ORDER : – This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 2-12-2022 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani, district Barwani in S. T. No. 131/2019 by which the learned Judge has framed additional charge against the petitioner for offence under section 304-B of Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts of the case is that on 3-10-2019 a merg intimation was registered at Police Station Palsood by the complainant Doorsingh alleging that on 1-10-2019 after having dinner he and all his family members had gone to sleep at around 9:30 P.M. in their respective rooms. When Singabai, wife of the complainant got up she saw that Mamta was not present on her cot. A search was carried out for Mamta but the same was in vain. It was also informed by the complainant that Santribai the first wife of the petitioner was from Badara Faliya and when she had gone to Gujarat for livelihood along with her father, the petitioner married Mamta and she is nine months pregnant. It was further alleged that when the brother of the complainant took his goats for grazing in the agricultural field, he saw the dead body of Mamta lying in the well. 3. On the said intimation, Merg was registered and an inquiry was carried out. The body of Mamta was taken out from the well and sent for postmortem. Statements of the family members of the deceased were recorded and they all stated that the petitioner was not treating his wife Mamta properly and as a consequence, she committed suicide. Based on the said allegations, FIR was registered at police station Palsood for an offence under section 498-A, 306 of Indian Penal Code at Crime No. 231/2019. The said charges were denied by the petitioner. 4. Thereafter, on 25-11-2022 an application was filed by the prosecution stating that the deceased had died within seven years of her marriage, and therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani framed charge under section 304-B of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 5. The said charges were denied by the petitioner. 4. Thereafter, on 25-11-2022 an application was filed by the prosecution stating that the deceased had died within seven years of her marriage, and therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani framed charge under section 304-B of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has erred by not appreciating the fact that assuming the allegations of the prosecution story to be true which has come in the charge-sheet and the Court statements of the family members of the deceased, nowhere any of he witnesses have stated that the petitioner has demanded any dowry from the deceased or from her family members. Nowhere it has come that soon before the death the deceased was harassed by the petitioner for dowry. These are basic and mandatory requirements of section 304-B of Indian Penal Code and in absence of the same, no charge under section 304-B of Indian Penal Code is made out against the applicant. 6. The learned trial Court has erred by not appreciating the fact that the application dated 25-11-2022 which has been filed by the prosecution to additionally frame a charge against the applicant for an offence under section 304-B of Indian Penal Code, no reason has been assigned as to why the said charge should be framed except that the deceased had died within the seven years of her marriage. Hence, prays that this revision be allowed and the impugned order framing charge under section 304-B of Indian Penal Code be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the State has supported the order impugned and prays for dismissal of this revision. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 9. It is pertinent to reproduce the provisions of section 304-B of Indian Penal Code which reads as under : – 304-B. Dowry death. 7. Learned counsel for the State has supported the order impugned and prays for dismissal of this revision. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 9. It is pertinent to reproduce the provisions of section 304-B of Indian Penal Code which reads as under : – 304-B. Dowry death. – (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any 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 for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation. – For the purposes of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. 10. In the case of Kashmir Kaur vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 1039 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that essential ingredients to attract the provisions of section 304-B of Indian Penal Code is that (a) that soon before the death the deceased she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry, (b) the death of the deceased woman was caused by any burn or bodily injury or some other circumstance which was not normal, (c) such death occurs within seven years from the date of her marriage, (d) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, (e) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry and (f) it should be established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death. 11. 11. In the case of Prema S. Rao vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, AIR 2003 SC 11 , the Hon’ble Apex Court again reiterated that to attract the provisions of section 304-B of Indian Penal 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 of dowry”. 12. In the case of Yashoda vs. State of M. P., (2004) 3 SCC 98 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that there must be existence of a proximate and live-link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. 13. On perusal of the application filed by the prosecution for framing of additional charge, nothing is mentioned regarding dowry death. It is only mentioned that death had occurred within seven years of marriage. On perusal of the copy of charge-sheet it is evident that no allegation regarding demand of dowry were made by the family members of the deceased. It is pertinent to note that relatives of the deceased Gaja Barela (PW-1), Waju Barela (PW-2) Jambai (PW-6) and Mukesh (PW-7) have been examined before the trial Court and nobody stated that there was demand of dowry by the petitioner. 14. In the light of the aforesaid and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above mentioned cases this Court is of the considered view that this criminal revision is deserved to be allowed. 15. Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is discharged from the charge for offence under section 304-B of Indian Penal Code. With the aforesaid revision is disposed off.