JUDGMENT : N.K. Gupta, J. The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 1.2.1997 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST No. 569/1994 whereby the appellant has been convicted of offence under Section 304B of IPC and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 8.2.1994 deceased Noni Bai was found hanged in the house of the appellant situated at Garha, Jabalpur. The marriage of deceased Noni Bai took place with the appellant in the year 1988. After her death, her dead body was sent for the post-mortem. Dr. D.K. Sakalle (PW 8) performed the post-mortem on her body and gave a report Ex. P8. He found that she died due to hanging. After her death, her parents and relatives have stated that initially at the time of marriage of the deceased Noni Bai a cash of Rs. 25,000 and some golden ornaments were given to the appellant. Deceased Noni Bai was kept with comfort in first two years and thereafter they started harassing her for demand of cash of Rs. 20,000 and one Yamaha motorcycle. When deceased Noni Bai came to the house of her parents, she informed about that demand. Ten days after that incident, when the appellant came to take his wife from the house of her parents, then the appellant had demanded a motorcycle from his father-in-law. After eight months of the incident, Noni Bai went to her father's house all alone with the intimation that she was ousted from the house because of dowry demand and harassment. For six months, Noni Bai resided in the house of her parents and the appellant did not visit to take her back. Again Noni Bai was sent to the house of the appellant along with her brother Suresh Kumar, but she was sent back because she could not take the motorcycle or cash of Rs. 20,000. Her son was already taken by the parents of the appellant. Thereafter father of deceased Noni Bai called a Panchayat of the community and it was decided that the deceased shall be kept by the appellant. A few days thereafter the incident of hanging occurred. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Jabalpur, who committed the case to the Court of Session and ultimately it was transferred to the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. 2. A few days thereafter the incident of hanging occurred. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Jabalpur, who committed the case to the Court of Session and ultimately it was transferred to the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. 2. The appellant-accused abjured his guilt. He took a plea that the deceased was kept with comfort. She herself was not staying in the house of the appellant due to her own whim. There was no demand of dowry or any consequential harassment done by the appellant or his family members. It was also stated by the appellant that since Noni Bai was suffering from severe abdominal pain and therefore she committed suicide due to that pain. In defence Saligram Chouksey (DW 1), Mohanlal (DW 2), Dr. Sheela Agrawal (DW 3) and Chokhelal Sahu (DW 4) were examined. 3. The Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties acquitted the co-accused persons from all the charges, whereas the appellant was also acquitted from the charge of Sections 302 or 302/34 and 306 of IPC, but convicted of offence under Section 304B of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. Though the case was lodged by the father of deceased Noni Bai was different, but in the statement given by him before the Court a different set of facts was shown by him. Dalchand (PW 2) father of the deceased, Gumta Bai (PW 3) mother of the deceased have stated that at the time of marriage, a cash of Rs. 25,000 and some ornaments were given to the deceased. The deceased was kept with comfort for two years and thereafter a demand of motorcycle and cash of Rs. 20,000 was made by the appellant and also assaulted the deceased and ousted her from his house. Dalchand kept his daughter for six months in his house and thereafter the appellant went to his house to take Noni Bai. Thereafter Dalchand asked him as to whether there is peace in his house when he said yes, then Noni Bai was sent with Suresh, brother of Noni Bai to the house of the appellant, but Noni Bai was not permitted to enter in the house, and therefore a Panchayat of the community was called, in which the matter was resolved. Thereafter Dalchand asked him as to whether there is peace in his house when he said yes, then Noni Bai was sent with Suresh, brother of Noni Bai to the house of the appellant, but Noni Bai was not permitted to enter in the house, and therefore a Panchayat of the community was called, in which the matter was resolved. However, a confidential agreement took place between the appellant and Dalchand that Dalchand would provide a sum of Rs. 10,000 to appellant Raj Kumar with the help of Suresh, son of Dalchand and thereafter she was kept with comfort. After 8-10 months of that compromise, when Santosh went to take Noni Bai on the eve of festival of Makar Sankranti, the appellant refused to send Noni Bai and thereafter within 10-15 days a message was received that the deceased Noni Bai had committed suicide. Looking to the change in the version of these witnesses Dalchand and Gumta Bai, their evidence should be examined with caution. Gumta Bai has specifically stated that there were blue marks in the hands of the deceased Noni Bai and her body turned blue and black. Hence, she had a suspicion that her daughter was killed and therefore a report was lodged accordingly. In this context, it appears that deceased Noni Bai kept hanging for more than six hours, and therefore mortal lividity must have been caused in lower part of the hands as well as legs. Dr. Sakalle (PW 8) in his post-mortem report Ex. P8 has mentioned that the post-mortem shows staining over the back of the body, more prominent over the lower extremities all around was found. Hence the blue marks on her hands and legs must be due to mortal lividity and hence the Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons from the charge of Section 302 of IPC. 6. According to Dalchand (PW 2) and Gumta Bai (PW 3), a hidden agreement took place between the appellant and Dalchand that a sum of Rs. 10,000 was given to the appellant through Suresh, son of Dalchand. Santosh (PW 7) has stated that a sum of Rs. 10,000 was sent by his father through Suresh. Suresh (PW 4) was examined before the Trial Court, but he did not say anything about such payment. Dalchand paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 was given to the appellant through Suresh, son of Dalchand. Santosh (PW 7) has stated that a sum of Rs. 10,000 was sent by his father through Suresh. Suresh (PW 4) was examined before the Trial Court, but he did not say anything about such payment. Dalchand paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 to the appellant through a hidden contract, but such fact was not narrated by Dalchand, Santosh or Gumta Bai in their case diary statements, therefore in absence of evidence given by Suresh, the story relating to payment of Rs. 10,000 appears to be an after thought, which cannot be accepted. If such amount was paid by Dalchand, then certainly he would have stated such a fact to the police at the time of recording of case diary statement. 7. Dalchand (PW 2) has stated that he called a Panchayat of the community and after resolution of that Panchayat, the deceased was taken to the house of the appellant. However, he did not mention the subject matter for which that Panchayat of the community was called. He referred that Chokhelal (DW 4), Gokul (PW 10) and one another Gokul had participated in that Panchayat. Chokhelal appeared before the Trial Court as defence witness, and, he did not support the prosecution story. Gokul (PW 10) has stated that a Panchayat was called by Dalchand, however in the cross-examination he gave a different set of facts. Witness Gokul is a close relative of Dalchand. Daughter of witness Gokul is married to son of Dalchand. Gokul has stated that there was no subject matter of dowry demand from the side of the appellant and his parents. A Panchayat was called because deceased Noni Bai was not coming to the house of the appellant and she was residing in her parents' house for last six months. The evidence given by Gokul and Chokhelal appears to be acceptable. A Panchayat was called because deceased Noni Bai was not coming to the house of the appellant and she was residing in her parents' house for last six months. The evidence given by Gokul and Chokhelal appears to be acceptable. If the subject matter of the Panchayat was that the deceased Noni Bai did not go to her husband's house for six months, then certainly the deceased Noni Bai would have said about the reason and if she was harassed by the appellant for dowry demand, then she ought to have told such problem before the Panchayat of the community and hence Chokhelal as well as Gokul must have had the knowledge that she was being harassed by the appellant for dowry demand, but neither Chokhelal nor Gokul has stated that deceased Noni Bai told anything about her harassment for dowry demand in that Panchayat. Hence the evidence of Chokhelal, Gokul and allegations made by Dalchand and his wife Gumta Bai appears to be incorrect. Deceased Noni Bai was kept in the house of her father, because she was being tortured for dowry demand, etc. On the contrary, she remained for six months in the house of her father without any reason, and therefore the Panchayat of community directed her to go and reside with her husband. If there was a demand of any dowry, etc. from the side of the appellant, then such matter should have been discussed in the Panchayat. 8. If the fact of the Panchayat and six months' stay of Noni Bai at her father's house was not due to the reason of her harassment on the basis of dowry demand, then it was for Dalchand, Gumta Bai and Suresh to establish that any dowry demand was made by the appellant in those days. If the deceased Noni Bai resided in her father's house for six months without any harassment for demand of dowry, then the allegations made by Dalchand and Gumta Bai appear to be made because the deceased Noni Bai died in the house of the appellant. There had to be some reason with the deceased Noni Bai as she was not staying in the appellant's house and Dalchand and Gumta Bai had hidden that reason. If her stay at her parents' house was due to any other fault of the appellant that he was in relation with other some woman, etc. There had to be some reason with the deceased Noni Bai as she was not staying in the appellant's house and Dalchand and Gumta Bai had hidden that reason. If her stay at her parents' house was due to any other fault of the appellant that he was in relation with other some woman, etc. then her parents' would have blamed the appellant for such reason. She was residing with her child at the house of her father and no reason was shown by her which may make an allegation upon the appellant, then there must be some reason with the deceased Noni Bai. She was not ready to reside with her husband and she wanted to reside in her father's house. Under such circumstances, the appellant could not be blamed that he harassed the deceased Noni Bai for dowry demand or for any other reason. 9. Dalchand, Gumta Bai and Santosh have stated that for first 2 1/2 years, deceased Noni Bai was kept with comfort and in last ten months, she resided with the appellant for 8-10 months and in those 8-10 months, no intimation was received by the parents of the deceased Noni Bai that she was in trouble or she was tortured for dowry demand or otherwise. Dalchand has stated that on the eve of Makar Sankranti, he had sent his son Suresh to take Noni Bai to the house of the appellant, but the appellant did not send Noni Bai with Suresh and 12-13 days thereafter she committed suicide, but the fact told by Dalchand is not corroborated by either Suresh or Gumta Bai. It appears that the last 8-10 months were peaceful followed by her death. No intimation was given by Noni Bai to her parents otherwise. The residence of the appellant was 10 kms. away from the residence of her parents. The parents were residing at Village Temar-Bhita which was 10 kms away from Garha Jabalpur. Hence, the prosecution could not prove that in last 8-10 months, any harassment was done by the appellant for demand-dowry or otherwise. 10. The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. Hence, the prosecution could not prove that in last 8-10 months, any harassment was done by the appellant for demand-dowry or otherwise. 10. The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 12 SCC 350 , in which it is held that in the provision of Section 304B of IPC the expression "soon before her death" gives a concept of reasonable time. Similarly, he has placed his reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 2 SCC(L&S) 140, in which it is held that expression "soon before her death" should be considered accordingly according to the fact of such cases. As discussed above, in last 8-10 months of the life of deceased Noni Bai, no harassment done by the appellant is proved either for dowry demand or otherwise. 11. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, it is to be examined whether there was demand from the side of the appellant relating to dowry or he harassed the deceased Noni Bai after 2 ½ years of her marriage. In this connection, the evidence given by Dalchand, Gumta Bai, Suresh and Santosh appears to be nothing, but omnibus allegation. In this context, the evidence of Gokul (PW 10) is considered, then he has stated that the marriage of his daughter took place 5-6 years after the marriage of deceased Noni Bai and at the time of marriage of his daughter, there was no demand of dowry, etc. Appellant Raj Kumar had participated in managing the marriage of daughter of witness Gokul and he never demanded anything from Gokul. The statement of Gokul which is given in para 3 in the cross-examination, gives two inferences. Firstly, that the relations of appellant Raj Kumar were good with the deceased Noni Bai and her parents, and therefore he was given the responsibility for arrangement of marriage of brother of Noni Bai, 5-6 years after his marriage. It means that 5-6 years after the marriage of deceased Noni Bai, appellant Raj Kumar had good relations with the parents of the Noni Bai and appellant willingly participated in the marriage of brother of Noni Bai. It means that 5-6 years after the marriage of deceased Noni Bai, appellant Raj Kumar had good relations with the parents of the Noni Bai and appellant willingly participated in the marriage of brother of Noni Bai. Second inference would be that he could demand in favour of the appellant and Noni Bai, but he did not demand which indicates that he was not interested for demand of dowry either for himself or for brother of Noni Bai. The conduct of appellant Raj Kumar as depicted by the witness Gokul clearly indicates that the statements given by Dalchand, Gumta Bai, Santosh and Suresh are hypothetical statements making allegations against the appellant that he harassed the deceased for dowry demand. Under these circumstances, the prosecution could not prove that there was any demand of dowry from the side of the appellant prior to the marriage of brother of Noni Bai. There was no demand of dowry and the deceased Noni Bai did not stay in her father's house due to harassment on the basis of any demand. The prosecution could not prove that after compromise between the parties, any harassment was done by the appellant to the deceased Noni Bai for demand of dowry or otherwise. Hence the Trial Court has committed a manifest error in convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 304B of IPC. 12. Since the appellant has been acquitted from the charge of Section 306 of IPC by the Trial Court and no cross-appeal has been filed by the State, therefore it is not required to discuss about the offence under Section 306 of IPC done by the appellant. However, in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Smt Shanti and Another Vs. State of Haryana, (1991) 1 SCC 371 , the evidence adduced by the prosecution should be examined for the offence under Section 498 A of IPC. However, in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Smt Shanti and Another Vs. State of Haryana, (1991) 1 SCC 371 , the evidence adduced by the prosecution should be examined for the offence under Section 498 A of IPC. In the case of Smt. Shanti (supra), Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that though the charge of Section 498A of IPC is not inferior charge of the same nature as of offence under Section 304B of IPC, but in the light of provisions of Section 221 of Cr.P.C., if entire evidence has been put up before the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., then no prejudice shall be caused to the accused, if he is acquitted of offence under Section 498A of IPC without any specific charge. 13. If the prosecution evidence is examined for that provision, then it would be apparent that in the light of the statement given by Gokul (PW 10), the evidence given by witnesses Dalchand, Gumta Bai and Suresh does not appear to be acceptable that the deceased was harassed by the appellant for dowry demand or otherwise before that period when she resided in her father's house. Actually if she was ousted by the appellant and she was residing at her father's house, then such fault would have been pointed out by the deceased Noni Bai and her parents in the alleged Panchayat, but Gokul, relative of Dalchand and Chokhelal (DW 4) have stated that there was no allegation against the appellant that he harassed the deceased Noni Bai for demand of dowry, etc. and no specific reason was shown in that Panchayat as to why she resided at her father's house for six months and ultimately the Panchayat gave a dictum that she would go and reside with the appellant. Hence the prosecution could not prove the fault of the appellant. It is also discussed above that in last 8-10 months, the prosecution could not prove that any torture or harassment was done by the appellant to the deceased Noni Bai. Under these circumstances, the appellant could not be convicted of offence under Section 498A of IPC. 14. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal filed by the appellant appears to be acceptable. Consequently, it is hereby allowed. Under these circumstances, the appellant could not be convicted of offence under Section 498A of IPC. 14. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal filed by the appellant appears to be acceptable. Consequently, it is hereby allowed. His conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court upon the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC are hereby set aside. He is acquitted from all the charges appended against him. 15. At present the appellant is on bail, and his presence is no more required, therefore it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Trial Court along with its record for information.