1 2025:CGHC:25022 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 395 of 2005 1 - Subhash Pradhan S/o Dewanand Pradhan Aged About 26 Years Occupation- Cultivation, R/o Village-Panchdhar Thana Sariya, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Devanand Pradhan S/o Damo Pradhan Aged About 50 Years Occupation- Cultivation, R/o Village-Panchdhar Thana Sariya, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Khira Bai Pradhan W/o Dawanand Pradhan Aged About 40 Years Occupation- Cultivation, R/o Village-Panchdhar Thana Sariya, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Neela Bai Pradhan (Abated) As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 05-05-2025. ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Sariya District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, G. A. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Judgment on Board 17/06/2025 1. Assailing the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the judgment dated 26.04.2005 passed in Sessions Trial No.153/2004 by 4th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Raigarh (CG), this appeal under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”) has been filed by the appellants. By the judgment 2 impugned, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence U/s 498-A IPC RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.100/- to each accused persons. U/s 304 B r/w 34 IPC RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.100/- to each accused persons In default of fine of each sentence additional RI for one month (Total two months to each accused persons) 2. Initially four accused persons were put to trial and were convicted and sentenced as stated above and thereafter this appeal was filed by all of them. During pendency of appeal, appellant No.4 Neelabai has passed away, her appeal stood abated. Appellant No.1 is the husband, appellant No.2 is the father-in-law and appellant No.3 is mother-in-law of the deceased Bhumisita Bai who committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial home on 10.01.2004. According to case of prosecution, the marriage between the deceased Bhumisita Bai and appellant No.1 was solemnized about 3 and half years before the date of incident. The deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry by the appellants as a result of which she committed suicide and thus died an unnatural death. The merg intimation Ex. P-6 was lodged by the appellant No.1 to the Police Station and investigation was set on motion. The statement of the witnesses were recorded, the appellants were arrested and on completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Court which was made over to the trial Court for trial. The appellants were charged for an offence punishable under Sections 304-B r/w 34 and 498-A r/w 34 of IPC who denied the charged and claimed trial. 3. Prosecution in order to establish its case, examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents. Statement of accused/appellants under Section 313 CrPC was recorded in which they pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 3 4. By the judgment impugned, learned trial Court has held the accused/appellants guilty and imposed the sentence as described above which is challenge before this Court by the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the prosecution was not able to bring home the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC have not been proved by the prosecution by adducing cogent and prudent evidence. He submits that learned trial Court committed an error of law and fact in placing reliance upon the statement of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 to hold that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry soon before her death. He further submits that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that there was no demand of dowry soon before the death of deceased Bhumisita Bai. He read over the statements of these witnesses, the appellants were financially in a better position and as such during time of marriage no demand of dowry was made by the appellants. He further goes on to submit that these witnesses have given different timeline with regard to demand of dowry made by the appellants as stated to them by the deceased. He further submits that Gouranga (PW-1)- father of the deceased has deposed that after two years of marriage, he was told by the deceased that appellants demanded Rs.20,000/-, Color TV and gold & silver ornaments whereas PW-2 Ramesh has stated that after one year of marriage, the said demand was raised by the appellants as stated to him by the deceased. On the contrary PW-5 Ambika has stated that after two years of marriage, the same demand was stated to be made by the appellants. Therefore, there is no continuity in the statement of these witnesses that there was demand of dowry. Apart from this, he submits that even if the demand was made, that was much prior to the death of deceased to attract the provisions of soon before the death contained in Section 304- B of IPC. He further submits that these witnesses are not speaking the truth and only as a counterblast having lost their daughter and sister, the statements have been made against the appellants. He further submits that these witnesses have not made any complaint either to the Police or to Panchayat in this regard, which makes their 4 statement doubtful. He further submits that independent witnesses Gopal (PW-6), Thanda Ram (PW-7), Sahdev (PW-8), Mohan (PW-10), Vishakha Sahu (PW-12) have initially deposed against the appellants but subsequently did not adhere to the prosecution story. He paid much emphasis on the statement of PW-12 Vishakha who happens to be the close friend of the deceased who categorically denied that any demand of dowry was made by the appellants as told to her by the deceased. In sum and substance he submits that the appeal may be allowed by acquitting the appellants of all the charges. To strengthen his submissions he placed reliance upon the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Baljinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab reported in (2015) 2 SCC 629 (Para 15); Hira Lal and Others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi reported in (2003) 8 SCC 80 (Para- 9); Asha and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2014) 4 SCC 174 (Para- 17); Karan Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 214 (Para 9, 13 & 17); Biswajit Halder Alias Babu Halder and others Vs. State of W. B. reported in (2008) 1 SCC 202 (Para 10, 11 & 14); Randhir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2004) 13 SCC 129. He further submits that if the material available on record gives rise to two possible views, the one favouring the accused has to be given preference. In respect to that lastly he placed reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Karnail Singh reported in AIR 2003 SC 3609. 6. On the other hand learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that learned trial Court on due appreciation of evidence on record gave a categorical finding of conviction against the appellants which does not require any interference by this Court. He submits that the statement of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 is correctly relied upon by the trial Court and these witnesses have disclosed about harassment and cruelty made by the appellants on account of demand of dowry soon before the death of deceased. He submits that soon before death would not always mean the immediate before the death. The provision has to be read in the context with the proximity of the act done by the appellants which led to the commission of suicide or unnatural death of the deceased. In the case in hand, PW-1 5 has categorically stated about the harassment by the appellants and he has also stated that 15 days prior to death of the deceased, the deceased told about demand of dowry by the appellants, therefore, it cannot be said that proximate and live link is not established in the case of the prosecution. He further submits that simply because no complaint was made by the family members of the deceased therefore, it cannot be presumed that the deceased was not subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry made by the appellants. He further submits that as the prosecution was able to prove the harassment, cruelty meted out by the appellants, presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act, 1872 would be affected against the appellants. Therefore, he submits that the appeal sans merit and is liable to be dismissed 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 8. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it would be apt to quote the relevant provisions as under:- Section 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. 1[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 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) 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. 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. 6 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. 9. In order to establish the guilt under Section 304-B of IPC following ingredients are required to be proved by the prosecution:- (i) the death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance. (ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage. (iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. (iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry. (v) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. Please see Raman Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2009) 16 SCC 35. (Emphasis supplied) 10. In the case in hand, there is no dispute that the deceased died an unnatural death that too within seven years from the date of marriage. To be more precise, the deceased in this case died just three and half years of marriage. Now this Court is required to see whether the deceased committed suicde on account of creulty meted out to her either by the accused/appellants or his relatives and that the said cruelty was in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. The relevant provision to be referred in this case is the Section 113-B of the Evidence Act which is quoted as under for ready reference:- “113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.[Inserted by Act 43 of 1986, Section 12 (w.e.f. 1.5.1986).]- 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. 7 Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)]. 11. Learned trial Court placed heavy reliance upon the statement of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5 parents and brother of the deceased. Therefore this Court is required to analysis the statements of these witnesses with great care and caution to separate the grain from the chaff. Gouranga (PW-1) father of the deceased has stated that the deceased was his daughter and the appellants are the in-laws of her daughter. He has stated that Gopal (his Nephew) came to know that the deceased died by hanging herself, upon which he came to his house and informed that the deceased has died. Thereafter, they went to the village Panchadhar and found her daughter hanging and went to lodge the report. He further deposed that after two years of marriage he has gone to his daughter at that time, he was told by her daughter that the appellants were demanding cash Rs.20,000/-, color Tv, and gold and silver ornaments and creating trouble for her. Then he told her daughter to come with him, she said that she has to live her life here only, she will not go. When he again went to Panchdhar after 15 days, her daughter asked that why don’t you bring her as per demand of her in-laws they are again creating trouble for her. Then he explained that after a few days he will fulfill the said demands. He again asked her to come with him then she said that she has to stay here but the accused beat her. Two days before the Pus Punni Festival he went to Panchdhar and similar things were told by the deceased. This is the sum and substance of examination-in-chief. From perusal of examination-in-chief it appears that after two years of the marriage he went to his daughter where he was told with regard to demand of dowry and harassment. After 15 days, again same things were stated by his daughter and when he went before 2 days of Pus Punni Festival, the same things were told by his daughter. This witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination. In Para 9 of his cross-examination he has stated that he is a labourer and does not have any agricultural land. He also admits that his Samdhi Devanand has 7-8 acres of land and also admits that his Samdhi is financially better off than him. Appellant No.1 is the only son of Devanand. He further submits that 8 during marriage, no demand of dowry was made by the appellants. He also admits that at the time of marriage her daughter was given one necklace, earring and nose- ring of gold by her in-laws. He also admits that the factum with regard to quarrel which has been stated by him is of 2 years after my daughter got married. He also admits that before that her daughter has never told about the demand and cruelty. He shows his ignorance with regard to date, month and year on which he was told by her daughter about the demand and cruelty. He also admits that he never made any query from the appellants with regard to quarrel and demand of dowry. He denied the suggestion that this fact was not told by him to anybody, he stated that he has told the same to Khemraj and his wife (not examined). Apart from his, he did not tell anyone else. He also admits that between two years after the marriage and his daughter death he had visited Village Panchdhar 40-50 times. During that period his daughter told about quarrels and demands only three times and he cannot tell when his daughter told him about quarrels and demands. He also admits that he never made any complaint to the sarpanch of village Panchdhar regarding the things told by his daughter and also admits that he has never made any complaint about this in the Kolta community and further admits that whenever his daughter came to her maternal home from her in-laws house, she used to come wearing the jewelry given to her by the accused. It is also admitted that after 3-4 days of his meeting, his daughter would come to her maternal home and also admits that she told that she would come on Sunday. He denied the suggestion that he had brought the gold jewelry of his daughter and because of hiding this fact she commits suicide a day before Makar Sankranti. He admits that after his arrival, Subhash and he went to Police Station and reported the matter. The report was filed by accused Subhash. He denied the suggestion that when he went to Sariya Police Station with Subhash, he did not lodge any report. He had lodged a written report in Sariya Police Station, if the report is not filed, he cannot the tell the reason. He further deposed that on that day he was in village Panchdhar till 7-8 pm and after that he went to his village. When the police took action in Panchdhar that day, he did not lodge any complaint. 9 He denied the suggestion that the day his daughter died, the SDOP of the Police came to Panchdhar and he was present there. He had given statement to the SDOP. That day his statement was recorded and three days later his second statement was recorded in the Police Station. After that the Police did not record his statement. He denied that he did not make any allegation against the accused in his statement on that day and in the statement given to the Police three days later. If both statement are not filed, he cannot tell the reason. He has informed the Police with regard to demand made by accused from his daughter. He speaks about the Police statement made in Ex. D-1 and D-2. 12. From perusal of statement of this witness it appears that when PW-1 went to house of deceased where he was told by his daughter about demand of dowry and harassment made. It also appears that he had visited Village Panchdhar 40-50 times but only three occasions certain complaints were made by his daughter. It is also evident on record that he knows the Sarpanch of the village but no complaint was ever made by this witness to him or any other member of the village Panchayat. He happens to state that two statements were recorded if that are not part of the record he is not in position to state. His statement also reflects that during the course of marriage, no demand was raised by the appellants with regard to demand of dowry. The statement of this witness also corroborates that certain ornaments were given to the deceased by the appellants during the course of marriage. 13. Ramesh Kumar (PW-2) has stated that four years ago, the deceased was married to accused Subhas in village Panchdhar and he died about a year ago. Whenever, the deceased came to her paternal home, she used to say that her in-laws demanded Rs.20,000/-, a Color TV, Gold and silver ornaments. They threatened her and beat her from time to time. He further states that when his grandmother was suffering from paralysis, the appellant Subhas along with deceased came to village Borida to see her, they came at 12-01 hours in the day and left in the evening. On that day the deceased said that she would not go to her in-laws house so he advised her to go by saying that let the crops be cut and after sometime we will fulfill the demands. Then 10 she went to village Panchdhar with her husband. After 15 days the deceased was murdered. He deposed that once the deceased informed him that on account of demand she was being assaulted and she show the injury on her back. He further deposed that the deceased was killed by her in-laws on account of demand of dowry. He deposed that they went to Police Station Sariya to lodge the report. In his examination-in-chief this witness has simply stated that the deceased came to her maternal home along with her husband and went back in the evening. After 15 days the deceased died. Once only he was informed by the deceased that she was assaulted on account of some demand. She was killed on account of demand of dowry. This witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination. He deposed that when deceased came to her maternal home for the first time after one year of her marriage, only then she told about of the accused demanding money, gold silver ornaments and a color TV. Before this, the deceased had never told about the same things. He also admits that the demand so made was told by the deceased only when she used to come her maternal home and in her in-laws home she never told about the demand. He further deposed that the deceased visited her maternal house a total of 15-20 times in her married life. He did not know the month, date and year when the deceased told about the demand made by the accused for the first time after one year of marriage. He further admits that he never made any complaint against the accused person with regard to demand of dowry or assault made by the appellants in any Police Station or society. It is also admitted that he has never been told to anybody outside. He further deposed that he along with his uncle (PW-1), brother and father had gone to lodge the report to Sariya Police Station. He admits that he has not read the report lodged by his uncle and also admits that SDOP has recorded the statement of family members he denied the suggestion that while giving the statement to the Police the deceased and appellant were living happily. He also denied the suggestion that he has not told the factum of assault made to the deceased. He himself stated that they have stated the entire incident to the Police. After that the Police has not recorded his statement. Now this witness says that on the third day the Police has recorded their 11 statement. In that statement also he had told the same things as told in the Court. While giving the statement to the Police he told that whenever deceased used to come to her maternal home, she used to tell about the accused beating her, threatening her and demanding money. If the above things were not written in his police statement Ex. D-3 and D-4 he cannot tell the reason. He further deposed that he had once told about being beaten up for demand. At that time he had also seen marks on her back but the same was not told to police. It is admitted that we had not filed a report regarding the said incident. He does not remember today whether he had told the police about demand being made by deceased regarding threatening and beating her 7-8 months before the incident or not. Perusal of statement of this witness clearly goes to show that after one year of marriage he was told by the deceased with regard to certain demand and cruelty. Apart from this it appears that no complaint of this incident was made either to any society member or to any outsider. 14. PW-3 (Vishwanath) brother of the deceased also deposed in the same line of PW-2. Ambika Bai (PW-5) – mother of the deceased deposed that when her daughter used to come her maternal home, she told that she was not treated well by the appellants and demanding Rs.20,000/-, a color TV, gold and silver ornaments and also assaulted her. She also deposed that when her mother-in-law had suffered paralysis her daughter along with her son-in-law and daughter came there. Her daughter told that her in-laws are troubling her a lot by saying that she has come from a poor family and have not brought anything in dowry and then she went to her in-laws house in evening. In cross examination she stated that after two months of the marriage she was told by her daughter that the appellants are troubling her and demanding a Color TV and cash of Rs.20,000/- and that was told by her daughter after 8 months of marriage. She has further deposed that whenever he used to visit her or she used to come her matrimonial house, the same things were told by her. She further deposed that when her granddaughter was born, she stayed at her daughter’ house for 9 days and her daughter used to tell her about demand and cruelty and at that time she has not informed anyone else. She also admits that we have not any agricultural land and 12 living by working as laborers. The accused/appellants are rich farmers with money. There is omission with regard to Para-6 & 7 in Ex. D-6 and D-7. From perusal of this witness it also indicates that after 8 months of marriage the complaint with regard to demand of dowry and harassment was told by the deceased to the appellants when the deceased visited to see her grandmother, the same was missing in her police statement Ex. D-6 & D-7. The independent witnesses are Gopal Das (PW-6), Thanda Ram (PW-7), Dr. Smt. Jamkumari Chowdhary (PW-8), Fakir Mohan (PW-10) and Vishakha Sahu (PW-12). Perusal of these witnesses it is quite vivid that they have not supported the case of prosecution. PW-6 in Para- 4 of his statement has stated that the deceased and appellants are living happily and the deceased did not complain to him about any demand and cruelty. PW-7 (Thanda Ram) in Para-4 of his statement stated that regarding demand of dowry he only knows from the brother of deceased- Vishwanath. Similarly PW-8 (Sahdev) in his statement denied the suggestion that the deceased told that her in-laws were demanding dowry and whenever she comes to his house she says that she was happy in her marital home. Similar statement were given by PW-10 (Fakir Mohan) in Para 2 of his statement. Vishakha (PW-12) in Para-6 of her cross-examination stated that no any demand of dowry was made by the appellants as told to her by the deceased. 15. The Supreme Court in the case of Baljinder Kaur (Supra) in para 15 held as under:- “15. As per the definition of ‘dowry death’ in Section 304-B IPC and the wording in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, it is necessary to show that ‘soon before death’ the woman concerned had been subjected to cruelty or harassment “for or in connection with the demand of dowry”. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, it becomes obligatory on the Court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death.” 16. Likewise in case of Hira & Ors. (Supra) in Para 9 as under:- “9. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. Prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of the 'death 13 occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances'. The expression 'soon before' is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. Prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by prosecution. 'Soon before' is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression 'soon before her death' used in the substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression 'soon before' is not defined. A reference to expression 'soon before' used in Section 114. Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a Court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods 'soon after the theft, is either the thief has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. The determination of the period which can come within the term 'soon before' is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression 'soon before' would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live-link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. 17. In the case of Asha & Anr. (Supra) in Para 17 held as under:- “17….. the trial Court and the appellate Court have not taken great care in analysing and appreciating the evidence on record, keeping in view the gravity of the offence of dowry death and the punishment prescribed for it U/s 304-B of the IPC. They were required to scrutinise the evidence very cautiously and carefully in order to arrive at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of the 14 offence with reference to the conditions enumerated u/s 304-B IPC to convict the accused have been satisfied by the prosecution….” 18. Apart from this the Supreme Court in case of Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 454 was dealing with the case related to Section 304-B of IPC. Wherein conclusion with regard to demand of motorcycle was made. In the identical case, the Supreme Court held in Para 21 as under:- “21. ….It is only certain oral averments regarding demand of motorcycle and land which is also much prior to the incident. The aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution does not fulfill the pre-requisites to invoke presumption under Section 304B IPC or Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. Even the ingredients of Section 498A IPC are not made out for the same reason as there is no evidence of cruelty and harassment to the deceased soon before her death.” 19. Now the question comes to this Court, the prosecution was able to prove the fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death on account of demand of dowry and in this case presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act can be drawn against the appellants. The cumulative assessment of evidence clearly establishes that the marriage between the appellant No.1 and deceased had taken place about 3 and half years before the incident. PW-1 in his statement speaks about the complaint made by the deceased only after two years of marriage. Whereas PW-2 states that after one year of marriage the complaint was being made. PW-5 (mother of the deceased) has states that her daughter told about the demand of said things after 8 months of marriage. Perusal of these witnesses clearly establishes that the demand was raised by the appellants in this regard. It is available on record that the demand was being raised, the deceased was being subjected to harassment and she never made any complaint either to family members i.e. the appellants or to the Panchayat or any member of the society. It has also come on record that for the first time they made the complaint after death of deceased and their statements were recorded after 3-4 days of the incident. Apart from this, the submission of proximity and live link between the death and demand of dowry admittedly as stated above, 15 gives different timeline as has been stated above. Independent witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. From perusal of statement of these witnesses it is also apparent that they went to lodge a report to Police Station however the report is not admitted by them. There are major contradictions and omissions in the respective police statement of witnesses. Considering the facts and circumstances led by the prosecution, the prosecution failed to establish the proximate and live link between the demand of dowry and the death, and being so this Court is not inclined to draw a presumption against the appellants under Section 113-B of IPC. The lodgment of the report appears to be the aftermath of traumatic experience by the relatives of the deceased after coming to know about the tragic death of deceased otherwise the material collected by the prosecution does not conclusively go to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry prompting her to commit suicide and thus the conviction of accused/appellants under Section 304-B and 498-A read with 34 of IPC does not appear to be in consonance with the settled legal position holding the field. 20. Thus, the aforesaid discussion makes this Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment impugned and acquitting the accused/appellants of the charge leveled against them. Order accordingly. Consequences to follow. 21. Record along with the judgment be sent back to the trial Court. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.06.27 11:35:32 +0530