JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. The instant appeal has been preferred by State of Himachal Pradesh against acquittal of respondent-accused passed by learned Sessions Judge Solan, District Solan, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 14-NL/7 of 2007, in case FIR No.108/2007, dated 26.04.2007, registered under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section-4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. 2. Investigating Agency in present case was set in motion by complainant PW-1 Lachhmi Devi by lodging FIR Ex.PW-1/A stating therein that her daughter deceased Kirna was married to respondent-accused on 21st May, 2005 and out of their wedlock, a child was born. After 6 months of marriage, her daughter had come to parental house and told her uncle Tulsi Ram that her husband was asking for money for opening a shop. PW-1 sent her daughter back without asked money. About two months thereafter deceased Kirna again came and complained to her uncle Krishan Chand that under influence of liquor, her husband used to beat her for not acceding to his demands. She again came and told her uncle Krishan Chand that respondent-accused was demanding scooter and used to beat and torture her. However, she again sent Kirna back to her in-laws. Thereafter, on 26th April, 2007 at about 2.00 AM firstly, her son-in-law i.e. respondent and thereafter his mother informed that Kirna is not feeling well. She asked them to take her daughter to hospital. At about 5.00 AM brother-in-law (Jeth) of deceased Kirna telephonically informed about death of her daughter Kirna and asked them to reach there whereupon she along with her brother and other villagers reached in the house of in-laws of her daughter and saw deceased lying on the bed with blood oozing from her nose. There were injuries on her arms. On inquiry, her father-in-law and mother-in-law replied that everything was evident to them and Kirna was stated to be suffering stomach pain. 3. On lodging complaint by PW-1 with police, postmortem of dead body was conducted on 26th April, 2007 at about 2.00 PM. After completion of investigation, challan under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code read with Section-4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was presented in the Court. On conclusion of trial, respondent-accused was acquitted by the trial Court. 4. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the entire record. 5. After completion of investigation, challan under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code read with Section-4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was presented in the Court. On conclusion of trial, respondent-accused was acquitted by the trial Court. 4. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the entire record. 5. In evidence led by prosecution, three incidents have come in the statements of witnesses with regard to demand of money. PW-1 Lachhmi Devi, PW-2 Harbans Singh, PW-3 Tulsi Ram and PW-10 Shyam Singh have been examined to prove the allegations levelled against the respondent-accused. In their examination-in-chief these witnesses, in principle, have narrated similar version as alleged in the FIR but with some variations and improvements. Scrutiny of their statements reflects that the respondent-accused was running a welding shop prior to his marriage, having vehicle and had also purchased a plot for parking his vehicle. It is also admitted by prosecution witnesses that respondent–accused was helping PW-1 i.e. mother of the deceased in construction of her house by providing grills, doors and frames and also by putting his personal labour during the said construction. Respondent-accused had also provided grills, doors and frames for roof of house of Krishan Chand, uncle of deceased. It has also come in evidence that respondent-accused had also provided drain pipe to his in-laws from market. However, it was also claimed that payments for goods were made to respondent-accused. PW-1 also admitted that respondent-accused had informed about seriousness of her daughter and had also offered a Tempo to her for reaching his house. 6. PW-3 Tulsi Ram who remained Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Manpura and Zila Parshid Member, is uncle of deceased and claimed to have been informed by deceased about maltreatment and demand of money and scooter, by respondent-accused. 7. PW-2 Harbans Singh and PW-10 Shyam Singh brothers of deceased have also claimed to have been informed by deceased about maltreatment and demand of dowry and scooter, by respondent-accused and they reiterated the facts deposed in statement of PW-1. 8. PW-1 has also stated that a few days before the death, deceased Kirna had again come to her and complained against respondent-accused for torturing her for not fulfilling demands including that of scooter. 8. PW-1 has also stated that a few days before the death, deceased Kirna had again come to her and complained against respondent-accused for torturing her for not fulfilling demands including that of scooter. It appears that PW-1 made improvements in her statement by stating a few words ‘before death of Kirna’ and few words ‘after her death’ with regard to maltreatment and dowry in order to bring prosecution case within the ambit of dowry death. However, she was confronted with her statement made before police wherein she had stated that few months before death, her deceased daughter had complained regarding maltreatment and demand of dowry. 9. The deposition of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-10 does not inspire confidence because as per prosecution, respondent was regularly beating deceased for his demands and PW-2 also claims to have noticed slap marks caused by beatings by respondent. But, none of the incidents was ever reported to police or even Panchayat and it is not a case where the parental side of the deceased was not able to report the matter to police or to Panchayat with regard to maltreatment and demand of dowry, particularly when PW-3 Tulsi Ram, uncle of deceased remained Pradhan as well as Zila Parishad Member and PW-10 Shyam Singh was serving in Indian Army. 10. In FIR, PW-1 stated that uncle of deceased Krishan Chand was also informed by her deceased daughter about demand of dowry and maltreatment whereas in deposition in the Court she remained silent about this and said Krishan Chand had also not been examined as a witness for which an adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution. It has also come in evidence that respondent-accused provided grills, doors and frames for construction of house not only to PW-1 but also to the said Krishan Chand uncle of deceased. 11. Allegations of maltreatment, dowry demand and torture to deceased are not specific, rather vague with respect to time, place and manner of demand and there is no evidence on record that soon before committing suicide the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry deriving her to commit suicide, so as to convict the respondent under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code. 12. As per postmortem report Ex.PW-5/B, there was no sign of violence at any part of body and cause of death was consumption of ‘organo phosphorous’. 13. 12. As per postmortem report Ex.PW-5/B, there was no sign of violence at any part of body and cause of death was consumption of ‘organo phosphorous’. 13. Learned Deputy Advocate General contended that in present case, death has taken place within seven years of the marriage and that too for demand of dowry, therefore, provision of Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1972 (for short the ‘Act’) for presumption of dowry death is to be invoked and he further argued that even if the demand of dowry is not proved, then provision of Sections 113-A of the Act for drawing presumption for abetment of suicide to deceased Nisha Devi by subjecting her to cruelty is attracted. 14. The burden of proving charge in criminal case is upon the prosecution. Prosecution has to lead cogent, reliable, credible and positive evidence for proving the guilt of respondent-accused and even for raising presumption as to abetment of suicide or that of dowry death under Sections 113-A and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, initial burden is on the prosecution to at least prove prima facie ingredients of offences alleged to have been committed by respondent-accused. Committing suicide by a woman within seven years of marriage is not sufficient to draw positive inference that the suicide was committed because of maltreatment or demand of dowry raised by husband unless it is proved by leading cogent, reliable, credible, clear and specific evidence. Person may commit suicide for so many reasons other than maltreatment or demand of dowry and sometimes in a spur of moment for a reason which may not be sufficient for committing suicide for an ordinary person. 15. Therefore, in absence of cogent, reliable, credible, clear and specific evidence on record to prove commission of offence by respondent-accused under Section 304-B IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out. Trial court has correctly and completely appreciated the evidence and acquittal of the accused has not resulted into travesty of justice nor has caused mis-carriage of justice. 16. The present appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed, as also pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the respondent-accused are discharged. Records of the Court below be sent back immediately.