JUDGMENT Hon’ble Raghvendra Kumar, J.—Heard the learned AGA for the State of U. P. 2. The application for leave to Government Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 2.12.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 957 of 1994 and connected Sessions Trial No. 1274 of 1996 (arising out of Case Crime No. 40 of 1994, P. S. Mahila Thana, District-Meerut) whereby the accused-respondents Meraz, Imtiaz @ Dulha Miyan, Km. Rukhsana, Km. Rizwana and Taj have been acquitted for the offence under Section 304B IPC and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The perusal of the first information report (FIR) reveals that marriage of Smt. Farzana was solemnized with Meraz Khan about three years prior to the death of deceased. Uncle-in-law Imtiaz @ Dulha Miyan, brother-in-law (devar) Taj, sister-in-laws (nanad) Kumari Rizwana and Kumari Rukhsana and husband did not appreciate the dowry brought by deceased at the time of marriage and they continued to demand dowry and started harassing her on the score of dowry. The informant was informed about the death of his sister deceased Farzana by one of the resident of the locality. On the basis of written report, the FIR was registered at the police station against Meraz and seven others as Case Crime No. 40 of 1994 under Section 304B IPC and under Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, P. S.Mahila Thana, District-Meerut on 6.5.1994 at about 16.35 hours whereafter the investigation proceeded as per law, which culminated into filing of charge-sheet against accused Imtiaz @ Dulha Miyan, Taj, Rukhsana, Rizwana, Meraz and Mubarak in the above referred case of P. S. Mahila Thana, District-Meerut. 4. After complying with the procedural requirements, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter, charge was framed. 5. The prosecution examined PW 1 Naushad, PW 2 Rafique Ahmad, PW 3 Smt. Sanjida, PW 4 Manvendra Kumar Mishra (retd. Dy. S. P.), PW 5 H.C., Virendra Kumar Tyagi and PW 6 Dr. R. K. Kapoor. 6. After conclusion of prosecution evidence the statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. The prosecution story has been denied and the factum of marriage has been admitted. The defence examined Dr. A. P. Sharma as DW 1, Dr. Dy. S. P.), PW 5 H.C., Virendra Kumar Tyagi and PW 6 Dr. R. K. Kapoor. 6. After conclusion of prosecution evidence the statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. The prosecution story has been denied and the factum of marriage has been admitted. The defence examined Dr. A. P. Sharma as DW 1, Dr. R.K. Garg as DW 2, Advocate Safique Zaidi as DW 3, Rashid as DW 4, Anees Ahmad as DW 5, Abdul Bari as DW 6 and Dr. K. K. Karoli as DW 7. Accused Mubarak Khan has died during pendency of the trial. 7. The learned Court below consolidated Sessions Trial No. 957 of 1994 and Sessions Trial No. 1274 of 1996, making Sessions Trial No. 957 of 1994, State v. Meraz, as the leading case and disposed of both the Sessions Trial by single judgment dated 2.12.2005. The learned trial Court recorded the findings of acquittal against the accused persons. 8. PW 1 Naushad, brother-in-law of deceased has not supported the prosecution version and has categorically stated that deceased Farzana died because of illness. PW 2 and PW 3 have supported the prosecution version. They have deposed on the basis of briefing made to them by deceased. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record has recorded the findings that the harassment of deceased on the score of dowry has not been substantiated. 9. The inquest report does not mention any visible injury on the person of deceased. After the death of deceased at the first instance, the dead body was examined by the signatories of inquest report and police officers. 10. The theory of administration of poison namely arsenic/sankhiya to the deceased before death was not relied by learned trial Court because none of the symptoms vis coming out of froth from the mouth etc was neither noticed nor reported in the inquest report. The inquest report was prepared at the earliest opportunity after the death of deceased. The learned trial Court has placed reliance upon the post-mortem examination report and the testimony of the doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination has categorically mentioned that the deceased was having bilateral pulmonary tuberculosis (extensive). The lungs of the deceased were badly damaged. The learned trial Court has placed reliance upon the post-mortem examination report and the testimony of the doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination has categorically mentioned that the deceased was having bilateral pulmonary tuberculosis (extensive). The lungs of the deceased were badly damaged. The treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis was being undertaken by the deceased prior to her death and the fact of major damage of lungs has also been proved by the doctors, who have been examined as defence witnesses as well. As per findings of the trial Court there is a coherence in findings recorded by Dr. R. K. Kapoor PW 6 and the testimonies of of DW 1 Dr. A. P. Sharma and DW 2 R. K. Garg. The damage of lungs was to a greater magnitude as has been observed by the learned Court below. The learned Court below has observed that death of deceased is consequence of damage of her lungs due to severe tuberculosis. 11. To appreciate the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below it appears essential to scrutinize the ingredients of Section 304 B of IPC and to ensure that whether ingredients contemplated are satisfied ? “Section 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 cause her death.” 12. It has been observed by the Apex Court that for holding accused guilty under Section 304 B IPC it is required that basic ingredients of the section should be established. In the case of Panchanand Mandal v. State of Jharkhand, 2013 (9) SCC 800 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated the ingredients of “dowry death” that the death of a woman should be caused by burns or fatal injury or otherwise, than under normal circumstances; and such death should have occurred within 7 years of her marriage and she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. 13. 13. It has been recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bakshish Ram v. State of Punjab, 2013 (4) SCC 131 , that a married woman had died otherwise than under normal circumstances, and such death was within seven years of her marriage, and prosecution has established that there was cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death; prosecution has to rule out possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of “death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances.” Prosecution is obliged to show that soon before occurrence, there was cruelty or harassment in relation to dowry demand and only in that case would presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act, 1872 operate. 14. The learned trial Court has assigned cogent reasons based upon the evidence for arriving at the inference that the allegation regarding harassment of deceased soon before her death for the demand of dowry has not been substantiated. The evidence regarding administration of poison namely arsenic/sankhiya was not available on record. It is evident from the findings of the Court below that ingredients of Section 304 B IPC were not found to be satisfied from the evidence available on record, therefore, the learned Court below recorded the findings of acquittal on the basis of cogent reasons mentioned in the judgment. The learned Court below has recorded the finding of natural death on the basis of medical evidence. 15. The view of acquittal taken by the trial Court is possible view after considering the entire evidence available on record. The finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below does not require reconsideration, therefore, the prayer for granting leave to appeal is refused. 16. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. ———————