JUDGMENT : Per P.K. Jaiswal, J.:- This criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed by the appellants, who are mother-in-law, brother-in-law, father-in-law and husband of the deceased, against the judgment & order of conviction dated 3.2.01, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur, whereby convicted each of the appellant under Section 304-B of the IPC to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-; in default of payment of fine to suffer further three years RI and under Section 201/34 of the IPC to undergo two years' RI and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-; in default to suffer further RI for six months. 2. Facts giving rise to this case are that appellant No.4 Dinesh Kumar got married to one Lalitabai (in short 'the deceased') about 13-14 years prior to the death of her death. Appellant No.2 Suresh Kumar is the younger brother of Dinesh Kumar (brother-in-law of the deceased). Appellant No.1 Smt. Ramkunwar Bai and appellant No.3 Siddhnath @ Siddhu are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased respectively. According to the prosecution, there had been some dispute between the husband and wife. Lalitabai was treated with cruelty and she died an unnatural death on 31.5.2000 at her matrimonial home. Her death was telephonically informed to the parents of the deceased. After the death of the deceased, on the basis of information received by the Police, a marg was registered at No.8/2000 on 3.6.2000. The FIR was lodged by Jalam Singh (PW6), brother of the deceased at Police Station Moman Barodiya regarding death of the deceased, which was registered at Crime No.59/2000, upon which an offence under Section 304-B and 201/34 of the IPC was registered. The allegation by the prosecution was that it was a dowry death, since the demand for the sum of Rs.20,000/- was made by the appellants. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the present appellants. The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded to be tried. 3. The allegation by the prosecution was that it was a dowry death, since the demand for the sum of Rs.20,000/- was made by the appellants. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the present appellants. The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded to be tried. 3. During trial the prosecution examined Nannulal (PW1), father of the deceased, Bhanwarlal (PW2), uncle of the deceased, Nirmala Bai (PW3), neighbour of the deceased, Chandabai (PW4), elder sister of the deceased, Ashok Kumar (PW5), maternal uncle of the deceased, Jalam Singh ((PW6), brother of the deceased, Dropadi Bai (PW7), elder sister of the deceased, Prem Bai (PW8), mother of the deceased, Jagdish (PW9), brother-in-law of the deceased, V.S. Parmar (PW10), Assistant Sub-Inspector Police Station Moman Barodiya and Arvind Kumar Tiwari (PW11), SDO(P) Shajapur. In defence the appellants have examined Kanhaiyalal (DW1) and Dinesh (DW2). Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of trial the prosecution story was believed and the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment of conviction, punishing the appellants as mentioned herein above. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the FIR (Ex.P/6) lodged by PW6 and statement of PW5, PW6, PW7 and PW8 and submitted that the marriage of accused-appellant No.4 Dinesh Kumar and deceased was solemnized almost 13 to 14 years back. He submitted that all the witnesses in paragraphs 1 & 2 of their statements have deposed that after marriage 'gauna' was held within one year from the date of her marriage and, thereafter, the deceased started residing with her husband at her matrimonial home. He also drew our attention to the findings recorded by the trial Court in paragraphs 37 to 61 and submitted that the deceased had died after more than 7 years from the date of her marriage/gauna. The trial Court discarded this fact and gave a finding that the deceased died within a period of 7 years after her 'gauna', which is contrary to the evidence on record. Learned Senior counsel also drew our attention to Section 304-B of the IPC and submitted that Section 304-B of the IPC would be applicable if cruelty or harassment was inflicted by the husband, or any of his relative, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, immediately preceding the death. Learned Senior counsel also drew our attention to Section 304-B of the IPC and submitted that Section 304-B of the IPC would be applicable if cruelty or harassment was inflicted by the husband, or any of his relative, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, immediately preceding the death. In short she could have died in abnormal circumstances, within 7 years of the marriage. In such circumstances the husband or the relative, as the case may be, will be deemed to have caused her death and will be liable to punishment. 5. The appellant No.4 was married with the deceased 13-14 years preceding to the date of her death i.e., 31.5.2000. It means that the marriage of the deceased was performed with the appellant No.4 somewhere in the year 1986-87. As per statements of the relatives of the deceased she, immediately after 4 to 6 months of her marriage started staying in the matrimonial home. There was some dispute between them and with the consent of the deceased a deed of divorce dated 18.9.96 (Ex.P/1) was executed. As per Ex.P/1 marriage was solemnized 15 years prior to the date of divorce. It means that marriage was solemnized in the year 1981. Thereafter, the deceased returned to her parents' home. When she was staying with her parents, accused party visited her house and requested her that they will not torture and asked her to stay back with her husband. This request was accepted by the deceased and to secure her life they also executed one FDR of Rs.15,000/- on 15.5.99, Ex.P/2(c). She on the assurance given by her in-laws and husband left for matrimonial home and three months thereafter she died on 31.5.2000. The news of her death was received by the parents of the deceased on 31.5.2000 itself through her brother Ghanshyam. The allegation against the appellants is that before her parents could reach funeral of the deceased was performed. On 3.6.2000 Jalamsingh (PW6) narrated the whole incident at Police Station Moman Barodiya and on the basis of his report the alleged offence was registered against the appellants. 6. The allegation against the appellants is that before her parents could reach funeral of the deceased was performed. On 3.6.2000 Jalamsingh (PW6) narrated the whole incident at Police Station Moman Barodiya and on the basis of his report the alleged offence was registered against the appellants. 6. The sole contention of the learned Senior counsel for the appellants is that the presumption under Sections 113-A & 113- B of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be drawn against the appellants and none of the ingredients of Section 304-B of the IPC is attracted in the instant case and on this ground alone the conviction of the appellants is liable to be set aside. He submitted that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the fact that Nannulal (PW1), father of the deceased has admitted in paragraph 8 of his deposition that after 6 to 7 months of the marriage he started sending Lalitabai to her in-laws' house i.e., marriage was consummated 7-8 years back, as according to the prosecution version itself marriage took place14 years back. Thus, even taking the outer limits of the time span, ingredients of Section 304-B of the IPC are conspicuously missing in the instant case and presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be drawn against the appellants. 7. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate supported the judgment of the trial Court and submitted that no interference with the impugned judgment is warranted and prays for dismissal of the appeal 8. PW1 in paragraph 10 of his deposition has failed to explain as to why in his police statement (Ex.D/1) it was not disclosed that the deceased was ill treated 2-3 years back, which was being disclosed in his evidence in the Court. This witness was unable to explain the reason for omission that the deceased came to her house due to ill treatment. As per deed of divorce (Ex.P/1), which was executed between the deceased and the appellant No.4 on 18.9.96, does not disclose that there was any demand of dowry or ill treatment which resulted into the said dissolution/separation. This clearly indicates that at any point of time there was no demand of dowry or ill treatment subjected upon Lalitabai. 9. As per deed of divorce (Ex.P/1), which was executed between the deceased and the appellant No.4 on 18.9.96, does not disclose that there was any demand of dowry or ill treatment which resulted into the said dissolution/separation. This clearly indicates that at any point of time there was no demand of dowry or ill treatment subjected upon Lalitabai. 9. Bhanwarlal (PW2), uncle of the deceased in paragraph 9 of his deposition has clearly admitted that the deceased met him in a wedding ceremony at village Jamuniya, but she did not tell him anything , though he has tried to patch up his testimony by saying that she made a complaint to her mother about so called misbehaviour with her in-laws, but such kind of evidence is hearsay evidence. 10. Nirmala Bai (PW3) in paragraph 6 of her statement has admitted that on 31.5.2000 Lalitabai made a complaint to him about chest pain and giddiness and also informed her that she was receiving treatment and in the evening also when she was doing house hold work she informed this witness about her bad state of health. This witness in paragraph 6 of her deposition has further admitted that when dead body of Lalitabai was given there was no injury on her person, nor there was any sign of clothes being burnt. This clearly indicates that the deceased died a natural death. PW3 in paragraph 7 of her deposition has very categorically admitted that for funeral of Lalitabai about 200 persons were present and they were the residents of the village. This witness has also admitted in her evidence that the appellants requested the villagers to wait for the parents of the deceased, but ultimately due to long duration of death the dead body was taken for cremation under duress of the elder persons of the village. PW3 in paragraph 9 of her deposition has very clearly admitted that deceased Lalitabai never made any complaint to her about demand of dowry or miss-behaviour. The deposition of this witness totally indicates that the entire story as put forth by the prosecution is a deliberate attempt to implicate the appellants in a false case. 11. PW3 in paragraph 9 of her deposition has very clearly admitted that deceased Lalitabai never made any complaint to her about demand of dowry or miss-behaviour. The deposition of this witness totally indicates that the entire story as put forth by the prosecution is a deliberate attempt to implicate the appellants in a false case. 11. Chandabai (PW4), elder sister of the deceased in paragraph 5 her deposition was confronted with her case diary statement (Ex.D/3) and she was specifically asked about the so called claimed demand of dowry of Rs.20,000/-, golden chain and her meeting with Lalitabai at the festival of 'Rakhi' and 'Sankranti', but she was unable to give any explanation about these omissions in her case diary statement (Ex.D/3), which clearly indicates that she has tried to make exaggeration in her deposition only with a view to falsely implicate the appellants and there is no substance in the allegation made by her. 12. Ashok Kumar (PW5), brother of the deceased has admitted in paragraph 4 of his deposition that Lalitabai was going to her in-laws' place for the last 7-8 years and behaviour of the appellants was good with the deceased. PW5 in paragraph 8 of his deposition has admitted that the in-laws of the deceased informed him and Jalam Singh about natural cause of death as also about the treatment given to late Lalitabai. 13. Jalam Singh (PW6), brother of the deceased in paragraph 16 of his deposition has admitted that the deceased informed about the so called harassment to his wife and Lalitabai never gave this information to him. 14. Jagdish (PW9), brother-in-law of the deceased in paragraph 2 of his deposition has deposed that the marriage of deceased Lalitabai and accused Dinesh Kumar took place 13-14 years back. Thus, presumption against the appellants cannot be drawn about unnatural death. 15. From the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it is not clear that as to what was the cause of death and it is a trite preposition of law that if the cause of death is not established by the prosecution it cannot be presumed that offence under Section 304-B of the IPC has been committed by the accused persons. 16. From the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it is not clear that as to what was the cause of death and it is a trite preposition of law that if the cause of death is not established by the prosecution it cannot be presumed that offence under Section 304-B of the IPC has been committed by the accused persons. 16. The essential components of Section 304-B of the IPC are:- (i) death of woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of marriage, (ii) soon before her death she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. One of the ingredient of Section 304-B of the IPC is marriage within a period of 7 years preceding the death. 17. From the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is not in dispute that the marriage of the deceased was performed 13-14 years from the date of her death and her 'gauna' ceremony was held within six months to one year. After 'gauna' the deceased came back to her parental home. It is also not in dispute that there arose dispute between them and, therefore, divorce agreement was executed and after some time of the divorce husband and in-laws of the deceased came and took her away. The matter was therefore settled. There was nothing to show that any cruelty or harassment was meted out thereafter. 18. Indisputably in order to attract Section 304-B, it is imperative on the part of the prosecution to establish that cruelty or harassment has been meted out to the deceased soon before her death. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that it is a flexible term. Its application would depend upon the factual matrix obtaining in a particular case. No fixed period can be indicated therefor. What, however, is necessary for the prosecution is to bring on record that dowry demand was not too late and not too stale before the death of the victim. There is no evidence that the deceased died within 7 years of the marriage. 19. No fixed period can be indicated therefor. What, however, is necessary for the prosecution is to bring on record that dowry demand was not too late and not too stale before the death of the victim. There is no evidence that the deceased died within 7 years of the marriage. 19. As the death, in our opinion had not taken within a period of 7 years and there is no evidence that any cruelty has been inflicted upon the deceased soon before her death, neither thje presumption in terms of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act could have been drawn, nor could it be concluded that the appellants are guilty of commission of the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC. In view of our finding that the death did not take place within 7 years from the date of marriage, no presumption could have been raised either under Section 113-A or under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. 20. In the present case the deceased died after 13 to 14 years of her marriage and this fact has not been disputed by the prosecution. It has also come on record that the deceased died after 7 years of her 'gauna' and, thus, the basic ingredients of Section 304-B of the IPC are not satisfied. None of the prosecution witnesses had made any allegation of any demand of dowry or ill treatment during such period. It is unnatural that after expiry of such a long period, the appellants started demanding dowry and for not meeting their demand, started ill treating the deceased to the extent that she had to commit suicide. Thus, the allegations made by the complainant party remains unnatural and improbable. The said so called demand has been made after a period of more than 7 years from the date of marriage/gauna. From the statements of prosecution witnesses, it is not clear as to the cause of death. It is well settled that if the cause of death is not established by the prosecution, it cannot be presumed that an offence under Section 304-B of the IPC has been made out against the appellants. Accused cremated the deceased after informing the parents of the deceased. Thus, it cannot be said that they hurriedly conducted funeral and caused destruction of evidence. 21. Accused cremated the deceased after informing the parents of the deceased. Thus, it cannot be said that they hurriedly conducted funeral and caused destruction of evidence. 21. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the view that the learned trial Court did not make any attempt to appreciate the evidence with accuracy and the view taken by the learned trial Court is not possible view. Therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law and, accordingly, the same is set aside. 22. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.