JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pratyush Kumar, J.—The instant appeal, filed on behalf of the accused-appellant, is directed against the judgement and orders dated 20.11.2014 passed by Sri C.M. Dixit, Sessions Judge, Mau in SessionsTrial No. 24 of 2012, State v. Krishna Kant Singh and others, whereby appellant was convicted under Section 498-A I.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and was further convicted under Section 304-B I.P.C and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and under Section D.P. Act he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- in default whereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. In the present appeal, facts of the prosecution case may be summarized as under. 3. That the first informant, Tribhuwan Narain Singh has married his daughter Ankita Singh on 30.5.2009 with appellant Krishna Kant Singh and gave suitable dowry in the marriage. After his daughter had gone to her Sasural, her husband and mother-in-law started torturing her for dowry and they demanded one Maruti Car. A punchayat was held but the ill treatment of his daughter continued. Three days ago his daughter while weeping informed him on mobile that they were planning to murder her. On that day in the noon his son-in-law informed him on mobile that Ankita Singh had died after hanging herself. When he came to her Sasural he saw that his daughter was murdered by strangulation. 4. On 10.9.2011 at 3.15 p.m at police station Haldharpur, District Mau, at this report chick F.IR was scribed, case crime No. 372 of 2011, under Sections 498-A, 304-B and D.P Act was registered and entered into the report of the general diary. The investigation was entrusted to Circle Officer, Madhuvan, who after concluding the investigation submitted the charge-sheet against both accused. 5. The appellant alongwith his mother Phoolmati Devi was charged under the said sections, on denial they were tried, the appellant was convicted and his mother Phoolmati Devi was acquitted. The appellant was sentenced as above, giving rise to the present appeal. 6. Heard Sri Manzarul-Islam and Sri Abdul Haseeb, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ram Manohar, learned A.G.A for the State-respondent and perused the record. 7. The appellant was sentenced as above, giving rise to the present appeal. 6. Heard Sri Manzarul-Islam and Sri Abdul Haseeb, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ram Manohar, learned A.G.A for the State-respondent and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant very candidly has confined his submission only on one point that the prosecution could not prove unnatural death of Smt. Ankita Singh. On other points he has not questioned the correctness of the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge. The learned trial judge has addressed this point and opined that neither death was caused by poisoning nor it was caused by strangulation. According to medical evidence, after autopsy, the cause of death could not be ascertained but it was not a death by strangulation.Viscera was preserved and sent for forensic examination where no poison was dictated. Thus, according to Section 304-B I.P.C essential ingredient for constituting the offence of dowry death ie unnatural death of married women within seven years could not be proved by the prosecution. However, the learned trial Judge in spite of noticing these facts has erroneous recorded a finding that the appellant being husband was responsible for welfare of the deceased and he could not prove the death of the deceased as death by natural causes. 8. On behalf of the State-Respondent this argument has been repelled and I have been taken through the statements of Tribhuwan Singh PW-1, Sarita Singh PW-2, Manoj Kumar Singh PW-3 and Dr.A.K. Srivastava PW-5. 9. As appellate Court hearing the appeal against conviction, it is the duty of the Court to reappreciate the evidence and critically examine the correctness of the findings recorded by the trial Court. I have gone through the statements of Tribhuwan Singh PW-1, first informant and the father of the deceased Smt. Sarita Singh,PW-2 is the wife of the elder brother of the deceased, Manoj Kumar Singh PW-3 is the elder brother of the deceased. All have supported the prosecution version contained in the First Information Report. During cross-examination their testimonies on the point of torture of the deceased and demand of dowry made by the appellant remained unshaken. Therefore, I find that the appellant has been rightly convicted under Section 498-A I.P.C and D.P. Act. On these two counts he has been awarded adequate sentences. 10. During cross-examination their testimonies on the point of torture of the deceased and demand of dowry made by the appellant remained unshaken. Therefore, I find that the appellant has been rightly convicted under Section 498-A I.P.C and D.P. Act. On these two counts he has been awarded adequate sentences. 10. So far as the charge under Section 304-B I.P.C is concerned, the prosecution has to prove four facts in this regard. (1) A married woman within seven years of her marriage; (2) soon before her death was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives of her husband; (3) Such harassment or cruelty was in regard to demand of dowry in connection with marriage, and (4) death of the married woman was unnatual. 11. Section 113-b of the Evidence Act provides that presumption of dowry death shall be raised whenever all these four facts are established and the Court shall presume that such person had caused dowry death vide Dashrath v. State of M.P., AIR 2010 SC 2592 . In the case of Anand Kumar v. State of M.P., (2009) 3 SCC 799 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has clarified that initially burden of proving necessary ingredients lies on the prosecution. It is only when the prosecution has proved the essential conditions only then the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act will be raised. 12. It has been the only point of dispute that whether the deceased had died an un-natural death and this fact could be proved by the prosecution or not. To answer this question ocular testimonies of the family members of the deceased are of no help because they were not an eye-witness of the occurrence. For this reason there remain only the statement of Dr. A.K. Srivastava PW-5 who on 11.9.2011 at 12.00 p.m was one of the member of the medical board which conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased. He has proved the postmortem report Ext.Ka-7 and opined that on 10.9.2011 at 12.00 p.m the deceased could have died. During the external examination, the medical board noticed three antemortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased. They read as under : (1) Abrasion 2cm x 1.5cm over right side face over right ankle of mandible. (2) Abrasion 1cm x 0.5cm, 1.0cm below medial to injury No. 1. During the external examination, the medical board noticed three antemortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased. They read as under : (1) Abrasion 2cm x 1.5cm over right side face over right ankle of mandible. (2) Abrasion 1cm x 0.5cm, 1.0cm below medial to injury No. 1. (3) Liner abrasion of 1.1 cm x over the dorsal of right wrist joint. 13. During internal examination the witness noticed that pleura and lungs were congested except that nothing abnormal was detected. In the examination-in-chief the doctor has opined that these injuries could not be caused by strangulation. They were on none vital parts of the body. According to him, the death could be caused either by injury or by poisoning or by natural causes. 14. I do not find anything which shows that the witness is not deposing fairly. I rely on his testimony and hold that the deceased has not died due to antemortem injuries. Now remains two options poisoning or natural causes. The death by poisoning is ruled out by viscera report dated 19.3.2012 Ext.Ka-12. 15. Deputy Director of Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala after examining her viscera has opined that no chemical poison was found. Now remains only death by natural causes. 16. Considering the provision contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, I would like to place on record that on behalf of the defence two witnesses were examined Ramprit Yadav DW-1 and Krishna Mohan Pandey DW-2. During Court examination Ramprit Yadav DW-1 has stated that Smt. Ankita Singh was ill. She was taken to hospital and on the way she had died. Krishna Mohan Pandey DW-2 has also deposed the same. 17. During cross-examination, their testimonies remained unshaken. Thus there is evidence to show that the deceased was ill and her husband has taken her to the hospital for treatment from the village and on the way she had died. 18. In such scenario, I think the prosecution has failed to discharge its initial burden that the deceased had died an unnatural death. As against this, the defence has prima facie shown that the deceased was ill and she had died when she was taken from the village to the hospital for treatment. The good faith of the appellant is also reflected from the fact that he had informed the first informant about the death of the deceased. 19. As against this, the defence has prima facie shown that the deceased was ill and she had died when she was taken from the village to the hospital for treatment. The good faith of the appellant is also reflected from the fact that he had informed the first informant about the death of the deceased. 19. In view of the above, I find substance in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, I also notice that the learned trial Judge has taken cognizance of all these facts but erroneously placed burden of proof on the appellant that it was pin of point that the deceased had died due to natural causes. The dead body was in the custody of the police. It was beyond the control of the appellant to establish that her death was due to natural causes. Therefore, I think the appellant has been wrongly convicted for committing dowry death punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. 20. To this extent finding recorded in the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and to this extent the appeal deserves to be allowed and conviction and sentence of the appellant awarded under Section 304-B I.P.C deserve to be set aside. 21. The Crl. Appeal No. 90 of 2015, Krishna Kant Singh v. State of U.P., is partly dismissed and conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 498A I.P.C and D.P Act are hereby affirmed. 22. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the impugned judgement and order so far as they relate to conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 304-B I.P.C are set aside. Appellant Krishna Kant Singh is acquitted from the charge under Section 304-B, I.P.C 23. The appellant shall serve the other sentences awarded to him by the trial Judge and affirmed by this Court. The period already undergone by him in the jail shall be adjusted towards his sentences in accordance with the provision contained in Section 428 Cr.P.C. 24. Office is directed to communicate this decision to the Court concerned forthwith and to send back the record.