JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral) Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.07.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/1st FTC, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 455 of 2008 whereby appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-B, 201 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo 1 year additional imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC; sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo two months additional imprisonment under Section 201 IPC with the stipulation that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that PW1 Wahid lodged an FIR on 10.08.2008 at 08.15 a.m. with police station Manglore, District Haridwar stating therein that my daughter Rani was got married with the appellant, resident of same locality and for the last two years, she was being harassed by her husband (appellant), father-in-law Fazla, mother-in-law Tunni and elder brother-in-law Nafees for demand of dowry; she was being beaten up by them day and night; on this issue, there was quarrel between them; meanwhile, their illegal demand of dowry was also fulfilled, however, accused persons kept on increasing their demand; having planned, all the accused killed Rani by pouring kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire; she was taken to Roorkee Hospital by the appellant under the pressure of neigbhours and therefrom appellant fled away; PW2 (son of the informant PW1) having received such information reached at Roorkee Hospital and took Rani to Haridwar Hospital wherein she succumbed to her burn injuries; accused persons killed Rani for demand of dowry, therefore, necessary action be taken against the accused persons. On the report of PW1, case crime no. 295 of 2008 was registered against the accused persons. 3. Having investigated the matter, PW9 submitted charge-sheet against the appellant (husband), father-in-law Fazla, mother-in-law Tunni and elder brother-in-law Nafees. 4. After committal of the case, trial court was pleased to frame charges against all the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 304-B, 201/34 IPC. Appellant and other accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. 3. Having investigated the matter, PW9 submitted charge-sheet against the appellant (husband), father-in-law Fazla, mother-in-law Tunni and elder brother-in-law Nafees. 4. After committal of the case, trial court was pleased to frame charges against all the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 304-B, 201/34 IPC. Appellant and other accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. To prove the prosecution story, PW1 Wahid, PW2 Ishtiyak, PW3 Mustafa, PW4 Zahid, PW5 Dr. Shashi Kant, PW6 Zahida, PW7 SI Pratap Singh, PW8 Nisar, PW9 Dy.S.P. Pradeep Kumar Rai, PW10 Sunder Singh and PW11 Veer Pal Singh were examined and thereafter, statements of accused including the appellant were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. From the side of defence, father of the appellant Fazla DW1 and Irsahd DW2 were examined. 6. Having perused the entire material made available on record, learned trial court was pleased to acquit the other accused persons except appellant and convicted & sentenced the appellant vide judgment and order under appeal. Feeling aggrieved, appellant has preferred this appeal. 7. I have heard Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, AGA with Mr. S.S. Adhikari, Brief Holder for the State and have carefully perused the record. 8. PW1 Wahid (father of the deceased), in the beginning of the cross examination, stated that deceased Rani ran away from house along with appellant and thereafter, she married with the appellant; his son PW2, thereafter, got married with sister of the appellant; for first two years of marriage of Rani, there was neither any demand of dowry nor Rani was harassed nor subjected to any cruelty, however, after two years of her marriage, appellant and his family members started demanding Rs. 20,000/- and out of Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- was paid to the appellant but they did not stop harassment of Rani and kept on maltreating her. 9. PW1 further stated that in the noon of 09.08.2008, Rani sent a little girl to her parental house to call them; having received such information from that little girl, PW2 reached the house of Rani situated in the same locality and found that Rani was being beaten up by appellant, his father, mother and brother; PW2 told the appellant that within no time, his demand would be fulfilled. After some time information came that Rani was set on fire and was taken to Roorkee Hospital whereupon PW2 reached to Roorkee Hospital and took Rani to Haridwar Hospital wherein she died. 10. PW2 brother of the deceased Rani also stated that he got married with the sister of appellant soon after marriage of Rani; on 09.08.2008 having received information that Rani was being beaten up by the accused persons, he went to the matrimonial house of Rani situated in the vicinity and found Rani was being beaten up by the accused persons; after some time information came that Rani sustained burn injuries and was taken to Roorkee Hospital; he reached to Roorkee Hospital and thereafter, he took Rani to Haridwar Hospital on the same day Rani died at about 02.00 – 02.30 a.m. PW2, in his cross examination, stated that initially after two years of marriage, there was no demand of dowry but soon thereafter, appellant started demanding ‘ 20,000/- and out of ‘ 20,000/-, ‘ 10,000/- was paid, but they did not stop harassing Rani and she was killed for demand of dowry. 11. From the statement of PW1 and PW2, it is clear that first of all Rani ran away with the appellant and after about one month thereafter, she got married with the appellant. It is also clear from the statements of PW1 & PW2 that for initial 2 years of marriage, there was absolutely no demand of dowry from the side of appellant and his family members. 12. Now, a very important question arises as to whether, demand of Rs. 20,000/- after two years of marriage can be said to be dowry demand. As per explanation of 304-B IPC “dowry” shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act reads as under: “2. 12. Now, a very important question arises as to whether, demand of Rs. 20,000/- after two years of marriage can be said to be dowry demand. As per explanation of 304-B IPC “dowry” shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act reads as under: “2. Definition of “dowry”: In this Act, ”dowry” means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly- (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by another person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before [or after the marriage] [in connection with the marriage ofhte said parties, but does not include] dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.” 13. As per definition of dowry, any property moveable or immovable or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly in connection with marriage of parties either at or before or after the marriage shall be known as dowry. There should be an agreement or demand in connection with marriage to deliver either at the time of marriage or before or after the marriage at any time. 14. Since it has come in the statements of PW1 & PW2 (father and brother of deceased) that there was no demand in connection with marriage either before or after or at the time of marriage for two years, therefore, demand of alleged ‘ 20,000/- cannot be said to be dowry demand. 15. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Modisab Kasimsab Kanchagar reported in 2013 (4) SCC 551 was pleased to refer the earlier judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Appasaheb Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 (9) SCC 721 and has held that any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage or after and in connection with the marriage of the said parties, can be said to be dowry demand. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 (9) SCC 721 and has held that any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage or after and in connection with the marriage of the said parties, can be said to be dowry demand. If demand is not in connection with marriage, therefore, the demand cannot be said to be dowry demand, as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 16. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bakshish Ram v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (4) SCC 131 in paragraph 14 has held as under: “A perusal of Section 304B clearly shows that if a married woman dies 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 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 the death. The conditions precedent for establishing an offence under this section are: (a) that a married woman had died otherwise than under normal circumstances; (b) such death was within seven years of her marriage; and (c) the prosecution has established that there was cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death. This section will apply whenever the occurrence of death is preceded by cruelty or harassment by husband or in-laws for dowry and death occurs in unnatural circumstances. The intention behind the section is to fasten guilt on the husband or in-laws though they did not in fact caused the death.” 17. Therefore, in view of dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court, to bring home the guilt punishable under Section 304-B IPC prosecution must allege and prove that deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment, soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry. As observed hereinbefore, alleged demand of ‘ 20,000/- cannot be said to be a dowry demand in view of definition of dowry, as provided under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, therefore, most important ingredient of Section 304-B IPC that Rani was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry is missing in the present case. 18. 18. Accused persons in their respective statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have specifically stated that Rani was cooking food along with her mother-in-law Tunni and caught fire accidentally, thereupon, appellant rushed towards Rani in order to save her and took her to Roorkee Hospital. It is also admitted by PW1 & PW2 that Rani was taken to Roorkee Hospital by appellant, however, they have further stated that after admitting Rani in Hospital, appellant fled away from the hospital but the fact remains that Rani was got admitted in the hospital by appellant. 19. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Bakshish Ram (supra) in para 19 has further held as under: “19. As discussed above, a perusal of Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B Indian Penal Code shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. In other words, the prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of the “death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances”. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence, there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. As observed earlier, if the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. In the case on hand, admittedly, the prosecution heavily relied on the only evidence of Sibo (PW-2) - mother of the deceased which, according to us, is a hearsay, in any event, a very general and vague statement which is not sufficient to attract the above provisions. In such circumstances, as argued by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants, accidental death cannot be ruled out.” 20. In view of the dictums of Hon’ble Apex Court, prosecution is obliged to rule out the possibility of natural death or accident death, so as to bring it within the purview of “death occurring otherwise than normal circumstances”. Accidental death, as suggested by appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has not been ruled out by the prosecution. 21. There is another aspect of the matter. Accidental death, as suggested by appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has not been ruled out by the prosecution. 21. There is another aspect of the matter. Admittedly, PW2 reached at the matrimonial house of Rani on 09.08.2008 at about 02.00 – 02.30 p.m. and saw Rani was being beaten up by the appellant and his family members. He left the place telling the appellant that within no time, demand of balance Rs.10000/- would be met. In the normal course, PW2 would have reported the matter to the police immediately after seeing that Rani Was being beaten by the appellant and others or soon thereafter, after reaching the Roorkee Hospital or even thereafter, at the time of getting Rani admitted in the Haridwar Hospital, however, matter was not promptly reported and FIR was lodged on the next day morning. As per the statement of appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. after the death of Rani, family members of Rani started demanding Rs. 2,00,000/- for compromise, failing which FIR was lodged by PW1 with concocted story. The defence of appellant cannot be ruled out completely. Therefore, in my considered opinion, it would not be safe to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC, consequently, appeal succeeds and is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 13.07.2010 is set aside. Appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Appellant is in jail. Let he be released from jail forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 22. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the lower court for compliance along with lower court record.