ORDER 1. This revision petition under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974 preferred by the petitioners-accused is directed against an order dated 11th February, 2011 in Sessions Case No. 299/2009 by the second Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ganj Basoda district Vidisha, framing thereby charges against accused/petitioner for commission of offence punishable under section 304B of IPC. 2. The facts in short, just for the decision of this revision are that accused petitioner No.1 Neelesh Yadav was married to deceased Priyanka on 23rd January, 2007 at Ganj Basoda. Prior to her marriage, she was working as Samvida Shala Shishak, class-III in village Iklod, tahsil Sironj, district Vidisha, which was just near to the place of her parental house whereas her husband-accused Neelesh Yadav and her mother-in-law were residing in village Bana Pura Siwani Malwa district Hoshangabad. It is stated that during summer vacation, she oftenly used to come to her matrimonial house at village Bana Pura Siwani Malwa district Hoshangabad. It is alleged that when she returned back to her parents home, every time she complained about her in-laws to her parents. This time also, when she left for her matrimonial house and came back to her parental house for attending the departmental training during summer vacation, it is alleged that just after completion of the said training on 25th June, 2009, she committed suicide by hanging her self in her parental house. On report the Marg was registered and on inquiry the FIR was lodged for offence under section 304B of IPC against the petitioner/accused. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the criminal Court. On committal, the Sessions Trial was commenced and charges, as mentioned above, were framed against the petitioner/accused, hence this revision. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial Court committed grave error of law and overlooked the facts at the time of framing the charge against the petitioners. It is contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate the charge-sheet and the evidence gathered during investigation. The trial Court did not consider that Smt. Priyanka died by hanging herself in the house of her parents and she returned back from her matrimonial house before four days before the incident because she had to mark her joining in the departmental training programme to be held at Sironj district Vidisha. The trial Court did not consider that Smt. Priyanka died by hanging herself in the house of her parents and she returned back from her matrimonial house before four days before the incident because she had to mark her joining in the departmental training programme to be held at Sironj district Vidisha. It is submitted that there is not an iota of evidence to show that the deceased soon before her death was subjected to cruelty or harassment for, in connection with any demand of dowry by her husband or any relative of her husband. Therefore, it is prayed that by allowing the revision, the accused be discharged of the alleged offence. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State, on the other hand, supported the order framing charge against the accused and prayed for dismissal of the revision. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record and the law applicable to the case. 6. On perusal, it appears that deceased Priyanka was married to accused petitioner No.1 in Gayatri Temple at Hoshangabad on 23rd January, 2007. It is true that before marriage, deceased was in service as Samvida Teacher Grade-III at Village Iklod tahsil Sironj and she only during vacations, used to visit her matrimonial house situtatd at village Bana Pura Siwani Malwa district Hoshangabad, which was 300 k.m. away from her place of posting and residence of her parents. It also appeared that in summer vacation 2009, on 15th May 2009 she left for her matrimonial house at village Bana Pura Siwani Malwa district Hoshangabad and returned back on 14th June 2009 to her parental house because her departmental training was to commence from 15th June to 24th June 2009 and she thereafter attained the tranining programme held at Sironj district Vidisha. She successfully completed her departmental training programme. It also appeared that after training programme, she all of a sudden in her parental house, committed suicide by hanging herself from ceiling fan. She was brought dead to the Civil Dispensary by her relatives. On the report from Hospital, Marg was registered. On inquiry, the FIR was registered. She successfully completed her departmental training programme. It also appeared that after training programme, she all of a sudden in her parental house, committed suicide by hanging herself from ceiling fan. She was brought dead to the Civil Dispensary by her relatives. On the report from Hospital, Marg was registered. On inquiry, the FIR was registered. After going through the Marg inquiry report as well as the case diary statements of Virendra Kumar Yadav, father of deceased Smt. Vimala Yadav, mother of deceased Udai Chand Yadav, brother-in-law of deceased, Shailendra Yadav, brother of deceased, the role assigned to accused petitioner No.1-Neelesh, the husband of deceased reflects the made every pressure over the deceased to handover her salary and also to bring some amount from her father to purchase a four wheeler car. To fulfill his illegal demands, he used to torture the deceased physically and mentally. It is further evident on perusing the statements of the witnesses on record that the mother-in-law of the deceased used to harass the deceased for not giving the money in dowry by her parents at the time of marriage. However, there is no definite evidence of ill-treatment having immediate proximity to date of death of deceased. Thus, the accused could not be charged as ill-treatment for dowry was not proved soon before the death of deceased. In that view of the matter, the presumption as to abetment of suicide by the deceased could not be drawn for want of conclusive evidence to show that harassment and torture meted out to the deceased had forced her to commit suicide. The ingredients of section 304B of IPC are absolutely lacking in this case. 7. In the case of Dasrath v. State of M. P. [2010 (3) JLJ 387 = AIR 2010 SC 25921, the apex Court held :- "From all this, it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304B, IPC with the aid of section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under section 201, IPC. We are satisfied that all the three ingredients of section 304 B, IPC, they being: 1. that the death of a woman has been caused by bums or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances. 2. that such death has been caused or has occurred within seven years of her marriage; and 3. We are satisfied that all the three ingredients of section 304 B, IPC, they being: 1. that the death of a woman has been caused by bums or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances. 2. that such death has been caused or has occurred within seven years of her marriage; and 3. that soon before her death the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand for dowry as also the presumption under section 113 B of Indian Evidence Act are fully "established the case of prosecution." 8; Further in the case of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab ( AIR 2000 SC 2324 ) it is held by the apex Court :- "For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusation are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiam and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimate weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case." 9. Hence, in view of the above discussion, in the opinion of this Court to draw a presumption under section 113 B of the Evidence Act, the necessary ingredients are to be established that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. Only when these facts are proved then by virtue of the deeming provisions of section 304B of IPC, the Court shall presume that the husband or any relative of the husband had caused dowry death of deceased. Only when these facts are proved then by virtue of the deeming provisions of section 304B of IPC, the Court shall presume that the husband or any relative of the husband had caused dowry death of deceased. In the absence of any proper evidence regarding the demand of dowry, it would not be possible to hold that the deceased was treated with cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry by the petitioners-accused. Therefore, the learned trial Court seems to have committed an illegality in framing the charge against them for commission of offence under section 304B of IPC. The impugned order is therefore not sustainable in law. Same is hereby set aside. 10. Accordingly, the revision is allowed in the manner indicated above.