JUDGMENT : Per Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. The present appeal is against the judgment dated 02.07.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.181/2012, whereby the respondent-accused has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased Sangita was the wife of respondent – Rajendra Kumar Yadav. They were married on 12.05.2011 and the wife died in unnatural circumstances on 04.06.2012 by hanging which led to attraction of ingredients of Section 304-B of the IPC and according to the statement of the prosecution which was collected during the investigation, it reveals that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and she died unnatural death within seven years of her marriage. Prosecution case further states that the demand was made of motorcycle and Rs.50,000/-. Consequently, the wife of the respondent eliminated herself in abnormal circumstances and that being unnatural death, the case was registered. The charge-sheet having been filed, the respondent abjured his guilt. The learned Sessions Judge after evaluating the case of the prosecution, acquitted the accused – respondent of the charges levelled against him. Hence, this appeal by the State. 3. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 14 documents connecting the respondent - accused to the crime in question. However, in defence, respondent - accused has examined none, but exhibited three documents i.e. Exs.D-1, D-2 and D-3. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the statement of mother of the deceased, Gayatri Bai Yadav (PW-2), father Rathram Yadav (PW-3) and brother Vijendra Yadav (PW-4), all they have unequivocally supported the fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and such evidence remains unrebutted which the trial Court has failed to appreciate. He would further submit that even the uncle of the deceased Manharan Yadav (PW-6) has narrated the similar story and has corroborated the fact, therefore, there was no occasion to draw other inference. He would further submit that even the uncle of the deceased Manharan Yadav (PW-6) has narrated the similar story and has corroborated the fact, therefore, there was no occasion to draw other inference. Consequently, the learned Sessions Judge should have drawn the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to prove the fact that the burden was not discharged by the accused-respondent which the Court has completely failed to appreciate. Therefore, the accused – respondent has wrongly been acquitted by the learned Sessions Court. He went through the statements of witnesses to submit that their evidence remain unrebutted with respect to demand of dowry and consequently, torture led to unnatural death would attract the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that the statement of mother Gayatri Bai Yadav (PW-2), father Rathram Yadav (PW-3) and brother Vijendra Yadav (PW-4) would show that the cause of death was otherwise. The deceased was under depression for the reason that the brother of the accused, Deepak, was blessed with a child and it was being celebrated in their house and as against this earlier one male child which was born to the deceased died and because of such bereavement she went in depression. She would further submit that the statement of Manharan Yadav (PW-6) would show that it was all hearsay and the statement of mother, father and brother of the deceased would show that the deceased was hale and hearty in her matrimonial home, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve and even before two days of the incident, they visited their house and no complaint of any cruelty was ever made. The reliance is placed in the matter of Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh Vs. State of Uttrakhand reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 454 to submit that the ingredients which requires the attraction of 304 are to be proved by the prosecution, in absence thereof, negative presumption cannot be drawn. She would further submit that the neighbour Rafique Mohammad (PW-7) has categorically stated that the death was caused because of the depression under which the deceased went through after a child was born in the house of his brother-in-law and which was being celebrated. She would further submit that the neighbour Rafique Mohammad (PW-7) has categorically stated that the death was caused because of the depression under which the deceased went through after a child was born in the house of his brother-in-law and which was being celebrated. Consequently, she herself committed suicide by hanging and the respondent cannot be held responsible. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and went through the records. 7. In order to find out the facts, since the allegations are of dowry death, the judgments which has been relied upon would be relevant. Paragraph 11 of the judgment prima facie, laid down the ingredients and reiterated the earlier judgment in the case Baijnath Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2017) 1 SCC 101 . The relevant paragraph extract is reproduced hereunder : “11. The interpretation of Section 304B and 498A IPC came up for consideration in 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. 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. 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.” 8. Reading of aforesaid Section would show that in case of drawing presumption of the dowry death proximity test is to be applied. The principle which has been laid down has been reiterated. The paragraph 12 of the said judgment is also reproduced hereunder : “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 the Act against the accused. 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 the 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. The legislative primature of relieving the prosecution of the rigour 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”. 9. Likewise in the dowry death, soon before the death there has to be cruelty for demand of dowry and the evidence should be on record for which paragraph 13 would be relevant which is reproduced hereunder: “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 [Shindo v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 517 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 394] and echoed in Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana [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 [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”. (emphasis supplied) 10. In view of the aforesaid law laid down, the facts when are translated in this case we would see that Gayatri Bai Yadav (PW-2) the mother, Rathram Yadav (PW-3) the father and Vijendra Yadav (PW-4) the brother, are having close relations. The statement would show that they have stated that after the marriage, when Sangita, the deceased came to their house, no complaint was made and initially a demand was made of Rs.50,000/-. Mother of the deceased has further stated that the accused used to drink a lot and used to sell the household goods and before the incident also Sangita tried to commit suicide during Hareli festival. She further stated that her daughter was blessed with a child, however, the child died after the ailment and thereafter, she used to remain depressed and in order to come over that event, she was kept with them, thereafter, she was also kept in the house of her sister at village Avrid, Janjgir. She further stated that after the marriage, the husband of the deceased has purchased a motorcycle and the motorcycle belongs to his father and even the accused has sold the gold ornaments for consuming liquor. She further stated that before three days of the incident, the deceased and accused had come to attend a marriage ceremony and while they went back, they were found happy. She further stated that before three days of the incident, the deceased and accused had come to attend a marriage ceremony and while they went back, they were found happy. Subsequently, the accused brother, namely, Deepak was blessed with a child and the birth event was celebrated in the house. 11. The statement of father of the deceased Rathram Yadav (PW-3) is also on same line that the complaint was made that after consuming liquor, accused used to quarrel and before two-three days of the incident, the deceased came and stated that after drinking, the accused used to quarrel and similar statement was given by the father that before the said date also, she tried commit to suicide. The father further stated that after the marriage, she was happy in her matrimonial house and no complaint was ever made to anyone. However, one child which was born to her, died, and after that she used to be in depression and before the incident, they came to the house and while going back they were happy. 12. The statement of brother of the deceased Vijendra Yadav (PW-4) is also on similar line who has stated that before two days of the incident, the sister-in-law of Sangita had given birth to a child and he also support the fact that she was happy in her matrimonial home. 13. The uncle of the deceased is Manharan Yadav (PW-6) whose statement would show that he is a hearsay evidence and statement of demand of Rs.50,000/- and a fridge was a hearsay. This statement has not been made by the mother, father or brother of the deceased. 14. The evidence of independent witness who is the neighbour, namely, Rafique Mohammad (PW-7) is also on record is relevant to be seen. He has stated that before two days of the incident, a child was born in the house of Sangita i.e. of her sister-in-law and when the child was born, it was being celebrated and crackers were also burnt in celebration and in such incident, she became depressed and unconscious and it was disclosed by the husband – accused that she has gone in complete depression with such celebration, therefore, he advised other family members not to celebrate grandly. The overall assessment of the evidence of the witnesses would, therefore, show that neither the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry nor the proximity test application suggested that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty. In absence of those ingredients as has been narrated in the preceding paragraphs, we are unable to accept the contentions of the State. 15. In view of such facts, we are of considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent - accused herein of the said charges is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 16. Accordingly, this appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent – accused is hereby dismissed.