JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Navin Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. for the State. 2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 31.10.2002 and order of sentence dated 01.11.2002 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Sahibganj in Sessions Case No. 293 of 1993, whereby and whereunder, this appellant along with two other appellants, whose appeal is abated, have been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. 3. The original appellant no. 1 namely, Younus Ali @ Gudha Ali, son of Rahman Sk. and appellant no. 2 namely, Sona Bibi, wife of Younus Ali @ Gudha Ali have died during pendency of this appeal and their appeal has been abated vide order dated 19.12.2024. 4. The appeal is heard in respect of sole alive appellant, Raffiqul Islam, who happens to be husband of the deceased. FACTUAL MATRIX 5. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that informant’s sister Ramisha Bibi was married with present appellant Raffiqul Islam 03 years ago from the occurrence. It is alleged that on 23.08.1990 at about 5:00 PM, the informant came to know that his sister is being assaulted by her husband at her matrimonial home, then he rushed towards the place of occurrence and saw that present appellant was assaulting his sister by pressing her chest and his mother and father were abetting to kill her. It is further alleged that in the seriously injured condition, informant brought his sister to his home and was making arrangement for money for her treatment in the meanwhile, she died in the same night. It is further alleged that the accused persons were frequently demanding cow, cycle, shoes etc. from the deceased, which could not be fulfilled. Hence, she was regularly subjected to physical and mental torture. 6. On the basis of above information, Radhanagar P.S. Case No. 211/1990 was registered for the offence under Sections 304B/34 of the I.P.C. against all the three accused persons. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the aforesaid offences. from the deceased, which could not be fulfilled. Hence, she was regularly subjected to physical and mental torture. 6. On the basis of above information, Radhanagar P.S. Case No. 211/1990 was registered for the offence under Sections 304B/34 of the I.P.C. against all the three accused persons. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the aforesaid offences. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after taking cognizance of offence, committed the case to the court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 293/1993 was registered and trial proceeded against the accused persons, due to denial from charges and claim for trial. 7. In course of trial, altogether 09 witnesses were examined by the prosecution: P.W.-1 : Nazrull Haque. P.W.-2 : Md. Kudus Ali. P.W.-3 : Dr. Raman Kumar P.W.-4 : Mati-Ur-Rahman. P.W.-5 : Abul Wahab. P.W.-6 : Hamid Sheikh (Informant). P.W.-7 : Jelesha Bewa (Informant’s mother). P.W.-8 : Sainur Bewa. P.W.-9 : Md. Abdul Wahid (formal witness). Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following documentary evidences have been adduced:- Exhibit-1 : Post-mortem Report of deceased Ramisha Bibi. Exhibit-2 : Fardbeyan of Hamid Sk. 8. On the other hand, defence has also examined three witnesses namely, D.W.-1 Samsun Bibi, D.W.-2 Tarun Bibi and D.W.-3 Rajjak Ali, but no documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence. 9. The trial court after scrutinizing the evidence of prosecution and defence arrived at conclusion of guilt of the accused persons and sentenced them as stated above. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that although the informant and his other relatives have deposed like eye-witnesses of the occurrence and specifically alleged that the present appellant was assaulting his wife by pauwa of cot and pressurizing her chest, resulting into her death, but the post mortem report of the victim alleged a quite different story, the cause of death as opined by the Doctor (P.W.-3) is forcibly pressing of neck of victim into water and death is caused due to asphyxia. The other witnesses have also stated that cloths of victim were wet. The real fact is that there was no demand of any kind from the deceased. Husband and wife were residing under cordial atmosphere. No complaint of any kind was made against the appellant by the family members of the informant party either before Panchayat or at any police station prior to the occurrence. The real fact is that there was no demand of any kind from the deceased. Husband and wife were residing under cordial atmosphere. No complaint of any kind was made against the appellant by the family members of the informant party either before Panchayat or at any police station prior to the occurrence. It is proved by the defence witnesses that on the date of occurrence, at about 12 hours, the deceased had gone at village pond for cleaning utensils and thereafter she started taking bath, meanwhile, she started drowning when she was brought out of water, she was conscious, but later on her brother came and took back her on a vehicle for treatment, but she died. Therefore, it was natural death of the deceased and no ingredient of offence under Section 304B I.P.C. has been proved. 11. It is further submitted that the very foundational facts to attract the offence under Section 304B I.P.C. has not been proved by the prosecution, rather false story of demand of cow, cycle and shoes etc. has been added after death of the victim and no one can indulge in causing such a ghastly offence only for cow, cycle and shoes. Even no specific date, day and time of such demand and torture met to the deceased has been brought on record. The appellant was all along on bail during trial of the case and after conviction by the learned trial court, he has been granted bail during pendency of this appeal vide order dated 07.01.2003. Learned trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record and arrived at absolutely wrong conclusion about guilt of the appellant, which is not legally sustainable and fit to be set aside, allowing this appeal. 12. Per contra, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the eye witnesses have proved the case of prosecution to the hilt. There is no legal force in the defence of the accused. Learned trial court has discussed every aspect of the case and evidence available on record in right perspective and arrived at right conclusion. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, calling for interference. This appeal is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 13. There is no legal force in the defence of the accused. Learned trial court has discussed every aspect of the case and evidence available on record in right perspective and arrived at right conclusion. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, calling for interference. This appeal is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 13. The only point for determination in this appeal is as to whether conviction and sentence of appellant passed by learned trial court suffers from any error of law or not? 14. Before imparting verdicts on above point, the relevant provisions of law applicable in this case are reproduced hereinbelow: “ 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.” “ 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).” 15. 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).” 15. In view of the above provisions, in order to convict an accused for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) of the IPC, the following essentials must be satisfied:- (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. When the above ingredients are established by reliable and acceptable evidence, such death shall be called dowry death and such husband or his relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death. 16. From bare perusal of provision of Section 304(b) of the IPC, it is evident that it does not categorize death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental. This is because death caused by burns can, in a given case, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. Similarly, death caused by bodily injury can, in a given case, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. Finally, any death occurring “otherwise than under normal circumstances” can, in a given case, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. Therefore, if all the other ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are fulfilled, any death (homicidal or suicidal or accidental) whether caused by burns or by bodily injury or occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances shall, as per the legislative mandate, be called a “dowry death” and the woman’s husband or his relative “shall be deemed to have caused her death”. The section clearly specifies what constitutes the offence of dowry death and also identifies the single offender or multiple offenders who has or have caused the dowry death. 17. In order to attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that “soon before her death” the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment “for, or in connection with the demand for dowry”. 17. In order to attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that “soon before her death” the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment “for, or in connection with the demand for dowry”. The expression “ soon before her death ” used in Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of EVIDENCE ACT has been explained by Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments, Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana , (2011) 11 SCC 359 ; Mustafa Shahadat Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra , (2012) 11 SCC 397 ; Ramesh Vithal Patil v. State of Karnataka , (2014) 11 SCC 516 , Maya Devi & Anr. v. State of Haryana, (2015) 17 SCC 405 , Satbir Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1 . It has been observed that though the language used is “soon before her death” no definite period has been enacted and the expression “soon before her death” has not been defined in both the enactments. Accordingly, the determination of the period which can come within the term “soon before her death” is to be determined by the courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the said expression would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. In other words, there must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned . If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Satbir Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1 has held that the phrase “soon before” in section 304B IPC is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time limit. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. Thus, a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough. 18. Section 113-B of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT lays down rebuttable presumption of law in respect of dowry. If the ingredients under Section 304-B IPC are attracted, the court shall presume and it shall record such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved by the accused. However, it is open to the accused to adduce such evidence for disproving such conclusive presumption as the burden is unmistakably on him to do so and he can discharge such burden by getting an answer through cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses or by adducing evidence on the defence side as such putting reverse onus of proving on the accused. 19. In the background of aforesaid jurisprudence of dowry death, we have to appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties apprising ourselves with the evidence adduced in this case by the respective parties. 20. We have to consider as to whether the ingredients of Section 304B IPC as discussed above has been established by the prosecution through cogent and reliable evidence? 21. P.W.-1 Nazrul Haque . He is claiming to be eye- witness of the occurrence. He has stated that on getting news from Dargadanga that Ramesha Bibi (deceased) was beaten, he went to the house of Gondha Sk. (father of the appellant). He saw that appellant is climbing over the chest of deceased Ramisha Bibi and pressing her chest and was also assaulting with the “patti” of khatia, due to which, she became unconscious. In his cross-examination, he has stated that when he reached the house of Gondha Sk. (father of the appellant), some villagers were standing there and Ramesha Bibi (deceased) was lying in the injured condition on the floor of Verandah. In his cross-examination, he has stated that when he reached the house of Gondha Sk. (father of the appellant), some villagers were standing there and Ramesha Bibi (deceased) was lying in the injured condition on the floor of Verandah. She was unconscious and blood and saliva was oozing out from her mouth. Therefore, this witness does not appear to be an eye-witness of occurrence. 22. P.W.-2 Kudus Ali . He is witness to the inquest report. 23. P.W.-3 Dr. Raman Kumar has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found following:- At the time of post-mortem, the body was stout and rigor mortis was present in both upper and lower limb. Post mortem lividity was present in face, upper limb and upper part of the chest. Bluish colouration of the skin independent part is called lividity. On examination of the scalp and face, there was a bruise 2” x 1½” over right temporal region. On incision extravasation of blood in Subcutaneous region. Brain and membrane were congested. On examination of throat, there was a bruise 2” x 2” area in inter scapular region on back. There was a bruise 2” x 1½” on left lumbar region. Plura was congested. Larynx and trachea was congested with fine leathery and leathery froth white in colour in the lumen. Lungs were of oedematious and turgid with blood patches of sub pleural echymosis. In heart, left side was empty and right side was full. Large vessels were involved with dark blood. There was fine white froth coming from nose and mouth. In stomach, there was undigested food material including rice. In small and large intestine, there was faecal matter. Liver and splin were congested. No injury was found on muscles and bones of limb. Death was caused by asphyxia due to suffocation by forceful drowning leading to pulmonary oedema. The deceased was held in water by pressure on back of chest and right temporal region. It was homicidal in nature. Time elapsed since death is within 24 hours. The post mortem report was marked as Exhibit-1. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the Viscera was not sent for chemical examination. 24. P.W.-4 Matiur Rahman . The deceased was held in water by pressure on back of chest and right temporal region. It was homicidal in nature. Time elapsed since death is within 24 hours. The post mortem report was marked as Exhibit-1. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the Viscera was not sent for chemical examination. 24. P.W.-4 Matiur Rahman . He has stated that after getting information that the deceased was beaten by her husband, he along with Hamid and mother of Hamid went to the house of appellant and saw that the appellant was beating the sister of Hamid with the Pauwa of a cot and the father of appellant instigating to kill her. After instigation, appellant started beating her with Pauwa of a cot by climbing on her chest and due to which, she became unconscious. He has further deposed that the accused were beating her for dowry. In his cross-examination, he has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, 4-5 persons were present there. He did not make any inquiry from them and Ramisha Bibi was lying on the Verandah in fully unconscious stage. Sliva and blood was oozing out from her mouth. On call, she could not reply. He also stated that he did not make any inquiry from the villagers present there that she is lying unconscious from what time. 25. P.W.-5 Abdul Wahab . He is also relative of the deceased and in his evidence, he has supported the case in the manner as evidenced by the P.W.-1 and 4, but in his cross-examination, he has stated that when he reached the house of Rafiqul Islam, he has seen Ramisha was lying unconscious on the floor and on calling her by her name, she did not reply. He also did not make any inquiry about the cause of unconsciousness of the Ramisha from anyone present there. 26. P.W.-6 Hamid Sk . is the informant of this case. He has stated in his evidence that he got information that his sister Ramisha was being beaten by her husband Rafiqul Islam, then he returned to his house and told his mother. Thereafter, he went to Udhuwa More, where Abdul Wahab (P.W.-5), Matiur Rahman (P.W.- 4), Nazrul Haque (P.W.-1) were sitting. is the informant of this case. He has stated in his evidence that he got information that his sister Ramisha was being beaten by her husband Rafiqul Islam, then he returned to his house and told his mother. Thereafter, he went to Udhuwa More, where Abdul Wahab (P.W.-5), Matiur Rahman (P.W.- 4), Nazrul Haque (P.W.-1) were sitting. He also informed them about the aforesaid occurrence, then they advised this witness that he should go to his sister’s house and they would also go after some time. When he reached to the house of the Rafiqul, he saw that Rafiqul Islam was beating his sister by climbing on her chest and the parents of Rafiqul were saying to kill her. This witness forbade Rafiqul from assaulting his sister, who was crying, but Rafiqul Islam gave a blow on the breast of her sister with a Pauwa of a cot, due to which his sister became unconscious. Thereafter, this witness with the help of other people standing there, brought his sister to his house. In cross-examination, he has stated in para-21 that he has not seen Rafiqul while beating his sister with Pauwa of a cot. He further stated in the same para that Rafiqul was beating his sister with fists. 27. P.W.-7 Jalesha Bibi is the mother of the deceased. She has stated in her evidence that Rafiqul Islam used to beat her daughter for costly shoes, cow and other articles. When she went to the house of her daughter, she was lying unconscious. She has taken her daughter on cot to her house and thereafter, her daughter died. People said to her that her daughter was beaten by Pauwa of a cot. There is nothing else in her evidence. 28. P.W.-8 Samshul Bewa . She is sister of P.W.-7. She has stated in her evidence that she along with her sister Jelesha Bewa, Hameed, Nazrul, Matiur and others went to the house of Rafiqul. She saw there that Rafiqul was beating his wife by climbing over her chest and his parents were standing there. At the end of para-3 of her cross-examination, she has stated that she went there and found Rafiqul was sitting on the chest of her sister’s daughter and beating her with the “Pauwa” of a khatia. 29. P.W.-9 Md. Abdul Wahid is a formal witness, who has only identified the fardbeyan. 30. At the end of para-3 of her cross-examination, she has stated that she went there and found Rafiqul was sitting on the chest of her sister’s daughter and beating her with the “Pauwa” of a khatia. 29. P.W.-9 Md. Abdul Wahid is a formal witness, who has only identified the fardbeyan. 30. The defence has also examined three witnesses:- 31. D.W.-1 Samshun Bibi . She has made proposal of marriage between the accused Rafiqul Islam and the deceased Ramisha Bibi. She has deposed that the Ramisha Bibi has died due to drowning in the pond, while she has gone to clean clothes. She has also raised alarm while deceased was drowning, upon which, one Khurshid came and brought out her from the water. 32. D.W.-2 Tarun Bibi has stated that she has gone to clean clothes and for taking bath at the pond and Ramesha Bibi has also gone along with her for washing her clothes and after that, she went into the water for taking bath and thereafter she was drowning. Upon raising alarm, Rajjak, Khurshid and others came there and she was pulled out from the pond. 33. D.W.-3 Rajjak Ali . He is also neighbour of appellant Rafique and deposed in the same line as that of D.W.-1 and D.W.-2. 34. From the aforesaid discussion of oral testimony of P.W. – 1, 4, 5, 6 & 8, who happens to be close relative of deceased and claimed to be eye witnesses of the occurrence, but consistently disclosed that they have seen the accused (appellant) was assaulting his wife by Pauwa of cot. There is no whisper at all as to demand of any dowry and subjection of the deceased to cruelty due to non-fulfillment of the same. The oral testimony of witnesses, who have claimed to saw the deceased while she was being assaulted does not find corroboration from the post- mortem report of the deceased, wherein cause of death is forceful drowning and no external ante mortem injuries was found. It is admitted fact that the deceased died otherwise than the normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage, but there is no concrete evidence at all that what was being asked in the nature of dowry by the appellant and how the deceased was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the appellant due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. Therefore, there is no iota of evidence at all that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or, in connection of any demand of dowry. Therefore, the vital ingredients of dowry death (No. 3 & 4) are absolutely lacking in this case. Therefore, no presumption under Section 113-B the Indian EVIDENCE ACT can be raised. 35. The prosecution itself has given contradictory statement regarding cause of death of the deceased. The deposition of defence witnesses namely, Samshun Bibi (D.W.-1), Tarun Bibi (D.W.-2) and Rajjak Ali (D.W.-3) shows that the they have seen that the deceased had gone at Village Pond for cleaning clothes and taking bath. After cleaning clothes, she went into the pond for bathing, but she was found drowning. 36. The story projected by P.W. – 1, 4, 5, 6 & 8 appears to have been falsely claimed regarding accused was seen assaulting his wife of by Pauwa of cot. Therefore, self- contradictory story has been projected in this case, which creates reasonable doubt in the genesis, manner and place of occurrence as well as involvement of the appellant in the alleged offence. 37. We have given anxious consideration to over all aspects of the case and find that the learned trial court has not taken into consideration the overall evidence of witnesses along with materials elicited in their cross-examination and swayed upon the testimony as alleged in the examination-in-chief. As such arrived at wrong conclusion about guilt of the appellant only on account of the fact that he happens to be husband of the deceased. Therefore, we find merits in this appeal. 38. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant is hereby set aside. 39. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 40. Appellant is on bail. He is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 41. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of. 42. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.