JUDGMENT : ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. 1. The instant Appeal has been filed by the appellants-accused persons against the judgment dated 16.12.2004, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 236 of 2000, State vs. Manoj Kumar Chamoli and Others, whereby, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304B, 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC; they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and, they have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1961”). All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidence on record is that the deceased Smt. Sudha was married with Ved Prakash Chamoli on 14.04.2000. The parents of the deceased had given domestic articles according to their capacity, but, after the marriage, the appellant Manoj Kumar Chamoli, brother-in-law (Devar) and the appellant Smt. Pushpa Chamoli, sister-in-law (Nanad) demanded scooter and color TV. She was being harassed and tortured on that pretext. The deceased Smt. Sudha informed about her harassment to her mother, however, her mother did not tell these things to her husband because they have two other un-married daughters. The deceased also reported about the harassment to her younger sister and informed her that the accused Manoj Kumar Chamoli and Smt. Pushpa Chamoli will kill her. Informant Guru Prasad Bijalwan, (P.W.1), father of the deceased, was informed that his daughter had committed suicide. His son-in-law and family members did not give any information about the incident. Appellant Manoj Kumar Chamoli had illicit relationship with his tenant Smt. Veenu Verma. The deceased asked the husband of Smt. Veenu Verma regarding the illicit relationship of his wife with the appellant Manoj Kumar Chamoli and asked them to vacate the house. After this allegation, Smt. Veenu Verma consumed poison but somehow she survived. However, they vacated the house on 30.06.2000, but, the illicit relationship between Smt. Veenu Verma and the appellant Manoj Kumar Chamoli continued. After this allegation, Smt. Veenu Verma consumed poison but somehow she survived. However, they vacated the house on 30.06.2000, but, the illicit relationship between Smt. Veenu Verma and the appellant Manoj Kumar Chamoli continued. The deceased was obstacle between their relationship. Appellant Manoj Kumar Chamoli harassed the deceased on account of dowry as well as illicit relations. Appellants along with Ved Prakash Chamoli, the husband of the deceased, and Smt. Veenu Verma killed his daughter on 20.07.2000 and showing as it is the case of the suicide. With the said allegations, (P.W.1) Guru Prasad Bijalwan lodged the chick FIR (Ext.Ka.12) through his written report (Ext.Ka1) dated 22.07.2000. Inquest proceedings and post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 21.07.2000. The First Information Report was registered on 22.07.2000. P.W.7. Anil Kumar Yadav, the Circle Officer, Rishikesh conducted the investigation of the case. The investigation was transferred to Mr. K.K. Gautam, the Circle Officer of Police. Charge-sheet (Ext. K17) was filed against the present appellants along with Mr. Ved Prakash Chamoli and Smt. Veenu Verma. 3. The case was committed to Court of Session. Appellant Mr. Manoj Kumar Chamoli, Smt. Pushpa Chamoli along with Mr. Ved Prakash Chamoli, the husband of the deceased, were charged for the offence under Section 304 B, 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Act, 1961. Smt. Veenu Verma was charged for the offence under Section 120B IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution in order to establish the charges, examined altogether ten witnesses. 5. The statements, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. 6. Learned Trial Court heard arguments, appreciated his evidence on record and held that the prosecution has been successful to prove its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts, whereas, learned Trial Court held that the prosecution has not been successful to prove its case against Ved Prakash Chamoli, the husband of the deceased, and, Smt. Veenu Verma beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore, these two persons were acquitted. 7. Heard Mr. Ramji Shrivastava, learned counsel for appellants and Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. B.S. Thind, learned Brief Holder for the State, and, perused the record. 8. Mr. 7. Heard Mr. Ramji Shrivastava, learned counsel for appellants and Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. B.S. Thind, learned Brief Holder for the State, and, perused the record. 8. Mr. Ramji Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the appellants have been implicated in this matter; appellants were Devar and Nanad of the deceased and they had no concern with the personal life of the deceased; the husband of the deceased has been acquitted and no appeal has been filed by the State against the said acquittal; the alleged incident took place on 20.07.2000; the First Information Report was lodged on 22.07.2000; there is no satisfactorily explanation about this delay; at the time of the inquest proceedings, the father of the deceased was present there, but, he did not say anything about the demand of dowry; after well thought and consultation, the informant set up a dowry story of demand of dowry; no external injury was found on the dead body of the deceased; the conviction is based only on the testimony of the interest witnesses, who are the blood relatives of the deceased; there are several contradictions which are found in the statement of the prosecution’s witnesses; the deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself with ceiling fan, however, there are no evidence against the appellants; the relations between the deceased and the members of the family of the husband are cordial which is apparent from the perusal of the evidence of the father of the deceased; the Trial Court wrongly interpreted the evidence. 9. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment. However, he fairly conceded that the State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of Ved Prakash Chamoli, the husband of the deceased and Smt. Veenu Verma. 10. I have carefully assessed the evidence, adduced by the prosecution. 11. 9. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment. However, he fairly conceded that the State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of Ved Prakash Chamoli, the husband of the deceased and Smt. Veenu Verma. 10. I have carefully assessed the evidence, adduced by the prosecution. 11. Section 304B IPC lays down that 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 the death of the woman she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death” and her husband or his relatives shall be deemed to have caused for death. 12. The ingredients for dowry death are: (i) There is a married lady. (ii) She has died unnatural death including death by burns or by bodily injury or by poisoning etc. (iii) Such a death has occurred within seven years of the marriage. (iv) It must be found that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with any demand for dowry by her husband or any of his relatives. 13. The provisions of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 enjoin upon the court to draw presumption of dowry death on proof of circumstances mentioned therein. The presumption shall be raised only on the proof of the following ingredients: (i) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (ii) The woman was subjected cruelly or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (iii) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. (iv) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death. 14. In Mustafa Shahdal Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2013 SC 851 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “soon before her death” means interval between cruelty and death should not much. There must be existence of a proximate and links between the affect of cruelty based on the dowry demand and the concerned death. 14. In Mustafa Shahdal Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2013 SC 851 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “soon before her death” means interval between cruelty and death should not much. There must be existence of a proximate and links between the affect of cruelty based on the dowry demand and the concerned death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become state enough not to disturb of the woman concerned, it would be no consequence. 15. The ingredients of the offence under Section 304B IPC are well settled. A marriage performed within seven years before the death of the woman. The death must be unnatural. Soon before the death, the deceased must have been at the receiving hand cruelty or harassment, on account of demand for dowry. It is described as dowry death. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act comes to the rescue of the prosecutor by providing for a presumption that a person has caused dowry death, if it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected by such person for cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand for dowry. There should be a nexus between the death of the deceased and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. 16. In Monju Roy and Others vs. State of West Bengal, 2015 (4) SCC 1786, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed, “The court has to adopt pragmatic view and when a girl dies an unnatural death, allegation of demand of dowry or harassment which follows cannot be weighed in golden scales. At the same time, omnibus allegation against all family members particularly against brothers and sisters and other relatives do not stand on same footing as husband and parents.” 17. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate General, fairly conceded that State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of Ved Prakash Chamoli (husband) and Smt. Veenu Verma. 18. In the present case, the death of the deceased was otherwise than under natural circumstances and she had died within seven years from the date of marriage are not in dispute. Apart from this, the fact, which also has to be ascertained, is, whether the deceased was subjected to the cruelty, and, the said cruelty was soon before her death in respect of demand of dowry. Apart from this, the fact, which also has to be ascertained, is, whether the deceased was subjected to the cruelty, and, the said cruelty was soon before her death in respect of demand of dowry. This Court has to see whether death of Smt. Sudha occurring within seven years of marriage is due to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry and whether there is a reasonable nexus between the alleged harassment and death. 19. PW-1 Informant, Guru Prasad Bijalwan is the father of the deceased. He has deposed that his daughter Sudha was married with one Ved Prakash Chamoli on 14.04.2000. His son-in-law was residing with his younger brother Manoj Kumar Chamoli and his younger sister Km. Pushpa Chamoli. They had two stories house. They used to live in the upper floor and tenant Smt. Veenu Verma used to live in the lower floor. He (PW1) used to visit their house regularly. On 07.06.2000, her daughter came to her house along with her husband and other relatives. He used to visit his daughter Sudha’s house every Sunday till 09.07.2000. Her daughter Sudha told him that her brother-in-law (Devar) was having an illicit relationship with the tenant Smt. Veenu Verma. In this regard, Manoj Kumar Chamoli had written a seven page letter to his daughter (deceased) that he and Smt. Veenu Verma are having illicit relations. He (PW1) had complained to his daughter’s in-laws. They had said that they would oust Smt. Veenu Verma from the house. Whenever, he (PW1) met his daughter Sudha two or three times, she informed that her brother-in-law Manoj Kumar Chamoli and sister- in-law Pushpa Chamoli harass her. Pushpa Chamoli asks to bring a color TV and Manoj Kumar Chamoli asks to bring a scooter. He (PW1) asked her daughter to buy a Black & White Television and had promised to pay money for it. On 09.07.2000, Sudha had come to his house. Thereafter, he got information that his daughter has committed suicide. 20. PW-2 Smt. Sarojani is the mother of the deceased. She has stated that her daughter told her that her sister-in-law and brother-in-law were harassing her. Her sister-in-law says that TV has not been given and her brother-in-law says that he had not been given anything. 21. PW-3 Mohan Lal is Guru Prasad Bijalwan’s (PW1) cousin. 20. PW-2 Smt. Sarojani is the mother of the deceased. She has stated that her daughter told her that her sister-in-law and brother-in-law were harassing her. Her sister-in-law says that TV has not been given and her brother-in-law says that he had not been given anything. 21. PW-3 Mohan Lal is Guru Prasad Bijalwan’s (PW1) cousin. He deposed that he had gone to Sudha’s in-laws house once or twice to meet her. She once complained to him that her in-laws demanded a scooter, television and fridge. 22. PW-4 Km. Kaushalya is the younger sister of the deceased. She has stated that her sister Sudha told her that her sister-in-law is demanding a color TV and brother- in-law is demanding a scooter. She (PW4) stayed at her sister’s house for a week, during which only the tenant- Smt. Veenu Verma quarreled with her sister (deceased), and, no one else quarreled with her sister (deceased). Her sister had told her that Smt. Veenu Verma (tenant) keeps quarreling. PW-4 further deposed that she (deceased) was also upset because of the illicit relationship between her brother-in-law and Smt. Veenu Verma (tenant). 23. PW-5 S.I. Laxmi Chand and PW-9 Constable Bhaskara Nand are witness of inquest proceedings. 24. PW-6 Constable Pradip Pandey is the scriber of the First Information Report (Ext.Ka.12). 25. PW-7 Anil Kumar Yadav, Circle Officer of the Police, is the Investigating Officer. 26. P.W-8. Dr. Ajay Sharma proved the post- mortem report (Ext.Ka.16). According to Dr. Ajay Sharma, following anti-mortem injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased: Ligature mark 24 cm x 1.5 cm, round the neck. Ligature mark was going from the lower part of the jaw to both sides of the neck. The margins of ligature marks were abraded. 27. According to PW-8. Dr. Ajay Sharma, there were no other injuries on other part of the body. On internal examination, it was found that the membranes of the brain were congested. Respiratory canal was also congested. Lungs were also congested. There was semi digest food in the abdomen. PW-8 Dr. Ajay Sharma stated that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to anti-mortem hanging. According to PW-8 Dr. Ajay Sharma, the death of the deceased was not possible by way of strangulation. 28. Respiratory canal was also congested. Lungs were also congested. There was semi digest food in the abdomen. PW-8 Dr. Ajay Sharma stated that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to anti-mortem hanging. According to PW-8 Dr. Ajay Sharma, the death of the deceased was not possible by way of strangulation. 28. Investigation of this case was transferred from Anil Kumar Yadav (PW 7) to K.K. Gautam, Circle Officer of Police, by whom, charge sheet was filed after completion of investigation. 29. PW-10 Head Constable Rakesh Chand proved K.K. Gautam’s signature on the charge-sheet (Ext.Ka.17). 30. It is not disputed that the deceased-Smt. Sudha, the daughter of informant-Guru Prasad Bijalwan (PW1), got married to Ved Prakash Chamoli on 14.04.2000. The First Information Report (Ext.Ka-12) was lodged against Ved Prakash Chamoli (husband), Manoj Kumar Chamoli, brother-in-law (Devar) (appellant), Smt. Pushpa Chamoli, sister-in-law (Nanad) (appellant) of the deceased & one Smt. Veenu Verma, the tenant of Manoj Kumar Chamoli and further fact that the deceased died in her matrimonial house on 20.07.2000 under the unnatural circumstances is also not disputed. Charge-sheet was filed against Manoj Kumar Chamoli, Ved Prakash Chamoli, Smt. Pushpa Chamoli and Smt. Veenu Verma. Learned Trial Court has acquitted Ved Prakash Chamoli (husband) of the charge under Sections 304B IPC, 498A IPC & Section 4 of the Act, 1961 and Smt. Veenu Verma has been acquitted of the charge under Section 120B IPC. 31. PW1 Guru Prasad Bijalwan, father of the deceased, deposed that neither any dowry was settled at the time of marriage nor the accused persons asked for anything. He has stated that he had given a statement to the Investigating Officer that Sudha had not told him about the demand for color television and scooter. She had told her mother about the said demand. PW2 Smt. Sarojani, mother of the deceased, has stated that Sudha had told her that her sister-in-law had said that she did not even give TV while everyone is getting TV in marriage and her brother-in-law had said that nowadays everyone is giving, she (PW2) did not give anything. She had told her mother about the said demand. PW2 Smt. Sarojani, mother of the deceased, has stated that Sudha had told her that her sister-in-law had said that she did not even give TV while everyone is getting TV in marriage and her brother-in-law had said that nowadays everyone is giving, she (PW2) did not give anything. PW4 Kaushalya, sister of the deceased, has deposed in her examination-in-chief that her mother was also present when Sudha told her (PW4) about the said demand, whereas she had given statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that she (PW4) was alone when Sudha told her about the said demand. PW1 Guru Prasad Bijalwan has stated that Sudha used to write diary but nothing is written in her diary that color TV was demanded by her sister-in-law or scooter was demanded by her brother-in-law. 32. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, submitted that the case of the prosecution is that the appellants harassed the deceased and thereby, they with their cruel behavior, abated the deceased to commit suicide. 33. Abatement involves in a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally adding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or add in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Abatement requires an active act or direct act which led deemed to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased to such a position that she committed suicide. 34. Instigation includes provoke insight or encourage to do “an act” to satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that affect, yet a reasonable certainty to insight the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. 35. In this instant appeal, no positive evidence has been produced by the prosecution that the appellants had by their acts or omission or by their conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. 36. 35. In this instant appeal, no positive evidence has been produced by the prosecution that the appellants had by their acts or omission or by their conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. 36. In Bhagwan Singh and Others vs. State of M.P. (2002) 4 SCC 85 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other of his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. 37. It is also a basic rule of the criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however, strong cannot take place of proof. In Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 3817 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that “may be” proved, and something that “will be proved.” In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between “may be true” and “must be true” must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. 38. In a criminal case, the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, are fully established. Something more than mere suspicion is needed to convict the accused. The prosecution has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassed by the appellants for or in connection with any demand of dowry. In order to presume the dowry death, it is a condition precedent that there must be unimpeachable evidence in relation to dowry demand. The prosecution has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassed by the appellants for or in connection with any demand of dowry. In order to presume the dowry death, it is a condition precedent that there must be unimpeachable evidence in relation to dowry demand. But, the evidence on record do not support the prosecution story. The circumstances of this case are not sufficient to connect the appellants with alleged offence. No offence under Section 304B IPC or Section 498A IPC or Section 4 of the Act, 1961 is made out as there is no material on record to show that the appellants had subjected the deceased to cruelty. As per evidence on record, there is no positive and cogent evidence about demand of dowry, and, nexus between demand of dowry and harassment could not be established. Therefore, conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. 39. On a detailed examination and scrutiny of the evidence, produced by the prosecution, it is considered view of this Court that the prosecution has failed to establish the commission of alleged offence by the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore, they deserve benefit of doubt. 40. As a result, this Court accepts the case of the appellants. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 41. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.12.2004, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 236 of 2000, State vs. Manoj Kumar Chamoli and Others, is hereby set aside. Both the appellants are acquitted of the charge under Sections 304B IPC, 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Act, 1961. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 42. Appellants, Manoj Kumar Chamoli alias Sonu and Smt. Pushpa Chamoli, are directed to make compliance of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 within six weeks from the date of this judgment by appearing before the court concerned and execute a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.