JUDGMENT Saksena, J. -- 1. Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.10.1996, passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No.286/95, convicting the appellants for the offences u/s 304B and 498A of IPC and sentencing them to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.3,000/- on each count respectively. 2. In brief, the prosecution story is that Rooma (deceased) was married to accused Subrato Bachaspati on 27.2.1994. Accused P.K. Bachaspati and Smt. Shikha Bachaspati are respectively the father-in-law and mother-in-law of Rooma. Accused Devvrat Bachaspati is her husband's younger brother. It is said that before marriage accused persons had demanded Rs.35,000/- cash in dowry from Jagat Jeevan Bhaduri, the father of deceased. He any how managed to pay Rs. 10,000/- cash and gave gold ornaments, vessels and furniture to them at the time of marriage, but the accused did not feel satisfied and pressurized Rooma for bringing remaining amount of Rs.25,000/- of dowry. They taunted her that she was daughter of a beggar and on objecting, they maltreated her. Rooma had informed all the aforesaid facts to N.C. Lahiri and Monika Chaterjee, who lived at Jabalpur. It is also said that accused Devvrat kept on evil eye on her. 3. Jagat Jeevan Bhaduri used to live in Calcutta. He had performed the marriage of Rooma at Jabalpur. After marriage, when Roma went to Calcutta, she informed all the aforesaid facts to her parents, but they sent her back to Jabalpur. 4. After about 1-2 months, when Rooma became pregnant, accused cast aspersion on her character and insisted that until amount of Rs.25,000/was given to them, they would not permit her to deliver child. Accused Subrato Bachaspati, who was also practising medicine, gave her some medicine due to which her condition became serious. She was taken for the treatment to N.C. Lahiri and thereafter to Shukla Nursing Home, Ranjhi. She could be saved only after abortion. Once again she became pregnant, but accused again got it aborted. It is said that about one and a half month before the incident, when she again conceived, accused persons had asked her to bring Rs.25,000/- from her parents. Rooma informed her wish of becoming the mother to her niece, brother and Shaifali Lahiri on 1.1.1995. They also tried to make accused persons understand, but they persisted their demand. It is said that about one and a half month before the incident, when she again conceived, accused persons had asked her to bring Rs.25,000/- from her parents. Rooma informed her wish of becoming the mother to her niece, brother and Shaifali Lahiri on 1.1.1995. They also tried to make accused persons understand, but they persisted their demand. Thus, feeling frustrated and harassed, on 9.1.1995 Rooma committed suicide by hanging. Accused Subrato and P.K. Bachaspati informed about her death to Dr. Monika Chaterjee and Dr. Chaterjee at about 9:30 in the night. A written report EX.P-1 was submitted by her father Jagat Jeevan Bhaduri to police on 12.1.1995. 5. Murg intimation EX.D- 21 of the death of Rooma was given to police by accused Subrato Bachaspti. Dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination to Medical College, Jabalpur. PW5 Dr. D.K. Shakalle performed the post-mortem examination and found a seven inches long ligature mark on her neck. There were some minor abrasions near eye and right arm and an embryo of one and a half months period was found in her uterus. Cause of death, in his opinion, was asphyxia due to hanging. Post-mortem report is EX.P-7. Police registered the case against the accused persons u/s 498A and 304B of IPC and after recording the statements of witnesses and requisite investigation, filed the charge-sheet. After committal, case was received in the Court of Sessions. 6. Learned trial Court framed the charges u/s 304B and 498A of IPC. All the accused abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. According to them, deceased was suffering from severe pain in the abdomen due to some gynaecological problem. She was treated at Jabalpur and also at Calcutta. The abortions were done under the advice of doctor. They had never harassed or subjected the deceased to cruelty. They have been falsely implicated due to pressure by 'Mahila Morcha' which had laid picketing of police station. 7. Accused persons produced several letters in defence to show that the relations between deceased and them were cordial. 8. Prosecution examined ten witnesses to prove its case. 9. Trial Court, relying upon the evidence, adduced by the prosecution, held the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned earlier. 10. Shri S.C. Datt, learned senior counsel for appellants, has submitted that appellants have been falsely implicated. 8. Prosecution examined ten witnesses to prove its case. 9. Trial Court, relying upon the evidence, adduced by the prosecution, held the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned earlier. 10. Shri S.C. Datt, learned senior counsel for appellants, has submitted that appellants have been falsely implicated. The relations between the deceased and accused persons were very cordial. No demand of dowry was ever made. The deceased was never subjected to any kind of cruelty, specially soon before her death. Deceased herself had willingly got her pregnancy terminated. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses which render the prosecution story of demand of dowry and meting out of cruelty unreliable. He submitted that the material witnesses who were in contact with deceased at Jabalpur were not examined by the prosecution. He read out all the statements of prosecution witnesses and the letters produced by the accused persons in defence indicating cordial relations between the two parties. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish its case and that no presumption u/s 113A or 113B of the Indian Evidence Act can be raised against the accused persons. In the circumstances of the case, conviction and sentence of the appellants deserved to be set aside. 11. Per contra, Shri R.S. Patel, learned Additional Advocate General, has submitted that mother and father of deceased have categorically stated about the demand of Rs.25,000/- from the deceased. There is evidence on record that deceased was subjected to cruelty on that count and was pressurized to get her pregnancy terminated. He justified the finding of conviction and sentence arrived at by the trial Court and submitted that appeal deserved to be dismissed. 12. PW 1 Jagat Jeevan Bhaduri, the father of the deceased, has stated that the marriage of the deceased with accused Subrato Bachaspati had taken place on 27.2.1994 and in the marriage it was agreed that he would give Rs.35,000/- cash and some gold. He had arranged and given Rs.10,000/-- and some other articles. Some time after marriage he came to know from his brother N.C. Lahiri PW4 and niece Smt. Monika Chaterjee about the pregnancy of his daughter. According to him, Monika Chaterjee wrote a letter to him informing that accused persons demanded money and since money was not given, they got the pregnancy of Rooma terminated. Some time after marriage he came to know from his brother N.C. Lahiri PW4 and niece Smt. Monika Chaterjee about the pregnancy of his daughter. According to him, Monika Chaterjee wrote a letter to him informing that accused persons demanded money and since money was not given, they got the pregnancy of Rooma terminated. The condition of Rooma had become serious, therefore, she was got admitted in Shukla Nursing Home at Ranjhi. She had again conceived and second time again there had been an abortion. On 9.1.1995, Sujeet Singh, a family friend, had gone to Jabalpur and met Rooma. According to him, accused persons made a demand from Sujeet also Sujeet had intimated this fact to his niece Monika Chaterjee. After the operation at Shukla Nursing Home, Rooma was taken to Calcutta by Devvrat on 2nd June, 1994. There, Rooma told that accused were demanding Rs.25,000/-. On 4th September, Subrato Bachaspathi, the husband of Rooma, took Rooma back to Jabalpur. On 9th January 1995, he received information on phone that Rooma was killed. This phone call was made by Monika Chaterjee. From perusal of the record, it is seen that this witness did not produce the letter which, according to him, was written by his niece informing that accused persons were demanding money. It is also important to note that Sujeet Singh who had met Rooma and to whom also demand of money was made by the accused persons, has not been examined by the prosecution. In para 3 of his statement, this witness stated that since he did not know writing Hindi, he got the report written by somebody else and gave it to police, since police had asked him to submit a written report. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the fact that Smt. Monika Chaterjee, who happened to be the wife of D.D. Chaterjee, is niece of this witness. She lives in Madrasi Line, Ranjhi. The marriage was got settled by his brother M.C. Lahiri (PW4) who also lives in Jabalpur, but it is strange that Monika Chaterjee and Shaifali Chaterjee have not been examined by the prosecution. Though he stated that a letter was written to him by Monika informing that accused have got the abortion done because the money was not paid, but he did not keep that letter and he did not remember when that letter was written. Though he stated that a letter was written to him by Monika informing that accused have got the abortion done because the money was not paid, but he did not keep that letter and he did not remember when that letter was written. The fact of sending letter was also found missing in the written report EX.P-1. The fact that Rooma had conceived second time near about the festival of Dussehra and again her pregnancy was got terminated is also missing from the report EX.P-1 and the statement EX.D-1 recorded by police. The fact about demand of money being made to Sujeet is also missing in EX.P-1 and EX.D-1. According to report Ex.P-1, the fact of demand of Rs.25,000/- was informed by Rooma to Shaifali Lahiri, Monika Chaterjee and PW4 M.C. Lahiri. 14. Shaifali Lahiri and Monika Chaterjee have not been produced in evidence. PW3, D.D. Chaterjee, who happened to be the brother-in-law of deceased Rooma, in his statement before the Court, stated that Rooma did not tell any important thing to him about her house. She did not inform him about any demand being made by accused persons. He did not know as to how she died, though she had come to her house a week before, but she did not tell anything to him. In cross-examination, PW3 admitted that Rooma never told him that accused persons taunted her that her parents did not give anything in dowry or made any demand of dowry. Similarly, PW4, M.C. Lahiri, who happened to be the uncle of the deceased and lived at Jabalpur, did not say anything about demand of dowry or cruelty. Prosecution examined this witness only as a witness of inquest. 15. In Para 18 of his statement, PW 1, Jagat Jeevan Bhaduri admitted that he came to know about the condition of his daughter from M.C. Lahiri, Monika Chaterjee, Shaifali Lahiri and D.D. Chaterjee, but strangely enough material witnesses, Monika Chaterjee and Shaifali Lahiri were not examined by the prosecution and D.D. Chaterjee and M.C. Lahiri did not say anything incriminating against the accused persons. In paragraph 18 he also admitted that he never met Sujeet. 16. In paragraph 18 he also admitted that he never met Sujeet. 16. PW4 Jagat Jevan Bhaduri in his evidence, further admitted the correctness of letters Ex.D-3A, D-6A, D-8A and D-9A, which are the photocopies of the letters produced by defence and also the documents with respect to treatment of deceased i.e. Ex.D-14, 15, 16 and 17. Though this witness in para 1 of his chief examination stated that Rs.35,000/cash were agreed to be paid in the marriage, but in para 15, he contradicted it by saying that it was wrong to say that any such settlement was made at the time of marriage. 17. Perusal of various letters written by accused Subrato to his wife (deceased) and by deceased to him indicate that relations between them were normal and cordial. Letter Ex.D-2A, which purports to have been written by Shaifali Lahiri to Jagat Jeevan Bhaduri reveals that deceased and her husband Subrato had got her pregnancy terminated without the consent of parents of Subrato. They even did not care to inform about that to them or Shaifali. Shaifali Lahiri has mentioned in the letter that they thought that it would not come in the knowledge of anybody, but after 45 days, when Rooma suffered serious pain in the abdomen and fell unconscious, she was taken to Dr. Shukla by the accused persons. After that, Rooma was subjected to operation as some piece of flash had remained inside the uterus. It has also been mentioned in the letter that at that time mother-in-law, father-in-law of Rooma and Devvrat had very sincerely served her and that they were so good that they could not be compared with anybody. It was also indicated that Rooma should not speak untruth. She committed a big mistake which could not be condoned. 18. Similarly, in letter Ex.D-10A, which is admitted to have been written by PW2 Jayanti Bhaduri, the mother of deceased, to accused persons, it has been mentioned that Rooma admired accused persons very much and that she was very happy to hear her approval about them. 19. On closely scanning of the evidence of Jagat Jeevan Bhaduri, D.D. Chaterjee and M.C. Lahiri and the letters produced by defence, it is abundantly clear that deceased was not subjected to any kind of cruelty by the accused persons. Deceased herself was responsible for her abortions. 19. On closely scanning of the evidence of Jagat Jeevan Bhaduri, D.D. Chaterjee and M.C. Lahiri and the letters produced by defence, it is abundantly clear that deceased was not subjected to any kind of cruelty by the accused persons. Deceased herself was responsible for her abortions. By no stretch of reasoning it can be assumed that accused persons in any manner pressurized her to get her pregnancy terminated because demand of money was not fulfilled. 20. PW2 Jayanti, mother of Rooma, in her statement before the trial Court said that accused persons had demanded Rs.25,000/- at the time of marriage, but they had given only Rs.10,000/-. She did not say that abortion of Rooma was done without her consent. According to her, relations between the two families were cordial. There used to be exchange of letters between the members of both the families. She never informed anybody that accused persons were demanding Rs.15,000/-. According to her, D.D. Chaterjee, his wife, M.C. Lahiri and Shaifali Lahiri, who lived at Jabalpur, had told her that Rooma had informed that accused persons were demanding Rs.15,000/-, but PW3 D.D. Chaterjee and PW4 M.C. Lahiri did not say a single word in that regard and Shaifali Lahiri was not examined in the Court. The evidence of this witness further to be conflicting with that of Jagat Jeevan Bhaduri that an amount of Rs.35,000/- was settled in the marriage, as this witness told only about Rs.25,000/-. In para 5 of her statement, this witness said that her daughter had lived at her house for a period of about 3 months. Thereafter, she had gone with her husband. Till her death she did not receive any kind of information in respect of her daughter from anybody. In para 7, she admitted that she had sent the letter EX.D-10A to PK. Bachaspati and his wife, expressing that deceased admired their behaviour very much. 21. Relying upon the law laid down in Shamlal v. State of Haryana [ AIR 1997 SC 1873 ], learned counsel for appellants has submitted that the primary requirements for finding the appellants guilty of the offence u/s 304B of IPC are that death of the deceased was caused otherwise than natural circumstances within seven years of her marriage and that "soon before her death" she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants for or in connection with any demand for dowry. He submitted that though it has been established that the death of the deceased had taken place within seven years of marriage and that it was otherwise than under natural circumstances, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons for or in connection with any demand for dowry. He has submitted that the legal presumption envisaged in section 113B of the Evidence Act is also not attracted in the case. It is imperative for invoking the aforesaid legal presumption to prove that "soon before death" deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand for dowry. 22. In the case of Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab [2006(1) MPWN 1 25= AIR 2006 SC 680 ], it has been observed that: "from a conjoint reading of section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, it will be apparent that a presumption arising thereunder will operate if the prosecution is able to establish the circumstances as set out in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code." "It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if section 304B is to be invoked. But it should have happened "soon before her death". The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death, or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words "soon before her death" is to emphasise the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptile nexus between her death and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is 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. If the interval elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is 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. It is hence for the Court to decide on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept "soon before her death". 23. Learned counsel for the appellants further placing reliance on the observations made in the case of Sunil Bajaj v. State of M.P. [ 2002(1) JLJ 1 = AIR 2001 SC 3020 ], submitted that if the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses as to the demand of dowry was too general and vague; their evidence suffered from contradictions on material points and the letters said to have been written by deceased and her husband do not support the case of prosecution, it cannot be held that offence u/s 304B of IPC is made out. 24. Keeping in view the above legal propositions, critically scrutinizing the evidence of PW1 Jagat Jeeven Bhaduri, PW2 Jayanti Bhaduri, PW3 D.D. Chaterjee, PW4 M.C. Lahiri and PW7 Jayanti Chakrawarty, it cannot be inferred that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons for not meeting any demand made by them. The evidence about demand of Rs.25,000/- itself is discrepant and conflicting. PW1 has said that an amount of Rs.35,000/- was settled, whereas PW2 Jayanti Bhaduri said that it was Rs.25,000/-. Besides that, the prosecution evidence about the demand as well as about cruelty is vague. From the letter Ex.D-2, written by Shaifali Lahiri, it is apparent that deceased had suffered abortions out of her own choice without the consent of appellants. There is absolutely no reliable evidence that accused persons in any manner compelled her to get her pregnancy terminated. On the contrary, there is sufficient evidence on record to indicate that the relations between husband and wife and in-laws were cordial. From the evidence of PW6 Dr. S.P. Udenia, it is indicated that Rooma used to suffer with severe and unbearable abdominal pain. It is also in the evidence that after the death of deceased 'Mahila Morcha' had pressurized the police and administration for registering the case and arrest of appellants. From the evidence of PW6 Dr. S.P. Udenia, it is indicated that Rooma used to suffer with severe and unbearable abdominal pain. It is also in the evidence that after the death of deceased 'Mahila Morcha' had pressurized the police and administration for registering the case and arrest of appellants. This fact is further reinforced from the evidence of PW2 Jayanti Bhaduri, the mother of deceased, who stated that 'Mahila Samiti' had taken the dead body from them and had circulated it in Jabalpur and had taken it to the office of Collector. Members of 'Mahila Samiti' had also attended the Court on hearings. 25. In view of the total lack of cogent and reliable evidence on the point that accused persons ever subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry, or otherwise, much less "soon before her death", we are of the firm view that no necessary ingredients making out the offence u/s 304B and 498A of IPC are established. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt. 26. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The findings of conviction and sentence of appellants recorded by the trial Court are set aside. Appellants are acquitted. 27. Appellants No.1 to 3 are on bail. Their personal bonds and surety bonds stand discharged.