JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Doth the criminal appeals arise out. of the same impugned judgment dated 07/06/2003 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbacl in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2001 and, therefore, they were taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellant Mahanand Mahto of Cr. Appeal No. 467 of 2004 is the husband of the deceased Sudha Devi and two appellants namely Chhotu Ram Mahto and Shanti Devi of Cr. Appeal No. 796 of 2003 are the father and mother of Mahanand Mahto, i.e. the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Sudha Devi. All the aforesaid three appellants were charged for committing the offence under Sections 302, 120B, 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad by his impugned judgment dated 07/06/2003, acquitted the accused persons from the charges under Sections 302, 120B and 201 IPC as well as for the offence under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but found them guilty for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R. I. for a period of 10 years each. 3. The prosecution case in short is that on 26/02/2000 the Samdhi of the informant (PW-2) namely Chhotu Ram Mahto (one of the appellant) came to the informant Kashi Nath Mahto and informed him that his daughter namely Sudha Devi was missing from the night of 25/02/2000 and she could not be traced out in spite of search made in the houses of the relatives. On this information the informant alongwith 15-20 villagers went in search of his daughter to the village of his "Samdhi". He also tried to search his daughter but no trace of her was found. On 27/02/2000 the informant came to know that some blood stains were lying at Kalisthan which was near to the house of his Samdhi and there were also some marks of dragging towards Damodar River. On receipt of such information, the informant reached near Damodar River but he did not find his daughter but, however, he could find a petticoat of his daughter, which was having blood stains. The Samdhin, i.e. the appellant Shanti Devi also affirmed that the said petticoat was of her daughter-in-law, i.e. of the deceased. On receipt of such information, the informant reached near Damodar River but he did not find his daughter but, however, he could find a petticoat of his daughter, which was having blood stains. The Samdhin, i.e. the appellant Shanti Devi also affirmed that the said petticoat was of her daughter-in-law, i.e. of the deceased. The informant alleged that his son-in-law Mahanand Mahto used to ill treat, torture and assault his daughter and he used to threaten her that if the money demanded by him by way of dowry is not paid to him he would kill her. The informant stated that in order to make his daughter and son-in-law happy, he regularly used to pay money to him. The marriage between them was solemnized in the year 1998 and a child was also born out of (heir wedlock. According to the allegations of the informant his daughter was killed by the accused persons and her dead body was made to disappear. On the basis of the information given by the informant, the FIR was registered under Sections 302, 120B, 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. The defence case is of total denial of the occurrence and of false implication. 5. In order to establish the charges, altogether 11 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The learned trial court on the basis of the evidences, adduced before him, convicted and sentenced the appellants as already stated earlier. 6. The dead body of the deceased Sudha Devi was found after 7-8 days in the Damodar River near Gansadih Ghat, which was tied with one stone. Though the dead body was badly damaged but the face was identifyable and the same was identified as the dead body of the deceased Sudha Devi, i.e. the daughter of the informant. 7. Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the conviction and sentenced passed by the trial court against the appellants under Section 304B IPC was bad in law since there was no evidence on the record to the fact that soon before the death of the deceased, she was subjected to ill-treatment or cruelty due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry by the appellants and, therefore, no conviction under Section 304B could have been made against the appellants. Alternatively it was argued that from the evidence of the prosecution at best it can be said that there are some evidences in this regard against the husband only and not against the other two appellants, i.e. against the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. 8. In order to test the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to scrutinize the evidences of the prosecution witnesses. 9. PW-1 is Sahdeo Bouri a co-villagers of the informant. In his evidence he has stated that Sudha Devi was married to the appellant Mahanand Mahto in the year 1998 and she died on 25/02/2000 at her in-laws place. He came to know about the death of Sudha Devi from the father-in-law of the deceased, i.e. the appellant Chhotu Ram Mahto, who had come to inform the informant Kashi Nath Mahto. He further stated that on 26/02/2000, he alongwith informant and other persons went to the in-laws place of the deceased, i.e. Village Jogidih but they could not find Sudha Devi. On 27/02/2000, this witness as well as others saw some blood stains on the ground and the blood stains were going towards the Damodar River. By the side of the River the petticoat of the deceased Sudha Devi was found by the police, which was identified by the mother-in-law of the deceased also but on that day the dead body of the deceased could not be found. After 7-8 days, at Gansadih Ghat, the dead body of the deceased Sudha Devi was recovered by the police and an inquest report was prepared in the presence of this witness. He put his signature thereon and he also identified the dead body of the deceased Sudha by seeing her face. He, however, stated that because of the dowry the deceased Sudha Devi was being ill-treated and tortured by her in- laws and, therefore, she was frustrated because of that. Several times she was driven out from her in laws place and then Panchayati was held and she used to be sent to her sasural. This witness has further stated that prior to the said occurrence the father-in-law, the mother-in-law and the husband of the deceased had accepted their guilt and promised that they would not ill-treat or torture the deceased in future. This witness has further stated that prior to the said occurrence the father-in-law, the mother-in-law and the husband of the deceased had accepted their guilt and promised that they would not ill-treat or torture the deceased in future. In paragraph-16 of his cross-examination this witness (PW-1) has specifically stated that he saw several injuries on the temporal region, chest, abdomen and on thighs on the person of the deceased and the dead body was tied with a stone when ft was recovered. The place of recovery of the dead body was about half a kilometer from the house of the accused persons. This witness has also stated about Panchayati, which was held to resolve the dispute. In paragraph-20 of his evidence, this witness has stated that the father of Mahanand Mahto (the husband), i.e. the appellant Chhotu Ram Mahto admitted that his son was not under their control but he promised that he would see that henceforth Mahanand may not ill-treat and assault his wife. 10. PW-2 is the informant Kashi Nath Mahto. He has fully supported his statement made in the FIR. In paragraph-9 of his evidence he has stated that the accused persons used to threaten that if the demand of dowry is not fulfilled then Sudha Devi would be killed. PW-3 Kokil Mahto is a co-villager and he has corroborated the story put forward by PW-1 and PW-2. PW-4 Sunil Yadav and PW-5 Mantu Mahto have corroborated the statement of PW-1. PW-6 is Sukhia Devi the mother of the deceased and the wife of the informant PW-2. This witness has stated that her son-in-law used to demand money and Hero Honda Motorcycle and he used to ill treat her daughter and when Panchayati was held then he promised that he would not ill treat his wife. PW-7 Ranjeet Mahto, PW-8 Deglal Mahto and PW-9 Rameshwar Mahto are co-villagers of the informant and their statements are on the same line to that of PW-1. PW-10 is Dr. C.S. Prasad, who conducted the Post Mortem examination and submitted Post Mortem report, which was proved as Ext.-4. He found several injuries on the person of the deceased, which are as under: (i) Incised wound- 2"x 1" x muscle deep on the upper part, of back of right forearm. (ii) Two stab wound 3" apart of size 1 1/2" x 1"x cavity deep on the right flank of chest. He found several injuries on the person of the deceased, which are as under: (i) Incised wound- 2"x 1" x muscle deep on the upper part, of back of right forearm. (ii) Two stab wound 3" apart of size 1 1/2" x 1"x cavity deep on the right flank of chest. The weapon passing through the 6th intercentral space penetrating the right lung Other passing through 7th intercentral space penetrating the diaphragm and liver. (iii) Stab wound- 2" x 1" cavity deep on just above the right iliac crest the weapon passing through the abdominal wall and penetrating the crest. (iv) Stab wound of size 2 1/2" x 1" x bone deep on the right iliac crest laterally. (v) Penetrating wound two in number of size 1 l/2" x 3 1/2"x 2" on the right glutei region. (vi) Stab wounds four in numbers of size 1" x 3/4" x cavity deep in area of 5" x 2" on the back of abdomen wall and penetrating the mesentery and intestine. (vii) Stab wound of size 1 1/2" x 1/2"x cavity deep on the left: flank of abdomen upper part. The weapon penetrating through the abdominal wall and intestine. PW-11 is the formal witness. 11. The essential ingredients to attract the application of 301 B IPC are that: (i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury on otherwise than under normal circumstances, (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 or any relative of her husband, (iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for, or in connection with, demand for dowry, and (v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. 12. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act envisages regarding the presumption as to dowry death. Under this provision a presumption against the husband and other relatives of the husband for causing dowry death would be presumed if 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 of dowry. The court shall presume that such person has caused the dowry death. The court shall presume that such person has caused the dowry death. In the explanation of Section 113B of the Evidence Act it has been provided that for the purpose of this Section, dowry death shall have the same meaning as under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of Kunhiabulla and Anr. v. State of Kerala " has held as follows: 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 "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. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelly or harassment and only in that case the presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by the prosecution. "Soon before" is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no straitjacket 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 the 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, or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for its possession. 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, or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for its 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. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. 14. In the present case, there is specific evidence of the prosecution that the deceased was being ill treated, tortured by her husband Mahanand Mahto since his quench and greed for dowry was not fulfilled and due to that several times Panchayati was held and the deceased was sent back to her in-laws place with her husband Mahanand Mahto. Even few days prior to the alleged occurrence after a Panchayati, the deceased was sent back with the husband and there in the said Panchayati his parents, i.e. the appellant Chhotu Ram Mahto promised that they would see that the deceased is not assaulted by her husband. But after few days of the Panchayati the dead body of the deceased was found in a River having several injuries on her person. 15. From the evidence adduced, which has already been discussed above, the prosecution has been able to fully establish the fact that the death of the deceases was not under normal circumstances and it was within seven years of her marriage and the appellant Mahanand Mahto, i.e. her husband regularly used to ill-treat, torture and assault her because of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry and he even ill-treated, tortured his wife, i.e. the deceased Sudha Devi soon before her death. 16. 16. So far as the appellants Chhotu Ram Mahto and Shanti Devi, who are the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the deceased are concerned, it appears that no specific evidence has come against them so as to come to the definite conclusion, that they ever demanded dowry or ever ill-treated the deceased in connection with the demand of dowry and that also soon before her death. As a matter of fact it was the appellant Chhotu Ram Mahto, who came to the house of the informant on 26/02/2000 and informed him that his daughter was missing since last night. 17. Accordingly, I find that the prosecution has not been able to establish the charges against these two appellants namely Chhotu Ram Mahto and Shanti Devi of Cr. Appeal No. 796/2003 beyond all reasonable doubts. So far as the appellant Mahanand Mahto, i.e. the husband of the deceased is concerned, the prosecution has established the charges against him beyond all reasonable doubts. 18. In view of my discussions and findings above, I hold that the learned trial court rightly convicted the appellant Mahanand Mahto, i.e. the husband of the deceased holding him guilty for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, by affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against Mahanand Mahto, his appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 467/2004 is hereby dismissed. 19. The Cr. Appeal No. 796/2003, filed by the appellants Chhotu Ram Mahto and Shanti Devi, is hereby allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against these two appellants are hereby set aside. These two appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.