JUDGMENT : Rajani Dubey, J. 1. This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentenced dated 07.01.2015 passed in Session Trial No. 90/2013 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) has convicted the appellants under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Admitted facts of the case is that appellant No.1 - Uttam Kumar Dewangan is husband, appellant No.2-Smt. Savitri Dewangan is mother-in-law and appellant No.3-Shiv Kumar Dewangan is father-in-law of deceased Tajeshwari Dewangan. 3. The Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 27.06.2013, the marriage of deceased Tajeshwari Bai, daughter of Laxmi Prasad Dewangan (PW-4), was solemnized with accused/appellant No.1 – Uttam Kumar Dewangan. After solemnization of marriage, deceased Tejeshwari Bai used to reside at her in-laws' house in House No. AB-1159-60, Yamuna Bihar, Jamunipali. All the items were given to Tejeshwari Bai at her wedding. After sometime of marriage, accused/appellant No.1- Uttam Kumar, mother-in-law Savitri Bai (A-2), father-in-law Shiv Kumar (A-3) and other family members started harassing deceased Tajeshwari Bai physically and mentally for bringing insufficient dowry. Accused/appellant Uttam Kumar (A-1) used to assault the deceased under the influence of liquor and deceased Tejeshwari Bai used to inform her father about this over the phone. At the time of the marriage, it was told that the accused/appellant Uttam Kumar (A-1) was employee of Tushan Power Limited, Gujarat, but it was not informed about his dismissal from the job due to presenting a false experience certificate. Seeing the condition of deceased Tejeshwari Bai, her father Laxmi Prasad Dewangan gave the accused/appellant Uttam Kumar (A-1) Rs.25,000 in cash. After this, they remained happily for few days, thereafter accused/appellant Uttam Kumar (A-1) again started harassing deceased Tejeshwari Bai physically and mentally and demanded money from her father. Uttam Kumar (A-1) provided his account number to deceased Tejeshwaribai's father and asked to deposit the money then Laxmi Prasad, father of deceased Tejeshwari Bai, again deposited Rs.10,000/- in the account of accused/appellant Uttam Kumar (A-1). Deceased Tejeshwaribai told her father over phone that Uttam Kumar (A-1) and his family were physically and mentally harassing her for dowry saying that her father has deposited a very small amount, and her maternal uncle Maniklal was also instigating her in-laws for dowry. Looking to this, Laxmi Prasad, father of deceased Tejeshwari Bai, again gave accused/appellant Uttam Kumar (A-1) Rs.12,000/- in cash. Looking to this, Laxmi Prasad, father of deceased Tejeshwari Bai, again gave accused/appellant Uttam Kumar (A-1) Rs.12,000/- in cash. However, the accused/appellants continued to harass deceased Tejeshwari Bai, and Uttam Kumar (A-1) and his family members demanded Rs.5 Lakh. Deceased Tejeshwari Bai told her father over phone to take her with him else her in-laws would kill her. On this, Lakshmi Prasad, father of deceased Tejeshwari Bai, said he would arrange money within a few days and came to her in-laws' house on 13.07.2013, however, on 13.07.2013, deceased Tejeshwari Bai died by hanging. 4. Accused/appellant Shiv Kumar (A-3), father-in-law of the deceased, lodged merg intimation at Police Station – Darri regarding Tejeshwari Bai's death vide Ex.P-4. The Executive Magistrate, Katghora, issued a notice to witnesses for preparing inquest of body. Thereafter, inquest on the body of deceased Tejeshwari Bai was conducted vide Ex.P-12 and dead body was sent for postmortem examination to District Hospital, Korba vide Ex.P-13, where Dr. R.K. Divya (PW-2) conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased and gave her report under Ex.P-3 noticing following injuries/symptoms :- (i) The fact was cyanosed, eyes closed, pupils dilated, conjunctivitis congested, mouth closed, nails cyanosed. (ii) P.M. liquidity present over back of chest, abdomen, upper and lowe limbs. (iii) Rigor mortis passed off from neck, slightly poised from shoulder joints, and fully present over elbow, wrist joints and lower limbs. Ligature material not tied over neck but ligature mark present over neck above thyroid cartilage between chin and larynx and directed upward obliquely following the line of mandible and reaching to both sides of neck below both ears. (iv) Ligature mark was only brown coloured in the size of 6 cm broad superficial. (v) Final dissection of ligature mark shows blood clothes under the layer of skin. The tissues under the ligature mark was dry, white and glistering and ecchymosis in adjacent mussels. (vi) The ligature mark was ante mortem in nature. The autopsy surgeon opined the mode of death of deceased to be asphyxia due to obstruction of air passages secondary to antemortem hanging and death of suicidal in nature. 5. FIR (Ex.P-14) was registered against the accused/appellants. Piece of saree used in the hanging was seized from accused Uttam Kumar. (A-1) vide Ex.P-5. The police prepared nazri naksha vide Ex.P-6. The autopsy surgeon opined the mode of death of deceased to be asphyxia due to obstruction of air passages secondary to antemortem hanging and death of suicidal in nature. 5. FIR (Ex.P-14) was registered against the accused/appellants. Piece of saree used in the hanging was seized from accused Uttam Kumar. (A-1) vide Ex.P-5. The police prepared nazri naksha vide Ex.P-6. Deceased Tejeshwari Bai's wedding card, a receipt of depositing Rs.10,000 in accused Uttam Kumar's (A-1) bank account and a list of dowry items were seized vide Ex.P-7. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and accused/appellants were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.P-8 to P-10. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants for the offence under Section 304-B, 34 of IPC before the jurisdictional Court at Katghora. 6. After filing of the charge sheet, the trial Court framed the charge against accused/appellants under Sections 304-B/34 or 306/34 or 302/34 of the IPC. The accused/appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence. 7. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. No defence witness was examined by the appellants in their defence. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 8. After hearing counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned above in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC. To sustain a conviction under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must have proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment and such cruelty must be for or in connection with the demand of dowry and that the same must be shown to have occurred soon before the death but the prosecution has failed to prove these ingredients. Learned counsel also submits that the death is conclusively proven to be suicidal and not homicidal. The autopsy surgeon expressly concluded that ligature mark characteristics, ecchymosis, dry/glistering tissues, and oblique direction all indicate typical suicidal hanging. Learned counsel also submits that all allegations of dowry demand and harassment arise solely from the statements of the deceased’s father and relatives. Learned counsel also submits that the death is conclusively proven to be suicidal and not homicidal. The autopsy surgeon expressly concluded that ligature mark characteristics, ecchymosis, dry/glistering tissues, and oblique direction all indicate typical suicidal hanging. Learned counsel also submits that all allegations of dowry demand and harassment arise solely from the statements of the deceased’s father and relatives. There is no independent witness from the locality, neighborhood, or community confirming cruelty or harassment. No written complaint, message, letter, or medical report from the deceased, despite alleged continuous harassment, has been produced. It is settled in law that omnibus, general, and vague allegations against in-laws are insufficient for conviction. Learned counsel further submits that payments by father (PW-4) do not prove dowry demand but are consistent with voluntary familial help. The father’s payments of Rs.25,000, Rs.10,000, and Rs.12,000 have no documentary proof linking them to any unlawful demand by the appellants, except a single deposit slip that does not indicate coercion. No complaint was lodged at the time of any payment and it is common in marriages for parents to assist newly weds financially, and such assistance cannot automatically be treated as dowry or extortion without specific evidence of forced demand. Further, major demand of Rs.5 lakh is unsubstantiated and appears an exaggeration. There is no record, message, witness, or neighbor corroborates the alleged demand of Rs.5 lakh. Such a substantial demand, if real, would reasonably have triggered a complaint, mediation, or intervention but nothing such happened in the case. The deceased’s father himself stated that he asked for a few days to arrange the amount, which contradicts the claim of imminent danger. Learned counsel also submits that father-in-law (A-3) himself immediately lodged the merg intimation, which is a natural and transparent act, not one of concealment. The body was handed over for inquest and postmortem without delay, showing cooperation and not guilt & no attempt to destroy the evidence or flee was made by any appellants. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider that the chain of circumstantial evidence as brought by the prosecution does not establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused/appellants particularly the appellant Nos. 2 and 3. Thus, the benefit of doubt, of course, has to go to the appellants. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider that the chain of circumstantial evidence as brought by the prosecution does not establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused/appellants particularly the appellant Nos. 2 and 3. Thus, the benefit of doubt, of course, has to go to the appellants. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chabi Karmakar & Ors Vs. The State of West Bengal reported in (2025) 1 SCC 398 , Shoor Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 2 SCC 815 and decision of this Court in the matter of Krishna Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Other connected matter (judgment dated 14.02.2025 in CRA No. 416-2019 & CRA 708-2019). 10. On the other hand, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that the prosecution has successfully proved all essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC. The prosecution has consistently shown through the testimony of the deceased’s father and supporting witnesses that the accused persons subjected the deceased to continued harassment for dowry. The deceased repeatedly informed her father that she was being beaten and threatened and her in-laws demanded Rs.5 lakh, failing which they would kill her and this communication was shortly before her death established the proximate cause between the harassment and her suicide, bringing the case squarely under Section 304-B IPC. The learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and convicted the appellants. Therefore, the conviction of the accused/appellants be upheld, and their appeal be dismissed as devoid of merit. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges under Section 304-B read with section 34 of IPC, or Section 306 read with section 34 of IPC or 302 read with section 34 IPC against the accused/appellants and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court while acquitting the accused/appellants of the charge under Section 306/34 and 302/34 of IPC & convicted them under Section 304-B of IPC. 13. 13. It is not disputed before the learned Trial Court that deceased Tejeshwari Bai was wife of accused/appellant Uttam Kumar (A-1), their marriage was solemnized on 27.06.2012 and Tejeshwari Bai died on 10.07.2013 i.e. within 07 years of her marriage by hanging. 14. The learned Trial Court finds that the death of deceased was suicidal and no cross-appeal was filed filed by the prosecution against this finding and the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/appellants of the charge under Section 302/34 and 306/34 of IPC. 15. Now the question which arises for consideration by this Court is whether deceased Tejeshwari Bai must have been subjected to cruelty soon before her death by her husband (Appellant No.-1) and her in-laws (appellant Nos. 2 and 3) & whether such cruelty or harassment begin in connection with any demand of dowry. 16. Laxmi Prasad Dewangan (PW-4) who is the father of deceased, has deposed that his deceased daughter Tejeshwari Bai was subjected to cruelty by the accused/appellants for demand of dowry and killed her. He has stated that the marriage of his deceased daughter Tejeshwari Bai with accused/appellant No.1-Uttam Kumar was solemnized on 27.06.2012. The marriage was performed by accused/appellant Nos. 2 and 3 (in-laws of his deceased daughter) under false pretense of the accused/appellant No.1-Uttam Kumar and after the marriage, his deceased daughter came to know that accused/appellant No.1-Uttam Kumar had been fired from his job for being submitted wrong/forged documents. He has also submitted that soon after marriage, his deceased daughter was being subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry by the accused/appellants, about which his deceased daughter would often tell him and his younger daughter Preeti over phone. After the marriage, he gave Rs.25,000/- to her daughter’s in-laws. The accused/appellants used to compel his daughter to call him, bank account number was messaged him for depositing Rs.10,000/-, which he had deposited. He has also deposed that 3 rd time he had given Rs.12,000/- in cash to his daughter while returning from her maternal home. In this way, the demand of dowry of the accused/appellants kept increasing day by day and the accused/appellant No.1 often beat and harass his daughter under the influence of liquor. He has also deposed that 3 rd time he had given Rs.12,000/- in cash to his daughter while returning from her maternal home. In this way, the demand of dowry of the accused/appellants kept increasing day by day and the accused/appellant No.1 often beat and harass his daughter under the influence of liquor. On 7 th day prior to the date of incident he had talk with his deceased daughter and she had told that the accused/appellants were harassing her a lot and she had said to take her back else the accused/appellants would kill her. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he had not filed any report before and after the incident. He has also admitted that while recording his police statement (Ex.D-2) he had told that two marks one on upper and 2 nd on lower side of her neck were seen, his deceased daughter was being subjected to cruelty by physically and mentally for demand of dowry, the marriage was performed on false pretense, after marriage his daughter used to informed about the cruelty to him and his younger daughter over phone, he had given Rs.25,000/- at the instance of his deceased daughter, once his daughter had come to parental house he had given Rs.12,000/- while returning to her in-laws’ house, the demand of accused/appellants was increasing day-by-day, that he would try to reconcile the matter after conveying meeting of the family and society and that he has suspicion that his daughter was hanged after killing by the accused/appellants, but if the said things is not written in his police statement (Ex.D-2), he could not tell the reason. This witness has also admitted that he had not given origin slip of bank, statement of his and accused/appellants to the police. He has also admitted in para 19 of his cross-examination that no demand of dowry is made in his society and whatever goods etc. are given at the time of marriage, are given voluntarily. He has also admitted that giving and taking dowry are both crime. This witness in para 21 has stated that his son-in-law (A-1) used to drink excessively and his deceased daughter was always distressed. This witness has denied this suggestion that his daughter was never harassed. 17. Preeti Dewangan (PW-5) is the sister of deceased Tejeshwari Dewangan. He has also admitted that giving and taking dowry are both crime. This witness in para 21 has stated that his son-in-law (A-1) used to drink excessively and his deceased daughter was always distressed. This witness has denied this suggestion that his daughter was never harassed. 17. Preeti Dewangan (PW-5) is the sister of deceased Tejeshwari Dewangan. She has stated that prior to two days of the incident i.e. on 08.7.2013, she had conversation with Tejeshwari and from the conversation, it did not seem that her sister Tejeshwari would take such extreme step. Her sister Tejeshwari had told her that accused/appellant Uttam Kumar used to assault her under the influence of liquor and accused/appellant Uttam Kumar used to demand money from her father. His sister Tejeshwari had also told her that the she was being subjected to mental cruelty for demand of dowry by the accused/appellants. In para 9 of cross- examination, this witness has admitted that prior to two days of the incident, her sister deceased Tejeshwari Bai had only told her that despite repeated request, accused/appellant Uttam Kumar does not work, keep roaming around and drinks alcohol. 18. Gangotri Dewangan (PW-7) is aunt of deceased Tejeshwari. She has stated that after marriage, accused/appellant Uttam Kumar used to come home drunk and tell deceased Tejeshwari Bai to get money from her father. This was told to her by deceased Tejeshwari Bai. She has also stated that Laxmi Dewangan (PW-4) had given Rs.10,000/- to deceased Tejeshwari on demand of accused/appellant Uttam Kumar (A-1). In cross- examination, this witness has admitted that deceased Tejeshwari herself did not tell her about the demand of money by the accused/appellant Uttam Kumar (A-1), this witness self stated that it was told by Poonam @ Preeti, sister of deceased Tejeshwari Bai. This witness has admitted the suggestion that Poonam @ Preeti told her that deceased Tejeshwari Bai told her (Poonam @ Preeti) that accused/appellant Uttam Kumar (A-1) used to drink, roam around and does not do any work, therefore, she was distressed. 19. Gorelal Dewangan (PW-8) is the uncle of deceased Tejeshwari Bai. She has stated that before 2-3 months, his brother Laxmi Prasad Dewangan (PW-4) had told him that accused/appellant Uttam Kumar was fired from the job because he had submitted forged experience certificate, and deceased Tejeshwari Bai had told him (this witness) to arrange some job for accused/appellant Uttam Kumar. 19. Gorelal Dewangan (PW-8) is the uncle of deceased Tejeshwari Bai. She has stated that before 2-3 months, his brother Laxmi Prasad Dewangan (PW-4) had told him that accused/appellant Uttam Kumar was fired from the job because he had submitted forged experience certificate, and deceased Tejeshwari Bai had told him (this witness) to arrange some job for accused/appellant Uttam Kumar. He has also stated that before deceased Tejeshwari Bai came to his house, Laxmi Prasad (PW-4) had come to his house and told him that accused/appellant Uttam Kumar (A-1) was demanding some money and that he he had given Rs.10,000/- once, Rs.12,000/- once and Rs.15,000/- before the death of Tejeshwari Bai. He has also stated that Laxmi Prasad (Pw-4) had told him that accused/appellant Uttam Kumar was demanding huge amount as he is jobless and distresses, but Laxmi Prasad (PW-4) did not tell that how much amount was Uttam Kumar demanding. In cross- examination, this witness has admitted this suggestion that when deceased Tejeshwari Bai had visited his house a week and a half before her death, she did not tell about demand of money and dowry by the accused/appellants. His brother Laxmi Prasad (PW-4) had deposited Rs.10,000/- in accused/appellant Uttam Kumar’s account to help him to travel to Pilibhit for a job. He has also admitted that due to appellant Uttam Kumar’s financial crisis, his brother Laxmi Prasad (PW-4) had told him about giving Rs.15,000/- and Rs.12,000/- by him. 20. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Chabi (supra) held in para 8 and 9 as under :- “8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State of West Bengal would rely on two judgments of this Court, seeking appellants' conviction under Section 304B of IPC, both of which were decided by Three Judges' Bench of this Court: Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2015) 6 SCC 477 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra & Anr. (2022) 5 SCC 401 . The facts in Rajinder Singh (Supra) were entirely different. In that case, the deceased had died due to consumption of poison and there were specific allegations against in-laws in the form of evidence from the deceased's father, who had given credible evidence that the in-laws were demanding money for the construction of the house. There was also evidence of giving a she-buffalo to pacify the in- laws. In that case, the deceased had died due to consumption of poison and there were specific allegations against in-laws in the form of evidence from the deceased's father, who had given credible evidence that the in-laws were demanding money for the construction of the house. There was also evidence of giving a she-buffalo to pacify the in- laws. Father of the deceased therein further deposed how the Sarpanch and Ex-Sarpanch of their village went to the matrimonial home of the deceased for reconciliation where the father of deceased had promised to give money after harvest of crops. Jogendra (Supra) was decided by taking into account the peculiar facts of that case where the evidence of PW-1 therein contained specific allegations of constant demand for dowry. It was stated that deceased was asked to raise Rs.50,000 for the construction of house. He further stated that there was even an attempt by the 'people of society' to settle the matrimonial discord between the parties. In paragraph 9 of Rajinder Singh (Supra), this Court had discussed the ingredients of Section 304B of IPC as follows: "9. The ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B IPC have been stated and restated in many judgments. There are four such ingredients and they are said to be: (a) death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or her death must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; (b) such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (c) soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and (d) such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand for dowry." The evidence placed before us, in the case at hand, is not sufficient to prove the fourth ingredient i.e. cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry, as laid down by the abovementioned case. 9. All the same, having considered all the relevant aspects of the matter, and the evidence of the prosecution, we are also of the opinion that a case of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC and cruelty under Section 498A of IPC is made out against the appellant No. 2, although the offence under Section 3048 is not made out and consequently, we set aside the conviction of appellant no.2 under Section 304B of IPC. With respect to the offences under Section 306 and 498A, we convict the appellant No. 2 and sentence him to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25000/- on each count. Both the sentences shall run concurrently and in default of fine, he shall Further, we direct undergo further imprisonment of 3 months. that the fine payable shall be paid to the nearest relative of the deceased within a period of 3 months from today. The appellant no.2 shall surrender before the concerned Court within four weeks from today and undergo the remaining sentence.” 21. In Shoor Singh (supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court held in para 18 as under :- “18. Indisputably, the accused have not been convicted for murder, and rightly so, because there was no worthwhile evidence to show that except for the burn injuries, whichcould be self- inflicted, the accused suffered any other ante-mortem injury. Moreover, the presence of the accused in the house at the time of occurrence is not proved. In such circumstances, the death was most probably suicidal though this would not make a difference for commission of an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC if all the other ingredients of dowry death stand proved. But, as noted above, here harassment/ cruelty at the instance of the appellants in connection with any demand for dowry has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. As regards the reason to commit suicide, though it is not necessary for us to dwell upon, suffice it to say that husband of the deceased was in service and stayed away from the deceased. Suggestion was given to the prosecution witnesses, and statement was also made under Section 313 CrPC, that the deceased used to remain depressed for being unable to join her husband at the place of his posting due to lack of residential quarter. That apart, a photograph of the deceased (Ex. Kha 1), regarding which no dispute was raised by the prosecution witnesses, showing her aloneSection 313 CrPC a stand was taken that this photograph had shamed her. Be that as it may, once all the necessary ingredients of dowry death have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act would not be available to the prosecution. Be that as it may, once all the necessary ingredients of dowry death have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act would not be available to the prosecution. Hence, in our considered view, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted of the charge of offences punishable under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC.” 22. This Court in the matter of Krishna Kumar (supra) held in para 22 to 24 as under :- “22. The aforesaid provision shows that if the woman has been subjected to cruelty as defined in Section 498A of the IPC, the court may presume that such person has caused dowry death. Section 2. of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides as under:- "2. Definition of "dowry". In this Act," dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly- a. by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or b. by the parents of either party to a marriage or by a other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or after the marriage us consideration for the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies." (23) To attract the provisions of Section 304B of the 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 304B of the IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. (24) In the matter of Appasaheb and another v. State of Maharashtra , it has been held by the Supreme Court as under:- "9. Two essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC, apart from others, are (i) death of woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, and (ii) woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for "dowry". Two essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC, apart from others, are (i) death of woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, and (ii) woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for "dowry". The explanation appended to sub section (1) of Section 304-B IPC says that "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 10. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act reads as under: "2. Definition of 'dowry'.- In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly. (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies." 11. In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving and taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle of interpretation of statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning. (see Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd and Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd. v. Union of India). (see Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd and Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd. v. Union of India). A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for making some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for 'dowry' as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure. Since an essential ingredient of Section 304-B IPC viz demand for dowry is not established, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained." 23. In the instant case also, after evaluating the entire evidence on record, including the testimonies of Laxmi Prasad Dewangan (PW-4), Preeti Dewangan (PW-5), Smt. Gangotri Dewangan (PW-7) and Statement of Gorelal Dewangan (PW-8), who are father, sister, aunt and uncle of the deceased, and upon applying the legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chabi, Shoor Singh (supra) and decision of this court in Krishna Kumar (supra) , it is proved that the deceased died otherwise than under normal circumstances within 07 years of her marriage, however, the evidence of aforesaid witnesses clearly goes to show that no proof of dowry demand as defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was proved. The monetary help of Rs.10,000/–, Rs.12,000/–, Rs.15,000/– and Rs.25,000/– stated by PW-4 and PW-8 appears to have been extended because the husband/accused/appellant (A-1) was unemployed and under financial distress. The evidence of aforesaid witnesses shows that it was financial help and not a demand connected with the marriage and the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically outlined that a demand arising out of financial stringency or domestic needs cannot be treated as “dowry”. 24. As regards cruelty soon before the death of deceased for dowry, we find that in this case there is no consistent or direct evidence in this regard. Laxmi Prasad Dewangan (PW-4), father of deceased, has admitted that he never made any complaint before or after the incident. 24. As regards cruelty soon before the death of deceased for dowry, we find that in this case there is no consistent or direct evidence in this regard. Laxmi Prasad Dewangan (PW-4), father of deceased, has admitted that he never made any complaint before or after the incident. Further, PW-5 – Sister and PW-7 – Aunt, admitted that the deceased mainly complained that husband/accused-appellant (A-1) drank excessively, did not work, roamed around, and that the deceased was distressed and their evidence do not establish that there was consistent dowry harassment soon before death. Also, PW-8-Uncle of the deceased clearly admitted that when the deceased visited his house 1–1.5 weeks before her death, she made no allegation of dowry harassment. Therefore, the proximity test under Section 304B IPC and Section 113B Evidence Act is not satisfied in this case. The evidence further establish that there was material contradictions and hearsay Evidence. Several parts of evidence of PW-4’s and PW-7’s are contradicted by admissions in cross-examination. PW-7 admitted that she came to know about the harassment and demand from PW- 5 -Poonam @ Preeti, making it hearsay. The aforesaid contradictions in the evidence of these witnesses weaken the prosecution’s version of dowry-related cruelty. Further, the presumption Under Section 113B Evidence Act is not attracted in this case. As held in Shoor Singh (supra) unless harassment for dowry “soon before death” is proved, no statutory presumption can arise. Since this ingredient fails, the burden does not shift to the accused persons and the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants supports the acquittal under Section 304-B. Following Chabi (supra) , the prosecution failed to prove the crucial fourth ingredient ‘cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry’. Therefore, conviction under Section 304B IPC cannot be sustained. The overall evidence indicates marital discord arising from the husband’s/accused-appellant’s (A-1) unemployment and drinking habits, not a legally recognizable dowry demand. 25. On the basis of aforesaid analysis of the evidence, we are of the view that the finding of the learned trial Court convicting the present appellants under Section 304-B of IPC is not based on proper appreciation of evidence and not sustainable and they deserve to be acquitted of the charge leveled against them extending them benefit of doubt. The prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 304B IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 304B IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence does not prove cruelty or harassment for dowry “soon before death”, nor does it justify invocation of the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. 26. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charge under Section 304-B of IPC. 27. The appellants are on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 28. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.