ORDER : 1. This is an application under section 378(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure for leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 14-11-2014 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in S.T. No. 266/2013 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused/respondents from all the charges levelled against them. This application is filed by brother of deceased Surekha. The accused/respondents were tried for offences under sections 498-A, 304-B alternatively for commission of offence under sections 302 and 306 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that deceased Surekha was married with accused Vinod Nema in the year 2010. After the marriage Surekha had gone to house of her husband where she had lived peacefully in the first six months. It is stated that thereafter, the respondents started demanding dowry and harassing the deceased. It is alleged that they used to demand dowry and torture the deceased. It is alleged that when Surekha was pregnant, she was left in her father’s house where she had given birth to a female child. On 4-5-2013 applicant who is brother of deceased had gone to the house of respondents at 11.00 AM for taking his sister and there he remained till 3.00 P.M. He stated that the accused Vinod was demanding Rs. 1 to 2 lakhs for construction of another house. The applicant expressed his inability to fulfil the demand of the accused. It is alleged that the applicant wanted to bring his sister with him but the accused persons did not allow him to take his sister with him because he could not fulfil the demands of the accused persons and he had no option but to return without his sister. It is also stated that on the same day, accused Vinod had informed the applicant on phone that his sister has committed suicide by hanging herself. Immediately, he rushed to the house of the respondents where from his sister was taken to the hospital Gotegaon where she was declared dead. The intimation was given to the police station by the applicant and Crime No. 292/2013 for commission of offences under sections 498-A/304-B of Indian Penal Code and also under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the accused persons. 3. The intimation was given to the police station by the applicant and Crime No. 292/2013 for commission of offences under sections 498-A/304-B of Indian Penal Code and also under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the accused persons. 3. The order of acquittal is challenged by the present applicant, brother of deceased mainly on the ground that the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the respondents is wholly erroneously as it is passed without taking into account the prosecution evidence in the proper perspective. The respondents were tried for commission of offences under sections 498-A, 304-B of Indian Penal Code and for commission of offence under sections 302 and 306 of Indian Penal Code. In support of the prosecution case, the main witnesses Somnath (PW-1, father of deceased), Gourishankar (PW-6, brother of deceased) and his wife Amrita (PW-9, sister-in-law of deceased) were examined to establish the case of dowry death under section 304-B of Indian Penal Code. 4. We have perused the impugned judgment of acquittal and the record of the trial Court. The facts of the present case are to be examined on anvil of the ingredients of section 304-B of Indian Penal Code and section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act and the law laid down by the Apex Court. Before adverting further to the facts of the case, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of V.K. Mishra and Another vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, (2015) 9 SCC 588 . The relevant Para 7 of the said judgment is quoted as under:- “7. In order to attract application of section 304-B, Indian Penal Code, the essential ingredients are as follows:- 1. The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance. 2. Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage. 3. She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. 4. Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry. 5. Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. 3. She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. 4. Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry. 5. Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. On proof of the essential ingredients mentioned above, it becomes obligatory on the Court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. A conjoint reading of section 113-B of the Evidence Act and section 304-B, Indian Penal Code shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. “Soon before” is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstance of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period “soon before the occurrence.” There must be inexistence a proximate live link between the facts of cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry and the death. If the 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.” 5. In the light of the above mentioned legal position, the evidence and material of the present record is to be examined whether there is evidence to prove that ‘soon before the occurrence’ deceased was subjected to torture and harassment in connection with demand of dowry and whether the Court below was right in acquitting the respondents under section 304-B of Indian Penal Code. 6. The trial Court found that the prosecution could not establish the ingredients constituting an offence under section 304-B of Indian Penal Code so as to attract presumption as envisaged under section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act. The prosecution could not establish the demand of dowry or the fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in relation to the demand of dowry soon before the incident. It is found that deceased Surekha died because of strangulation by hanging herself and her death was unnatural and she died under unnatural circumstances within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage. The witness Somnath (PW-1) father of deceased has stated that the marriage had taken place on 9-2-2010 and thereafter, the deceased lived with accused persons peacefully. The witness Somnath (PW-1) father of deceased has stated that the marriage had taken place on 9-2-2010 and thereafter, the deceased lived with accused persons peacefully. It is stated that she was given good treatment in her in-laws’ house and there was no complaint. This fact is also supported by the evidence of Gourishankar (PW-6), brother of deceased. They have stated that after some time, accused Vinod and father-in-law Prabhudayal had started beating her and a demand of motorcycle and gold ear rings was made. Somnath (PW-1) has stated that in the marriage he had given Rs. 51,000/-, gold chain and gold ring along with other essential articles. Gourishankar (PW-6) has deposed that whenever he used to go to house of deceased she used to make complaint of beating and demand of dowry. According to him, he used to assure the respondents that he would try his best to fulfil their demand. He has stated that this had continued for the last 2-3 years that whenever there was a quarrel and the deceased was subjected to beating, he used to visit her house and have a talk with her in-laws’ family. He has further stated that in February, 2011 also his sister was subjected to marpeet because of non-fulfilment of demand of motorcycle and ear rings. He has stated that a report (Exhibit P-13) was also lodged at police station Dhooma. This part of the statement regarding incident of February, 2011 is not supported by the statement of father of deceased Somnath (PW-1). 7. Gourishnakar (PW-6) has stated that in the month of March, 2013 he had visited to the house of his sister and again the same complaint was made by her and thereafter, in the month of April, 2013 he had brought his sister with him. He stated that the accused persons asked him that if you are taking your sister along with you then you have to leave her back in their house. PW-6 has also stated that on 4th of May, 2013 in morning his sister had made a complaint on phone that the accused persons were harassing her. He has stated that on the said date he went to the house of his sister along with his wife namely Amrita (PW-9) and they spent whole day in the house of respondents. PW-6 has also stated that on 4th of May, 2013 in morning his sister had made a complaint on phone that the accused persons were harassing her. He has stated that on the said date he went to the house of his sister along with his wife namely Amrita (PW-9) and they spent whole day in the house of respondents. It is pertinent to mention that at this stage he did not say that there was any torture or harassment by the respondents with the deceased or any demand of dowry. His wife Amrita (PW-9) was also present with them. His sister wanted to come along with him but she was not permitted by the accused persons. On the same day at about 3:30 P.M. he was informed by accused Vinod on telephone that his sister has hanged herself and died. Immediately, he had proceeded to the house of the respondents and the deceased was taken to the hospital but she was declared dead. 8. The statement of Gourishankar (PW-6) regarding demand of motorcycle and gold ear rings has not been supported by statement of Amrita (PW-9) but she has stated that most of the time the quarrel was regarding the demand of the deceased for going to her parents house. She has deposed that on the date of incident i.e. 4-5-2013 the main issue of quarrel in the family was regarding leaving of in-laws’ house by Surekha without their permission. Amrita (PW-9) has also stated that the respondents did not agree to send Surekha with Gourishankar and they said that after the divorce only she could be taken to her parents house. In the present case, Amrita (PW-9) is sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of deceased who is not a member of the same family of deceased. The other eye witnesses Somnath (PW-1) and Gourishankar (PW-6) are father and brother of deceased respectively. She did not make any allegation that there was any demand of dowry on the date of incident i.e. 4-5-2013 or any torture to the deceased by the respondents. The statement of PW-9 is that there was a quarrel only on the issue of taking Surekha from in-laws’ house to her parents house. Though Somnath (PW-1) has deposed that eight days prior to the date of incident, his daughter had informed him about beating by the respondents but the same is not supported by other witnesses. The statement of PW-9 is that there was a quarrel only on the issue of taking Surekha from in-laws’ house to her parents house. Though Somnath (PW-1) has deposed that eight days prior to the date of incident, his daughter had informed him about beating by the respondents but the same is not supported by other witnesses. The said act was also not mentioned in his first statement made to police (Exhibit D-1) regarding torture and harassment on the date of incident. The same was not mentioned in merg intimation (Exhibit P-9) and also in the statement (Exhibit D-2) by witness Gourishankar (PW-6). 9. On perusal of Exhibit P-13 which is a report at police station Dhooma on 16-12-2011, it is evident that a complaint was made regarding harassment by husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law but there was no complaint regarding any demand of dowry and torture by the respondents to the deceased. The police had sent the matter to Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Lakhnadon as there was no allegation of torture and demand of dowry by the respondents. The trial Court after considering the statements of all witnesses recorded a finding that prosecution has failed to establish the basic ingredients under section 304-B of Indian Penal Code so as to a attract presumption under section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act. 10. The trial Court further recorded a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences under sections 302 and 306 of Indian Penal Code in absence of any mens rea. There is neither ocular nor medical evidence to establish that the respondents had murdered the deceased or abetted her to commit suicide. As stated in the preceding paragraph by detailed judgment of 84 pages, the trial Court after taking into consideration the statement of witnesses and the record and after evaluation of oral and documentary evidence has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the basic ingredients of offence of dowry death under section 304-B of Indian Penal Code read with section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act and also offence under sections 302 and 306 of Indian Penal Code. 11. 11. The Apex Court has held in the case of Mahavir Singh vs. State of M.P. (2016) 10 SCC 220 that in the cases of acquittal by the Court of law, the Court has to be very cautious in interfering in an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The relevant Paras 11 and 12 of the said judgment of Mahavir Singh (supra) quoted as under: “11. We have heard the learned counsel on either side at length and perused the material available on record. Now it is imperative to look into the scope of interference by the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal and whether the High Court was justified in convicting the accused under section 302, Indian Penal Code by reversing the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 12. In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a competent Court after a full-fledged trial, and once the trial Court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused, then the reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden on the appellate Court while dealing with the appeal. No doubt, it is settled law that there are no fetters on the power of the appellate Court to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence both on facts and law upon which the order of acquittal is passed. But the Court has to be very cautious in interfering with an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate Court while passing an order has to give clear reasoning for such a conclusion.” 12. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court and the law laid down by the Apex Court, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order and there are no compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. Hence, application for leave to appeal is dismissed.