JUDGMENT : This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 20/25.07.2016 and order of sentence dated 25.07.2016 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No.201 of 2003, whereby and wherein the appellants have been convicted for offences under Section 304(B)/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 304(B)/34 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 year with fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel representing the appellants submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges of demand of dowry against the appellants as none of the prosecution witnesses did not state the date, year or day on which the demand for dowry was made. He submitted that statement of P.W.-11 namely Ratnesh Kumar Verma, suggests that he always found appellants living with the deceased, wife of appellant No.2 very peacefully and happily in the said tenanted premises. This statement has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court. Learned counsel beseeches the attention of this Court towards the post-mortem report of the deceased. In the post-mortem report there was no mentioning of any sign of external or internal injury on the body of the deceased and cause of death was Asphyxia as a result of drowning. Accordingly to the appellants, this may be a case of accident during process of fetching water from the well. Lastly, he submitted that P.W.-10 has been declared hostile. On these grounds, he implored this Court that this appeal may be allowed and the appellants may be acquitted. 4. Per contra, learned P.P. representing the State submits that the deceased died an unnatural death. There is evidence that there was demand of dowry and the death had occurred within seven years of marriage. He further submits that it is an admitted fact that the appellants have not informed the parents of the deceased about her death which is an additional circumstance to arrive at a conclusion that the appellants have committed the offence. There is evidence that there was demand of dowry and the death had occurred within seven years of marriage. He further submits that it is an admitted fact that the appellants have not informed the parents of the deceased about her death which is an additional circumstance to arrive at a conclusion that the appellants have committed the offence. Though, he has argued on all these aspects, he fairly admits that from the evidence he could not find any material to suggest that “soon before death” there was any demand for dowry or there was torture soon before death for non-fulfilment of demand. 5. Fact of the case in nutshell is that on the basis of written report of Ravindra Kumar, S.I., an F.I.R. was lodged wherein he stated that during an enquiry in connection with U.D. Case No.06/2001, dead body of Sangita Kumari, wife of Nand Kumar Saw, was found in a Well. The dead body was swollen. He stated that on seeing that, it seems as if the dead body was lying in the Well since two days. When he enquired from Nand Kumar Saw, he stated that when he came home by plying rickshaw, he came to know from his father that his wife has fled away after a fight on 07.09.2001. On 09.09.2001 post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased was conducted in which no external injury was found and cause of death was mentioned as due to suffocation by drowning in water. In term of enquiry it has come to the knowledge that deceased being upset by her in-laws, has committed suicide by drowning in the well. During enquiry the police gathered that paternal home of the deceased is at Aurangabad and the father of the deceased has lodged an F.I.R. being Hussainabad P.S. Case No.122 of 2001 regarding death of his daughter at Hussainabad, Palamu stating therein that after marriage of his daughter, her in-laws used to assault his daughter for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. He further alleged that in-laws of his daughter threatened him that if their demand were not fulfilled then he will not be permitted to meet his daughter. On 21.09.2001 one Ramrup Saw gave information to Krishana Saw regarding murder of his daughter by her in-laws and about concealing the dead body of the deceased. 6. He further alleged that in-laws of his daughter threatened him that if their demand were not fulfilled then he will not be permitted to meet his daughter. On 21.09.2001 one Ramrup Saw gave information to Krishana Saw regarding murder of his daughter by her in-laws and about concealing the dead body of the deceased. 6. The said F.I.R. for want of jurisdiction was transferred to Dhanbad and lastly registered as Baghmara (Sonardih) P.S. Case No.232/2001 under Section 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which is the case herein. On the basis of the F.I.R., investigation was conducted by the police and charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 304(B)/34 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter, this case has been committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad transferred this case to the Court of the then Additional Sessions Judge-X, Dhanbad for trial, where charge was framed under the said Section and trial proceeded. 7. To prove the prosecution case, altogether 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined, deposition of whom are hereunder:- 8. P.W.-1 namely Rashal Bhushan, who is the ASI at Kharkhri O.P. deposed that he was handed over with the investigation in connection with U.D. Case No.06/2001. When he went to the village in Keridih, he saw a Well in which dead body of Sangita was lying. With the help of villagers, he took out the dead body and prepared the inquest report and thereafter sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He got to know that father of the deceased has got the F.I.R. lodged at Hussainabad Police Station. In his cross-examination he deposed that during investigation in connection with U.D. Case No.06/2001, he recorded the statement of Paras Kumar, who stated that both the deceased and her husband were living in his house happily. P.W.-2 namely Awani Kalindi, deposed that on the date of incident he saw that there was a crowd in the garden and the dead body of Sangita Devi was lying in the well. P.W.-3 namely Sajjan Mukherjee, deposed that a dead body was recovered from the Well. The dead body was of Sangita Kumari, who was residing in their colony. She was residing with her in-laws including her mother-in-law, father-in-law and her husband. P.W.-4 namely Hridia Devi, who is the mother of the deceased, deposed that her daughter was murdered six years back. P.W.-3 namely Sajjan Mukherjee, deposed that a dead body was recovered from the Well. The dead body was of Sangita Kumari, who was residing in their colony. She was residing with her in-laws including her mother-in-law, father-in-law and her husband. P.W.-4 namely Hridia Devi, who is the mother of the deceased, deposed that her daughter was murdered six years back. She stated that marriage of her daughter was solemnized six years ago with Nandu Saw S/o Kanahai, resident of Nawadih. At the time of marriage, a golden chain was demanded. She deposed that her daughter remained in her matrimonial home for eight days, thereafter her husband took her daughter to her home. She stated that they had given Rs.5,000/- to their son-in-law as demanded by him for opening a fruit shop. Thereafter her son-in-law had opened a fruit shop but it did not materialise and all money was wasted. Thereafter on many occasion her son-in-law used to demand money on the pretext of running one or other businesses (opening STD Booth, etc.), which was later on denied by them. Her husband went to Kanahai Saw to talk to him, where her daughter said crying that if they don’t give Rs.40,000/- then her husband won’t allow her to meet them. Three years ago, they came to know from one Ramrup that her daughter is no more now. When she went there she came to know that their daughter had been murdered and after murder her body had been thrown in a well. P.W.-5 namely Paras Kumar Verma, deposed that Kanhai Saw and Nand Saw were residing in his house and prior to 4-5 months of the date of incident they vacated his house. He further deposed that Sangita was residing with them and thereafter she died. He stated that her dead body was found in a Well. The relationship between Nand Saw and the deceased was cordial. P.W.-6 namely Rajeshwar Prasad Gupta, has repeated same facts in his own words as mother of the deceased (P.W.-4) has deposed in her statement, whether it was about solemnization of marriage or constant demand of money on the pretext of running one or other business or death of the deceased. P.W.-7 namely Udeshwar Kumar Verma, has stated in the same manner as that of the above witnesses. P.W.-7 namely Udeshwar Kumar Verma, has stated in the same manner as that of the above witnesses. P.W.-8 namely Raj Kishore Lal, deposed that when Sangita (deceased) came to her paternal house, she told her that her husband and in-laws used to torture her for demand of Rs.40,000/- on the pretext of opening a STD Booth. Father of the deceased once given some money to Nandu to open a fruit shop but that business did not fructify. On 21.09.2001 an information was received that Sangita has been murdered P.W.-9 namely Krishna Sah, who is the father of the deceased, deposed that his daughter was married to Nand Kumar Saw. After marriage she went to her matrimonial home. In the night of marriage, his son-in-law demanded a golden chain, which somehow got settled. After marriage when his daughter went to her matrimonial home, her in-laws (mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law, elder brother of the husband), started taunting and torturing her for demand of golden chain. He stated that they had given Rs.5,000/- to their son-in-law and a cart on rent, as demanded by him for opening a fruit shop. Thereafter his son-in-law had opened a fruit shop but it did not fructify and all money was wasted. Thereafter on many occasion his son-in-law used to demand money on the pretext of running one or other businesses (opening STD Booth, etc.), which was later on denied by them due to their incapability. Then his son-in-law started threatening to perform another marriage. On 21.09.2001 they came to know from one Ramrup that her daughter is now dead. When he went to report this incident first at Nawadih, no person responded him. Then he went to Hussainabad Police Station and reported the occurrence of death of his daughter. P.W.-10 namely Madan Singh, has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. P.W.-11 namely Ratnesh Kumar Verma, deposed that Nandu Saw was living in the same house with his wife where he was living. He stated that usually quarrel happened between Nandu Saw, his father and the deceased and the relationship between them was not cordial. P.W.-12 namely Ravindra Kumar, who is the informant and Investigating Officer of this case has stated that he has identified the formal F.I.R., which was marked as Ext.4. He stated that usually quarrel happened between Nandu Saw, his father and the deceased and the relationship between them was not cordial. P.W.-12 namely Ravindra Kumar, who is the informant and Investigating Officer of this case has stated that he has identified the formal F.I.R., which was marked as Ext.4. He states that a U.D. Case No.06/2001 was registered regarding this occurrence and during the investigation the occurrence of dowry death came into light. He inspected the place of occurrence which is situated in quarter No.24 of Koiridih in which deceased was residing with her mother-in-law, father-in-law, Dewar and Nanad. He found a Well surrounded by bushes, situated in the open field in lonely place where the dead body of deceased was found. He submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons. P.W.-13 namely Dr. Chandra Shekhar Prasad, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased. On examination he found following features:- “General features-1. The body was decomposing, marbling of veins, face swollen, abdomen distended, corrugation of hands and feet. Tongue was protruded and right eye-ball was also protruded. No external or internal wound was found on P.M. Examination. On dissection:- Stomach and duodenum contained clear flued about 200 CC without any smell. The heart and bladder were empty, the Uterus was normal and empty. All internal organs were softened. Skull found no abnormal defect. Brain was liquefying. Cause of death: due to asphyxia as a result of drowning.” 9. The appellants in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have denied the factum of cruelty and assault soon before her death. 10. Several documents were also exhibited, which are as hereunder:- i. Ext.1 :- Inquest report ii. Ext.2 :- Charge-sheet iii. Ext.1/1 :- Signature of Awani Kalindi on inquest report iv. Ext.1/2 :- Signature of Sajjan Mukherjee on inquest report. v. Ext.3 :- Signature of Krishna Saw on fardbeyan. vi. Ext.4 :- Formal F.I.R. vii. Ext.5 :- Written report viii. Ext.5/1 :- Endorsement on written report ix. Ext.6 :- Post-mortem examination report. 11. In this case, the appellants have been convicted for offences under Section 304(B)/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Section 304B of the IPC reads as follows:- “304B. vi. Ext.4 :- Formal F.I.R. vii. Ext.5 :- Written report viii. Ext.5/1 :- Endorsement on written report ix. Ext.6 :- Post-mortem examination report. 11. In this case, the appellants have been convicted for offences under Section 304(B)/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Section 304B of the IPC reads as follows:- “304B. Dowry death.- 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-section, "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.” 12. As per the provision of law, to convict an accused for offences punishable under Section 304 IPC, the following four essential ingredients which need to be substantiated, reads as follows:- i. “the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; ii. such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage; iii. soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband; iv. such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, demand for dowry.” 13. Once the prosecution has been able to substantiate all the above ingredients of Section 304 B of IPC, then only the onus shifts upon the accused to prove their innocence in terms of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 113B of The Indian Evidence Act, reads as follows:- “[113B. Presumption as to dowry death. Once the prosecution has been able to substantiate all the above ingredients of Section 304 B of IPC, then only the onus shifts upon the accused to prove their innocence in terms of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 113B of The Indian Evidence Act, reads as follows:- “[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).]” The presumption will only be made applicable after the prosecution has been able to satisfy all the ingredients led down under Section 304B of IPC. 14. From the evidence, it is clear that the deceased was married with the appellant No.2 sometime in the year 1998 and she died on 21.09.2001. Thus, the death is within seven years of marriage. The prosecution has been able to prove the ingredient that the death was within seven years of marriage. From the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.-13), who has conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased, it is clear that the deceased died otherwise than in normal circumstances. Now, the crucial issue is whether there was any torture and harassment in relation to demand of dowry and whether the same was soon before the death. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we find that none of the witness have deposed that the deceased was tortured soon before her death or there was demand for dowry soon before death. None of the witness gave a clear picture regarding dates on which demands were made and torture meted upon the deceased. In absence of clear evidence regarding demand of dowry or torture soon before death, the prosecution has failed to satisfy the ingredient led down under Section 304B of IPC. Further, the Doctor has opined that the cause of death is drowning, so there is probability that she might have committed suicide also, as no injury was found on the body of the deceased. 15. Further, the Doctor has opined that the cause of death is drowning, so there is probability that she might have committed suicide also, as no injury was found on the body of the deceased. 15. Since, the prosecution has not been able to prove that soon before death, there was demand of dowry and there was torture in relation to demand of dowry soon before death, we cannot hold the appellants guilty for committing offence under Section 304B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Be it noted that there is no alternative charge under Section 302 IPC or under Section 306 IPC. 16. Considering what has been held above, we find that the appellants have made out a good case for acquittal. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction dated 20/25.07.2016 and order of sentence dated 25.07.2016 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No.201 of 2003, are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. 17. It has been submitted during the course of argument that the appellants have already served the sentence and they were released, thus, it is not necessary to pass any order in this respect. 18. Trial Court Record be transmitted back to the Court concerned. 19. Pending I.A. if any, stands disposed of.