JUDGMENT : Mr. Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. 1. This instant cr. appeal has been filed by the complainant-appellant Kishna Ram under Section 372(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 20.6.2016 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Didwana, District Nagaur in Sessions Case No.27/2006 (CIS No.28/2014) whereby the learned trial court acquitted the respondents nos.2 to 5 from the charge under Section 498A, 304B and 302/34 IPC while giving benefit of doubt. 2. As per brief facts of the case, a complaint was filed by the complainant before the Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana, District Nagaur under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on 21.3.2005 alleging therein that marriage of his two daughters Bhanwari and Sanju were solemnized with two real brothers Sharwan Ram and Nanu Ram, both sons of Hema Ram resident of village Koliya before 6-7 years ago. After some time of marriage, the elder daughter of complainant Smt. Bhanwari came back and said that her in-laws are not good because they are harassing me and complaining that less dowry has been given in the marriage by your parents. It is also stated in the complaint that all efforts were made to satisfy the in-laws not to harass his daughter Bhanwari, but repeatedly she was making complaint about behaviour of her in-laws and her husband. As per complaint on 31.1.2005 in the morning a phone call was received by the complainant from Sharwan Ram, husband of Bhanwar, who is working in the Army that Bhanwari may be sent to village Koliya for casting her vote in Panchayat Election. On 1.2.2005 the driver Bajrang and younger brother-in-law, Govind came to bring Bhanwari for casting vote but Bhanwari was not interested to go with them, the complainant after satisfying her, sent Bhanwari to her in-laws house. 3. After election on 4.2.2005, the driver Bajrang Jat met the mother-in-law of Bhanwar and made request to her to send Bhanwari back to the complainant’s house, but she refused. As per allegation on 5.2.2005 Bhanwari died at in-laws house due to fire, but no information was given immediately and in the evening at 7’O Clock she was taken to the Government Hospital, Deedwana and at 9’O Clock, the mother of Bhanwari was called by the in-laws in the Hospital. As per allegation on 5.2.2005 Bhanwari died at in-laws house due to fire, but no information was given immediately and in the evening at 7’O Clock she was taken to the Government Hospital, Deedwana and at 9’O Clock, the mother of Bhanwari was called by the in-laws in the Hospital. In the hospital, there was crowd when Bhanwari saw her mother, started crying, upon inquiry by her mother, it is stated by her that she will narrate the incident in isolation. All the persons standing there were directed to go out from the room, the mother of Bhanwari and one compounder were allowed to stand in the room. As per prosecution case, Bhanwari informed to her mother in presence of compounder that his father-in-law catch hold her hands and mother-in-law poured kerosene and sister-in-law Rekha and brother-in-law Nanu, lit fire upon her. Due to seriousness of condition, Bhanwari was shifted from the Government Hospital Deedwana to Jaipur for further treatment. 4. In the complaint it is stated by the complainant that on 6.2.2005 when he was at Chhattisgarh, information was received by him about incident and after receiving the said information, the complainant immediately went at Jaipur Hospital on 8.2.2005 in the evening. On 9.2.2005 the complainant asked Bhera Ram Jat for registration of the FIR and for registration of the case, the complainant went Deedwana but before reaching Deedwana, Bhanwari died at Jaipur, therefore, immediately went back to Jaipur to bring her body. 5. According to the allegation of complainant, none of the family members participated in the cremation proceedings and conciliation proceedings were also held in which accused party were ready to pay Rs.44,000/- to the complainant so also, ready to return all the ornament and articles given at the time of marriage to them. 6. The aforesaid complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana was forwarded to the Police Station, Deedwana for registration of the FIR where FIR no.29/2005 under Section 304B, 498A and 406 IPC was registered against the accused appellant Hema Ram, father-in-law, Jeti Devi, mother-in-law, Smt. Rekha sister-in-law and Nanu Ram. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondents in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana from where case was committed to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Deedwana for trial. 7. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondents in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana from where case was committed to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Deedwana for trial. 7. After framing charges, the statements of 27 prosecution witnesses were recorded and, thereafter, the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the respondents were recorded and 14 documents were exhibited from prosecution side. In defence, statements of two witnesses DW-1 Ganga Ram and DW-2 Sayyed Immamudin were recorded and 8 documents were exhibited in defence. 8. After recording evidence, the learned trial court acquitted the respondents from the charge levelled against them vide judgment dated 20.6.2016. 9. The instant cr. appeal has been filed by the complainant to challenge the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Deedwana in Sessions Case No.27/2006 dated 20.6.2016. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that finding of acquittal recorded by learned trial court is totally contrary to evidence on record, the learned trial court has acquitted the respondents while ignoring settled proposition of law of presumption. It is also submitted that although the FIR was registered after one and half month but satisfactory explanation was given by the prosecution for delay in submitting complaint, so also, there is evidence on record that deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the in-laws, in spite of that the learned trial court acquitted the respondents. According to the complainant trustworthy and reliable evidence is on record, but the learned trial court completely ignored the evidence on record. Therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed an the respondents are liable to be punished. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we have perused the entire judgment and evidence on record. Admittedly, as per the allegation of prosecution, the alleged incident took place on 5.2.2005. None of the witness specifically stated before the court on which year and date the marriage of deceased was solemnized with Sharwan Ram. The allegations are against family members of in-laws except the husband because husband is employee of Army and the date on which occurrence took place he was not present in the village. We have perused the finding given by the learned trial court with regard to demand of dowry. The allegations are against family members of in-laws except the husband because husband is employee of Army and the date on which occurrence took place he was not present in the village. We have perused the finding given by the learned trial court with regard to demand of dowry. Upon assessment of the statements of all the prosecution witnesses, we have no hesitation to say that the finding of the learned trial court, there is no evidence of independent witnesses on record to prove the fact that soon before the death, deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment. There is document on record which is Ex.D/4 which is prepared by the police in the SMS Hospital, Jaipur in presence of number of member of the family of deceased and persons who brought Bhanwari in the hospital at Jaipur in which it is recorded by the police that incident took place when she was preparing tea on stove ¼pwYg½ in the kitchen, burn took place to her cloths and upon crying, her father-in-law came there for rescue and brought to the hospital. The learned trial court while relying upon the document (Ex.D/4) and upon the fact that complaint has been filed after one and half month of the incident held that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is also observed by the learned trial court that as per complaint (Ex.P/12) deceased Bhanwari made allegation in the hospital and informed her mother about the incident, but neither mother was produced as witness in the court nor the compounder who was present at the time of said allegation made by deceased Bhanwari to her mother, supported the fact of such allegation. The learned trial court in para n.22 gave following finding so as to disbelieve the prosecution case, which reads as under: ^^22- bl laca/k esa mHk; i{kdkjku dh cgl ij euu fd;k x;k ,oa i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;k x;kA ;g lgh gS fd e`rdk ds HkkbZ] cgu] ekek] ekeh o firk us vius c;kuksa esa bl ckr dh iqf”V dh gS fd e`rdk us vLirky esa mUgsa crk;k Fkk fd eqyfteku us mlds dsjkslhu Mkydj tykdj ekjk gS] ysfdu tks lk{; i=koyh ij vkbZ gS] mlds v/;;u ls ;g Li”V gksrk gS fd loZizFke e`rdk ls MhMokuk vLirky esa mldh ekWa ckyk nsoh feyus vkbZ FkhA rFkk dfFkr :i ls lk{; esa ;g crk;k x;k gS fd Hkaojhnsoh us viuh ekWa ds lkeus QQd QQddj jksrs gq;s dgk fd og lkjh ?kVuk vdsys esa crkuk pkgrh gS] ftl ij vfHk;kstu i{k dh dgkuh ds vuqlkj lc yksxksa dks ckgj Hkst fn;k x;k vkSj e`rdk us ,d dEikm.Mj dh ekStwnxh esa ekWa ls ckr dh Fkh] ysfdu vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls lk{; esa u rks e`rdk dh ekWa dks is’k fd;k x;k gS vkSj tks dEikm.Mj ml oDr ekStwn jgk] mDr O;fDr jktsUnzizlkn Vkd dks ih0M0 9 ds :i esa izLrqr dj ijhf{kr djok;k x;k gS] ftlds vuqlkj mlds lkeus Hkaojh dh mldh ekWa o vU; fj’rsnkjksa ds lkFk dksbZ ckrphr ugha gqbZA ;gkWa ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd tks ipkZ c;ku izn’kZ Mh&4 i=koyh ij miyC/k gS] mlds vuqlkj Lo;a e`rdk us dgk gS fd og pwYgs ij pk; cuk jgh Fkh vkSj mldh ywxM+h us vkx idM+ yhA mlds fpYykus ij mlds llqj us mls cpk;kA tgkWa Lo;a e`rdk vius e`R;qdkfyd dFkuksa esa eqyfteku dks funksZ”k crk jgh gks] ogka i’pkr~orhZ xokg ds dFku dksbZ vFkZ ugha j[krs] os Hkh rc tc fd lkjHkwr xokg e`rdk dh ekWa dks vfHk;kstu i{k }kjk lk{; esa is’k ugha fd;k x;k gksA ipkZ c;ku ysus ls iwoZ iqfyl vf/kdkjh us MkWDVj ls bl ckr dk izek.k i= Hkh ys fy;k Fkk fd og c;ku nsus dh fLFkfr esa gSSA cpko i{k dk ,d rdZ ;g Hkh jgk gS fd e`rdk ds firk us ;g ifjokn ?kVuk ds yxHkx Ms< ekg ckn lksph le>h lkft’k ds rgr izLrqr fd;k gSA ifjokn ds voyksdu ls cpko i{k ds bl rdZ dh iqf”V gksrh gS fd ifjokn Ms<+ ekg ckn izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] tks nsjh dk dkj.k ifjokn esa mYysf[kr fd;k x;k gS og i;kZIr ugha gSA ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd vius ifjokn esa ifjoknh us var esa fy[kk gS fd tc eqyfte i{k us {kfriwfrZ ds :i esa :0 44000@& nsus dk izLrko j[kk] rc mls bl ckr dk fo’okl gks x;k fd tks ckr Hkaojh us crkbZ Fkh] og lgh gSA bldk rkRi;Z ;gh fudyrk gS fd ifjoknh dks blls iwoZ viuh iq=h ds dFkuksa ij fo’okl ugha Fkk] tks Hkh vfHk;kstu dgkuh ij lansg iSnk djrk gSA vr% e`rdk ds e`R;qdkfyd dFku ds :i esa ntZ ipkZ c;ku] mlds firk }kjk nsjh ls ntZ djkbZ xbZ fjiksVZ ,oa e`rdk dh ekWa dks lk{; esa is’k ugha djus ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;kstu i{k dh lEiw.kZ xaHkhj lansg ds ?ksjs esa vk tkrh gS vkSj ,slh lansgkLin dgkuh ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDrx.k dks vkjksfir vijk/kksa ds fy, nks”kfl) ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrkA ifjoknh i{k dh vksj ls tks U;kf;d n`”VkUr izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa] os bl izdj.k ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k bl izdj.k ij pLik ugha gksrs gSaA^^ 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Baijnath & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2017 (1) SCC 101 held that there must be evidence in case of dowry death and soon before the death there was demand of dowry. Paras nos.25 to 33 of the judgment reads as under: “25. Whereas in the offence of dowry death defined by Section 304B of the Code, the ingredients thereof are: (i) death of the woman concerned is by any burns or bodily injury or by any cause other than in normal circumstances and (ii) is within seven years of her marriage and (iii) that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.. the offence Under Section 498A of the Code is attracted qua the husband or his relative if she is subjected to cruelty.. The explanation to this Section exposits “cruelty” as: (ii) any willful 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,, limb or health (whether mental or physical) or (iii) harassment of the woman,, where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 26. Patently thus, cruelty or harassment of the lady by her husband or his relative for or in connection with any demand for any property or valuable security as a demand for dowry or in connection therewith is the common constituent of both the offences.. 27. The expression “dowry” is ordained to have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The expression “cruelty”, as explained,, contains in its expanse, apart from the conduct of the tormentor, the consequences precipitated thereby qua the lady subjected thereto. Be that as it may, cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of his for or in connection with any demand of dowry to reiterate is the gravamen of the two offences. 28. Section 113B of the Act enjoins a statutory presumption as to dowry death in the following terms: 113B. Be that as it may, cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of his for or in connection with any demand of dowry to reiterate is the gravamen of the two offences. 28. Section 113B of the Act enjoins a statutory presumption as to dowry death in the following terms: 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 purpose of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in Section 304Bof the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) 29. Noticeably this presumption as well is founded on the proof of cruelty or harassment of the woman dead for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the person charged with the offence. The presumption as to dowry death thus would get activated only upon the proof of the fact that the deceased lady had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the accused and that to in the reasonable contiguity of death. Such a proof is thus the legislatively mandated prerequisite to invoke the otherwise statutorily ordained presumption of commission of the offence of dowry death by the person charged therewith. 30. A conjoint reading of these three provisions, thus predicate the burden of the prosecution to unassailably substantiate the ingredients of the two offences by direct and convincing evidence so as to avail the presumption engrafted in Section 113B of the Act against the accused. Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or her relative or the person charged is thus the sine qua non to inspirit the statutory presumption, to draw the person charged within the coils thereof. If the prosecution fails to demonstrate by cogent coherent and persuasive evidence to prove such fact, the person accused of either of the above referred offences cannot be held guilty by taking refuge only of the presumption to cover up the shortfall in proof. 31. If the prosecution fails to demonstrate by cogent coherent and persuasive evidence to prove such fact, the person accused of either of the above referred offences cannot be held guilty by taking refuge only of the presumption to cover up the shortfall in proof. 31. The legislative premature of relieving the prosecution of the rigour of the proof of the often practically inaccessible recesses of life within the guarded confines of a matrimonial home and of replenishing the consequential void, by according a presumption against the person charged, cannot be over eased to gloss-over and condone its failure to prove credibly, the basic facts enumerated in the Sections involved, lest justice is the casualty. 32. This Court while often dwelling on the scope and purport of Section 304B of the Code and Section 113B of the Act have propounded that the presumption is contingent on the fact that the prosecution first spell out the ingredients of the offence of Section 304B as in Shindo @ Sawinder Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab : (2011) 11 SCC 517 and echoed in Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana : (2013) 16 SCC 640. In the latter pronouncement, this Court propounded that one of the essential ingredients of dowry death Under Section 304B of the Code is that the accused must have subjected the woman to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death and that this ingredient has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and only then the Court will presume that the accused has committed the offence of dowry death Under Section 113B of the Act. It referred to with approval, the earlier decision of this Court in K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadlla Srinivasa Rao : (2003) 1 SCC 217 to the effect that to attract the provision of Section 304B of the Code, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that “soon before her death” she was subjected to cruelty and harassment “in connection with the demand for dowry”. 33. 33. Tested on the judicially adumbrated parameters as above, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, cruelty or harassment to the deceased for or in connection with any demand for dowry as contemplated in either of the two provisions of the Code under which the accused persons had been charged. Noticeably, the alleged demand centers around a motorcycle, which as the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would evince, admittedly did not surface at the time of finalisation of the marriage. PW-5, the mother of the deceased has even conceded that there was no dowry demand at that stage. According to her, when the husband (who is dead) had insisted for a motorcycle thereafter he was assured that he would be provided with the same, finances permitting. Noticeably again, the demand, as sought to be projected by the prosecution, if accepted to be true had lingered for almost two years. Yet admittedly, no complaint was made thereof to anyone, far less the police. Apart from the general allegations in the same tone in geminated with parrot like similarity by the prosecution witnesses, the allegation of cruelty and harassment to the deceased is founded on the confidential communications by her to her parents in particular and is not supported by any other quarter.’ 13. Upon assessment of entire evidence and finding of the learned trial court we are of the opinion that there is no error in the judgment impugned because there is no evidence that soon before the death there was demand of dowry, so also, FIR was filed by the complainant after one and half month without satisfactory explanation of delay. Therefore, this criminal appeal filed by the complainant-appellant is hereby dismissed.