JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, learned Amicus for the appellants in Cr.A.(S.J.) No. 74/2003 and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. in Cr.A.(S.J.) No. 74/2003 and Mr. A.K. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, learned Amicus appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 to 3 and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. in Cr. Revision No. 206/2003. 2. Cr.A. (S.J.) No. 74/2003 has been preferred by the appellants against judgment of conviction dated 04.12.2002 and order of sentence dated 05.12.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 236/2000 (G.R. No. 350/2000), arising out of Jasidih (Kunda) P.S. Case No. 79 of 2000, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 304B/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. 3. Cr. Revision No. 206/2003 has been preferred by the informant of Jasidih (Kunda) P.S. Case No. 79/2000 for enhancement of sentence of opposite party nos. 1 to 3 / appellants of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 74/2003. 4. Both criminal appeal as well as criminal revision are arising out of same impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, hence taken together for hearing and disposal. FACTUAL MATRIX 5. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that informant Laxman Pandit (P.W.-11) has solemnized marriage of his daughter Sabita Devi (deceased) with Rohit Pandit, son of Nandlal Pandit about 3 years ago according to Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, husband (appellant no. 1), father-in-law (Nandlal Pandit) (appellant no. 2) and mother-in-law (Bhotho Devi) (appellant no. 3) started demanding motorcycle in dowry and due to non-fulfillment of above demand by informant, started subjecting Sabita Devi to physical and mental cruelty for the said demand. The informant requested for some time to arrange money for purchasing motorcycle, but they did not accept his request and continued their cruel treatment with Sabita Devi on account of non-fulfillment of the said demand. It is alleged that one month prior to the occurrence, the informant had gone to bring his daughter, but the accused persons did not allow her to come with the informant to her parents’ home, rather ordered that unless and until their demand is fulfilled, they will not allow the informant to take his daughter and also threatened to kill his daughter. The informant returned back for arranging money, but in the meantime, on 08.05.2000, in the evening, the informant was informed by one Sukhdeo Pandit that the dead body of his daughter is lying in the well of village-Satar, whereupon the informant along with his other family members, went there and pulled out the dead body of Sabita Devi from the well. It has been claimed by the informant that husband Rohit Pandit, father-in-law Nandlal pandit and mother-in-law Bhotho Devi have committed “dowry death” of his daughter Sabita Devi due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry in the shape of motorcycle and threw the dead body into well. 6. On the basis of above fardbeyan of the informant, FIR being Jasidih (Kunda) P.S. Case No. 79/2000 was registered for the offence under Sections 304B/34 of the I.P.C. 7. After completion 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 Sessions Case No. 236/2000 was registered. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. In course of trial, altogether 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.-1 : Madan Pandit. P.W.-2 : Khublal Pandit. P.W.-3 : Suresh Pandit. P.W.-4 : Sukhdeo Pandit. P.W.-5 : Suresh Rout. P.W.-6 : Ramlal Pandit. P.W.-7 : Siddheswar Prasad Yadav. P.W.-8 : Parmanand Pandit. P.W.-9 : Bhole Nath Pandit. P.W.-10 : Ashok Kumar Chaterjee. P.W.-11 : Laxman Pandit (Informant). P.W.-12 : Janandan Kumar Singh (I.O.) Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following documentary evidences have been adduced by prosecution:- Exhibit-1 : Signature of Khublal Pandit on the inquest report of deceased Sabita Devi. Exhibit-1/1 : Signature of Parmanand Pandit on carbon copy of inquest report. Exhibit-2 : Post-mortem Report. Exhibit-3 : Photograph of deceased. Exhibit-4 : Signature of informant on fardbeyan. Exhibit-5 : Fardbeyan of Lakshman Pandit. Exhibit-6 : Formal F.I.R. Exhibit-7 : Inquest Report. Positive Photograph of Sabita Devi has been marked ‘X’ for identification. 9. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and the deceased herself fell into the well accidently. 10. Exhibit-6 : Formal F.I.R. Exhibit-7 : Inquest Report. Positive Photograph of Sabita Devi has been marked ‘X’ for identification. 9. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and the deceased herself fell into the well accidently. 10. The trial court after appreciating the evidence available on record and hearing the arguments of the parties, arrived at conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the foundational facts constituting the offence of dowry death under Section 304B/34 of the I.P.C. against all the accused persons and sentenced them as stated above. 11. Learned Amicus as well as learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants have submitted that there are general and omnibus allegation about demand of dowry in the shape of motorcycle. No specific day, date and time of alleged demand and from whom the demand were made and what type of harassment or cruelty was meted by the deceased at the hands of the accused persons is totally lacking in the evidence of witnesses. It is further submitted that there is no doubt that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage, otherwise than under normal circumstances, but so far other ingredients as to cruelty and torture of the deceased soon before her death on account of or in connection with any demand of dowry has not been proved by any of the witnesses including the informant. The learned trial court has miserably failed to consider the above aspect of the matter and lack of evidence regarding Ingredient Nos. (iii) & (iv) of offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C., mis-directed himself and committed serious error of law while recording the guilt of the appellants. There are material contradictions and discrepancies appearing in the evidence of informant and other witnesses of facts namely, P.W.-5 and P.W.-7. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is absolutely perverse, illegal and based beyond the weight of evidence available on record. There are material contradictions and discrepancies appearing in the evidence of informant and other witnesses of facts namely, P.W.-5 and P.W.-7. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is absolutely perverse, illegal and based beyond the weight of evidence available on record. No presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act can be raised against the appellants in absence of proof of foundational facts constituting offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants is liable to be set aside and appellants deserve to be acquitted from the charges leveled against them. This appeal has merits and fit to be allowed. 12. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and has submitted that the learned trial court has properly analyzed and appreciated the evidence of witnesses, particularly, brothers and father of the deceased. They have categorically proved the demand of dowry from the deceased from the deceased and her father and brother just after some days of marriage and due to non-fulfillment of the same, consequent torture and harassment meted with the deceased. It is also proved that one month prior to the occurrence, the informant had gone to bring his daughter, but the accused persons did not allow the informant to take back his daughter unless and until the demand of motorcycle is fulfilled and the accused persons threatened to kill the daughter of the informant. Post-mortem report of deceased goes to show her un-natural death within seven years of her marriage. The impugned judgment suffers from no error of law calling for any interference by way of this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. 13. The learned counsel for the informant Mr. A.K. Choudhary, pressing the Criminal Revision filed by informant, has submitted that the learned trial court has not awarded adequate sentence to appellants, which is disproportionate to their guilt and fit to be enhanced to the extent of maximum sentence prescribed under law. 14. On the basis of points of arguments of the respective parties, following points emerges for consideration in this appeal:- (I) Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of appellants suffers from serious error of law and liable to be set aside? 14. On the basis of points of arguments of the respective parties, following points emerges for consideration in this appeal:- (I) Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of appellants suffers from serious error of law and liable to be set aside? (II) Whether the sentence awarded to the appellants are inadequate? 15. It would be appropriate to extract the relevant provisions of law applicable in this case, which are reproduced as under: “ 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) 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; (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 . 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).” 16. In order to convict an accused for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) of the IPC, the following essentials must be satisfied by prosecution:- (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. 17. From bare perusal of provision of Section 304B 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 as “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. 18. 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. 18. 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” she 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. 19. 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. 19. 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. 20. Section 113-B of the 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 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. 21. 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. 22. 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? 23. It appears that altogether 12 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution in order to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants. 24. P.W.-11 Laxman Pandit is prime witness and father of the deceased and informant of this case. 23. It appears that altogether 12 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution in order to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants. 24. P.W.-11 Laxman Pandit is prime witness and father of the deceased and informant of this case. This witness has stated in his examination-in-chief that he has got the marriage of his daughter about 2½ - 3 years ago and after the marriage, she was residing at her in-laws house along with her husband Rohit Pandit, father-in-law Nandlal Pandit and mother-in- law Bhothwa Devi. This witness has further stated that his daughter was subjected to torture for non- fulfillment of demand of motorcycle. The accused persons have threatened that if the demand of motorcycle is not fulfilled, they will kill his daughter. This witness requested for sometime, as he was unable to fulfill the demand at that time. This witness has further stated that he had also gone to the matrimonial house of the victim to bring her back on the occasion of marriage of his son Anil Pandit, but accused persons did not allow and again extended threatening of killing his daughter, if the motorcycle was not given. Thereafter, he came back to his home and sent his elder son Madan Pandit (P.W.-1) to his another son-in-law’s house for arranging money, but the money could not be arranged. This witness has also stated that he got information of killing of his daughter from the co-villager Sukhdeo Pandit and following up the information, they went to Kunda Police Station and thereafter, they along with Police went to Village – Satar, where they found the dead body of the victim floating in a well. The Police personnel pulled out the dead body from the well in his presence. He has also recognized the photograph of the victim, taken at that time and marked the same as Exhbiit-3 and his signature on the fardbeyan was marked as Exhibit-4. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the demand of motorcycle was not from the beginning, rather the same was erupted after the marriage of his another daughter. He further stated that his statement was firstly recorded at the police station and he has also signed over it. At that time, Kameshwar Pandit and Sarpanch Upendra Pandit was present and their statements were also recorded at police station. He further stated that his statement was firstly recorded at the police station and he has also signed over it. At that time, Kameshwar Pandit and Sarpanch Upendra Pandit was present and their statements were also recorded at police station. Thereafter, his statement was also recorded by the police at the well of Satar Village. His son-in-law used to ill-treat with his daughter. However, in para-23, this witness has stated that he had not given any statement before the police regarding threatening extended by the accused persons for killing his daughter, if the demand of motorcycle could not be fulfilled. 25. P.W.-1 Madan Pandit is the brother of the deceased. According to his evidence, the occurrence is of 08.05.2000. On that date, at about 8:00 PM, he learnt that the dead body of his sister Sabita Devi was thrown into the well, whereupon this witness along with his father Laxman Pandit (P.W.-11), Khublal Pandit (P.W.-2) and Parmanand Pandit went to Village – Satar and found the dead body of Sabita Devi into a well. The dead body was brought out from the well. Her eye-balls were burst and the tongue was protruded. There was a black mark on the neck. They have gone to village – Satar along with the police. It is further stated that the Sabita Devi was married to Rohit Pandit three years ago from the date of death. Sabita used to live with her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. Accused Rohit Pandit, Nandlal Pandit and Bhotho Devi used to torture Sabita Devi for demand of motorcycle. One month’s prior to the occurrence, the family members of the deceased Sabita had gone to bring Sabita from her in-laws house, but the accused persons refused to send her and told that she would be allowed to go only after the demand of dowry is fulfilled, otherwise she would be killed. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that they have not promised at the time of marriage to give motorcycle to the accused and the demand of motorcycle was made after the marriage only. This witness has also admitted that he has not complained either to the police or before any competent authority about the demand of motorcycle or about the threat being given. 26. P.W.-2 Khublal Pandit and P.W.-8 Parmanand Pandit are the witnesses to the inquest report. This witness has also admitted that he has not complained either to the police or before any competent authority about the demand of motorcycle or about the threat being given. 26. P.W.-2 Khublal Pandit and P.W.-8 Parmanand Pandit are the witnesses to the inquest report. They have stated that inquest report of the dead body was prepared in their presence by carbon copy process. They have identified their respective signatures on the inquest report, which are marked as Exhibit-1 & 1/1. 27. P.W.-3 Suresh Pandit is the elder brother of the deceased. He has also reiterated the evidence of Madan Pandit (P.W.-1). 28. P.W.-4 Sukhdeo Pandit has informed about the occurrence to the informant. He has stated that on 08.05.2000, he had gone to village – Satar to invite his niece and when returning from the village, he saw that several persons have assembled near the well, he also went there and saw the dead body of Sabita Devi floating in the well. Thereafter, he came to his village and informed the informant about the occurrence. 29. P.W.-5 Suresh Raut is resident of Village – Satar. This witness has stated that on 08.05.2000, he came to know that a dead body is lying in the well. He went there and saw the dead body of Sabita Devi, wife of Rohit Pandit. The deceased died in her in-laws village. This witness has stated that about 3-4 years prior to that the deceased was married to the accused Rohit Pandit. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the accused persons used to keep the deceased properly and he had never seen the accused persons subjecting her to cruelty for the demand of dowry, nor had he heard about it. This witness has stated that Rohit Pandit was living separately from his father and mother. The deceased was of eccentric nature and prior to the occurrence also she had fled away from the house. 30. P.W.-6 Ramlal Pandit and P.W.-7 Siddheshwar Prasad Yadav are the co-villagers of the accused and were tendered by the prosecution. In their cross-examination, these witnesses have stated that the deceased was living quite well at her in-laws’ house and she had cordial relationship with her in-laws and they never used to torture her and the deceased was of eccentric nature. 31. P.W.-9 Bhola Nath Pandit. In their cross-examination, these witnesses have stated that the deceased was living quite well at her in-laws’ house and she had cordial relationship with her in-laws and they never used to torture her and the deceased was of eccentric nature. 31. P.W.-9 Bhola Nath Pandit. This witness has stated that he is also called as Bhullu Pandit and Sabita Devi (deceased) was his sister-in-law, who died about one year ago. He had seen the dead body in the well at village Satar and there was a red mark on the neck. He has further stated that the deceased was married to Rohit Pandit of Village – Satar about three years ago and she used to live in her Sasural along with her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that his brother-in-law Madan Pandit had come to him about 2 years ago and had demanded Rs. 10,000/- in the year 1999, but he could not tell the date when the money was demanded. This witness has stated that he had not given the money to his brother-in-law. 32. P.W.-10 Ashok Kumar Chaterjee has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the Sabita Devi aged about 18 years, wife of Rohit Pandit along with Board of Doctors consisting of Dr. J.K. Choudhary, Dr. R.Mahto under the order of Deputy Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Deoghar on 09.05.2000 at about 12:45 P.M. The body of the deceased was brought and identified by Havaldar Chandra Deo Singh and Choukidar 5/3 Dharu Mirdha. The doctors have found following after the post-mortem examination of the dead body:- Externally the whole body was swollen foul smelling and blood all over the body. Scalp hairs were easily separable. Tongue was protruded between teeth. One lacerated wound 1” x ½” x skin deep below right eye. Skin Mangins were retracted and ante-mortem in nature. On dissection of Head and Neck-hematoma present below scalp on right parietal region. Brain and meninges were soft. On opening of chest-both lungs were congested. Heart-right chamber was having small quantity of red fluid. Left chamber was empty. On opening of abdomen – Liver, spleen and kidneys were congested. Stomach – small quantity of semi liquid was present. Uterus was small and non- gravid. Intestine was having gas and feacus. Bladder was empty. Time elapsed since death was about 72 hours. Heart-right chamber was having small quantity of red fluid. Left chamber was empty. On opening of abdomen – Liver, spleen and kidneys were congested. Stomach – small quantity of semi liquid was present. Uterus was small and non- gravid. Intestine was having gas and feacus. Bladder was empty. Time elapsed since death was about 72 hours. Opinion: The cause of death could not be ascertained from the above findings and the following viscera were preserved for chemical examination, if needed:- (i) Part of lungs. (ii) A part of heart. (iii) A part of liver. (iv) A part of spleen. (v) One kidney. (vi) Stomach with its contents. (vii) A part of intestine with its contents. The external injury no. 1 was caused by hard and blunt substance. This witness has identified the Post-mortem report which was prepared after mutual consultation and it was written by Dr. J.K. Choudhary in his pen and it bears the signatures of all the three Doctors including this witness, whereupon the post-mortem report was marked as Exhibit-2. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that in case of death due to asphyxia as a result of drowning, tongue of the deceased is protruded between the teeth. He has also stated that the injury near the right eye of the deceased was possible, if she had fallen down into the well with her head downwards and the head might have dashed against the wall of the bed of the well. This witness has also stated that in a case of death due to fall into a well, with the head of the deceased downwards, the victim may die to vasovagal shock (due to fear) either before the body touched wall water and in that case there would be no water into the stomach. 33. P.W.-12 Janandan Kumar Singh is the Investigating Officer of this case, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that while he was posted as Officer-in-Charge, Kunda Police Station heard through rumour that a dead body of a woman is lying in a well at Village – Satar. After recording Sanha, he along with other police officials proceeded to Village – Satar and found that public were gathered near the well situated towards east side of the Village – Satar, where some people were weeping and wailing. After recording Sanha, he along with other police officials proceeded to Village – Satar and found that public were gathered near the well situated towards east side of the Village – Satar, where some people were weeping and wailing. Father of the victim (informant) was also present there and after recording his statement, the same was read over to him, upon which, he put his signature. Fardbeyan is marked as Exhibit-5 . This witness has further deposed that formal FIR was recorded by the then Officer-in-Charge of Jasidih Police Station, which was also identified by him and marked as Exhibit-6 . This witness has further stated that Inquest Report was prepared in the handwriting of Madan Prasad Singh, ASI and he had put his signature upon it. He also identified his signature and handwriting of ASI on the carbon copy of the Inquest Report which has been marked as Exhibit-7 . He inspected the place of occurrence and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination and also received the post-mortem report. He has also sent the Viscera preserved by the Medical Officer during post-mortem examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. After completion of Investigation, he has submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. 34. We have given thoughtful consideration to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the material ocular testimony of the witnesses. We have quoted above four ingredients of the offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C. as foundational facts to be proved by the prosecution through cogent and reliable evidence. 35. So far first two ingredients are concerned, it is undisputed that the deceased was married with the appellant no. 1 prior to three years of occurrence i.e. in the year 1997 and she died on 08.05.2000, as such within seven years of her marriage. It is also well- proved through testimony of ocular witnesses that the dead body was pulled out from the well situated at the matrimonial village of the deceased. The post-mortem report of the deceased (Exhibit-2) conducted by Doctor Ashok Kumar Chatterjee (P.W.-10) shows that the post-mortem was conducted on 09.05.2000 at 12:45 PM at that time since death about 72 hours was elapsed. The whole body was swollen and foul smelling was coming, tongue was also protruded between teeth. The post-mortem report of the deceased (Exhibit-2) conducted by Doctor Ashok Kumar Chatterjee (P.W.-10) shows that the post-mortem was conducted on 09.05.2000 at 12:45 PM at that time since death about 72 hours was elapsed. The whole body was swollen and foul smelling was coming, tongue was also protruded between teeth. There was lacerated wound caused by hard blunt object, although no exact cause of death could be ascertained and viscera were preserved for chemical examination, but it is admitted in the cross-examination by P.W.-10 that in case of death due to asphysia as a result of drowning, tongue of the deceased is protruded between the teeth and this symptom is also mentioned in the post-mortem report. The viscera report has not been proved in this case, but the overall circumstances, as discussed above, clearly shows that the death of deceased has occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. 36. In view of the above discussion, ingredient nos. (i) & (ii) of Section 304B of the I.P.C. is well-proved by the prosecution. 37. So far ingredient nos. (iii) & (iv) i.e. soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband and such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, demand for dowry is concerned, in this regard, there is clear cut evidence of P.W.-11, informant-cum-father of the deceased, P.W.-3 Suresh Pandit, brother of the deceased have categorically proved that the deceased was married with appellant no. 1 about three years prior to occurrence. It is also proved that at the time of marriage, there was no demand of motorcycle, but just after the marriage and after solemnization of marriage of second daughter of the informant, the appellant no. 1 Rohit Pandit started demanding motorcycle from his wife and father-in-law (P.W.-11) and brother-in-law. It is also proved that the informant and brothers of the deceased were managing money and also searching for some loan from other persons and relatives as is apparent from the evidence of Bhola Nath Pandit (P.W.-9), who happens to be son-in-law of the informant that Madan Pandit (P.W.-1) asked from him Rs. 10,000/- for purchasing a motorcycle to give Rohit Pandit because he is raising demand of motorcycle as dowry and due to non-fulfillment of which, he is subjecting Sabita Devi to cruelty and harassment and threatening to kill her. 10,000/- for purchasing a motorcycle to give Rohit Pandit because he is raising demand of motorcycle as dowry and due to non-fulfillment of which, he is subjecting Sabita Devi to cruelty and harassment and threatening to kill her. There is unrebutted testimony of the aforesaid witnesses P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and P.W.-11 that they have gone to the matrimonial home of deceased 20-22 days prior to the occurrence and they were not allowed to enter into the house unless motorcycle is given to Rohit Pandit (appellant no. 1). It is also stated that on the occasion of marriage of informant’s son scheduled to be held in the month of Baishkh before 08.05.2000, the deceased was not sent to her parental house to attend the marriage ceremony of her own brother. Therefore, prosecution has succeeded in proving the ingredient nos. (iii) & (iv) of Section 304B of the I.P.C. also. 38. Now the question arises as to against whom the presumption of dowry death as per provisions of Section 113B of the Evidence Act can be raised. 39. In the instant case, the prosecution witness itself P.W.-5 Suresh Rout, who is local villager of the place of occurrence has been cross-examined by the prosecution and categorically stated that Rohit Pandit resides along with his wife separately with his mother and father. The prosecution itself has elicited this fact and there is no specific evidence against the appellant nos. 2 and 3 about any demand of motorcycle from the deceased or her parents and brother or any ill- treatment meted with the deceased at their instance. Moreover, the appellant no. 1 Rohit Pandit was the young boy and in need and utility of the motorcycle and it was of no use for the old parents. Therefore, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act can be raised only against the appellant no. 1 Rohit Pandit and not against the appellant nos. 2 & 3, who were admittedly residing separately, having no concern with the matrimonial affairs between husband and wife. 40. In view of above discussion and reasons, we are of the definite view that the learned trial court has failed to segregate the genuine case of appellant nos. 2 & 3 from the case of appellant no. 1, who was sole responsible for the overall affairs and the tragic end of deceased. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant nos. 2 & 3 from the case of appellant no. 1, who was sole responsible for the overall affairs and the tragic end of deceased. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant nos. 2 & 3 is hereby set aside and the conviction of appellant no. 1 Rohit Pandit is upheld and confirmed . Accordingly, point no. (I) is decided. 41. So far quantum of sentence is concerned, the appellant Rohit Pandit has been awarded R.I. for 10 years and revision against the impugned judgment has also been filed by the informant Laxman Pandit for enhancement of sentence. In this connection, we have to go through the impugned judgment, wherein both parties were heard on the question of quantum of sentence awarded to the accused and the learned trial court has recorded finding that the prosecution case is resting only on the circumstantial evidence. In that view of the matter, the maximum punishment prescribed by law is not warranted in this case and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years will meet the ends of justice. No aggravating circumstance has been brought on record by the prosecution and the informant for enhancement of sentence in this case. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant no. 1 Rohit Pandit. In this view of the matter, Criminal Revision No. 206 of 2003 is hereby dismissed 42. In the result, the Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 74 of 2003 is partly allowed . The conviction and sentence of appellant no. 1 namely, Rohit Pandit is upheld and confirmed. Appellant no. 1 is directed to surrender before the concerned trial court to serve the remaining period of sentence awarded to him by learned trial court within two months from the date of this judgment, failing which the learned trial court shall take all coercive steps to secure the arrest and detention of the appellant no. 1 Rohit Pandit for the purpose of undergoing the remaining period of sentence awarded to him. 43. So far the conviction and sentence of the appellant nos. 2 & 3 namely, Nandlal Pandit and Bhotho Devi passed by learned trial court is concerned, the same is hereby set aside. Appellant nos. 2 & 3 are acquitted from the charges leveled against them. 44. Appellant nos. 2 & 3 are on bail. 43. So far the conviction and sentence of the appellant nos. 2 & 3 namely, Nandlal Pandit and Bhotho Devi passed by learned trial court is concerned, the same is hereby set aside. Appellant nos. 2 & 3 are acquitted from the charges leveled against them. 44. Appellant nos. 2 & 3 are on bail. They are discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged. 45. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of. 46. We take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, learned Amicus Curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to process the fees of Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) to Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 47. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is served upon Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee. 48. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.