JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this appeal, the appellants (father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively) have challenged the judgment and order dated 05.10.2010, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No.34 of 2008, titled as “State Vs. Narayan Ram and another” (crime no.2 of 2008). The said trial resulted into the conviction of the appellants under Sections 304-B/498-A IPC r/w Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, wherefor they have been appropriately sentenced. 2. By the same judgment, co-accused Manoj @ Munna (husband) was also convicted for the identical Sections. An appeal was preferred by him from jail bearing No.68 of 2010, which has been abated by this Court vide order dated 22.8.2013 on account of his death while serving out sentence. 3. Facts of the case are that Ms. Bhavna was married to Manoj @ Munna (son of appellants) on 20.04.2006. Allegedly, soon after the marriage, she was subjected to various atrocities besides tormented torture at the hands of appellants and her husband on the question of dowry. At times, she was beaten by her husband. She kept on coming her native home but every time, was returned back by her parents after persuasions. The FIR further discloses that prior to 4-5 months of occurrence, all the appellants, including husband, demanded Rs.50,000/- in dowry on the pretext of requirement of money in the forthcoming marriage of victim’s sister-in-law. In connection with that demand, she was sent off by the complainant along with Rs.10,000/- in the month of February, 2008 to her in-laws house. Her husband was employed as a Class IV employee in a private school known as Birla Memorial School at Chiliyanaula, District Almora. The couple thereafter started residing in a rented house at the said place. On 12.06.2008, Manoj rang up PW1 Jeewan Ram and informed that Bhavana was not present in the house. On 13.06.2008, complainant’s wife proceeded for Chiliyanaula where she came to know that a dead body was lying in the forest, which was later on revealed to be of victim Bhavana. 4. With the said averments, the F.I.R. (Ex.Ka-1) was lodged by Jeewan Ram against the present appellants and husband of victim. Chik report thereof is Ex.Ka-3. Naib Tehsildar of the area arrested the appellant Narayan Ram on 16.6.2008, whereas appellant Smt. Vimla Devi could be arrested on 17.6.2008. Their arrest memos are Ex.Ka-3 and Ka-4 respectively. 4. With the said averments, the F.I.R. (Ex.Ka-1) was lodged by Jeewan Ram against the present appellants and husband of victim. Chik report thereof is Ex.Ka-3. Naib Tehsildar of the area arrested the appellant Narayan Ram on 16.6.2008, whereas appellant Smt. Vimla Devi could be arrested on 17.6.2008. Their arrest memos are Ex.Ka-3 and Ka-4 respectively. (In the hills of State, revenue officials exercise the police powers). Map of the spot, where dead body was lying, is Ex.Ka-6. The investigation resulted into the submission of charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-16) against the appellants for the offences u/s 498-A/304-B/120-B IPC r/w Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. On 27.03.2009, learned Sessions Judge, Almora framed charges against the appellants/accused accordingly. They abjured their guilt and claimed trial. 6. Prosecution has examined a many as eight witnesses, who are PW1 Jeewan Ram (father of deceased), PW2 Nandi Devi (mother of deceased), PW3 Shanti Prakash (brother of deceased), PW4 Dr. K.K. Pandey (who conducted autopsy), PW5 Rakesh Tiwari, PW6 K.S. Kuwarbi, PW7 Hayat Giri and PW8 N.S. Rautela (who submitted charge-sheet against the appellants). 7. Thereafter the statements of the appellants/accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr. P.C. Both of them stated that at the time of occurrence, victim Bhavana was residing with her husband Manoj at the place of his posting i.e. Chiliyanaula. It has further been disclosed by accused Narayan Ram that he was serving in Delhi at the time of occurrence. In defence, Deepa Devi has been examined as DW1. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned State counsel nay perused the entire evidence on record. 9. In the instant case, undoubtedly, the victim died within 2¼ years of her marriage. The inquest report (Ex.Ka-10) suggests that her dead body was found on 13.6.2008 in the forest of village Badahan, within the limits of Chiliyanaula, where the husband of victim was employed in a private school. Members of inquest found abrasions on different parts of body of victim, so the cause of death could not be ascertained. Accordingly, the opinion for autopsy was expressed which was conducted by PW4 Dr. K.K. Pandey along with Dr. Ram Bihari on 14.6.2008 at 11:30 AM. In the opinion of the doctors, death had occurred about 24 to 36 hours before the post-mortem was done. This observation matches with the date and time of occurrence. Accordingly, the opinion for autopsy was expressed which was conducted by PW4 Dr. K.K. Pandey along with Dr. Ram Bihari on 14.6.2008 at 11:30 AM. In the opinion of the doctors, death had occurred about 24 to 36 hours before the post-mortem was done. This observation matches with the date and time of occurrence. The medical officer found following external injuries on the person of deceased: - 1. “Four linear abrasions longitudinal in direction present over left side of neck in the area of 5 cm x 0.5 cm. 2. Two abrasions in the area of 4 cm x 1 cm placed over the left side of abdomen. 3. One abrasion measuring 2 cm x 1 cm placed over right upper arm and one abrasion 2 cm x 1.5 cm placed over left upper arm. 4. 2 cm x 2 cm abrasion placed over left knee and 1.5 cm x 1 cm abrasion placed over right knee.” 10. Since the doctors could not ascertain the real cause of death, Viscera was preserved. In such a situation, it is difficult to ascribe that the death of deceased took place on account of the above-noted injuries. In the Viscera report (Ex.Ka-7) submitted by the Forensic Laboratory, it was found that the ‘Organochloro Insecticide Poison’ was found in the intestine, stomach, liver, kidney and spleen of the dead body. So, it is clear that the death of deceased took place on account of effect of poison. 11. Now, we have to evaluate whether the appellants have caused the dowry death of Smt. Bhavana, daughter of PW1 Jeewan Ram. 12. Insofar as the complicity of her husband is concerned in the crime, he has been reported to have died in jail while serving out the sentence. Now, we have to consider only about the participation of the present appellants in the crime. 13. Prosecution, in this case, has examined Jeewan Ram as PW1 who is the informant and father of deceased. He has admitted in his examination-in-chief itself that his son-in-law Manoj had brought Bhavana at Chiliyanaula where the former was employed as a Class IV employee in a private school. He further testified that in the late evening of 12th June, 2008, his son-in-law rang him up and informed that Bhavana was found missing from the place of his dwelling. He has admitted in his examination-in-chief itself that his son-in-law Manoj had brought Bhavana at Chiliyanaula where the former was employed as a Class IV employee in a private school. He further testified that in the late evening of 12th June, 2008, his son-in-law rang him up and informed that Bhavana was found missing from the place of his dwelling. In cross-examination, it has been stated that his daughter did not die at her in-laws house. The witness further admits that at the time of occurrence, appellants were not residing along with the victim at Chiliyanaula. PW1 further admits that his daughter was Class VII passed. But at the same time, he has also admitted that his daughter did not ever write any letter as regards any atrocity on the part of appellants/accused. 14. PW2 Nandi Devi is the mother of deceased who has admitted that prior to one month of occurrence, her daughter Bhawana started living with her husband at Chiliyanaula. On 12.6.2008, her son-in-law Manoj informed on telephone that Bhawana was not in the room. She has corroborated the testimony of PW1 on all the points, as stated above. 15. PW3 Shanti Prakash is the real brother of deceased. He has also corroborated the evidence of PW1 and PW2 on all the points highlighted above. 16. All these witnesses viz. PW1 to PW3 have admitted that both the families are of ordinary economic status so there was no demand of dowry before or at the time of marriage. 17. PW4 is Dr. K.K. Pandey who has proved the minor injuries which all are abrasions present over the dead body. He has accepted that the injuries afore-mentioned could not cause death. It has further been deposed by the witness that any person, after consuming poison, can suffer such injuries if he/she writhes in pain and fall resultantly. 18. PW5 Rakesh Tiwari is the Tehsildar who prepared the Chik FIR (Ex.Ka-3) on the basis of the FIR lodged by PW1 Jeewan Ram. He has proved regarding submission of chargesheet (Ex.Ka-8) by him against the accused Manoj @ Munna (husband). 19. PW6 is K.S. Kurwabi, Pradhan of Village Badhan Chiliyanaula. This witness has proved that on 13.6.2008, he moved an application (Ex.Ka.9) before the SDM, Ranikhet informing him about lying of woman’s dead body in the forest. Later on, he was appointed as a witness of inquest report. 19. PW6 is K.S. Kurwabi, Pradhan of Village Badhan Chiliyanaula. This witness has proved that on 13.6.2008, he moved an application (Ex.Ka.9) before the SDM, Ranikhet informing him about lying of woman’s dead body in the forest. Later on, he was appointed as a witness of inquest report. He has proved his signature thereon. 20. PW7 Hayat Giri is the Patwari. He has proved the formal papers of investigation. He has proved the inquest report as well, as he was scribe of the same. 21. PW8 is Nandan Singh Rautela, Tehsildar, who has proved regarding submission of chargesheet (Ex.Ka-16) by him against the present appellants. 22. In defence evidence, appellants/accused got examined Deepa Devi as D.W.1. She is the neighbour of in-laws house. She has proved that deceased’s husband was posted as a Class IV employee in Birla School located at Chiliyanaula, whereas her father-in-law Narayan Ram was in service at Delhi. This witness has proved that although the deceased remained at her in-laws house for one year, but she never complained about any atrocities either at the hands of her husband or the appellants on the question of dowry. She has proved that the deceased was happy in her in-laws house but after staying for a year, she accompanied her husband at the place of his posting i.e. Chiliyanaula. 23. Apart from the evidence discussed by us hereinabove, which does not ascribe any guilt on the part of the appellants/accused, it can significantly be mentioned that one of the essential ingredients for constituting the offence u/s 304-B IPC, which prescribes that “soon before her death” the married woman should have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry ……………..………………………; are absent. Here, prosecution evidence clearly suggests that at least for last one month of the occurrence, deceased was living with her husband at the place known as ‘Chiliyanaula’, which is fairly a distant place from her in-laws house. DW1 Deepa Devi, who is a close neighbour, has categorically proved that the victim lived along with her mother-in-law for almost one year after marriage. Subsequently thereafter, she accompanied her husband (who died while serving out the sentence) at the aforesaid place where he was employed in a private school. DW1 Deepa Devi, who is a close neighbour, has categorically proved that the victim lived along with her mother-in-law for almost one year after marriage. Subsequently thereafter, she accompanied her husband (who died while serving out the sentence) at the aforesaid place where he was employed in a private school. Besides, the defence evidence further suggests that at the time of occurrence, appellant Narayan Ram was serving somewhere in Delhi. 24. In the light of evidence as discussed hereinabove, we find that in fact there is no evidence to show that there was any cruelty or harassment on the part of the appellants/accused, for, or in connection with the demand of dowry. Even otherwise mere evidence of cruelty and harassment (if any) is not sufficient to bring in application of Section 304-B IPC. It has to be shown in addition that such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with the demand of dowry. In the given circumstances, no question of cruelty or harassment (if any) of the deceased, for or in connection with the demand of dowry, that too soon before her death at the hands of the appellants/accused, arises. Since the prosecution miserably failed to prove that aspect, the conviction of the appellants, u/s 304-B/498-A r/w Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, cannot be sustained. 25. In light of the foregoing discussion, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence only against the appellants Narayan Ram and Smt. Vimla Devi. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.