ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The State of Jharkhand has challenged the judgment of acquittal in S.T Case No. 277 of 2008/S.T Case No. 53 of 2009 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Singhbhum East at Jamshedpur. 2. Satya Narayan Agarwal who is the informant of Mango PS Case No. 96 of 2008 has preferred Criminal Revision No. 854 of 2010 challenging the judgment passed in the aforesaid sessions trials. 3. On 3rd April 2008, the fardbeyan of Satya Narayan Agarwal who is the father of Babita Agarwal was recorded by B.L. Das who was posted as ASI, Police Camp at T.M.H. On that basis, a First Information Report was lodged against Naresh Chaudhary who is the father-in-law, Sulochana Chaudhary who is the mother-in-law, Akhilesh Chaudhary who is the brother-in-law and Manish Kumar Chaudhary who is the husband of Babita Agarwal for committing dowry death in prosecution of the criminal conspiracy and for causing disappearance of her dead body. 4. Initially a charge-sheet was laid against Manish Kumar Chaudhary and on that basis S.T Case No. 277 of 2008 was registered against him. Later on, Naresh Chaudhary, Sulochana Chaudhary and Akhilesh Chaudhary were also put on trial pursuant to charge-sheet no. 122 of 2008 and, accordingly, S.T Case No. 53 of 2009 was registered. Both the sessions trials were amalgamated and a common charge under sections 304-B/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) was framed against the accused persons who denied the charge and claimed trial. 5. During the trial, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses out of whom PW1 Shanti Devi, PW2 Mamta Bageria, PW3 Mukesh Kumar Agarwal, PW4 Mulchand Bidoliya and PW5 Satya Narayan Agarwal are the close relatives of the victim woman. 6. The defence set-up by the accused persons is of false implication and they have denied demand of dowry and ill-treatment of Babita Agarwal at their hands. 7. The trial Court has held as under: “16. From the perusal of the record, statements of the witnesses and after hearing of both the parties, considering all the facts, circumstances and the evidence on record. 7. The trial Court has held as under: “16. From the perusal of the record, statements of the witnesses and after hearing of both the parties, considering all the facts, circumstances and the evidence on record. It appears that though the prosecution has been able to prove that the death of the daughter of the informant had occurred within 7 years of her marriage with the accused Manish Kumar and the death had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstance, but the prosecution has failed to establish that soon before death she was subjected to curelty or harassment by the accused persons or their relatives for or in connection with any demand of dowry. 18. Accordingly, on the basis of above discussion come to this conclusion that the prosecution could not establish the charges leveled against the accused persons beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt always goes in favour of the accused. As such the accused Manish Kumar Chaudhary, Akhilesh Chaudhary, Naresh Chaudhary, Sulochana Chaudhary are hereby acquitted from the charges leveled against them u/s 304B/34, 201/34 of the IPC. The accused Manish Kumar Chaudhary, Naresh Kumar Chaudhary, Sulochana Chaudhary are in custody. So, they are set forth at their liberty forthwith, if they are not required to be detained in connection with other case. Issue R/O. So, far as the other accused Akhilesh Chaudhary is concerned, he is on bail so he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds. Sureties are discharged.” 8. The trial Court has scrutinized the testimony of PW5 and other related witnesses and recorded a finding that PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 could not give the date when dowry was given to the accused persons and they have stated in the Court that the amount of dowry was kept in the house. The trial Court has referred to fardbeyan of PW5 and with reference to the statement made by him that his daughter was treated well in her matrimonial home for about 2½ months formed an opinion that after September 2007 the accused persons started demanding dowry and caused ill-treatment and torture of Babita Agarwal. The trial Court has referred to fardbeyan of PW5 and with reference to the statement made by him that his daughter was treated well in her matrimonial home for about 2½ months formed an opinion that after September 2007 the accused persons started demanding dowry and caused ill-treatment and torture of Babita Agarwal. The trial Court has recorded a finding that the statement of PW3 in paragraph no.5 of his examination-in-chief completely falsified the statement made by PW5 in the fardbeyan that Babita Agarwal asked him for bidayee as soon as possible otherwise her life would be in danger. The trial Court has further recorded that there is no evidence that the accused persons were aggrieved on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry nor is there any evidence on harassment or torture of Babita Agarwal in connection to demand of dowry. 9. The aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court have been challenged by the State of Jharkhand on the ground that PW3 and PW5 have made specific allegations of demand of dowry as late as on 28th March 2008. 10. The evidence of the related witnesses is that the information about demand of dowry and her harassment and torture in connection thereof by the accused persons was given to them by Babita Agarwal. Therefore, the statements made by these witnesses about demand of dowry and harassment and torture of Babita Agarwal at the hands of the respondents is hearsay and not admissible in evidence. It is well-remembered that the law regarding admissibility of hearsay evidence is almost absolute and except under the circumstances as provided under section 6, section 8 and section 32 of the Evidence Act hearsay evidence cannot be looked into to record a finding of guilt against the accused person. Babita Agarwal is not alive and therefore her statement allegedly made before the related witnesses cannot be tested through cross-examination. Babita Agarwal is not alive and therefore her statement allegedly made before the related witnesses cannot be tested through cross-examination. Had Babita Agarwal herself made a statement before the police before her death, that could have been saved under section 32 of the Evidence Act which provides that statements, written or verbal made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, are relevant fact when it relates to cause of death. 11. Moreover, the statements of PW3 and PW5 taken together create a serious doubt on the prosecution story that the respondents on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry had been causing various acts of harassment and ill-treatment to Babita Agarwal soon before her death. None of the related witnesses has given any detail of demand of dowry nor is there any evidence how the alleged payments by PW5 were made to the respondents. In her cross-examination, PW1 has stated that Tarachand who is the maternal grandfather of her son-in-law has informed her that Babita Agarwal has jumped from the rooftop. She has further admitted that she did not make any enquiry from the neighbours or the security guard of Sky Land Towers where her daughter was residing with her husband. She has also admitted in her cross-examination that she did not tell the police that she had seen blood marks on the stairs on the date of occurrence. Rather, she has stated that she had gone to the place of occurrence after two days. PW5 has stated in his cross-examination that even after he received information about ill-treatment of his daughter he did not visit Jamshedpur for making enquiries. He has further stated that after the marriage he had visited the matrimonial home of his daughter on three occasions but he never made any complaint to his relatives about ill-treatment of his daughter. 12. In our opinion what completely demolishes the prosecution's case is the statement made by PW5 in paragraph no. 32 of his cross-examination, that before death of his daughter he had no complaint against the respondents. 13. 12. In our opinion what completely demolishes the prosecution's case is the statement made by PW5 in paragraph no. 32 of his cross-examination, that before death of his daughter he had no complaint against the respondents. 13. No doubt the menace of dowry death has raised serious concerns and that is the reason through the Act No. 43 of 1986 a new offence of dowry death has been created and incorporated as section 304-B in the Indian Penal Code. Simultaneously, the Legislature has incorporated new provisions in section 113-B through the Act No. 43 of 1986 in the Indian Evidence Act 1872. Notwithstanding the legislative intendment, this Court is required to examine the judgment of acquittal of the respondents as recorded in S.T Case No. 277 of 2008/S.T Case No. 53 of 2009 which in our opinion does not suffer from any infirmity in law. 14. The essential ingredients for constituting the offence under section 304-B IPC are that (i) death within 7 years of marriage, (ii) death otherwise than under normal circumstances and (iii) soon before her death the woman was subjected to ill-treatment in connection to demand of dowry. 15. Therefore, in a trial for prosecution under section 304-B IPC the prosecution is obliged to prove such facts which would conclusively establish the aforementioned essential ingredients for constituting the offence under section 304-B IPC. In the present case, the prosecution has proved that Babita Agarwal has died within 7 years of her marriage with Manish Kumar Chaudhary. The prosecution has also been able to establish that Babita Agarwal has died an unnatural death. 16. As PW6, Dr. Lallan Chaudhary has tendered an opinion in the Court that the injuries found over the dead body of Babita Agarwal is possible if somebody jumps from height of 5th or 6th floor of the building. The learned counsel for the accused-respondents has contended that a commonsensical approach to see the prosecution story would prompt to think that if there was a fight and Babita Agarwal was pushed from the rooftop of the apartment then it is highly improbable that no one could have seen the occurrence which has happened in broad daylight. 17. The learned counsel for the accused-respondents has contended that a commonsensical approach to see the prosecution story would prompt to think that if there was a fight and Babita Agarwal was pushed from the rooftop of the apartment then it is highly improbable that no one could have seen the occurrence which has happened in broad daylight. 17. No doubt multiple injuries have been detected on the dead body of Babita Agarwal; she has died within one year of her marriage and; there is a reference of Babita Agarwal making complaints to her brother and parents about her ill-treatment at the hands of the respondents. However, the prosecution has failed to establish that soon before her death Babita Agarwal was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment in connection to demand of dowry. 18. Mr. Yogesh Modi, the learned counsel for the revisionist has drawn our attention to paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the examination-in-chief of PW3 whereunder the witness has stated as under: ^^4- cgu fQj dgrh Fkh fd iSlk ugha nsus ij ;s yksx ekjrs ihVrs rax rckg djrs gSaA iSlk nsus ds ckn lksuq pkS/kjh firk th ls cksys fd ;g ckr ?kj ls ckgj ugha tkuh pkfg;sA esjs firk cgu dk llqjky okyksa dks le>k cq>k dj ?kj vk x;sA nqckjk iPpkl gtkj :i;k ds fy;s rax rckg djus yxsA 5- eSa 28 ekpZ 2008 dks cgu dks ysus mldk llqjky x;kA eSa fcnkbZ ds fy;s dgk rks oks yksx cksys fd vHkh xuxkSj iqtk py jgk gSA oks yksx cgu dk fcnkbZ ugha fn;kA oks yksx cksys fd ukS vizSy dks ysus vkb;sA eSa okil 29 ekpZ dks vk;kA fnukad 3-4-08 lwpuk eksckbZy ls rkjk pUn /kkSyh;k yM+dk dk ukuk fn;s fd cgu flढ+h ls fxj x;h gS vkSj uktqd fLFkfr esa Vh-,e-,p- esa HkrhZ fd;k x;k gSA lwpuk ikdj geyksx ogk¡ Vh-,e-,p- esa igq¡psA Vh-,e-,p- esa irk pyk fd cgu dk mij ls fxjus ds dkj.k e`R;q gks x;k gSA^^ English Translation: “4. The sister repeatedly stated that they used to assault and treat her badly. After payment of money, Sonu Choudhary told my father that these facts should not go out of the four walls of house. My father returned after counseling the family members of in-laws house of my sister. They again began to torture her for fifty thousand rupees. 5. The sister repeatedly stated that they used to assault and treat her badly. After payment of money, Sonu Choudhary told my father that these facts should not go out of the four walls of house. My father returned after counseling the family members of in-laws house of my sister. They again began to torture her for fifty thousand rupees. 5. I went to the matrimonial house of my sister on 28th March, 2008 to bring her. I asked them for her Bidayee (valediction) but they replied that the Gangour Pooja is going on. They did not do Bidayee (valediction) of my sister. They asked me to come on 9th April to take her. I returned on 29th March. Tara Chand Dhauliya, the maternal grandfather of boy, informed by telephone on 3.4.08 that my sister fell down from the stair and she was admitted in T.M.H. in serious condition. After receiving information, we went to T.M.H. We came to know at T.M.H. that my sister died as she fell down from rooftop.” 19. In the aforesaid evidence of PW3, it can be seen that none of the respondents has made any demand of dowry from PW3. However, Mr. Yogesh Modi would contend that since the death has occurred within 5 days of the demand of dowry an inference can be drawn that Babita Agarwal has died on account of her ill-treatment in connection to demand of dowry soon before her death. But the fact remains that on the basis of inadmissible evidence no such inference can be drawn by the Court to hold the respondents guilty of dowry death. In fact, in cross-examination of the related witnesses the defence has been able to elicit such statements which probablises the defence story that PW5 had no capacity to pay; Babita Agarwal was well treated in her matrimonial home; she was under depression on account of miscarriage of her pregnancy and; she was taken to a doctor by the respondents for treatment. Even the prosecution's own witnesses have not supported the allegation of demand of dowry by the respondents. PW7 and PW8 have deposed in the Court that they never heard any quarrel in the house of Babita Agarwal. PW7 has further stated that Babita Agarwal had jumped from the rooftop. 20. Even the prosecution's own witnesses have not supported the allegation of demand of dowry by the respondents. PW7 and PW8 have deposed in the Court that they never heard any quarrel in the house of Babita Agarwal. PW7 has further stated that Babita Agarwal had jumped from the rooftop. 20. In “Javed Masood v. State of Rajasthan” (2010) 3 SCC 538 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the evidence of witness who was not declared hostile by the prosecution would be binding on the prosecution. In paragraph no.19 of the judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “19. ...The testimony of Mohammad Ayub (PW 6) cannot easily be surmounted by the prosecution. He has testified in clear terms that PWs 5, 13 and 14 were not present at the scene of occurrence. It is not known as to why the public prosecutor in the trial court failed to seek permission of the court to declare him “hostile”. His evidence is binding on the prosecution as it is. …” 21. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish one of the essential ingredients for constituting the offence under section 304-B IPC and while so, acquittal of the respondents by the trial Court of the charge of causing dowry death of Babita Agarwal does not warrant interference by this Court. 22. While so, Acquittal Appeal No. 17 of 2010 is dismissed. 23. Consequently, Criminal Revision No. 854 of 2010 is also dismissed. 24. Let the lower Court records be transmitted to the Court concerned, forthwith. 25. Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned through FAX.