Judgment MOOL CHAND GARG, J. 1. This criminal revision petition has been preferred under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order framing charge passed by Learned ASJ dated 23.01.2007 and the charges framed in pursuance thereof on 01.02.2007 under Section 498-A/304-B/34 IPC against the petitioner along with others. 2. Briefly stating the facts of this case are; that late Smt. Vimla Devi (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was married with Mahesh Pant, who is related to the petitioner as her brother, in the year 2003. From the wedlock of deceased with Mahesh Pant, one female child was born on 01.11.2004. According to the prosecution the deceased was caught by fire on 24.02.2006 while working in the kitchen of her matrimonial house and was taken to Irwin Hospital for treatment by her husband and was also given treatment by the hospital. However, she could not survive and succumbed to the burn injuries which were to the tune of 100%. She was declared dead on 25.02.2006 before making any dying declaration. 3. On the basis of the statements made by the parents, including father of the deceased, recorded on 25.2.2006 before the SDM, FIR No.126/2006 under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC, Police Station Mandawali was registered against the husband, Shri Mahesh Pant and his other family members, including the petitioner. In the statement of the father of the deceased and the statement of her mother allegations were leveled mainly against her husband to the effect that at the time of marriage a demand of Rs.1,50,000/- was made as dowry in addition to what they had given like T.V., Fridge, Almirah, Double Bed, Utensils, Gold ornaments weighing 6 tolas etc. It was further alleged that the relationship between the deceased and her in-laws was not cordial. It would be appropriate to take note of the statement made by the father of the deceased which is to the following effect: “After the marriage, the relations between my son-in-law and my daughter were not cordial. The girl after three months of the marriage came to my house and stated that in her in-laws house, her mother-in-law Smt.Ishwari Devi, Sister-in-law Babi, Father-in-law Gopal Dutt Pant and Husband Mahesh Pant pass sarcastic remarks saying that I have not given anything in dowry and my daughter belongs to a poor family. The girl after three months of the marriage came to my house and stated that in her in-laws house, her mother-in-law Smt.Ishwari Devi, Sister-in-law Babi, Father-in-law Gopal Dutt Pant and Husband Mahesh Pant pass sarcastic remarks saying that I have not given anything in dowry and my daughter belongs to a poor family. Thereafter, my daughter, came to my house when her daughter became one year old and told me that her husband used to beat her and always demand for more dowry. At that time her husband was also with her and that he asked me to keep my daughter and he wanted to give divorce to her, as I had not given anything to him in dowry. My daughter was subject to rough treatment by her in –laws and used to raise demand for dowry. Yesterday on 24.02.2006, at about 3:00 PM day time, my son-in-law Mahesh informed me in my office that there was a fire in his house and my daughter Bimla had sustained burn injuries and she was admitted in Irwin Hospital. Hearing it, I immediately rushed to my house and took my wife Leela Devi and reached the house of my son-in-law Mahesh where the sister-in-law of my daughter Babita met us. She informed that due to stove bursting my daughter had also got burn injuries and she was admitted in Ward No.20 of the Irwin Hospital. I and my wife immediately reached to the Irwin Hospital where my daughter was admitted with burn injuries and she was not in a position to give any statement. Today on 25.02.2006, in the morning about 3:00 AM my daughter has died in the hospital. About it I have the opinion that my daughter is burnt on account of a conspiracy because I am poor man and could not complete their demand of dowry and as such my son-in-law Mahesh has killed my daughter by burning her.” The mother of the deceased made exactly the similar allegations. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that deceased was living with her husband happily since the inception of marriage. As stated above a daughter was also born from the wedlock who was aged about 15 months old at the time of the death of the deceased. Till that time, no complaint of any kind was ever made by the deceased. As stated above a daughter was also born from the wedlock who was aged about 15 months old at the time of the death of the deceased. Till that time, no complaint of any kind was ever made by the deceased. It is also stated that the deceased was suffering from Epilepsy before her marriage. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that nobody could be blamed for her death because as per the post-mortem report, the death of the deceased had taken place due to shock consequent upon the burn injuries which could have been due to flames of fire. 5. It is submitted that all the allegations made by the father and mother of the deceased reveals that the alleged demand of dowry was made either before the marriage or just after three months of the marriage while the incident leading to the death of the deceased took place after three years of her marriage. Moreover, the allegations made regarding torturing, harassment and beatings of the deceased are highly vague. The allegations against the present petitioner are highly vague and general in nature. It is also submitted that neither the father of the deceased nor his wife has mentioned as to when such harassment, beatings and demand were made and caused to the deceased, by the petitioner. 6. It is also submitted that the deceased’s father also stated that the deceased came to his house with her daughter when she was one year old and stated to him that her husband always used to beat her and demand more dowry. She also made an allegation that her husband asked her father to keep her and wanted to give her divorce. But these allegations are also old and do not implicate the petitioner. 7. The Police after completing investigation, on the basis of the statements of the parents of the deceased, filed the challan and on that basis the Trial Court charged the petitioner and her family members under Section 498-A/304-B/34 IPC. 8. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the couple was married in 2003 and there was never any complaint regarding harassment and torture for demand of dowry. No dying declaration was made by the deceased so as to implicate the petitioner as an accused in the present case. 8. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the couple was married in 2003 and there was never any complaint regarding harassment and torture for demand of dowry. No dying declaration was made by the deceased so as to implicate the petitioner as an accused in the present case. The post-mortem report also goes to show that the deceased expired on 25.02.2006 at 4.20 AM in the morning during the course of her treatment. Nothing incriminating was recovered from the place where the deceased caught fire so as to implicate the petitioner. 9. However, the Trial Court has charged all the accused persons, including the present petitioner, under Section 498-A/304-B/34 IPC. The relevant portion of the order on charge reads as under: 3. I have gone through the file. The photographs depict that neither the kerosene store had burst nor the gas cylinder had caught fire. Even the damage to the other articles in the kitchen is minimum and the only sign of burning is that the plastic cover of the Fridge as well as the cloth hanging on the Taund are partly burnt but there is no damage to any other articles including the table cloth and plastic container etc. lying in the kitchen, so the possibility of foul play cannot be ruled out. Specific allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons regarding demand of dowry and torturing the deceased which culminated in the incident and the same is the subject matter of the present case. 4. In my view, there is sufficient material on record to frame prima facie charge against all the accused persons under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC. Charges be framed accordingly against them on 01.02.2007. Ld. ASJ 23.01.2007 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, who is the sister of the deceased’s husband, has no role to play whatsoever in the present case and has been falsely implicated by the parents of the deceased. It is stated that the petitioner at the time of the said incident was working in her office and was not present at the spot which is proved by the certificate on record by her employer, which is at page 68 of the petition. It is also submitted that she was living separately at her parent’s home and as such no specific allegations regarding the demand of dowry has been made against her. It is also submitted that she was living separately at her parent’s home and as such no specific allegations regarding the demand of dowry has been made against her. It is thus submitted that the order to frame charge and the charges framed are bad in law. It is also stated that the Learned ASJ gravely erred in not appreciating the evidence in hand such as Post-mortem, CFSL report and the statements of the witnesses which does not make out a case under Section 498-A/304-B IPC against the petitioner and thus, the charge framed against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner who has filed written synopsis has submitted that: Section 498A IPC requires an act of cruelty which includes a willful conduct of a nature likely to derive the woman to commit suicide or grave injury etc or harassment of woman with a view to pressurize her to meet unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. It is humbly submitted that there is no such allegation against the petitioner in the entire statement except a sentence that in-laws including petitioner used to pass sarcastic remarks for not bringing document. Petitioner humbly submits that it does not fulfill the requirement of section 498A IPC. 12. The counsel also submitted: Section 304B IPC requires that the deceased should be soon before her death subject to cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry. Soon before is explained by a “three judges bench” of Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab Vs. Eqbal Singh reported in 1991 (3) RCR page no. 489 para 8. There should be evidence immediately before her death, that she was subject by such person to cruelty and harassment. Immediate is defined in Black Law Dictionary as at once, without delay. These judgments of three judges of Supreme Court ahs not been modified/changed by any bench of equal number of judges or more judges. 13. It is also submitted that: There is no evidence in the entire FIR and statements recorded after death of the deceased to show that the petitioner immediately prior to her death had committed any act of cruelty. On the contrary, she was on service as is evident from certificate of employer. 14. The petitioner has also relied upon following judgments: i) Gurdatta Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 1(1992)CCR 471(DB) ii) Jagbir Singh & Ors. Vs. On the contrary, she was on service as is evident from certificate of employer. 14. The petitioner has also relied upon following judgments: i) Gurdatta Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 1(1992)CCR 471(DB) ii) Jagbir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 1992(2) Crimes 746 iii) Lila Ram Vs. state of Rajasthan 1(1993) CCR 412 iv) Dinesh Ahluwalia & Ors. Vs. State 2003(2) JCC 1093 v) Smt. Deepa Bajwa Vs. State & Ors. 2004(3) JCC 1754 vi) Majhar Vs. State 2002(1) JCC 515 vii) Ashok Kumar Vs. State 2004(2) JCC 1187 15. However, the learned APP appearing for the State opposed the present petition on the ground that it is a case of the unnatural death where the demand of dowry was made and further the allegations were made against all the in-laws and the death has occurred within 7 years of the marriage, which attracts the provisions under Section 498-A/304-B IPC and according to him charges have been rightly framed by the learned ASJ. 16. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State and have gone through the judgments cited at bar. The facts as noticed above, goes to show that the death of the deceased occurred on 25.02.2006 while the demands of dowry were allegedly made either soon after the marriage or after the birth of female child but not soon before the death of the deceased. Moreover, no specific allegations have been made except the demand of Rs. 1,50,000/-, which according to the father of the deceased, was made at the time of marriage which cannot make out a case of harassment soon before the death. 17. At this juncture I may refer to provisions contained under Section 304-B IPC as well as Section 498A IPC which are reproduced hereunder: Section 304B. Dowry death (1) 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 of 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 purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ( 28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.] 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation-For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means- (a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her meet such demand.] 18. A bare perusal of these Sections makes it absolutely clear that the following ingredients are required to be proved by the prosecution:- (a) that it is a death of a woman, (b) that the death is caused by burns of bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, (c) that it is within seven years of her marriage, (d) that it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment, (e) that it was by her husband or any relatives of husband, (f) that it was in connection with any demand of dowry. Unless all the above ingredients are established it is not possible to hold the accused guilty of offence under Sec. 304-B IPC. 19. Unless all the above ingredients are established it is not possible to hold the accused guilty of offence under Sec. 304-B IPC. 19. In Gurditta Singh v. State of Rajasthan (supra) it has been laid down: “Keeping in mind the principles enunciated and the guidelines laid down in the various pronouncements by the Courts referred to above and the aims and objects of the remedial Legislation under the Dowry Act and making demand of dowry punishable under the penal law, we would now discuss the facts and circumstances of the case to make out as to whether the ingredients of Sec. 304-B have been established and it is a fit case in which presumption under Sec.113-B of the Evidence Act has rightly been drawn.” “The main ingredients to be proved for establishing a case u/Sec. 304-B IPC are (i) unnatural death of woman within seven years of her marriage and (ii) she being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with any demand of dowry.” 20. In the aforesaid case, the threat ingredients that the deceased was subject to cruelty or harassment by the petitioner in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death has not been established. 21. I may also refer to a judgment delivered by this Court in Sunil Bansal Vs. State of Delhi 2007 (7) AD (Delhi) 780 wherein it was held that: 12. The above facts would show that the incidents relating to demands for dowry and acts of harassment pertaining to dowry, allegedly occurred either soon after the marriage or around the time of the birth of two children - 1998 and 2000. None of the allegations point to any kind of cruelty, harassment or cruel behaviour having any proximity, in point of time to the date of death ie 25.9.2004. Though there is no thumb rule as to what is meant by the expression "soon before" death of a woman, under Section 304-B yet despite substantial flexibility, the charge cannot be maintained, if the acts are remote in point of time. The Supreme Court has held in Kedya Perumal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2003 SC 3828 and Yashoda Vs. The Supreme Court has held in Kedya Perumal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2003 SC 3828 and Yashoda Vs. State of M.P. 2004 III AD (S.C.) 305 = 2004(3) SCC 98 that there should not be too much of a time-lag between cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry and the death in question. It was also held that there must exist a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demands and death of the woman. The Court held that if the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale, not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman, it would be of no consequence. 13. The evidence in this case about dowry harassment, which could have been the cause for death of the deceased, is at best sketchy and most certainly contradictory. Both sets of statements recorded by the relatives of the deceased point to dowry or other demands proximate to the marriage and birth of the two children which would go back to at least 3-4 years before the incident. In these circumstances, on exercise of sifting of materials and particularly keeping in mind the existence of two contradictory statements, it cannot be said that a grave suspicion exists about the commission of offence under Section 304-B, by the Petitioners. It is well-settled that if two views at charge framing stage exist, based upon the materials available, the view favouring the accused is to be preferred. (Ref. Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra 2002 I AD (S.C.) 7 = 2002 SCC (Crl) 310. 22. Similarly, in the facts of the present case there is not a single instance soon before the death of the deceased where she was harassed for demands of dowry at least by the petitioner whatsoever in the present case. Thus, there is no basis to frame charge against the petitioner and the criminal revision petition is accordingly allowed. The charges framed against the petitioner/ accused are hereby set aside. Her bail bonds stand discharged. However, nothing stated herein would affect the merits of the case qua the other accused persons. 23. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith. Crl.M.A.5573/2007 In view of the orders passed above, the application stands disposed of.