Judgment Sanjiv Khanna, J. Impugned judgment dated 30th August, 1999, convicts Rajiv under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short). By order on sentence dated 31st August, 1999, Rajiv has been sentenced under section 304B IPC to imprisonment for life, fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and under section 498A IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentences are to run concurrently and Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) would apply. 2. It is an accepted position that the wife of Rajiv, named Neelam had died an unnatural death on 13th August, 1996 at about 7.25 P.M. The death had taken place within 7 years of marriage as the marriage between Neelam and Rajiv, was solemnized on 23rd June, 1991. 3. As per the post mortem report (Ex.PW-12/A), deceased Neelam had third degree burns over her face, neck, chest, abdomen, upper limbs, back of chest and left thigh. Bone deep burns were present on the right thigh, both legs and feet. Left foot had separated from the lower leg due to burns on the leg bones. Smell of kerosene was present in the scalp hair and cloth pieces. No other external injury was visible on the body. The said report was proved by Dr. K. Goel (PW-12), who had conducted the post-mortem on 15th August, 1996. He opined that the burn injuries were ante mortem in nature and the entire or 100% of the body surface was burnt. In his cross-examination, PW-12 again affirmed that smell of kerosene was present in the scalp hair and cloth pieces, which were sent for chemical analysis. 4. On the question of date of marriage, we have the deposition of Rukmani (PW-1), mother of the deceased, who has testified that her daughter Neelam got married to the appellant on 23rd June, 1991. We have similar assertions by Amit Singh (PW-2), Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (PW-4), brothers of the deceased and Parkash Sureshta (PW-3), a neighbour. 5. On the question of demand of dowry, we would begin with the testimony of the mother, Rukmani (PW-1). She asserts that her daughter Neelam was harassed to extract more dowry. Within one or two years of their marriage, the appellant Rajiv had asked for Rs.10,000/- and Neelam was physically beaten for the said reason. PW-1 had then given Rs. 5. On the question of demand of dowry, we would begin with the testimony of the mother, Rukmani (PW-1). She asserts that her daughter Neelam was harassed to extract more dowry. Within one or two years of their marriage, the appellant Rajiv had asked for Rs.10,000/- and Neelam was physically beaten for the said reason. PW-1 had then given Rs. 10,000/- to her daughter Neelam, who had handed over the money to the appellant Rajiv. Two years after their marriage, Neelam had lodged a complaint with the Dowry Cell. Thereafter, there was a compromise and Neelam had started residing with her in-laws. However, demands for dowry had continued. At the time of marriage of PW-1’s son Manoj, the appellant Rajiv had demanded a scooter. Two-three months prior to her death, Neelam had written a letter marked Ex.PW-1/A to her complaining, that her in-laws were demanding Rs.8,000/- for purchase of a plot. The appellant had then spoken to Rukmani (PW-1) on telephone to arrange for money by 12th August, 1966 warning that if the amount was not paid by the said date, he could harm or kill her daughter. Being scared, PW-1 had sent Rs.8,000/- to Neelam through her son Amit (PW-2). With reference to the occurrence on the date in question, Rukmani (PW-1) has deposed that on 13th August, 1996, at about 7-7.30 P.M., her younger son had received a telephone call from Sanjiv (younger brother of the appellant Rajiv) to the effect that the appellant had met with an accident and they should reach SDN Hospital. Her younger son Ankur had, thereupon, gone to Mayur Vihar and learnt that Neelam was burnt. Thus, as per PW-1, wrong information was deliberately communicated on the date of the occurrence. After receiving the said information, Rukmani (PW-1) had proceeded to the matrimonial home of her daughter Neelam at Mayur Vihar and there she came to know that Neelam had died due to burns. Amit Singh (PW-2) had made a complaint at police station, Kalyanpuri and her statement (Ex.PW-1/B) was recorded on 14th August, 1996. In her cross-examination, Rukmani (PW-1) affirmed that at the time of marriage of Neelam, one FDR of Rs.40,000/-, which had matured, was utilised. In addition, her relatives had contributed. PW-1 reiterated that Rs.10,000/- was paid to the appellant Rajiv one year after the marriage. In her cross-examination, Rukmani (PW-1) affirmed that at the time of marriage of Neelam, one FDR of Rs.40,000/-, which had matured, was utilised. In addition, her relatives had contributed. PW-1 reiterated that Rs.10,000/- was paid to the appellant Rajiv one year after the marriage. The appellant Rajiv and the deceased Neelam after the compromise had lived together in Bhajanpura and later on, they had shifted to Mayur Vihar. PW-1 has reiterated that on 12th August, 1996, Rajiv had made a telephone call in the morning and threatened that money should be arranged. Amount of Rs.8,000/- were handed over to Rajiv on 13th August, 1996. PW-1 in her cross examination affirmed that Neelam had written 3-4 letters to PW-1 and the last letter was written 10-12 days before her death. PW-1 denied the suggestion that the letters marked Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-2/C were drafted by them in the handwriting of Neelam and subsequently posted. This suggestion to PW-1, exposits that the accused including the present appellant had not disputed that the letters were written by Neelam, but had questioned the motive why the letters were written or were drafted. 6. Amit Singh (PW-2) has deposed about the dowry demanded after the marriage which included a scooter, TV and Rs.15,000/- in cash. Neelam had given birth to a baby girl and at that time, the appellant had demanded Rs.10,000/- as expenses for bringing her up. Thereafter, Rs.10,000/- were paid to Neelam. PW-2’s elder brother Manoj had got married on 2nd June, 1996 and at that time, Rajiv had demanded a scooter. Neelam was working as a receptionist in an X-ray clinic. Rajiv had demanded Rs.10,000/- from them to be paid by 12th August, 1996 and in case, money was not paid, he would decide and act accordingly. The implication being that adverse consequences would follow. Neelam had earlier written letters marked as Ex.PW-1/A, 2./A, 2/B and 2/C, elaborating on the mistreatment and torture suffered by her at the hand of the appellant. Amit Singh (PW-2) identified handwriting and signatures of Neelam on the said letters. PW-2 has testified that on 13th August, 1996 at about 9.30 A.M., he had handed over Rs.8,000/- to Neelam at her house at Mayur Vihar and had then left for work. On the same day at about 8 P.M., PW-2 had learnt by way of a message that his sister had been burnt to death. PW-2 has testified that on 13th August, 1996 at about 9.30 A.M., he had handed over Rs.8,000/- to Neelam at her house at Mayur Vihar and had then left for work. On the same day at about 8 P.M., PW-2 had learnt by way of a message that his sister had been burnt to death. He had accordingly proceeded to Mayur Vihar. Neelam had died due to burns and police was present. Earlier, post birth of the baby girl, Neelam had seen increased harassment for she used to be beaten up and demand for dowry had intensified. Fed up, Neelam had filed a complaint with the Dowry Cell, and thereafter there was a compromise. However, the relations between Neelam and the appellant Rajiv did not improve and torment continued unabated. In his cross-examination, PW-2 reiterated that at the time of Neelam’s marriage, they were all working. Regarding money spent on the marriage, his mother knew full facts and they had borrowed money from others for the marriage. Rs.10,000/- was paid to Rajiv after the marriage. He denied the suggestion that letters Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-2/C had been fabricated by them. In the last week of July or 1st August, 1996, her mother Rukmani (PW-1) had received a telephone call regarding the demand of Rs.10,000/-. PW-2 in his cross examination affirmed that he had paid Rs.8,000/- in the morning of 13th August, 1996 i.e. the date of the occurrence. 7. Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (PW-4) has identically deposed about the dowry demands and the factum that they had paid Rs.10,000/- after one or two years of marriage. After the birth of the baby girl, the appellant and others used to ask them for expenses for bringing up the child. Continuously harassed, Neelam had made a complaint with the Dowry Cell at Nanak Pura. The appellant had then assured to improve his conduct and the matter was compromised. Soon thereafter, problems re-surfaced and Neelam was forced to take up a private job and the appellant Rajiv used to take away her entire salary. The appellant had demanded Rs.8,000/- for purchase of land and when they could not pay, Rajiv had threatened that if Rs.8,000/- was not paid by 12th August, 1996, he would decide. Earlier, the appellant had demanded a scooter on the occasion of marriage of Manoj, Neelam’s elder brother. On 13th August, 1996, they had learnt that Neelam had been burnt. The appellant had demanded Rs.8,000/- for purchase of land and when they could not pay, Rajiv had threatened that if Rs.8,000/- was not paid by 12th August, 1996, he would decide. Earlier, the appellant had demanded a scooter on the occasion of marriage of Manoj, Neelam’s elder brother. On 13th August, 1996, they had learnt that Neelam had been burnt. Accordingly, PW-4 had proceeded to Mayur Vihar where they found that Neelam had already expired due to burns. Neelam had written letters in her handwriting which are marked as Ex.PW-1/A, 2/A, 2/B and 2/C. On 13th August, 1996, PW-4 had seen some broken pieces of bangles, plastic can, burnt clothes etc. at Neelam’s residence. He identified the plastic can as Ex.P-1, burnt hair as Ex.P-3 and broken bangles as Ex.P-5. In his cross-examination, PW-4 has stated that the marriage was solemnised through an advertisement, which had proclaimed ‘No dowry’. PW-4 affirmed that they had arranged for Rs.8,000/- to be paid to the appellant and that Neelam had written 2-3 or 4-5 letters after her marriage. The last letter was received about one and a half month prior to Neelam’s death. Two days before Neelam’s death, Rajiv had warned that in case Rs.10,000/- was not paid, he would do whatever he liked. 8. Parkash Sureshta (PW-3), a neighbour, has stated that he had attended marriage of Neelam with the appellant Rajiv on 23rd June, 1991 and at that time, dowry articles were given by the family of Neelam commensurate with their capacity. After some time, Neelam started complaining that her in-laws would harass her for dowry and money and she used to be beaten up. Once a letter written by Neelam was shown to PW-3 by Rukmani (PW-1). Demand of Rs.8,000/- was made. PW-3 had learnt that Neelam had suffered burns when she had returned to his house on 13th August, 1996 at about 7 or 7.30 P.M. In his cross-examination, PW-4 has reiterated that Neelam’s mother had shown him a letter, wherein reference to demand of Rs.8,000/- had been made. Neelam had met him, one and a half month prior to her death. Rukmani (PW-1) suspected that her daughter was burnt by Rajiv. 9. Prosecution has relied upon the testimony of Urmila (PW-5), but we would rather not rely on the same. Neelam had met him, one and a half month prior to her death. Rukmani (PW-1) suspected that her daughter was burnt by Rajiv. 9. Prosecution has relied upon the testimony of Urmila (PW-5), but we would rather not rely on the same. Urmila (PW-5) claims that she had visited the residence of the deceased on 13th August, 1996 and had witnessed the quarrel between appellant-Rajiv, brother-in-law Sanjiv and deceased Neelam. Appellant-Sanjiv was reprimanding deceased Neelam as she had brought less money and that she should have arranged for more. Neelam was scared and on PW-5’s query, Neelam had replied that the atmosphere in their house was like that. Neelam had requested PW-5 to go away. After about 10-12 days, Urmila (PW-5) came to know from Neelam’s mother that Neelam had died because of burn injuries caused by her husband and in-laws. There are several reasons why we do not think that the factual narration given by Urmila (PW-5) about her visit to the residence of Neelam on 13th August, 1996 is rather far-fetched and improvised. The purpose of visit as disclosed by Urmila (PW-5) was her desire to see a house/flat, which she wanted to purchase. Urmila’s (PW-5) claim that she had learnt from Neelam’s mother that a house/flat was available for sale and, therefore, she had made the visit, exposes perplexity, for Urmila (PW-5) has also accepted that she had no prior conversation with Neelam, regarding her visit. Moreover, her statement that she had heard and seen the appellant-Rajiv, Sanjiv and the deceased Neelam were quarrelling and her version to the cause of the quarrel does not inspire confidence for Urmila (PW-5) did not know Rajiv and Sanjiv and had not interacted with them. In her cross-examination, Urmila (PW-5) had claimed that on 13th August, 1996 she had gone to the flat of Neelam in a three wheeler scooter at about 4.30 P.M. and her husband was owner of a house located in Gandhi Nagar. Further, the main door of the house was slightly open when she had reached and that she had returned to home at 5 P.M. On that day, she did not get in touch with the mother of Neelam or inform her about the quarrel (voluntarily claiming that such quarrels were routine in Neelam’s house). She had accepted as correct that police had recorded her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., two months after the incident. She had accepted as correct that police had recorded her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., two months after the incident. Urmila (PW-5), is a chance witness and the reason given by her for visiting the residence of deceased Neelam on 13th August, 1996 and her version does not appear to be plausible. 10. Even if we erase and ignore the testimony of Urmila (PW-5), there is sufficient evidence and material to implicate and establish, as discussed above and elucidated subsequently, that the appellant-Rajiv is guilty of offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. We would further examine and deal with the factual contentions raised, when we expand and elucidated on the evidence relied by the prosecution. We begin with the legal contention. In the written submissions on behalf of the appellant-Rajiv, it is submitted that the prosecution must show and establish that the appellant-Rajiv had in fact caused the burn injuries on his wife Neelam. Section 304B IPC does not require the prosecution to prove and establish that the burn injuries were in fact perpetrated by Rajiv. Section 304B IPC is invoked and applicable when a married woman dies an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage. The prosecution has to show and prove that the deceased wife had died an unnatural death and not that murder was committed. What is excluded are accidental or natural deaths. The other ingredient of Section 304B, is that the deceased wife should have been subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death, in connection with any demand of dowry by her husband or relative of the husband. When the said ingredients are satisfied, the husband or his relative is deemed to have caused her death. 11. Therefore, if a wife commits suicide or otherwise suffers unnatural death within seven years of marriage and there is demand of dowry soon before her death by the husband or his relatives, Section 304B IPC would be attracted. The provision, manifestly negates the requirement that the prosecution must show that the person prosecuted had actually inflicted or caused bodily injuries or had “abetted” commission of suicide. The provision, manifestly negates the requirement that the prosecution must show that the person prosecuted had actually inflicted or caused bodily injuries or had “abetted” commission of suicide. The ingredients of Section 304B IPC are conspicuously different for the conviction will follow; if the death is within seven years of marriage; it is shown that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relative of the husband, and such harassment or cruelty pertains to demand of dowry. Sections 304B and 498A were enacted in 1986 and simultaneously, Section 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act were also enacted to raise a presumption of cruelty as defined in Section 498A IPC and to raise a presumption in respect of offences under Section 304B when it is shown that soon before her death, such woman had been subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. The intention reflected by these provisions was/is the need and desire to firmly deal with the problem and menace of dowry deaths. Such deaths invariably happen within the four corners of the matrimonial home, and thus direct or ocular evidence is precipitously unavailable or when available is rather sketchy as the house members and relatives are reluctant to implicate any person close to them. The reason for enacting Section 304B IPC has been lucidly explained in Kamesh panjiyar @ Kamlesh Panjiyar, AIR 2005 SC 785 as under:- “10. In order to attract application of Section 304B IPC, the essential ingredients are as follows:- (i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance. (ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage. (iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. (iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry. (v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. Section 113B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the case at hand. Both Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act were inserted by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths. Section 113B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the case at hand. Both Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act were inserted by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths. Section 113B reads as follows:- "113B: 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 has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court 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 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)." The necessity for insertion of the two provisions has been amply analysed by the Law Commission of India in its 21st Report dated 10th August, 1988 on 'Dowry Deaths and Law Reform'. Keeping in view the impediment in the pre-existing law in securing evidence to prove dowry related deaths, legislature thought it wise to insert a provision relating to presumption of dowry death on proof of certain essentials. It is in this background presumptive Section 113B in the Evidence Act has been inserted. As per the definition of 'dowry death' in Section 304B IPC and the wording in the presumptive Section 113B of the Evidence Act, one of the essential ingredients, amongst others, in both the provisions is that the concerned woman must have been "soon before her death" subjected to cruelty or harassment "for or in connection with the demand of dowry". Presumption under Section 113B is a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the Court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials: (1) The question before the Court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304B IPC). (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. (This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304B IPC). (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death. 11. A conjoint reading of Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. Prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of the 'death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances'. The expression 'soon before' is very relevant where Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B IPC are pressed into service. Prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by prosecution. 'Soon before' is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. The expression 'soon before her death' used in the substantive Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression 'soon before' is not defined. A reference to expression 'soon before' used in Section 114. Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a Court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods soon after the theft, is either the thief has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. The determination of the period which can come within the term 'soon before' is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. The determination of the period which can come within the term 'soon before' is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression 'soon before' would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live-link between the effects of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.” 12. We have already referred to the testimony of Rukmani (PW-1), Amit Singh (PW-2) and Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (PW-4) and Prakash Sureshta (PW-3) on the question of demand of dowry. They have spoken about repeated demands of money and payment of Rs.8,000/- on 13th August, 1996 in the morning. We have corroborative and documentary evidence to show and establish demands for dowry. We begin with the testimony of SI Vikaram Singh (PW-13), who in the year 1993 was posted at Nanak Pura, Women Cell. He has proved the complaint Exhibit PW-13/A dated 19th May, 1993. The said complaint was made by Neelam and is in her handwriting. It refers to instances of cruelty and harassment, including dowry. She had filed a list of stridhan items vide Exhibit PW-13/D. Another statement by deceased Neelam, was marked Exhibit PW-13/B. The appellant-Rajiv’s statement marked Exhibit PW-13/C was also recorded. Subsequently, there was a compromise vide deed dated 16th September, 1993, marked Exhibit PW-13/E. The said documentation indicates substantial differences and disputes, which had earlier flared up in the year 1993. 13. Rukmani (PW-1), Amit Singh (PW-2) and Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (PW-4) have referred to letters written by the deceased marked Exhibits PW-1/A, PW-2/A, PW-2/B and PW-2/C. 14. Letter Exhibit PW-2/B though undated, is written on an inland letter bearing postal stamp dated 1st March, 1993. The contents of the letter are revealing and show the anguish and plight of Neelam. It refers to an earlier visit by one Toni, which had created discord and strife. The deceased had begged and pleaded and that no one should visit to her house, but they could meet her in the shop. The contents of the letter are revealing and show the anguish and plight of Neelam. It refers to an earlier visit by one Toni, which had created discord and strife. The deceased had begged and pleaded and that no one should visit to her house, but they could meet her in the shop. She has referred to an altercation a few days earlier and professed that she survived day by day. She would have died at that night, if she had slept. She had requested her mother to send necklace, coconut, colour, one suit, some sweets and 100 gujias to the shop and not at their house, as her in-laws did not like any one from their family visiting them. On the occasion of Tanu’s mundan, they should arrange for clothes for her, her husband and Tanu. The letter indicates that the deceased’s mother and her relatives were disliked or rather despised, and the deceased did not want them to visit her matrimonial home. Deceased Neelam was afraid and categorical that the letter should not be revealed to any one, for, she would be beaten up (she would suffer broken bones). 15. Handwritten Letter (Exhibit PW-2/A) dated 28th May, 1996 is on a page torn from a diary. It complains that Neelam’s husband was once again demanding dowry as he wanted Rs.10,000/- for purchasing a house. Neelam was being physically abused and threatened that she would be killed and her family members would not be spared. Exhibit PW-2/C dated 30th June, 1996 is on a plain paper, talks of physical abuse, which Neelam was subjected to and that she had been denied medicines. Her liver problem, she feared would aggravate, for want of treatment and medicines. She was being denied her stridhan and gold, silver ornaments and that her husband had threatened that he would get rid of her. Neelam was confused and does not know what to do. The fourth letter dated 31st July, 1996 is an inland letter and records that Neelam was disturbed, victimised and was being constantly pressed to get Rs.8,000/- for purchasing a house. She was warned that if the money was not arranged, Rajiv would ensure that Neelam’s brothers go to jail on false allegations or otherwise Rajiv himself would go to jail. Rajiv had warned Neelam that he would disfigure her face so that no one would like her. She was warned that if the money was not arranged, Rajiv would ensure that Neelam’s brothers go to jail on false allegations or otherwise Rajiv himself would go to jail. Rajiv had warned Neelam that he would disfigure her face so that no one would like her. Neelam felt depressed and stressed. She was living a miserable life and if money was not paid, Rajiv would spoil her life and life of her family members. 16. On reading the aforesaid letters, we find that the letter dated 1st March, 1993 Exhibit PW-2/B is normal and natural, the contents and narration in the letter reflects the anguish and the suffering which Neelam was undergoing at that time. The manner, language and details recorded indicate that the letter was written to communicate and express her thoughts and her advice to her family members. It reflects her plight and dilemma as she wanted that her marriage should survive, inspite of extremities and harassment at the hands of Rajiv. Letters dated 28th May, 1996 , 30th June, 1996 and even inland letter dated 31st July, 1996 marked Exhibits PWs-2/A, 2/C and 1/A reflect and show that these letters have been written when the relationship between her and Rajiv was collapsing as the reference is only to demand of money, mental harassment and physical abuse. It is apparent that deceased Neelam was suffering and living in gruelling and oppressive conditions. She was being constantly taunted, warned and threatened for money and dowry. These letters and the contents thereof reflect and show that the deceased Neelam possibly knew that her relationship with appellant-Rajiv was heading towards an end and a show down. It does appear that the assertions in these three letters may be for the reason that Neelam had felt the need to write as the letters could serve as evidence. We are, however, certain that the letters do disclose the anxiety, intimidation and torment which Neelam had faced. The abuse and harassment had a strong monetary angle with money being demanded. Appellant-Rajiv and deceased Neelam were staying in a rented accommodation and the letters reflect that the money was being demanded as Rajiv wanted to purchase some property. The letters therefore corroborate and support the ocular testimonies of Rukmani (PW-1), Amit (PW-2) and Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (PW-4). 17. The abuse and harassment had a strong monetary angle with money being demanded. Appellant-Rajiv and deceased Neelam were staying in a rented accommodation and the letters reflect that the money was being demanded as Rajiv wanted to purchase some property. The letters therefore corroborate and support the ocular testimonies of Rukmani (PW-1), Amit (PW-2) and Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (PW-4). 17. We perceive that there is another reason and cause why Neelam had pen downed her sufferings and wanted to have evidence when she wrote letters dated 28th May, 1996, 30th June, 1996 and 31st July, 1996 marked Exhibits PWs-2/A, 2/C and 1/A. The reason was that she was earlier compelled and coerced to write two letters marked Exhibit 1/DA which is undated and Exhibit 1/DB dated 6th February, 1995. The letter dated 6th February, 1995 is on an inland letter addressed to father of the appellant-Rajiv. A rough and ready English translation of the said letter would read:- “6/2/95 In your service, Respected Papa Ji, Everyone is hale and healthy over here. I received your letter. It’s been nearly 3 years since we got married. But, we couldn’t receive your blessings. I know that you are angry with us. I know that our marriage was fixed by our elder nandoi Shri. Jaydev Gupta despite you being alive. After the marriage, I came to my matrimonial house at Shahdara where my husband Rajiv ji used to reside. Since then, you did not have visiting terms with my in-laws. A dispute occurred between me and my husband after my brother-in-law and sister-in-law agitated my mausaji Shri. Vijay Kumar during the marriage. They also got registered a false complaint along with an exaggerated list of marriage gifts in the Nanakpura Police Headquarter. My father had expired. My mother too did not have much to give. She herself is dependent on us. Giving jewellery and clothes is a far cry. My matrimonial house did not have any role to play in my separation. I am staying in a rented house with my own savings voluntarily. I am writing this letter since I have come to know of the factum of agitation. I don’t have any grudge against you. I feel sad for the fact that you are thinking of staying in an ashram. I want to serve you and obtain your blessings. I am staying in a rented house with my own savings voluntarily. I am writing this letter since I have come to know of the factum of agitation. I don’t have any grudge against you. I feel sad for the fact that you are thinking of staying in an ashram. I want to serve you and obtain your blessings. I will never go back to my paternal home who have wronged me. My welfare is in my matrimonial home only. I am sending this letter by post since I am incapable of coming down to meet you. Charan-sparsh to Mummi Ji and pranam to my younger brother-in-law. Your daughter Neelam.” The wordings, contents and manner of writing, reveals a conscious, deliberately and concerted effort at the behest of Neelam’s in-laws to create evidence for future use, for the letter could be used as an admission or confession against Neelam and her family. It virtually acknowledges false insinuations and accepts misconduct by Neelam’s family. Neelam has purportedly confessed that she had made a false complaint and submitted an inflated list of gifts. The language and the manner in which the letter is written is not natural, but rather abnormal, reflecting intimidation and compulsion. 18. The second letter (Exhibit PW-1/DA) which is undated is again unnatural and much worse. Neelam acknowledges her involvement with a third person named Harish @ Raju. Neelam begs for forgiveness and states that the letter was written by her in her senses without force or influence. These two letters do not help or support the contention of the appellant-Rajiv, rather they nail him and reflect on his high handedness and the influence and control he had exercised over Neelam. Neelam was coerced to accept that she was involved in an extramarital relationship and also that she had made false allegations against the appellant Rajiv. Appellant-Rajiv knew and was aware that there could be litigation and, therefore, had deemed it appropriate to compel and intimidate Neelam to write these letters. It is apparent to us that Neelam conscious that she had been made to write these letters, had deemed it appropriate to write letters dated 28th May, 1996 (Exhibit PW-2/A), 30th June, 1996 (Exhibit PW-2/C) and 31st July, 1996 (Exhibit PW-1/A) to her mother. 19. It is apparent to us that Neelam conscious that she had been made to write these letters, had deemed it appropriate to write letters dated 28th May, 1996 (Exhibit PW-2/A), 30th June, 1996 (Exhibit PW-2/C) and 31st July, 1996 (Exhibit PW-1/A) to her mother. 19. One of the contentions raised before us by the appellant is that the letters Exhibit PW-2/A dated 28th May, 1996, Exhibit PW-2/C dated 30th June, 1996 and Exhibit PW-1/A dated 31st July, 1996 should not have been taken on record and read in evidence without confirmation by a handwriting expert. These letters were proved by Rukmani (PW-1), Amit Singh (PW-2) and Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (PW-4), who being the mother and brothers of the deceased were acquainted and could recognise Neelam’s handwriting. Opinion of the handwriting expert was not necessary and required as under section 47 of The Indian Evidence Act,1872, testimony of any person acquainted with the handwriting and signature of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed, that the document was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact. In the present case, Rukmani (PW-1) has stated in her cross that she could identify writing and signatures of her daughter. PW-1 even accepted that the letter Ex.PW1/DA was written by her daughter with her signatures at point A and that Ex.PW1/DB bears the name of Neelam at point B but she could not state whether the letter written by her daughter or not. Rukmani (PW-1) has denied that the letters Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW2/C were “drafted” in the handwriting of Neelam. The suggestion given reflects that the appellant did not dispute that the two letter were in the handwriting of Neelam. What was contested and challenged was the objective and purpose behind writing the letters. We also reject the contention of the appellant relying upon Vipin Jaiswal versus State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 3 SCC 684 that the trial court or the High Court should seek for expert opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act or should compare the handwriting and signatures with other admitted handwriting or signatures of the deceased under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. This was not required and necessary, in view of the statements by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, though we have seen and it is apparent that the letters Exhibit PW-2/A, 2/B, 2/C and 1/A and also letters relied upon by the appellant-Rajiv marked Exhibit PW-1/DA and 1/DB were written by one person. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant had drawn our attention to the contents of letter Exhibit 1/DA in which reference is made to one Harish and admission of the Neelam that she was in a relationship with him. It is submitted that Neelam might have committed suicide for this reason. The contention is far-fetched and preposterous. It reflects the weakness and hollowness of the appellant’s case. We do not have any details of this phantom called Harish, his parentage, residence and the work he used to do. If and in case the assertions made in Exhibit 1/DA were correct, the appellant-Rajiv would have also ascertained the aforesaid details of Harish. We perceive and hold that the aforesaid stratagem adopted by appellant-Rajiv would show his dubious and malicious intent and does not reflect the truth. The said contention has to be rejected. 21. Our attention has been drawn to the statement of the appellant-Rajiv under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he has stated:- “Q. It is in evidence against you that you were medically examined on 13.8.96 at about 8.10 P.M. and following injuries were found on your person:- (1) Abrasion 2x2 cm size, two in number on anterior aspect of left knee. (2) Abrasion with small contusion 1x1 cm right knee. (3) Multiple abrasion dorsen of right foot. (4) Bleeding from nail bed of left foot with loosening of nail. (5) Complaining of pain of back of neck fracture? Cervical spine (6) Lacerated wound 1x2 cm in size in lower lip. What do you say about it? A. It is correct. Q. How and in what manner you sustained the injuries? A. When I returned from duty in the evening I saw many public had gathered around my house, which was on the first floor. On my enquiries, some ladies told me that smoke was emitting out of the door of kitchen of my house. Some persons were trying to approach the kitchen through a wooden stairs placed on the back side, with the kitchen. On my enquiries, some ladies told me that smoke was emitting out of the door of kitchen of my house. Some persons were trying to approach the kitchen through a wooden stairs placed on the back side, with the kitchen. I also tried to climb the said stairs but fell down and sustained the aforesaid injuries.” 22. Our attention was also drawn to MLC of the appellant-Rajiv recorded on 13th August, 1996 at 8.10 P.M., at SDN Hospital Shahdara. The MLC records that the patient, i.e., appellant-Rajiv was brought to the hospital by Head Constable Ram Pal of the PCR. Under the heading “Particulars” “all injuries or symptoms”, the doctor on duty has recorded “alleged being duped” and it is also mentioned “with history of fall from rail as given by Head Constable Ram Pal”. The aforesaid MLC was not proved or marked Exhibit, but as it is a part of the judicial file and referred to by the appellant-Rajiv, we would not like to ignore the said document and the injuries mentioned therein. DD entry No. 22A recorded at Police Station Kalyan Puri on 13th August 1996 at 7.25 pm, was regarding fire at property No. 56, Pocket A-2, Mayur Vihar, Phase–III and that one person had fallen down as per the information communicated by PCR No. 3685. The MLC certainly proves and establishes that the appellant-Rajiv had suffered injuries. Appellant-Rajiv, however claims that he had reached his residence after work and on seeing smoke emitting from the door of the kitchen, he had tried to reach his flat on the first floor, by climbing the wooden ladder placed on the back side. He fell down and had sustained injuries. This plea or contention was not put to any of the police witnesses and Rukmani (PW-1), Amit Singh (PW-2) and Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (PW-4), who had visited the premises after the occurrence. In fact, Amit Singh (PW-2), Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (PW-4) and Rukmani (PW-1) have deposed that a call had been received from Sanjiv that appellant-Rajiv had met with an accident and was being taken to the hospital at about 7 to 7.30 P.M. ASI Shobrang Singh (PW-14) to whom DD No. 22A dated 13th August, 1996 was marked for investigation had visited the house No. 56, Pocket A-2, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III and he has deposed that the dead body of the Neelam was found in the kitchen. In the first room of the house, he had noticed broken pieces of bangles, which were gathered from the spot. One green colour plastic can with some kerosene, match box containing some match sticks, burnt clothes and hair, were seized vide Exhibit PW-6/A. Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (PW-4) was present at the spot at that time. Photographs were taken. PW-14 had prepared the site plan marked Exhibit PW-14/B, which indicates the place where dead body of Neelam was found in the kitchen, which was on the right side of the main door. The site plan also indicates the place where bangles were found, which was next to the main entrance door. PW-14 has in his deposition testified that the broken pieces of bangles were lying in the first room of the house after the entry gate. The broken pieces of bangles, were marked Exhibit P-5 and the plastic can was marked Exhibit P-1. It is clear that the flat or articles in the flat were not burnt and only Neelam had suffered burn injuries. None of the witnesses have deposed or stated that they had to break open the entry door or the flat was locked. The witnesses were not cross-examined or suggested that the appellant had tried to climb up from a wooden ladder, on the back side of the flat. The said story is clearly concocted and a sham. On the other hand, the injuries suffered indicate that there was a scuffle and physical violence before the occurrence took place. The statement of the appellant-Rajiv as recorded in the MLC that he was duped also speaks for itself and shows what he felt and perceived when he was examined. 23. One of the contentions raised by the appellant-Rajiv is that Constable Raj Pal, who had taken him to SDN Hospital has not deposed and, therefore, in terms of the ratio in Takhaji Hiraji versus Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and Others, (2001) 6 SCC 145 , he is entitled to acquittal. The submission is that the prosecution has withheld a material witness, who would have unfolded the genesis of the incident or essential part of the prosecution case and when such witness is not examined, it can be termed that the prosecution case is suffering from deficiency and withholding should draw an adverse inference. The said decision has no application to the facts of the present case. The said decision has no application to the facts of the present case. No suggestion was given to Investigating Officer ASI Shobrang Singh (PW-14) to the said effect. It is not indicated and shown how and in what manner Constable Raj Pal would have deposed on any other aspect, other than the fact that he had taken the appellant-Rajiv to the Hospital, a fact already accepted as proved. 24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation in upholding the finding of the trial court that the appellant-Rajiv had committed offences under Section 498A and Section 304B IPC. 25. The last issue relates to the quantum of sentence. The appellant has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Hari Om versus State of Haryana and Another, (2012) 12 Scale 491 and submits that this is not a rare case wherein the maximum or the extreme penalty of life imprisonment should be awarded. We have considered the said contention but noticing the facts of the case; the letters that the deceased was made to write, the manner in which the offence has been committed and the nature and extent of involvement etc., we do not think any leniency is required to be shown or is merited. The trial court was justified and correct in awarding the sentence of life imprisonment for the offence under Section 304B IPC. 26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 304B and 498A IPC. The said sentences are to run concurrently and Section 428 Cr.P.C. would apply. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will surrender within a period of three weeks from today to undergo remaining sentence. In case the appellant does not surrender within the said period, steps in accordance with law will be taken. Copy of this judgment will be sent to the trial court for compliance.