JUDGMENT : Alok Kumar Verma, J. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 19.08.2004, passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Sessions Trial No.2 of 2004, “State Vs. Jagdish Prasad”, by which, the appellant-accused has been convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and, he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that Smt. Bhuvneshwari (deceased) was married to the appellant on 11.06.2003. After marriage, appellant started harassing her for demand of dowry. Once the appellant had beaten her badly in her mother’s house. Appellant used to tell her that she had not even brought a color television. Appellant had threatened her several times that he would push her into the river. On 01.09.2003, the brother of the appellant went to her mother’s house and informed that she had committed suicide by hanging herself. 3. Smt. Dhuma Devi (PW3), Bhuvneshwari’s step-mother, gave a written information (Ext.Ka.8) to the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Ukhimath on 25.09.2003, on which the Naib Tehsildar was directed to inquire the matter. On 25.09.2003 itself, Naib Tehsildar, Ukhimath, directed the Patwari, Bheeri to inquire the matter and take legal action. Patwari, Bheeri had received information about the incident on 01.09.2003 itself. The inquest proceedings were conducted by him on the same day and post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted on 02.09.2003, while the First Information Report was registered by Patwari, Bheeri on 11.11.2003 on the basis of the written information dated 25.09.2003 (Ext.Ka.8). 4. Mr. N.S. Nagniyal, Naib Tehsildar (PW7) (Revenue Police) took up investigation. He recorded statements of the witnesses. Site plan (Ext. Ka. 10) was prepared by him. Appellant was arrested by him on 15.12.2003. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka. 12) was submitted by him. 5. The Trial Court framed charges against the appellant-accused. As the appellant-accused pleaded innocence, trial was held. 6. In order to establish the accusations, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. 7. Statements of the appellant-accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka. 12) was submitted by him. 5. The Trial Court framed charges against the appellant-accused. As the appellant-accused pleaded innocence, trial was held. 6. In order to establish the accusations, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. 7. Statements of the appellant-accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He denied all the incriminating evidence, produced/adduced by the prosecution. According to the appellant-accused, his mother was paralysed. The wives of his elder brothers resided outside with their husbands. She had to serve his mother while residing with her in the village. She had to clean his mother’s feces and urine. He worked in Patiala, Punjab and resided in Dera Bassi, Punjab. She did not want to serve his mother. She wanted to live with him in Dera Bassi, Punjab. There was no one else at his house to take care of his mother, therefore, he refused to take her with him to Dera Bassi, Punjab. Due to this resentment, she committed suicide. He had gone to Dera Bassi, Punjab from his house on 28.08.2003. On the day of the incident, he was in Patiala, Punjab, where he used to work. He was a tenant in Raj Rani’s house in Dera Bassi, Punjab. On 01.09.2003, his landlady received a phone call at around 7:30 in the morning. Smt. Raj Rani did not inform him about his wife’s death, but instead asked him to go to his house immediately. Appellant had examined himself (OPW3), Smt. Raj Rani (OPW1) and Raghubeer Singh Negi (OPW2) in support of his submissions. 8. According to Raghubeer Singh Negi (OPW2), he had informed Raj Rani (OPW1) over phone on 01.09.2003 at around 7:00 in the morning about the death of the appellant’s wife. 9. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate, contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The deceased had committed suicide on 31.08.2003, whereas, the informant Smt. Dhuma Devi (PW3) had given written information (Ext. Ka. 8) to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ukhimath on 25.09.2003. There is no satisfactory explanation about this inordinate delay. The informant set up a story of dowry demand after well thought and consultation. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence on record to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 304B IPC and Section 498A IPC. 10. On the other hand, Mr. There is no satisfactory explanation about this inordinate delay. The informant set up a story of dowry demand after well thought and consultation. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence on record to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 304B IPC and Section 498A IPC. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder, has supported the impugned judgment. 11. I heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and carefully assessed the evidence available on record. 12. 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 her death. 13. The presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials; (i) The question before the Court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (ii) The woman was subjected to cruelty 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. The sole constituent of an offence under Section 498A IPC is cruelty, which in view of Clause (a) to Explanation to Section 498A IPC means wilful conduct. Thus, mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence. Clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 498A IPC contemplates harassment of the woman to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. 15. Appellant’s elder brother-Krishna Kumar Semwal had given a written information (Ext. Ka. 1) to Patwari Bheeri on 01.09.2003 that on 31.08.2003 at 11:00 p.m., he received an information from his house on telephone that the wife of his younger brother had committed suicide by hanging herself inside the house. Patwari, Bheeri was on leave. Therefore, Yudhveer Singh Rawat (PW1), Patwari Chandrapuri went to the spot on 01.09.2003. He conducted the inquest proceedings. 1) to Patwari Bheeri on 01.09.2003 that on 31.08.2003 at 11:00 p.m., he received an information from his house on telephone that the wife of his younger brother had committed suicide by hanging herself inside the house. Patwari, Bheeri was on leave. Therefore, Yudhveer Singh Rawat (PW1), Patwari Chandrapuri went to the spot on 01.09.2003. He conducted the inquest proceedings. He has proved the inquest report (Ext. Ka. 2). He also prepared site plan (Ext. Ka. 3). 16. Gajpal Singh Bisht (PW2), Patwari Bheeri, is scriber of the chick FIR (Ext. Ka. 6). 17. Dr. P.P. Raturi (PW6) conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased on 02.09.2003. As per the post-mortem report (Ext. Ka. 9), the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to hanging. 18. Prosecution witnesses Dhuma Devi (PW3), the informant, and, Smt. Sita Devi (PW4) are the wives of late Ravi Dutt. The deceased was the daughter of Smt. Sita Devi (PW4). It has been stated by both the witnesses that the deceased was married to the appellant on 11.06.2003. 19. The death of the deceased was otherwise than natural circumstances and she had died within seven years from the date of marriage are not in dispute. The fact which also has to be ascertained is whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death in respect of demand of dowry or/and the deceased was subjected to cruelty as contemplated in Clause (a) or Clause (b) to Explanation of Section 498A IPC. 20. Smt. Dhuma Devi (PW3) has stated that a black and white TV was given as dowry. Color TV was being demanded as dowry. The Color TV could not be given. For this reason, the accused murdered his wife. She further stated that in the month of Bhadon, the deceased had come to her maternal house with her husband and when she was looking at the album, he slapped her twice. 21. Smt. Sita Devi (PW4), the mother of the deceased, has stated that her daughter had told her that color TV should have been given instead of black and white TV. Santosh Giri (PW5) was residing in the village of the deceased. She stated that the deceased had come to her maternal house 10-11 days after her marriage. 21. Smt. Sita Devi (PW4), the mother of the deceased, has stated that her daughter had told her that color TV should have been given instead of black and white TV. Santosh Giri (PW5) was residing in the village of the deceased. She stated that the deceased had come to her maternal house 10-11 days after her marriage. One day when she was cutting grass, the deceased told her that her husband would kill her some day, but, she stated in her cross-examination that the deceased had not said that her husband would kill her. She inferred that what the deceased meant was that her husband would kill her. 22. Smt. Sita Devi (PW4), the mother of the deceased, has not made any statement that color TV was demanded by the appellant. Smt. Dhuma Devi (PW3) and Smt. Sita Devi (PW4) have accepted the submissions of the appellant that the mother of the appellant was paralysed. The deceased resided in the house with her mother-in-law. She had to clear the feces and urine of her mother-in-law. 23. Smt. Dhuma Devi (PW3) has not stated at what time and place and from whom the appellant demanded the color TV, whereas, she has stated in her cross-examination that the deceased had come to her maternal house with her husband after her marriage and both of them went to the temple happily. All these circumstances do not support the prosecution’s case that the deceased was subjected to any cruelty by the appellant or that the deceased was harassed by the appellant for color TV. 24. The written information (Ext. Ka. 8) was given by Smt. Dhuma Devi (PW3) about 25 days’ after the incident. The prosecution has failed to explain the said inordinate delay. Smt. Dhuma Devi (PW3) has also stated in her cross-examination that she had not written the said information (Ext. Ka. 8). The Panch of her village had got the said repot (Ext. Ka. 8) written. 25. In these circumstances, the contention of Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate, that the said written information (Ext. Ka. 8) was given after well thought and consultation cannot be ruled out. 26. It is a basic rule of the criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however, strong cannot take place of proof. Ka. 8) written. 25. In these circumstances, the contention of Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate, that the said written information (Ext. Ka. 8) was given after well thought and consultation cannot be ruled out. 26. It is 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. 27. 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 appellant 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 appellant with alleged offence. No offence under Section 304B or Section 498A of IPC is made out as there is no material on record to show that the appellant 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. 28. No offence under Section 304B or Section 498A of IPC is made out as there is no material on record to show that the appellant 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. 28. On a detailed examination and scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution, it is considered view of this Court that the prosecution has failed to establish the commission of alleged offence by the appellant beyond all the reasonable doubt. He deserves benefit of doubt. 29. As a result, this Court accepts the case of the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 30. The impugned judgment dated 19.08.2004, passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Sessions Trial No. 02 of 2004, “State vs. Jagdish Prasad”, is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Sections 304 B and 498 A IPC. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 31. The appellant, Jagdish Prasad, is directed to make compliance of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 within three 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.