JUDGMENT : Akhilesh Chandra, J.- The solitary appellant has preferred this appeal assailing his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years on 23rd September, 2011 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Munger in Sessions Case No. 40 of 2010 arising out of Jamalpur P.S. Case No. 52 of 2009. 2. The prosecution has come out with a case through fardbeyan of PW 6, Ramautar Jha (informant) recorded on 5.6.2009 at 8.30 a.m. at Female Ward, Munger Sadar Hospital by A.S.I., Krishna Mohan Singh (not examined) that on previous day i.e. on 4.6.2009 he learnt that his son-in-law, the appellant, has brutally assaulted his wife (deceased daughter of the informant), who in spite of such assault while preparing meal, unknowingly she went under fire, lost her senses, anyhow brought to hospital by the appellant where she died during course of treatment and the informant on knowing about her death had arrived at the hospital via her house to get his statement (fardbeyan) recorded in presence of his son, namely, Rajesh Jha (PW 3). The fardbeyan was forwarded to Jamalpur police station, where the case under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code was instituted and after concluding the investigation. charge-sheet etc. has been submitted and the appellant faced trial for the offence under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code during which the prosecution produced altogether ten witnesses besides producing as per exhibit list of the Court below the following documents :- (i) Exhibit-1 :- Signature on the F.I.R. of Rajesh Jha. (ii) Exhibit - 1/1 Signature of Ramautar Jha on the fardbeyan. (iii) Exhibit - 2:- Written and signed by the Dr. Ram Pravesh Prasad. On the other hand, four witnesses have been produced on behalf of the defence without any document and on consideration of the materials available on the record; the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner afore- stated which gives rise to present appeal. 3. (iii) Exhibit - 2:- Written and signed by the Dr. Ram Pravesh Prasad. On the other hand, four witnesses have been produced on behalf of the defence without any document and on consideration of the materials available on the record; the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner afore- stated which gives rise to present appeal. 3. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant performed love marriage with the deceased ten years ago but her parents and other family members were not pleased and it is they, who brought her for about a month back from his place and were persuading her to perform another marriage, under such compelling circumstances she made an attempt to commit suicide. On getting such information the appellant immediately rushed there and brought her to hospital but could not succeed saved her life but the informant concealing the period of death, did not averted anything like demand and torture etc., got the case instituted against the appellant just in order to save his own skin, wherein, he also had been able to get unfounded support of agnates of the appellant, who are at inimical terms since long and even during trial neither the period of, marriage could be brought down from ten years to close range of seven years (since it was not true) nor any other allegations levelled against the appellant could be proved, but ignoring all such material, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced, which is not at all sustainable. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor tried to support the findings of the Court below on the grounds mentioned in the judgment, but hesitantly contended that at least on the point of marriage, the prosecution has not been able to bring the same within the mandatory requirement of seven years attracting the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Out of total ten prosecution witnesses, PW 4, namely, Manoj Kumar Jha, has been declared hostile since he did not support the prosecution case within a list and PW 7 & PW 8, namely. Soni Devi and Sanjay Mandal were tendered for cross-examination. There appears nothing in their statements worth consideration. 5. 4. Out of total ten prosecution witnesses, PW 4, namely, Manoj Kumar Jha, has been declared hostile since he did not support the prosecution case within a list and PW 7 & PW 8, namely. Soni Devi and Sanjay Mandal were tendered for cross-examination. There appears nothing in their statements worth consideration. 5. PW 1, namely, Narayan Jha, is none else than agnate and uncle of the appellant has come to say that while he was sleeping in his house one Soni Devi (PW 7) while crying arrived at his door and intimated that fire has been broken in the house of brother, immediatcly, he along with others rushed there and found the deceased being wrapped on a bed, wherein, there was smell of kerosene oil also and the appellant and his father had been making attempts to control the fire. Thereafter, immediately one Sanjay Mandai was called and the injured was brought to hospital on a thela, subsequently, this witness learnt that she succumbed to the injuries sustained. In cross-examination, this witness, who did not accompany them to hospital, admits love marriage of the appellant with the deceased but also silent about the period of marriage and any other sort of demands etc. 6. PW 2, Santosh Jha, is the son of the informant, who come to say that he learnt about the killing of his sister by the appellant and his family members with aid of kerosene oil and he further, for the first time, states that there was a demand of Rs. 50,000/ - and since the same has not been fulfilled, the occurrence taken place. In cross-examination, he states that the marriage of his sister was performed though by love affairs but just a year before. However, he was not sure and not been able to give any other details of alleged demand of Rs. 50,000/-. He is further unable to say who brought her sister to hospital. where his father had subsequently visited. He further states that in the hospital his father was the first person to make any statement and he denied about her sister catches fire during preparation of meal. 7. PW 3, namely, Rajesh Sah, is another son of the informant and attesting witness to fardbeyan. He proved his signature marked as Exhibit-1. where his father had subsequently visited. He further states that in the hospital his father was the first person to make any statement and he denied about her sister catches fire during preparation of meal. 7. PW 3, namely, Rajesh Sah, is another son of the informant and attesting witness to fardbeyan. He proved his signature marked as Exhibit-1. He in very examination-in-chief in second line states that his sister (deceased) was married with the appellant eight years ago and whenever he goes there the appellant has been demanding Rs. 50,000/-, which could not be paid due to poverty. Further, he said that the deceased was complaining of some sort of assault at the hands of the appellant, but at no point of time, any complaint etc. was lodged. In cross-examination, he admits that the marriage of the appellant with his sister has performed after sweet relationship and she never complained in writing about any sort of torture and demand etc. Further, he states about making no statement to police, but only as dictated putting his signature on the fardbeyan and thereafter never meets up with police. 8. PW 5, namely, Chinta Devi @ Sunita Devi, is the wife of PW 1 (Narayan Jha) has come to state that while she was sleeping PW 7 (Soni Devi) raised alarm, all rushed on her call and found the victim wrapped after burning and found the appellant fleeing from there, whereas, his father was making attempt to control the fire. She (victim) was asking for water, which was not provided to her, however on query, she (victim) complained against the appellant about putting her under the fire. In cross-examination, she admits that being agnate of the appellant, who is none else than son of his husband's brother, initially, the family was joint, but subsequently, separated since the time of common ancestor. Further, in paragraph-9, she though denied that the deceased was taken by her parents roughly one and half months before, but volunteered she went there at her own instance. This witness likewise PW 1, is also silent about the period of marriage of appellant with the deceased and also has not said even a single word about any sort of demand and torture etc. 9. PW 6, namely, Ramautar Jha, is the informant of this case. This witness likewise PW 1, is also silent about the period of marriage of appellant with the deceased and also has not said even a single word about any sort of demand and torture etc. 9. PW 6, namely, Ramautar Jha, is the informant of this case. In very examination-in-chief, he states about the love marriage between the appellant and the deceased, but adding in his earlier statement (fardbeyan) that such marriage was performed just three years before the occurrence taking place and further added that regular assault being done by the appellant upon the deceased and a demand of Rs. 50,000/- and by another addition he states that at the time of her death, she (victim) was pregnant. He proved Exhibit 1/1, the signature on the fardbeyan. During cross-examination, he denied, he having any annoyance of such love affairs resulting into marriage and also at no point of time lodged any complaint against such assault. In paragraph-9, he says that his house situates just at a distance of about a kilometer from the house of the appellant and he had visited there at several occasions after marriage of the deceased. Further, in paragraph-10, he states that his statement was recorded at the house of the appellant, which was under lock and he has not levelled any allegation against any one. He further denies the deceased had been residing at the house of her maternal grand in-laws with the husband and others, where she had been getting due love and affection. 10. PW 9, namely, Kedar Prasad (A.S.I.) is the Investigating Officer, who inspected the alleged place of occurrence with the informant and further recorded his statement and statements of others and submitted charge-sheet. In cross-examination, he failed to explain the delay caused in transmission of First Information Report to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate since he reached there on 7.6.2009, whereas the case was instituted on 5.6.2009 and the distance between the police station and the Court is not so far and there was regular and easy conveyance. In paragraphs-9, 10 & 11, he admits finding no sign of habitants, stove and kerosene oil etc. in the house or even there was any chulha or utensils. He also appears taking no care to investigate on the point of period of marriage, demand and torture etc. 11. PW 10, namely, Dr. In paragraphs-9, 10 & 11, he admits finding no sign of habitants, stove and kerosene oil etc. in the house or even there was any chulha or utensils. He also appears taking no care to investigate on the point of period of marriage, demand and torture etc. 11. PW 10, namely, Dr. Rampravesh Prasad, is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy of the deceased, aged twenty-two years on 5.6.2009 and found on examination of the body that the whole body of the deceased was burnt about 100%. On dissection of neck and facial region, carbon particle were found in mouth, oesophagous and larggion tracheal tube. On dissection of thonaco abdominal cavity, lungs were found congested, heart was found full, liver was congested, spleen and kidneys were found congested and stomach was found empty. Uterus was also found empty and normal size (this makes the allegation of the informant about deceased pregnancy at the time of her death baseless). The death of the deceased in his opinion was due to severe shock as a result of abovementioned injures caused by fire burn (fire). The time elapsed since death within twenty-four hours. This witness proved post-mortem report, Exhibit-2. The Doctor, as is evident, did not find any sign of assault or smell of kerosene oil etc. 12. In order to attract the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as such :- "304-B. 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. (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." "113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.-When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death." It is essential that the marriage of the deceased must have taken place within seven years of unnatural death of the deceased and also some sort of demands relating to dowry soon before her death, but in the instant case, so far as the period of marriage of the deceased is concerned there is no averment in the fardbeyan and her two brothers (PW 2 and PW 3) contradicting each other have stated for the first time in the trial respectively one and eight years, whereas, the informant (PW 6) though was silent in the fardbeyan, but during trial in evidence has stated the same three years before her death. Such conflicting statement on the vital point creates dark cloud against the prosecution. On the other hand, the defence is consistent by producing four witnesses that the marriage was taken place ten. years ago as a result of love affairs between the two (appellant and the deceased) and so far love affairs prior to marriage is concerned, it is also admitted by the prosecution witnesses, who are quite inconsistent on the period of marriage of the deceased cannot be said able in bringing the same within the ambit of seven years causing one of three mandatory requirements, to constitute such offence, unsatisfied. 13. Apart from the above, as regard to demand of dowry etc. there is no averment in the fardbeyari and only three witnesses the two brothers (PW 2 and PW 3) and father (PW 6) of the deceased though are consistent on the quantum of demand of Rs. 50,000/- allegedly made by the appellant, which due to poverty they failed to meet, but at the same time, there appears no further details or its continuity, so on this aspect also the prosecution appears failed to prove its case. 14. 50,000/- allegedly made by the appellant, which due to poverty they failed to meet, but at the same time, there appears no further details or its continuity, so on this aspect also the prosecution appears failed to prove its case. 14. True it is, the deceased died of burn (fire) injuries prematurely at the age of twenty-two years and even the prosecution witness No.5 (wife of PW1) admits that for about one and half months ago the deceased had gone to the house of her father and earlier she along with her family members including the husband had been residing at appellant's maternal grand father's house, which is at Akbarnagar of district Bhagalpur. The prosecution also failed to establish the deceased came back to her husband's ancestral house, which is situated at a distance of about a kilometer from her paternal (informant) house and it is also the case of the prosecution that it was the appellant, who rushed with his burnt wife for treatment to hospital and none else came forward in her rescue and, as stated, the Investigating Officer (PW 9) did not find any sign of habitants at the alleged place of occurrence i.e. ancestral house of the appellant. 15. At this juncture, the defence version that she 'under compelling' circumstances made an attempt on her life at her parents place cannot easily be ruled out. D.W. 1, namely, Bhanu Shankar Jha, aged about eighty years, who is the maternal grandfather of the appellant has come to say that the informant brought her for some time at his house and started putting pressure upon her for performing second marriage and subsequently they could learnt about her being under fire. The appellant rushed at the place of occurrence and brought her to hospital for treatment, where she succumbed to the injuries. 16. D.W. 2, namely. Ramchandra Mishra, aged about seventy-two years, speaks about the offer being made by the informant for marriage of the deceased with his son and in order to proceed with the negotiation this witness visited the informant's house, where the deceased bluntly refused the negotiation and asserted that she has already been married and his husband is alive, but a week thereafter this witness could know she is dead. 17. 17. D.W. 3, namely, Urmila Devi, states about love marriage of appellant and deceased and pressures being put on the deceased by her parents for performing second marriage and D.W. 4, namely, Pankaj Paswan, is the person who found the deceased under trouble, intimated the appellant through phone on which he (appellant) arrived and brought her to the hospital, where she succumbed to the injuries. There is nothing from the statements of these witnesses during cross-examination to disbelieve. 18. On overall consideration of the materials and the discussions made above, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the charge against the appellant. Hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as recorded by the tried Court is not at all sustainable. Accordingly, it is set-aside and the appeal is hereby allowed. The appellant, namely, Amit Kumar Jha @ Amit Jha, is set free from the liability of bail-bond furnished on his behalf. Appeal allowed.