ORDER : By the Court.-Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner is the informant and father of the deceased, Gudiya Devi, aggrieved by acquittal of accused-husband/opposite party No. 2 vide judgment dated 15th July, 2017 rendered by District & Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 315 of 2010 (G.R. No. 1089 of 2010). 3. As per the informant's case based on written report submitted on 17th May, 2010 leading to institution of Giridih. (Town) P.S. Case No. 137/2010 on 16th/17th May, 2010, the informant got information from his son-in-law-opposite party No.2 that his daughter had taken poison and was admitted in Sadar Hospital, Giridih. On reaching there, he saw that his daughter was lying on veranda and on being inquired, she told that her husband and mother-in-law administered her poison. She died at about 2:00 am. She further stated that her mother-in-law was demanding Rs.50,000/- cash and a Motorcycle and was threatened that she will be killed if the demand was not made. She got married in the year 2009 in the month of Baishakh with Hindu Rites and Rituals. 4. Charge-sheet was submitted under Section 304(B)/34 of Indian Penal Code on 6th August, 2010 against the husband-opposite party No. 2 and Molwa Devi, mother-in-law, who died during the course of trial. Cognizance was taken under the aforesaid sections on 17th September, 2010 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and after supply of police paper, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. On being explained the accusation of charges, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After evidence of prosecution witnesses, statement of accused under Section 313, CrPC was recorded on 25th November, 2016. 5. During the course of trial, six prosecution witnesses were examined. PW 1- Dr. A.P.N. Deo, PW 2- Amrit Sao, PW 3- Dharam Yadav, PW 4- Zirwa Devi, P'Y 5- Bahadur Gope and PW 6- Satendra Kumar Singh. The following documents were• also adduced by the prosecution : EXt. 1- Post-mortem, Ext. 2- Signature of Bahadur Gope on written report, Ext. 3- Endorsement on fardbeyan written by the then Munshi and signed by O/C Satish Kumar, Ext. 4- Signature of Dr. on Vicera report and Ext. 5- Signature of Anirit Saw and Dharmu Yadav on inquest report. The defence examined three witnesses :. DW1-Bablu Kumar Yadav @ Bablu Yadav, DW 2-Chetlal Gope and DW 3- Kapildeo Trivedi. 6. 3- Endorsement on fardbeyan written by the then Munshi and signed by O/C Satish Kumar, Ext. 4- Signature of Dr. on Vicera report and Ext. 5- Signature of Anirit Saw and Dharmu Yadav on inquest report. The defence examined three witnesses :. DW1-Bablu Kumar Yadav @ Bablu Yadav, DW 2-Chetlal Gope and DW 3- Kapildeo Trivedi. 6. PW 5-Bahadur Gope, who is informant, has deposed in support of the prosecution story. According to him, though his daughter was treated well for six months after her marriage, but thereafter the accused started torturing her and demanding Rs. 50,000/- as cash. When the demand was not fulfilled he came to know that his daughter has taken poison and was in Sadar Hospital, Giridih. His daughter before her death told that her husband Bablu Yadav and mother-in-law Munwa Devi administered her poison and at 2.30 am she died. He has identified his signature on the written report on the basis of which FIR was registered as Ext. -2. In his cross-examination, he deposed that narration was made by his daughter in the Hospital in presence of Amrit Sao, Dharmu Yadav and Jiriva Devi. Certain details about the construction of latrine in her house and a bore well etc., were also made, in which Rs. 1 lakh was spent. She was being administered saline water while under treatment. 7. PW 2, Amrit Sao, in his examination-in-chief, supported the marriage of the deceased with the accused as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. However, she complained of demand of dowry after 2 months. He also came to know that husband had administered poison and the victim was dead when he reached the Hospital. In his cross-examination, he stated that the story of torture was narrated to him by the informant. He also mentioned about the construction of bore well after the marriage of deceased. 8. PW 3, Dharmu Yadav apart from supporting the case of marrage of deceased with opposite party No. 2 further stated about the demand of Rs. 50,000/- cash and a motorcycle as told by the victim girl. She also had complained of a threat of being killed, if the demand was not made. She had gone to matrimonial, house about 15 days before her death. 50,000/- cash and a motorcycle as told by the victim girl. She also had complained of a threat of being killed, if the demand was not made. She had gone to matrimonial, house about 15 days before her death. He along with his brother and family members reached at Giridih Sadar Hospital when the news of -her being admitted was conveyed by her husband through phone; 9. PW 4, Jirwa Devi mother of the deceased has supported the written report on the basis of which FIR was lodged. She also reiterated the demand ofRs. 50,000/cash and a motorcycle made by the accused. The news of her taking poison and being admitted to Sadar Hospital was conveyed by his son-in-law. Her daughter had gone to her matrimonial house 15 days ago and prior to that she was at her house for two months. The demand of dowry was told by her daughter after six months of her marriage. 10. PW 1, Dr. A.P.N. Deo conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased who was aged 19 years. Rigor mortise was 'present in both upper and lower limbs. Decomposition was Nil. No ante-mortem external or internal injury was found on her body. Viscera was found conjusted. Right chamber of heart was found full and left chamber was empty. Stomach contained bluish colour fluid about 250 ml. Without any peculiar smell, mucosa was normal in colour, urinary was normal and no-gravid, urinary bladder was empty, a portion of heart, lung, lever, spleen, kidney and stomach with its contents were preserved in super saturated solution of common salt in a glass jar and reded and levelled. Investigation Officer was required to send the aforesaid viscera to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. Cause of death could not be ascertained. However, time since death was within 24-Hours approximately. The post-mortem report was adduced as Ext.-l. He had not received Forensic Science Laboratory till his cross-examination, therefore, could not give opinion regarding cause of death. 11. PW 6, Investigating Officer identified the written report which was marked as Ext.-2 and Endorsement on. written report as Ext.-3. Forwarding viscera report as Ext. -4 He had not taken effort to take statement of the Doctor, who treated the deceased, Gudiya Debi. 12. 11. PW 6, Investigating Officer identified the written report which was marked as Ext.-2 and Endorsement on. written report as Ext.-3. Forwarding viscera report as Ext. -4 He had not taken effort to take statement of the Doctor, who treated the deceased, Gudiya Debi. 12. The defence examined altogether three witnesses : DW 1, Bablu Yadav is the accused himself, who stated that the deceased was not willing to reside with him and being dissatisfied' with her marriage she committed suicide by taking poison and when he saw the deceased in unconscious position lie took her to Durga Medical Mohanpur for primary treatment and then to Sadar Hospital where she died. He informed the father-in-law about the occurrence. DW 2 deposed that there was a panchayati, in which he was present where the deceased had told that she did not like her husband and was not willing to go with her. In his cross-examination, he deposed that panchayati took place before 10 days of occurrence. DW 3 is an Assistant at Durga Medical Hall, who deposed that he was sleeping there at night at about 6 to 7 years ago Bablu Yadav at about 11.30 pm to 12 night came to him with his wife and asked him to save his wife as she was unconscious. Then he told him' her condition is not well and advised him to take his wife to Sadar Hospital, Giridih. 13. Learned trial Court considered the evidence on record, submission of learned A.P.P. and defence and after referring to the ingredients of Section. 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of Evidence Act relating to presumption in a. case of dowry death under Section 113- B came to a considered finding that the prosecution had failed to establish its case. Accordingly, the accused was acquitted from all the charges, Learned trial Court did not find the ingredients of demand of dowry soon before her death established as per ingredients of Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Learned trial Court did not find evidence of torture soon before her death as there was no such material evidence on record. It also observed that though the informant stated to have seen the deceased before her death when she narrated to the informant about administering of poison. Learned trial Court did not find evidence of torture soon before her death as there was no such material evidence on record. It also observed that though the informant stated to have seen the deceased before her death when she narrated to the informant about administering of poison. but neither was dying declaration recorded nor the doctor, who treated the deceased before her death was produced as a witness in support. The post-mortem report also showed that she was not suffering from any disease nor was there any external injury on the dead body or mouth of the deceased as per Ext-5. though a black spot was mentioned near her right ear which could be caused by taking poison. There was no evidence of forcible administration of poison due to lack of any external or internal injury on the body of the deceased. There is variance in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and also lack of consistency in the manner they described their case. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner' has assailed the findings of learned trial Court. He submits that the evidence relating to demand of dowry on record is not only from the mouth of the informant but the other prosecution witnesses No. 3 as well. The deceased. died within a very short time, therefore, dying declaration could not have been taken. However, Viscera report which has been adduced as Ext. 4 clearly showed that carbofuran was detected which is used as pesticide and is poisonous. The death occurred within one year of marriage and the suspicious circumstances' surrounding is enough to establish the ingredient of Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code. In such circumstances. learned trial Court has committed serious error in acquitting the accused-husband. Therefore, leave to appeal may be granted. 15. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has defended the impugned judgment. He submits that necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code do not stand established. The prosecution has miserably failed to show that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty as there was no evidence either on her body or otherwise on record. The demand of dowry is also unsubstantiated. The victim may have consumed poison out of frustration because of her unwillingness to live with her husband as she did not like him. The demand of dowry is also unsubstantiated. The victim may have consumed poison out of frustration because of her unwillingness to live with her husband as she did not like him. However, for that, the husband-accused could not have been convicted for the offence of dowry death. Therefore, the judgment is well reasoned and does not deserve any further scrutiny. 16. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material evidence on record and also perused the impugned judgment. We are of the considered view that the leave to appeal should be granted in the case. We, however, refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case as it might prejudice the case of. the parties before the appellate Court. Leave to appeal is granted. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. Petition allowed.