JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) CRMA No. 1480 of 2015 1. Present appeal is filed with 14 days delay. We have perused the accompanying affidavit to the application seeking condonation of delay. We are satisfied that 14 days’ delay has properly been explained. Therefore, 14 days’ delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Application seeking condonation of delay is hereby allowed. SPLA No. 163 of 2015 2. Present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.5.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Champawat in Session Trial No. 03 of 2013, whereby accused/respondents were acquitted from the charges under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. As per the prosecution story, PW 1 Kamal Singh Mehra, brother of deceased Smt. Deepa, has lodged an FIR with P.S. Lohaghat, District Champawat saying his sister Deepa was got married with Naresh Singh about 3 years before; after the marriage, her husband Naresh Singh, father-in-law Prahlad Singh, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law were treating her with cruelty on account of bringing less dowry; Smt. Deepa was asked to go out from the house so many times, therefore, most of the time, Smt. Deepa remained in her parental house; Smt. Deepa had made a complaint on 10.4.2012 to the President, Women Cell, Champawat; in the noon of 26.9.2012, Deepa has phoned PW1 that she was being treated with cruelty by her in-laws and she was having apprehension of her life; on the same day, in the evening, her husband Naresh Singh has phoned PW1 that Deepa has committed suicide; having received such information, PW1 reached the matrimonial house of Smt. Deepa and found the dead body of Smt. Deepa. 4. As per the postmortem report and the statement of PW 3 P.D. Pangariya, the cause of death was due to hanging and her hyoid was found broken; no other mark of injury was found on her body. 5. In the FIR lodged by PW1, a general allegation is made that Deepa was being harassed and was being treated with cruelty on account of bringing less dowry, however, while appearing in the witness box, brother of Smt. Deepa, namely, Kamal Singh,PW1 and mother of Smt. Deepa, namely, Smt. Moti Devi, PW5 have stated that Deepa was being pressurized by her husband and in-laws to bring motorcycle, Rs. 50,000/- and four tola gold. 50,000/- and four tola gold. It is important to mention herein that no such story is written in the FIR. Therefore, learned Trial Court has held that these statements seem to be afterthought. 6. There is another aspect of the matter that PW1 while appearing in the witness box has stated that Deepa had told him that her husband and in-laws were pressurizing her either to bring Rs. 50,000/- or to bring motorcycle or to bring four tola gold, while PW5 (mother of the deceased) has stated on oath that Deepa was being pressurized to bring Rs. 50,000/- as well as motorcycle as well as four tola gold. In view of this, the observation of Trial Court that these statements seem to be afterthought, seems to be correct. 7. There is another aspect of the matter that PW5 Smt. Moti Devi, mother of the deceased, and PW8 Bhopal Singh while appearing in the witness box have stated that Deepa and Naresh Singh were separated by the family members of Naresh Singh and both of them started living separately in different house and they were having absolutely no connection with the parents and sisters of Naresh Singh. It has further been stated by both the witnesses i.e. PW5 and PW8 that Deepa was freelancer type of lady and she used to leave her house without telling her husband and she used to visit her parental house without informing her husband and in-laws, and her husband and in-laws told her so many times that she is a young lady, therefore, she should not go out alone without informing her husband or in-laws. Learned Trial Court in such circumstances seems to be correct in saying that perhaps due to this reason Deepa has committed suicide. 8. Section 304-B IPC reads as under: “304B. 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. Explanation. – For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the 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.” 9. The language of Section 304-B IPC is unambiguous and very simple. The plain reading of Section 304-B IPC would suggest that to bring home the guilt under Section 304-B IPC, the woman should die with bodily injury or burn injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it should be 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. It is admitted by PW1 Kamal Singh Mehra and PW5 Moti Devi, brother and mother of the deceased respectively, that father of Smt. Deepa (deceased) was a retired Army personnel and was getting pension of Rs. 6,000/- only and was having absolutely no other income and entire family was dependent on the pension of the father of Smt. Deepa. Therefore, considering the financial status of the family of the deceased, it would be highly improbable that in-laws of Smt. Deepa would have demanded Rs. 50,000/- or motorcycle or four tola gold or all the three items. Therefore, demand of dowry is not proved at all. Consequently, offence under Section 304-B IPC is not made out. 10. To bring home the guilt of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, a mens rea should be proved by the prosecution to say that deceased was derived to commit suicide or she was subjected to cruelty to such an extent that she was having no other option except to commit suicide. Undisputedly, these facts have not been proved by the prosecution. Therefore, offence under Section 306 IPC is also not made out. 11. Suicide may be a result of emotions and temperament of the deceased, for which other party cannot be blamed, unless ofcourse, ingredients of Section 107 IPC are proved. 12. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that judgment of learned Trial Court seems to be perfectly valid, legal and justified. 11. Suicide may be a result of emotions and temperament of the deceased, for which other party cannot be blamed, unless ofcourse, ingredients of Section 107 IPC are proved. 12. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that judgment of learned Trial Court seems to be perfectly valid, legal and justified. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in granting the leave to appeal. 13. Consequently, leave to appeal is hereby declined. Application seeking leave to appeal is hereby dismissed. 14. In the result, Government Appeal is also dismissed.