellants namely, Bansi Lal the deceased''s husband, Durga Ram-the father-in-law, Haruli Devi-the mother-in-law and Smt. Sita Devi-the Sister-in-law/''jaithani'' of the deceased used to commit cruelty upon the deceased in connection with dowry demand. He further alleged that the deceased came thrice to her parental house after her marriage and she complained her-mother as well as him that the appellants were demanding a sum of rupees twenty thousand and a colour T.V. in connection with dowry. When the demands of the appellants were not fulfilled, they started harassing the deceased. It was also alleged that, when once the deceased came to her parental house, she told her mother and him that if she doesn''t bring the demanded money & a T.V., the appellants would perform second marriage of her husband/the appellant-Bansi Lal. On 22.12.2000, the deceased was found hanging on a tree nearby her matrimonial house and a report about the unnatural death of the deceased was lodged by Durga Ram, the father-in-law of the deceased to the Patwari concerned. The inquest report was made at the spot and postmortem was conducted by the medical officer at Almora. Ganesh Ram-PW 1, the father of the deceased who was working at Delhi, received information on 22.12.2000 on telephone that his father is seriously ill and was admitted at Almora, he immediately rushed towards Almora. When he reached at Almora hospital on 23.12.2000, he did not found his father in the hospital and thereafter he went to his home where he was informed by the villagers that his daughter/the deceased has been murdered by her in-laws due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand. As mentioned above, on the report of Krishna Ram-the informant/the uncle of the deceased, the matter was initially investigated by the Nayab Tehsildar and thereafter it was handed over to the regular police. The police after completing the investigation, submitted chargesheet against the accused-appellants under Sections 498-A & 304-B IPC.

After submission of the chargesheet, the trial court framed charges against the appellants under Sections 304-B/498-A IPC. The accused-appellants denied the charges leveled against them and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Ganesh Ram as PW 1 who is the father of the deceased-Hema; Harish Ram as PW 2 who is the brother of the deceased''s mother; Smt. Champa Devi as PW 3 who is the mother of the deceased; Krishna Ram as PW 4 who is the uncle of the deceased; Shivchandra Dwivedi as PW 5 who is the Nayab Tehsildar and he has proved the FIR; Dr. Bipin Pant as PW 6 who had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased-Hema & S.I. Tula Ram as PW 7 who is the Investigating Officer of the case.

The accused-appellants were examined u/s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They denied the averments made in the evidence. They have stated in their statements that they had never demanded any money in connection with dowry from the deceased and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It was further stated by them that the deceased wanted to have some magical effect upon the family members of her husband/appellant-Bansi Lal, as such, she wrote a letter to her grandfather to get a ''Tabiz'' prepared for the whole family of the matrimonial house and when this fact came to the knowledge of the appellants, the deceased felt ashamed upon herself and due to this she committed suicide.

The defence in support of its case examined appellant-Bansi Lal as DW 1 who has stated before the court that his father Durga Ram who is also one of the appellants in these appeals has submitted a report to the Patti Patwari in regard to the unnatural death of the deceased. He further alleged that the deceased had written him letters (Ex. Kha-4 & Ex. kha-5), which are pre-matrimonial communications and he proves the handwriting of the deceased in the said letters. He has also filed the aforesaid letters in his evidence.

The learned trial court after appreciation of the evidence found the appellants guilty of the offence, and convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the evidence and material on record.

At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that there is no dispute that the deceased died an unnatural death on 22.12.2000. The prosecution in support of its case examined Dr. Bipin Pant PW 6 who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 23.12.2000 at about 1400 hours and prepared the postmortem report Ex. Ka-6. According to the report, there was a ligature mark around the neck on its upper side; no other ante-mortem injury on the person of the deceased; the knot was on the per side of the neck; and, the second & third bone of the neck was misplaced. The defence has also admitted the unnatural death of the deceased in the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC. Thus, it is amply established that the death of the deceased occurred on the date and time as stated by the prosecution.

In the case in hand, the accused-appellants have been convicted u/s 304-B IPC. It is pertinent to mention that to seek conviction u/s 304-B IPC against a person for the offence of dowry death, the prosecution is obliged to prove that; (i) the death of a woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (iii) the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of her husband; (iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and (v) to such cruelty or harassment the deceased should have been subjected soon before her death.

In the above background, I have to examine; as to whether the prosecution has proved the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC or not; as to whether the appellants are responsible for the death of the deceased; and whether they are liable for the offence punishable u/s 304-B IPC for which they have been convicted by the trial court.

It is not in dispute that the death of the deceased occurred due to hanging in a branch of tree near her matrimonial house. Thus, the deceased died an unnatural death than under normal circumstances. In this way, ingredient (i) of Section 304-B IPC is amply proved. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 04th June, 2000 and she died on 22.12.2000 i.e. within seven months of her marriage. In other words her death occurred within seven years of her marriage and it is amply proved by the prosecution. This fact proves ingredient (ii) of Section 304-B IPC. The prosecution has led the evidence that non-fulfillment of dowry demand by the parents instigated the deceased to commit suicide whereas the defence has taken a plea that the deceased wrote a letter to her grandfather to get a ''tabiz'', this time for the whole family of her husband/appellant-Bansi Lal (the extract of the letter is reproduced below in Para 16 of this judgment) and the revealation of this fact upon the appellants, led the deceased in a deep stress and shame, consequent thereof, she committed suicide.

Now, I have to examine as to whether ingredients (iii), (iv) & (v) of Section 304-B IPC are established by the prosecution evidence or not and as to whether the deceased had been subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death by the appellant in connection with dowry demand. The prosecution in support of its case examined Ganesh Ram PW 1 who is the father of the deceased and who has stated in his evidence that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 04th June, 2000 with the appellant-Bansi Lal. He has stated in his evidence that when her daughter/the deceased came to his house for the second ''Bidai'', she told him that the appellant Bansi Lal had thrown away the marriage ring under anguish, as he did not like it and, as such, she asked him to give the appellant another ring of his choice. From the aforesaid saying of the deceased, it cannot be concluded that her husband/appellant-Bansi Lal has demanded any ring in place of the aforesaid marriage ring, infact, the deceased herself has asked for another ring for the appellant from her parents and hence, it cannot be termed as dowry demand as the ring was demanded by the deceased herself. He further stated that since he was employed at Delhi, so after her daughter''s marriage he left his house on 11th June, 2000 to Delhi. During his stay at Delhi, he received information in the night of 22.12.2000 at about 10 pm on telephone that his father is seriously ill and is admitted at Almora hospital. On 23.12.2000 at about 10 am, he reached at the Base hospital, Almora but he did not find there anyone from his family. Thereafter, he hired a taxi and went to his home where he was informed by the inhabitants of the village that her daughter/the deceased has been murdered by her in-laws and her body has been taken to Almora for postmortem. He immediately went to Almora where his brother-Krishna Ram PW 4, Sunder Ram, Nathu Ram and other villagers met him. Krishna Ram PW 4 told him that the in-laws of the deceased used to harass and commit cruelty upon the deceased in connection with dowry demand. Krishna Ram PW 4 also told him that the in-laws of the deceased were consistently demanding a sum of rupees twenty thousand and a colour T.V. in dowry and the in-laws also used to beat the deceased for non fulfillment of dowry demand. It is also alleged by Ganesh Ram PW 1 that after postmortem examination, when he went to his house, his wife Champa Devi PW 3 who is the mother of the deceased also narrated the above story. He has further stated that neither Champa Devi PW 3 nor Krishna PW 4 or anybody else had informed him at Delhi that the appellants were demanding dowry from them and were also harassing his daughter in matrimonial home due to non-fulfillment of dowry.

The prosecution also examined Harish Ram PW 2 who is alleged to be brother in relation of the deceased''s mother Champa Devi PW 2. This witness has stated in his evidence that during the Deewali festival, when he had gone to the parental house of the deceased, the deceased had also come there to celebrate the Deewali festival and Champa Devi PW 3- the mother of the deceased told him that the appellants had demanded a sum of rupees twenty thousand & a T.V. in connection with dowry and the deceased was refusing to go to her matrimonial house. Later on, he came to know that the appellant killed the deceased. The evidence of this witness is only hearsay evidence.

Champa Devi PW 3 is the mother of the deceased and she is the main witness of this case. She has stated in her evidence that the marriage of the deceased took place on 04th June, 2000 with the appellant-Bansi Lal and the deceased died after six months of her marriage due to unnatural death. She further stated in her evidence that whenever the deceased came to her parental house, she always complained that the appellants had committed cruelty upon her for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It is also stated that the appellants used to demand rupees twenty thousand and a T.V. from the deceased and whenever the deceased came to her parental house, she always refused to go to her matrimonial house as the appellants used to beat her and commit cruelty upon her, but every time she/the mother of the deceased, somehow, managed to persuade her to go to her matrimonial house. Champa Devi PW 3 has further stated in her evidence that when Durga Ram-the father-in-law brought the deceased to her parental house during Deewali festival, the deceased complained her mother that the appellants used to harass her and commit cruelty upon her in connection with non-fulfillment of dowry demand. It was alleged that Sita Devi- the ''jaithani'' of the deceased used to threat the deceased that her husband, appellant-Bansi Lal would do whatsoever she would say to him and she would also perform the second marriage of the appellant-Bansi Lal and would bring desired dowry from there. Champa Devi PW 3 when enquired Durga Ram-the father-in-law of the deceased in regard to the ill treatment/cruelty committed upon her daughter in the matrimonial house, he told her that such things would have occurred due to the influence of liquor. Champa Devi PW 3 also gave a sum of rupees two thousand to her daughter/the deceased in presence of his father-in-law. Champa Devi PW 3 has further stated in her evidence that after eight days of Deewali festival, the deceased again came to her parental house alongwith her husband, appellant-Bansi Lal and she again complained about non-fulfillment of dowry demand. The deceased was pregnant at that time. Again after eight days of the aforesaid visit, the appellant Bansi Lal came alone to the parental house of the deceased and demanded a sum of rupees of ten thousand. At first, Champa Devi FW 3 refused to give the said amount but considering that if the money were not given to him, he would harass her daughter in the matrimonial house, as such, she gave him a sum of rupees five thousand. The husband of the deceased/appellant-Bansi Lal also stated to Champa Devi PW 3 that this fact should not be disclosed to anybody and Champa Devi PW 3 also did not disclose this to anybody. It is not stated anywhere in the evidence of Champa Devi PW 3 that the aforesaid demand of rupees ten thousand by the appellant-Bansi Lal was made towards dowry. Champa Devi PW 3 has reiterated in her evidence that due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand, her daughter-the deceased was subjected to cruelty and eventually, she was instigated to commit suicide.

Krishna Ram PW 4-the uncle of the deceased has stated in his evidence that when the deceased came to her parental house during the festival of Deewali, she told him that her in-laws used to ill treat & harass her and also demanded a sum of rupees twenty thousand and a T.V. in dowry. It is further alleged that; these demands were being made by the appellants; they used to give threats to the deceased to kill her, if she would not bring Rs. 20,000/- and a T.V.; and they would also solemnize second marriage of her husband. Krishna Ram PW 4 has stated that he saw the body of her niece-the deceased in the postmortem room and thereafter, he lodged a report to the revenue police on 23.12.2000.

After going through the entire evidence, the trial court has found the evidence of Champa Devi PW 3 and Krishna Ram PW 4 credible and cogent. It was also held by the trial court that; the evidence is not tainted in any point; the prosecution has established that the cruelty were committed upon the deceased soon before her death; and all the five ingredients of Section 304-B IPC indicated above, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court also held that due to fulfillment of the above ingredients, it is amply established that presumption of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act would arise in favour of the prosecution.

The learned counsel for the appellants drew my attention towards the letter dated 16.7.2000 Ex. Ka-1, which has been written by the brother of the deceased as well as by the deceased herself to their father. A greater portion of the aforesaid letter was written by the brother of the deceased wherein it is alleged that the conditions in the matrimonial house of the deceased is not so well and the remaining portion of the aforesaid letter-was written by the deceased alleging therein that her father-in-law used to taunt her. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that in the aforesaid letter, there is no indication with regard to any demand for dowry by the appellants, not even a single word is said in regard to dowry demand, as is being alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the appellants also drew my attention towards another letter, which was written by the deceased to her grandfather wherein she has asked for a tabiz'' and requested simultaneously that this time, let it be prepared for the whole family of her husband. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that this letter, too, did not contain any fact of harassment or dowry demand by the accused-appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants also stressed that; the father of the girl who was examined before the court had not stated anywhere in his evidence that any dowry demand was made to her daughter, the deceased by the appellants; the father of the deceased has also stated in his evidence that he was not informed with regard to the fact that his daughter, the deceased had ever complained her mother-Champa Devi PW 3 and Uncle-Krishna Ram PW 4 that the appellants were demanding dowry; and above all, there was no ante-mortem injury on the person of the deceased and seeing the position of the knot; dislocation of the bones of the neck; and the ligature mark around the neck on its upper side, shows that it is a suicidal case. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the evidence of Harish Ram FW 2 is hearsay evidence and it cannot be read into evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following judgments of the Hon''ble Apex Court: (i) Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao Vs. State of Andra Pradesh reported in 1996 SCC (Cri) 1290 (ii) Rattan Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 1997 SCC (Cri) 525 (iii) Sukhar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, & (iv) Vasa Chandrasekhar Rao Vs. Ponna Satyanarayana and Another, . The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that there was no evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death. The learned Addl. Government Advocate refuted the contentions and supported the findings of the learned trial court and, also relied upon the judgment of Apex Court reported in 2003 CAR 636 Hira Lal Vs. State of Delhi.

I have gone through the entire evidence of the prosecution with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. On perusal of the evidence of Ganesh Ram PW 1, I find that the fact related to cruelty and dowry demand came to his knowledge only on 23.12.2000 when he came to his house from Delhi and now, it is to be decided as to whether this evidence is a hearsay evidence or is admissible u/s 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. u/s 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is necessary that to be a fact relevant, it must have been a part of the same transaction. It is also necessary that the statement, which is said to be admissible, must be substantially contemporaneous with the fact and not merely the narrative of a past. The general rule is that here say evidence is not admissible. The rationale in making certain statement or fact admissible u/s 6 of the Indian Evidence Act is on account of the spontaneity and immediacy of such statement or fact in relation to the fact in issue. But it is necessary that such fact or statement must be a part of the same transaction. In other words, such statement must have been made contemporaneous with the acts, which constitute the offence or atleast immediately thereafter. But if there was an interval, however slight it may be, which was sufficient enough for fabrication then the statement is not part of res gestae. In view of the above settled principle of law, the evidence of Ganesh Ram PW 1 cannot be held to be a part of the same transaction. Thus in the above background, the evidence of Ganesh Ram PW 1 can be termed as hearsay evidence. So far as the evidence of Harish Ram PW 2 is concerned, it shall also be termed as hearsay one.

Perusal of either portion of the letter dated 16.7.2000 (which was written by the deceased as well as her brother after her marriage) doesn''t reveal any demand for dowry by the appellants. The letter Ex. Kha-2 which was written by the deceased to her grandfather after her marriage and which was intercepted by the appellants before it reaches to the destination, indicates as follows:

The perusal of the above letter reveals that it was written by the deceased and the trial court has held that it is in the own handwriting of the deceased. The said factum was not challenged by either party before me. The aforesaid letter was written by the deceased after her marriage and this letter, too, did not contain any fact regarding demand of dowry by the appellants. The two letters, which are referred as Ex. Kha-4 & Ex. Kha-5, are pre-matrimonial communications written by the deceased to the appellant-Bansi Lal but these are not of any relevance to the defence. Contra to it, the evidence of Champa Devi PW 3 leads to the fact that the appellants were demanding a sum of rupees twenty thousand and a T.V. in dowry. Champa Devi PW 3-the mother of the deceased has stated in her evidence that at one time, the deceased came to her paternal house with her father-in-law, at one time, she came with her husband/appellant Bansi Lal. Once, the husband of the deceased alone came to her paternal house and demanded a sum of rupees ten thousand but it is not stated in her evidence that this amount was demanded as a dowry. The only factum with regard to dowry demand came into her evidence, when the deceased came to her (paternal house) with her father-in-law at the time of Deewali and thereafter, when the deceased came with her husband after eight days of Deepawali festival. Krishna Ram PW 4-the uncle of the deceased has stated in his evidence that when the deceased came to him during the Deepawali festival, she stated him that the appellants used to harass her and were also demanding a sum of rupees twenty thousand as well as a T.V. in dowry. It is also pertinent that Krishna Ram PW 4 has named only the accused-appellants who were demanding dowry from the deceased whereas the deceased stated to him that her husband-Bansi Lal, father-in-law Durga Ram, mother-in-law Haruli Devi and Jaithani/Sita Devi were demanding dowry. According to the statement of Champa Devi PW 3, dowry was being demanded by the relatives of the husband of the deceased and she has not named anybody in her evidence, infact, only a vague statement has been given by her that the sasuralis/in-laws of the deceased were demanding dowry. There is no evidence of Champa Devi PW 3 that the appellants indicating their names had demanded any dowry from her. Now it is to be seen whether the evidence to this factum indicated above is credible, cogent and believable. It is also revealed from the prosecution evidence that Ganesh Ram PW l the father of the deceased is the only earning member in the whole family and he sends money for the livelihood of the entire family. It is not the case of the prosecution that Champa Devi PW 3 and Ganesh Ram PW 1 had any bad relations with Krishna Ram PW 4, infact, they had cordial relations with each other and Ganesh Ram PW 1 is also supporting the family. It would have been a natural consequence that if any dowry demand were made to the deceased, it would have been conveyed to her father at Delhi so that he may look into the matter. Ganesh Ram PW 1 has categorically stated in his evidence that he was never informed about the harassment and cruelty committed upon the deceased. It has come in the prosecution evidence that Ganesh Ram PW 1 is the person who is the only bread earner in the family and he used to send money at home for their maintenance. If the appellants were demanding rupees twenty thousand and a T.V. in dowry, this arrangement could have been made by Ganesh Ram PW 1 alone and none else. It would have been the natural conduct of Krishna Ram PW 4, the uncle of the deceased and Champa Devi PW 3, the mother of the deceased to communicate this fact to Ganesh Ram PW 1. Not informing this important fact ultimately led to the death of the deceased. It would have been the natural conduct of Champa Devi PW 3 and Krishna Ram PW 4 not to withhold such information from Ganesh Ram PW 1 and the natural conduct of the prosecution witnesses clearly reveals that there was no demand of dowry from the appellants. The evidence of Champa Devi PW 3 and Krishna Ram PW 4 is not credible and cogent. Thus, perusal of the entire evidence creates a doubt that any dowry was demanded by the appellants soon before the death of the deceased. The evidence of Ganesh Ram PW 1 & Harish Ram PW 2 is an hearsay evidence and it cannot be relied on the point of dowry demand. Ganesh Ram PW 1 has categorically stated in his evidence that he was never asked by the appellants to give dowry to the appellants. Champa Devi PW 3 has stated in her evidence that the married couple came to their house in the Deepawali festival and only the deceased complained her for the demand of dowry by the appellants but there is nothing in evidence that the appellant-Bansi Lal has ever directly demanded any dowry from Champa Devi PW 3 & Krishna Ram PW 4. Thus, the evidence of the prosecution to that point is vague and it is not credible and cogent.

It is also pertinent to mention here that the name of Sita Devi, jaithani of the deceased was not recorded at the time of lodging of the FIR. S.I. Tularam PW 7, the investigation officer of this case has stated in his evidence that he has recorded the statement of Krishna Ram PW 4 on 06.01.2001. This means that the name of Sita Devi first time came on 06.01.2001 as an accused, after a long gap in the statement of Krishna Ram PW 4. This is a clear development in the prosecution case during investigation by the Investigating Officer. In view of the above, I am in agreement with the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants.

In view of all aforesaid reasons, I find that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish ingredients (iii), (iv) & (v) of Section 304-B IPC, which have been indicated above and, as such, presumption of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act would not arise in favour of the prosecution. Thus, offence u/s 304B IPC is not made out against the accused-appellants.

Now, it is to be seen as to whether offence u/s 498-A IPC is made out against the accused-appellants or not. Section 498-A IPC relates to cruelty upon a woman committed by her husband or by the relatives of her husband. To seek conviction u/s 498-A IPC, the prosecution has to establish the cruelty which is defined u/s 498-A IPC. Explanation -For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means : (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any persons related to her to meet such demand. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned trial court in its conclusion has found that since case u/s 304-B IPC is established against the accused-appellants, no need to convict the accused-appellants u/s 498-A IPC separately. The learned counsel for the appellants before me did not dispute that the offence u/s 498-A is made out against the accused-appellants. According to 498-A IPC, it is to be established that the woman must be subjected to cruelty. The evidence of cruelty committed upon the deceased is established by the letters as well as by the evidence of the prosecution. The said evidence has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants and he conceded that offence u/s 498-A is made out against the accused appellants. It was contended on behalf of the learned Addl. Government Advocate that though offence of 304-B IPC is not proved against the accused-appellants but there is cruelty as defined in explanation (a) of Section 498-A IPC, where there is no need to prove that any demand of dowry was made to the parents or the deceased. It is only mentioned that the deceased was subjected to cruelty. The learned A.G.A further pointed out that mental cruelty was committed upon the deceased when her husband thrown away the marriage ring as it was not of his choice. The letters further reveal that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty. The learned counsel for the appellants further conceded that there was no dowry demand by the appellants and the prosecution has established only the case of cruelty against the accused-appellants as contained in explanation (a) of the definition provided u/s 498-A IPC. After going through the entire evidence and as I have stated earlier that the deceased was subjected to cruelty which has been established by the prosecution, the appellants are liable to be convicted u/s 498-A IPC.

In view of the above, the accused-appellants are found guilty u/s 498-A IPC and are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months and each of them would pay a fine of rupees two thousand only.

The appeals are partly allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court against the appellants is partly set aside. I accordingly alter the conviction of the appellants from Section 304-B IPC to Section 498-A IPC. The impugned judgment of the trial court is modified to the above extent accordingly. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned. The compliance report be submitted within a period of four months.