JUDGMENT : Manojit Bhuyan, J. The appellant Nobin Gowalla has been convicted under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of his wife Tanuja Gowalla on the night of 16.01.2012 on demand of dowry and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Ejahar in this case was lodged by the brother of Tanuja i.e. Gobin Gowalla (PW-1) before the Nazira Model Police Station on 17.01.2012. The ejahar disclosed that Gobin received a phone call from his brother-in-law i.e. the appellant at around 11 P.M. on 16.01.2012. However, Bitu Gowalla (PW-5) being the brother of the appellant, spoke to him on the phone and informed that Tanuja was lying unconscious and I was in a speechless state. Thereafter, the informant i.e. Gobin and his younger brother arrived at the house of the appellant at Ketekibari. Tanuja was not in the house and on being informed by Ghanashyam Gowalla (PW-4), who is the father of the appellant, went to Ligiripukhuri Hospital and found his sister Tanuja lying dead. He also came to learn that the appellant had fled away after strangulating Tanuja to death with a rope. Also, that Ghanashayam (Gowalla had told him that around 10 P.M. on the date of the incident, there was a quarrel between the appellant and Tanuja. Based on the said ejahar, Nazira P.S. Case No. 09/2012 was registered under Section 302 I.P.C. and Dipak Sutradhar (PW-13), Sub Inspector of Police, was entrusted to take up the investigation of the case. On completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet was submitted against the appellant Nabin Gowalla under Section 304-B I.P.C. and committed to trial before the Court of Sessions Judge at Sivasagar. Formal charge under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. was framed and the appellant having pleaded not guilty, the case was put to trial. 2. To bring home the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 13 (thirteen) witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. After close of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was taken with reference to the evidence that had come on record. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence and the plea taken by the defence was of absolute denial. 3. After close of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was taken with reference to the evidence that had come on record. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence and the plea taken by the defence was of absolute denial. 3. Gobin Gowalla (PW-1), who is the informant and the brother-in-law of the appellant deposed that the incident had taken place on the first day of 'Magha' and at the relevant time he was at his own house. He received information over phone from Bitu Gowalla at around 11.30 P.M. that his sister Tanuja was unwell and he is required to come over. Accompanied by Sunil Goala he went to the house of the appellant at Mezenga Ketekibari but did not find his sister in the house of the appellant. He was told that she had been taken to Ligiripukhuri Hospital. He found his sister dead in the hospital and also noticed a mark in his sister's neck caused by rope like article. In the hospital he also met the appellant's brother Bitu Gowalla who told him that on the day of the occurrence there had been a quarrel between the appellant and his sister Tanuja prior to her death. Also, that the situation had become peaceful and the quarrel had stopped. As their two year old son was crying they had gone into the house and as the door was not opened even after it was asked to do so, Bitu and Ghanashyam broke open the door and entered the house whereupon they saw Tanuja lying on the ground and the appellant fleeing away therefrom with a rope in his hand. He also deposed that Tanuja got married to the appellant three years prior to her death and that there had been quarrel between the appellant and his sister over petty matters. On cross, PW-1 deposed that the above facts were based on what he heard from Bitu Gowalla. Also, his sister did not tell him that there had been quarrel between her and the appellant. 4. Smti Sushila Gowalla (PW-2), who is the mother of the deceased, deposed that when she had visited the Hospital upon being informed over phone of her daughter's condition, she noticed a mark in her daughter's neck which appeared that her daughter had been killed by means of a rope tied around the neck. 4. Smti Sushila Gowalla (PW-2), who is the mother of the deceased, deposed that when she had visited the Hospital upon being informed over phone of her daughter's condition, she noticed a mark in her daughter's neck which appeared that her daughter had been killed by means of a rope tied around the neck. PW-2 also deposed that while visiting the house prior to her daughter's death. Tanuja used to tell her that the appellant quarrelled demanding dowry. On cross, she stated that Tanuja had eloped with the appellant and no case had been filed regarding any demand of dowry. She also deposed that the appellant did not demand any dowry from them. 5. Smti Moni Kurmi (PW-3), who is a neighbour residing near the house of the appellant, deposed that Tanuja used to visit their house and also used to tell her that her husband quarrelled by demanding dowry. On cross, she deposed that she had no personal knowledge about the incident. 6. Ghanashyam Gowalla (PW-4), father of the appellant as well as Bitu Gowalla (PW-5), the younger brother of the appellant, have deposed to the extent that on the day of occurrence, the elder brother and sister of Tanuja came over to their house and picked up quarrel and abused Tanuja. Around 10 P.M. of the same day, they heard the appellant's son crying and when they went to the appellant's room, they saw Tanuja lying on the ground and the appellant was weeping. Tanuja was taken to Ligiripukhuri Hospital where she was declared brought dead. PW-5 also deposed that there was a round mark in Tanuja's neck. According to PW-4, the Police had seized a 'chumi' and 'chadar' from the house. On cross, whereas PW-4 deposed that Tanuja had committed suicide as her elder brother and sister had abused her at noon-time oil that day, PW-5 also deposed that the elder brother and sister who had come over to their house had picked up quarrel with Tanuja and left the house without taking meal. 7. Smti Sumitra Manki (PW-6) deposed to the extent of going over to Ligiripukhuri Hospital where she saw Tanuja's dead body. Sunil Gowalla (PW-7) deposed to the extent of going to the hospital and noticing a mark in Tanuja's neck as is caused when a rope is tied. 7. Smti Sumitra Manki (PW-6) deposed to the extent of going over to Ligiripukhuri Hospital where she saw Tanuja's dead body. Sunil Gowalla (PW-7) deposed to the extent of going to the hospital and noticing a mark in Tanuja's neck as is caused when a rope is tied. Nurul Hussain (PW-8) is a witness to Material Exhibit-1 (chumi) and Material Exhibit-2 (chadar) that had been seized by the Police. 8. Dr. Prodyut Konwar (PW-9) is the Senior Medical and Health Officer of Ligiripukhuri Hospital, Nazira, who deposed to the extent that on 17.01.2012 while he was on duty attending outdoor patients, he saw many people assembled in the hospital and learnt from the attending Doctor that on the previous night a patient had been brought dead to the hospital. Police had come and held inquest on the dead body and he had put his signature to the Inquest Report (Ext. 2). Ganesh Karmakar (PW-10) only deposed that he knows the appellant and Tanuja and that one night he heard Tanuj a being taken to hospital where she died. Ganesh Karmakar also deposed that he heard that Tanuja had attempted to hang herself and that she was declared brought dead to the hospital. He is a witness to the Inquest Report (Ext. 2). 9. Dr. Sanjib Mahanta (PW-12) is the Senior Medical and Health Officer, Civil Hospital, Sivasagar, who carried out the postmortem examination on the dead body of Tanuja. The Doctor deposed that external examination of Tanuja revealed an oblique ligature mark over the nape of the neck which was non-continuous with a gap on the left side. In his opinion, the cause of death of Tanuja was asphyxia as a result of hanging. Dinak Sutradhar (PW-13) is the Officer-in-charge of Cherekapar Outpost of Sivasagar Police Station. He deposed that on 17.01.2012 he was working as Sub Inspector of Police at Nazira Police Station and upon lodging of the ejahar, he was entrusted to investigate into the case. He had gone over to Ligiripukhuri Hospital and found the dead body of Tanuja. on being identified by the complainant i.e. Gobin Gowalla. He conducted inquest and prepared the Inquest Report (Ext. 2) and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination to the Civil Hospital, Sivasagar. He had also recorded the statements of witnesses found at the hospital. He also visited the place of occurrence and prepared a sketch-map (Ext. on being identified by the complainant i.e. Gobin Gowalla. He conducted inquest and prepared the Inquest Report (Ext. 2) and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination to the Civil Hospital, Sivasagar. He had also recorded the statements of witnesses found at the hospital. He also visited the place of occurrence and prepared a sketch-map (Ext. 11) and had also recorded the statement of witnesses found at the place of occurrence. He seized one 'chumi' and one chadar' and prepared the Seizure List (Ext. 6). The appellant was arrested on 18.1.2012. He also collected the Post-mortem Report (Ext. 10) and submitted Charge Sheet (Ext. 12) against the appellant under Section 304-B of I.P.C. On cross, he deposed that the 'chumi' and 'chadar' that had been seized were that of the victim i.e. Tanuja. 10. On the basis of the evidence brought on record, the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused of having caused the death of Tanuja in connection with demand for dowry. The learned Court below, after considering the entire evidence on record, particularly the evidence of Sushila Gowalla (PW-2) and Moni Kurmi (PW-3), held that Tanuj a was subjected to cruelty/harassment by the appellant soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry. The learned Court below also held that the death of Tanuja, which had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances, was within seven years of marriage and in the house of her husband i.e. the appellant on the night of 16.01.2012. Legal presumption was drawn under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act to hold that it could be reasonably presumed that the appellant had caused the death of Tanuja on dowry demand and that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under Section 304-B of the IPC against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. 11. We have heard Dr. B. Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae as well as Mr. M. Phukan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, State of Assam. 12. From a close scrutiny and perusal of the evidence on record, we find the following facts: Gobin Gowalla (PW-1), who stated that there had been a quarrel between the appellant and his sister Tanuja prior to her death, is from information received from Bitu Gowalla (PW-5). M. Phukan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, State of Assam. 12. From a close scrutiny and perusal of the evidence on record, we find the following facts: Gobin Gowalla (PW-1), who stated that there had been a quarrel between the appellant and his sister Tanuja prior to her death, is from information received from Bitu Gowalla (PW-5). No evidence is brought on record on the issue of quarrel between the appellant and his sister based on his direct knowledge and with specific instances. In any event, he stated on cross that his sister Tanuja did not tell him that there had been quarrel between her and the appellant. From the entire evidence of Gobin Gowalla (PW-1) there is also not a whisper of any dowry' demand made on Tanuja by the appellant. The element of dowry demand is also sought to be brought in by Smti Sushila Gowalla (PW-2), who is the mother of the deceased. In her deposition, she stated that while visiting the house prior to her daughter's death, Tanuja used to tell her that the appellant had picked quarrel demanding dowry. In the same breath and on cross, she deposed to the effect that Tanuja had eloped to get married to the appellant and that the appellant did not demand dowry from them. Also, no case had been filed regarding any dowry demand made by the appellant. Save and except the statements so made, no specific instances were given relating to the nature and particulars of any dowry demand that had ever been made by the appellant and that which was within her knowledge. A mere statement has been made of the appellant picking up quarrel with Tanuja demanding dowry. Smti Moni Kurmi (PW-3), who is a neighbour residing near the house of the appellant, have also sought to bring in a fact that Tanuja used to tell her that appellant used to pick up quarrel demanding dowry. While saying so, PW-3 also did not give any specific instances of the nature of any demand that had been made which was within her knowledge nor provided any materials in support of her deposition. While saying so, PW-3 also did not give any specific instances of the nature of any demand that had been made which was within her knowledge nor provided any materials in support of her deposition. On the other hand, Ghanashyam Gowalla (PW-4), being the father of the appellant and Bitu Gowalla (PW-5), the younger brother of the appellant, have deposed that on the date of occurrence, the elder brother and sister of Tanuja had come to the house and picked up quarrel with Tanuja and also abused her. This, according to them, had driven Tanuja to take her own life. The evidence of PW-6 to PW-11 do not throw light to bring home the charge under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. against the appellant. The deposition of Dr. Sanjib Mahanta (PW-12) and Dipak Sutradhar (PW-13) are to the extent of establishing that death of Tanuja was otherwise than under normal circumstances. Post-mortem report revealed oblique ligature mark over the nape of the neck of the Tanuja, which was non-continuous with a gap on the left side. The deposition of PW-13, besides disclosing the required steps that had been taken towards investigation of the case, also disclosed that the 'chumi' and 'chadar' that had been seized, belonged to Tanuja. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., inter-alia, records his answers to the questions put to him to the effect that his wife had committed suicide by hanging and that he had never quarrelled with Tanuja on demand of dowry. 13. Having carefully scrutinized the depositions made by Gobin Gowalla (PW-1), Smti Sushila Gowalla (PW-2) and Smti Moni Kurmi (PW-3) and having regard to the charge under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. against the appellant, it would now be apposite to understand the basic ingredients necessary to attract the penal provisions under Section 304B. To this end, the relevant part of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code is reproduced hereunder: "304B. To this end, the relevant part of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code is reproduced hereunder: "304B. Dowry death.-(1) Where the death of a women is caused by any bums 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 caused her death." The above provision lays down the basic ingredients to be- i. the death of a woman should be caused by bums or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; ii. such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage; iii. she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and iv. such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry. 14. While reading Section 304-B I.P.C., it would be but necessary to also read Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act envisages drawal of presumption as to dowry death and, for better appreciation, the same is reproduced hereunder: "113B. Presumption as to dowry death. - When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry , the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death." Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, " dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). 15. In Raja Lal Singh v. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2007 (15) SCC 415 , the Apex Court while reiterating that the expression "soon before" in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be limited by fixing time limit and is an elastic expression, held that there should be a perceptible nexus between the death of the woman and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. In G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2010 (3) SCC 152 , the Apex Court while appreciating Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, held that there must be material to show that soon before the death of the woman, such woman had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry. It is only upon demonstration of such materials that a presumption can be drawn that a person has committed the dowry death of a woman. It is then up to the appellant to discharge this presumption. In Vijay Pal Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2014 (15) SCC 163 , the Apex Court held that the meaning of 'cruelty' for the purpose of the Section 113-B of the Evidence Act has to be gathered from the language as found in Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, 'cruelty' would mean any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, etc. or harassment to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of her failure to meet such demand. 16. Coming to the case in hand, Tanuja had died otherwise than under normal circumstances and, that too, within seven years of her marriage. But what is of utmost significance is that no material has come on record, particularly from the deposition of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, to the satisfaction of this Court that soon before the death of Tanuja, she had been subjected by the appellant to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry. The evidence on record makes no specific description of any dowry related cruelty or harassment meted out to Tanuja soon before her death. Save and except the mere use of the expression that the appellant picked up quarrel with Tanuja demanding dowry, no cogent material with specific instances as regards the nature of the do wry alleged to have been demanded or any particulars thereof have been brought on record. In the same breath, any dowry related cruelty and harassment inflicted upon Tanuja soon before her death is not discernible from the entire evidence on record. In the same breath, any dowry related cruelty and harassment inflicted upon Tanuja soon before her death is not discernible from the entire evidence on record. This takes us to the presumption taken by the learned Court below under Section 113-B of the 1 Evidence Act. As discussed above, when no cogent materials could be produced by the prosecution to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that soon before her death, Tanuja was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry, it was not proper on the part of the learned Court below to draw presumption against the appellant under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. 17. To sum up, we find that there is absolutely no evidence to show that there was any cruelty or harassment inflicted on Tanuja by the husband for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death. This deficiency in evidence assumes vital significance as it proves fatal to the prosecution case. 18. For the discussions and findings above, we hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code as well as to bring home the legal presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act as against the appellant. Resultantly, the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant cannot be maintained. Appeal stands allowed by setting aside the judgment and order dated 03.07.2013 passed by the learned Court of the Sessions Judge at Sivasagar in Sessions Case No. 80 (S-S)/2012. Appellant shall now be set at liberty forthwith.