Judgment Braj Nandan Prasad Singh, J. 1. The appellants had been saddled at trial allegedly for causing dowry death of Reena Devi and for which they suffered conviction under Secs. 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Though they had been charged also u/s. 328 of the Indian Penal Code, they had been acquitted on that count. Among appellants, while Sonamati Devi and Jagwanti Devi, for their conviction u/s. 304B of the Indian Penal Code, were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years, Jagdish Chaudhary and Manoj Chaudhary, for their conviction on that count, were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years. For their conviction u/s. 201 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellants, however, were not sentenced to any term of imprisonment. 2. The basic features of the prosecution case, shorn of details, are as follows : Reena Devi was married to Jagdish Chaudhary sometimes in the year 1992. The second marriage was performed sometimes in the year 1993. When she came to her parents house after about one year of the marriage, she informed family members about in-laws insisting for provision of a she-buffalo, failure of which may cause her killing. When Reena Devi again went to her matrimonial house, the brother made all entreaties before the in-laws to be affectionate to his sister, as he was not possessed or means to respond to their wishes, and eventually on 15th January, 1997 when Ramji Chaudhary visited village Newari to know welfare of his sister, Reena Devi was not found there, and when inquiries were made from neighbours, he was informed that having killed Reena, her dead body had been disposed of by the in-laws. The brother of the deceased had registered a police case pursuant to which investigation followed, in course of which the police took necessary steps for collection of evidences, apprehension of the accused persons and eventually on conclusion of investigation laid charge-sheet before the Court 3. The defence of the appellants both before the Court below and this Court had been that of innocence and also that Reena Devi had died of abdominal pain in her matrimonial house. The defence of the appellants both before the Court below and this Court had been that of innocence and also that Reena Devi had died of abdominal pain in her matrimonial house. The assertion made by the prosecution about Reena Devi having been wedded to Jagdish Chaudhary in the year 1992, was also resisted by the appellants as Reena Devi, in their terms, had been married to Jagdish Chaudhary in the year 1990. 4. The State had examined eight witnesses to establish guilt of the appellants and three of them namely, R.A. Chaudhary, P.W. 3, Parma Singh, P.W. 4 and Ashoke Singh Pandey, P.W. 5, having turned hostile had not tent assurance to the prosecution allegation attributed to the appellants. Though their attentions were drawn by the State Counsel to their earliest statements rendered by them during investigation, the State Counsel had not taken pains to confront the Investigation Officer either for positive or negative answer by him, based on the statement recorded by him during investigation. Now prosecution was left with Rajendra Singh, P.W. 1, Krishna Chaudhary, P.W. 2, Ramji Chaudhary, P.W. 6 and Chandradeo Singh, P.W. 7 who had spoken on material particulars of incident. Reiterating his earliest version, Ramji Chaudhary, P.W. 6, states that after marriage in the year 1992, Reena Devi, pursuant to second marriage in 1993, had gone to her in-laws house. There she remained about six months and when she came to her parents house, she apprised her family members about demands made by the in-laws for a she-buffalo, else she would be killed. He stated to have visited her in-laws house and had begged excuse for his failure to respond to their call, in view of his financial crunch. However, on assurance made by them, Reena Devi again went to her in-laws house after remaining for a year in her parental house. It was on 1st January, 1997 that when he visited village Newari to see his sister, he found house of the in-laws locked, and when inquiries were made by him, he came to know that Reena Devi had been killed and her dead body had been cremated by the in-laws. He had moved the public authority for redressal of his grievance. He had moved the public authority for redressal of his grievance. Somewhat similar narrations about the particulars of incident were made by Krishna Chaudhary, P.W. 2, and Chandradeo Singh, P.W. 7, about Reena Devi having expressed her sufferings before them shortly on her return to her parental house from the in-laws house after her second marriage. These witnesses also state about their acquisition of knowledge of killing of Reena Devi and cremation of her dead body from neighbours and other villagers, but none of them could disclose the identity of person from whom they acquired knowledge about killing of Reena Devi by the in-laws. Though these omissions may not be of much significance in view of admitted death of Reena Devi in her in-laws house which would also raise presumption, adverse to the appellants, her death having occurred in circumstances, other than normal within seven years of her marriage. Though husband was supposed to explain circumstances of his wifes death, but yet initial burden was on the prosecution to bring home guilt beyond reasonable doubts. It Rajendra Singh, P.W. 1, is to be believed, marriage of Reena Devi was performed with all happiness, and similar was the evidence of Ramji Chaudhary, P.W. 6 who says that even second marriage of Reena was performed quite happily. The sequence of events would rather show that Reena Devi had expressed her sufferings before her brother and other family members only after she came to her parental house, pursuant to her second marriage in the year 1993. Reena Devi lived in the matrimonial house for some period and when she came she expressed her woes and this period can be reckoned to the year 1994. The facts not controverted by the State was death of Reena Devi in December, 1996. Even these assertions made by the witnesses about Reena Devi having expressed her sufferings before them pursuant to return to her parental house in the year 1994, was accepted to be true on its face value, I am afraid that it would make the appellants answerable within the ambit of sec. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, that being quite a State event. One is not oblivious that to bring a case under the mischief of sec. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, that being quite a State event. One is not oblivious that to bring a case under the mischief of sec. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, it must be shown by the prosecution that torture or sufferings of the deceased relating to demand of dowry must be soon before her death. Time without numbers, it had been reiterated by Courts in catena of decisions that to invoke mischief of sec. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, it must be shown that the harassment or cruelty caused to the woman with demand of dowry had happened soon before her death. Though said phrase was elastic expression, demands refer to a period either immediately before her death or within few days or even the few weeks before it, and the legislative object in providing such a radius of time by implicating the words "soon before her death" is to emphasise the idea that her death that should in all probabilities, have been aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In all events, there should be perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her, and if the interval elapsed between infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death was wide, the Court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities, the harassment or cruelty would not have been the immediate cause of her death. Narrations made by the witnesses have been noticed and they all suggest that expression of her sufferings in the in-laws house for failure of her parents to make provision of sufficient dowry was made by Reena Devi to them sometimes in the year 1994 when she had come back from her matrimonial house. Reena Devi had died in the last month of the year 1996 and radius of two years cannot be stretched to a period soon before her death. Interval elapsed between infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death was so wide which totally makes exclusion of complicity of the appellants, for their becoming answerable under Sec. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . 5. Other infirmities too that has surfaced in evidence of the witnesses cannot be overlooked. Interval elapsed between infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death was so wide which totally makes exclusion of complicity of the appellants, for their becoming answerable under Sec. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . 5. Other infirmities too that has surfaced in evidence of the witnesses cannot be overlooked. Rajendra Singh, P.W. 1, on, his own showing had visited Reena Devis house about three or four times but there has been no evidence on the record about any complaint having been made either by Reena Devi for her torture to him or the in-laws insisting for their demand for provision of a she-buffalo. The assertion made by Krishna Chaudhary, P.W. 2, was sought to be impeached by defence, that being materially different from the statement which he made before the police during investigation and the Investigating Officer too would negate assertion made by the witness. Similar was the case with Ramji Chaudhary, P.W. 6 also and his evidence too was not on better footing, as if he is to be believed, though he was regularly visiting her house but there has been no evidence about Reena ever complaining to him about her suffering whenever he visited her house or even the in-laws insisting on him for provision of a she-buffalo. None of the witnesses, as has been noticed, had been stating about the identity of the persons from whom they had acquired knowledge about killing of Reena Devi by in-laws. Even accepting the narrations made by the witnesses, Reena Devi had not stated about torture meted out to her by the in-laws, as she stated that she was anticipating that she would be killed in case demands of the in-laws had not been responded to by her parents, and one is to only gauge as to whether there had been any suffering or torture meted out to Reena Devi which could have been the fallout of her tragic end. 6. Having considered the evidences and also infirmities that have crept in the prosecution version, I am of the view that finding recorded by the Court below, cannot be sustained, which is, accordingly, set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Since appellant Jagdish Chaudhary happens to be in custody, he be set free forthwith if not wanted in any other case. Both the appeals, accordingly, succeed.