JUDGMENT : GOPAL PRASAD, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 02.04.2015 and order of sentence dated 06.04.2015 passed by Sri Bishwanath Singh, the learned 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 81 of 2012 (arising out of Bihiya P.S. Case No. 185 of 2010) by which the appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Further the appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and payment of fine of Rs. 5000/- each for offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and for non-payment of fine further sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months. Further ordered all the sentenced were run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case as alleged in the First Information Report by the informant, Suresh Yadav, that he had solemnised marriage of his daughter Lila Devi with Ramesh Yadav in the year 2009. At that time of marriage, he had gifted clothes, jewelleries as per his ability. Further case is that his daughter after one year of marriage, she came to the house of the informant. Then she disclosed to the informant that sasural people used to demand buffalo and golden chain. The informant disclosed that sasural people of her daughter tortured her for demand of dowry. Then, informant anyhow manages to sasural people of her daughter. Further case is that the victim disclosed to her sasural people that her parents are very poor and whatever they had paid/spent everything in the marriage and they are unable to pay anything. On which the husband of the daughter, Ramesh Yadav, further-in-law Langtu Yadav, mother-in-law Tara Muni Devi all residents of Village-Kalyanpur, P.S. Bihiya, District Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 550 of 2015 dated 18-05-2016 Bhojpur used to assault and torture her by various means. On the said information, the informant disclosed his daughter that he will go to her sasural and will make them understand. APP (SJ) No. 550 of 2015 dated 18-05-2016 Bhojpur used to assault and torture her by various means. On the said information, the informant disclosed his daughter that he will go to her sasural and will make them understand. Further case is that in the month of Jaisth, the son-in-law of the informant came to his house and took the daughter of the informant after Bidai and keeping her for some days. Thereafter, all the accused persons subjected to her cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. On 15.09.2010 at about 6.00 P.M., the informant learnt that his daughter had been done to death for dowry and after committing murder the dead body was burnt. On the said information, the informant along with co-villagers went to Village-Kalayanpur, the sasural of his daughter, then saw that house of sasural of his daughter was lock and key and all the inmates of the house were absconding and infer that all the accused persons in pursuance of common intention murdered Lila Devi, the daughter of the informant. 4. On the written report of the informant an endorsement was made on which Bihiya P.S. Case No. 185 of 2010 was registered and S.I. Kara Rati Das was ordered to investigate the case. After investigation, cognizance taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 5. During trial five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1 is Sunil Yadav had been declared hostile and had not supported the prosecution case. P.W. 2 is Sanjay Yadav had also been declared hostile and had not supported the prosecution case. P.W. 3 is Dinesh Yadav, the uncle of the deceased and had deposed that marriage of the victim had solemnised with Ramesh Yadav as per Hindu customs. After one year of her marriage, the victim disclosed that mother-in-law Tara Muni Devi, father-in-law Langtu Yadav, husband Ramesh Yadav and Rajendra Yadav, the maternal uncle of Ramesh Yadav were demanding buffalo and golden chain as dowry. On which the niece of this witness disclosed her sasural people that his father is unable to fulfill the demand of dowry, on which her sasural people assaulted her. The victim came to her Maika, but after one month she went to her sasural then she was done to death for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. On which the niece of this witness disclosed her sasural people that his father is unable to fulfill the demand of dowry, on which her sasural people assaulted her. The victim came to her Maika, but after one month she went to her sasural then she was done to death for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. On the said information, the prosecution party rushed to sasural of the victim and found that the house of sasural people was locked and key and the accused persons concealed the dead body. Thereafter, the dead body was not traced out from the said house on which they came to Bihiya police station and police came and traced out the dead body and found that entire dead body was burnt and dead body has been tied with bolder. P.W. 4 is Rajesh Yadav and deposed that marriage of the victim was solemnised in the year 2009 with the appellant Ramesh Yadav and Lila Devi the deceased. He has further deposed that when Lila Devi went to sasural then about three months after Langtu Yadav, Tara Muni Devi and Ramesh Yadav demanded golden chain and buffalo as dowry and they used to assault her. The victim anyhow managed to remain at sasural about one year, but accused persons used to assault her and not provided food and used to close the victim in a room. He has further deposed that after one year of marriage she came to her Maika and even a Panchayati was convened but even then she was continued subjected to cruelty by the accused persons with regard to non-fulfillment of demand. Thereafter, information of the death of the victim Lila Devi was received on 15.09.2010 and it was learnt that she has been burn to death and dead body was kept in a gunny bag tied in cloth and immersed in the river with the help of bolder. 6. P.W. 5 is Suresh Yadav, the informant had deposed that marriage of his daughter was solemnised in the year 2009 as per Hindu customs with Ramesh Yadav. After marriage, she went to her sasural and she remained there about one year. Thereafter, she came to her Maika from sasural, then she disclosed to her mother regarding demand of buffalo and golden chain. After marriage, she went to her sasural and she remained there about one year. Thereafter, she came to her Maika from sasural, then she disclosed to her mother regarding demand of buffalo and golden chain. Thereafter, having learnt about demand of dowry, a Panchayati was convened and in the Panchayati accused persons adhere to the panchas. The daughter of the informant disclosed that mother-in-law Tara Muni Devi, father-in-law Langtu Yadav, Ramesh Yadav the husband and one maternal uncle of husband of the victim were demanding dowry. After panchayati, the victim went to her sasural with Ramesh Yadav and kept her one month then again demand was started. 7. However, the prosecution had not adduced evidence of the I.O. and Doctor as witness in this case, though, dead body of the victim was recovered in a gunny bag from the river under the water. 8. However, defence has adduced two witnesses as D.W.1 Ramesh Tiwari and D.W. 2 Manbodh Upadhayaya. The case of the defence as per suggestion that no occurrence as alleged to be occurred and prosecution witnesses have falsely deposed against the appellants. Further defence set up that the victim died while she was cooking food on the stove by which she was burnt and sasural people immersed the dead body in the river as the victim was burnt to death. Further defence set up that on the date of occurrence, accused persons were in the field which they have taken as Batai and while they were at their home, they saw smoke came out from the house and they scolded and saw wife of Ramesh Yadav is crying out of burn injury and she died while taking to hospital and said information was given to her maika and maika people came and all participated in the cremation of the dead body of the victim. 9. The trial court taking into consideration the evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants however contends that the doctor who conducted post mortem examination has not been examined in this case and I.O. of this case has also not been examined. It has further been contended that P.Ws. 1 and 2 have been declared hostile. It has further been pointed out that there is no cognizable and reliable evidence regarding demand and subjecting cruelty. It has further been contended that P.Ws. 1 and 2 have been declared hostile. It has further been pointed out that there is no cognizable and reliable evidence regarding demand and subjecting cruelty. Further submits that appellants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased and there is no specific allegation regarding demand and subjecting cruelty against the appellants and allegation made against the appellants are general and omnibus. Hence, no presumption can be drawn unless ingredients for offence under Section 304-B are established by cogent, reliable and unimpeachable documents. 11. Learned counsel for the State however submits that there is cogent and reliable evidence to show that ingredient for offence under Section 304-B has been proved to record conviction by taking presumption under Section 113 of Evidence Act. 12. Having regard to the respective submissions, the question for consideration whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. However, to record conviction under Section 304-B of Penal Code what is require to prove that “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. Further it is required to show that soon before the 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. Hence, what is require to prove as ingredients for offence under Section 304-B of Penal Code (a) the death of a woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; (b) such death should have occurrence within seven years of her marriage; (c) the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of her husband; (d) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry and (e) such cruelty or harassment the deceased should have been subjected soon before the death. 13. However, taking into consideration the above discussion in the case, the marriage of the victim was solemnised in the year 2009 and occurrence took place in September, 2010 about a year of marriage. The prosecution case as alleged that the informant learnt about the death of his daughter then proceeded to the sasural of his daughter and intimated the police in consequence, the police proceeded. The prosecution case as alleged that the informant learnt about the death of his daughter then proceeded to the sasural of his daughter and intimated the police in consequence, the police proceeded. Further it was learnt that dead body was burnt and concealed the dead body in the river with the help of bolder. Thereafter, dead body was recovered as per evidence of the witnesses. The prosecution party reached the Bihiya police station and police came thereafter, taken out the dead body under the river and said dead body of the deceased was burnt. However, the dead body has swollen and they open the gunny bag and saw the face of the victim was burnt and there was sign of assault and burn in the face. However, the defence has adduced evidence. D.W. 1 had deposed that cause of death of Lila Devi by burn injury while she was cooking food on the stove. 14. However, P.Ws. 2 and 4 have proved Inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-2 and have reported that his elder brother reported to the police station. P.W. 4, though, had supported the prosecution that marriage of the victim was solemnised in the year 2009 and there was demand and subjecting to cruelty and they have learnt about the death of the victim and subsequently on 14.09.2010 he got information about death of victim Lila Devi by murder and dead body had been thrown in the river. He has further stated that it was learnt that Lila Devi had been burn to death and dead body tied in a gunny bag and immersed in the river by tying with a bolder. Further his elder brother gave information to the police station and police came and search the dead body in the river. Thereafter, the police reached at Kariabagh Ghat and dead body was taken out under the river. They identified the dead body and found the face of the dead body was burn. The inquest report of the dead body was prepared by the police and on the inquest report he signed on it and has proved his signature in the inquest report. The inquest report suggests dead body found under the river. Hence on the basis of his evidence it can well be inferred that death of the victim was in suspicious circumstance. 15. The inquest report suggests dead body found under the river. Hence on the basis of his evidence it can well be inferred that death of the victim was in suspicious circumstance. 15. However, criticism has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the Doctor and I.O. have not been examined which has caused prejudiced to the accused. 16. However, as per evidence of P.W. 3, 4 and 5, they all have supported the prosecution case that after one day of getting information about death of the victim, the dead body was recovered from the river and dead body was in burn state and immersed in the water after tying with the bolder and inquest report has been proved by P.W. 4. 17. Hence, on the basis of the evidence, the death of the victim was in suspicious circumstances. Further, the witnesses have deposed that marriage of the victim had solemnised in the year 2009 whereas occurrence took place in the year 2010. Hence, it is apparent that death of the victim itself occurred within seven years of the marriage. 18. So far evidence regarding demand and subjecting cruelty and further fact that soon before the death the victim was subjecting to cruelty is concern, the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 are relevant. P.W.4 in his evidence, though, had supported the prosecution case regarding demand and stated that Lila Devi went to sasural on the next day of her marriage and after three month of her marriage there was allegation of demand of buffalo and golden chain and for non-fulfillment of demand, mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband of the victim were subjecting to her cruelty. 19. However, there is no specific mentioned whether this witness is an eye witness of the occurrence of demand and whether he heard. 20. However, Section 3 of the Evidence Act provides that “Evidence” means and includes (1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence. Further, “Fact” means and includes - (1) anything, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses: (2) any mental conditions of which any person is conscious. Further, “Fact” means and includes - (1) anything, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses: (2) any mental conditions of which any person is conscious. It has further shown by the illustrations (a) that there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact, (b) that a man heard or saw something, is a fact. Hence, it is apparent that evidence is with regard to the fact which a person can have perceived by sense that what he heard by his ear and what he saw by his eyes. However, the evidence of P.W. 4 is concerned, it is not specific whether he had seen it or heard it himself or from other, though, he had made description of fact that after three months of marriage, Tara Muni Devi, Langtu Yadav and Ramesh Yadav used to demand of golden chain and buffalo, but there is no mention whether this fact has been seen by him i.e. the demand was made before him or learnt from any one or whether it is his opinion and perception regarding death. 21. P.W. 5 is the informant, though, in the First Information Report he had made out a case that the victim disclosed to this story and had specifically mentioned in the written report that the victim came and disclosed him and his wife regarding demand of golden chain and buffalo. However, in his evidence in court stated that his daughter remained in sasural for one year after marriage in the year 2009. Thereafter, she came to her Maika and she disclosed to her mother regarding demand of golden chain and buffalo, but the mother has not been examined. However, in paragraph 2 of his deposition, he stated that having learnt from his daughter regarding demand and then a Panchayati was convened. He has further stated that his daughter disclosed regarding demand of dowry made by Langtu Yadav, Tara Muni Devi and Ramesh Yadav. However, in the evidence of witness P.W. 5, though, he has stated that the victim disclosed to her mother about demand. Subsequently, in paragraph 2 stated that he learnt from his daughter about demand. However, the evidence of P.W.3 is only to the effect of demand of dowry, but there is no evidence that the victim disclosed about subjecting cruelty. However, in the evidence of witness P.W. 5, though, he has stated that the victim disclosed to her mother about demand. Subsequently, in paragraph 2 stated that he learnt from his daughter about demand. However, the evidence of P.W.3 is only to the effect of demand of dowry, but there is no evidence that the victim disclosed about subjecting cruelty. From plain reading of the evidence of P.W. 5 is only to the effect that his daughter came from her sasural after one year then she only disclosed regarding demand of golden chain and buffalo and there is no mention in his evidence regarding any disclosure about subjecting cruelty. Further he has stated that he went to attend Panchayati and accused persons accede to demand. However, this witness stated that his daughter went to sasural and she was murdered. When he learnt about death of his daughter, he went in sasural of his daughter, thereafter, he lodged the case. 22. Hence, from the evidence of P.W. 5 the informant, it is apparent that there is no evidence regarding subjecting to cruelty and there is no evidence that soon before the death the victim was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. 23. However, evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 is concerned, P.W.3 is uncle of the victim and his evidence to the effect with regard to demand and subjecting to cruelty. He had deposed that when his niece came after one year of her marriage then she disclosed that her mother-in-law Tara Muni Devi, father-in-law Langtu Yadav and husband Ramesh Yadav in collusion demanded buffalo and golden chain as dowry. He has further stated that his niece disclosed that for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry her sasural people subjected her to cruelty by assault. P.W. 4 in his evidence stated that sasural people used to subject her to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. He had further deposed that when the victim went to her sasural after one month of her Bidai, accused persons were done to death the victim. P.W. 4 in his evidence stated that sasural people used to subject her to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. He had further deposed that when the victim went to her sasural after one month of her Bidai, accused persons were done to death the victim. However, from the evidence, this witness had disposed that the victim disclosed about demand of golden chain and buffalo and she disclosed that when the demand was not fulfilled, her sasural people used to subject her cruelty, but there is no mention about the modes of subjecting cruelty and the said subjecting cruelty is also shows general and omnibus. 24. So far evidence of subjecting cruelty by assault by the sasural people of the victim is quite vague as there is no specific assertion who was the persons in sasural of the victim subjected to her cruelty. 25. Hence, having regard to the fact that P.Ws. 1 and 2 have been declared hostile and evidence of P.W. 3 regarding subjecting to cruelty is general and omnibus. Further evidence of P.W.4 there is no specific assertion regarding demand and subjecting cruelty and whether he saw or he learnt/heard from any other persons. Further, evidence of P.W. 5, the informant that the victim disclosed only with regard to demand and there is no evidence regarding subjecting cruelty. Hence, ingredient for offence under Section 304-B of Penal Code in relation to demand of dowry is missing. Further fact that most important ingredient for offence under Section 304-B of Penal Code that soon before the death the victim was subjecting to cruelty is also missing. Moreover, the appellants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. However, there is no specific allegation of subjecting cruelty against her father-in-law and mother-in-law and allegation against them is general and omnibus. 26. Having regard to the fact and circumstance, I find and hold that prosecution has not been able to prove the charges that victim was subjecting to cruelty soon before the death by these appellants. Hence, ingredient for offence under Section 304-B of Penal Code has not been established. Further, there is no evidence regarding soon before the death, the victim was subjecting to cruelty and participation of the appellants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. 27. Hence, ingredient for offence under Section 304-B of Penal Code has not been established. Further, there is no evidence regarding soon before the death, the victim was subjecting to cruelty and participation of the appellants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. 27. Regard being had to the fact, there is no specific allegation against the appellants, I find that prosecution has not been able to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, hence order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the appellants is hereby set aside. 28. As a result, the appeal is allowed. 29. The appellants are in jail custody be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other cases. Appeal allowed.