JUDGMENT : 1. Appellants have preferred Appeal No.589/2014 aggrieved by judgment and order dated 03.05.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura, District Jaipur in Sessions Case No.17/2011 whereby appellants have been convicted for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and for offence under Section 498-A IPC appellant-Krishan Kumar has been sentenced to three years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, on nonpayment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment, Appellant Nos.2 & 3-Ramavtar and Smt.Prabhati Devi have been sentenced for three years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/-, on non-payment of fine to further undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment. All accused have been sentenced for 10 years simple imprisonment for offence under Section 304-B IPC. Appellants have been acquitted for offence under Section 302 IPC. Court has further ordered that all the sentences would run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 03.05.2014 complainant has preferred a separate appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.969/2014 for enhancement of sentence. 3. Factual matrix of the case are that complainant-Laxman lodged a report on 15.4.2011 that his sister-Geeta was married to Krishan Kumar on 11.02.2008. Geeta was harassed on account of demand of dowry. A demand of motorcycle was made. On 14.4.2011 Geeta’s cousin Phool Chand went to Geeta’s in-laws house where she complained about the harassment and demand of dowry. Police after due investigation submitted charge-sheet for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. Court after hearing the charge argument framed charges against the accused-appellants for offence under Section 498-A, 304-B and 302 IPC. 4. Accused denied the charges and sought trial. 22 witnsses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and 26 documents were exhibited. Explanation of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence four witnesses were examined and five documents were exhibited. 5. After hearing final arguments, Court has convicted the accused-appellants as mentioned hereinabove. Aggrieved by which the present appeal has been preferred. 6. Aggrieved by the imposition of less sentence, complainant has preferred a separate appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.969/2014. 7. It is contended by counsel for the accused-appellants that offence under Section 304-B IPC was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The entire story hinged on the point that there was a demand of a motorcycle. It is contended that prior to demise of deceased, Krishan Kumar had purchased a motorcycle, which fact was established by document Ex.D-5. 7. It is contended by counsel for the accused-appellants that offence under Section 304-B IPC was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The entire story hinged on the point that there was a demand of a motorcycle. It is contended that prior to demise of deceased, Krishan Kumar had purchased a motorcycle, which fact was established by document Ex.D-5. It is contended that except for demand of motorcycle there is no allegation that anything-else was demanded from the deceased. 8. It is also contended that soon after marriage deceased alongwith her husband shifted to Dausa and stayed there for two years. There were no allegation with regard to any demand at that time. It is also contended that even at the time of marriage there was no demand as has been admitted by PW1-Phool Chand and PW22-Ram Singh. It is argued that the dispute started when deceased shifted to the village, there were some misunderstanding between deceased and her mother-in-law. 9. It is also contended that the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene upon herself and it has come in evidence that accused-Ramavtar, who is father-in-law of deceased, had helped in marriage of deceased’s sister by giving money for purchasing a motorcycle. My attention has been drawn towards statement of PW1-Phool Chand, who in his cross-examination, has admitted that when Geeta was residing at Dausa, she never complained about any harassment by her in-laws and she was happy. Witness has admitted that in his police statement he has not levelled any allegation with regard to demand of any dowry. He has also stated that Geeta told him that his mother-in-law was not eating “Roti” and even not drinking tea prepared by her. 10. My attention has also been drawn to the statement of PW14- Kishanlal, brother of deceased and complainant of this case who has admitted that his sister, when she stayed at Dausa was happy with her husband. He has admitted that accused-Krishan Kumar, Ramavtar and deceased-Geeta were government employees. Geeta was earning and spending money on her own. PW20-Urmila Devi has admitted in her cross-examination that in the marriage of young sister of Geeta accused-Ramavtar gave money for purchasing of motorcycle. 11. He has admitted that accused-Krishan Kumar, Ramavtar and deceased-Geeta were government employees. Geeta was earning and spending money on her own. PW20-Urmila Devi has admitted in her cross-examination that in the marriage of young sister of Geeta accused-Ramavtar gave money for purchasing of motorcycle. 11. My attention has also been drawn to the statement of PW21- Soni Devi, mother of deceased, who has stated in her cross examination that there was a dispute between accused-Prabhati Devi and deceased-Geeta in relation to a girl Pooja. Geeta wanted Pooja to stay with her at Saiwad whereas accused-Prabhati Devi was not inclined to send Pooja to Saiwad and on this account there was a dispute between the two. It is mentioned that a day prior to death of deceased a dispute took place on this ground between deceased and mother-in-law of deceased. 12. It is contended that the deceased poured kerosene on herself and put herself on fire. Appellants tried to save her by pouring water and took her to hospital. 13. Counsel for appellants has placed reliance on Baijnath and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 2016 SC, 5313). Where there were allegations of cruelty and harassment of deceased and demand of motorcycle as dowry. The allegations were not supported by evidence of witnesses. On the contrary, evidence fully consolidated the defence version that no such demand was made. Apex Court held that if ingredients of cruelty and harassment are not proved by direct and cogent evidence, benefit of presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act is not available. Apex Court also held that factum of unnatural death in matrimonial home within 7 years of marriage is not sufficient to hold accused persons guilty of offence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC. 14. Reliance has also been placed on Rajeev Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2013) 16 SCC 640. Wherein it was held by Apex Court that the fact that soon before the death the deceased woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand for dowry is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act would then arise, requiring accused to rebut the same. 15. Counsel for the complainant and Public Prosecutor have opposed the Criminal Appeal No.589/2014. Their contention is that PW1-Phool Chand in his statement has stated that in-laws of deceased were harassing deceased-Geeta. 15. Counsel for the complainant and Public Prosecutor have opposed the Criminal Appeal No.589/2014. Their contention is that PW1-Phool Chand in his statement has stated that in-laws of deceased were harassing deceased-Geeta. He visited the deceased a day prior to the incident and she told him that accused-Krishan Kumar has hit her. It is also contended that this witness has stated that he received information that Geeta has sustained burn injuries because of exploding of gas cylinder, it is argued that it was a wrong information sent by the accused-appellants with regard to cause of deceased sustaining injuries which goes to show that accused-appellants were involved in commission of offence. 16. Counsel for the complainant has further drawn my attention to the statement of PW14, brother of deceased, who has stated that there was demand of motorcycle from the deceased. My attention has also been drawn towards statement of PW20, who has also stated that accused-appellants used to harass Geeta on account of demand of a motorcycle. It is mentioned that harassment started after 6 to 12 months of the marriage. PW21- Soni Devi mother of deceased has also stated that accused- Krishan Kumar used to beat her daughter and demanded motorcycle from her, it is also deposed by her that accused- Krishan Kumar was unemployed and Geeta informed her a day prior to date of incident that she was being harassed and requested her to send someone to bring her back. 17. I have considered the contention and have perused the statement and relevant documents. 18. Court below has not taken note of the fact that burden to prove that there was demand of dowry soon before death is on the prosecution. As per case of prosecution there was a demand of motorcycle, which fact stands disproved by document Ex.D5 registration certificate of motorcycle purchased by accused-Krishan Kumar on 26.11.2010 i.e. about six months prior to the date of demise of deceased. Further, it is relevant to note that Ramavtar, father-in-law of the deceased gave money for purchasing of a motorcycle at the time of marriage of sister of deceased to help the family of deceased. 19. The allegation that deceased was unemployed also stands disproved by the statement of PW14 brother of deceased, who has in his cross-examination admitted that accused-Krishan Kumar, his father-Ramavtar and deceased all were in government employment. 20. 19. The allegation that deceased was unemployed also stands disproved by the statement of PW14 brother of deceased, who has in his cross-examination admitted that accused-Krishan Kumar, his father-Ramavtar and deceased all were in government employment. 20. PW22-Ram Singh, Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination has admitted that in investigation it was not found that deceased was put on fire by someone. He has admitted that after deceased got burnt, water was poured upon her to save her. He has also admitted that none of the neighbours stated that there was any dispute between the in-laws and the deceased. He has also admitted that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. 21. In view of the contention raised by counsel for the accused-appellants and also taking note of the fact that demand of dowry soon before death of deceased was not established, offence under Sections 498A and 304B IPC are not made out. 22. In the light of above discussion, Criminal Appeal No.589/2014 filed by appellants deserves to be allowed and consequently Criminal Appeal No.969/2014 filed by complainant deserves to be dismissed. 23. In the result, Criminal Appeal No.589/2014 filed by appellants is allowed. The judgment and order dated 03.05.2014 passed by Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Shahpura, District Jaipur in Sessions Case No.17/2011 is set aside. The appellants-Krishan Kumar S/o Shri Ramavtar, 2. Ramavtar S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Balai and Smt.Prabhati Devi wife of Shri Ramavtar are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are in jail, they be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case or for any other purpose. 24. Appellants are directed to forthwith furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount each in accordance with Section 437 A of Cr.P.C. before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The bail bonds will be effective for a period of six months. 25. Criminal Appeal No.969/2014 filed by complainant is dismissed.