JUDGMENT The present appellants, who are convicted by the learned Sessions Court for the offences punishable u/s. 304B r/w. 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of 6 months each, have challenged the said conviction and sentence. Besides the above conviction and sentence, they were also convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 498A r/w. 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 3 years each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each. However, the sentence imposed was directed to run concurrently with the major punishment. 2. The appellants are son and mother respectively. They were charge sheeted for the offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of the IPC as well as u/s. 304 r/w. 34 of the IPC and u/s. 428 r/w. 34 of the IPC on the following allegations: That deceased Sonali was married to appellant no. 1 Sachin before 3 months of her unfortunate death. The date of marriage is 11/11/2011. After marriage, she started cohabiting at the house of present appellants. The father in law Mahadev was also residing with them. Initially for a period of about 1 month, deceased Sonali was treated well by the accused. However, thereafter both the respondents/accused started ill-treating her on account of demand of remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- that was settled in the marriage. They also used to nag her on the count that the parental relatives of the deceased did not celebrate the marriage as per the status of the respondents. Further nagging was on the count that the deceased was not well versed in cooking or daily work of the house. They also used to say that the brother of the deceased had offered his daughter for marriage with appellant no. 1 and was also offering 5 tolas of gold in the marriage. In the circumstances, these appellants used to abuse and beat the deceased. Deceased however continued to reside with the appellants. As and when deceased Sonali used to visit her parental house or as and when the parental relatives used to visit her, at that time, she used to narrate about the said ill-treatment. In the circumstances, these appellants used to abuse and beat the deceased. Deceased however continued to reside with the appellants. As and when deceased Sonali used to visit her parental house or as and when the parental relatives used to visit her, at that time, she used to narrate about the said ill-treatment. The parental relatives, however, used to prevail over her and asked her to cohabit with the appellants by telling her that they would find a solution. Thereafter the parental relatives even tried to prevail over the present appellants by telling them that the deceased should not be ill-treated. However, the ill-treatment was continued. Even a meeting was arranged at the house of the appellants, wherein the mother i.e. P.W.No.2 Nanda, her husband Baban, their son Ashok, P.W.No.3 Rajendra and Sahebrao had participated. In the said meeting, at attempt was made to prevail over the appellants. Thereafter also the ill-treatment was continued. Later on the present appellants started demanding an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- through deceased Sonali for the purpose of construction of the house and on that count also the ill-treatment was continued. In the circumstances, on 13/02/2013, at about 10.00 in the night, P.W.No.2 Rajendra i.e. brother of the deceased made a phone call from his coin box to deceased Sonali in order to inquire about her. At that time, deceased Sonali told him that both the appellants continued to ill-treat her over the demand of remaining settled amount in the marriage of Rs.50,000/-. She further repeated the reasons of nagging and the fresh demand of Rs.1,00,000/- for construction of house. She also told that the ill-treatment was continued on this count. Thereafter deceased Sonali disconnected the telephone. 3. In this situation, the incident occurred on 14/02/2012. P.W.No.2 Nanda filed a report at Exh.20. She has further reported that on that day, at about 6.30 a.m. in the morning, appellant no. 1 Sachin made a phone call and told that at about 4.00 a.m. in the morning, deceased Sonali had left the house and he made inquiry as to whether deceased Sonali has come to the parental house. In the circumstances, appellant no. 1 as well as P.W.No.3 Rajendra i.e. the brother of the deceased started search of missing Sonali. At about 2 p.m. in the noon again, the phone call from appellant no. In the circumstances, appellant no. 1 as well as P.W.No.3 Rajendra i.e. the brother of the deceased started search of missing Sonali. At about 2 p.m. in the noon again, the phone call from appellant no. 1 Sachin was received by Sahdeo Kadam i.e. the uncle of the appellant no.1. It was informed that Sonali was admitted in the Civil Hospital of Ahmednagar. Therefore at about 3.00 p.m. in the noon, P.W.No.2 Nanda went to Ahmednagar alongwith other relatives. At that time, they found that the deceased was taking treatment. A poison was suspected as the smell of the same was coming from her mouth. She was conscious. In the circumstances, when P.W.No.2 Nanda as well as other relatives inquired with her, at that time, she told that for demand of remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- and other complaints as detailed supra, in the morning at about 4.00 a.m., at the matrimonial house of Nepti, both the appellants told the deceased that they would finish her. In the circumstances, appellant no.2 Parvati, the mother in law caught hold the hands of the deceased while appellant no.2 Sachin forcibly administered poison to her. They also threatened that in case the incident is narrated by the deceased to anybody, they would not allow the deceased to cohabit with them. Thereafter she was taken by a vehicle and was left at some other place and was ultimately admitted to the hospital. After this narration, the deceased became unconscious. Ultimately, she died in the same night at about 11.25 p.m. On these allegations, FIR at Exh.20 came to be filed. 4. P.W.No.8 P.S.I. Sachin Sitaram Sanap has carried the investigation in the crime that was registered on the basis of said FIR. He visited the house of the appellants and carried spot panchnama in presence of the panchas. Thereafter, he also recorded the statements of neighbouring persons. He recorded the statements of the relevant witnesses including statement of P.W.No.3 Rajendra and P.W.No.4 Rajana Bhingardive who claimed that she was present at the time of recording of oral dying declaration of deceased to her mother. The Medical Officer has already carried post mortem examination over the dead body and reserved the cause of death since no external injuries were found on the dead body. The viscera was sent by the Investigating Officer to the Chemical Analyser at Nashik. The Medical Officer has already carried post mortem examination over the dead body and reserved the cause of death since no external injuries were found on the dead body. The viscera was sent by the Investigating Officer to the Chemical Analyser at Nashik. So also another part of the viscera was sent by the Investigating Officer to B.J. Medical College, Pune for histopathological report. The Chemical Analyser's report however did not confirm that any poisonous substance was found in the viscera. Histopathological report was also not useful in this regard. Further the Investigating Officer called the report in respect of mobile number of the appellant no. 1 as well as of the complainant. Those call details were collected and ultimately the charge sheet came to be filed. 5. The evidence of the Investigating Officer recorded by the learned Sessions Judge would show that initially a missing report was filed by the appellant no.1. On the basis of that missing report, messages were sent to the every police station in Ahmednagar district regarding missing of the deceased. It was found that a driver of the ambulance of the Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar have brought the deceased from the ambulance from some place in Ahmednagar city and admitted in the Civil Hospital as unknown lady. There is a contradiction between the statement of the Medical Officer i.e. P.W.No.10 Dr. Tupe and P.W.No.7 P.H.C. Shinde as to who has taken the information regarding the mobile number of the appellant no.1 on which admittedly he was contacted and the information about the admission of the deceased was given. While P.W.No.7 P.H.C. Mahadeo Shinde has deposed that P.W.No.10 Dr. Tupe told him that the said unknown lady had given phone number to him and asked him to contact on the said phone number. P.W.No.10 Dr. Tupe on the other hand, deposed that it did not happen so. Be that as it may, ultimately, the admission of the deceased in the hospital was communicated to the appellants whereupon the appellants as well as the parental relatives of the deceased gathered at the hospital. 6. Before the learned Sessions Court in all 10 witnesses were examined. P.W.No.1 Dipak Suresh Chaure R/o. Nepti i.e. the village of the appellants has spoken about drawing of the panchnama of spot of occurrence i.e. the house of the appellants and the deceased. 6. Before the learned Sessions Court in all 10 witnesses were examined. P.W.No.1 Dipak Suresh Chaure R/o. Nepti i.e. the village of the appellants has spoken about drawing of the panchnama of spot of occurrence i.e. the house of the appellants and the deceased. The panchnama at Exh.18 however shows that no incriminating material including any poison was found in the house. 7. P.W.No.2 Nanda is the mother of the deceased and complainant. P.W.No.3 Rajendra is the brother of the deceased while P.W.No.4 Ranjana is one of the relative of the appellants and deceased, who claimed that in her presence, oral dying declaration was made by the deceased to the rest of these witnesses. 8. It was the prosecution case that when the deceased was brought to the hospital, she was not able to speak and was semiconscious. In view of the said evidence, the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the prosecution case so far as oral dying declaration is concerned. The learned Sessions Judge however believed the oral evidence of the P.W.No.2 and P.W.No.3 i.e. mother and brother of the deceased that the deceased was subjected to cruelty during her cohabitation with the appellant no. 1 on account of remaining amount of dowry of Rs.50,000/- and on the count of further complaints regarding not well versed in cooking, carrying the daily work etc. The learned Sessions Judge has also believed that a day prior to the incident, there was a conversation on phone between P.W.No.3 Rajendra and the deceased wherein the deceased had again told that the ill-treatment was continued on the same count and also on account of additional demand of Rs.1,00,000/ - for making construction of the house. Principally, for these reasons, though the learned Sessions Court earlier disbelieved the prosecution case regarding the allegations of actual commission of murder of deceased Sonali, ultimately finding that there was a dowry demand soon before the incident, the appellants came to be convicted as detailed supra. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Sapkal submits that while the learned Sessions Judge has partly disbelieved the story put by the P.W.No.2, 3 and 4 regarding the oral dying declaration, the statement of the witnesses as regard the earlier cruel treatment on various grounds was believed. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Sapkal submits that while the learned Sessions Judge has partly disbelieved the story put by the P.W.No.2, 3 and 4 regarding the oral dying declaration, the statement of the witnesses as regard the earlier cruel treatment on various grounds was believed. He submits that the evidence on record would not show that any agreement for payment of dowry was there in the marriage and therefore the case of dowry demand would go away. He further submits that the evidence on record would show that while the parental relatives of the deceased are from labour class, without having any sound financial condition, the appellants are agriculturists, having their own house not only at village Nepti, but two room kitchen at Ahmednagar, in which Sahebrao, uncle of the deceased is admittedly accommodated. Considering all these facts, he submits that it can not be believed that the appellants would ask for any amount of Rs.50,000/- or 1,00,000/- and since the deceased has died in suspicious circumstances, he submits that false allegations of oral dying declaration as well as regarding the earlier cruel treatment are made. He submits that since no dowry was settled in the marriage, there would be no question of dowry demand and in view of the matter, there can not be any conviction for the offence punishable u/s. 304(B) 498A r/w. 34 of the IPC as no presumption can be drawn in this regard. 10. It is further submitted that the provisions of section 304-B of the IPC would be applicable only when there would be unnatural death of the deceased lady within a period of 7 years from the date of her marriage and it is established that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty on account of dowry demand. He submits that in the present case, death of the deceased in suspicious circumstances is amplified by the learned Sessions Judge into unnatural death. The statements of the witnesses were partly disbelieved as regards the serious allegations of oral dying declaration by the learned Sessions Judge, which can not withstand in view of the prosecution case as well as medical evidence itself. Wrong direction was taken by the learned Sessions Judge in believing the interested testimony of P.W.No.2 and 3 i.e. the mother and brother of the deceased. Wrong direction was taken by the learned Sessions Judge in believing the interested testimony of P.W.No.2 and 3 i.e. the mother and brother of the deceased. In view of these facts, relying over certain authorities, he submits that the appeal be allowed and the appellants be acquitted. 11. The learned A.P.P. submits that just within 3 months of the marriage, the deceased had died in un-natural circumstances. He submits that while the parental relatives of the deceased are R/o. Bhorwadi, Tal.Nagar, present appellants are residing at Nepti, and the deceased was found by a hospital personnel and was admitted to the Civil Hospital at Ahmednagar. It is the defence case itself that the deceased was missing since 4.00 a.m. in the morning on that day. In the circumstances, he submits that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly believed in the testimony of P.W.No.2 and P.W.No.3 and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that soon before the death of the deceased, she was subjected to cruelty over the dowry demand and in the circumstances, he submits that the appeal be dismissed. 12. Having regard to the rival submissions, following points arise for my determination: Whether the prosecution has proved that since 11/11/2011 upto 14/12/2012, both the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, subjected deceased Sonali to cruelty and harassment over a demand of remaining amount of dowry and on other causes and soon before the unnatural death of the deceased, she was subjected to cruelty ? My finding to the said point is in the negative. Both the appellants are therefore acquitted for the reasons to follow. REASONS 13. The learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the version of P.W.No.2, 3 and 4 as regards the oral dying declaration said to have been made by deceased to them in the hospital. Though there is an enigma as to whether P.W.No.7 Mahadeo Raghuji Shinde or the Medical Officer came to know about the mobile number of appellant no. 1 immediately after admission of the deceased in the Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar. It was for the prosecution to show that said mobile number was orally given by deceased Nanda and as such she was that much conscious at least for some period. On the other hand, all these 3 related witnesses admitted in their cross-examination that the deceased was conscious for some period and then became unconscious. It was for the prosecution to show that said mobile number was orally given by deceased Nanda and as such she was that much conscious at least for some period. On the other hand, all these 3 related witnesses admitted in their cross-examination that the deceased was conscious for some period and then became unconscious. The Medical Officer, however, categorically made a statement on the basis of medical record before him that the deceased was initially semiconscious and thereafter was unconscious. In view of this matter, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that the oral dying declaration, as alleged by the prosecution, said to have been made to these 3 witnesses, could not be proved. The learned Sessions Judge, however believed the part of statements of P.W.No.2 and 3 i.e. the mother and brother of the deceased on the count that the appellants were continuously making demand of unpaid amount of dowry of Rs.50,000/-. It should be noted that in the FIR, specific allegations of beating and abusing the deceased are there, but in their deposition, these 2 witnesses did not give the details of ill-treatment or cruelty. Further though the conjugal period was only of 3 months wherein at one point of time, it is alleged that the meeting took place at the house of the appellants, but no date, month or season of such meeting is given. Further no details of any incident as regards deceased Sonali about the ill-treatment is given. 14. It may be further noted that while in the FIR, it is alleged that the demand was of Rs.50,000/- towards the amount settled in the marriage, P.W.No.2 Nanda, the mother of the deceased simply deposed in examination in chief that her side bore the expenses of the marriage and after the marriage, Sonali went to the house of the appellants. Her further statement is that the appellants started demanding Rs.50,000/- to the deceased asking that the amount was due against her father and her father did not perform marriage as per their status. In the circumstances, the alleged demand of Rs. 50,000/- can not be called as a dowry demand. 15. Her further statement is that the appellants started demanding Rs.50,000/- to the deceased asking that the amount was due against her father and her father did not perform marriage as per their status. In the circumstances, the alleged demand of Rs. 50,000/- can not be called as a dowry demand. 15. Further the learned Sessions Judge ought to have taken into consideration that while it is a prosecution case that appellant no.1, at 6.30 a.m. on the fateful day, made a phone call to the parental relatives of the deceased to inform that the deceased was missing since 4 a.m., P.W.No.3 Rajendra, the brother of the deceased was not ready to accept this version. Not only this, though it is a prosecution case as well as the statement of P.W.No.2 Nanda that appellant no. 1 joined in search of the deceased and was very well present at Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar, P.W.No.3 Rajendra tried to deny this conduct of the appellant no.1. It is true that a young lady, without having any material to show that she was suffering from any ill-treatment earlier, had died in mysterious circumstances in Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar, away from the matrimonial as well as parental home. It should however be noted that the chemical analyser's report received from the Forensic Laboratory Nashik and Histopathological report from B.J. Medical College, Pune does not show that any poisonous substance was found in the viscera of the deceased. Thus though the circumstances on record may be highly suspicious regarding the death of the deceased, the death can not at all be called as un-natural death. 16. Mr. Sapkal rightly relied in the ratio of Modinsab Kasimsab Kanchagar Versus State of Karnataka and another, reported in 2013 Cri.L.J. 2056 : [2013 ALL SCR 1549] and John Vasant Khandagale Versus State of Maharashtra, reported in 2011(3) Bom.C.R (Cri.) 488 : [2011 ALL MR (Cri) 1142] which would make distinction in between "un-natural death" and "death in suspicious circumstances". It is further highlighted in the authorities that even an unnatural death if unconnected with the marital relations or any ill-treatment is there, the same would not be covered by the ingredients of Section 304-B of the IPC. It is further highlighted in the authorities that even an unnatural death if unconnected with the marital relations or any ill-treatment is there, the same would not be covered by the ingredients of Section 304-B of the IPC. Further the ratio of Vijay Purushottam Surushe and another versus State of Maharashtra, reported in 2011(2) Bom.C.R (Cri.) 120 : [2011 ALL MR (Cri) 868] is relied, which would show that certain details or at least month, season of the alleged incident of cruelty are required to be given by the prosecution so as to come to the definite conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 17. In that view of the matter, the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge can not stand. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased has met with an unnatural death and that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty on account of any dowry demand. In the circumstances, following is the order: The appeal is allowed. Both the appellants are acquitted of the offences punishable u/s.304-B r/w. 34, 498-A r/w. 34 of the IPC. Appellant no. 1 be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Bail bond of appellant no.2 stands cancelled. Appeal allowed.