Judgment : 1. The instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.(now Section 415 (2) of BNSS) has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 06.07.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sridungargarh, District Bikaner in Sessions Case No.10/2009, whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- Offence Sentence Sec. 498-A IPC Two years imprisonment Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, one month’s additional imprisonment Sec. 304-B IPC Seven years Imprisonment 2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.04.2009, the complainant Luna Ram (PW/3) lodged a report (ExP/7) before the Police Station Sridungargarh, Bikaner to the effect that in the morning of 04.04.2009 at about 10.00 A.M., he received an information that his younger daughter has committed suicide. On this information, he alongwith 5-7 other persons went to the village Bana, where the police personnel were already available. It was further stated in the report that the complainant has three daughters, who were married around eleven years ago at village Bana. Her younger daughter Saroj was married with one Vishnu Dutt @ Bishna Ram (appellant No.1) and their ‘Muklava’ happened on 13.03.2008 and since then she was being subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry. It was further stated in the written report that the appellants used to beat her daughter Saroj. On 03.04.2009 complainant went to village Bana, where appellants even abused him and his daughters viz. Saroj and Vimla asked the complainant to take Saroj with him, otherwise she will be murdered but he did not take Saroj with him. On the next day itself, he received an information that his daughter Saroj died. On this report, the police lodged a case for offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and started investigation. After investigation, challan was filed for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the appellants. They denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses and 26 documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded and five documents were exhibited in defence. 5. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the appellants. They denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses and 26 documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded and five documents were exhibited in defence. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 06.07.2024 convicted and sentenced the appellants for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC as mentioned above. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits in the first instance that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that the eldest sister of the deceased Vimla has been examined as PW/1 before the trial Court, who has not supported the prosecution story and she declared hostile. It is also argued that Luna Ram (PW/3), father of the deceased had stated before the trial Court that he has three daughters, who were married at village Bana and the marriage of deceased took place at about 10-12 years ago and on 13.03.2008, muklava happened, thereafter, both the accused appellants started harassing his daughter Saroj for demanding the dowry, whereas in his cross examination he categorically mentioned that he did not know the date and time for demanding dowry by the appellants. He has also admitted in his cross examination that the financial condition of the appellants was good. Therefore, there was no occasion for the appellants to harass the deceased for demand of dowry. It is further argued that in a criminal case with regard to another sister by the complainant, during examination, the complainant clearly mentioned that all his three daughters were living happily with their in-laws and there was no demand of dowry or harassment by the accused. The said statement was produced in defence which is on record as Ex.D/1. Besides Lunaram, mother of the deceased Rukma (PW/6), sister Rameti (PW/5) who were examined before the Court below have also narrated the same story verbatim, as alleged by the father of the deceased. It is further argued by the counsel that the independent witnesses viz. Sohan Lal (PW/7), Sultanaram (PW/9), Amru (PW/10), Babulal (PW/11), Santra Devi (PW/12) and Mamraj (PW/ 13) have not supported the case of prosecution or declared hostile. It is further argued by the counsel that the independent witnesses viz. Sohan Lal (PW/7), Sultanaram (PW/9), Amru (PW/10), Babulal (PW/11), Santra Devi (PW/12) and Mamraj (PW/ 13) have not supported the case of prosecution or declared hostile. The independent witnesses also mentioned that they have no knowledge that the deceased was harassed by her in-laws for demand of dowry. Thus, at the most it is a case of suicide and not dowry death. There is no evidence against the appellants that soon before the death of deceased Saroj, 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, therefore, no offence under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC is made out. It is also stated that a compromise has also arrived at between the parties and the complainant no longer wants to pursue the criminal case. Therefore, the court below have erred in convicting the appellants for offence under Section 498A and 304B IPC and same are liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence and learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants. He prayed that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Court below may be sustained and sentence awarded to the accused-appellants by the Court below be maintained by this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant Mr. S.K. Verma concurs the fact of compromise arrived at between the parties and submits that the complainant does not want to pursue the appeal. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor, and meticulously examined the impugned judgment alongwith material available on record. 10. In order to ascertain legality and propriety of the findings and conclusion of the learned trial Court, it is necessary to re-appreciate the crucial evidence adduced by the prosecution. 11. P.W.-1 Vimla is the sister of deceased who during her examination, has not supported the prosecution version and stated in the following terms :- 12. PW/3- Lunaram, who is father of the deceased in his court statement has deposted as under ;- 13. 11. P.W.-1 Vimla is the sister of deceased who during her examination, has not supported the prosecution version and stated in the following terms :- 12. PW/3- Lunaram, who is father of the deceased in his court statement has deposted as under ;- 13. PW/5- Rameti who is another sister of the deceased who has deposed in her Court statement as under :- 14. PW/7- Sohanlal who is paternal uncle of the deceased, has not supported the prosecution version and was declared hostile by the prosecution. He has deposed as under :- 15. PW/9-Sultanram has also not supported the prosecution version and was declared hostile by the prosecution. It was stated by the P.W.-9 as under :- 16. PW/10-Amru who was also an independent witness, has not supported the prosecution version and was declared hostile by the prosecution. He has deposed as under :- 17. PW/11 Babu lal, PW/12 Santra Devi, PW/13 Mamraj have also given similar statements during their examination that they never heard that appellants used to harass the deceased for demand of dowry. 18. PW/14-Rameshwarlal who was an independent witness and has deposed in his Court statement as under :- 19. From the oral evidence as referred above, the Court finds that all the witnesses of fact had not supported the prosecution version and most of them were declared hostile by the prosecution. All three sisters were married in the same family of three brothers. PW/5- Rameti who is the sister of the deceased has supported the prosecution story but the other sister (PW/1- Vimla) has mentioned that Saroj asked her father to take her to paternal home but her father refused her, due to which deceased Saroj got annoyed and on the next morning, hanged herself. Further, a perusal of statement of father Luna Ram would go to show that on the one hand, he has deposed that the appellants used to harass his daughter for demand of dowry but on the other hand, during his court statement recorded in Case No. 32/2010 which was recorded on 07.06.2010 i.e. after the death of his daughter, he has denied any harassment or cruelty meted out to any of his three daughters with regard to dowry. Thus, there are contradictions in the statement of complainant father Luna ram. Thus, there are contradictions in the statement of complainant father Luna ram. Similarly, PW-5 Rameti in her statement has although stated that they used to be harassed for demand of dowry by the appellants but they did not file any criminal case. PW/7 Sohan lal who is uncle of deceased, has deposed that he had attended the Panchayat which was held regarding the assault on Saroj, but the same was on trivial issues and not with regard to dowry. 20. The relevant provisions regarding dowry death, cruelty and presumption, are reproduced herein 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 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. 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 purposes of this section, "cruelty means"— (a) anywilful 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; or (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. 113-B. Presumption as to dowry death. 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 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)]. 21. In this case, there is no dispute that the death occurred within seven years of the muklava. As per the statutory provisions of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, when the Court is considering the question whether the person has committed the dowry death of a woman, he shall be presumed to have caused the dowry death, if it is shown that before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death. To secure a conviction under Section 304B IPC, the prosecution must meticulously establish all essential ingredients, particularly the connection between the demand for dowry and the harassment faced by the deceased. In the case of Sher Singh @ Partapa vs State of Haryana reported in (2015) 1 SCR 29 it has been held: “16. As is already noted above, Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC were introduced into their respective statutes simultaneously and, therefore, it must ordinarily be assumed that Parliament intentionally used the word “deemed” in Section 304-B to distinguish this provision from the others. In actuality, however, it is well-nigh impossible to give a sensible and legally acceptable meaning to these provisions, unless the word “shown” is used as synonymous to “prove” and the word “presume” as freely interchangeable with the word “deemed”. In the realm of civil and fiscal law, it is not difficult to import the ordinary meaning of the word “deem” to denote a set of circumstances which call to be construed contrary to what they actually are. In criminal legislation, however, it is unpalatable to adopt this approach by rote. In the realm of civil and fiscal law, it is not difficult to import the ordinary meaning of the word “deem” to denote a set of circumstances which call to be construed contrary to what they actually are. In criminal legislation, however, it is unpalatable to adopt this approach by rote. We have the high authority of the Constitution Bench of this Court both in State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory [ AIR 1953 SC 333 ] and State of T.N. v. Arooran Sugars Ltd. [ (1997) 1 SCC 326 ] , requiring the Court to ascertain the purpose behind the statutory fiction brought about by the use of the word “deemed” so as to give full effect to the legislation and carry it to its logical conclusion. We may add that it is generally posited that there are rebuttable as well as irrebuttable presumptions, the later oftentimes assuming an artificiality as actuality by means of a deeming provision. It is abhorrent to criminal jurisprudence to adjudicate a person guilty of an offence even though he had neither intention to commit it nor active participation in its commission. It is after deep cogitation that we consider it imperative to construe the word “shown” in Section 304-B IPC as to, in fact, connote “prove”. In other words, it is for the prosecution to prove that a “dowry death” has occurred, namely, (i) that the death of a woman has been caused in abnormal circumstances by her having been burned or having been bodily injured, (ii) within seven years of her marriage, (iii) and that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, (iv) in connection with any demand for dowry, and (v) that the cruelty or harassment meted out to her continued to have a causal connection or a live link with the demand of dowry. 22. Recently, in the recent case of Karan Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in 2025 Supreme (Online) (SC) 514, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized the critical importance of the prosecution's responsibility to prove all essential ingredients of dowry death and cruelty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court reiterated that in cases involving dowry-related offenses, including dowry death and cruelty, the prosecution must establish the demand for dowry, the cruelty inflicted, and the causal connection between these factors and the death. The Court reiterated that in cases involving dowry-related offenses, including dowry death and cruelty, the prosecution must establish the demand for dowry, the cruelty inflicted, and the causal connection between these factors and the death. If the prosecution fails to provide convincing evidence on any of these elements, it will result in the acquittal of the accused. This decision underscores the need for a thorough and strong evidentiary foundation to secure convictions in such sensitive and complex cases. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while emphasizing the essential ingredients of the Section 304B of IPC, made observations as under :- “6. The following are the essential ingredients of Section304-B: a) The death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury, or must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; b) The death must have been caused within seven years of her marriage; c) Soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of her husband; and d) Cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. 7. If the aforesaid four ingredients are established, the death can be called a dowry death, and the husband and/or husband's relative, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have caused the dowry death. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to the other party to the marriage or to any other person. The dowry must be given or agreed to be given at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties. The term valuable security used in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has the same meaning as in Section 30 of IPC.” 23. In the present case in hand, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are unreliable and inconsistent. They have provided conflicting statements which are not corroborated by reliable evidence or independent witnesses. There was no complaint filed by the deceased during her lifetime, nor was there any independent witness who could testify to the alleged cruelty. 24. In the present case in hand, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are unreliable and inconsistent. They have provided conflicting statements which are not corroborated by reliable evidence or independent witnesses. There was no complaint filed by the deceased during her lifetime, nor was there any independent witness who could testify to the alleged cruelty. 24. In the aforementioned circumstances, the presumption arising either under Section 304-B of the Penal Code or Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked against the appellants. The prosecution, therefore, failed to establish any case for offence under Section 304B IPC against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, they are liable to be acquitted from the charges levelled for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. 25. So far as the offence under Section 498-A IPC is concerned, from the evidence on record, it could be seen that there were specific allegations of matrimonial cruelties and most of the witnesses have stated that the accused used to assault the deceased and number of times, panchayat were also held. This Court finds that the charge of cruelty being proved against the appellants, which is the most basic ingredient for the offence under Section 498-A, the said offence is clearly made out against both the accused appellants and their conviction for said offence is not liable to be interfered with. 26. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted a report according to which the appellant No.1 Vishnu Dutt @ Bishna Ram is in custody for last one year, seven months and ten days. So far as appellant No.2-Smt. Chandi Devi is concerned, she remained in custody for a period of about six months and one day. Thus, the appellants have so far undergone a period of one and half year and six months respectively, out of the total two years imprisonment so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the appellants have remained behind the bars for considerable time and a compromise has also arrived at between the parties, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 498-A IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by them while maintaining the fine amount. 27. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 06.07.2024 passed by the learned Addl. 27. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 06.07.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sridungargarh, District Bikaner in Sessions Case No.10/2009 to the extent of conviction and sentence for offence under Section 304B is quashed and set aside and appellants are acquitted from offence under Section 304B IPC. However, while maintaining the appellants’ conviction for offence under Section 498-A IPC, the sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The fine imposed by the trial court is not interfered, with default stipulation. The appellant No.2-Smt. Chanda Devi @ Rami Devi is on bail. Her bail bonds stand discharged on deposition of fine. One month’s time is granted to appellant No.2-Smt Chanda Devi @ Rami Devi to deposit the fine before the trial court. So far as appellant No.1 Vishnu Dutt @ Bishna Ram is concerned, he is in custody. He may be released forthwith on deposition of fine amount, if not required in any other case. 28. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. the accused appellants are directed to forthwith furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court within a period of one month, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or for grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon’ble Supreme Court. 29. The record of the trial court, be sent back forthwith.