JUDGMENT Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.01.2012 passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 301 of 2008 whereby appellants were held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 316 IPC and were sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment each under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment each under Section 316 IPC with the stipulation that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that PW1 Jagdish Singh lodged an FIR on 10.10.2008 with police station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar stating therein that his daughter Manjeet Kaur was got married with one Jaswant Singh, son of Balvinder Singh, resident of Ashok Farm, police station Khatima, 7 months ago; he had given gifts and other items, in dowry, at the time of her marriage, as per his financial status; after 2-3 months of her marriage, Jaswant Singh (husband), his father Balvinder Singh, his brother Surjeet Singh @ Santu and his mother Jageer Kaur started taunting his daughter, saying that your father had not given anything to us, at the time of marriage, therefore, she should bring motorcycle and colour TV from her parents; his daughter told this fact to them, after coming to her parental house; on this, they went to the matrimonial house of Manjeet Kaur and tried to explain her in-laws that they were poor people, therefore, they would not be able to give anything; on this, her in-laws agreed but after some time, they again started torturing his daughter to bring the aforesaid items from her parents, however, his daughter did not leave her matrimonial house; on 10.10.2008, all the four accused persons killed his daughter by administering her poison; he received the information at about 04.00 p.m. about death of his daughter; thereafter, he along with some villagers went to Ashok Farm and with the help of police dead body of his daughter was taken to Government Hospital; therefore, after registering the FIR necessary action may be taken. 3. Inquest report was prepared on the next day i.e. on 11.10.2008, in the presence of PW1, PW2, Lal Singh, Darshan Singh, Amar Singh, PW6 Sher Singh Ereda, Tehsildar, Khatima. As per inquest report, she was wearing 14 glass bangles and one Kada in left hand and 16 glass bangles in right hand. 3. Inquest report was prepared on the next day i.e. on 11.10.2008, in the presence of PW1, PW2, Lal Singh, Darshan Singh, Amar Singh, PW6 Sher Singh Ereda, Tehsildar, Khatima. As per inquest report, she was wearing 14 glass bangles and one Kada in left hand and 16 glass bangles in right hand. It was further mentioned in the inquest report that dead body was not having any injury mark except one old injury mark on her right elbow. 4. Post-mortem was conducted on 11.10.2008 at about 01.30 p.m. During postmortem, small abrasions, in the upper & lower lip and on the right elbow were found and cause of death could not be ascertained, however, viscera were preserved. As per viscera report (Exhibit Ka-8), aluminum phosphide was found in stomach, intestine, liver, kidney and spleen. 5. Having investigated the matter, Investigating Officer PW8 Amit Srivastava, Dy. S.P. submitted charge-sheet against the appellants under Sections 304-B, 316, IPC. 6. After committal of the case, trial court was pleased to frame charges against appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 316, IPC. Appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. 7. To prove the prosecution story, PW1 Jagdish Singh (father of deceased), PW2 Malkeet Singh (maternal uncle of deceased), PW3 Kuldeep Singh (brother of deceased), PW4 Charanjeet Singh (village Pradhan), PW5 Dr. I.A. Khan, PW6 Sher Singh Ereda, Tehsildar Khatima, PW7 Head Constable Govind Singh Negi, PW8 Amit Srivastava, Dy. S. P., Investigating Officer, PW9 Sub-Inspector Sher Singh were examined and thereafter, statements of accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. From the side of defence, Kulwant Singh DW1 was examined. 8. Having perused the entire material made available on record, learned trial court was pleased to convict & sentence the appellants vide judgment and order under appeal. 9. I have heard Mr. S.K. Mandal, advocate for the appellants, Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Additional GA for the State and have carefully perused the record. 10. It is not disputed that Manjeet Kaur died within 8 months of her marriage; she was having pregnancy of about 27 weeks; her death was caused due to poisoning; and she was found dead in her matrimonial house. 11. S.K. Mandal, advocate for the appellants, Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Additional GA for the State and have carefully perused the record. 10. It is not disputed that Manjeet Kaur died within 8 months of her marriage; she was having pregnancy of about 27 weeks; her death was caused due to poisoning; and she was found dead in her matrimonial house. 11. As per dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bakshish Ram v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (4) SCC 131 prosecution has to show that married woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment, by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with any demand of dowry. 12. Now, let me examine, as to whether deceased Manjeet Kaur was subjected to cruelty or harassment, soon before her death for demand of dowry. 13. PW1 Jagdish Singh, during his examination-in-chief, stated that Manjeet Kaur was harassed to bring motorcycle and colour TV from her parents. In the same line, PW2 and PW3 also made statement that she was harassed by the appellant to bring colour TV and motorcycle from her parents. However, during his cross-examination, PW1 stated that there was absolutely no demand from the side of appellants, either before or at the time of marriage or soon thereafter. 14. PW2 Malkeet Singh (maternal uncle of deceased), during his cross-examination, stated that engagement of deceased and Jaswant Singh took place about one year before the marriage and there was no demand of dowry either at the time of engagement or after engagement, till marriage was solemnized. 15. PW3 Kuldeep Singh (brother of deceased), during his cross-examination, stated that at the time of marriage, there was absolutely no talks regarding demand of dowry; her sister was sent after marriage happily with appellants. He further stated that he also went with his sister to her matrimonial house and stayed with her at her matrimonial house. He further stated that after some time, his father (PW1) also went to the house of Manjeet Kaur deceased and after coming back from her matrimonial house, his father told all the family members that everything was fine in the matrimonial house of deceased. 16. From the statement of PW1, PW2 & PW3, it is thus, clear that there was no demand of dowry, either at the time of engagement or at the time of marriage or soon thereafter. 16. From the statement of PW1, PW2 & PW3, it is thus, clear that there was no demand of dowry, either at the time of engagement or at the time of marriage or soon thereafter. For the first time, demand to bring motorcycle and colour TV was made after about 4 months of marriage. 17. PW2 Malkeet Singh, during his cross-examination, admitted that there was no electricity connection in the house of appellants. PW1, PW2 & PW3 also stated that appellants are agricultural labours. It is also stated that PW1 father of the deceased was having only one acre of agriculture land and entire family survive on the agriculture. 18. Considering the social and financial status of the parties and the fact that there was no electricity connection in the house of appellants, it would be really difficult to believe that appellant could have demanded colour TV and motorcycle, therefore, alleged demand of motorcycle and colour TV seems to be highly doubtful. 19. This Court in Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2010 (Anis v. State of Uttarakhand) decided on 1.7.2013, having placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 (9) SCC 721 : ( AIR 2007 SC 763 ) and Modisab Kasimsab Kanchagar v. State of Karnataka reported in 2013 (4) SCC 551 : ( AIR 2013 SC 1504 ), 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 in connection with the marriage of the said parties, can be said to be dowry. 20. Since there was absolutely no demand or agreement to bring motorcycle or colour TV either before or at the time of marriage, therefore, alleged demand of motorcycle or colour TV, after four months from the marriage, in my considered opinion, cannot be said to be dowry demand. It may be an unethical or illegal demand but certainly it will not be demand in connection with marriage. 21. In my considered opinion, since demand of dowry is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, it can safely be said that she was not subjected to any cruelty or harassment, soon before her death for demand of dowry. Consequently, most important ingredient of 304-B, IPC is missing in the present case. 22. Mr. 21. In my considered opinion, since demand of dowry is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, it can safely be said that she was not subjected to any cruelty or harassment, soon before her death for demand of dowry. Consequently, most important ingredient of 304-B, IPC is missing in the present case. 22. Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Additional GA for the State, has vehemently argued that in view of statutory presumption, as provided under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 present case stands proved. 23. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:- "113B 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. Explanation.–– For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code." 24. Perusal of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would reveal that 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 of dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused dowry death. Meaning thereby, to invoke Section 113B, prosecution has to show that married woman was subjected to cruelty and harassment, soon before her death, in connection with demand of dowry. If demand of dowry is not proved successfully then presumption available under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, cannot be pressed in service. 25. It is stated by PW2 that Jaswant Singh, husband of deceased, was hunch backed person while deceased was beautiful and healthy lady. 26. In those circumstances, argument advanced by Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the appellants that since she was a beautiful lady and she was perhaps not happy with the marriage, therefore, she committed suicide by consuming poison, cannot be ruled out completely. 27. 26. In those circumstances, argument advanced by Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the appellants that since she was a beautiful lady and she was perhaps not happy with the marriage, therefore, she committed suicide by consuming poison, cannot be ruled out completely. 27. Now, question comes, even if, offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC is not proved against the appellant, as to whether, they can be convicted for the offence of abetment to commit suicide under Section 306, IPC. 28. In view of above discussion, since demand of dowry is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, it cannot be said that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry with mens rea to drive her to commit suicide, therefore, ingredients of Section 107, IPC are also missing, therefore, offence punishable under Section 306, IPC against the appellants is also not made out. 29. In view of above discussion, it can safely be said that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, both the appeal are allowed. Impugned judgment and order 18.01.2012 passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 301 of 2008 is hereby set aside. Appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Appellant Jaswant is in jail. Let he be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Other appellants are on bail. They need not to surrender before the court below in connection with present case. Their personal bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 30. Let copy of this judgment be also placed in the connected matter. Registry is directed to forward copy of this judgment to the court below for compliance along with lower court record. Appeals allowed.