JUDGMENT : 1. Vide order dated 14.03.2023, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to call for the whereabouts and present status of the accused appellants from the concerned Police Station. 2. In compliance of the order dated 14.03.2023, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted the death certificates of accused appellant No.2-Mool Singh s/o Bachan Singh and the accused appellant No.4-Smt. Inder Kanwar w/o Mool Singh. 3. Accordingly, the criminal appeal qua accused appellant No.2 Mool Singh s/o Bachan Singh and the accused appellant No.4-Smt. Inder Kanwar w/o Mool Singh stands abated. 4. So far as the criminal appeal filed by rest of accused appellants i.e. accused appellants No.1 and 3 namely; Matadeen Singh and Sumer Singh, is concerned, same is being heard and finally decided by this Judgment. 5. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellants against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.01.1994 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu (for short ‘the learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.94/1990, whereby, both the above-named accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- U/s. 498A IPC: Three Years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused appellants has to further undergo one month Rigorous Imprisonment. U/s. 304B IPC: Seven Years Rigorous Imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 6. As per the case of the prosecution, complainant Smt. Jugal Kanwar (PW12) submitted a written report (Ex.P1) at Police Station Gudha to this effect that she resident of Village Chanvara. The complainant alleged that that Smt. Sushil Kanwar who was her younger sister had been married a year back with Sohan Singh s/o Mool Singh. It was alleged by the complainant that her father-in-law Mool Singh, her ‘Jeth’ Matadeen Singh and Sumer Singh and her mother-in-law for or in connection with giving less demand in dowry used to give beating to her and daily they used to give threatening to kill her. She further alleged that in the last month they also quarreled. Upon this the father of Sushil Kanwar came to village. Today i.e. on 07.07.1990 at around 3:30 PM she heard that Sushil Kanwar has been killed after burning her by her father-in-law Mool Singh and her Jeth-Mataeen and Sumer Singh and her mother-in-law and they were preparing for funeral. She further alleged that in the last month they also quarreled. Upon this the father of Sushil Kanwar came to village. Today i.e. on 07.07.1990 at around 3:30 PM she heard that Sushil Kanwar has been killed after burning her by her father-in-law Mool Singh and her Jeth-Mataeen and Sumer Singh and her mother-in-law and they were preparing for funeral. The complainant further mentioned in the written report that their ‘dhani’ is situated at the distance away in fields. On the basis of aforesaid written report (Ex.P1), an FIR No.92/1990 (Ex.P14) was registered for the offences under sections 498A and 304B IPC. 7. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused appellants for the offences under sections 201, 302, 304B and 498A IPC in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Nawalgarh. 8. The case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. The learned trial court framed the charges against the accused appellants for the offences under sections 498A and 304B IPC and in the alternative under sections 302 and 201 IPC, to which they denied and opted for trial. 9. From the prosecution side, the statements of twelve witnesses were recorded and certain documents were exhibited. 10. The statements of the accused appellants were recorded under section 313 CrPC. The accused appellants in their statements have denied about the allegations levelled against them and deposed that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case. 11. The learned trial court vide its judgment 27.01.1994 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants for the offences as mentioned above. 12. Ms. Savita Nathawat, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellants submitted that the allegations against each of the accused appellants have to be individually established. There is no charge against the accused appellants either for the offence under section 120B IPC or section 34 IPC. Counsel for the accused appellants submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the accused appellants for the offences under sections 302 and 201 IPC consequent thereto the learned trial court acquitted the accused appellants for the aforesaid offences. Counsel for the accused appellants further submitted that there is no specific allegations against the accused appellants either for or in connection with demand of dowry or cruelty and whatever the allegations were levelled, same have been levelled against accused appellant No.4 Smt. Inder Kanwar, who has since been died. Counsel for the accused appellants further submitted that there is no specific allegations against the accused appellants either for or in connection with demand of dowry or cruelty and whatever the allegations were levelled, same have been levelled against accused appellant No.4 Smt. Inder Kanwar, who has since been died. Counsel for the accused appellants also submitted that the police recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161 CrPC after a great delay which is fatal to the prosecution story. Counsel for the accused appellants also submitted that the material witnesses namely; Sanwat Singh and Gopal Narayan have not been produced by the prosecution and the same have been withheld. Counsel for the accused appellants further submitted that the independent witnesses who are neighbourers were also not examined before the learned trial court, though their statements under section 161 CrPC were recorded and they were also listed in the list of witnesses. Counsel for the accused appellants further submitted that there is no definite cause of death. Whatever allegations in regard to cruelty have been leveled, same have been levelled against Vinod Kanwar but no charges were framed against Vinod Kanwr for the offence under section 498A IPC. Counsel for the accused appellants further submitted that the cruelty against 'X' cannot be taken as cruelty against 'Y'. Counsel for the accused appellants also submitted that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses produced by the prosecution. Thus, the accused appellants may be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal and has submitted that there is no material irregularity or illegality committed by the learned trial court and keeping in view the evidence on record, the accused appellants have been rightly convicted. 14. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and examined the material made available to the Court. 15. The basic issue which has been raised by the counsel appearing for the accused appellants is that there is no evidence so as to constitute the basic required ingredients for conviction of the accused appellants for the offence under section 304B IPC. 15. The basic issue which has been raised by the counsel appearing for the accused appellants is that there is no evidence so as to constitute the basic required ingredients for conviction of the accused appellants for the offence under section 304B IPC. Section 304B IPC reads as under:- “Section 304B IPC-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 subsection, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 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.” 16. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act of 1872’) provides for presumption as to dowry death, which reads as under:- “Section 113B. 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. Explanation. –– For the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).” On conjoint reading of both the provisions i.e. provisions of section 304B IPC and 113B of the Act of 1872, the basic thing which needs to be looked into so as to convict a person for the offence under section 304B IPC is that ‘Whether the deceased has been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry?’. 17. In the case of Asha & Anr. Vs. 17. In the case of Asha & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 174 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “16. On considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as deposed by them which is on record, we are of the view that the charges of cruelty or harassment against the accused are not supported by legal evidence on record. The courts below have erroneously placed reliance on the letter (Ex. Ka. 3) written by P.W. 3 to his parents which is on record to establish the charge Under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, wherein he has stated in his letter that P.W. 7 had gone to the matrimonial house of the deceased and was met with demand for Rs. 30,000/-. There is no evidence of demand for dowry by the accused persons prior to the alleged demand of Rs. 30,000/-. To satisfy the ingredients of the provision of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, the death of a woman must be caused due to burns or bodily injuries, and must be within 7 years of her marriage. Further, it must be proved that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or her relatives "in connection with the demand for dowry" 17. The said charge has not been proved by the prosecution by adducing evidence to attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court and the appellate court have not taken great care in analysing and appreciating the evidence on record, keeping in view the gravity of the offence of dowry death and the punishment prescribed for it Under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. They were required to scrutinise the evidence very cautiously and carefully in order to arrive at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of the offence with reference to the conditions enumerated Under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code to convict the accused have been satisfied by the prosecution. 18. They were required to scrutinise the evidence very cautiously and carefully in order to arrive at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of the offence with reference to the conditions enumerated Under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code to convict the accused have been satisfied by the prosecution. 18. On perusal of the evidence on record, we are of the view that the charge is not proved by the prosecution, particularly as the courts below have failed to notice that the prosecution has failed to prove that the dowry demand was made by the accused either at the time of marriage or subsequently as it has not produced convincing and cogent evidence in this regard. In this case, the evidence on record is not clear as to whether the demand for Rs. 30,000/-as alleged to have been made by the accused is a demand for dowry with the deceased that can constitute cruelty or harassment by the accused. The High Court, after careful examination of the letter dated 28.06.1993, has found that it has been interpolated and that some changes have been made in the letter and some words were added to it. The courts below have erred in law in convicting the Appellants herein by erroneously placing reliance upon the above so called letter, wherein certain words were added with a view to make out a fabricated charge against them to secure the conviction of the accused persons.” 18. In the case of Surinder Kaur & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 109 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “7. We have noticed neither PW-6 nor PW-7 or for that matter the complaint does give the particulars of the time and date when the alleged harassment was meted out by the appellants. As noticed by us hereinabove, these statements are omnibus in nature. The specific allegations of harassment made only involves A-1 and his father with whose case we are not concerned now. The appellants are neither parties to the demand for a buffalo or Rs. 25,000 which seems to be the proximate cause of Baljit Kaur committing suicide. The courts below in appreciating the evidence have failed to appreciate the material on record properly nor have they applied the required standard of proof necessary to base a conviction on the appellants. The appellants are neither parties to the demand for a buffalo or Rs. 25,000 which seems to be the proximate cause of Baljit Kaur committing suicide. The courts below in appreciating the evidence have failed to appreciate the material on record properly nor have they applied the required standard of proof necessary to base a conviction on the appellants. We have already noticed that if at all the prosecution case against these appellants is to be accepted it would only show that soon after the marriage i.e. about 21/2 years prior to the death of the deceased, there was some alleged harassment for lack of dowry which, in our opinion, is not a sufficient ground to hold the appellants guilty for the offence charged, since these allegations are not proximate to the death of the deceased.” 19. In the case of Phulel Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 268, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “28. Insofar as the evidence regarding harassment on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry is concerned, the prosecution relies on the evidence of Pavitar Singh (PW-3), brother of the deceased, Randhir Singh (PW-4), father of the deceased and Major Singh (PW-6), Sarpanch of the village. Insofar as PWs 3 and 4 are concerned, they are relatives of the deceased and their evidence will have to be scrutinized with greater care, caution and circumspection. Insofar as harassment with regard to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry is concerned, except the vague allegation, there is nothing in their evidence to support the prosecution case. 29. Insofar as Major Singh (PW-6), Sarpanch of the village is concerned, he stated that he was informed by Randhir Singh (PW-4), father of the deceased that in-laws of the deceased were harassing her and therefore they should go to village Chatha. However, he also does not state that he was informed by Randhir Singh (PW-4), father of the deceased that the deceased was meted out to any harassment on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. 30. We are therefore of the considered view that there is no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was harassed on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. We therefore find that the case Under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code is not made out by the prosecution.” 20. 30. We are therefore of the considered view that there is no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was harassed on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. We therefore find that the case Under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code is not made out by the prosecution.” 20. In the case of Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2023 Live Law SC 341, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “13. A conjoint reading of Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act with reference to the presumption raised was discussed in para 32 of the aforesaid judgment, which is extracted below:- “32. This Court while often dwelling on the scope and purport of Section 304-B of the Code and Section 113-B of the Act have propounded that the presumption is contingent on the fact that the prosecution first spell out the ingredients of the offence of Section 304-B as in Shindo v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 517 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 394 and echoed in Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2013) 16 SCC 640 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 346. In the latter pronouncement, this Court propounded that one of the essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304-B of the Code is that the accused must have subjected the woman to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death and that this ingredient has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and only then the Court will presume that the accused has committed the offence of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Act. It referred to with approval, the earlier decision of this Court in K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, (2003) 1 SCC 217 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 271 to the effect that to attract the provision of Section 304-B of the Code, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that “soon before her death” she was subjected to cruelty and harassment “in connection with the demand for dowry” 21. In the case of K. Prema S. Rao & Ors. In the case of K. Prema S. Rao & Ors. vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao & Ors., reported in 2002 Supp (3) SCR 339, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as observed as under:- “The evidence which has been found acceptable by the courts below against accused No. 1 is that the cruel treatment and harassment of the deceased by him led her to commit suicide which was a death "otherwise than under normal circumstances". To attract the provisions of Section 304B IPC, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that "soon before her death" she was subjected to cruelty and harassment ’in connection with the demand for dowry’. There is no evidence on record to show that the land was demanded as dowry. It was given by the father to the deceased in marriage ritual as pasupukumuma. The harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased by the husband after the marriage to force her to transfer the land in his name was ’not in connection with any demand for dowry.’ One of the main ingredients of the offence of "demand of dowry" being absent in this case, the High Court cannot be said to have committed any error in acquitting accused No. 1 for offence under Section 304B, IPC. 22. In the case of Satbir Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1735-1736 of 2010) decided on 28.05.2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “Section 304B (1) defines ‘dowry death’ of a woman. It provides that ‘dowry death’ is where death of a woman is caused by burning or bodily injuries or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of 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, in connection with demand for dowry. Subclause (2) provides for punishment for those who cause dowry death. Accordingly, in Major Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 5 SCC 201 , a three Judge Bench of this Court held as follows: “10. Subclause (2) provides for punishment for those who cause dowry death. Accordingly, in Major Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 5 SCC 201 , a three Judge Bench of this Court held as follows: “10. To sustain the conviction under Section 304B IPC, the following essential ingredients are to be established: (i) the death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a ‘normal circumstance’; (ii) such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (iii) she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry; and (v) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.” 9. The first contentious part that exists in the interpretation of Section 304B, IPC relates to the phrase “soon before” used in the Section. Being a criminal statute, generally it is to be interpreted strictly. However, where strict interpretation leads to absurdity or goes against the spirit of legislation, the courts may in appropriate cases place reliance upon the genuine import of the words, taken in their usual sense to resolve such ambiguities. [refer Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company, (2018) 9 SCC 1 , State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 412]. At this juncture, it is therefore necessary to undertake a study of the legislative history of this Section, in order to determine the intention of the legislature behind the inclusion of Section 304B, IPC. 10. Section 304B, IPC is one among many legislative initiatives undertaken by Parliament to remedy a longstanding social evil. The pestiferous nature of dowry harassment, wherein married women are being subjected to cruelty because of covetous demands by husband and his relatives has not gone unnoticed. The Parliament enacted the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as a first step to eradicate this social evil. Further, as the measures were found to be insufficient, the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act 46 of 1983) was passed wherein Chapter XXA was introduced in the IPC, containing Section 498A.” 23. The Parliament enacted the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as a first step to eradicate this social evil. Further, as the measures were found to be insufficient, the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act 46 of 1983) was passed wherein Chapter XXA was introduced in the IPC, containing Section 498A.” 23. On making critical scrutiny of the evidence on record, PW1 Bhanwar Kanwar, in her cross-examination has specifically stated as under:- ^^esjs dks eqyfteku es ls lq'khy daoj dh lkl us esjs ls ngst ds ckjs es dgk Fkk ckfd eqyfteku us ngst ds ckjs esa dHkh ugh dgkA^^ PW2 Amar Singh in his cross-examination has specifically stated as under:- ^^nksuks yM+afd;k dh 'kknh lkjh dh lkjh esjs lkeus gh gqbZ FkhA ;g lgh gS fd nksuks yM+fd;ksa dh 'kknh ij ngst ds ysu&nsu ds ckjs es dksbZ dgk lquh ugha gqbZA ;g t:j ns[kk Fkk fd nksuks yMds 'kknh ds ckn thi esa cSBd xkao ls ckgj pys x;s FksA ;g irk ugha oks ukjkt gksdj x;s Fks ;k oSls ghA os vius vki gh okil vk x;s FksA ge ls dksbZ cqykus ugha x;k FkkA yM+fd;ks ds firk o yM+dks ds firk esa dksbZ fookn ugha gqvk ;g esjs dks irk ugh fd nksuksa yM+ds fdl fy;s xkao ls ckgj x;s FksA ckjkr esa paojk xkao ls djhc 60&65 vkneh dksVMk x;s FksA^^ PW5 Vinod w/o Matadeen in her statement recorded by the trial court has stated that her mother-in-law, father-in-law, Matadeen Singh and her whole family was creating pressure for the dowry. She further stated that her mother-in-law used to say that if she does not bring the television and Rs.10,000/-, she will remarry her son. She has also stated in the examination-in-chief that the members of the in-laws family were making demand of Rs.10,000/-and television. There are no allegations against the appellants namely; Matadeen Singh and Sumer Singh about demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment. This witness in her cross-examination has not stated even a single word that which of the accused appellants subjected the deceased to cruelty for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry, soon before the death. PW7-Khushal Singh-the father of the deceased in his statement has made allegations of cruelty for, or in connection with, demand of dowry as regards Vinod Kanwar and not with regard to deceased Sushil Kanwar. PW7-Khushal Singh-the father of the deceased in his statement has made allegations of cruelty for, or in connection with, demand of dowry as regards Vinod Kanwar and not with regard to deceased Sushil Kanwar. One of the material witness namely; Pooran Singh (PW8), who is the brother of the deceased did not support the prosecution story and was turned hostile. 24. There is no mention about the demand of dowry i.e. demand in regard to the television and Rs.10,000/-in the FIR lodged by the informant-Jugal Kanwar (PW12). PW12 Jugal Kanwar in her statement recorded before the trial court has stated that she made information in regard to the facts of demand of the television and Rs.10,000/-but why it has not been mentioned, she does not know. 25. On scrutiny of the aforementioned evidence, this Court finds that there is no specific evidence of cruelty or harassment by the accused appellants namely; Matadeen Singh and Sumer Singh towards the deceased for demand of dowry soon before death. Since the law, as referred in the foregoing paras, clearly speaks that for attracting the provisions of section 304B IPC, the basic ingredients which is required is that the deceased is subjected to cruelty or harassment by accused for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry. As per the settled law, the allegations of cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry must be towards the deceased. In the present case, there are certain allegations for demand of dowry against the accused appellants towards the sister of the deceased namely; Vinod Kanwar but there is no charge framed by the trial court for the offence under section 498A IPC in regard to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry to Vinod Kanwar. The prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt as regards the allegations of cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry towards the deceased by the appellants. There is no cogent evidence available on the record so as to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellants for cruelty or harassment to deceased Sushil Kanwar for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry. Against the accused appellants Matadeen Singh and Sumer Singh, whose appeal is being heard on merits, there is no material evidence against them for cruelty and harassment to deceased Sushil Kanwar for demand of dowry. 26. Against the accused appellants Matadeen Singh and Sumer Singh, whose appeal is being heard on merits, there is no material evidence against them for cruelty and harassment to deceased Sushil Kanwar for demand of dowry. 26. So as to convict a person for the offence under section 304B IPC, the allegations of cruelty and harassment for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry, are required to be established against each of the accused appellants individually because the present accused appellants have not been charged for the offence under section 120B or section 34 IPC. 27. While passing this Judgment, the Court is also conscious of the fact that when the charges for the offences under sections 498A and 304B IPC were framed against the accused appellants, alternatively charges for the offences under sections 302 and 201 IPC were also framed, however, the accused appellants have been acquitted from the aforesaid charges for want of material evidence and the prosecution failed to prove the said charges against the accused appellants. 28. During scrutiny of evidence and investigation papers it is revealed that the statements of the witnesses under section 161 CrPC were recorded by the Police after a delay of about 14 days and there is no satisfactory explanation for such a delay. There are certain other irregularities in the trial such as the material witnesses namely; Sanwat Singh and Gopal Narayan were not produced before the trial court and also no definite opinion of the cause of death has been given out. 29. The trial court has convicted the accused appellants for the offences under sections 498A and 304B IPC in connection with the death of deceased Sushil Kanwar on the basis of the allegations of giving beating to Vinod Kanwar for demand of dowry and so also the fact that there was some dispute at the time of the marriage between the parties in regard to demand of television and Rs.10,000/-. The death has caused after a year of the marriage. 30. On critical examination of the prosecution evidence, this Court finds no substantial evidence in regard to cruelty and harassment by the accused appellants No.1 and 3 towards Sushil Kanwar for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry soon before her death. 31. The death has caused after a year of the marriage. 30. On critical examination of the prosecution evidence, this Court finds no substantial evidence in regard to cruelty and harassment by the accused appellants No.1 and 3 towards Sushil Kanwar for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry soon before her death. 31. The trial court has also taken into consideration the fact of an unnatural death of deceased Sushil Kanwar for convicting the accused appellants for the offences under sections 498A and 304B IPC. 32. In view of the specific language of provision of section 304B IPC so also the provision of section 113B of the Act of 1872, there must be an evidence on record to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry, soon before her death. Merely the fact of an unnatural death of a woman cannot be the sole basis to convict a person for the offences under sections 498A and 304B IPC. 33. This Court has already concluded that there is no such evidence on record for subjecting the deceased of cruelty and harassment by the accused appellants for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry, soon before her death. The material witnesses namely; Sanwant Singh-Head Constable and Gopal Narayan were not produced in evidence. The above-named two witnesses were the material witnesses in regard to the investigation part. Not producing the material witnesses so as to prove the prosecution story is fatal to the prosecution. The trial court has come to a perverse finding that non-production of such witnesses does not adversely affect the prosecution case. 34. In view of the discussion made above, the criminal appeal of the accused appellants namely; Matadeen Singh and Sumer Singh is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.01.1994 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No.94/1990 qua both the accused appellants are set aside and both the accused appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 35. The accused appellants are on bail, they need not to surrender. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are accordingly discharged. 36. 35. The accused appellants are on bail, they need not to surrender. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are accordingly discharged. 36. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, each of the accused appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-each and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the said appellants, on receipt of notice therefore, shall appear before the Supreme Court. The record be sent back to the trial court forthwith.