JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Instant criminal appeal directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1 st Fast Track Court in S.T. Case No. 80/94 dated 06.09.2002 whereby and whereunder the present appellant along with deceased appellant Megni Devi have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 4 98(a) and 304B of the I.P.C. along with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years for the offences under Section 304-B and R.I. for 2 years under each count of under Section 4 98-A of the I.P.C. and under Section- 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Originally this appeal has been filed by two appellants i.e. father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant no.2 Megni Devi died and her appeal has been abated vide order dated 07.05.2025. 3. We have already heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Factual Matrix 4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant’s daughter Jamuni Devi (since deceased) was married with Prakash Mahto about 03 years ago. After solemnization of marriage, she went to her matrimonial home. It is further alleged that the daughter of the informant was always subjected to cruelty, harassment and torture by way of physical assault by the accused persons for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry as informant was unable to fulfill their demand due to poverty. It is further alleged that on 23.08.1993, a panchayati was convened and the accused persons Bhatu Mahto (Father-in-law) assured that they will not torture the daughter of the informant and also desist from any demand of money or anything else. Thereafter on 27.08.1993, the informant heard that his daughter committed suicide at her Sasural by hanging. Accordingly, F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of Fard Beyan of the informant against husband and in-laws of the deceased vide P.S. Case No. 62 of 1993 registered for the offences under Section 4 98A, 304 B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. Accordingly, F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of Fard Beyan of the informant against husband and in-laws of the deceased vide P.S. Case No. 62 of 1993 registered for the offences under Section 4 98A, 304 B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. Before framing of charge the husband (Prakash Mahato) was declared juvenile and his case was separated and sent to Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Juvenile Justice Court. 6. Charges under Sections 302 , 306, 498 A of the I.P.C. were framed on20.09.1995 and again charge under Section 304B of the I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was also framed on 27.11.1998. The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants have been passed. 7. Assailing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the appellant happens to be unfortunate father-in-law of deceased. Neither in the F.I.R. nor in the testimony of prosecution witnesses including the informant, it is not disclosed as to what was being demanded by the present appellant (father-in-law) from the deceased as additional dowry. There is no specific allegation of any physical or mental torture extended to the deceased at the hands of present appellant. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence that the appellant was in any manner involved in commission of alleged offence. The appellant has been acquitted from the charge under Section 306 and 302/34 of the I.P.C. but held guilty for the offence under Section 304 B of the I.P.C. without any evidence to prove his guilt. The appellant always cooperated in maintaining the good relation, but could not control over the situation. It is further submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the very foundational fact for establishing the offence under Section 304 B of the I.P.C. as such presumption under Section 113 B of the EVIDENCE ACT cannot be raised against the appellant. The learned trial court has committed serious error of law while recording guilt of the appellant without any cogent and re- liable evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance upon reported judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. The learned trial court has committed serious error of law while recording guilt of the appellant without any cogent and re- liable evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance upon reported judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. 2000 (5) SCC 207 , wherein at para 15, it has been held as under:- “ 15 . ………... "Soon before" is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time limit. This expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. The term "soon before" is not synonymous with the term "immediately before" and is opposite of the expression "soon after" as used and understood in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the EVIDENCE ACT . These words would imply that the interval should not be too long between the time of making the statement and the death. It contemplates the reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case. 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. If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be 'soon before death' if any other intervening circumstance showing the non-existence of such treatment is not brought on record, before the alleged such treatment and the date of death. It does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period. 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.” Therefore, he pleaded that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside and appellant deserve acquittal from the charges leveled against him. 8. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor defending the legality of impugned judgment and order has submitted that learned trial court has very wisely and aptly considered the entire aspects of the case and complicity of the appellant in commission of offences charged and arrived at right conclusion. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. 9. 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 calling for any interference by way of this appeal or not? 10. 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.” 498-A. 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) Any willful 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. “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).” 11. 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. 12. 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. 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. 13. 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. 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. 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. 14. Section 113-B of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT lays down rebuttable presumption of law in respect of dowry death. 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 dis- proved 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- ex- amination of the prosecution witnesses or by adducing evidence on the defence side as such putting reverse onus of proving on the accused. 15. 15. Prosecution has examined altogether 09 witnesses in this case and we have to apprise with the testimony of witnesses examined by the prosecution:- P.W.1 Janki Mahato is local villager of the informant. According to his evidence, informant’s daughter Jamuni Devi (deceased) was married with Prakash Mahato about three years ago. Jamuni Devi was subjected to cruelty and torture due to non-fulfillment of additional dowry of Rs.10, 000/- by the accused persons. According to him, twice Panchayati was held by Ganesh Mahto (informant) and he undertook to satisfy the demand after availability of cash. He has further deposed that about 02 years ago, one Mangal Mahto of village Jharkhandi informed about the death of Jamuni Devi at her Sasural, then this witness along with informant and other villagers went to matrimonial house of Jamuni Devi where she was found died and dead body was hanging by the neck. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was present at the time of Panchayati held between the parties. P.W.2 Biro Mahto:- has deposed that Jamuni Devi married with Prakash Mahato of village Jharkhandi. She lived quite well about one year at her Sasural, but thereafter her in-laws and husband started demanding money as additional dowry and she was being tortured for non-fulfillment of the same, thereafter she died at her matrimonial home due to hanging. In his cross-examination, he admits that he was not present at the time of Panchayati. He also admits that about 15-20 days prior to the occurrence, the deceased had come to her father’s home where she disclosed about demand of additional dowry at the hands of accused persons. P.W.3 Suresh Prasad Verma has stated that there was some demand of money as dowry by the accused persons with the deceased Jamuni Devi, for that reason she was being assaulted by the accused persons. He heard that Jamuni Devi has been died at her Sasural. In his cross-examination also he has admitted about the several Panchayati was held between the parties. P.W.4 Prasadi Mahto has also stated that accused persons were demanding Rs.10,000/- due to non-fulfillment of which she was subjected to physical and mental torture. P.W.5 Baijnath Mahto also states about several panchayati held between the parties in connection with demand of Rs.10,000/- as additional dowry by the accused persons from Jamuni Devi which could not be fulfilled. P.W.4 Prasadi Mahto has also stated that accused persons were demanding Rs.10,000/- due to non-fulfillment of which she was subjected to physical and mental torture. P.W.5 Baijnath Mahto also states about several panchayati held between the parties in connection with demand of Rs.10,000/- as additional dowry by the accused persons from Jamuni Devi which could not be fulfilled. He came to know that Jamuni Devi has been hanged and died. The dead body of the deceased was seized in his presence by the police, but he knows nothing about the Panchayati. P.W.6 Dashrath Mahto is a post-man, who has no knowledge about the demand of dowry and ill-treatment to Jamuni Devi at her Sasural. P.W. 7 Churaman Mahto has stated about some matrimonial dispute between the deceased and her husband for some domestic works, but he has expressed no knowledge about any demand of dowry and torture meted with the deceased. He came to know that the deceased has committed suicide. P.W. 8 Dr. K. Kumar has conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found following:- A) Rigor mortis was present on both feet. Abdomen was distended with greyish colour of abdominal flank. Tongue was protruded swollen dark in colour, nail bed was blue. Frothy reddish discharge was coming out from the mouth and nostril. Breast distended. Faecal discharge present, eyes were partly opened, conjunctivitis was congested, no saliva mark was present. (ii) Echymosis around left eye present with swelling of the left temporal region. There was sub-conjuctiva hemorrhage on the left eye. On dissection there was extra vassation of the blood in subcutaneous tissue. Underlined bone was intact. (iii) One well defined ligature mark was present on the neck in circling it at the level of the thyroid cartilage in front of obliquely upward with the knot mark on the back of the neck and there was ecchymosis on the skull near the ligature mark in front. The ligature mark was hard parchment like. B) On dissection there was extra vassations of blood under ligature mark on the right side of neck under subcutaneous tissue. Right corner of hyoid bone was fractured. Larynx and trachea was congested. On further dissection skull intact brain soft and pupil, brances contained frothy blood fluid. Right side of heard contained dark colour blood and left side was empty. Lungs congested. Right corner of hyoid bone was fractured. Larynx and trachea was congested. On further dissection skull intact brain soft and pupil, brances contained frothy blood fluid. Right side of heard contained dark colour blood and left side was empty. Lungs congested. Dark purple in colour and on dissection dark frothy blood stained fluid came out. Liver soft, floggy and honey combed. Spleen soft and pulpy, kidney brown. Stomach was empty, mucosa NAD. Uterus was small non-gravid. External genital organ NAD. C) This witness has opined that the death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Injury no.1 was caused by hard blunt object. 2. He has proved the P.M. report marked as Exhibit-1). P.W. 9 Ganesh Mahto (informant) has deposed that his daughter Jamuni Devi was married with Prakash Mahto about three years ago and she went to her Sasural where accused persons were scuffling, scolding and assaulting her in connection with demand of additional dowry. He has convened twice Panchayti and accused persons undertook to keep his daughter quite well, but due to non-fulfillment of money they hanged her. He went to see his daughter and saw the dead body of the deceased was hanged by neck. He lodged the F.I.R. about the occurrence and proved his signature on F.I.R. marked as Ext-2/1 as well as signature of the then Officer In-Charge on the formal F.I.R. Inquest report was also prepared which was signed by witness Vishun Mahto. The rope of 20 feet was also seized by police and seizure list was prepared which is marked as Ext-5. In his cross-examination, he admits that in written report he has stated about demand of money as additional dowry. 16. It appears that there is no specific allegation regarding demand of dowry Rs.10,000/- against the present appellant. No specific overt act has been attributed against the appellant as to when he raised the demand of dowry. In the first information report also no specific nature of demand of additional dowry has been mentioned. From the post-mortem report it transpires that the deceased died due to strangulation. In view of evidence of witnesses as discussed above, there is no doubt that deceased has died unnatural death at her matrimonial home within 07 years of her marriage. Therefore, first two ingredients of Section 304-B of the I.P.C. are satisfied here. From the post-mortem report it transpires that the deceased died due to strangulation. In view of evidence of witnesses as discussed above, there is no doubt that deceased has died unnatural death at her matrimonial home within 07 years of her marriage. Therefore, first two ingredients of Section 304-B of the I.P.C. are satisfied here. So far ingredient (iii) and (iv) is concerned, there is no iota of evidence showing that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty for or in connection with demand of additional dowry at the hand of the present appellant. No specific allegation regarding demand of dowry and torture has been attributed against present appellant. Therefore, presumption of Section 113B of the EVIDENCE ACT is not attracted against the present appellant at all. 17. Considering the overall aspects of the case and the evidence available on record, we arrive at the conclusion that learned trial court has not properly appreciated the prosecution evidence. The very foundational facts are absent as against the present appellant, who happens to be father-in-law of the deceased. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order suffers from serious error of law and also based on beyond the weight of evidence available on record. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction of appellant is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed. Appellant he is acquitted from the charges leveled against him. 18. Appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 19. Pending I.As, if any stand disposed of. 20. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the concerned court forthwith for information and needful.