JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anil Kumar Sharma, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 3.8.2010 passed by Sri Babu Prasad the then Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 8, Shahjahanpur in S.T. No. 400 of 2006, (State v. Radhey Shyam and others), arising out of case crime No. 10 of 2006, P.S. Kalan, District Shahjahanpur, whereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B and 201 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act each had been sentenced to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 498-A IPC, 10-years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC, 5-years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 201 IPC and two years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act with default stipulation for non-payment of fine imposed. However, co-accused Mamta and Asha Ram, sister and brother-in-law of accused Radhey Shyam were acquitted on all counts. 2. The facts germane to the present appeal are that on 20.1.2006 Meva Ram s/o Sita Ram Kashyap, resident of village Gahiai, P.S. Pali, District Hardoi submitted a written report at 7.10 a.m. in P.S. Kalan, District Shahjahanpur stating that he has married his daughter Kanyawati about six years ago with Radhey Shyam, r/o village Giudi, P.S. Kalan District-Shahjahanpur. Her husband and his relatives including parents, sister Mamta and brother-in-law (Bahnoi) used to demand a cycle and a she-buffalo as additional dowry and due to non-fulfillment of their demand she was being beaten by them. On 18.1.2006 when complainant went at the house of the accused persons he came to know that his daughter Kanyawati has been killed by her husband Radhey Shyam, father-in-law Bhagga, mother-in-law Sudama, Sister Mamta and their son-in-law and they have dissipated her dead body. On search her dead body was found in the river near Golaganj. On the basis of this report case at Crime No. 10 of 2006, under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered at P. S. Kalan, District Shahjahanpur. The investigation of the case was entrusted to Circle Officer, Jai Karan Singh Sisodia, who interrogated the witnesses and prepared the site plan. On the basis of this report case at Crime No. 10 of 2006, under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered at P. S. Kalan, District Shahjahanpur. The investigation of the case was entrusted to Circle Officer, Jai Karan Singh Sisodia, who interrogated the witnesses and prepared the site plan. The inquest upon the cadaver of the deceased was conducted by Nayab Tahsildar Shiv Narayan on 20.1.2006 at 10.30 a.m. who alongwith usual papers sent the same in sealed condition for post mortem examination. 3. A team of two doctors led by Dr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 21.1.2006. They found that 25-years’ old deceased was average built. Rigor mortis had passed from upper and lower extremities. Mouth was open, tongue protruded out, eyes bulged out, skin had peeled of at places. Scalp hairs were loose. Maggots were present, nails were loosing and easily peeled out. They found following ante-mortem injuries on her person: (i) Abraded contusion size 2 cm x 2 cm over upper lip. (ii) Contusion size 3.00 cm x 1.00 cm over upper lip. (iii) Contusion size 2.5 cm x 1.00 cm over lower lip. (iv) Contusion size 4 cm x 2 cm over front of chin 1 cm below the lower lip. (v) Lacerated wound size 1.5 cm x 1.00 cm x muscle deep over inner surface of upper lip. (vi) Lacerated wound size 1.00 cm x 0.8 cm x muscle deep over inner surface of lower lip. (vii) Contusion size 3.00 cm x 2.5 cm over past aspect of left elbow joint. (viii) Contusion size 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm over past aspect of right elbow joint. In the opinion of the doctors the cause of death was asphyxia due to ante-mortem smothering about 5-6 days before autopsy. In internal examination the doctors found that larynx, trachea and bronchi were congested, both lungs were soft, heart was empty, teeth were 16/16 and uterus was non-gravid. 4. The investigation of the case was later on transferred to C.O. Rajesh Bharti, who after completing the investigatory formalities submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. 5. In internal examination the doctors found that larynx, trachea and bronchi were congested, both lungs were soft, heart was empty, teeth were 16/16 and uterus was non-gravid. 4. The investigation of the case was later on transferred to C.O. Rajesh Bharti, who after completing the investigatory formalities submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. 5. After committal of the case to the Court of Session charges for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against all five accused persons, who abjured their guilt and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined complainant Meva Ram PW-1, Manohar PW-2, Head Constable Rajesh Kumar Bharti PW-3, Dr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari PW-4 and C.O. Rajesh Bharti PW-5. 7. All the accused persons in their separate statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have again denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them and have examined Km. Sudha as DW-1. 8. Learned trial Court after hearing the parties’ counsel has convicted the accused-appellants and sentenced each of them as noted in paragraph-1 of the judgment. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the oral and documentary evidence on record carefully. 10. Castigating the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the trial Court, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that conviction of the appellants recorded by the trial Court is bad in the eye of law as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the essential ingredients which are required to prove the offence of dowry death. He has further submitted that prosecution has levelled general allegations against all the five accused named in the FIR and it has not been proved that there was any dowry demand either from the deceased or her family members what to say that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry; that FIR is inordinately delayed as PW-1 and PW-2 knew about the disappearance of the deceased 8-9 days prior to 18.1.2006 and findings of the learned trial Court are based on surmises and conjectures. 11. 11. Per contra, learned AGA supporting the impugned judgment and findings has argued that appellants are respectively the husband and parents-in-law of the deceased; that the deceased has suffered unnatural death in her matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage with Appellant No. 1 and she was subjected to harassment and cruelty by the appellants on account of demand of dowry and thus the learned trial Court has not at all erred in returning guilty verdict against the appellants. 12. In order to appreciate the rival submissions of the parties’ counsel, it would be appropriate to narrate in brief the statements given by the prosecution and defence witnesses in their examination-in-chief. 13. Meva Ram PW-1, is the father of the deceased. He has stated that about 6-years ago from the incident he has married his daughter Kanyawati with Radhey Shyam of village Giudi, P.S. Kalan. He gave dowry in the marriage but accused persons were not satisfied. She was kept properly for sometime but later on the accused persons used to demand a cycle, she-buffalo and Rs. 5,000/- in cash as dowry. About quarter to two years ago his daughter Kanyawati was killed by her husband Radhey Shyam, father-in-law Bhagga, mother-in-law Sudama, sister-in-law Mamta and Bahnoi Asha Ram and they threw her dead body in Ganges river. They did not inform him about her death. When he went to village Dharampur to see his ailing brother-in-law and thereafter went at the house of the accused persons, he did not find his daughter. On inquiry her mother-in-law and other family members informed him that she had run away. He came to know from small children that his daughter has been killed by the accused persons and her dead body has been thrown in Ganga river. The dead body was found nine days thereafter and then he submitted written report of the incident to the police which had been proved as Ex Ka-1. He has concluded that dead body of his daughter was found at the bank of Ganga river near Golaganj. The inquest was performed by the police in his presence. 14. Manohar PW-2 is the real brother of the deceased who has stated that he knows all the accused persons. He has concluded that dead body of his daughter was found at the bank of Ganga river near Golaganj. The inquest was performed by the police in his presence. 14. Manohar PW-2 is the real brother of the deceased who has stated that he knows all the accused persons. About 5-6 years ago, his sister Kanyawati was married with accused Radhey Shyam and after marriage her husband Radhey Shyam, father-in-law Bhagga, mother-in-law Sudama, sister-in-law Mamta and Asharam (Bahnoi) used to demand a she-buffalo, a cycle and Rs. 5,000/- as dowry and they used to beat her to press their demand. Sister used to tell her miseries to them. About two years ago all the five accused persons have killed her and thrown her dead body in Ganga river. 15. Head Constable Rajesh Kumar Bharti PW-3 has stated that on 20.1.2006 he was posted as Head Moharrior in P.S. Kalan and on that day on the basis of written report of the complainant Meva Ram, he has prepared chik report at 7.10 a.m. in his own handwriting and registered the case in general diary as report No. 10, at Crime No. 10 of 2006, under Section 304-B, 498-A, 201 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. He has proved the check report and the copy of G.D. as Ex. Ka-2 and Ka-3. He has also proved the inquest report and its related papers as Ex. Ka-4 to Ka-8 stating that they had been prepared by H.C.P. Albel Chandra Dixit on the instructions of Nayab Tehsildar Shiv Narayan. He had been posted with Sri Dixit and is acquainted with his handwriting and signatures. 16. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari PW-4 has deposed that on 21.1.2006 he was posted as Medical Officer in the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Shahjahanpur and on that day at 3.20 p.m. he has conducted autopsy on the dead body of 25-years old Kanyawati wife of Radhey Shyam. Dr. Tiwari has proved the contents of his post mortem examination report as Ex. Ka-9 which have been reproduced in para-3 of the judgment above. 17. Dy. S.P., Rajesh Bharti PW-5 has deposed that on 21.1.2006 he was posted as Circle Officer, Jalalabad. Dr. Tiwari has proved the contents of his post mortem examination report as Ex. Ka-9 which have been reproduced in para-3 of the judgment above. 17. Dy. S.P., Rajesh Bharti PW-5 has deposed that on 21.1.2006 he was posted as Circle Officer, Jalalabad. The investigation of Case Crime No. 10 of 2006 was earlier conducted by Circle Officer Sri Jai Karan Singh Bhadoriya who has recorded the statement of Head Moharrior, complainant and also inspected the spot as also the place from where the dead body was recovered. He has stated that on 21.1.2006 he took over the investigation of the case and after completing the same submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. He has also proved the site plan prepared by earlier investigation officer as Ex. Ka-12. 18. 15-years old Km. Sudha DW-1 has deposed on 12.5.2010 before the trial Court that she knew Kanyawati and her husband Radhey Shyam, who were her neighbours. About four and a half years’ ago at about 5.00 p.m. while she was cleaning utensils in front of her house, then Kanyawati asked her to take care of her daughter and she would come soon but she did not return back. The name of daughter of Kanyawati is Sangita who is now aged about 11-years. After finishing her house-hold chores she went at the house of Radhey Shyam where his mother met her and she also told her that aunt (Kanyawati) told her to take care of her daughter. She has further deposed that Kanyawati did not return back and nine days thereafter she came to know that her dead body had been recovered. 19. Section 304-B IPC deals with dowry death reads as follows: “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. Explanation—For the purpose of this sub-section ‘dowry’ shall have same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). Explanation—For the purpose of this sub-section ‘dowry’ shall have same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (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.” The provision has application when 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 relatives of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. In order to attract application of Section 304-B IPC, the essential ingredients are as follows : (i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance. (ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage. (iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. (iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry. (v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. 20. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the case at hand. Both Section 304-B Indian Penal Code and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act were inserted as noted earlier by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths. Section 113-B reads as follows : “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 has 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 (45 of 1860).” 21. The necessity for insertion of the two provisions has been amply analysed by the Law Commission of India in its 21st Report on ‘Dowry Deaths and Law Reform’. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section ‘dowry death’ shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).” 21. The necessity for insertion of the two provisions has been amply analysed by the Law Commission of India in its 21st Report on ‘Dowry Deaths and Law Reform’. Keeping in view the impediment in the pre-existing law in securing evidence to prove dowry related deaths, legislature thought it wise to insert a provision relating to presumption of dowry death on proof of certain essentials. It is in this background presumptive Section 113-B in the Evidence Act has been inserted. As per the definition of ‘dowry death’ in Section 304-B IPC and the wording in the presumptive Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, one of the essential ingredients, amongst others, in both the provisions is that the concerned woman must have been “soon before her death” subjected to cruelty or harassment “for or in connection with the demand of dowry”. Presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the Court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials: (1) The question before the Court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304-B IPC). (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death. 22. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. 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 expression ‘soon before’ is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. 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 expression ‘soon before’ is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. Prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by prosecution. ‘Soon before’ is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression ‘soon before her death’ used in the substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression ‘soon before’ is not defined. A reference to expression ‘soon before’ used in Section 114. Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a Court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods ‘soon’ after the theft, is either the thief has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. The determination of the period which can come within the term ‘soon before’ is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression ‘soon before’ would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live-link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. 23. There must be existence of a proximate and live-link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. 23. The above position was highlighted by the Apex Court in Hira Lal and others v. State (Government of NCT), Delhi, 2003 (8) SCC 80 and in Vidhya Devi and another v. State of Haryana, JT 2004 (1) 609. There is no departure from the above legal enunciation till today by the Courts of the country. 24. Similar observation was made by the Apex Court in Balwant Singh and another v. State of Punjab, (2004) 7 SCC 724 , wherein it was held: “These decisions and other decisions of this Court do lay down the proximity test. It has been reiterated in several decisions of this Court that ‘before’ is an expression which permits of elasticity, and therefore the proximity test has to be applied keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. The facts must show the existence of a proximate live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death of the victim.” 25. In the case of Manohar Lal v. State of Haryana, 2014 (140) AIC 37 (SC), the Apex Court has observed as under: “20. In the present case, from the statement of PW.1 it appears that the death took place within seven years of marriage. Admittedly, death of the deceased was due to burning i. e. not in normal circumstances. We have to see now whether the remaining two ingredients are satisfied looking into the evidence on record. 21. The statement of the complainant PW.1 is general and not specific. No specific incidence has been indicated suggesting the cruelty or harassment made by the accused-Manohar Lal. Her statement is not reliable and not trustworthy. Though the allegation of demand of dowry was made none of the witnesses including PW.1 stated that the deceased was harassed ‘before her death’ for or in connection with demand of dowry. No specific incidence has been indicated suggesting the cruelty or harassment made by the accused-Manohar Lal. Her statement is not reliable and not trustworthy. Though the allegation of demand of dowry was made none of the witnesses including PW.1 stated that the deceased was harassed ‘before her death’ for or in connection with demand of dowry. The accused appellant was charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC but the Trial Court has not convicted the accused under Section 498-A. In this background, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused harassed the deceased soon before her death for or in connection with a demand of dowry.” 26. It is not disputed that the deceased suffered unnatural death withing seven years’ of her marriage with appellant No. 1 and her dead body was found in the river near the village of the appellants. We would now see whether there was any dowry demand by the accused-appellants either from the deceased or her family members and she was subjected to harassment on this score. 27. The consistent case of the prosecution is that the deceased was married with accused-appellant Radhey Shyam about six years before the incident. The written report of the incident was submitted by the complainant in police station on 20.1.2006. The contents of the report show that it had been prepared after the dead body of the deceased was found in the river near Golaganj. It has been specifically mentioned by the complainant in his report that on 18.1.2006 he had visited the house of the accused and then he came to know that after killing his daughter all the accused named in the written report have vanished her cadaver. However, the complainant could not withstand the test of cross-examination on this point. He has stated in cross-examination that when he did not find his daughter in the house of the accused persons, he enquired from her mother-in-law about her whereabouts, then he was informed that she had eloped and her dead body was found after nine days. However, the complainant could not withstand the test of cross-examination on this point. He has stated in cross-examination that when he did not find his daughter in the house of the accused persons, he enquired from her mother-in-law about her whereabouts, then he was informed that she had eloped and her dead body was found after nine days. In cross-examination he has disowned the contents of his written report in the following manner - ^^?kVuk ds ckn eSa viuh yM+dh dU;korh ds ;gkW x;k rks djhc vk/kk ?kaVs :ds FksA eq>dks ml le; ;g ckr dk irk ugha pyk Fkk fd esjh yM+dh dU;korh dh gR;k gqbZ gS vkSj mldh yk'k dks mlds llqjky okyksa us xk;c dj fn;k gkSA eSausa gh bl ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ fy[kk;h Fkh esjh fjiksVZ esa vxj ;g fy[kk gks fd fnukad 18-1-2006 dks tc eSa viuh yM+dh ds ?kj vk;k rk irk pyk fd yM+dh dks jkèks';ke o mlds firk HkXxk rFkk mldh ekrk lqnkek fu0x.k fx;qMh Fkkuk dyku o uun eerk rFkk e>yk nkekn us esjh yM+dh dh gR;k djds yk'k dks dgha xk;c dj fn;k gSA ;g ckr eSaus igys ugha fy[kk;h Fkh ;fn fjiksVZ esa ,slk fy[kk gS rks bldh dksbZ otg ugha crk ldrkA** 28. The statement of the complainant in this regard is self contradictory. The report states that the dead body of the deceased was found after three days of his visit to the house of the accused, whereas in cross-examination he had clearly stated that he could find the dead body of the deceased 9 days after his visit to the house of the accused-appellants. His statement in this regard is as under: ^^eSa yM+dh dh llqjky x;k mlds ukS fnu ckn eq>s yk'k ds ckjs esa irk yxk FkkA eSa viuh yM+dh dks pkjksa rjQ ds xkWoksa esa iwNrkN djrk jgkA bu xkWoksa esa [kefj;k] fxmMh rFkk vU; xkWo esa iwNrk jgk] vU; xkWoksa ds uke irk ugha crk ldrkA** 29. Now if the complainant came to know nine days prior to 20.1.2006 after visiting the house of the accused persons that his daughter is missing, then why he did not approach the police and lodge FIR or missing report? In this connection, Manohar PW-2 (son of the complainant) has not supported his father. Now if the complainant came to know nine days prior to 20.1.2006 after visiting the house of the accused persons that his daughter is missing, then why he did not approach the police and lodge FIR or missing report? In this connection, Manohar PW-2 (son of the complainant) has not supported his father. He has stated that the next day of the visit of his father to the house of the accused persons he had gone with him and then he realised that his sister Kanyawati is no more. He has further stated that he met the police darogaji alongwith his father, the same day when he went to the house of the accused persons and told him about the demise of the deceased but he (darogaji) did not believe it because of the contention of her in-laws’ that she had eloped. This witness has further stated that the dead body of the his sister was found 4-5 days after his first visit to the police station. This statement of this witness is contradictory to the deposition of his father, where he had given this period as nine days. Thus, we find that the statements of the two star witnesses of the prosecution with regard to elopement of the deceased, recovery of her dead body and lodging of the FIR with the police are not consistent and there are material contradictions therein, so no implicit reliance can be placed thereon. 30. Now as regards dowry demand and cruelty with the deceased soon before her death on this count, we have the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, the father and brother of the deceased. A close scrutiny of the deposition of complainant Meva Ram PW-1 shows that in the marriage no dowry was given by him to the accused persons. 30. Now as regards dowry demand and cruelty with the deceased soon before her death on this count, we have the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, the father and brother of the deceased. A close scrutiny of the deposition of complainant Meva Ram PW-1 shows that in the marriage no dowry was given by him to the accused persons. His statement in this regard is quote below: ^^dU;korh dh 'kknh esa dksbZ ngst ugha ns ugha ik;kA dU;korh dh 'kknh esa ngst u feyus ds ckoktwn esjs nkekn jk/ks';ke] esjs leèkh HkXxk us esjh yM+dh dU;korh dh 'kknh ds ckn fonk djk;h FkhA esjh yM+dh dU;korh dh 'kknh ds ckn fonk djk;h FkhA esjh yM+dh 'kknh ds ckn ek;ds vkrh tkrh jgrh fdarq og crkrh Fkh fd ngst us feyus ds dkj.k og yksx mls ekjrs ihVrs FksA eSaus yM+dh dh ekjihV o ngst ekaxus ds lEca/k es dksbZ izkFkZuk i= fdlh dks ugha fn;kA u gh bl ckcr fd ngst ekaxus ds lEca/k esa fcjknjh ;k xSj fcjknjh dh dksbZ iapk;r ugha dhA** 31. The above statement of the complainant demolishes the entire case of the prosecution with regard to demand of additional dowry by any of the accused-appellant from the deceased or her harassment etc. on this score by any of them. No specific instance of dowry demand or treating the deceased with cruelty or harassment in this regard had been stated either by the complainant or his son PW-2. None of them has stated that any of the accused had ever demanded any dowry from them or have given any threat in this regard if their demand is not met. Even if the accused-appellants were so desperate about their dowry demand then the complainant ought to have taken help of his other relatives or by calling a panchayat to resolve the dispute. 32. It is important to note that there is no evidence at all to show or suggest that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment on account of demand of dowry by all or any of the accused-appellant. 32. It is important to note that there is no evidence at all to show or suggest that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment on account of demand of dowry by all or any of the accused-appellant. In this connection it would be useful to quote the statement of complainant given in cross-examination, which is as under: ^^?kVuk ls igys esjh yM+dh Hkb;knwt esa esjs ?kj vk;h FkhA ———— yM+dh dh tc 'kknh dh Fkh rc ge lc yksx oj i{k ls [kq'k FksA 6 lky rd [kq'k jgsA yM+dh tc ej x;h Fkh rc fjiksVZ fy[kk;h FkhA** 33. The instant incident had taken place in the month of January, 2006, so the deceased might have visited the complainant on the eve of Bhaiya Dooj of the year 2005. The calendar of 2005 shows that Bhaiya Dooj was in the first week of November, 2005, so for about two and half months prior to the death of the deceased the deceased had not met any of her family member viz PW-1 or PW-2 and hence they are not in a position to tell as to how the deceased was treated in her matrimonial home by the accused persons during this period. None of the witness had stated the last date of dowry demand by the accused persons in their police statements to the investigating officer, as has been admitted by CO Rajesh Bharti PW-5 in his cross-examination. Manohar PW-2 has no where stated during his entire deposition as to when he last visited the house of the accused-appellants during the life time of his sister Kanyawati, so that he could himself see her living conditions in the matrimonial home. 34. It is relevant to refer to the case of Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder and others v. State of W.B., (2008) 1 SCC 202 , where the Apex Court found that there was practically no evidence to show that there was any cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, the demands of dowry. There was also no finding in that regard. It was observed by the Hon’ble Court that this deficiency in evidence proved fatal for the prosecution case and even otherwise mere evidence of cruelty and harassment was not sufficient to attract Section 304-B IPC. There was also no finding in that regard. It was observed by the Hon’ble Court that this deficiency in evidence proved fatal for the prosecution case and even otherwise mere evidence of cruelty and harassment was not sufficient to attract Section 304-B IPC. It had to be shown in addition to that such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, demand of dowry. Following the ratio of this case, the Apex Court in the case of Panchanand Mandal v. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 9 SCC 800 , at page 805 has observed as under : “16. In the instant case, ominous allegations have been made against the in-laws of the deceased. No specific incident has been stated by PW 13 Bholia Devi, mother of the deceased or PW 14 Bachchu Sao, brother of the deceased in their statements. Nothing is on the record to suggest that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment “soon before her death” and “in connection with the demand of dowry”. 17. Thus, we find that, practically there was no evidence to prove that there was any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased.” 35. The statements of the complainant PW-1 and his son Manohar PW-2 are general and not specific. They could not indicate any specific incidence suggesting the cruelty or harassment to the deceased made by the any of the accused-appellants. Their statement in this regard are unreliable and not trustworthy. Though the allegation of demand of dowry was made but none of the witnesses including PW.1 stated that the deceased was harassed ‘soon before her death’ for or in connection with demand of dowry. In this background, this Court finds that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused-appellants ever demanded any dowry either from the deceased or her relatives and any of them has harassed, maltreated or tortured the deceased soon before her death for or in connection with a demand of dowry. The findings of the learned trial Court on these issues are not based on evidence adduced by the prosecution in the case and as such cannot be sustained. 36. Similarly there is no evidence to constitute offence punishable under Section 201 IPC against any of the accused-appellant. The findings of the learned trial Court on these issues are not based on evidence adduced by the prosecution in the case and as such cannot be sustained. 36. Similarly there is no evidence to constitute offence punishable under Section 201 IPC against any of the accused-appellant. No witness has been examined by the prosecution to establish that any of the accused-appellant had thrown the dead body of the deceased in the river Ganges after killing her. 37. In view of the aforestated reasons, the learned trial Court has erred in recording conviction of the accused-appellants for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Since the prosecution has miserably failed to establish any of the charge levelled against the accused-appellants, so the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. All the accused-appellants are in jail. They should be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 38. Let copy of the judgment be immediately transmitted to the Court concerned for ensuring compliance, which should be reported to the Court within 4-weeks. —————