JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J.-The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.2.2002 & 25.2.2002 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Garhwa in Sessions Trial No. 186 of 1994 by which the appellant was convicted under Sections 304B/201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and 2 years respectively. He was further convicted under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. However, it was directed that all the sentences would run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story in short was that the informant P.W. 1 Satyendra Narayan Chaubey delivered his statement (Ext.-1) at Nagaruntari Police Station on 6.7.1993 at about 1.30 p.m. narrating, inter alia, that his daughter Anita Devi (since deceased) was married to the appellant Chandra Pal Pandey @ Gulab Pandey in the year 1990 according to Hindu rites. After her marriage, she went to her matrimonial home situated at Village-Jasa within the same police station from where she used to visit her parental home at interval of about 2/3 months. Whenever she visited her parental home, she complained against her husband-appellant about his illicit relationship with his brother's wife (sister-in-law) and that her husband had also been demanding Rs. 5,000/and a scooter, lest she was threatened that her life would be made miserable at her matrimonial home. The informant expressed his inability to fulfill such demand but his such inability did not attract the sympathy of the husband. He further alleged that on 3.7.1993 his daughter was assaulted and was poisoned to death. The accused persons including the appellant cremated the dead body of his daughter without informing the Parents of the deceased and having been learnt about the occurrence, he lodged information before the police. Pursuant to such information, Nagaruntari P.S. Case No. 74 of 1993 was registered for the alleged offence under Sections 304B/201 of the Indian Penal Code on 3.5.1994 against the appellant Chandra Pal Pandey @ Gulab Pandey and the wife of Sudama Pandey. However, after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against both the accused Chandra Pal Pandey @ Gulab Pandey and Rita Devi for the alleged offence under Sections 498N302/201 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. However, after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against both the accused Chandra Pal Pandey @ Gulab Pandey and Rita Devi for the alleged offence under Sections 498N302/201 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Charge against both the accused• including the appellant was framed under Sections 304B/201 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The contents were read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused persons was of innocence. 4. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Sr. Counsel initiated the argument by submitting that the appellant was innocent and no offence much less offence alleged under Sections 304B/201 of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act could be attracted against him in the facts and circumstances of the case. The date, time and the year of the marriage of. the appellant with the deceased could not be proved by the prosecution witnesses and for want of which, the appellant should not have been convicted for the alleged charge. The informant P.W. 1 father of the deceased has simply stated that Anita Devi was married to appellant Chandra Pal Pandey @ Gulab Pandey some 8 years ago according to the Hindu rites and rituals. Similarly, the mother of the deceased P.W. 2 Smt Sarasawati Devi was also consistent that her daughter Anita was married some 8 years ago of her deposition. Evidence of P.W. 1 informant was recorded on 2nd day of August, 1999 whereas the mother P.W. 2 deposed in the month of September, 1999. Similarly, the mother of the deceased P.W. 2 Smt Sarasawati Devi was also consistent that her daughter Anita was married some 8 years ago of her deposition. Evidence of P.W. 1 informant was recorded on 2nd day of August, 1999 whereas the mother P.W. 2 deposed in the month of September, 1999. None of the prosecution witnesses could be able to place the exact date, month and year of the marriage so as to shift the burden under Section 113B of the Evidence Act upon the appellant P.W. 3 Satyendra Pandey and P.W. 4 Ram Khelawan Choudhary were consistent that she died much beyond 8 years of her marriage due to illness and the prosecution failed to discharge its burden to prove the ingredients of Section 304B I.P.C. so as to shift the onus under Section 113B of the Evidence Act upon the appellant In Baljeet Singh & Another vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2004)3 S.C.C. 122 , the Apex Court held, "The defence in this case has unequivocally challenged the correctness of the date of marriage, as stated by the prosecution. It even examined defence witnesses in this regard. Be that as it may, the question whether the defence has been able to establish its version of the date of marriage is immaterial because in the first instance it was for the prosecution to establish this fact which for reasons stated above, it has failed to do. Both the courts below, thus, have clearly erred in shifting the onus of proving the date of marriage on the defence and drawing a presumption against it" 5. Advancing his argument Mr. Kashyap submitted that no demand of dowry was alleged to be made in the near proximity of the death of Anita Devi as she was peacefully living at her matrimonial home and according to P.W. 5 Dina Nath Chaubey, i.e. the brother of the deceased, his sister (deceased) had conveyed a year prior to her death about the demand of dowry and the torture that was extended to her by the accused. The other prosecution witnesses were silent as to the exact period when Anita Devi had conveyed about the alleged demand of dowry whether it was in the near proximity of her death or during early post married period. The other prosecution witnesses were silent as to the exact period when Anita Devi had conveyed about the alleged demand of dowry whether it was in the near proximity of her death or during early post married period. The law was specific and the burden was heavy upon the prosecution to establish that cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry was extended soon before the death of Anita Devi and the prosecution in the instant case failed to prove it. Similarly, the prosecution failed to prove that alleged harassment or torture was extended in connection with demand of dowry in cash or kind. In Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2007 SAR (Criminal) 461, the Supreme Court of India observed, "If Section 304B IPC is read together with Section 113B of the Evidence Act, a comprehensive picture emerges that if a married woman dies in an unnatural circumstances at her matrimonial home within 7 years from her marriage and there are allegations of cruelty or harassment upon such married woman for or in connection with demand of dowry by the husband or relatives of the husband, the case would squarely come under "dowry death" and there shall be a presumption against the husband and the relatives. In this case we find that there is practically no evidence to show that there was any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry. There is also no finding in that regard. This deficiency in evidence proves fatal for the prosecution case. Even otherwise mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to bring in application of Section 304B IPC. It has to be shown in addition that such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with the demand of dowry. Since the prosecution failed to prove that aspect, the conviction as recorded cannot be maintained." 6. Mr. Kashyap, pointed out that P.W. 3 Satyendra Pandey, P.W. 4 Ram Khelawan Choudhary and P.W. 13 Dinesh Pandey though were unfavourable to the prosecution but were not declared hostile and these witnesses were consistent that the relation between the husband-appellant and the deceased Anita Devi was very cordial and that Anita Devi died of illness at Referral Hospital, Nagaruntari. Mr. Kashyap, pointed out that P.W. 3 Satyendra Pandey, P.W. 4 Ram Khelawan Choudhary and P.W. 13 Dinesh Pandey though were unfavourable to the prosecution but were not declared hostile and these witnesses were consistent that the relation between the husband-appellant and the deceased Anita Devi was very cordial and that Anita Devi died of illness at Referral Hospital, Nagaruntari. Her father P.W. 1 was informed about the death of Anita and pursuant to such information he participated in the funeral of his daughter. The informant had again visited that place after about 4/5 days of the death. The witnesses were further consistent that the accused persons had never ever demanded dowry from the parents of Anita within their knowledge. P.W. 4 Ram Khelawan Choudhary was more specific who testified that poison was not administered to Anita and that she died of illness. He further testified that Anita was taken to the Referral Hospital, Nagaruntari on a Jeep for her treatment where she died and a death certificate was issued by the attending Doctor. The witness was consistent that no dowry was demanded from the parents of Anita. He further deposed that since the appellant refused to deposit Rs. 50,000/- in the name of his own daughter, who was only 1-2 years old as a security for her marriage, the instant case was brought about by the informant against the appellant and another after due deliberation and consultation. 7. Mr. Kashyap, learned Sr. Counsel, pointed out that the appellant has been highly prejudiced for non-examination of the I.O. The I.O. had interrogated a number of witnesses including the co-villagers of the appellant, who were consistent in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the informant was informed about the death of his daughter Anita and he had participated in the funeral. However, amongst them P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 had supported this contention and the appellant was denied the opportunity to attract his attention. 8. The defence had produced D.W. 1 Giriwar Pandey, who deposed that his jeep was used in carrying Anita to Referral Hospital, Nagaruntari for treatment where she died. Mr. Kashyap, learned Sr. Counsel, pointed out that prior to her death Anita was treated by Dr. Sita Ram Gupta, who was produced and examined as D.W. 2 before the Trial Court. 8. The defence had produced D.W. 1 Giriwar Pandey, who deposed that his jeep was used in carrying Anita to Referral Hospital, Nagaruntari for treatment where she died. Mr. Kashyap, learned Sr. Counsel, pointed out that prior to her death Anita was treated by Dr. Sita Ram Gupta, who was produced and examined as D.W. 2 before the Trial Court. D.W. 2 deposed that he was posted at Referral Hospital, Nagaruntari as Medical Officer-in-Charge from 1989 to 2000. On 3.7.1993 while he was on duty as Medical Officer-in-Charge, Anita Devi, wife of Chandra Pal Pandey @ Gulab Pandey aged about 22 years was admitted at the Referral Hospital at about 11.30 p.m. vide indoor registration page Nos. 84-85 at SI. No. 111 which was recorded in the pen of duty nurse and the page was proved and marked as Ext.-A. The Doctor deposed that the belly of the patient was swollen as she had suffered loose motion and she died of abdominal destention which resulted into cardio respiratory failure in the same night at about 1.30 a.m. He issued the death certificate under his pen and signature on 16.8.1993 which was proved and marked Ext.-B and B/1. He further testified that emergency drugs and drips were administered to her but she could not be saved and that no sign of poisoning appeared on her body. In the cross-examination P.W. 2 admitted endorsement made in the said register that it contained 176 pages but he could not explain as to why the register had only 169 pages. He further admitted having not carried the bed head ticket of the patient or the admission slip. No document was available with him while deposing related to treatment that was given to Anita during her admission at the Referral Hospital. 9. Concluding his argument Mr. Kashyap, learned Sr. Counsel, submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to prove all the required ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant for the reasons discussed above. 9. Concluding his argument Mr. Kashyap, learned Sr. Counsel, submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to prove all the required ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant for the reasons discussed above. On the other hand, the appellant could be able to prove that Anita Devi died of illness and she was quickly removed to Referral Hospital, Nagaruntari when her condition deteriorated due to frequent loose motions where life saving drugs and drips were administered but she could not be saved and died in the mid-night and this fact has been supported by the D.W. 2 who stood to the test of his cross-examination and there was no reason to discredit his credibility. The defence has proved indoor register as also the death certificate issued by D.W. 2 which were not disputed even then the Trial Court grossly erred by recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence which are liable to be set aside. 10. Heard Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P. appearing for the Respondent-State, who strongly controverted the contention raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the charges, as framed against the appellant, was proved on the materials available on the record and that no cogent reason has been assigned for and on behalf of the appellant so as to call for interference in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded against him. 11. There are certain admitted facts, such as, the appellant Chandra Pal Pandey @ Gulab Pandey was married to Anita Devi and a daughter was born to them from their wedlock, who was about 1-2 years at the time of death of Anita Devi. She was cremated at her matrimonial home village. The allegation of the prosecution was that Anita Devi was poisoned to death, yet, without specifying the allegation but the defence case was that she died of illness and she was cremated after informing her parents and obtaining the death certificate. Admittedly, the cause of death could not be established by the prosecution as no opportunity was given to the prosecution for the post mortem examination of the deceased. The only material that was available as to the cause of death was the evidence of D.W. 2 Dr. Admittedly, the cause of death could not be established by the prosecution as no opportunity was given to the prosecution for the post mortem examination of the deceased. The only material that was available as to the cause of death was the evidence of D.W. 2 Dr. Sita Ram Gupta, who treated Anita Devi at the Referral Hospital, Nagaruntari as the indoor patient and according to him the cause of death was cardio respiratory failure on account of abdominal distention. He had issued the death certificate. The Investigating Officer could not be produced and examined in the instant case for the reasons best known to the prosecution. I find substance in the argument that the appellant has been denied of the opportunity to cross-examine the I.O. and attracting his attention towards the statements of the witnesses. The objective finding of the Investigating Officer also could not be brought on the record as to the place of occurrence and as to whether he had recorded the statement of the nurse and doctor of the Referral Hospital, Nagaruntari to find out the credibility of the defence that Anita was removed to Referral Hospital in precarious condition' for her treatment where she died during her treatment. The condition precedent for establishing an offence under Section 3048 I.P.C. are as follows: (a) That a married woman had died otherwise than under normal circumstances, (b) Such death was within 7 years of her marriage, and (c) The prosecution established that there was cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death. 12. Section 113B of the Evidence Act permits a presumption to be drawn against the accused in regard to the dowry death provided the prosecution establishes that soon before her death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry. 13. In the instant case, I find substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution failed to establish the time, date and year of the marriage of the appellant with Anita. 13. In the instant case, I find substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution failed to establish the time, date and year of the marriage of the appellant with Anita. According to the version of the informant recorded in his Fardbayan Anita was married in the year 1999 with the appellant but this fact could not be substantiated in the substantive evidence of any of the material witnesses except in the statement of P.W. 1 father and P.W. 2 mother of the deceased that Anita was married some 8 years ago. However, without specifying even the month of the marriage and relying upon the decision of Baljeet Singh & Another vs. State of Haryana (supra) referred to hereinbefore, an adverse inference can be drawn for the reason that P.W. 3 Satyendra Pandey and P.W. 4 Ram Khelawan Choudhary were consistent that Anita Devi died beyond 8 years of her marriage on account of illness and the prosecution failed to discharge its burden so as to shift the onus under Section 113B of the Evidence Act upon the appellant. 14. As the informant P.W. 1 Satyendra Narayan Chaubey and the mother of the deceased P.W. 2 Smt. Sarasawati Devi were consistent that whenever Anita visited her parental home, she used to complain against her husband that he had illicit relation with his "Bhabhi" (brother's wife) and that the appellant had been extending torture as he had been demanding Rs. 5,000/ - in cash and a scooter lest she was threatened that her life would be made miserable, I find that the father of the deceased P.W.1 admitted that no demand was made at the time of marriage of the appellant with Anita nor any demand was raised prior to marriage. He admitted having not given assurance to the accused that he would give some amount after the marriage. He admitted having received information regarding torture or harassment being extended to his daughter after six months of her marriage in connection with demand of Rs. 5,000/- by the appellant and also his illicit relation with his own sister-in-law Rita Devi. The witness further admitted that he had not stated at the first instance in his Fard-bayan about the illicit relation between Rita Devi and the appellant and in that manner he tried to develop the prosecution case by adding new facts. 5,000/- by the appellant and also his illicit relation with his own sister-in-law Rita Devi. The witness further admitted that he had not stated at the first instance in his Fard-bayan about the illicit relation between Rita Devi and the appellant and in that manner he tried to develop the prosecution case by adding new facts. P.W. 1 accompanied the police officer to the village of the appellant after delivering his statement at the police station and the villagers of the appellant were interrogated to which some of them stated that the dead body was cremated in the night itself. He further admitted that the appellant was present in the white apron but the police did not arrest him. 15. P .W. 2 Smt. Sarasawati Devi i.e. the mother of the deceased testified that her daughter Anita expressed satisfaction when she returned back for the first time from her matrimonial home and did not complain against anyone but during her next visit she complained against her husband that he was entangled with his sister-in-law and was demanding a vehicle as well as Rs. 5,000/- in cash. P.W. 1 & P.W. 2 both were consistent that they were informed by P.W. 6 Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari about the death of Anita as also the cause of her death that poison was administered to her by her in-laws. P.W. 6 Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari was admittedly, not the eye witness who deposed that in the year 1993 at about 9.30 a.m. while he was there at Nagaruntari bus stand, he over heard that Anita Devi was dead and that she was the daughter of Satyendra Narayan Chaubey. When he came across Satyendra Narayan Chaubey i.e. the informant (P.W.1) he narrated whatever he over heard at the bus stand. He admitted having not stated as to how Anita Devi died. P.W. 6 Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari was declared hostile and was cross-examined at length wherein he stated that he had not communicated Satyendra Narayan Chaubey that Anita was poisoned to death and that she was cremated in the night itself. He expressed ignorance that Anita was taken to Hospital for his treatment by her husband and she was cremated after obtaining her death certificate. I find, therefore, that this witness did not support the contention of the informant P.W. 1 that he derived information from this witness about the cause of death of Anita Devi. He expressed ignorance that Anita was taken to Hospital for his treatment by her husband and she was cremated after obtaining her death certificate. I find, therefore, that this witness did not support the contention of the informant P.W. 1 that he derived information from this witness about the cause of death of Anita Devi. There was no other source of information for the informant Satyendra Narayan Chaubey as to how his daughter Anita died except his presumption based upon speculation that she was poisoned to death without any legal evidence to presume her unnatural death. On the other hand, there was definite case of the defence that Anita Devi died of illness and in support thereof the death certificate issued by D.W. 2 Dr. Sita Ram Gupta has been proved. The defence has further proved the entry made in the indoor patient register of the Referral Hospital, Nagaruntari and that the prosecution miserably failed to controvert or discredit the credibility of these documents by any other evidence oral or documentary. The prosecution failed to prove as to how Anita Devi died. Even if it is presumed that she died within 7 years it could not be proved that death of Anita Devi was caused by any burns or bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. The prosecution further failed to prove that soon before her death Anita Devi was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant- husband whereas the brother of the deceased P.W. 5 Deena Nath Chaubey admitted in his cross-examination that his sister Anita had apprised about the demand of dowry and the harassment caused to her a year prior to her death whereas P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were consistent that such fact was communicated to her about 2/3 months prior to her death when she visited her parental home and therefore the prosecution failed to establish that such demand was made in the near proximity of her death. The fact that Anita Devi died of illness at the Referral Hospital, Nagaruntari has been proved by P.W. 2 as has already been discussed hereinabove. The entire evidence collected on the record of Trial Court tells a different story that Anita Devi did not die in the manner presented by the prosecution as the allegation of poisoning could not be substantiated. 16. The entire evidence collected on the record of Trial Court tells a different story that Anita Devi did not die in the manner presented by the prosecution as the allegation of poisoning could not be substantiated. 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the materials available on the record of the Trial Court were not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the alleged charge, rather a reasonable doubt is created that the prosecution could not be able to prove all the required ingredients for constituting an offence under Sections 304B/201 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for the reasons stated above. In the result, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded against the appellant cannot be sustained under law. Accordingly, the appellant Chandra Pal Pandey @ Gulab Pandey is acquitted in Sessions Trial No. 186 of 1994 arising out of Nagaruntari P.S. Case No. 74 of 1993 for his conviction under Section 304B/201 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellant is on bail, as such, his bail bond stands discharged and this appeal is allowed.