Judgment : (Rajani Dubey, J.) Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2.3.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (CG) in ST No.55/2004 whereby each of the appellants stands convicted under Section 304B/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years, pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer additional RI for 03 months. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that marriage of the accused Santosh Kumar was solemnized with Uttara Bai on 20.4.2003 and after marriage, the accused persons started harassing and torturing her in connection with demand of cooler, TV, clock, cow, Luna, press as dowry, to such an extent that she being fed up with this persistent illegal demands poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. She was initially taken to Primary Health Center, Dongararh for treatment from where she was referred to District Hospital, Rajnandgaon and then she was referred to Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai where on 18.9.2003 she died during treatment. On information being given by the doctor, merg was registered and postmortem of the deceased was conducted. 03. During the course of investigation, letters from the room of the deceased, her necklace, gold locket, broken pieces of bangles, matchbox, plastic can having 200 gm kerosene, burnt pieces of sari and petticoat etc. were seized, spot map was prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing the usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. Learned trial Court framed charge under Section 304B/34 of IPC , to which the accused/appellants abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 04. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 17 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, they did not examine any witness in defence. 05. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 06. Learned counsel for the appellants would submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. 05. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 06. Learned counsel for the appellants would submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. Learned trial Court seriously erred in convicting the appellants relying upon the shaky evidence of the interested witnesses without corroboration from any independent witness and not considered the defence arguments and cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses in accordance with law which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. He would submit that the accused persons did not make any demand of dowry at the time of marriage which is clear from the evidence of PW-4 Ram Khilawan (brother of the deceased) and PW-6 Ram Kishunu (maternal uncle of the deceased). Learned trial Court also did not consider the material aspect of the case that as per PW-15 Kailash Thakur, the deceased stated that she burnt herself by pouring kerosene as she had unbearable headache. There is nothing on record to show that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty by the appellants and as such, the main ingredients for attracting the offence under Section 304B of IPC are extremely missing in this case. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its true perspective and merely on the basis of conjecture and surmises held the appellants guilty under Section 304B/34 of IPC which is not legally sustainable at all. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charge. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 454 07. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellants submits that in view of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. The present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 09. The present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 09. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellants were charged under Section 304B/34 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted them under Section 304B/34 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 10. It is not disputed before the learned trial Court that marriage of the deceased Uttarabai was solemnized with the accused Santosh Kumar on 20th April, 2003 and she died on 18th September, 2003. Dr. PC Deshmukh (PW-12) conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and opined that cause of her death was shock as a result of 95% deep antemortem burn vide his report Ex.P/12. In cross- examination he states that he cannot say with certainty whether death was suicidal or homicidal. Thus, it is clear from the evidence of Dr. PC Deshmukh (PW-12) and his report Ex.P/12 that Uttarabai died due to burn injuries under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage. 11. PW-1 Gyanchand states that on the date of incident he was at his home, he heard the voice of someone calling for help and when he came out, he saw Uttarabai burning. He asked his son to bring blanket. His son Vishnu brought blanket, however, by that time Uttarabai had fallen down on the floor and then Vishnu covered her with blanket. Thereafter, he (PW-1) went by bicycle to call for accused Santosh. He states that while his son Vishnu was extinguishing the fire, Leela Bai and Chitrekha did not extinguish fire and they were standing. In cross- examination he admits that when Uttarabai caught fire, accused Leela Bai and Chitrekha were inside the house and as soon as Uttarabai came near the door, they came out of the house and when Uttarabai entered the door, his son had already extinguished fire. He states that after being burnt when Uttarabai asked for water, her mother-in-law gave her water. He also admits that neither he knows about any dispute or quarrel between Uttarabai and her in-laws nor has heard about it. 12. He states that after being burnt when Uttarabai asked for water, her mother-in-law gave her water. He also admits that neither he knows about any dispute or quarrel between Uttarabai and her in-laws nor has heard about it. 12. PW-2 Mannulal, father of the deceased, states that when he brought Uttarabai for Teeja to his house, she informed that the accused demand TV, cooler and motorcycle and taunt for this. However, he persuaded her that everything would be all right with the passage time. He went to drop her at her matrimonial home on the third day of Teeja and later on he came to know that she has burnt. He states that he cannot say as to how she got burnt. In cross-examination he admits that no demand whatsoever was made by the accused persons at the time of marriage. He states that whenever the accused Santosh Kumar came to his house for taking his wife/Uttarabai back, he never asked for money or any article. He admits that there is no custom of dowry in their community. He admits that his daughter was admitted in hospital and got treated by the accused persons. However, he has denied the suggestion of the defence that after death of Uttarabai he demanded back all the articles given at the time of marriage and as the accused persons refused, he lodged a false report against them. 13. PW-3 Lalita Bai, mother of the deceased, states that when the deceased came for Teeja, she informed that the accused persons harass her for dowry. However, in cross-examination she admits that no demand was raised by the accused persons at the time of marriage. She admits that the deceased never informed them or wrote any letter regarding demand of dowry. 14. PW-4 Ramkhilawan, brother of the deceased, states that on the occasion of Teeja, the deceased had come to her parental house and informed that the accused persons demand TV, motorcycle and cooler and harass her for this. However, in cross-examination he admits that behaviour of accused Santosh Kumar towards Uttarabai was proper but he used to abuse her at the instance of his family members. He also admits that no demand was raised by the accused persons at the time of marriage and that there is custom of dowry in their community. However, in cross-examination he admits that behaviour of accused Santosh Kumar towards Uttarabai was proper but he used to abuse her at the instance of his family members. He also admits that no demand was raised by the accused persons at the time of marriage and that there is custom of dowry in their community. He admits that at the time of Teeja when deceased came to his house, accused Santosh also came and thereafter, Santosh came to take her back, at that point of time also he did not discuss about demand of dowry. He also admits that he is making statement regarding abuse and demand of dowry by accused Santosh for the first time in the Court and it was not disclosed to the police. 15. PW-5 Budhan Bai, sister of accused Leela, states that deceased is her niece in relation and she did not tell her anything. After declaring this witness hostile when the prosecution cross-examined her, she denied all the suggestions of the prosecution. 16. PW-6 Ramkishun, relative of the deceased, states that when the deceased came for Teeja, she informed that her mother-in-law Leela Bai and sister-in-law Chitrekha harass and abuse her for bringing less dowry and demand cooler, TV, cow and motorcycle and that when she complained about it to her husband Santosh, he would not pay any heed to it and would take the side of his mother and sister. In cross- examination he admits that at the time of marriage no dowry was demanded by the accused persons and that there is no custom of dowry in their community. He states that he never discussed about demand of dowry with accused Santosh and that he does not know as to why she committed suicide. He also admits that he went to the matrimonial home of the deceased with her father 2-3 times, she was living there well and she had no problem at all. He states that after 8- 10 days of marriage he went to Dongargaon and at that time Uttarabai did not make any complaint of the accused. 17. PW-10 Vishnu Soni states that on the date of incident he saw the deceased burning and then he brought blanket and covered her with it. At that time, Leela Bai and Chitrekha did not try to save her. 17. PW-10 Vishnu Soni states that on the date of incident he saw the deceased burning and then he brought blanket and covered her with it. At that time, Leela Bai and Chitrekha did not try to save her. He admitted the suggestion that he occasionally saw Uttarabi sitting outside the house upset. 18. The prosecution has filed three letters i.e. Ex.P/5, P/6 & P/7. PW- 13 CS Uike, Assistant Sub Inspector, seized these three letters vide seizure memo Ex.P/8. He states that he cannot tell as to who is author of letter Ex.P/5. It was seized from the room of the deceased. However, he states that Chitrekha told him that letters of Ex.P/6 & P/7 are written by accused Santosh. 19. It is clear from the statements of mother, father and brother of the ceased that soon before her death, deceased Uttarabai was not subjected to any cruelty in connection with demand of dowry by the accused persons. It is also not stated by relatives of the deceased that she was being tortured or harassed by the accused persons for dowry. Rather it has come in the evidence that she was living well in her matrimonial home and that after Teeja festival she went back to her matrimonial home happily. The witnesses have admitted that no demand whatsoever was raised by the accused persons at the time of marriage as there is no custom of dowry in their community. Further, no social meeting was ever held or any police complaint was ever made against the accused persons regarding demand of dowry or harassment to the deceased. 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Charan Singh (supra) observed in para 11 of its judgment as under: "11. The interpretation of Sections 304B and 498A IPC came up for consideration in Baijnath's case (supra). The opinion was summed up in paras 25 to 27 thereof, which are extracted below:- "25. 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Charan Singh (supra) observed in para 11 of its judgment as under: "11. The interpretation of Sections 304B and 498A IPC came up for consideration in Baijnath's case (supra). The opinion was summed up in paras 25 to 27 thereof, which are extracted below:- "25. Whereas in the offence of dowry death defined by Section 304-B of the Code, the ingredients thereof are: (i) death of the woman concerned is by any burns or bodily injury or by any cause other than in normal circumstances, and (ii) is within seven years of her marriage, and (iii) that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. The offence under Section 498-A of the Code is attracted qua the husband or his relative if she is subjected to cruelty. The Explanation to this Section exposits "cruelty" as: (i) any wilful 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), or (ii) 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. 26. Patently thus, cruelty or harassment of the lady by her husband or his relative for or in connection with any demand for any property or valuable security as a demand for dowry or in connection therewith is the common constituent of both the offences. 27. The expression "dowry" is ordained to have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The expression "cruelty", as explained, contains in its expanse, apart from the conduct of the tormentor, the consequences precipitated thereby qua the lady subjected thereto. Be that as it may, cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of his for or in connection with any demand of dowry, to reiterate, is the gravamen of the two offences." 21. The expression "cruelty", as explained, contains in its expanse, apart from the conduct of the tormentor, the consequences precipitated thereby qua the lady subjected thereto. Be that as it may, cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of his for or in connection with any demand of dowry, to reiterate, is the gravamen of the two offences." 21. Keeping in view the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that though it has been proved by the prosecution that the death of Uttarabai is by burn injury other than in normal circumstances and she died within seven years of her marriage, but it has utterly failed to prove that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons in connection with any demand of dowry or valuable security etc. As already discussed above, the evidence of the parents, brother and other relatives of the deceased nowhere suggest that she was being harassed or tortured for demand of dowry or soon before her death she was subjected to such cruelty. However, learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its true perspective and recorded an erroneous finding of guilt against the appellants which is liable to be set aside. 22. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside and consequently, the appellants are acquitted of the charge under Section 304B/34 of IPC . The appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provisions of Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.