JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellants under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.02.2002, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 182/2001 whereby the appellants have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 304(b) & 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each with default stipulations. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased was married to appellant No.1 as per their custom in the month of Baisakh, 2000. After marriage, the deceased was residing with appellant No.1 in her in-law house at Bilaigarh. The appellants were harassing the deceased in the name of dowry and torturing her by saying that she was working with one hand. It is alleged that when she became ill, the treatment of the victim/deceased was done by her parents at Bilaigarh and thereafter she returned back to Kera in her matrimonial house and on the next date, the information of death of the deceased was given to her parents. It is further alleged that the family members of the deceased had gone to Bilaigarh where they saw mark of injuries on the face and neck of the deceased. It is further alleged that parents of deceased had tried to stop cremation and also searched Narshing, who was their relative but he was not found at Bilaigarh. When Narshing returned to Bilaigarh then the deceased brother contacted him and incident was reported to police Station Bilaigarh on 18.02.2001 vide Annexure P/1. On the basis of report, merg was recorded in the Police Station Bilaigarh as Ex.P-5. The police has taken some portion of the deceased in their custody and recorded the statement of witnesses and registered the Crime No. 45 of 2001 under Section 304(B) read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution has sent the bone and ash of the deceased for examination at Forensic Science Laboratory at Sagar. The prosecution after usual investigation has submitted the charge sheet before the concerning Judicial Magistrate First Class- Balodabazar, who has committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Raipur and subsequently the matter was transferred to Second Additional Judge, Balodabazar for trial. 3. The prosecution after usual investigation has submitted the charge sheet before the concerning Judicial Magistrate First Class- Balodabazar, who has committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Raipur and subsequently the matter was transferred to Second Additional Judge, Balodabazar for trial. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses namely- Lomash Kumar (PW-1), Uma Shankar (PW-2), Narshing (PW-3), Gugaru (PW-4), Smt. Bimla Bai (PW-5), I.O. L.D. Diwan (PW-6), Bund Kunwar (PW- 7), Gourishankar (PW-8), Natthuram Dewangan (PW-9), Dr. K.K. Gandharv (PW-10), SDO Sujit Kumar (PW-11), and head constable S.L. Sahu (PW-6). The prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant has exhibited the documents report (Ex.P-1), enquiry of merg (Ex.P- 2A), list of witnesses (Ex.P-2), Panchayatnama (Ex.P-3), Merg report (Ex.P-3A), seizure memo (Ex.P-4), merg intimation (Ex.P-5), FIR dated 01.03.2001 (Ex.P-6), application for postmortem with report (Ex.P-7), opinion of the doctor (Ex.P-7A), crime detail form (Ex.P-8), arrest memo (Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-10), statement of Gourishankar (Ex.P- 9), memo dated 15.03.2001 sent to Forensic Science at Sagar (Ex.P- 11). Statements of accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied the allegation leveled against them and pleaded innocence and false implication. Apart from this, three defence witnesses have been examined namely Budheshwar Prasad (DW-1), Guraruram (Ex.D-2), Kamlabai (Ex.D-3) and Smt.Bund Kunwar (Ex.D-4) have also been examined. 4. Lomash Kumar (PW-1) was examined before the trial Court wherein he has stated that as soon as they received the information about death of Kamlabai, they had gone to accused house at Bilaigarh by a jeep. He saw that the accused persons had already initiated step for cremation and after seeing face of his sister, he noticed the scratches marks in the neck and other parts of the body. He was made an attempt to prevent them not to proceed for cremation but they immediately proceeded for cremation. The witness was subjected to cross-examination, wherein statement of this witness remained unshaken and stated that her sister was subjected to torture for dowry. 5. Umashankar (PW-2) friend of deceased’s brother, has stated in his statement that deceased brother told him that, Kamlabai was subjected to torture for bringing less dowry and she was abused by the accused/appellants. The witness was subjected to cross-examination, wherein statement of this witness remained unshaken and stated that her sister was subjected to torture for dowry. 5. Umashankar (PW-2) friend of deceased’s brother, has stated in his statement that deceased brother told him that, Kamlabai was subjected to torture for bringing less dowry and she was abused by the accused/appellants. On the fateful day of incident, he along with deceased brother had gone to the house of appellant Girdhari, where Shyamlal Tailor and Natthuram Dewangan have already reached there where they saw the dead body of Kamlabai laying on the bed and her face was covered when he removed the clothe, he saw that there was injury below the eye and bleeding from the noise and one more injury was near chin. He has put question about the injuries, but no reply was given by the appellants. The appellants had cremated the dead body before arrival of relative of Kamlabai. The witness was cross-examined, wherein he denied that Kamlabi was seriously ill, voluntarily he said that she was having simple illness. He has also admitted that accused were providing treatment to her. 6. Narshing (PW-3) has reiterated the same statement in the cross-examination, he has admitted that the police have enquired him, wherein he has stated that Kamlabai was healthy and was alive in the evening. He has also admitted that whatever statement he has given in the court, if it has not been recorded in the statement before the police then he cannot assign any reason. 7. Jugaru (PW-4) father of the deceased, who has stated that after marriage, his daughter was residing in her matrimonial house at Bilaigarh and after one and half month she came to village Kera, wherein she informed him that her father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband were torturing her for bringing less dowry. This witness has further stated that Girdhari came to her house after 15 days and taken her to village Bilaigarh with him. The witness was subjected to examination by the Court, wherein he has stated that all the accused were residing in the same house. This witness has further stated that Girdhari came to her house after 15 days and taken her to village Bilaigarh with him. The witness was subjected to examination by the Court, wherein he has stated that all the accused were residing in the same house. The witness has stated that when his son Lomash had gone to Bilaigarh, he saw the deceased suffering from fever and when he returned to village Kera, he advised him to visit Bilaigarh to see the daughter and we remained there for 4-5 days and when her daughter recovered from her illness, they returned to their village and after a day, he received the information of death of her daughter. He has also reiterated the same description of the injuries sustained by deceased. The witness was cross-examined, wherein he has admitted that the report was lodged after third day of death of the deceased. 8. Smt. Bimla Bai (PW-5) was examined, she has stated the same thing as stated by Jugaru (PW-4) and Lomash (PW-1). She has admitted in the cross-examination, that Lomash after reaching Bilaigarh has enquired about death of her sister to Hemlal, he has stated that the deceased vomited three times thereafter she succumbed to death. The witness has also admitted that accused told her that if they have any doubt about the death of deceased then she can lodge the report in the police station and postmortem can also be done. The witness has subsequently stated that she could not understand the question put by the counsel for the accused and on the repetition of question, she has stated that she was not there as mother of the appellant No.1 became unconscious and she was with her. Smt. Bimla Bai (PW-5) has stated that anything was told by father-in-law of the deceased. 9. Bund Kawar (PW-6) mother of the deceased, has also narrated the same incident and in the cross-examination, she has stated that in Ex.D-4, she has not informed the police that the deceased was subjected to torture by her in laws. She has also stated before the police that she has explained to her daughter that everything will be sort out shortly and how many days they will not allow her to prepare food. She has further stated that if her statement was not written in Ex.P-4, then she cannot give explanation. She has also stated before the police that she has explained to her daughter that everything will be sort out shortly and how many days they will not allow her to prepare food. She has further stated that if her statement was not written in Ex.P-4, then she cannot give explanation. She has also admitted that accused informed her about death of her daughter. 10. Gaurishankar (PW-8) who has stated that at the time of seizure of bone and ash of the deceased, no doubt was created in the mind and also admitted that father and brother of deceased Kamlabai met at the cremation ground. The witness was declared hostile, therefore, he was cross-examined himself wherein he denied the statement made in the Ex.P-9 and also denied that to save the accused, he was making this statement. The witness was subjected to cross-examination, wherein he had admitted that Jagaru has not made any complainant regarding torture to Kamlabai as he was the head of the community, as such, as per custom a complaint was made to the head of the community. He has also stated that Kamlabai was seriously ill and she was being taken to hospital regularly. 11. Natthuram Dewangan (PW-9) who was cross-examined by the defence has stated that father of the deceased had come to Bilaigarh, wherein he enquired about the health of the deceased from Bhushan and also admitted that when deceased could not recover from the treatment of Bhushan she was taken to government hospital and she was also examined by private doctor. He has also stated that deceased was taken to hospital everyday by rickshaw and motorcycle. He has also admitted that whenever Jagaru come to Bilaigarh he used to meet him and father of the deceased as well as his brother told him that deceased was suffering from illness and there was less chance of her survival. He has also admitted that when Dewangan samaj was going to funeral ground for collecting the ash of the deceased the Ex-Sarpanch has refused to accept the ash when the reason was asked he told that he has called deceased parents for lodging the report. He has also stated that Narshing Dewangan has called the relative of the deceased and sent the vehicle for bringing them. He has also stated that Narshing Dewangan has taken the people to police station. He has also stated that Narshing Dewangan has called the relative of the deceased and sent the vehicle for bringing them. He has also stated that Narshing Dewangan has taken the people to police station. He has also stated that Sarpanch Narshing has created pressure for registration of the case as the accused acted against him in the election. 12. Dr. K.K Gangharv (PW-11) has stated that half burnt bone was sent to him for examination and since it is not possible for him to give any opinion, therefore, he opined to send the same to Forensic Science Laboratory. The opinion given by him is exhibited as Ex.P- 7A. The witness was cross-examined and admitted that during medical examination of the deceased, he has found that the deceased was suffering from three diseases namely clinical malaria, typhoid and bacillary dysentery. He has also stated that he had given treatment to Kamlabai on 29.01.2000 and all the diseases became complicated and because of these diseases the patient became very weak and the whole body suffers from pain, headache and vomiting. He has described the outcome of these diseases in detail. The witness was examined by the Court wherein he has stated that the deceased was not brought before him for further treatment. He was also re-examined by the government pleader wherein he has stated that the patient was recovering up-to 80% as on 10.02.2001 and at that time she was not in a position to succumb to death on account of illness and again was cross-examined by the appellants wherein he has stated that if any complication arises then the diseased becomes complicated. 13. SDO Sujit Kumar (PW-11) has stated that he sent the seized material for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory at Sagar. The witness was cross-examined by the accused wherein he admitted that he had started examination on 01.03.2001 and Umashankar in his statement (Ex.D-1) stated that the deceased was subjected to torture and he has also seen the sign of injury in the chin. The witness has further admitted that Jugaruram has also not stated in Ex.D-2 that husband and in-laws have killed Kamalabai. He has also stated that Jugaru has also not stated that Lomash has told him about the illness of deceased Kamlabai. The witness has further admitted that Jugaruram has also not stated in Ex.D-2 that husband and in-laws have killed Kamalabai. He has also stated that Jugaru has also not stated that Lomash has told him about the illness of deceased Kamlabai. The witness has also stated that in Ex.D-3 Vimla has not told him that Kamlabai’s mother in law has told her that parents of deceased has given less dowry. He has also stated that Vimla has also not said that in-laws have sent the deceased to her parent’s house as she was not suitable for them. He has also stated that she has not told him that there was bleeding on the face of Kamlabai. 14. In nutshell the evidence of Budheshwar Prasad (DW-1) is that the deceased was not satisfied with the treatment which she was getting at Bilaigarh, therefore, she insisted that she be sent to her parental village where she can get herbal treatment so that her illness may be recovered. He has also stated that during treatment she became ill and he was again called in the house of the accused and told them to call her parents and they remained there from 7- 10 days, thereafter on Thursday at about 1.30 PM in the mid night accused Girdhari called him and told him that Kamlabai was serious. Bushan was there, he told him that probably heartbeat of Kamlabia was stopped. He has also stated that parents and relative of the deceased have come from village Kera to Bilaigarh in the morning at about 8.30 AM where Hemlal father of accused has told deceased brother that she was ill, therefore, she expired and if you have doubt you may report to the police and get postmortem of the deceased then only cremation will be done. They remained there half an hour and thereafter went to Bhushan house and after that Jagaru came and told that he has no doubt thereafter only cremation was done. Jagaru, Lomash, mayor of Bilaigarh, Natthu were present there. He again reiterated that as per the custom of the society on the third day, the then Sarpanch has told the accused not to collect the bone and have sent the vehicle to call the relatives of Kamlabai thereafter the report was lodged. He has also narrated the rivalry of Narshing with the accused. He again reiterated that as per the custom of the society on the third day, the then Sarpanch has told the accused not to collect the bone and have sent the vehicle to call the relatives of Kamlabai thereafter the report was lodged. He has also narrated the rivalry of Narshing with the accused. In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that whenever he enquired Kamlabai she was not satisfied with the treatment. 15. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, vide its judgment dated 15.02.2002 has held that when Lomash and Jagaru have told the appellants not to do the cremation then they stopped it, therefore, adverse presumption was drawn against them when deceased’s death is normal death then there is no reason to fear and they should have intimated to police which was short distance from their house but they have shown interest for cremation and also considering that there is injury on the face of the deceased and also considering the statement of Dr. Gandharva (PW-10) has recorded a finding that in suspicious circumstances Kamlabai expired within 7 years of her marriage on 16.02.2001, therefore, as per Section 113 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act presumption should have been drawn against the appellant that the deceased was subjected to torture for dowry thus the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly they were convicted for 10 years as mentioned in paragraph one of the judgment. 16. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction & order of sentence, instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants. During pendency of the appeal, appellant No. 2- Hemlal Dewangan expired on 22.1.2002 as such, the appeal so far as relating to appellant No. 2 is abated. 17. Counsel for the accused/appellants submits that there is nothing on record on the basis of which it could be considered that the victim died in suspicious condition. The evidence on record does not reveal cause of death of the deceased. Therefore, it is not established that the deceased committed suicide. Counsel for the appellants would further submit that from the statement of the prosecution witnesses, it is quite clear that there has never been any demand of dowry on the part of the appellants from the deceased or her family members at any point of time. Therefore, it is not established that the deceased committed suicide. Counsel for the appellants would further submit that from the statement of the prosecution witnesses, it is quite clear that there has never been any demand of dowry on the part of the appellants from the deceased or her family members at any point of time. He would further submit that before the death of deceased, no report was made by the parental members of deceased to the police regarding cruelty or harassment by the appellants to the deceased nor any social meeting was ever convened in this regard. He would further submit that as regards the offence under Section 304B of IPC, the basic ingredients for attracting this offence i.e. soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty, is missing in this case. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of three days and explanation given by the complainant party regarding delay in lodging the FIR is not acceptable. He would further submit that presumption as to dowry death would only get activated upon the proof of the fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry by the accused and that too, in the reasonable contiguity of death. He would further submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; conviction has been ordered on the basis of conjecture and surmises without there being reliable evidence on record proving the guilt of the appellants. He would further submit that the prosecution witness Dr. Gadharv (PW-10) has stated that deceased was suffering from namely clinical malaria, typhoid and bacillary dysentery of acute in nature which may cause reason for death, cannot be ruled out. He would further submit that prosecution has failed to prove the report of FSL which is necessary to find out the cause of death, therefore, appellants are entitled to get benefits of doubt. 18. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment counsel for the State submits that conviction of the accused/appellants is strictly in accordance with law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same warranting interference by this Court. 19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 20. 18. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment counsel for the State submits that conviction of the accused/appellants is strictly in accordance with law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same warranting interference by this Court. 19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 20. On above factual matrix, now this court has to examine whether conviction of the appellants under Section 304(B) IPC is legal, justified and the learned trial Court has rightly draw presumption under Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act for convicting the appellants. 21. For better understanding this issue raised in this case it is expedient for this Court to extract Section 304(B) IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, which are as under:- “304B. 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 purpose 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.] 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 purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in section 304B, of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860).” 22. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in section 304B, of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860).” 22. From bare perusal of Section 304(B) IPC, the following ingredients have to be proved by the prosecution which are as under:- (1) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or fatal injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (2) Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (3) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and (4) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry. 23. From perusal of section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act, it is quite vivid that there must be material to show that soon before death of woman, such woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry then only a presumption can be drawn that a person has committed the dowry death of woman. Thus, this Court has to see from the evidence brought on record by the prosecution whether the ingredients of section 304B IPC and section 113 of the Evidence Act are available on record to bring home the guilt of the appellants. 24. Lomash Kumar (PW-1) who is the brother of the deceased stated in his evidence that his sister’s marriage was solemnized in the year 2000 and after 15 days when he had gone to his sister’s house at Bilaigarh and his sister on query has informed him that she was subjected to cruelty on account of dowry and she worked from left hand. He has also stated that his sister was threatened by the appellants not to disclose it to any one otherwise she will be removed from the house. The witness in his cross examination has stated that at the time of marriage there was no consultation with regard to dowry. He has also stated that the proposal for marriage of his sister was made by the appellants but denying that at the time of marriage a dispute with regard to dowry was raised. He has also admitted that after returning from funeral at 2.00 o’clock till night he has not lodged the report in the police station. 25. He has also stated that the proposal for marriage of his sister was made by the appellants but denying that at the time of marriage a dispute with regard to dowry was raised. He has also admitted that after returning from funeral at 2.00 o’clock till night he has not lodged the report in the police station. 25. Umashankar (PW-2) who has deposed about the cruelty by the appellants as per information given by Lomash Kumar (PW-1). Narshing (PW-3) has also stated about torture by the appellants on the information given by brother of deceased Lomash Kumar (PW-1). The deceased’s father Gujaru (PW-4) has reiterated the story of torture by the appellants and in the cross-examination he has admitted that at the time of marriage no consultation with regard to dowry was done between the appellants and himself. He has also admitted that the deceased came to his house after marriage for the first time and she remained with him for 15 days. He has also stated that when the deceased was in her house no discussion was done. The witnesses have voluntary stated that when the deceased recovered from the illness, she has returned to her village at Kera. Bimla Bai (PW-5) who was living in front of the house of the appellants, has stated that after marriage in the Baishakh 2000, Kamla Bai remained well for some time, subsequently in-laws of the deceased were saying that she brought less dowry and she worked with her left hand therefore, she was not suitable for them. She has stated that Kamla Bai was prevented from preparation of food and her mother-in-law used to throw glass of water if touched by the deceased whereas Kamla Bai filled the water for the house. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that there was no negotiation with regard to dowry. When Kamla Bai remained two months at Bilaigarh she was comfortable and at that time there was no dispute. She has also stated that deceased was his sister-in-laws daughter. She has also stated that after marriage Lomash and Jugaru used to go to Bilaigarh to her daughter’s house and there was no restriction for coming to meet her. She has also admitted that when Lomash has come to Bilaigarh then accused Hemlal has asked how his sister expired then accused has informed him that she vomited thrice there after she expired. She has also admitted that when Lomash has come to Bilaigarh then accused Hemlal has asked how his sister expired then accused has informed him that she vomited thrice there after she expired. She has also stated that appellants have suggested Lomash that dead body is here and if there is any doubt you can lodge the FIR and postmortem can also be done. 26. In the FIR (Ex. P/6) dated 01.03.2001 general allegation of demand of dowry has been levelled against the appellants but nothing specific has been stated against them, no particular dates or specific evidence has been led by the prosecution to establish the fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before the death that too in connection with any demand for dowry. The evidence led by the prosecution has to be of the quality which may establish that harassment was to the extent of resulting in death of the deceased. Mere bald allegation regarding demand of dowry and cruelty of harassment will not suffice the essential ingredients of dowry death. It is also to be considered that in the statement of prosecution witnesses mere negative statement in connection with dowry death has been made, which are insufficient to establish the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt with regard to dowry death though death may be otherwise than normal circumstances. 27. Now coming to the judgment of the trial Court at paragraph-33 wherein the learned trial Court has considered the statement of Umashankar (PW-2) who has stated that in the night prior to eight hours the accused has informed him that deceased was well and all of a sudden she expired and there was injury below the eye, bleeding from the noise, injury on the chin and body was perkingly and the said witness remained un-rebutted in the cross-examination. Similarly, the trial Court has relied upon the evidence of investigating officer who has stated about the injury on the body of the deceased and also considering that the appellants have not waited for registration of FIR and have done the cremation, therefore, he has drawn the presumption against the appellants. Learned trial Court without any cogent evidence brought on record by the prosecution has drawn presumption under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act. Learned trial Court without any cogent evidence brought on record by the prosecution has drawn presumption under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act. Though there is no request of Forensic Science Laboratory still presumption has been drawn by the learned trial court without considering the ingredients of Section 304 B IPC and 113 B of the Evidence Act. As such, finding is perverse, without and material on record and on the basis of perverse finding, the conviction of the appellants deserves to be set aside granting benefit of doubt to them. 28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder & Ors vs State of West Bengal reported in 2008 (1) SCC 202 has held in paragraph 13 and 14 which is as under:- 13. If Section 304 B IPC is read together with Section 113 B of the Evidence Act, a comprehensive picture emerges that if a married woman dies in an unnatural circumstances at her matrimonial home within 7 years from her marriage and there are allegations of cruelty or harassment upon such married woman for or in connection with demand of dowry by the husband or relatives of the husband, the case would squarely come under "dowry death" and there shall be a presumption against the husband and the relatives. 14. In this case we find that there is practically no evidence to show that there was any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry. There is also no finding in that regard. This deficiency in evidence proves fatal for the prosecution case. Even otherwise mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to bring in application of Section 304B IPC. It has to be shown in addition that such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with the demand for dowry. (See: Kanchy Ramchander v. State of A.P. (1996 SCC (Crl.) 31). Since the prosecution failed to prove that aspect, the conviction as recorded cannot be maintained. 29. In the matter of Baijnath and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2017) 1 SCC 101 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: “Mere factum of unnatural death in matrimonial home within seven years of marriage not sufficient to convict accused under Ss. Since the prosecution failed to prove that aspect, the conviction as recorded cannot be maintained. 29. In the matter of Baijnath and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2017) 1 SCC 101 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: “Mere factum of unnatural death in matrimonial home within seven years of marriage not sufficient to convict accused under Ss. 304-B and 498-A and only when prosecution proves beyond doubt that deceased was subjected to cruelty/harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before her death, presumption under S. 113-B can be invoked. In the cited case, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt cruelty or harassment meted out to deceased for dowry demand soon before her death. Alleged demand centred around motorcycle which admittedly did not surface at time of finalisation of marriage, and which demand allegedly lingered on for about two years but no complaint in respect thereof was made to anyone. On the contrary, testimonies of DWs were consistent to the effect that no demand as imputed was ever made nor was there any quarrel over the issue, which was also corroborated by PWs 3 and 7. Besides, benefit in deficiency of proof as to precise cause of death i.e. whether it was homicidal/suicidal, and origin and cause of external injuries would enure to benefit of accused. Prosecution failed to prove crucial ingredient of cruelty and harassment by direct and cogent evidence thereby disentitling itself to benefit of statutory presumption under S. 113-B. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment convicting the appellants was set aside”. 30. Though in the present case, deceased expired admittedly within 7 years of marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances but it appears that no reliable evidence that the appellants have subjected her to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry has been brought on record. Even in absence of any report from Forensic Science Laboratory which may give plausible explanation for causing death of victim has not been placed on record, thus the manner in which the incident occurred raises suspicion against the appellants but it is well settled principle of law that graver the offence is, higher is the degree of proof and the suspicion howsoever strong, cannot take place of proof. In this case the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and being so, the benefit of doubt has to be credited to the appellants, thereby entitling them of acquittal of the charge. 31. From the evidence brought on record by the prosecution it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the cause of death as well as the necessary ingredients to attract Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act i.e. the deceased soon before death was subjected by the appellants to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand of dowry. There was certain bald statement of PW-1, PW-4 & PW-6 alleging that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment prior to her death. There is no other evidence to prove that the victim died on account of cruelty and harassment to which, she was subjected just prior to her death, which in-fact the ingredient of evidence has to be led in respect of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused under Section 304B of IPC. Even the prosecution has not submitted the Forensic report which may assign the reason for death of the deceased. This also gives rise to grant benefit of doubt to the accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar And Others Vs.State Of Uttarakhand And Another reported in 2020 SCC online SC 980 has held that as under:- 67. As already noticed, in this case, apart from the fact that prosecution has not been able to establish that the cause of death was unnatural, the case setup about the demand of Rs. 10 lakhs by accused appears to be riddled with irreconcilable contradictions. Neither the post-mortem nor the Forensic Lab Report shows any poisoning. No poison has been recovered at all from the house of the appellants. There are no marks of injury at all on the deceased. Even the material (wiper) recovered, according to prosecution, and which allegedly was used to clean vomit of the deceased, did not disclose any poison. The statement of Medical Practitioner (DW2) that the deceased was having weight of 39 kilograms and weight below normal as on 11.05.2010 cannot be ignored. There are no marks of injury at all on the deceased. Even the material (wiper) recovered, according to prosecution, and which allegedly was used to clean vomit of the deceased, did not disclose any poison. The statement of Medical Practitioner (DW2) that the deceased was having weight of 39 kilograms and weight below normal as on 11.05.2010 cannot be ignored. Equally, the evidence of DW4 that the Doctor has prescribed medicine for Anaemia because the deceased had told about Tuberculosis earlier also, cannot be ignored. Evidence as to advice to the deceased in 2007 to undergo blood test and the x-ray, to confirm whether TB has totally cured or not and that the patient did not bring any x-ray or blood report, cannot be overlooked. Section 113 B of Evidence Act may not apply in this case for the reason that in order that Section 113 B, there must be evidence that soon before the death of the person, which proves that the person, who is alleged to have caused death, treated the deceased with cruelty or harassed her or in connection with a demand of dowry. We have noticed the state of the evidence in this regard. We are also of the view that there was no justification at all for the High Court, in the facts of this case, to have overturned acquittal by the Trial Court. 32. In view of the discussion made above and keeping in view the above cited judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the conviction of the appellant No. 1 & 3 under Section 304B read with 34 of IPC cannot be sustained in absence of any evidence to show that the deceased has succumbed to death because of dowry harassment. Hence, the conviction of the appellants under Section 304B read with 34 of IPC is liable to be set-aside and they are entitled to be acquitted of the said charge giving them benefit of doubt. 33. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants No. 1 & 3 under Section 304B read with 34 of IPC is set aside and they are acquitted of the said charge. The appellant No. 1 & 3 are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall continue for a period of six months from today in view of the provisions of Section 437A of Cr.P.C.