JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, learned Addl. P.P.appearing for the State. 2. This instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.06.2006 and 01.07.2006 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No.237 of 2000 (44 of 2005) arising out of Narayanpur P.S. Case No.11 of 2000 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.57 of 2000) whereby and whereunder, the sole appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 304(B) and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) of the I.P.C. and R.I. for three years for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation. 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that informant’s daughter Nazma Khatoon (since deceased) was married with one Jahangir Ansari according to muslim rights and customs. It is alleged that since from the very inception of the marriage, the husband and in-laws of the deceased were not satisfied with the dowry presented at the time of marriage. It is alleged that just after two months of the marriage additional demand of Rs. 40,000/- cash was raised by husband and father-in-law of the deceased which could not be fulfilled due to poverty of the informant. It is further alleged that due to non-fulfillment of above demand, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and torture at the hands of her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law (appellant) Salma Khatoon. It is further alleged that just before 20 days of the occurrence, daughter of informant all of a sudden returned to her parental home and narrated about the ill-treatment and torture meted with her due to non-fulfillment of aforesaid demand by her father. Anyhow, she managed to flee away from the matrimonial home. It is alleged that thereafter, husband and father-in-law of the deceased arrived at parental home of the deceased and requested her father to send back the deceased to her matrimonial home on assurance that they will keep her properly and will not repeat the aforesaid demand in future. Anyhow, she managed to flee away from the matrimonial home. It is alleged that thereafter, husband and father-in-law of the deceased arrived at parental home of the deceased and requested her father to send back the deceased to her matrimonial home on assurance that they will keep her properly and will not repeat the aforesaid demand in future. Upon above assurance, the deceased was again sent to her matrimonial home but just after one day of the occurrence, the informant came to know from his nephew that the deceased has complained about further ill-treatment and torture and apprehending her death at the instance of accused persons. Then informant was thinking to go to the matrimonial home of his daughter but he came to know from one Chirauddin Mian that his daughter has been killed in her matrimonial home. The informant along with others went there and saw the dead body of his daughter and ligature mark on the neck. The informant also inquired with the local villagers and came to know that Jahangir Ansari (husband), Sayeed Ansari (father- in-law) and present appellant (mother-in-law) have committed murder of the deceased by giving knot of rope and tightening the neck. It is further alleged that such attempt was also made by the husband prior to one year of this occurrence with one Iqbal Ansari.On the basis of written report of the informant (father of the deceased), F.I.R. was instituted as Narayanpur P.S. Case No.11 of 2000 for the offence under Section 304(B) read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. 4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for the offence under Section304(B) read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.Initially charges were framed against all the three accused persons but during the trial of the case, accused Sayeed Ansari died on 11.05.2003. Subsequently, the co- accused Jahangir Ansari absconded from the jail custody, therefore, process for his arrest was taken and ultimately, he was declared as absconder and permanent warrant of arrest was also issued against him. The case of present appellant was split up for trial. 5. After conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment and order has been passed against the appellant which has been assailed in this appeal. 6. The case of present appellant was split up for trial. 5. After conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment and order has been passed against the appellant which has been assailed in this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that appellant Salma Khatoon is mother-in-law of the deceased who has no concern with the family affairs between deceased, her husband and father-in-law. There is no specific allegation against the appellant as to when she has asked additional dowry in the shape of Rs.40,000/- cash and in what manner she was subjecting the deceased to cruelty. No specific day and date of any event as alleged against her has been mentioned that when the demand was raised by the appellant and what type of cruelty was extended to the deceased at the hands of present appellant. Therefore, the basic ingredients of Sections 304(B) and 498(A) of the I.P.C. is not proved by the prosecution. The appellant is a household lady and old person now about 87 years’ age. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove any of the charges levelled against her beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant is absolutely illegal and not justified under law and liable to be set aside.In the alternative, it is argued that the appellant has remained in custody for more than seven months the imprisonment awarded to her. The appellant has maintained peace and harmony in the society and not indulged in any other criminal activity since her release on bail by this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone. 7. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. for the State defending the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant has contended that the learned trial court has very wisely and aptly analyzed, scanned and appreciated the prosecution evidence in a threat bare manner and arrived at right conclusion about guilt of the appellant. The prosecution has proved the charges levelled against the appellant beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant and there is no merit in this appeal which is fit to be dismissed. 8. The prosecution has proved the charges levelled against the appellant beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant and there is no merit in this appeal which is fit to be dismissed. 8. Perused the case record along with impugned judgment and order in light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 9. It appears that in order to substantiate the charges levelled against accused person altogether 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 10. The most important witness in this case is the informant Gafar Mian himself, father of the deceased, who has been examined as P.W.8. He has proved the contents of his written report and testified that his daughter was killed in her sasural by the accused persons by tightening the rope in the neck. He has further deposed that his daughter was married with accused Jahangir of Village Pitari. He further states that in the marriage of his daughter, he has presented the articles worth Rs.40,000/- along with some cash and after the marriage, there was additional demand of Rs.40,000/- and due to non- fulfillment of which, the accused persons committed murder of his daughter by tightening the rope in the neck of the deceased. He has further deposed that some day before the occurrence, his daughter has come to his parental home and disclosed that she was being beaten by the accused persons. He has further deposed that after arrival of the girl, the accused Jahangir (husband) and Sayeed (father-in-law) also came in his house along with some persons and a Panchayati was also convened with regard to sending back the daughter of the informant to her sasural, i.e., to the house of her husband. He has further deposed that just before one day of this fatal occurrence, when the nephew of the informant Usman Mian was coming home through Village Pitari, he met with the daughter of the informant, who told him that accused persons were assaulting her in sasural and she also asked him to carry her to her Naihar. After getting the information about his daughter, the informant was preparing to go to the matrimonial house of the deceased, he came to know through one Chirauddin Mian that her daughter has been killed by accused Jahangir, Sayeed and Salima Khatoon. After getting the information about his daughter, the informant was preparing to go to the matrimonial house of the deceased, he came to know through one Chirauddin Mian that her daughter has been killed by accused Jahangir, Sayeed and Salima Khatoon. Thereafter, this witnesses along with others proceeded to matrimonial home at Village Pitari of her daughter and saw her dead body lying on a cot and the pieces of broken bangles which was worn by the deceased was scattered in the room and saw that there was black rope mark around the neck of the deceased. In his cross-examination, he has stated that at the time of marriage, the paper upon which the articles and dowry what was given and taken was made but he refused to show that paper. He denied the suggestion of the defence that he has sent his daughter to her matrimonial home against her will and due to which, she has committed suicide. P.W.7 Jarina Khatoon @ Jarina Bibi who is mother of the deceased, has deposed that her daughter died in her sasural by the accused persons by tightening the rope in the neck. She has further deposed that her daughter was married with accused Jahangir of Village Pitari. She further states that her daughter lived quite well for some time in her sasural, thereafter, her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law started assaulting and torturing her about additional dowry and raised demand of Rs.40,000/- due to non-fulfillment of which, the accused persons committed murder of her daughter by tightening the rope in the neck of the deceased. She has further deposed that some day before the occurrence, her daughter came to her parental home and disclosed that she was beaten by the accused persons. She has further deposed that after arrival of the girl, the accused Jahangir (husband) and Sayeed (father-in-law) also came at her house along with some persons and a Panchayati was also convened with regard to sending back the daughter of the informant to her sasural, i.e., to the house of her husband. She has further deposed that just before one day of this fatal occurrence, when the nephew of the informant Usman Mian was coming home through Village Pitari, he met with the daughter of the informant, she told him that accused persons were assaulting her in sasural and she also asked him to take back her to her Naihar. She has further deposed that just before one day of this fatal occurrence, when the nephew of the informant Usman Mian was coming home through Village Pitari, he met with the daughter of the informant, she told him that accused persons were assaulting her in sasural and she also asked him to take back her to her Naihar. She has further deposed that after inquiring about her daughter, she suddenly came to know through one Chirauddin Mian that her daughter has been killed by accused Jahangir, Sayeed and Salima Khatoon. Thereafter, this witnesses along with others proceeded to matrimonial home at Village Pitari of her daughter and saw her dead body lying on a cot and the pieces of broken bangles which was worn by the deceased was broken and scattered in the room and saw that there was black rope mark around the neck of the deceased. In her cross-examination, this witness admits that after the marriage, her daughter used to visit her parental home at the interval of three to four months but her son-in-law did not come to her house. Her daughter was being brought by her son. She further deposed that due to quarrel sometime her daughter did not want to go to her in-laws house. She remained intact that her daughter was killed due to non- fulfillment of dowry of Rs.40,000/- but she has stated that the amount of Rs.40,000/- was being asked by the husband of the deceased for doing business. She has denied the suggestion that her daughter does not want to go to her matrimonial home due to illegal affairs in her village and she has also denied the suggestion that her daughter has committed suicide. P.W.1 Usman Ansari is the cousin of the deceased who visited the house of the informant's daughter one day before the tragic incident. While returning home from Dhanbad, he stopped at the house of the informant’s daughter, located in Village Pitari. He has further deposed that during this visit, the informant's daughter informed him that her husband and in-laws were demanding Rs. 40,000/-. She further revealed that they had threatened to kill her if the demanded amount was not paid. He further testified that the informant’s daughter requested him to take her back to her Naihar (maternal home) due to her distress. 40,000/-. She further revealed that they had threatened to kill her if the demanded amount was not paid. He further testified that the informant’s daughter requested him to take her back to her Naihar (maternal home) due to her distress. Upon returning home, he informed the informant and other family members about her ill-treatment at the hands of the accused persons. He has further deposed that the next day, while the informant and others were preparing to visit daughter’s marital home, they were informed by Chirauddin Mian (P.W.2) that the informant’s daughter had been murdered. On receiving this information, he along with others rushed to the house of the accused. Upon arrival, he found the deceased lying on a cot with a black mark around her neck, indicating possible strangulation. Additionally, her broken bangles were scattered across the room, and her ribbon and lachha (hair accessories) were also found thrown around the room, suggesting signs of a struggle. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that one day prior to occurrence i.e. on 23.02.2000, he has gone to his sister house. He has again visited to his sister house on the date of incident i.e. on 24.02.2000 at 12:00 p.m. and stayed there till 06:00 p.m. He has further deposed that he has seen the dead body of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that he has not visited the house of deceased and has given false evidence. P.W.2 Chirauddin Ansari is the co-villager of the deceased who is a crucial witness who first informed the informant about the tragic murder of the informant’s daughter. In his testimony, he has deposed that while he was out for selling vegetables and had reached the village Chainpur, he came to know from the local people that Jahangir (the accused) had murdered his wife. He has further deposed that upon returning to his own village, he immediately informed the informant and others about the incident. At the request of the informant and other villagers, he also went to see the daughter of the informant. Upon arrival, he observed that the informant’s daughter was lying dead on a cot. He has further deposed that upon returning to his own village, he immediately informed the informant and others about the incident. At the request of the informant and other villagers, he also went to see the daughter of the informant. Upon arrival, he observed that the informant’s daughter was lying dead on a cot. He has further deposed that the room was in disarray; the ribbon and lachha (hair accessories) of the deceased were scattered in the room, her bangles were broken and the bedding was also disturbed and there was a black mark around the neck of the deceased, suggesting possible strangulation. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he is a vegetable vendor and during course of selling vegetable, he has heard the message of death of the deceased. He has further deposed that he has gone to the house of deceased and seen the dead body. He has denied the suggestion of the defence for giving false evidence. P.W.3 Mukhtar Ansari, P.W.4 Gulmohammad, P.W.5 Abdul Latif, P.W.6 Md. Israuddin and P.W.9 Abdul Hamid. These five witnesses are hearsay witnesses and none of them have seen the incident. All of them have deposed that when they came to know about the murder of the informant's daughter in her sasural, they visited the house of the accused Jahangir along with the informant and other family members, wherein they found that the deceased was lying dead inside the house of the accused. They have further deposed that the bangles (churi) worn by the deceased were broken and scattered in the room. The ribbon and lachha (hair accessories) of the deceased were also scattered in the room. There was a visible black mark around the neck of the deceased, suggesting the possibility of strangulation with a rope. They have further deposed that bedding in the room was disturbed and there were broken bricks scattered across the floor, indicating signs of a scuffle and possible dragging within the room. P.W.10 Dr. Ajay Kumar Ghosh is the medical officer who had conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and has found black ligature mark all around the neck below thyroid cartilage. Most mark right side front and back 1 c.m. x 33 c.m. He has also opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia caused by strangulation. P.W.11 Arbind Kumar Sinha is the Investigating Officer of the case. Most mark right side front and back 1 c.m. x 33 c.m. He has also opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia caused by strangulation. P.W.11 Arbind Kumar Sinha is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has deposed that upon visiting the scene, he found the dead body of the deceased lying on a cot inside the room of the accused, where the incident reportedly took place. He has further deposed that he observed broken pieces of churi (bangles), which the deceased had been wearing before her death, scattered across the room. He has further deposed that he also found pieces of bricks, which had been placed under the legs of the cot (palank) that were broken and scattered. 11. At the outset for better appreciation of the case, the relevant provisions have to be extracted as under: Section 498A of the I.P.C. reads as follows: “498A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation – For the purpose of this section 'cruelty'means – (a) 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) of the woman. Explanation – For the purpose of this section 'cruelty'means – (a) 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) of the woman. (b) 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." The essential ingredients of Section 498A of the I.P.C.are as under: “Essentials (i) That there was a married woman; (ii) that such woman was subjected to cruelty; (iii) that such cruelty consisted of any willful conduct of such nature as was likely to drive such woman - to commit suicide, or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical; harassment of such woman where such harassment was - with a view to coercing such woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, or on account of failure by such woman, or any person related to her to meet the unlawful demand in able and the woman was subjected to such cruelty by - the husband of that woman; or any relative of the husband of that woman.” Section 304B IPC deals with dowry death which reads as follows: “304B. 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 purpose of this sub-section 'dowry' shall have same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). Explanation – For the purpose of this sub-section 'dowry' shall have 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.” The essential ingredients of the offence of dowry death as per above Section are as under: “(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. (v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.” Section 113B of the Evidence Act reads as under:- 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. 12. From the aforesaid discussion of prosecution evidence, it is crystal clear that no specific overt act has been attributed against the appellant as to in what manner and on what occasion, she has subjected the deceased to cruelty. It is proved case of the prosecution as per testimony of witnesses that the father-in-law and the husband were quite instrumental to raise the additional demand of dowry Rs.40,000/-. It is also stated that when the informant due to torture meted with her at the hands of her father-in-law and husband fled away to her paternal home where the husband and father-in-law approached and assured to keep her properly and she was requested to be sent back to her matrimonial home. It further transpires that after the aforesaid settlement and assurance given by the husband and father-in-law, there is no allegation against the present appellant that she was instrumental in subjecting the deceased to cruelty in any manner and suddenly, she died an unnatural death at her matrimonial home. It further transpires that after the aforesaid settlement and assurance given by the husband and father-in-law, there is no allegation against the present appellant that she was instrumental in subjecting the deceased to cruelty in any manner and suddenly, she died an unnatural death at her matrimonial home. There is no doubt that the deceased has been died within seven years of her marriage otherwise, than under normal circumstances. It is also proved by the prosecution that there was additional demand of dowry and due to non-fulfillment of which the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment. But so far implication and involvement of present appellant as mother- in-law of the deceased is concerned, there is no concrete evidence showing any overt act against her either in raising the demand or subjecting the deceased to cruelty either mental or physical. There are general and omnibus allegation against the appellant and she appears to have been roped in this case merely on the ground that she happens to be mother-in-law of the deceased. 13. Considering the overall aspects of the case, I do not find any material to prove the charges levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt rather the very foundational facts for constituting the offence of dowry death as well as demand of dowry has not been brought home against the appellant through cogent and reliable evidence. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant is hereby set aside and she is acquitted from the charges levelled against her and this appeal is allowed. Since, the appellant is on bail, she is discharged from the liability of her bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 14. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 15. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful.