JUDGMENT : AVNEESH JHINGAN,J:- 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 15.07.1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malpura, District Tonk in Sessions Case No.52/94 whereby the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:- Name of Accused- Appellants Convicted under section Punishment Smt. Samajh Kanwar and Maina Kanwar 304B IPC Seven years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.250/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment. 176 IPC Six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment. 201 IPC Three years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Bhanwar Singh 304B IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo two month rigorous imprisonment. 176 IPC Six months simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo three month simple imprisonment. 201 IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Jeevan Singh and Kishore Singh 176 IPC Six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo three months simple imprisonment. 201 IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The facts as per the prosecution are that marriage of Umrao Kanwar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was solemnized in the year 1989-90 with Bhagwan Singh son of Jeevan Singh. On the night of 25.03.1992, the deceased died and was cremated by in-laws on 26.03.1992 that to without informing the parents of the deceased. On 09.04.1992, Bhanwar Singh Rathore (brother of the deceased) filed a complaint and FIR No.91/1992 was registered at Police Station Todaraisingh, District Tonk. In the investigation, husband of the deceased, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law (jeth), sister-in-law (bhabhi) and brother-in-law (jeeja of husband) were nominated as accused. Charges were framed u/s 304-B, 201 and 176 IPC. In the statement made u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused stated it to be a case of false implication. The prosecution examined twenty witnesses and twenty documents were exhibited. In defence, ten witnesses were examined and fifty five documents were exhibited. Charges were framed u/s 304-B, 201 and 176 IPC. In the statement made u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused stated it to be a case of false implication. The prosecution examined twenty witnesses and twenty documents were exhibited. In defence, ten witnesses were examined and fifty five documents were exhibited. 2.1 The trial Court after considering the facts and appreciating the evidence adduced convicted the appellants vide impugned judgment. The husband of the deceased was tried separately and was acquitted vide judgment dated 14.02.2008. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that there was delay of fourteen days in lodging the FIR and the explanation put-forth for covering the delay that the complainant was admitted in hospital at Jaipur was false. The contention is that it is the case of false implication and the FIR was registered only when the in-laws of the deceased demanded back the jewelry of the deceased, which was lying with the parents of the deceased. 3.1 The contradiction in the deposition of the prosecution evidence are being relied upon to argue that the harassment for demand of dowry was not proved and the relatives of the deceased including her brother had attended the Tiya Baithak (ceremony held on third day of death) and kirya (ceremony held on eleventh day of death). It is contended that there was nothing on record to prove that death of the deceased was an unnatural death. Submission is that husband of the deceased was acquitted and no appeal has been filed against the acquittal. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that all the prosecution witnesses have deposed that deceased was maltreated by accused for being of dark complexion and for bringing less dowry. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with their able assistance. 6. Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 (for short ‘1872 Act’) were inserted by the Act 43 of 1986 to specifically deal with dowry death cases where onus was shifted on accused. The sections are reproduced below:- 304B. 6. Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 (for short ‘1872 Act’) were inserted by the Act 43 of 1986 to specifically deal with dowry death cases where onus was shifted on accused. The sections are reproduced below:- 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 section, "dowry death" 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. 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 purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of INDIAN PENAL CODE (45 of 1860). 7. The pre-requisites for invoking Section 304B IPC are: (i) unnatural death of a married woman due to burn or bodily injury; (ii) death within seven years of her marriage; (iii) lastly, deceased soon before the incident was subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband or his relatives for, or in connection with demand of dowry. 8. Section 113B of the 1872 Act raises presumption of accused having caused dowry death, in case conditions referred above are met. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Karan Singh Vs. The State of Haryana reported in 2025 INSC 133 held that before attracting Section 113B of the 1872 Act, ingredient of Section 304B IPC must be proved. 8. Section 113B of the 1872 Act raises presumption of accused having caused dowry death, in case conditions referred above are met. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Karan Singh Vs. The State of Haryana reported in 2025 INSC 133 held that before attracting Section 113B of the 1872 Act, ingredient of Section 304B IPC must be proved. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below:- “8.The presumption under Section 113-B will apply when it is established that soon before her death, the woman has been subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Therefore, even for attracting Section 113-B, the prosecution must establish that the deceased was subjected by the appellant to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death. Unless these facts are proved, the presumptions under Section 113-B of the EVIDENCE ACT cannot be invoked.” 9.1 To similar effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in Shoor Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2024 INSC 713 . 10. The cause of death of deceased was not known as no postmortem was conducted. PW1-Kanchan Kanwar (mother of the deceased) and PW-7 Lala Ram specifically deposed that cause of death of the deceased is not known. It is not disputed that the deceased was pregnant when she expired and earlier she had a miscarriage. 11. The presumption u/s 304-B IPC can be invoked against the accused on fulfillment of three conditions referred above and one of it being unnatural death of married woman due to burn or bodily injuries. The prosecution miserably failed to prove unnatural death of the deceased, consequently presumption against the accused u/s 304-B IPC cannot be invoked. 12. The case set up that the deceased was being harassed for demand of dowry was dented by the contradictions in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. Another aspect is that none of the prosecution witnesses deposed of any specific incident with date or month, whereby the deceased was harassed by the accused for dowry. All the prosecution witnesses were consistent that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. 13. Another aspect is that none of the prosecution witnesses deposed of any specific incident with date or month, whereby the deceased was harassed by the accused for dowry. All the prosecution witnesses were consistent that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. 13. PW3- Gopal Singh (father of the deceased), PW6- Kailash Chand Sharma (priest at the time of marriage of the deceased) stated that at the time of Muklawa (Gona), Bhanwar Singh (jeth of the deceased) demanded Rs.50,000/- but no incident thereafter of dowry demand was mentioned. 14. The deposition of PW-3 Gopal Singh was contradicted by PW-1 Kanchan Kanwar who specifically stated that neither there was demand of dowry at the time of marriage nor at Muklawa. She stated that Bhanwar Singh (jeth of the deceased) wanted to borrow a loan of Rs.50,000/- and made no allegations against any other accused for demand of dowry. 15. The law is settled that the word ‘soon’ used in Section 304B IPC is to be given interpretation by proximity test and that ‘soon’ is not to be taken by literal meaning of immediately before the incident. The Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 INSC 707 reiterated the earlier decision of Thakkan Jha & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2004) 13 SCC 348 , wherein it was held that:- “Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression “soon before” would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link.” 16. The deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 are to the effect that whenever Bhanwar Singh (jeth of the deceased) and Maina Kanwar (jethani of the deceased) came to their house, they demanded Rs.50,000/-. This fact does not enhance the case of the prosecution in absence of a specific date or month when such a demand was made. Moreso, in absence of time difference between the death of the deceased and demand having been made. 17. Another aspect to be considered is that PW8- Bhanwar Singh (complainant) in his testimony stated that the dowry was demanded when complainant visited the matrimonial house of the deceased along with Surendra Singh. Moreso, in absence of time difference between the death of the deceased and demand having been made. 17. Another aspect to be considered is that PW8- Bhanwar Singh (complainant) in his testimony stated that the dowry was demanded when complainant visited the matrimonial house of the deceased along with Surendra Singh. However, this statement is contrary to deposition of the other witnesses and moreover, Surendra Singh never stepped into the witness-box. No FIR was got registered for demand of dowry. 18. For the delay in lodging the FIR, the explanation put-forth was that the complainant was admitted in hospital at Jaipur for treatment of spine, was falsified by the deposition of DW-7 Dr. A.S. Chauhan who brought the record of hospital substantiating that the complainant was admitted from 28.01.1992 to 02.02.1992 and there was no admission of the complainant between March to April, 1992. It was stated that at the time of admission the complainant was mobile but was suffering from pain. 19. As per the prosecution, information of death of the deceased was not given to the parents of the deceased and they came to know after four to five days of the death. This stand was falsified by deposition of PW-3 Gopal Singh (father of the deceased) and DW-9 Madho Singh (mama of the husband of the deceased who was also a Bichola (mediator) for the marriage) they stated that Tiya Baithak was attended by the brother and two uncles of the deceased. 20. The allegation that no information of death of the deceased was sent to parents of the deceased and cremation was done in suspicion circumstances was eroded by the deposition of PW-3 Gopal Singh, who stated that someone had come to their village with a message of death of deceased but at that time they were in Jaipur. He further stated that Bhanwar Singh (complainant) was informed about death of the deceased in hospital at Jaipur. PW-5 Satyanarayan (carpenter in the village of the complainant) deposed that he had given information about death of the deceased to family of the complainant. 21. No evidence was adduced that the complainant or the parents of the deceased had raised any issue with regard to cause of death on Tiya Bathak or Kirya. 22. PW-5 Satyanarayan (carpenter in the village of the complainant) deposed that he had given information about death of the deceased to family of the complainant. 21. No evidence was adduced that the complainant or the parents of the deceased had raised any issue with regard to cause of death on Tiya Bathak or Kirya. 22. The defence taken by the accused that it was a case of false implication when jewelry of the deceased was demanded back from her parents, was supported by the deposition of DW-9 Madho Singh. He stated that no issue with regard to death of the deceased was raised earlier, it was only after thirteen to fourteen days of death of the deceased when the accused demanded the jewelry left by her with her parents, that the FIR was got registered. 23. The husband was acquitted vide judgment dated 14.02.2008 and the trial Court therein held that harassment for demand of dowry was not proved. Nothing has been brought before this Court even during arguments that the judgment of acquittal was challenged. 24. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that death of the deceased was unnatural; the incident of harassment for demand of dowry; the allegation that no information regarding death of the deceased was sent to the family of the complainant was eroded by deposition of PW3-Gopal Singh, and lastly there was no specific allegations by any of the witnesses against the appellants. The judgment of conviction dated 15.07.1995 is quashed. The appeal is allowed. 25. The appellants were on bail, their bails bonds are discharged. 26. The appellants- Bhanwar Singh, Smt. Maina Kanwar, Samajh Kanwar, Jeevan Singh and Kishore Singh are directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each and surety bond in the like amount in accordance with provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C./481 of B.N.S.S. before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within four weeks from the date of this judgment, to the effect that in the event of filing of special leave petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The bail bonds will be effective for a period of six months.