JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.11.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, Dist-Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.460/2002 whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants and sentenced as under :- Conviction Sentence U/s 498-A of IPC R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. U/s 306 of IPC R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. U/s 304 B of IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the marriage has been solemnized between the appellant Santosh Kumar and deceased-Mongara Bai on 01-05-2001 with all hindu rituals. After marriage, Santosh Kumar (husband), Madanlal (father-in-law) and Rameshwari Bai (mother-in-law) of deceased-Mongara were pressurizing for demand of dowry. Apart from that, demand of motorcycle, television, cooler, bed etc were also demanded. Appellant Santosh Kumar again demanded of Rs.20,000/ to 25,000/- from the father of deceased Mongara, when he refused to give money then after 2-3 days, deceased Mongara committed suicide in the intervening night of 26-27 of August, 2002 and her dead body was found into the well. Merg information was given by Madanlal (father-in-law) of deceased Mograbai to the police of Police Station-Jaijaipur, Dist: Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Thereafter, the First Information Report was registered by the police. On receiving the said information, police reached the spot and lodged merg intimation. Spot map was prepared as Ex.P-9. Panchnama of dead body was done as Ex-P-7 and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. Invitation card of marriage as Ex.P-3 was also seized. After due investigation, the accused persons were arrested for the offence committed under Section 306, 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses. The statement of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03-11-2003, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03-11-2003, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the learned trial Court has believed the evidence of close relatives of deceased i.e. father, brother without going through complete contradictory statements, which shows the concocted story of the prosecution case. The Court below has absolutely believed to the statements made by witnesses who has improved too much from statements given under Section 161 and the judgment is given on presumption. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is illegal and arbitrary, which deserves to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 8. Father of the deceased Bahoran Sahu (PW-3), brother of the deceased Manoj Kumar (PW-6), distant relative of the deceased Lakhan Lal Sahu (PW-14), relative uncle of the deceased Sini Prasad Sahu (PW-1) ) as well as the brother-in-law of the appellant Santosh, Jaikaran (PW-5), sister of the appellant Santosh, Teras Bai (PW-7), witness of mortuary panchnama Ex.P-7, Manharan Lal Sahu (PW-15), neighbor Prasad Ram ( PW-8), Ramkumar Chandra (PW-9) etc. have all stated that the dead body of the deceased Mongrabai was found in the well of Ramkumar Chandra (PW-9) adjacent to the house of the appellants, which was pulled out by barbed wire. Sub-Inspector Prithviraj Kumar Singh (PW-16) has asked to prepare Panchnama Ex.P-7 of the dead body on 28/08/2002 and send it for autopsy. 9. Dr. K.L. Oraon (PW-2) and Dr. Mrs. Shashiprabha Banjare (PW-11) after examining Mongrabai's dead body on 28/08/2002, asked to give report Ex.P-5, according to which no external injury was found in the body. And Mongrabai died due to suffocation due to drowning in water, which was suicidal in nature. There has been no challenge to this test report and opinion. Dr. K.L. Oraon (PW-2) and Dr. Mrs. Shashiprabha Banjare (PW-11) after examining Mongrabai's dead body on 28/08/2002, asked to give report Ex.P-5, according to which no external injury was found in the body. And Mongrabai died due to suffocation due to drowning in water, which was suicidal in nature. There has been no challenge to this test report and opinion. In this way, prima facie it has been established that Mongrabai died due to drowning in a well adjacent to her in-laws house in village-Nandeli, in a otherwise than under normal circumstances death and whose nature has been described as suicidal. Due to drowning in the well attached to the house, it happened in a different manner than natural death and whose nature has been established that Magrabai's death has been described as suicide. 10. As per the prosecution case, the marriage of Mongrabai with the appellant Santosh is stated to have taken place on 01.05.2001. In relation to the appellant Santosh, brother-in-law Jaikaran (PW-5) has confirmed this date in his evidence and said that Santosh's sister was married to him on the same day on which the marriage of the appellant Santosh took place. In the case, the invitation for the marriage of the appellant Santosh and Mongrabai has been seized as Ex.P-2 and its envelope as Ex.P-3. According to which the fact is confirmed that their marriage was solemnized on 01/05/2001. It has not even been disputed. It is also accepted fact that father of appellant Santosh is appellant Madanlal Sahu and mother is appellant Rameshwari Bai alias Ishwari Bai. Thus, the appellants are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased Mongrabai. Mongrabai died in the incident on the intervening night of 27 and 28/08/2002. Thus, from the date of marriage 01/05/2001, he died after 01 year and about 04 months. In this way, the fact has been proved that within 07 years of marriage, Mongrabai died due to drowning in the water of the well in her in-laws village-Nandeli, in a otherwise than under normal circumstances. 11. The appellants have been convicted under sections 304B, 306 and 498-A of the IPC. In this way, the fact has been proved that within 07 years of marriage, Mongrabai died due to drowning in the water of the well in her in-laws village-Nandeli, in a otherwise than under normal circumstances. 11. The appellants have been convicted under sections 304B, 306 and 498-A of the IPC. It would be appropriate to refer to the provision of the said offense which is as under:- “304-B - (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. “306 - Abetment of suicide- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. “498-A - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.” 12. This fact has been proved from the previous evidence discussion that within 7 years of marriage, Mongrabai died due to suffocation due to drowning of water from the well, in a otherwise than under normal circumstances. In that case, it would be appropriate to mention the legal presumption. 13. The presumption regarding dowry death is stated in Section 113-B Indian Evidence Act which is as follows:- “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 had 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” 14. The presumption regarding suicide by abetment of a married woman has been stated in Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act which is as follows:- Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman - “When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.” 15. On the basis of the aforesaid presumptions, it has to be seen first of all whether just before the death of Mongrabai, as per the prosecution case, she was being tortured by demanding dowry and assaulting her? 16. Important witnesses in this regard are father of deceased Bahoran Sahu (PW-3), brother of deceased Manoj Kumar (PW-6), distant relative of deceased Lakhan Lal Sahu (PW-14), uncle of deceased Sini Prasad Sahu (PW-1) whose statement is under consideration. 17. Bahoran Sahu (PW-3), the father of the deceased, has stated in his court statement that after marriage, during the festival of Rakshabandhan and in between, when his daughter Mongrabai used to come to her maternal home, she used to tell that the appellants demanded and harrased to bring T.V., Rajdoot motorcycle, cooler, fan as dowry. Then he explained to his son-in-law, the appellant Santosh, that he has given what he had to give and is not capable of giving more. Thereafter, before the incident, when the appellant Santosh came to his house, he had demanded Rs.20-25 thousand from him, on which he said that he did not have that much money. Then the appellant Santosh went to his home on the next day morning with his wife Mongrabai, after which Mongrabai died 3-4 days later. 18. The statement of Bahoran Sahu (PW-3) has also been confirmed by Manoj Kumar (PW-6), brother of the deceased, in his statement in the court. It is also stated that the appellant Santosh had also assaulted his sister Mongrabai. Appellant Santosh assaulted Mongrabai in front of her when Mongrabai was telling her about dowry harassment. 18. The statement of Bahoran Sahu (PW-3) has also been confirmed by Manoj Kumar (PW-6), brother of the deceased, in his statement in the court. It is also stated that the appellant Santosh had also assaulted his sister Mongrabai. Appellant Santosh assaulted Mongrabai in front of her when Mongrabai was telling her about dowry harassment. On the next day, the appellant Santosh came to his house and apologized. In evidence, Manoj Kumar (PW-6) has also said that Mongrabai's in-laws did not give food and drink. He has also stated that his distant relation brother Lakhan Lal Sahu (PW-14) had told him that when Mongrabai was being searched, the appellant Santosh had also told Lakhan Lal Sahu that last night he had gone with Mongrabai. There was a fight, Mongrabai has gone somewhere and she is not being found. Later his body was found in the well. In this way, along with father Bahoran Sahu (PW-3), brother of the deceased Mongrabai, Manoj Kumar (PW-6) has also told in his evidence about the demand of dowry, beating and harassment. 19. Sini Prasad Sahu (PW-1), who is related to the uncle of the deceased Mongrabai, has also corroborated the statement of Bahoran Sahu (PW-3) in his court statement that he was also told by Mongrabai that the appellants were demand for T.V., cooler, bed and money as dowry harassed her. Sini Prasad Sahu has also stated that he had also explained to the appellant Santosh. Sini Prasad Sahu has also stated that he had also gone to the appellant's house to convince them, but Santosh and Madan Lal Sahu were not at home at that time. There too Mongrabai had told him that they used to harass her demanding dowry and after that the incident happened. 20. Lakhan Lal Sahu (PW-14), a distant relative of the deceased Mongrabai, has said in the court statement that Mongrabai stayed at his house for 8-9 days. Then it was told that she was taunted for not getting motorcycle, TV, cooler etc. in dowry. Lakhan Lal Sahu has further stated that on 27/08/2002, while searching for Mongrabai, the appellant Santosh had come, then on being asked, he had told that Mongrabai had a quarrel with her mother in the house, who was living in the village of Jaikaran (PW-5), It was talked about going to Kotetara. Then the appellant Santosh had also talked about killing Mongrabai. Then the appellant Santosh had also talked about killing Mongrabai. Thus, Lakhan Lal Sahu has confirmed that the appellant Santosh had a dispute with Mongrabai in the night itself before the incident. 21. In the cross-examination of these four witnesses, such facts have not came, which can be termed as unreliable or contradict their statement regarding demand of dowry and assault on Mongrabai. The fact has also come in the evidence that Mongrabai's father Bahoran Sahu has had total six daughters, so he has expressed his inability to give more dowry. The list of things given in Mongrabai's marriage has been seized in the form of Ex.P-8, in which there is a mention of things, utensils, etc given not only by the parents but also by the relatives, village and community members. Motor cycle, T.V., cooler are not mentioned in it. Therefore, it is not natural that the appellant Santosh did not demand the said goods from Mongrabai or her parents. 22. Mongrabai died only after 16 months of marriage. It is also clear from the statement of the appellant Santosh's brother-in-law Jaikaran (PW-5) that a daughter was born, whose sixth (chhatthi) program was held on 29/08/2002. The appellant parties had already come to Jayakaran's house before that date. Jayakaran has not said that Mongrabai had gone there. The statement of Mongrabai's distant relative Lakhan Lal Sahu (PW-14) appears to be correct that there was a dispute with Mongrabai regarding the matter of going to the sixth program (Chhatthi) at village-Kotetara brother-in-law Jaikaran of appellant Santosh and that dispute Mongrabai was assaulted by the appellant Santosh at the time of the incident which was just before the incident of suicide. Therefore, according to the presumption of Section-113A and Section-113B of the Indian Evidence Act, it has become clear that just before her unnatural death, Mongrabai was being tortured for demand of dowry. 23. The fact has also come out in the examination of the witnesses that the appellant Santosh used to work as a driver and his father, the appellant Madanlal Sahu, used to work as a farmer. Mongrabai's father Bahoran Sahu (PW-3) has told himself to have six girls and one boy. Looking at the list of goods given by Mongrabai in her marriage, it cannot be said that the complainant’s was in a position to give more goods or money. Mongrabai's father Bahoran Sahu (PW-3) has told himself to have six girls and one boy. Looking at the list of goods given by Mongrabai in her marriage, it cannot be said that the complainant’s was in a position to give more goods or money. Dowry demand and harassment of a married woman is such a matter at which point external evidence is not available as it is a family and domestic matter. Therefore, it cannot be expected from the prosecution that independent evidence other than family and relatives corroborates the said demand and harassment. 24. In this case before me, in the statement of appellant Santosh's brother-in-law Jaikaran (PW-5) and Teras Bai (PW-7), the sister of appellant Santosh, an attempt has been made by the appellant side to bring out the fact that Mongrabai was doing this on her husband Santosh and she used to pressurize him to go with her and stay at her maternal home village-Parsadih and for this the appellant Santosh was not ready. But this defence has not been accepted by the family witnesses of any of the maternal side. This fact has not been established by the defence side that Mongrabai was putting any kind of pressure on her husband Santosh. 25. Disbelieved the statement of deceased Mongrabai's father Bahoran Sahu (PW-3), brother Manoj Kumar (PW-6), uncle Sini Prasad Sahu (PW-1) and distant relation brother Lakhan Lal Sahu (PW-14) can't find any reason to go. According to the provisions of Section-113A and Section-113B, this fact has come into evidence that immediately before the suicide, especially by the appellant Santosh, motorcycle, T.V., cooler, cash of Rs. 20-25 thousand in dowry from Mongrabai and her father and brothers. etc. was demanded. Mongrabai was assaulted. In this way she was being harassed due to which Mongrabai was driven to commit suicide. Due to unnatural death within 7 years of marriage, the case becomes of dowry death. 26. It has been argued by the defence that no dowry was demanded at the time of marriage and the prosecution has not been able to prove its case. Judgment in support of the argument Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh v. State of Uttrakhand, AIR 2023 SC 2095 has been cited. The facts of the said case and the evidence produced have been different from the facts and evidence produced in the case before me. Judgment in support of the argument Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh v. State of Uttrakhand, AIR 2023 SC 2095 has been cited. The facts of the said case and the evidence produced have been different from the facts and evidence produced in the case before me. The facts of demand of dowry, assault, harassment and abetment just before the death of Mongrabai have been established by the evidence. Therefore, the defence does not get the benefit of the said precedent. 27. Case cited by the appellant side in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others v. Referring to State of Bihar and Others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 , it has been argued that the statement of the witnesses is in general form without specific reference to the work of each appellant and the kin of the husband before being considered to have been involved in the crime. There should be a thorough discussion of the evidence. K. Subba Rao V/s State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 in paragraph-16 of the above-presented judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been cited which reads as under:- “6. The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the ebasis of imnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.” 28. Considering in the light of the above concept of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in this case before me, father of the deceased Mongrabai Bahoran Sahu (PW-3), brother Manoj Kumar (PW-6), paternal uncle Sini Prasad Sahu (PW-1) And in the statements made by Lakhan Lal Sahu (PW-14) in a distant relationship, the name of the appellant Santosh has been specifically taken. He has not made any specific mention of the appellant father-in-law Madanlal Sahu and the appellant mother-in-law Rameshwari Bai alias Ishwari Bai that they had demanded dowry or had ever physically assaulted Mongrabai. Thus, the actions of father-in-law Madanlal Sahu and mother-in-law Rameshwari Bai alias Ishwari Bai have not been mentioned with clear specifics as to how their involvement with Santosh has been in the crime. 29. Thus, the actions of father-in-law Madanlal Sahu and mother-in-law Rameshwari Bai alias Ishwari Bai have not been mentioned with clear specifics as to how their involvement with Santosh has been in the crime. 29. Therefore, in the light of the said precedent, it is reflected that the statements made by the witnesses regarding dowry demand, assault and harassment have been made clear in respect of the appellant Santosh but regarding the appellant Madanlal Sahu and Rameshwari Bai alias Ishwari Bai. There is no clear statement. Therefore, in the absence of clear evidence of his having created common intention with the appellant Santosh or abetted Mongrabai to commit suicide, his conviction is not found sustainable. 30. On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant Santosh. The conviction of the appellant Santosh is based on clear and reliable evidence and therefore does not call for any interference. Whereas the conviction of appellant Madanlal Sahu and appellant Rameshwari Bai alias Ishwari Bai is not based on clear evidence and the case against them has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore their conviction and sentence are not found sustainable. 31. As far as the question of sentence of the appellant Santosh is concerned? In this regard, Santosh has been punished with minimum sentence under Section 304B IPC by the trial court, therefore no interference is found in his sentence. 32. Therefore, partly accepting the appeal on the above grounds, the conviction and sentence of the appellant Madanlal Sahu and Rameshwari Bai alias Ishwari Bai in all the offences are set aside and they are acquitted of the offences under Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A of the IPC and dismissing the appeal in part, the conviction and sentence of the appellant Santosh are confirmed. 33. The bail bond of the appellant Madanlal Sahu and the appellant Rameshwari Bai alias Ishwari Bai under Section 437/A of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall remain in force for another 6 months. After that, if there is no need, they shall be considered free. 34. The custody period of the appellant Santosh will be adjusted in his sentence period. His bail bonds are cancelled. If the appellant Santosh immediately surrenders before the trial court within 30 days, then it should be ensured that he is served the remaining sentence. 35. After that, if there is no need, they shall be considered free. 34. The custody period of the appellant Santosh will be adjusted in his sentence period. His bail bonds are cancelled. If the appellant Santosh immediately surrenders before the trial court within 30 days, then it should be ensured that he is served the remaining sentence. 35. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed. 36. The record of the trial court along with the copy of the judgment be sent immediately for further necessary action & compliance.