JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge is to the judgment dated 11-8-2006 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Betul in S.T. No. 63/05, Whereby the appellant Jagdish, has been convicted under sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment, one year rigorous imprisonment and fine Rs. 1,000/- in default three months rigorous imprisonment respectively. 2. Admitted facts of the case are that the appellant Jagdish is husband of the deceased Shivkanta. They got married in the year 2003. Shivkanta died between 15-9-2004 to 17-9-2004. She died due to asphyxia due to strangulation. 3. The case of the prosecution in short is that the appellant Jagdish, co-accused Balwant and Sarswati Bai, parents of the appellant used to demand dowry from the deceased Shivkanta and her parents. Due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, the appellant and co-accused persons used to harass, tortured and subjected her to cruelty. The appellant and co-accused persons at the time of marriage demanded Rs. 5,000/- from the parents of the deceased, which they fulfilled. Parents of the deceased supplied wheat, Mahua and other articles to the appellant and co-accused persons on their demand, as dowry. Deceased used to make complaint to her parents and family members about demand of dowry by the appellant and co-accused persons, due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry about harassing, torturing and subjecting her to cruelty. 4. The deceased Shivkanta was missed from her husband's house. Father-in-law of the deceased Shivkanta on 17-9-2004 lodged FIR about missing of her daughter-in-law Shivkanta. On 17-9-2004 dead body of Shivkanta was found near the bank of Tapti River. Merg intimation was registered. Inquest memo (Ex.P/5) of dead body of Shivkanta was prepared. Photographs of dead body of Shivkanta were taken. Dr. Nikita Sheikh (PW-12) performed post-mortem of dead body of Shivkanta. Cause of death of Shivkanta is asphyxia due to strangulation within 48 hours from the time of post-mortem. Senior scientist inspected spot and furnished report Ex.P/2 to S.H.O. Police Station, Jhallar. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code. After completion of investigation, the appellant Jagdish and co-accused persons were charge-sheeted. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions for Trial. 5. Senior scientist inspected spot and furnished report Ex.P/2 to S.H.O. Police Station, Jhallar. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code. After completion of investigation, the appellant Jagdish and co-accused persons were charge-sheeted. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions for Trial. 5. Learned trial Court framed charges under sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and alternatively under section 302 of Indian Penal Code against the appellant Jagdish and co-accused persons Balwant and Saraswati Bai. The appellant and co-accused persons abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication. 6. Prosecution examined 16 witnesses. One witness has been examined in defence. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, perusing evidence and material on record, learned trial Court convicted the appellant Jagdish under sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as hereinabove mentioned. Learned trial Court acquitted the appellant Jagdish of charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned trial-Court also acquitted the co-accused persons, of charge under sections 304-B, 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. No appeal has been preferred by the respondent/State against the judgment of acquittal. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment the appellant has preferred the appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties, perused impugned judgment, evidence and material on record. 8. Shri S. K. Gangrade, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that there is no reliable and sufficient evidence on record in respect of demand of dowry by the appellant Jagdish and due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, he subjected her to cruelty, tortured or harassed her. The appellant never demanded dowry from the deceased Shivkanta or her parents and never harassed or tortured the deceased. There is positive evidence on record that economic condition of the appellant and his family member were very poor and his in-laws gave wheat, Mahua and some money to help him and his family member. There is no nexus between the death of the deceased Shivkanta and demand of dowry and cruelty, learned trial Court committed error in relying upon the testimony of prosecution witnesses, convicting and sentencing the appellant as hereinabove mentioned. Contrary to that, Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment and contended that learned trial Court did not commit any error, in convicting and sentencing the appellant. 9. Contrary to that, Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment and contended that learned trial Court did not commit any error, in convicting and sentencing the appellant. 9. It has been admitted by learned counsel for both the parties that Shivkanta got married in the year 2003 with the appellant Jagdish. She was missing from 15-9-2004 from her in-law's house and dead body of Shivkanta was found on 17-9-2004 at the bank of Tapti River. It is also admitted by learned counsel for both the parties that cause of death of Shivkanta is asphyxia due to strangulation. On going through the evidence of Bhagchand (PW-1), Neelu (PW-3), Surtiya Bai (PW-4), Imrat (PW-5), Dr. Nikita Sheikh (PW-12), inquest memo of dead body of Shivkanta, photographs of dead body of deceased Exs. P/7 to P/13 and post-mortem report Ex.P/14, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Shivkanta got married with the appellant Jagdish in the year 2003 and she died between 15-9-2004 to 17-9-2004, the cause of death of Shivkanta is asphyxia due to strangulation. The death of Shivkanta is homicidal in nature. It is also proved that Shivkanta died within seven years of her marriage, otherwise then under normal circumstances. 10. Bhagchand (PW-1), father of the deceased Shivkanta deposed that at the time of marriage, the appellant Jagdish demanded dowry and he paid Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant. Jagdish. He further deposed that he took loan of Rs. 5,000/-from Vaman Rao (PW-2) and paid Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant. He further deposed that afterward he also paid Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant Jadgish, by taking loan of Rs. 5,000/- from Chandra Kishore Gangare (PW-9). Bhagchand further deposed that he paid cash Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant because he used to tease her daughter Shivkanta. In para 7 of his cross-examination, Bhagchand deposed that the appellant Jagdish demanded Rs. 5,000/- in front of his wife Neelu (PW-3) and his brother Imrat (PW-5). In second breath, he deposed that when the appellant demanded Rs. 5,000/-, his wife was not present. Bhagchand further deposed that he gave one sack of wheat and Mahua to the appellant Jagdish. Neelu (PW-3) deposed that after marriage, when third time her daughter Shivkanta came to her house, she gave Rs. 5,000/- borrowing from Gouli (Vaman Rao PW-2) and Rs. 5,000/-, his wife was not present. Bhagchand further deposed that he gave one sack of wheat and Mahua to the appellant Jagdish. Neelu (PW-3) deposed that after marriage, when third time her daughter Shivkanta came to her house, she gave Rs. 5,000/- borrowing from Gouli (Vaman Rao PW-2) and Rs. 5,000/- borrowing from Nakedar (Chandra Kishore Gangare PW-9) to her daughter. She further deposed that thereafter she gave two sacks of wheat and one sack of Mahua to her daughter. In Para 1 of Neelu she specifically deposed that she does not know about dowry and she was not told about dowry. Neelu is not corroborated the evidence of her husband Bhagchand that at the time of marriage, the appellant demanded Rs. 5,000/- in dowry and at that time Bhagchand took loan of Rs. 5,000/- from Vaman Rao (PW-2) and paid Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant Bhagchand. She is not corroborating the fact that Bhagchand again paid Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant Jagdish. As per Bhagchand, payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant was within the knowledge of Neelu, Vaman Rao (PW-2) also not corroborated the fact that he gave Rs. 5,000/- in loan to Bhagchand and he paid, that money to the appellant Jagdish in dowry. Chandra Kishore Gangare (PW-9) was also not corroborating the fact that the appellant Jagdish demanded Rs. 5,000/- in dowry from Bhagchand. Bhagchand took loan of Rs. 5,000/- from him and paid that money to the appellant Jagdish. Vaman Rao (PW-2) and Chandra Kishore Gangare (PW-9) turned hostile and they are stating against their previous statement, and against the evidence of Bhagchand and Neelu. Nanhu (PW-6) deposed that the appellant Jagdish and his father demanded Rs. 5,000/- from him. Bhagchand brought this money from Vaman Rao (PW-2) and paid Rs. 5,000/- to them. Nanhu further deposed that deceased Shivkanta came from her in-law's house and told him that her husband saying that if, her parents would pay Rs. 5,000/- then only he will keep her with him. He further deposed that in-laws of deceased used to tease her. In cross-examination Nanhu deposed that when he used to roam in village, at that time, Shivkanta told him aforementioned facts. He further deposed that second time, Shivkanta came from her in-laws' house, she came to his house and told that they are demanding money and by taking loan of Rs. In cross-examination Nanhu deposed that when he used to roam in village, at that time, Shivkanta told him aforementioned facts. He further deposed that second time, Shivkanta came from her in-laws' house, she came to his house and told that they are demanding money and by taking loan of Rs. 5,000/- from Nakedar, money was paid to them. Nanhu deposed that Bhagchand paid Rs. 5,000/- to Balwant in Jamania. He further deposed that on the day of marriage, it was conveyed that if Bhagchand would pay Rs. 5,000/-, then only marriage would be solemnized. After paying Rs. 5,000/-, marriage was solemnized. But these facts did not find place in the statement of Bhagchand (PW-1), Vaman Rao (PW-2), Neelu (PW-3), Chandra Kishore Gangare (PW-9), there are material contradictions in the statement of Bhagchand (PW-1), Neelu (PW-3) and Nanhu (PW-6) on material points. Surtiya Bai (PW-4) deposed that on the day of marriage, Barat was getting late, but she does not know the reason. She further deposed that when bride party went to search the Barat, they found Barat in village Jhallar. Baratis told that they have no vehicle and asked to send any vehicle, then; tractor trolley was sent to Jhallar and Barat reached in the village, before that groom (Appellant Jagdish) reached on the marriage place by motorcycle. Surtiya Bai (PW-4) is not declared hostile. Her statement is binding on prosecution. She totally demolishes the evidence of Bhagchand (PW-1), Nanhu (PW-6) that the appellant and his father on the venue of marriage demanded Rs. 5,000/- in dowry and Bhagchand paid Rs. 5,000/- to them. 11. Surtiya Bai (PW-4) deposed that at the time of Rakshabandhan, deceased Shivkanta came to her parental house and told her that her in-laws and, husband told her that, come with money, then only they will keep her with them. She further deposed that every day, they used to beat Shivkanta. But this part of evidence of Surtiya Bai has not been corroborated by Bhagchand (PW-1), Neelu (PW-3) and Nanhu (PW-6). If, Shivkanta would have beaten by the appellant and her in-laws, it was natural that she would have complained to her parents in this respect. There is no single word in the statement of Bhagchand and Neelu in this respect. Bhagchand simply deposed that they used to tease her daughter. Hence, this part of evidence of Surtiya Bai cannot be accepted beyond doubt. There is no single word in the statement of Bhagchand and Neelu in this respect. Bhagchand simply deposed that they used to tease her daughter. Hence, this part of evidence of Surtiya Bai cannot be accepted beyond doubt. As per above discussion, evidence of Nanhu (PW-6) also cannot be accepted beyond doubt. Dhanraj (PW-13) turned hostile. He is not supporting the prosecution case that the appellant demanded dowry from the evidence of deceased Shivkanta and her parents and due to non-fulfilment of dowry, he subjected her to cruelty, harassed and tortured her. Dhanraj (PW-13) declared hostile and cross-examined by Public Prosecutor, but no fruitful fact came in his cross-examination. He is deposing against in his previous statement Ex.P/5. Hence, statement of Dhanraj is not reliable. 12. Banwari (PW-7) deposed that Balwant told him that he has identified the dead body of his daughter-in-law, but he never went to see the dead body. Rusilal (PW-8) went to see the dead body, which was lying in the bank of river. He informed to Balwant about the dead body in village Jhallar. Balwant identified the dead body of his daughter-in-law. B. B. Singh (PW-10) prepared inquest memo (Ex.P/5) of dead body of Shivkanta. Senior Scientist of FSL unit inspected the spot and wrote letter Ex.P/6 to S.H.O Police Station, Jhallar and advised for diatum test. Subhash Chand Makode (PW-14) took photographs (Exs.P/7 to P/13) of dead body of Shivkanta. Vijay Singh Athiya (PW-15) seized photographs and negatives of photographs of dead body from Subhash Chand Makode as per seizure memo Ex.P/16. Amit Saxena (PW-16) conducted merg inquiry. He registered case under sections 498-A, 304-B and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as per Ex.P/19. After preliminary inquiry, evidence of these witnesses were formally recorded. 13. As I have already observed that there are material contradictions in the statement of Bhagchand (PW-1), Neelu (PW-3), Surtiya Bai (PW-4), Imrat (PW-5) and Nanhu (PW-6). Their statement are not corroborate by Vaman Rao (PW-2) and Chandra Kishore Gangare (PW-9). Bhagchand (PW-1) in para 7 contradicts, his statement regarding demand of dowry by the appellant Jagdish at the time of marriage, by stating that at the time of marriage Jagdish did not demand dowry but he demanded dowry afterwards. In second breath, he deposed that Jagdish resisted himself for Rs. 5,000/- then he paid Rs. Bhagchand (PW-1) in para 7 contradicts, his statement regarding demand of dowry by the appellant Jagdish at the time of marriage, by stating that at the time of marriage Jagdish did not demand dowry but he demanded dowry afterwards. In second breath, he deposed that Jagdish resisted himself for Rs. 5,000/- then he paid Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant Jagdish and his father Balwant. He admitted that he has not mentioned this fact in his report, which shades cloud of doubts on the testimony of Bhagchand. Bhagchand (PW-1) and Neelu (PW-3) admitted that economic condition of the appellant's family was not good, thats why he gave wheat and Mahua to the appellant for personal use. Bhagchand specifically admitted that he has not given wheat and Mahua in dowry to the appellant. Neelu (PW-3) in Para 7 of her statement specifically admitted that because of weak economic condition of the appellant, they gave wheat and Mahua to the appellant for their livelihood. Neelu specifically admitted that due to weak economic condition, they used to give money to the appellant. But in second breath, she deposed that the appellant used to demand money. But there is positive evidence of Bhagchand and Neelu that due to weak economic condition of the appellant and his family, they used to help them and used to give them wheat, Mahua and money. 14. In Appasaheb and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 Vol. IX SCC 721, it has been held by the Apex Court thus :- "11. In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle-of interpretation of Statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction, knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning. (See Union of India vs. Garware Nylons Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 3509 and Chemicals and Fibres of India vs. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 558 ). A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure. Since an essential ingredient of section 304-B, Indian Penal Code viz. demand for dowry is not established, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained." There is no reliable evidence that the appellant demanded dowry from the parents of the deceased Shivkanta or from her parents. Due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, he used to harass and tease her and subjected her to cruelty. Bhagchand made generalized allegation against the appellant Jagdish and his family. They used to tease her daughter. It is clear from the evidence of Bhagchand and Neelu that the parents of the deceased used to provide wheat and Mahua for domestic use and money to meet domestic expenses, because of their (Appellant and his family) weak economy condition. Hence, these payments made by Bhagchand to the appellant and his family does not fall under the definition of dowry under section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 15. As per above discussion, I am of the view that there is no clinching and reliable evidence on record that the appellant demanded dowry from the deceased Shivkanta and her parents and due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, he used to harass and tease her and subjected her to cruelty. 15. As per above discussion, I am of the view that there is no clinching and reliable evidence on record that the appellant demanded dowry from the deceased Shivkanta and her parents and due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, he used to harass and tease her and subjected her to cruelty. Hence, no presumption can be drawn against the appellant under section 114-B of the Evidence Act. In view of Narayanamurthy vs. State of Karnataka and another, AIR 2008 SC 2377 , Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder and others vs. State of W. B., 2008 Vol. I SCC 202, Harjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2006 SC 680 , State of Orissa vs. Niranjan Mohapatra and others, AIR 2005 SC 970 and Tirath Kumari and another vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2005 SC 4429 , the appellant Jagdish is entitled to an acquittal of charges under sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. I am of the view that learned trial Court committed error in appreciating the prosecution case. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the prosecution evidence in right perspective. Hence, judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court is not sustainable in law. 16. Consequently, appeal has merit, deserves to be allowed. The appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court against the appellant Jagdish is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of charges under sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. If, fine amount has been deposited by the appellant Jagdish, it be refunded to him. The appellant is in jail he be informed accordingly.