JUDGMENT Sil, J. : This appeal was directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 13.9.1994 passed by Sri R.N. Sinha, Additional Sessions Judge, Murshidabad in connection with Sessions Case No. 309 of 1992 corresponding to Sessions Trial No.1 of March, 1994 whereby the appellant accused Pradip Dey was convicted for committing offence under Section 304-B alternatively under Sections 306 and 498A of Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the said Code. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that one Rina Dey (Kundu) was admitted into Berhampore General Hospital in the hours of 7.8.1990 with burn injury received at father-in-law's house and expired after sometime. She was married with the appellant Pradip on 28.1.1988. Soon after the marriage there were various tortures committed on her although Rina tried to continue to live there in her in-law's house despite such tortures. It is alleged that Pradip was an inebriated person having no moral character which the informant Ranendra Kumar Kundu, father of Rina came to learn immediately after the marriage. Rina stayed with her father since after she gave birth to a female child on. 1.6.1990 and inspite of her unwillingness Pradip and his mother Sudharani Dey took her forcibly to their house and after a few days Rina died en 7.8.1990. It is also alleged that Sudharani also used to torture Rina. It was apprehended by the informant that fire was set on her and she did not commit suicide by setting fire on herself. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge. In course of time the case was transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It appears from the record that the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against Pradip and his mother Sudharani under Sections 3048/34 alternatively under Sections 306/34 and also under Sections 498N 34 I.P.C. when both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The record goes to show that as many as 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. After the evidence of the prosecution was over the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The defence case, as it appears from the trend of cross-examination and that of the examination of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr. The record goes to show that as many as 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. After the evidence of the prosecution was over the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The defence case, as it appears from the trend of cross-examination and that of the examination of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr. P.C., is that Rina was accustomed in a lavish life at her parent's house and she was not happy with the meagre income of her husband. It is the further case of the defence that Rina had a tendency for getting a service and sometimes there was breach of peace for the influx of relations in the house of the accused persons from the house of the informant. It is also the further case of the defence that pradip tried to extinguish the fire by covering body of Rina with mattress and thereby he had also sustained injuries and both Rina and Pradip got admitted in the hospital. 3. After completion of trial the learned Judge was pleased to acquit Sudharani from all the charges but he convicted pradip, the husband of Rina for committing offence under Section 3048 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for two years. The learned Judge convicted Pradip also for committing offence under Section 498A I.P.C. but eschewed himself from inflicting any separate punishment therefor in view of the substantive punishment given under Section 3048 I.P.C. The learned Judge found alternative charge under Section 306 I.P.C. redundant in view of his finding in the judgment. 4. It is thus incumbent upon us to determine as to whether Rina died a dowry death. 5. R.N. Kundu, the father of the victim who lodged the complaint with the Police Station is the P.W.1. There is no denial of the fact as regards the ...., of marriage between the appellant and the victim i.e. on 28.1.1988 and also that the victim died of burn injury on 7.8.1990. 5. R.N. Kundu, the father of the victim who lodged the complaint with the Police Station is the P.W.1. There is no denial of the fact as regards the ...., of marriage between the appellant and the victim i.e. on 28.1.1988 and also that the victim died of burn injury on 7.8.1990. Thus, as regards torture and the reasons for the discord prevailing in the matrimonial house of the deceased it was stated by the P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief : “Her matrimonial life was not a cordial one as her husband Pradip used to assault her in a drunken state and did not allow her to sleep throughout the night. Pradip's mother who did not care to stop Pradip but used to give indulgences to him. Pradip used to press my daughter for bringing money from us. Sometimes I used to provide. On my failure to make payment my daughter was assaulted there. My daughter when used to come to my place, she used to state/narrate her plight there." The P.W.1 further stated that after about 21/22 days of delivery the accused persons took Rina despite her objection to her matrimonial house though she was not in good health and within 7 days thereafter she was assaulted when the P.W.1 sent his son Ratul to the house of Rina and Ratul came back with two inland letters written by Rina. And on 7.8.1990 at about 5.30 a.m. one paternal uncle of Pradip together with an unknown person informed the P.W.1 that his daughter sustained burn injury and was hospitalised. The P.W.1 rushed to the hospital and found her daughter dead. The P.W.1 has proved his written complaint (Ext. 1) which treated as FIR. It appears from his cross-examination that the female child of Rina is now living in the house of the accused persons. It further appears from his cross-examination that the P.W.1 filed one petition before the learned District Judge, 24 Parganas (South) with a prayer to appoint him guardian of the minor daughter of Rina. The contents of that petition and the evidence of the P.W.1 adduced there in connection with that petition for guardianship were confronted in his cross-examination. It further appears from his cross-examination that Rina used to travel with her husband in a scooter owned by Pradip. The P.W.1 also stated that Rina was asking him to find a job for her. The contents of that petition and the evidence of the P.W.1 adduced there in connection with that petition for guardianship were confronted in his cross-examination. It further appears from his cross-examination that Rina used to travel with her husband in a scooter owned by Pradip. The P.W.1 also stated that Rina was asking him to find a job for her. It is also found from the cross-examination of the P.W.1 : “My daughter Rina wanted to have her sister i.e. my other daughter Rita there in her matrimonial house but my son-in-law Pradip used to discourage it. Despite that Rita sometimes had been there and spent some days occasionally. My daughter was mentally unrest because of all these things. Even Pradip used to discourage my family's visit to his place.” The P.W.1 proved those two letters written by Rina (Ext. Band 8/1). The P.W.1 also stated, “The letters which my son brought from the house of my daughter i.e. the aced’s house I was not present there then and I did not see my daughter dropping the letters or collection of the same by my son.” The P.W.1 also stated in his cross-examination that the local people knew about the addiction of the accused but not about the physical torture perpetrated on Rina. But the P.W.1 could not give the names of those persons who were aware of the drinking habits of the accused Pradip. The P.W.1 also stated that he made G.D. Entries at the police station prior to his daughter's death. But those G.D. Entries are not forthcoming. Then the P.W.1 stated in his cross-examination : “Aced. Pradip was also admitted in the hospital for burn injuries but absconded therefrom after hearing the death of my daughter. While my daughter was admitted in hospital for the purpose of delivery Pradip used to visit the hospital then.” 6. Smt. Haripriya Kundu, wife of the P.W.1 and mother of the victim girl is the P.W.2. She stated in her examination-in-chief : “Her marital life was not a peaceful one as her husband Pradip used to drink and his mother also used to torture her. Sometimes she had to go without food. Within 1/1½ month of their marriage Pradip took Rina to Digha. After returning there my daughter had been to my place and stated that Pradip used to drink there and also torture her there. Sometimes she had to go without food. Within 1/1½ month of their marriage Pradip took Rina to Digha. After returning there my daughter had been to my place and stated that Pradip used to drink there and also torture her there. She also used to state about his past life to her. She was also kept within the hotel room under lock and key as she protested to his drinking habit...... My other son and daughter Ratul and Rita used to visit her in her marital home. They also came back with details of her torture there that Pradip used to Kick her, also threw wine on her person. Her mother-in-law used to remain passive and also sometimes indulge Pradip in his action. They used to torture her with a view to extract money from us.” 7. The P.W 2 further gave the description in the terms that one day when Ratul went to the house of Rina he found quarrel was going on inside for which he did not dare go upstairs but returned therefrom after collecting two inland letters dropped by Rina from upstairs. She further stated that once Rina had left her maternal home, when she had conceived her pregnancy, being unable to withstand tortures of her and stayed in the house of the P.W.1, but thereafter both Pradip and his mother took her back with folded hands, This incident took place one week before her death and in the early morning of 7.8.1990 they got the information from the uncle of Pradip that Rina sustained burn injuries and was hospitalised. The P.W.2 along with Rita rushed to the hospital with the P.W.1 and found the victim with severe burn injuries. The victim was alive for about an hour when the P.W.2 met her in the hospital. This witness is one of the signatories in the seizure list of those two letters (Ext.2/2). Both the P.W.1 and 2 claimed that their daughter Rina was highly qualified. P.W2 is very specific in her cross-examination and stated that Rina was ambitious and she was very much after the settlement in her life. She further stated in her cross-examination, “Both of us, husband and wife are employed and she was brought up with great care and in a lavish manner as well. I do not believe that she committed suicide being disgusted in her marital life. She further stated in her cross-examination, “Both of us, husband and wife are employed and she was brought up with great care and in a lavish manner as well. I do not believe that she committed suicide being disgusted in her marital life. “It is also in her cross-examination that Rina, the victim used to give out that she was so unfortunate by the marriage that she could not bring her sister in her marital home. Thereafter the P.W2 stated, “She also suffered mentally as she was prevented from coming to our house from marital home.” The contents of the petition and the evidence adduced by this P.W.2 in the case for the custody of the child were also confronted in her cross-examination by the defence as well as her statement before the I.O. in connection with this case. She also stated that she did not remember if she stated to the I.O. that his daughter Rita and Ratul stated to her about Pradip's beating and torture on Rina. She expressed her ignorance as regards the carrying of two letters written by Rina and stated that her husband knew all about the same. The P.W2 also stated that Rina never requested her to arrange for a job with the help of her father then she stated further, “I cannot say if my daughter wrote those two letters and threw it down to be picked up by my son Ratul with a view to secure a job by our relations.” When the statement of this witness before the Court dealing with the case for the custody of Rina's child which goes “Rina had her inclination towards service all along. As Rina used to tell that she would like to get a job so I believe that she was not happy and she was ill-treated at her marital home by the inmates”, was confronted she pleaded' her ignorance. She also pleaded her ignorance as regards her deposition in the said case seeking for the custody of the child that, “The payment was made by Pradip. After released I took her home. Pradip met the payment and he signed the papers”. Her several statements before the I.O. was also confronted in her cross-examination. 8. Rita Kundu, the other daughter of the informant is the P.W.3. After released I took her home. Pradip met the payment and he signed the papers”. Her several statements before the I.O. was also confronted in her cross-examination. 8. Rita Kundu, the other daughter of the informant is the P.W.3. She stated in her evidence in chief: “Her (Rina) marital life was not at all a cordial one as she was humiliated, tortured there by words of her mother-in-law and also sometimes by physical assault by her husband Pradip. These humiliations, assault were because of their growing demand for money from us. Pradip was a drunkard. My sister was also assaulted by her husband Pradip even in my presence.” It is admitted by the P.W.3 in her cross-examination that she did not state to the I.O. about the date/dates of physical assault of Rina in the hands of her husband. It is also admitted by her that she used to visit sometime in the house of Rina and stayed there on occasions. 9. Dr. Amal Kumar Maitra who made the inquest report over the dead body of Rina is the P.W.4. He found about 80% to 90% burnt injury over the body of Rina except her scalp. He also found soots in the upper respiratory tract of the dead body. The P.WA on the self-same day i.e. on 7.8.90 held the post mortem examination over the dead body of Rina. According to him the cause of death was due to the shock as a result of burn injuries which were ante mortem in nature. He further opined, “In such cases it cannot be ascertained as to whether the cause of such injury/death if suicidal or homicidal in nature that is why I opined the nature of death can be ascertained from the circumstantial evidence only”: In his cross-examination the P.W.4 stated as below :– “The husband of this dead girl came to me in hospital on 7.8.90 in the early morning. He also requested me to save his wife by all means. If any body tries to put off the flames of a person by sheer hands he is supposed to sustain burn injury. Accd. Pradip had some burn injuries in his hands but I do not remember if he sustained burn injury on his legs.” 10. Ratul Kundu the son of the informant, P.W.1 is the P.W.5. If any body tries to put off the flames of a person by sheer hands he is supposed to sustain burn injury. Accd. Pradip had some burn injuries in his hands but I do not remember if he sustained burn injury on his legs.” 10. Ratul Kundu the son of the informant, P.W.1 is the P.W.5. He stated in his evidence in chief as below :– “There she was humiliated and physically assaulted by her husband and mother-in-law. She was also sometimes kept without food. Accd. Pradip used to drink and he even assaulted my sister in my presence. He also used to make demands for money. ...... After she was taken back by her husband and mother-in-law I once had been to her house but dared not to go upstairs out of fear and my sister dropped two Inland Letters towards me and I collected and came back home.” The statement of this witness before the I.O. was confronted in his cross-examination. He also stated that his father knew about the dropping of those two letters by his sister. It is again in his evidence that one Rabi was a music teacher of his sister Rina in her matrimonial home. This witness tried to hide something and thus stated in his cross-examination, “I do not remember if I drew Rs. 4000/- as a messenger from the account of Pradip, the husband of my sister”. 11. The P.W.6 is a police officer who proved the formal portion of the F.I.R. (Ext. 1/1) He seized one exercise book with the notes of some songs and music of the victim and one science practical note book of the victim (Ext.3). He sent two inland letters seized by the other Investigating Officer for the examination of the expert and thereafter he submitted the charge-sheet. The P.W6 also proved the report of the expert (Ext.4). 12. One B.C. Saha (P.W.7), another police officer was the I.O. of this case. He stated in his evidence that he could not arrest the accused Pradip as he came to know from the hospital authorities that though he was hospitalised with burn injury, he absconded therefrom. It appears from the cross-examination of this witness that he examined the neighbours of the accused Prabir Roy Chowdhury, Umashankar Banerjee and Ramapati Dey including one Samir Dey and Chitra Dey with a view to ascertaining the facts. It appears from the cross-examination of this witness that he examined the neighbours of the accused Prabir Roy Chowdhury, Umashankar Banerjee and Ramapati Dey including one Samir Dey and Chitra Dey with a view to ascertaining the facts. But to out utter dismay it appears that those persons were not examined before the Court by the prosecution. It is admitted by the P.W7 that he did not investigate as to why and under what circumstances the victim dropped those two inland letters without posting the same. The P.W.7 further stated the except the burnt quilt seized by him he did not investigate as to whether it was used for the purpose of extinguishing the fire on the person of the girl. It further comes from his cross-examination that the accused was also admitted in the hospital together with the victim. 13. The statement of the witnesses recorded by the P.W.7 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has been confirmed from him by the defence and it was stated by the P.W.7 that Haripriya Kundu (P.W2) did not state to him that her daughter Rita and son Ratul stated to her about Pradip's beating and torture on Rina, nor did she state that Rina had to spend days without food in her matrimonial home or that with a view to extracting money, Pradip used to torture her or that they sometime met the demand and sometime not or that anything about her son's going to Pradip's house and collection of two inland letters therefrom. The P.W.7 further stated that the P.W.2 had no occasion to state before him that her daughter once came to her house in the early morning and the accused took her back with folded hands. The P.W.7 further stated that Ratul Kundu (P.W.5) never stated to him that his sister was kept without food or money was demanded from her by her husband or that after his sister was taken back to her maternal home after child's birth he once had been there but dared not to go upstairs out of fear. 14. Both the P.Ws. 3 and 5 claimed that Rina was assaulted in their presence. 14. Both the P.Ws. 3 and 5 claimed that Rina was assaulted in their presence. But Rita (P.W.3) admitted in her cross-examination that she did not give the date of such assault to the I.O. This may not have any significance, for, there is nothing that although the I.O. asked her to give such date, she failed. But what is surprising to us is that there appears no impression even for such physical assault in the several letters of Rina produced before the trial Court. It is again a pointer to note that the P.W.2, mother of the victim never told to the Investigating Officer that the P.Ws.3 and 5 stated to her the fact that Rina was assaulted physically by Pradip in their presence. 15. Mr. D.K. Sengupta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to Exhibit B and also the depositions of the parents of the victim in the case seeking custody of the child. Exhibit B is a letter admittedly written by the victim to the appellant-accused and it was dated 4.9.89. There is another letter which was exhibited as B/1. Both the letters were written by the victim to her husband-accused. Those two letters are the simple depiction and the usual relation of a newly married couple. Exhibit B/2 is the deposition of Haripriya Kundu recorded on 3.4.1992 in connection with the guardianship case No. 14 of 1991 and Exhibit B/3 is the deposition of the father of the victim in the said case recorded on 13.5.1992. It appears from the said deposition of Haripriya that her daughter used to tell her that she was seeking for a job. It is also there that Rina complained that she was under the pressure for money and she could not fulfil the demand of her husband or mother-in-law. In her cross-examination the said witness stated that Rina had her inclination towards service all along and then she stated, “As Rina used to tell that she would like to get a job so I believe that she was not happy and she was ill-treated at her matrimonial home by the inmates.” It further appears from her evidence in that case that the appellant Pradip was a Custom Officer under the Central Government and the parents of Rina consented to the marriage” as Pradip was well off”. It appears from the cross-examination of the father of the victim made in that case that once she went to the house of Rina and at that time he had talks with his daughter when Rina was crying. As regards two other letters (Exts.7 and 7/1) relied on by the prosecution it is submitted by Mr. Sengupta that the same do not disclose any tortures perpetrated on Rina. On our scrutiny it appears that those two letters were written in the postal inland letters but those were not posted and neither of the letters contains any date as to when the same were written. However, on our close scrutiny it appears from Exhibit 7 which was written to one of the uncles of the victim that she expressed her ardent desire for a service and that her mother-in-law took her into task by words over the conversation of her mother-in-law and her uncle. The other letter (Ext.7/1) was written to one Tunai, may be her sister. On perusal of that letter a very complex state of mind of the writer that is the victim comes to light but one thing is very clear that there is no specific allegation of torture established from that letter. 16. Mr. Sengupta has then argued before us that nowhere in the instant case there is any specific date/dates of alleged tortures perpetrated on the victim. It is also pointed out by him that the question was not as to why the victim was unhappy in her in-law's house but the question to be determined is what is the actual torture that made the victim unhappy. It is pointed out by Mr. Sengupta that all attentions were given to the victim and thus admittedly a music teacher was appointed. Mr. Sengupta has also drawn our attention to the admitted fact that the appellant-husband also received burn injury in his person when he tried to save the victim and he was also hospitalised therefor. 17. Mr. S. Moitra, the learned Addl. P.P. argues before us that the death of the victim came down in the bathroom of her maternal home within a span of two years from the date of her marriage and this invites the presumption under the provisions of law that the death was a dowry death due to the tortures made on the victim. P.P. argues before us that the death of the victim came down in the bathroom of her maternal home within a span of two years from the date of her marriage and this invites the presumption under the provisions of law that the death was a dowry death due to the tortures made on the victim. It is pointed out by him that the Exhibits 7 and 7/1 could not be posted by the victim and this speaks a lot inasmuch as those two letters cannot be taken in isolation but with the other evidence adduced/produced before the trial Court. Mr. Moitra further argues that the traumatic father after the death of his daughter could not incorporated all the facts in the F.I.R. Mr. Moitra has drawn our attention to the said fact that although the husband was hospitalised he absconded from the hospital as soon as he came to learn that the F.I.R. was lodged. Mr. Moitra has also drawn our attention to question Nos. 6, 10 and 11 put to the accused-appellant Pradip at the time of his examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. 18. Mr. Moitra has referred to the ratio decided in the case of Sri Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi ( AIR 1983 SC 826 ) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the prevailing condition of the society and it was observed that the greed for dowry and indeed dowry system as an institution, calls for the severest condemnation. Where the death in such cases is due to a crime the perpetrators of the crime not frequently escape from the nemesis of the law because of inadequate police investigation. 19. Mr. Moitra has also referred to the ratio decided in the case of Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh ( AIR 1990 SC 209 ). In the said case a newly married girl died of burn injuries. Evidence of the father and sisters of the deceased that deceased complained about harassment and torture by her in-laws for bringing insufficient dowry and that the in-laws also were accusing the deceased of carrying illegitimate child. In the F.I.R. the father of the deceased stated that the deceased committed suicide because of harassment and constant taunts and torture. Evidence of the father and sisters of the deceased that deceased complained about harassment and torture by her in-laws for bringing insufficient dowry and that the in-laws also were accusing the deceased of carrying illegitimate child. In the F.I.R. the father of the deceased stated that the deceased committed suicide because of harassment and constant taunts and torture. It also appeared from the evidence adduced in that case that there was delay in giving medical assistance and that there was no burn injuries on the finger tips of any member of the accused family. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that the facts and the evidence belied the case of accidental death and it was held that the deceased committed suicide at the instigation of her husband and in-laws and the presumption under the provisions of Section 113A of the Evidence Act was also available. 20. The facts and circumstances of the instant case have absolutely no bearing with that of in the case of Gurbachan Singh (supra). In the instant case the appellant-husband-accused admittedly received burn injuries and he was hospitalised along with the victim. Marriage of the parties in the instant case took place on 28.1.1988. Even in the month of April, 1989 the couple appeared to be extremely happy as it appears from Exhibits Band B/1. We are not at all ready to attach much importance on the depositions of the parents of Rina in the case seeking for the custody of the child as those were recorded much after the incident of the instant case. That apart even in those depositions there is no specific allegation of torture. There is no doubt that the victim since sometime before her marriage was not happy in her matrimonial home. But why? A number of photographs (Ext. A series) of the victim and the members of the in-laws of the appellant and somewhere some compromising photographs of the couple have been furnished which are the normal position of the average family and the average couple. We shall however try to find out the answer as to why the victim was not happy in her matrimonial home since sometimes before her death, keeping it in mind that it is highly preposterous, if not impossible, to enter into the mental fibre of a particular individual. 21. Mr. We shall however try to find out the answer as to why the victim was not happy in her matrimonial home since sometimes before her death, keeping it in mind that it is highly preposterous, if not impossible, to enter into the mental fibre of a particular individual. 21. Mr. S. Moitra, the learned Additional P.P. raised the question at the time of argument as to why the provisions of Section 1138 of the Evidence Act and Section 3048 of the Indian Penal Code were enacted. Section 1138 of the Evidence Act reads as below: “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 demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation. – For the purpose of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in Section 3048 of the Indian Penal Code.” Thus, on perusal of the Explanation to that Section it is candid that in order to appreciate the purpose of the above section in its proper perspective the provisions of Section 3048 of the Indian Penal Code is .... to be taken into consideration. Section 304B relates to dowry death and reads as under: “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 subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative or 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 this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.” In fact, the term “dowry” is not defined in the Indian Penal Code and the same has been defined in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as “any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly – (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage by any other person, to other party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties.” (underlined for emphasis) 22. Thus, on perusal of the above provisions and the definition of “dowry” it is clear that in order to draw the presumption under the provisions of Section 113B of the Evidence Act and thereby to establish the case of a dowry death it is always necessary to prove that there was demand of dowry either directly or indirectly (i) at the time of marriage or (ii) before the marriage or (iii) any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the parties. But all these conditions are qualified with the words “soon before her death” appearing in Section 113B of the Evidence Act. There prevails a misconception that death within a span of seven years from the date of marriage will ipso facto draw the presumption of dowry death under the provisions of Section 113B of the Evidence Act and attracts the punishment under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. But our above discussions will show that we are not of that view. In order to draw the presumption of dowry death and the penalty and punishment under the provisions of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code the requirements as discussed above are to be met seriously and strictly. 23. Rina was unhappy in her matrimonial home. The evidence adduced in the instant case has established the said fact. But why? In order to draw the presumption of dowry death and the penalty and punishment under the provisions of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code the requirements as discussed above are to be met seriously and strictly. 23. Rina was unhappy in her matrimonial home. The evidence adduced in the instant case has established the said fact. But why? The evidence of Haripriya Kundu, the mother of the victim as pointed out by us goes to show that both the parents of the victim were employed for which the victim was brought up with great care and in a “lavish manner” and this is what is actually the defence case that as the victim was brought up in such manner that she finds if difficult to adjust herself in her matrimonial home. And was it the reason that the victim girl was highly obsessed for getting a service? And was it for which the victim girl was unhappy? Rina was provided with a music teacher in her matrimonial home. Her music book was produced in the instant case. Exhibit A/1 goes to show that she persuaded her music for a considerable period of time in her matrimonial home. The several compromissing pictures (Ext. A series) go to show a normal life of the newly married couple enjoying honeymoon on a sea shore. There may be many dreams and usual utopian ideas in the mind of either of the couples before their marriage but in course of time after the marriage the ugly teeth of reality started coming out. And here is the question of mutual sacrifice, understanding, compromise and what not in order to give a solid base to the Indian concept of post ..... life. The matrimonial bondage can only stand on such mutual sacrifice and understanding and compromise and mutual respect for each other. There were some admitted discord between the parties over the coming of relatives of the victim in her in-laws' house and if that culminates in commitment of suicide by the wife, in our considered view, that does not come within the purview of the definition of “dowry death”. We can at best say that it was really unfortunate and manifestations of lack of restraint from either side of the parties. 24. We can at best say that it was really unfortunate and manifestations of lack of restraint from either side of the parties. 24. On close scrutiny of the evidence we do not find anything specific as regards what was demanded as dowry or what amount was demanded for the same or when it was demanded and many of this type of questions remained unanswered. Conversely the conduct of the accused-appellant rather goes to show that he staked his life to save his wife and thereby sustained the burn injury. 25. Mr. D.K. Sengupta, the learned Counsel for the appellant-accused has referred to the ratio decided in the case of State of Haryana v. Suresh Kumar (1993 Cr LJ 1400). In the said case instituted on the allegation of harassment and torture of the deceased by her husband and in-laws for want of dowry, letter of the victim written to her sister stating sorrowful situation of her without suggesting any harassment to the deceased for unlawful demand made by the accused was produced and it was held by the High Court that the evidence of harassment was not worthy of credence for which the accused was given benefit of doubt. 26. Mr. Sengupta has also referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Tapan Pal v. State of West Bengal (1992 Cr LJ 1017). In the said case there were evidence that quarrels usually took up by the deceased and there was economic disparity between her husband's family and her parents family for which the victim had been suffering from unhappyness and dissatisfaction and this was not because of alleged torture. In such circumstances it was held that the accused was entitled to be acquitted. 27. We were in quest of unhappyness of Rina and, may be, our endeavour, though very much suggestive, ends in futility. But coming at this stage we must hold that it was not necessary to explore the reasons as to why Rina was unhappy particularly when the prosecution miserably failed to substantiate the demand of any dowry by the accused-appellant or to establish that the same was the proximate cause of the death of the victim or that the accused-appellant proved or abetted or encouraged Rina to commit suicide. Accordingly, we are of the view that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the learned trial Judge must be set aside. 28. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Judge are hereby set aside. The appellant-accused Pradip Dey is found not guilty of any of the charges under Sections 304B/34 I.P.C. alternatively under Sections 306/34 I.P.C. and also under Sections 498/34 I.P.C. and he is discharged from his bail bond at once. A copy of this judgment along with the L.C.R. be sent down to the learned lower Court forthwith. Roy, J. : I agree.