Judgment : RAJANI DUBEY, J. 1. This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentenced dated 08.05.2007 passed in Session Trial No. 33/2007 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) has convicted the appellant under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 07 years with fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that deceased Usha Nishad was married to accused/appellant Rishabh prior to three- four months of the incident. After the marriage, deceased Usha Nishad lived with appellant in her in-laws' house. After a month, when deceased Usha Nishad came to her maternal home with the appellant, she told her cousin Phulu Nishad (PW-7) and her mother (PW-5) that her husband (the appellant) does not like her, drinks alcohol, commit maarpeet and mentally tortures her saying that she had brought less dowry in the marriage. On this, deceased Usha Nishad was made understand by her parents and sent back with the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant started working in a factory in Birgaon and lived there with her wife deceased Usha Nishad in a rented house, but there also the appellant did not change his behaviour and harass her mentally and physically for demand of dowry. Being fed up with the appellant’s constant harassment and cruelty towards demand of dowry, on 06.08.2006, she poured kerosene oil on her body and set herself on fire. Thereafter, Usha Nishad was admitted to Mekahara Hospital Raipur for treatment where she died on 09.08.2006 at around 9.10 pm. The information of death was given vide Ex.P.1, on the basis of which unnumbered merg under Ex.P-8 was registered. On 10.08.2006, on receiving report of unnumbered merg from Maudhapara Police Station, a numbered merg under Ex.P-9 was registered. Thereafter, on the written report (ExP-5) given by the deceased's father Radhelal Nishad (PW-4), an FIR under Ex.P-6 was registered against the appellant at Urla Police Station. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination to Govt. Hospital under Ex.P-4A, where postmortem on the body of deceased was conducted by Dr. Ullas Gonnade (PW-3) who gave his report under Ex.P-4 opining the cause of death of deceased to be cardio respiratory failure as a result of burn and its complication. During the course of investigation, the pieces of the deceased's half-burnt sari, beads, matchsticks were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-2). Ullas Gonnade (PW-3) who gave his report under Ex.P-4 opining the cause of death of deceased to be cardio respiratory failure as a result of burn and its complication. During the course of investigation, the pieces of the deceased's half-burnt sari, beads, matchsticks were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-2). The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and the appellant was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P-10. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC before the jurisdictional Court at Raipur. 3. After filing of the charge sheet, the trial Court framed the charge against accused/appellant under Section 304-B. 4. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. No defence witness was examined by the appellant in his defence. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and finding of the learned trial Court is not only bad and perverse in law but also manifestly wrong leading to a great and grave miscarriage of justice. The learned trial Court ought to have judicially scrutinized and appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution which has not been done. Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial Court relied upon the evidence of relatives of the deceased, who are interested witness and their evidence cannot be relied upon for basing the conviction of the appellant unless being corroborated by the independent witnesses and substantive piece of evidence. The learned trial Court did not consider the essentials for substantiating the conviction of offence, therefore, major contradiction in the statement and mere possibilities for false implication was not seen by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court did not consider the essentials for substantiating the conviction of offence, therefore, major contradiction in the statement and mere possibilities for false implication was not seen by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel also submits that the evidence of Radhelal Nishad (PW-4), father of the deceased, is not reliable as his first statement (Ex.D-1) under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was got recorded on 08.08.2006 and again his statement (Ex.D-2) was recorded on 19.08.2006 after the death of deceased, which creates suspicion and the prosecution has not offered any explanation for recording his statement twice. Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that there is delay in recording the statement of PW-5 Ganga Bai, mother of deceased, who has also given two statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In rojnamcha sanha, which is a kind of first information, was written on 08.08.2006, and there was no mention of demand of dowry and harassment and the second report written on 12.08.2006 is unreliable for the reason that when FIR was lodged on 12.08.2006, why the statement of witnesses (PW- 4 and PW-5) were recorded on 19.08.2006. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that PW-4 and PW-5 are the hearsay witnesses and PW-7 Phool Bai, PW-6 Santosh Nishad have not stated anything against the appellant but the learned trial Court wrongly appreciated their evidence and committed error in passing the impugned judgment. Thus, in totality of the evidence present on record, the appellant deserve to be acquitted. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shoor Singh And Another Vs. State of Uttarakhan reported in (2025) 2 SCC 815 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2595 and the decisions of this High Court in the matter of Binda Prasad & Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Chh 380 and Laxshmi Kant Vs. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh) [Neutral Citation No. 2022 : CGHC :1744]. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and convicted the appellant. So, the appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. So, the appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges under Section 304-B of IPC against the accused/appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant accordingly. 10. It is an admitted position in the case that the marriage of deceased Usha Nishad and the appellant was solemnized prior to 3-4 months of the incident and Usha Nishad committed suicide after pouring kerosene oil on her and died unnatural death. 11. Shyamlal Pathak (PW-1) is ward boy. He gave information of death of deceased Usha Nishad to police station Moudaha Para, Raipur, vide Ex.P-1, on the basis of which, merg intimation (Ex.P-8) was recorded. 12. Sukhiram Sahu (PW-2) is the neighbour of the deceased and the appellant. He has stated that the appellant was residing with his wife in his house on rent. Appellant and his wife had cordial relation and he neither seen any quarrel between them nor heard about the same. He has also stated that when he heard the noise that Usha Nishad burned, he came out, went to their room and saw that Usha Nishad had severely burned. Her husband (the appellant) was also present there. He has also stated that thereafter they covered blanket around her, extinguished fire and admitted her in hospital. This witness has admitted his signature in seizure memo (Ex.P-2) on ‘A to A’ part. In cross- examination, this witness has admitted that the appellant and his wife deceased Usha Nishad were residing in one room of his house on rent. They used to cook meal and sleep in the same room. He has also admitted that they used to cook meal on a kerosene stove. 13. Dr. Ulhas Gonnade (PW-3) is the autopsy surgeon. He has stated that on 10.08.2006 at around 12.20 PM, the body of deceased was brought by the constable Daya Shankar for postmortem examination. He has stated that after external examination, he found that rigor mortis all over body in strong condition. The body had burnt ranging from 1 st to 2 nd degree deep all over her body except below umbilicus to the level of pubic symphysis. Burnt area was infected. He has stated that after external examination, he found that rigor mortis all over body in strong condition. The body had burnt ranging from 1 st to 2 nd degree deep all over her body except below umbilicus to the level of pubic symphysis. Burnt area was infected. On internal examination, he found that all organs were pale. Blood fluid was present in right side of heart. Both lungs were edematous and on cut section, captious amount of frothy fluid came out. 100 ml yellow water was in stomach. Digested and faecal matter present in small and large intestine respectively. The bladder and uterus were empty. The Autopsy Surgeon opined the cause of death due to cardio respiratory failure as a result of burn injury and its complication. 14. Radhe Nishad (PW-4) is the father of deceased Usha Nishad and father-in-law of the appellant. He has stated that prior to 3-4 months of the incident, the marriage of his daughter Usha Nishad was solemnized with the appellant. After the marriage, his daughter Usha Nishad had stayed in her in-laws’ house for about one month and after that they brought her to their house. The appellant had also come with his daughter. They both had stayed in his house one night. His daughter Usha Nishad had conversation with her mother. His daughter had told her mother that the appellant tortures her lot for not giving dowry. His daughter also told that the appellant after consuming liquor talks nonsense to her, had kept photo of a girl in his pocket and says that his friend serve him better than her and they have not given anything in dowry. This witness has also stated that next day the appellant said that he will not stay at his house. On this, he told him that if he says such nonsense to his daughter then he will not send his daughter with him. On this, the appellant said that he will not do this again and apologized, thereafter, he sent his daughter with the appellant. This witness has also stated that after about one month, he received a news at evening that his daughter Usha was burnt. This news was told to him by Sakharam. He has also stated that after receiving the said news, he along with Sakharam went to Raipur at night itself. This witness has also stated that after about one month, he received a news at evening that his daughter Usha was burnt. This news was told to him by Sakharam. He has also stated that after receiving the said news, he along with Sakharam went to Raipur at night itself. His daughter was admitted in hospital, covered with sheet and was writhing in pain. Her whole body was burnt. She was shivering and could not speak. He has also stated that while returning to his house, he gave Rs.5,000/- to the appellant for his daughter’s treatment as the appellant was not having money for treatment. The next date at 2 o’clock, he brought his wife back to the hospital and his daughter Usha died day after that and he filed written complaint in Police Station – Urla, Raipur. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he filed written report in police station after 1-2 days of death of his daughter. He has also admitted that he did not complain to anyone about the demand of dowry and harassment by the appellant. In para 16 of cross- examination, a question was put to this witness by the Court with regard to demand of dowry, to which, he answered that the appellant had not demanded money, goods or property in dowry. He used to tell his daughter that nothing was given in marriage and sent her empty hand. 15. Smt. Ganga Nishad (PW-5) is mother of deceased Usha Nishad. She has stated that after marriage, her daughter and the appellant had stayed in her house one night and next day they returned. She has also stated that her daughter Usha told that appellant used to come house in drunken condition, abuse her, commit maarpeet with her, utter about dowry and show photo of a girl saying that his friend is better than her. On this, she (this witness) told the appellant that she will not sent her daughter Usha with her if he quarrels with her and thereafter, she made understand the appellant and sent her daughter with him. This witness has also stated that thereafter the appellant and her daughter Usha went to Birgaon, Raipur, and on Sunday she received the news that Usha was admitted in hospital after burning. 16. Santosh Nishad (PW-6) is the brother of deceased Usha Nishad. This witness has also stated that thereafter the appellant and her daughter Usha went to Birgaon, Raipur, and on Sunday she received the news that Usha was admitted in hospital after burning. 16. Santosh Nishad (PW-6) is the brother of deceased Usha Nishad. He has stated that after some days of marriage of her sister, he had gone to her house at Akoli to see her. He had conversation with appellant. Appellant had told him that his sister Usha is less educated and they have given less dowry in the marriage. This witness went on to state that that the appellant had not demanded money and goods in dowry and he (this witness) too did not ask him that what did he want. Further, this witness in para 2, has stated that when his sister Usha had come to his house, she told that appellant do not like her, says her that they have given less dowry and consume liquor, due to this, they were not agreed to send Usha with appellant then appellant assured them that he will not consume liquor and after making the appellant understand they sent Usha with him. Thereafter, the appellant went to Birgaon to reside and started working in factory. In para 4 of his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that when the appellant told him that they have given less dowry and his sister was less educated in his village Akoli, he (this witness) did not tell this to anyone at home after coming back from there nor did he complain about it anywhere in village. 17. Smt. Fulu Nishad (PW-7) is cousin of deceased Usha Nishad. She has stated that when deceased Usha Nishad had come with her husband (the appellant) then she had meeting with her and being asked Usha had told that her husband do not like her, she is less educated, did not give anything in dowry and how he get married to her. On this, this witness told Usha Nishad that first time she had gone to in-laws’ house, such things keep happening, live well, everything will be fine gradually, and later she came to know that Usha Nishad committed suicide by setting herself on fire. This witness has also stated that she did not tell her maternal uncle Radhe Nishad about the conversation that had taken place between Usha Nishad and her. This witness has also stated that she did not tell her maternal uncle Radhe Nishad about the conversation that had taken place between Usha Nishad and her. And after the death of Usha Nishad, she told the above thing to her maternal uncle. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that after 4-5 days of the death of Usha Nishad, she told her maternal uncle Radhelal Nishad what Usha Nishad had told her. Before that she had not told anybody what Usha Nishad told her against the appellant. She has also admitted that after she met Radhelal (PW-4), an FIR was lodged against the appellant. She has also admitted that she was very saddened by Usha’s death because she loved her very much. She has also admitted that after her return when she came to know that no FIR was lodged against the appellant, then she asked Radhelal to lodge the FIR. 18. The appellant, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., has explained and taken defence that he and his deceased wife Usha Nishad were residing together in one room. He never tortured her for demand of dowry. On the date of incident, while cooking meal on the stove she got burnt due to bursting of stove and died. 19. In Shoor Singh (supra), Hon’ble the Apex Court held in para 12 and 13 as under :- “15. To constitute a ‘dowry death’, punishment under Section 304-B IPC, following ingredients must be satisfied : 15.1. death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or it must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; 15.2. Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage; 15.3. Soon before such death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and 15.4. such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with any demand for dowry. The phrase ‘otherwise than under normal circumstances’ is wide enough to encompass a suicidal death.” 16. When all the above ingredients of ‘dowry death’ are proved, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is to be raised against the accused that he has committed the offence of ‘dowry death’. The phrase ‘otherwise than under normal circumstances’ is wide enough to encompass a suicidal death.” 16. When all the above ingredients of ‘dowry death’ are proved, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is to be raised against the accused that he has committed the offence of ‘dowry death’. What is important is that the presumption under Section 113-B is not in respect of commission of an act of cruelty, or harassment, in connection with any demand for dowry, which is one of the essential ingredients of the offence of ‘dowry death’. The presumption, however, is in respect of commission of the offence of ‘dowry death’ by the accused when all the essential ingredients of ‘dowry death’ are proved beyond reasonable doubt by ordinary rule of evidence, which means that to prove the essential ingredients of an offence of ‘dowry death’ the burden is on the prosecution.” 20. In the light of aforesaid judicial pronouncement, in the present case also, it is not in dispute that the deceased died otherwise than under normal circumstances within 07 years of her marriage, but the prosecution has failed to prove this fact that soon before her death, she was subjected to any cruelty related to demand of dowry. The father (PW-4), mother (PW-5) and brother (PW-6) of deceased Usha Nishad have stated that deceased had told them that her husband (the appellant) was not liking her. They have also admitted in their evidence that no demand of dowry was made by the appellant before or after the marriage and soon before the death of deceased Usha Nishad. Evidence led by the prosecution does not fulfill the pre-requisite to invoke presumption under Section 304-B IPC or Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. As such, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove all the ingredients required to hold the appellant guilty under Section 304-B of IPC.. 21. On the basis of aforesaid analysis of the evidence, I am of the view that the finding of the learned trial Court convicting the present appellant under Section 304-B of IPC is not based on proper appreciation of evidence and not sustainable and he deserve to be acquitted of the charge leveled against him. 22. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 304-B of IPC. 22. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 304-B of IPC. 23. The appellant is on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellant is 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/- 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 appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 24. 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.