JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. In the intervening night of 06/07.08.2011, Purnima Mandal was murdered and her dead body was set on fire in her matrimonial home. On the basis of a written report submitted by Lakhikant Mandal, Nala (Bindapathar) PS Case No. 82 of 2011 was registered against Susti Pada Mandal, Haradhan Mandal and Parul Mandal for causing dowry death of Purnima Mandal. In Sessions Case No. 24 of 2012, the learned District & Additional Session Judge-1st, Jamtara has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants to RI for life with a fine of Rs.2000/- each under section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for two years and a fine of Rs.2000/- each for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, with a default stipulation to undergo SI for six months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that in connection to demand of a motorcycle and Rs.10,000/- the accused caused harassment and torture to Purnima Mandal and finally she was done to death in her matrimonial home and to conceal the crime her dead body was covered with a gunny bag in the backyard of the house. There is no eyewitness who has seen the appellants committing murder of Purnima Mandal and to prove the charges against the appellants the prosecution has laid circumstantial evidence and, therefore, we are required to see whether the learned Trial Judge has rightly held that all the incriminating circumstances proved by the prosecution were incompatible with the innocence of the appellants and one and only inference which can be drawn from the proved circumstances is that the appellants have caused dowry death of Purnima Mandal in furtherance of their common intention. 3. In “Varun Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan” (2011) 12 SCC 545 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “25. It is a settled legal position that in case of circumstantial evidence, there must be a complete chain of evidence which would lead to a conclusion that the accused was the only person, who could have committed the offence and none else. In the instant case, there is nothing to show that the accused had committed the offence and on the basis of the aforestated material, in our opinion, it would be dangerous to convict the accused.” 4. In the instant case, there is nothing to show that the accused had committed the offence and on the basis of the aforestated material, in our opinion, it would be dangerous to convict the accused.” 4. Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code provides that where the death of a woman is caused by burns 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 of dowry, the accused has committed dowry death. 5. The offence under section 304-B has been inserted in the Indian Penal Code by way of Amendment Act 43 of 1986 and simultaneously a corresponding Amendment was made in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by which section 113-B was inserted to raise a presumption of dowry death. The language implied in section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 113 of the Indian Evidence Act reveal a common point of reference in both the provisions, that the woman must have been soon before her death subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with a demand of dowry. 6. In “Sher Singh @ Partapa v. State of Haryana” (2015) 3 SCC 724 , a case on which the learned counsel for the appellants has heavily relied on, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act and section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code were introduced simultaneously and, therefore, it must be assumed that Parliament has intentionally used the word ‘deem’ in section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code to distinguish this offence from others. 7. The prosecution has laid evidence through the parents and brother of Purnima Mandal to establish that there was demand of a motorcycle and Rs.10,000/- and in connection thereof the accused inflicted various acts of harassment and torture upon her. The testimonies of these witnesses notwithstanding minor inconsistencies and omissions must be accepted by us, particularly for the reason that in their cross-examination these witnesses stood to their grounds and nothing material could be elicited from them by the defence. The testimonies of these witnesses notwithstanding minor inconsistencies and omissions must be accepted by us, particularly for the reason that in their cross-examination these witnesses stood to their grounds and nothing material could be elicited from them by the defence. They are the related witnesses but not partisan or interested and they have truthfully deposed in the Court inasmuch as PW3, the mother, has admitted in the cross-examination that a grant of Rs.10,000/- was offered by the administration which, however, was not received as Susti Pada Mandal did not sign the papers. These witnesses have categorically spoken about demand of a motorcycle and Rs.10,000/- by her husband and harassment and torture of Purnima Mandal by him. 8. There are independent witnesses who have also supported the prosecution and corroborated evidence of PW3, PW5 and PW8. For example, Kishore Mandal, PW4, who is a neighbor of the informant has deposed in the Court that Purnima Mandal was married to Susti Pada Mandal on 09.12.2010 at Chanchala Temple, Jamtara and whenever she visited her parents she would inform them that her husband and his family members were threatening to kill her if their demand of a motorcycle and Rs.10,000/- was not fulfilled. PW4 is not a hearsay witness rather he has tendered direct and substantive evidence on demand of dowry and torture of Purnima Mandal at the hands of her husband. In his cross-examination, PW4 has stated that he had talk with Susti Pada Mandal regarding the demand of dowry and he asked him to come for further talk but he did not approach him. He has further stated that the accused made demand of a motorcycle and Rs.10,000/- in his presence about 1-1/2 months before she was killed. The other material witnesses have also supported the prosecution case. 9. During the trial, the prosecution has examined fourteen witnesses out of which five have turned hostile. These witnesses belonged to village Rangasola where the accused were living. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the most natural witnesses to harassment and torture of Purnima Mandal would be her neighbors who all have turned hostile which by itself creates substantial doubt on the prosecution case. These witnesses belonged to village Rangasola where the accused were living. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the most natural witnesses to harassment and torture of Purnima Mandal would be her neighbors who all have turned hostile which by itself creates substantial doubt on the prosecution case. Generally, matrimonial offences are committed within the four walls of the house and a neighbor or co-villager even if privy to harassment and torture of a woman in her matrimonial home would not come to the Court to support the charge. This is a common feature in almost all the cases of this nature and, in law, no inference can be drawn when the co-villagers turn hostile that a false case was foisted upon the accused-appellants if the other evidences produced by the prosecution are cogent, consistent, credible and reliable. In our opinion, this is one such case in which the prosecution has laid clinching materials during the trial to prove the charges against the husband. 10. Referring to the judgment in “Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar” (2005) 2 SCC 388 the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that one of the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, that soon before her death the woman was subjected to harassment and torture in connection to demand of dowry, was not established by the prosecution, and testimonies of PW3, PW4, PW5, and PW8 are lacking in details. 11. In “Kamesh Panjiyar” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “11. ….... Prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by prosecution. “Soon before” is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression “soon before her death” used in the substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. The expression “soon before her death” used in the substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression “soon before” is not defined. A reference to the expression “soon before” used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. The determination of the period which can come within the term “soon before” is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression “soon before” would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effects of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.” 12. We need to bear in mind that within eight months of the marriage Purnima Mandal has died homicidal death in her matrimonial home. This by itself is sufficient circumstance for the Court to infer that soon before her death she was subjected to harassment and torture in connection to demand of dowry by the husband and his family members, because it is proved as a fact from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that soon after the marriage the accused started demanding a motorcycle and Rs.10,000/-. Furthermore, there is evidence of PW4 that demand of a motorcycle and Rs.10,000/- was lastly made in his presence about 1-1/2 months before the death of Purnima Mandal. This needs no reiteration that the expression “soon before her death” is not capable of any precise definition and no strait-jacket formula can be evolved in this regard for arriving at a conclusion whether the victim lady was subjected to harassment and torture in connection to demand of dowry “soon before her death”. This needs no reiteration that the expression “soon before her death” is not capable of any precise definition and no strait-jacket formula can be evolved in this regard for arriving at a conclusion whether the victim lady was subjected to harassment and torture in connection to demand of dowry “soon before her death”. In “Kans Raj v. State of Punjab” (2000) 5 SCC 207 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the expression “soon before” is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case. 13. Mrs. Bandana Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that presence of blisters and absence of smell of kerosene oil emitting from hair of Purnima Mandal would establish that it was not a case of homicidal death. 14. PW12, Dr. Sunil Kumar Kisku who has conducted the post-mortem over the dead body of Purnima Mandal on 08.08.2011 at Sadar Hospital, Jamtara at 11:30 AM has found the following : “External appearance : (i) The dead body was of average built, dark complexion, eyes closed, pupils dilated, black scalp hair, shrinking scalp hair and eyebrow; (ii) mouth semi opened, tongue protruded under teeth; (iii) stool at anus; (iv) kerosene oil like smell from body; (v) blackening of skin of whole body; (vi) neck, face both upper extremity both lower extremity up to ankle joint; (vii) part of both feet are spared; (viii) there is foul smelling; (ix) abdomen distended; (x) gas comes out with hissing sound on opening abdomen. Burn injury : (i) about 90% of ante-mortem burn injury on the body including face, neck, chest, trunk, back, upper extremity, lower extremity upto ankle joint; (ii) burst of blisters all over the body.” 15. Modi in his book “Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology” writes that in case of death by kerosene oil, petrol, or some other combustible substance characteristic smell of that substance is distinctly found and there would be sooty blackening of parts of the dead body. The learned author further mentions that brain its meninges and lungs are usually congested in case of death by intense heat and blisters may or may not be produced by burn through flames. Purnima Mandal has suffered 90% burn injuries. 16. The learned author further mentions that brain its meninges and lungs are usually congested in case of death by intense heat and blisters may or may not be produced by burn through flames. Purnima Mandal has suffered 90% burn injuries. 16. In “Kumar v. State of T.N.” (2013) 12 SCC 699 , in the post-mortem certificate extensive second degree burns were found on the front side of the whole body except the crown of head, the back of head, backside, buttocks and the bottom of the foot and the doctor who conducted the post-mortem deposed that the back side of the body, crown of the head and the soles were not burnt and, therefore, there was no possibility of committing suicide. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that had the deceased committed suicide, naturally, she would have poured kerosene on her head which would have spread all over her body and on setting fire all parts of the body would have got burnt. 17. From the findings recorded by PW12 it is more than apparent that Purnima Mandal died a homicidal death. We are of the opinion that Purnima Mandal has died a homicidal death in her matrimonial home is proved by the prosecution. 18. In every criminal trial the prosecution is required to lead cogent and consistent materials which are sufficient to establish complicity of the accused in the crime and before the onus shifts to the accused by operation of section 106 of the Evidence Act the prosecution must establish a prima facie case against the accused. The misconception on applicability of section 106 of the Evidence Act was finally laid at rest in “Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer” AIR 1956 SC 404 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be used to undermine the well-established rule of law that, save in a very exceptional class of cases, the burden is on the prosecution and never shifts. Purnima Mandal was married to Susti Pada Mandal on 09.12.2010 and she has died within seven years of her marriage are not under challenge. Throughout the trial the accused persons have not even attempted to challenge that Purnima Mandal has not died within seven years of her marriage. She has died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home has also been proved by the prosecution. Throughout the trial the accused persons have not even attempted to challenge that Purnima Mandal has not died within seven years of her marriage. She has died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home has also been proved by the prosecution. In these facts, the provisions of section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act are at once attracted. 19. In “Harijan Bhala Teja v. State of Gujarat” (2016) 12 SCC 665 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “19. Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Since it is proved on the record that it was only the appellant who was staying with his wife at the time of her death, it is for him to show as to in what manner she died, particularly, when the prosecution has successfully proved that she died homicidal death.” 20. When a married woman dies in her matrimonial home her husband must come out with a plausible and acceptable explanation how his wife has died. An accused has right to remain silence, but then, in a prosecution under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code if the prosecution establishes a prima facie case against the accused his silence or a false explanation to the incriminating circumstance implicating him in the crime of dowry death would provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances. In the present case, the husband has maintained complete silence throughout his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and did not offer any explanation to the incriminating circumstances implicating him in the crime. This by itself is a highly incriminating circumstance raising grave suspicion on complicity of the husband in the crime. 21. In “Pudhu Raja v. State” (2012) 11 SCC 196 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “17. It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined under Section 313 CrPC, to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the court must take note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial evidence, in order to decide, as to whether or not, the chain of circumstances is complete. It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined under Section 313 CrPC, to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the court must take note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial evidence, in order to decide, as to whether or not, the chain of circumstances is complete. When the attention of the accused is drawn to the circumstances that inculpate him in relation to the commission of the crime, and he fails to offer an appropriate explanation, or gives a false answer with respect to the same, the said act may be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstances.” 22. The husband of Purnima Mandal has taken a defence that Purnima Mandal committed suicide by setting herself on fire but there is no material on record to corroborate the defence version, rather there is abundance of materials on record which proved that Purnima Mandal has died a homicidal death. Her dead body was found in the backyard covered with gunny bag and the Investigating Officer who inspected the place of occurrence has not found any mark indicating suicidal death of Purnima Mandal. Even assuming that Purnima Mandal has committed suicide in her matrimonial home the offence under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code was complete against the husband. 23. The case against the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 209 of 2014 who are brother-in-law and sister-in-law of Purnima Mandal is significantly different from the circumstances proved against Susti Pada Mandal. These appellants have set up a defence that they were not residing together with Purnima Mandal rather Haradhan Mandal was not on good terms with his brother Susti Pada Mandal. DW1 has tendered evidence on this aspect and DW2 has tendered evidence in the Court that in his presence both brothers had applied for separate ration card. Above all, except vague allegations against these appellants by some of the prosecution witnesses that they also made demand of dowry and harassed Purnima Mandal in connection thereof the prosecution has failed to produce clinching evidence that Haradhan Mandal and his wife were living together with Purnima Mandal and they also caused mental pain and agony to her soon before her death in connection to demand of dowry. In fact, it is specific case of the prosecution through PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW8 that Susti Pada Mandal demanded a motorcycle and Rs.10,000/-. 24. On consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the case, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of demand of dowry and causing dowry death against Haradhan Mandal and Parul Mandal who are the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 209 of 2014 and, accordingly, their conviction under sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. 25. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 209 of 2014 is allowed. 26. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, the learned APP states that Haradhan Mandal and Parul Mandal are on bail. 27. Accordingly, Haradhan Mandal and Parul Mandal who are on bail stand discharged of the liability of the bail bonds furnished by them. 28. Mrs. Bandana Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the decision in “Hari Om v. State of Haryana” (2014) 10 SCC 577 to contend that maximum punishment inflicted upon Susti Pada Mandal is not proper. 29. In “Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana” 2021 SCC OnLine SC 404 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code is one among many legislative initiatives undertaken by the Parliament to remedy a long-standing social evil. However, in spite of legislative interventions demand of dowry and harassment and torture of a woman in connection to demand of dowry has gone to the extent of causing her death. The situation has been captured in paragraph No. 12 of “Satbir Singh” wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “12. However, despite the above measures, the issue of dowry harassment was still prevalent. Additionally, there was a growing trend of deaths of young brides in suspicious circumstances following demands of dowry. The need for a stringent law to curb dowry deaths was suo motu taken up by the Law Commission in its 91st Law Commission Report. The Law Commission recognized that the IPC, as it existed at that relevant time, was insufficient to tackle the issue of dowry deaths due to the nature and modus of the crime.” 30. We are alive that a young girl of 30 years of age was murdered in her matrimonial home within eight months of her marriage. The Law Commission recognized that the IPC, as it existed at that relevant time, was insufficient to tackle the issue of dowry deaths due to the nature and modus of the crime.” 30. We are alive that a young girl of 30 years of age was murdered in her matrimonial home within eight months of her marriage. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Satbir Singh” this malaise has still engulfed the society, and unwarranted sympathy to a person accused of dowry death would definitely send a wrong message to the society and the sufferers. We are therefore not inclined to interfere with award of sentence of RI for life under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code inflicted upon Susti Pada Mandal. 31. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 263 of 2015 is dismissed. 32. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, the learned APP states that Susti Pada Mandal is in custody. He shall serve the remaining sentence as awarded to him in Sessions Case No. 24 of 2012. 33. IA No. 2542 of 2021 and IA No. 2543 of 2021 stand disposed of. 34. Let lower Court records be transmitted to the Court concerned, forthwith. 35. Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned through FAX. Appeal dismissed.