JUDGMENT VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA,J. - Impugning the judgment of conviction and sentence dtd. 16/2/2016 in S.C. No.163 of 2014 on the file of Family Courtcum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, the present Criminal Appeal is filed. 2. The gravamen of the charges framed against the accused are under Ss. 498-A, 306, 304-B, 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and Ss. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'D.P. Act'). 3. Accused No.1 (A-1) is the husband of the deceased. Accused No.2 (A-2) is the mother of A-1. After full-fledged trial, the learned trialJudge found A1 i.e., the appellant herein, guilty for the charge under Sec. 304-B of I.P.C. Accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.2000.00 and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 4. As A-1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 304-B of IPC, it is necessary to look into the charge against him. "On 3/5/2014 at about 10.19 P.M., A1 being the husband of the deceased caused death of the deceased - Ponnada @ Tholeti Sowjanya within seven (7) years of her marriage, subjecting her to cruelty and harassed her both mentally and physically by demanding her to bring additional dowry from her parents. On receipt of information through phone, her parents went to Maharaja Government Hospital, Vizianagaram. Thereby the appellant committed the offence which is punishable under Sec. 304-B of IPC". Case of Prosecution 5. The case of the prosecution emanated from the evidence of the witness in brief is that; A. Deceased/Sowjanya was married to A-1/Tholeti Shiva Kumar (her maternal uncle) on 15/2/2012 at Mindi in Gudivada Appanna Kalyana Mandapam. The bride was pursuing 2nd year Engineering course at the time of marriage and she was married pursuant to assurance to continue studies. Deceased's parents gave dowry of Rs.1,50,000.00, one tula of gold chain, 1/2 tula of gold ring and presented saare samans worth Rs.30,000.00. P.W.3 acted as elder to the marriage. B. After the marriage, deceased joined A-1 and lived happily for 6 months. Thereafter, A-1 started to harass the deceased for additional dowry. The deceased used to inform her parents through phone about the harassment she faced from her husband but her parents used to convince her to adjust and continue the marital life with him. B. After the marriage, deceased joined A-1 and lived happily for 6 months. Thereafter, A-1 started to harass the deceased for additional dowry. The deceased used to inform her parents through phone about the harassment she faced from her husband but her parents used to convince her to adjust and continue the marital life with him. Parents of the deceased bore all the educational expenses of deceased even after the marriage. C. On 3/5/2014 at about 6.30 P.M., the deceased contacted her mother i.e., P.W.1 over phone and chit-chatted for some time calmly. At about 10.30 P.M., P.W.6 who is the elder brother of PW.1 called her over phone and informed that the deceased Sowjanya fell seriously ill and was admitted at Maharaja Government Hospital, Vizianagaram. As P.W.1 along with her husband rushed to the hospital, they found the body of the deceased in the mortuary. A-1 neither gave any information of the deceased to her parents nor was present at the mortuary. D. The parents wept the entire night at the mortuary beside the dead body of their dear daughter and on the next morning, PW.1 presented report under Ex.P1. that the deceased is a daring girl and she strongly opined that her son-in-law i.e., A1 killed her daughter and placed the dead body in the mortuary to screen away the evidence. E. Basing on the report of PW.1 i.e., Ex.P1, PW.14 - S.I. of Police registered the case as Cr. No.107/2014 for the offences punishable under Ss. 304-B, 498-A r/w.34 of IPC under Ex.P5. PW.15 - Inspector of Police, took up investigation in this matter, conducted inquest over the body of the deceased on 4/5/2014 through PW.13 Mandal Executive Magistrate in the presence of PWs.7 and 8. PW.15 got photographed and videographed the scene through PWs.9 and 10 respectively. F. After the inquest, he observed the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch in the presence of mediators. PW.15 after conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased, sent the dead body for post mortem examination. PW.11 examined the dead body in autopsy and issued certificate under Ex.P7 stating that the death is due to 'asphyxia antemortem hanging'. During the course of investigation, PW.15 recorded the statements of witnesses including the family members of the deceased and neighbors of the accused.On completion of the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences referred above. During the course of investigation, PW.15 recorded the statements of witnesses including the family members of the deceased and neighbors of the accused.On completion of the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences referred above. Procedural History 6. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vizianagaram took cognizance of the offences under Ss. 306, 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of DP Act against the accused. As the matter is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, matter was committed to the Court of Sessions, Vizianagaram, subsequently made over to the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. On appearance of the accused before the trial court and after hearing, charges under Ss. 306, 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Ss. 3 & 4 of DP Act were framed. The defence is of total denial. 7. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 15 as witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P11 apart from eliciting the contradiction in the evidence of PW.4, vide Ex.D1. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 was examined under Sec. 313 CrPC by putting the incriminating material made out against him, for which he denied and reported no evidence in defence. 8. After hearing the learned counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge found the A1 guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 304-B of IPC. 9. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgmentdtd. 16/2/2016, accused preferred the present appeal on the grounds that the learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate the evidence on record in right perspective, that A-1 was not present in the house at the time the deceased committed suicide and that from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3., the offence under Sec. 304-B is not made out. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 10. Heard Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the appellant and the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent. Perused the entire record. 11. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 10. Heard Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the appellant and the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent. Perused the entire record. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, except omnibus allegations, there are no specific overt acts attributed, elicited or proved against A-1 to establish cruelty against the deceased in connection with demand of dowry, that the impugned judgment is not tenable under law,as there is a clear finding to the effect that there is no harassment in connection with the dowry whereas in very next sentence, the learned trial Judge erroneously jumped to the conclusion based on presumption under Sec. 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, which is inapplicable. Learned counsel also urged that the Accused is innocent and has never harassed the deceased and she herself committed suicide since she could not get a campus selection, though her relative Gowtam who secured lesser marks than her got the job. Ultimately, the learned counsel prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment. 12. Contradicting the same, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is very clear about the harassment meted out against the deceased from A-1., that the parents gave dowry at the time of her marriage, A-1 harassed the deceased for additional dowry, that A1 never bothered to inform the parents of the deceased about her condition asPW.1 got information about her daughter in the mortuary through PW.6, that Pw.3 did not find the A-1 near the body of the deceased, thatPW.1 used to give money to the deceased for her studies even after her marriage. Learned counsel ultimately urged that there are no infirmities in the judgment impugned and prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the accused. Points for Determination 13. Having heard the submissions of both the counsel and on perusal of entire material on record, the points that would emerge for determination in this appeal are - 1. Whether the death of the deceased is otherwise under normal circumstances? 2. Whether the prosecution has established that the death of the deceased occurred within 7 years of her marriage with the accused? 3. Whether the death of the deceased is otherwise under normal circumstances? 2. Whether the prosecution has established that the death of the deceased occurred within 7 years of her marriage with the accused? 3. Whether the prosecution has proved that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty by her husband (A-1) for or in connection with the dowry? 4. Whether the presumption under Sec. 113-B of Indian Evidence Act comes to the rescue of prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused? 5. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 for the offence punishable under Sec. 304-B of IPC? 6. Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the A1 for the offence punishable under Sec. 304-B is sustainable on facts andlaw or any interference is warranted in the appeal ? Determination of the Court Point Nos.1& 2: 14. The crux of the prosecution case is that, the death of deceased is a dowry death. To establish a dowry death, burden lies on the prosecution to prove that, the suspicious death occurred within seven (7) years of her marriage, soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty by her husband in connection with the dowry. In this context, it is relevant to extract Sec. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec. 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 which reads thus; "Sec. 304B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 Dowry death. - (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation- For the purposes of this sub-sec. , "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Sec. 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." "Section113B of Evidence Act, 1872 Presumption as to dowry death. , "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Sec. 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." "Section113B of Evidence Act, 1872 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 Sec. , "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Sec. 304B, of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860)." 15. In Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder and others v. State of West Bengal,2007 SCC Online SC 389 : (2008) 1 SCC 202 : (2008) 1 SCC (Crl.) 172. where a conviction under Sec. 304-B was brought to challenge, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reversing the conviction held that it is essential for the prosecution to prove cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry to bring in Sec. 304-B. Dr. Arijit Pasayat,J., authored the judgment enunciating key ingredients essential to attract Sec. 304-B at para 10 to 13 as follows; "10. The basic ingredients to attract the provisions of Sec. 304B are as follows:- (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. 11.Alongside insertion of Sec. 304B in IPC, legislature also introduced Sec. 113B of Evidence Act, which lays down when the question as to 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. 12.Explanation appended to Sec. 113 B lays down that; "for the purpose of this Sec. 'dowry death' shall have the same meaning as in Sec. 304 B of IPC". 13. If Sec. 304 B IPC is read together with Sec. 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." Emphasis supplied 16. In Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 2 SCC 577 . a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the requirements under Sec. 304-B and presumption under Sec. 113-Bof the Evidence Act, to effect that by virtue of Sec. 4 of the Evidence Act, once the prosecution succeeds in showing that soon before the death, the deceased wife was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry and that her death had occurred within seven years of her marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances, ''the court shall presume that such person had caused dowry death". 17. In Yashoda v. State of M.P., (2004) 3 SCC 98 . the Hon'ble Apex Court held that once the prosecution proves the necessary ingredients to tap in Sec. 304-B IPC, by virtue of Sec. 113-B, the onus shifts onto the accused to support their own defence by producing evidence or eliciting facts in their favour by making suggestions to the prosecution witnesses. The Apex Court observed that such evidence may attempt to disclose that the death was not caused by the accused or that the death took place in a normal course or that the death took place in a manner that is unconnected. 18. The views taken in interpretation of the provisions supra are fortified by the views taken in a multitude of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Courts. In the background of this gamut of law, the factual matrix of the instant case needs a scrutiny. 19. Admittedly, there is no dispute on marriage between the deceased and A-1 on 15/2/2012. In the background of this gamut of law, the factual matrix of the instant case needs a scrutiny. 19. Admittedly, there is no dispute on marriage between the deceased and A-1 on 15/2/2012. It is also of no dispute that A-1 did M.Sc. and B.Ed. and imparted tuitions for his livelihood, and at the time of marriage, the deceased was pursuing her 2nd year B.Tech course. She attended campus interviews for employment twice but could not secure the job. From the evidence on record, it has been proved that, her relative Gowtham secured job in TCS though he got lesser score than her. Even after marriage, the deceased continued her studies. 20. The evidence of PW.1 is that on the date of the incident at about 6.30 P.M., her daughter called her and chit chatted with her calmly. PW.1 says that, she received phone call from PW.6, who is her elder brother, at about 10.30 P.M. stating that the deceased was seriously ill and she was admitted in Maharaja Hospital. 21. PW.2 is the sister of deceased. Her evidence is also in the same lines as PW.1. PW.3 is the cousin brother. PWs.1 to 3 in one voice stated that on knowing the information about the death of deceased, they rushed to the hospital and found the body in the mortuary. 22. The evidence of PW.11 is important. PW.11 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the body of deceased. On 4/5/2014, after conducting post mortem examination, he issued certificate under Ex.P7 to the effect that the deceased died due to 'asphyxia antemortem hanging'. Ex.P8 is the post mortem certificate. PW.12 is also a Doctor who conducted post mortem examination along with PW.11. The evidence of inquest mediators is also relevant here. PW.11 categorically deposed that, 'they observed a convenlenior ligature mark of 9'' x '' brownish in red oblique non continuous with a gap of 3'' over the nape of the neck was seen starting 1 1/2'' below and behind the left ear. Tissue underneath the ligature mark was pale yellow and parchment like.Strap muscles, rest of the subcutaneous tissue showed no traumatic changes'. 23. Tissue underneath the ligature mark was pale yellow and parchment like.Strap muscles, rest of the subcutaneous tissue showed no traumatic changes'. 23. PW.7 is the Panchayatdar for Ex.P4 would show that, there is injury around the neck of the deceased which is nothing about the ligature mark.PW.15, the Investigation Officer, testified that his investigation does not reveal that it to be a case of homicide or a case where the body contains any poisonous substance. 24. Satbir Singh and Another v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1 . summarized the law on dowry death. The Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated ingredients for Sec. 304-B, discussed the presumption of causality under Sec. 113-B, enumerated the procedural safeguards that the criminal courts must follow vide Cr.P.C. viz., Ss. 313 and 233 and observed the nature of Sec. 304-B in the following terms; "The second contentious part relating to Sec. 304- B IPC is that it does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorising death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental, as was done earlier. The reason for such non-categorisation is due to the fact that death occurring "otherwise than under normal circumstances" can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. However, Sec. 304-B IPC endeavours to also address those situations wherein murders or suicide are masqueraded as accidents." 25. In the light of evidence involved in the present case, it is clear that the death of the deceased is a suicide. From Satbir Singh supra, in this context, suicide can be considered as a death occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances. The marriage of A-1 and the deceased took place on 15/2/2012 and the death of deceased was on 3/5/2014 i.e., seven years within the date of her marriage. Therefore, the Point Nos.,1 and 2 are answered in affirmative. Point Nos.,3 to 6: 26. Till this juncture, it is proved that the death is a suicidal one and it has occurred within seven years from the date of marriage. The next ingredient that the prosecution must prove is that soon before to her death, she was subjected to cruelty by A1for or in connection with dowry. 27. The interpretation of the expression "soon before her death" must be relative to the instances of a given case. In Hira Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2003) 8 SCC 80 . the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 9 held thus; "9. 27. The interpretation of the expression "soon before her death" must be relative to the instances of a given case. In Hira Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2003) 8 SCC 80 . the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 9 held thus; "9. ... The expression 'soon before her death' used in the substantive Sec. 304-B IPC and Sec. 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression 'soon before' is not defined. A reference to the expression 'soon before' used in Sec. 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods 'soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for their possession'. The determination of the period which can come within the term 'soon before' is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression 'soon before' would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence." Similar view was taken by a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab, (2021) 6 SCC 1 08. 28. In Surinder Singh v. State of Harayana, (2014) 4 SCC 129 . the Hon'ble Supreme Court expounded various illustrative circumstances that could amount to be cruelty/harassment, and in the interpretation of the expression held thus; "...Every such instance of cruelty and related harassment has a different impact on the mind of a woman. Some instances may be so grave as to have a lasting impact on a woman. Some instances which degrade her dignity may remain etched in her memory for a long time. Therefore, "soon before" is a relative term. In matters of emotions, we cannot have fixed formulae. The time-lag may differ from case to case. Some instances may be so grave as to have a lasting impact on a woman. Some instances which degrade her dignity may remain etched in her memory for a long time. Therefore, "soon before" is a relative term. In matters of emotions, we cannot have fixed formulae. The time-lag may differ from case to case. This must be kept in mind while examining each case of dowry death" 29. In Shindo and another v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 517 . when a reversal of acquittal came to be challenged, the Apex Court spelled out as follows; "Undoubtedly, in a case of dowry death under Sec. 304-B, a presumption of Sec. 113-B, Evidence Act, does arise against the accused. However, the presumption is relatable to the fact that the prosecution must first spell out the ingredients of the offence and then only can a presumption arise. In the present case we find that the death was an unnatural one and had taken place within seven years of the marriage but the third ingredient that any demand for dowry had been made soon before the death has not been proved. In this view of the matter the presumption under Sec. 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be raised." 30. On a careful reading of the provision and the precedential law on Sec. 304-B vis-a-vis Sec. 113-B presumption is that on proof that the death of a woman is caused by 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, the presumption of causality under Sec. 113-B of Indian Evidence Act comes into rescue of the prosecution to the effect that the husband or relative of husband "shall be deemed to have caused her death". 31. At this juncture, it is essential to extract the finding of the learned trial judge at para 40 of the impugned judgment reading thus; "40. ...Though the prosecution has not established the offences u/s.498-A IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, since the death of the deceased is occurred within two years of her marriage, certainly a presumption u/s.113-B of Indian Evidence Act comes into picture. ...Though the prosecution has not established the offences u/s.498-A IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, since the death of the deceased is occurred within two years of her marriage, certainly a presumption u/s.113-B of Indian Evidence Act comes into picture. For better appreciation, I would like to extract Sec. 113-B hereunder which reads as follows: 113-B: 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". Taking into consideration, the ingredients of Sec. 113-B of the Act, though the demand of dowry is not established, it can be said that the death of deceased is only due to cruelty and harassment for the sake of dowry". 32. The finding referred supra would disclose that the learned trial Judge is under the impression that though the alleged demand of dowry or any harassment in connection with the dowry is not established, merely due to the presumption under Sec. 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the accused is responsible for causing the dowry death of the deceased Sowjanya. On the face of it, the finding of learned Judge is erroneous as being contrary to the settled principles of law. 33. In the present case, though the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 would show that the deceased used to inform them about the harassment of the husband demanding to bring additional dowry, it is an omnibus allegation. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is bereft of any particular date or specific instances. The evidence of PW.1 is silent as to what warranted her to perform the marriage of her daughter when she was pursuing 2nd year B.Tech course on the assurance of the accused that he will continue her studies. The presence of A1 at the time of incident is doubtful. In light of the evidence of PW.4 who is a neighbour, A2/mother-in-law brought food from her younger son's house to this couple between 6.30 PM to 7.30 P.M., after that she left. Thereafter, at about 9.30 P.M., A1 came to his house and informed that his wife committed suicide. The presence of A1 at the time of incident is doubtful. In light of the evidence of PW.4 who is a neighbour, A2/mother-in-law brought food from her younger son's house to this couple between 6.30 PM to 7.30 P.M., after that she left. Thereafter, at about 9.30 P.M., A1 came to his house and informed that his wife committed suicide. The evidence of PW.4 does not reveal the presence of A1 at the time of deceased committing suicide. PW.5, a close friend of the deceased turned unfriendly to the prosecution. Ofcourse, her statement before the police is marked as Ex.P2. 34. PW.5 did not speak anything about alleged harassment of husband towards the wife in connection with the dowry. PW.6 is the elder brother of PW.1 and A1. His evidence is also not in specific as to the harassment of A-1 against his wife in connection with the dowry. The prosecution could prove that P.W.15 - Investigation officer conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and also observed the scene of offence in the presence of PWs.7 & 8. There cannot be any dispute about the evidence of PWs.9 & 10 i.e., the videographer and the photographer.P.W.13 - Tahsildar who conducted inquest over the body of the deceased deposed that, 'all the Panchayatdars subscribed their signatures in Ex.P4 inquest report and they unanimously opined that the deceased died due to the harassment of both A1 and A2, since A2 insisted the deceased to have children and lead conjugal life with A1, for which, the A1 also harassed the deceased and due to the unbearable harassment meted out by the A1 and A2, the deceased committed suicide and also further opined that the A1 might be killed the deceased and stimulated the scene as suicide and the same opinion was incorporated in column No.15 of Ex.P4'. The report of PW.1 before the police i.e. Ex.P1 and also her evidence would show that the suspect/accused "might" have killed her daughter. Any amount of suspicion cannot replace proof. 35. Unless the ingredients as referred supra are established, question of presumption under Sec. 113-B of the I.E. Act does not arise. In the present case, when there is clear finding to the effect that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged cruelty and harassment of the husband against the wife regarding the alleged demand of dowry, the presumption does not arise. In the present case, when there is clear finding to the effect that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged cruelty and harassment of the husband against the wife regarding the alleged demand of dowry, the presumption does not arise. The evidence on record coupled with the explanation given by A-1 in Sec. 313 CrPC examination would probabilize the case of the defense that when the deceased could not secure employment in campus selection, she might have committed suicide. 36. In light of the aforementioned discussion and legal position, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has not proved that soon before the deceased's death, she was subjected to cruelty by A-1for or in connection with the dowry, therefore the presumption vide Sec. 113-B of the Evidence Act does not come into play. This Court is of view that the A-1 is not liable to be convicted under Sec. 304-B. The impugned judgment suffers from the infirmity of giving contra finding. Hence, brooks interference of this Court in appeal. Accordingly, Points answered. 37. Before parting with this matter, this Court finds it apt to summarize the propositions of law discussed supra, in the following terms; A. The social and legal intricacies involved in Sec. 304-B of I.P.C. and Sec. 113-B of Evidence Act enjoin responsibility on part of the Judges, prosecution, and defence in the conduct of the trial. B.Ingredients to attract Sec. 304-B; i. Death of a woman by any burns or bodily injury or under unnatural circumstances within seven (7) years of her marriage, and ii. Subjection to cruelty or harassment by husband or any relative of husband for or in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death. C. The expression "soon before" appearing in Sec. 304-B of the I.P.C. and Sec. 113-B of Evidence Act, should be interpreted relative to the facts and circumstances of given case. D. Proximate and live link should exist between cruelty or harassment based on demand of dowry and the death. E. The burden lies on prosecution to establish the existence of the ingredients indicated in clause (A) supra. F. Once the ingredients are proved, presumption under Sec. 113-B comes into rescue and the court shall presume that husband or any relative of husband, as the case maybe, had caused dowry death. E. The burden lies on prosecution to establish the existence of the ingredients indicated in clause (A) supra. F. Once the ingredients are proved, presumption under Sec. 113-B comes into rescue and the court shall presume that husband or any relative of husband, as the case maybe, had caused dowry death. G. When the rebuttable presumption comes into play, it is on the accused to displace the deemed culpability by producing evidence or eliciting facts in their favour by making suggestions to the prosecution witnesses. 38. In result, the criminal appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dtd. 16/2/2016 is set-aside. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the learned Family Court -cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, for the offence punishable under Sec. 304-B of IPC is set-aside. Fine amount of Rs.2,000.00, paid by the Accused shall be returned. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.