JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present appeal is preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 29.07.2015, passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garwal, in Session Trial No. 4 of 2014, Case Crime No. 13 of 2013, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Devprayag, District Tehri Garhwal, whereby accused / respondent was acquitted from the charges punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 306 I.P.C. 2. Undisputedly, deceased Gita Devi got married with the accused / respondent in the month of December, 2012; marriage was arranged by the mediator DW1 Dayal Singh; just after the marriage in the month of January, 2013, accused / respondent went to Dubai for his job; Smt. Gita Devi consumed poison on 2nd October, 2013, and ultimately, died; during the post mortem, no external and internal injuries were observed on the dead body of Smt. Gita Devi and cause of death was opined due to poisoning; at the time of incident, i.e. 2nd October, 2013, accused / husband/ respondent, herein, was not in the village and was in Mumbai after coming from Dubai and was taking treatment for his ill health; accused / respondent / husband, herein, was informed telephonically in Mumbai that his wife has died due to consumption of poison. 3. Initially, police has filed chargesheet for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C., however, learned Trial Court was pleased to frame charges for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. as well in addition to the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. 4. This is admitted that accused / respondent/ husband, herein, remained with his wife after their marriage hardly for one month and he has left for Dubai within a month from their marriage in relation to his job. Therefore, cruel behaviour with mens rea to drive the deceased to commit suicide is absolutely missing in the present case. Even if it is presumed that due to posting of the husband in Dubai, wife was suffering from the depression and was missing company of her newly married husband would not amount to cruelty to such an extent wherein we can say that she had no other option except to commit suicide. 5. DW1 Dayal Singh who has arranged the marriage between Gita Devi and accused/respondent Vijay Singh has stated that no demand of dowry was ever made at the time of settlement of the marriage. 5. DW1 Dayal Singh who has arranged the marriage between Gita Devi and accused/respondent Vijay Singh has stated that no demand of dowry was ever made at the time of settlement of the marriage. There is no independent witness who can say that demand of dowry was made by the husband/respondent, herein, who was away in Dubai. 6. The sine-quo-non to invoke Section 304-B I.P.C. is that wife should be subjected to the cruelty in relation to the demand of dowry which is missing in the present case. Therefore, no offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. can be said to have been made out. There is no evidence on record whereby we can say that wife was ever treated with cruelty. Therefore, offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. is also not made out. 7. In our considered opinion, no useful purpose would be served in granting leave to appeal. Therefore, leave to appeal is declined. 8. In the result Government Appeal is also dismissed.