JUDGMENT : RAJANI DUBEY, J. 1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.03.2003 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 371/2002 whereby, the trial Court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 498-A of IPC R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3 months U/s 304-B of IPC R.I. for 7 years 2. Vide order dated 22.08.2023 passed by this Court, the instant appeal stands abated in respect of Appellant No.3- Sadhaeemati as she died on 26.07.2009. Hence, the instant appeal is being prosecuted on behalf of appellant No. 1- Lakeshwar Sahu, appellant No.2- Jagjivan Sahu & appellant No.4- Khikh Bai. 3. Case of the prosecution is that on 02.08.2002, merg intimation with regard to death of his daughter-in-law was lodged by the accused/appellant No.1- Lakeshwar sahu to the police station-Sarsinwa. The Merg No. 20/2002 (Ex.P/10) was registered wherein the complainant stated that on the date of incident, appellants went to work on field. Deceased- Rameshwari was alone in the house. At about 10:00 A.M., they came to house after seeing the smoke coming out of their house and saw that the house caught fire and thereafter, they extinguished the fire and entered the house and saw that the deceased -Rameshwari suffered burn injuries and due to which she died. 4. On the basis of merg, an offence under Section 304B/34 of IPC was registered against the appellants. Investigation was carried out and statements of the witnesses were taken. Inquest memo was prepared and thereafter the body was sent for postmortem. Seizure was made. Thereafter, the spot-map was prepared. Charge-sheet for the offence under Section 304B/34 of IPC was filed before the trial Court. During the course of the trial, appellants abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. 5. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, no evidence was adduced by them in their defence. 6. 5. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, no evidence was adduced by them in their defence. 6. Learned trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 10.03.2003, finding evidence adduced by the prosecution trustworthy, convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned trial Court failed to see that the parents of the deceased are poor persons and their financial position is not well therefore the question does not arise that the alleged dowry articles have been given or provided. Learned trial Court failed to see that the appellants are also villagers and they have small mud made house and there is no electricity facility in their house, therefore, the allegation of demand of electric fan, television and other electrical articles is unbelievable and unnatural. The learned trial Court also failed to see that the deceased and accused are relatives to each other and the marriage of deceased was fixed due to their relation. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court without appreciating the evidence of the parties properly, wrongly convicted the appellants. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is perverse and contrary to law applicable in this case, therefore, the impugned judgment may be set aside. 8. Reliance has been placed on this Court’s order dated 13.11.2017 in the matter of Shailendra Kumhare Vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed in CRA No. 948 of 2021. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellants accordingly. Hence, the impugned judgment is well merited and does not call for any interference by this Court. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. Hence, the impugned judgment is well merited and does not call for any interference by this Court. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. It is clear from the record of trial Court that the prosecution examined 14 witnesses in order to prove its case against the appellants. 12. It is also not disputed that the deceased committed suicide within 7 years of marriage and whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry soon before her death the evidence lead by the prosecution is examined. With respect to such facts the statements of witnesses would be relevant. 13. Dr. Kishore Kumar Gandharv (P.W.-10) conducted the postmortem of the deceased and opined that the cause of death is due to excessive burn injuries and nature of death is suicidal. 14. In examination-in-chief, Rampyari (P.W.-1), father of the deceased stated that all the accused persons harassed and tortured the deceased on account of demand of dowry. In para 11 of his cross-examination, he admitted this fact that he did not know whether there is electricity in the house of the appellants or not? Further he admitted that at the time of marriage, no any dowry was demanded by the accused persons. In para 14 of his cross-examination, he admitted that at the time of inquest memo was prepared, he did not complain about any demand of dowry. 15. In examination-in-chief, Kiranbai (P.W.-2) who is mother of the deceased also stated that when her daughter came to maternal home then she told that the accused/appellants harassed her on account of demand of dowry. 16. In examination-in-chief, Ku. Meena Kumari (P.W.-3), friend of the deceased stated that the deceased told her that the appellants demanded Luna, T.V. and Cooler from her. In cross-examination, she admitted that the deceased only told her that her in-laws harassed her on account of demand of Luna, T.V. and Cooler but did not mention the name of any person. 17. In examination-in-chief, Ghanshyam (P.W.-4) stated that the deceased told him that the accused persons are harassing her saying that T.V., Cooler and Fan were not being given to them by her. In cross-examination, he admitted that the family members of the deceased did not call any social meeting with regard to harassment done by the appellants to the prosecutrix. 18. In examination-in-chief, Ghanshyam (P.W.-4) stated that the deceased told him that the accused persons are harassing her saying that T.V., Cooler and Fan were not being given to them by her. In cross-examination, he admitted that the family members of the deceased did not call any social meeting with regard to harassment done by the appellants to the prosecutrix. 18. This Court vide order dated 13.11.2017 passed in the CRA No. 948 of 2011 in the matter of Shailendra Kumhare Vs. State of Chhattisgarh observed in paras 16, 17 and 18 as under:- 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Devinder alias Kala Ram & Others v. State of Haryana reported in (2012) 10 SCC 763 has laid down the principles as under- "11. On a plain reading of Section 304-8 IPC, it is clear that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury 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 husband shall be deemed to have caused dowry death. Thus, where death of a woman has been caused by burns as in the present case, the prosecution has to show:(i) that such death has taken place within seven years of her marriage and (ii) that soon before her death she has been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Once these two facts are established by the prosecution, the husband or the relative shall be "deemed to have caused the dowry death of the woman. The word "deemed" in Section 304-8 IPC, however, does not create a legal fiction but creates a presumption that the husband or relative of the husband has caused dowry death. 12. Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 also provides hat once it is shown that soon before her death a woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment tor, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court "shall presume" that such person had caused the dowry death. 12. Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 also provides hat once it is shown that soon before her death a woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment tor, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court "shall presume" that such person had caused the dowry death. The expression "shall presume has been defined in Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, relevant part of which is extracted hereinbelow: "4. Shall presume-Whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved." Thus, Section 113-B read with Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act. 1872 would mean that unless and until it is proved otherwise, the Court shall hold that a person has caused dowry death of a woman if it is established before the Court 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. 13. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that unless a contrary intention appears from the context, the word "disproved" would mean a fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exit. Thus, if after considering the matters before it, the Court believes that the husband or the relative of the husband has not caused dowry death, the Court cannot convict such person or husband for dowry death under Section 304- B IPC Section 304-B IPC, and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. 1872, in other words, only pravide what the Court shall presume if the ingredients of the provisions are satisfied, but if the evidence in any case is such that the presumptions stand rebutted, the Court cannot hold that the accused was guilty and was punishable for dowry death. 17. The Supreme Court in case of Baijnath & Ors. Vs. 1872, in other words, only pravide what the Court shall presume if the ingredients of the provisions are satisfied, but if the evidence in any case is such that the presumptions stand rebutted, the Court cannot hold that the accused was guilty and was punishable for dowry death. 17. The Supreme Court in case of Baijnath & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2017) 1 SCC 101 has held thus in paras 25, 26, 27 & 28:- "(25) Whereas in the offence of dowry death defined by Section 304-B of the Code, the ingredients thereof are: (i) death of the woman concerned is by any burns or bodily injury or by any cause other than in normal circumstances and (ii) is within seven years of her marriage and (iii) that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. The offence under Section 498-A of the Code is attracted qua the husband or his relative if she is subjected to cruelty. The explanation to this Section exposits "cruelty as: (i) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) or (ii) harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. (26) Patently thus, cruelty or harassment of the lady by her husband or his relative for or in connection with any demand for any property or valuable security as a demand for dowry or in connection therewith is the common constituent of both the offences. (27) The expression "dowry" is ordained to have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The expression "cruelty as explained, contains in its expanse, apart from the conduct of the tormentor, the consequences precipitated thereby qua the lady subjected thereto. (27) The expression "dowry" is ordained to have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The expression "cruelty as explained, contains in its expanse, apart from the conduct of the tormentor, the consequences precipitated thereby qua the lady subjected thereto. Be that as it may, cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of his for or in connection with any demand of dowry to reiterate is the gravamen of the two offences. (28) Section 113-B of the Act enjoins a statutory presumption as to dowry death in the following terms: "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 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 purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)" 18. Applying aforesaid principles in this case and reading of the evidence, the factum of cruelty cannot be said to be disproved as there is no other course left except to believe the statement of the witness mother PW-1 who has categorically established that deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry soon before her death and death was caused within 1 year of marriage. Since such death was caused within one year of the marriage, therefore presumption under section 113-B read with Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act has to be drawn.” 19. In light of above in present case also, mother, father and other relatives of the deceased alleged general allegations against the appellants with regard to demand of some articles but they did not state that as to when they demanded the said articles and also they admitted this fact that at the time of marriage, no such demand was made by the appellants. It was also admitted fact that there is no electricity facility in the house of the appellants. In order to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 304B of IPC, prosecution has to prove this fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry soon before her death. 20. It was also admitted fact that there is no electricity facility in the house of the appellants. In order to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 304B of IPC, prosecution has to prove this fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry soon before her death. 20. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhand; 2023 LiveLaw SC 341 held in paras 11 and 12 as under:- 11. The interpretation of Sections 304B and 498A IPC came up for consideration on Baijnath's case (supra). The opinion was summed up in paras 25 to 27 thereof, which are extracted below:- “25. Whereas in the offence of dowry death defined by Section 304-B of the Code, the ingredients thereof are: (i) death of the woman concerned is by any burns or bodily injury or by any cause other than in normal circumstances, and (ii) is within seven years of her marriage, and (iii) that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. The offence under Section 498-A of the Code is attracted qua the husband or his relative if she is subjected to cruelty. The Explanation to this Section exposits "cruelty" as: (i) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical), or (ii) harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 26. Patently thus, cruelty or harassment of the lady by her husband or his relative for or in connection with any demand for any property or valuable security as a demand for dowry or in connection therewith is the common constituent of both the offences. 27. The expression "dowry" is ordained to have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 27. The expression "dowry" is ordained to have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The expression "cruelty", as explained, contains in its expanse, apart from the conduct of the tormentor, the consequences precipitated thereby qua the lady subjected thereto. Be that as it may, cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of his for or in connection with any demand of dowry, to reiterate, is the gravamen of the two offences. 12. As the aforesaid case was also pertaining to dowry death, presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act was also discussed in detail in paras 29 to 31 of the aforesaid judgment. The same are extracted below:- "29. Noticeably this presumption as well is founded on the proof of cruelty or harassment of the woman dead for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the person charged with the offence. The presumption as to dowry death thus would get activated only upon the proof of the fact that the deceased lady had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the accused and that too in the reasonable contiguity of death. Such a proof is thus the legislatively mandated prerequisite to invoke the otherwise statutorily ordained presumption of commission of the offence of dowry death by the person charged therewith. 30. A conjoint reading of these three provisions, thus predicate the burden of the prosecution to unassailably substantiate the ingredients of the two offences by direct and convincing evidence so as to avail the presumption engrafted in Section 113-B of he Act against the accused. Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or his relative or the person charged is thus the sine qua non to inspirit the statutory presumption, to draw the person charged within the coils thereof. If the prosecution fails to demonstrate by cogent, coherent and persuasive evidence to prove such fact, the person accused of either of the above referred offences cannot be held guilty by taking refuge only of the presumption to cover up the shortfall in proof. 31. If the prosecution fails to demonstrate by cogent, coherent and persuasive evidence to prove such fact, the person accused of either of the above referred offences cannot be held guilty by taking refuge only of the presumption to cover up the shortfall in proof. 31. The legislative primature of role in the in tour of the proof of the often practically inaccessible recesses of life within the guarded confines of a matrimonial home and of replenishing the consequential void, by according a presumption against the person charged, cannot be overeased to gloss over and condone its failure to prove credibly, the basic facts enumerated in the sections Involved, lest justice is the casualty". 21. But in this case, close scrutiny of the statements of the witnesses and other documents did not prove this fact that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to any cruelty for demand of dowry. Learned trial Court did not properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and convicted the appellants under Sections 498-A of IPC and 304-B of IPC which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 22. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 498-A of IPC and 304-B of IPC cannot be legally sustained. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 10.03.2003 is set aside. Consequently, the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 23. The accused/appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provisions of Section 437-A of CrPC. 24. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.