Judgment : Rajani Dubey, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.2.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bhanupratappur, Distt. North Bastar Kanker in ST No.128/2007 whereby the appellant stands convicted under Section 304B/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.10.2006 at 14:00 hours Chandona, wife of the accused/appellant, committed suicide by hanging herself at her matrimonial house. At the time of incident, accused Deepak and his father Dilip had gone to Sambalpur for carpentry work and his mother Manokhushi to the house of her son-in- law (Damad) with her grand-daughter. When Manokhushi returned she found that Chandona had committed suicide by hanging herself. She informed about the incident to the neighbourers, on which at around 17:30 hours on the same day accused Dilip informed Police Station –Bhanupratappur. During merg enquiry, inquest over the dead body was performed; the dead body was sent for postmortem; sealed vaginal smear slide and the sari used for hanging were seized. It revealed during enquiry that the accused/appellant, his father Dilip and mother Manokhushi used to harass and torture the deceased in connection with demand of dowry which compelled her to commit suicide. Hence offence under Section 304B/34 of IPC was registered against the accused persons. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination. After completing usual investigation, charge sheet under Section 304B/34 of IPC was filed against the accused persons followed by framing of charge accordingly by learned trial Court which was abjured by the accused and they prayed for trial. 03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 07 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. In their defence, they examined one witness. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted the accused persons under Section 304B/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years. In their defence, they examined one witness. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted the accused persons under Section 304B/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years. Challenging the said judgment, accused Dilip and Manokhushi filed CRA No.251/2008 and vide order dated 9.7.2025, the said appeal stood abated on account of their death and dismissed as such. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. There is no evidence to prove that the appellant harassed or tortured the deceased for dowry which led her to commit suicide. There are only general and omnibus allegations. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove demand of dowry or cruelty by the appellant. In para 15 of the impugned judgment, learned trial Court itself recorded finding that the prosecution could not prove its allegation regarding demand of gold ring, cycle and watch. There are number of omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which makes the whole case doubtful as against the present appellant. The necessary ingredients for attracting the offence u/s 304B of IPC are missing in this case. There is no evidence to show that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellant in connection with demand of dowry. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charge by giving him benefit of doubt. Reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 31 st January, 2025 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1076/2014 in the matter of Karan Singh Vs. State of Haryana 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellant would submit that in view of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. The present appeal being without any substance is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. The present appeal being without any substance is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is clear from the record of learned trial court that the accused/appellant, his mother and father (co-accused) were charged under Section 304B/34 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence learned trial Court convicted and sentenced all of them u/s 304B of IPC. 09. It is an admitted position in this case that deceased Chandona was wife of accused/appellant Deepak and their marriage was solemnized two years prior to the date of incident i.e. 31.10.2006 when she committed suicide by hanging herself at her matrimonial house. 10. PW-1 Subal Dey, father of the deceased, states that the accused/appellant had eloped with his daughter/deceased and thereafter a village meeting was held and they were married. After marriage, all the accused persons used to quarrel with the deceased in connection with dowry in the form of cycle, watch, gold ring and ear ring and even beat her. He states that his daughter/deceased delivered a female child but the accused persons did not let her go to her parental home and accused Deepak Bachhad told that only when her father comes and tenders apology, they will send Chandona. At the time of Durga pooja, Deepak and Chandona came to his house and stayed for two days. Chandona told that now she would go back to Bhanupratappur only when dowry is given to the accused. Then, he after discussing with his wife gave Rs.1000/- to Deepak Bachhad. In cross-examination he admits that after marriage he never went to the house of his daughter and that her daughter never told him anything. He admits that while living for one year in the village, his daughter never made any complaint of the accused to him. He admits that his daughter used to tell him about some family dispute. In para 10 he admits that after Durga pooja neither he went to the house of his daughter nor did she come to his house. He admits that since then he had no talk with his daughter. In para 12 he admits that as accused Deepak had eloped with his daughter, he stopped talking to the accused. 11. In para 10 he admits that after Durga pooja neither he went to the house of his daughter nor did she come to his house. He admits that since then he had no talk with his daughter. In para 12 he admits that as accused Deepak had eloped with his daughter, he stopped talking to the accused. 11. PW-2 Krishna Devi, mother of the deceased, states that in examination-in-chief that her daughter used to complain that the accused persons ill-treat her in connection with demand of gold ring, cycle and watch. However, in cross-examination she admits that her daughter and accused Deepak performed marriage after elopement and thereafter, they were called and their marriage was solemnized as per customary rituals. She admits that the accused persons never made any kind of demand of dowry and that during a period of one year her daughter never complained of demand of dowry or beating by the accused persons. She admits that she never went to the house of her daughter. She states that her daughter used to tell about some family disputes. She expressed ignorance about the cause and manner of death of her daughter. 12. PW-3 Ujjawal Devnath states that marriage of the deceased was performed with the accused after village meeting and at that time there was no demand of dowry made by the accused. However, after about four months of marriage, Subal Dey informed him that the accused persons beat his daughter for dowry, to which he advised him to make them understand. In cross-examination he states that the above fact was disclosed by him while giving statement to police (Ex.D/1) and if the same is not recorded, he cannot tell reason. He admits that he never saw the accused persons beat the deceased nor did ever hear about it. 13. PW-4 Khagendra states that the the accused persons used to beat Chandona for dowry. He states that there are 10-12 houses in between the house of the accused and himself, therefore, he used to visit their house. He heard in the house of the accused that the deceased and her father told about beating the deceased for dowry. In cross-examination he admits that normal family dispute would take place between the deceased and the accused persons. He states that Subal Dey never made any complaint to him. 14. He heard in the house of the accused that the deceased and her father told about beating the deceased for dowry. In cross-examination he admits that normal family dispute would take place between the deceased and the accused persons. He states that Subal Dey never made any complaint to him. 14. PW-6 Niranjan Vishwas states that accused Deepak forcibly took away Chandona to his house and thereafter, village meeting was held and their marriage was performed. He states that no demand of dowry was made in the meeting. However, after one year accused Deepak Bachhad demanded ring, watch, radio, cycle, cash from the father of the deceased. Thereafter, her father gave Rs.1000/- to the accused Deepak. He states that he heard on 2.11.2006 that she hanged herself and died. He admits the suggestion of the defence that he is neighbour of the accused persons and as such, they used to visit each other’s house. He admits that there used to normal family dispute in the house of the accused also. He admits that Chandona made no complaint against the accused persons till they stayed in the village. He states that whenever Chandona come to village from her matrimonial home at Bhanupratappur, she never made any complaint against the accused. In para 6 he states that the accused persons never made dowry demand nor did they ever torture her in connection therewith. 15. DW-1 Anjali Sarkar, neighbour of the accused persons, states that since marriage the deceased was suffering from stomach ache and paralysis; the behaviour of the accused persons towards the deceased was good; there was no dispute or quarrel between them; she used to talk to the deceased and she never made any complaint against the accused. She states that the accused persons never demanded any kind of dowry even at the time of marriage. 16. Close scrutiny of the evidence of all these witnesses makes it clear that the deceased had eloped with the accused/appellant and after village meeting being held, their marriage was performed. The mother, father and other witnesses have categorically stated that no demand of dowry was made by the accused persons at the time of village meeting or marriage. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Karan Singh (supra) held in paras 8 and 17 of its judgment as under: “8. The mother, father and other witnesses have categorically stated that no demand of dowry was made by the accused persons at the time of village meeting or marriage. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Karan Singh (supra) held in paras 8 and 17 of its judgment as under: “8. In this case, there is no dispute that the death of the appellant's wife occurred within seven years of the marriage. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act reads thus:" 113-B. Presumption as to dowry death .-When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)." The presumption under Section 113-B will apply when it is established that soon before her death, the woman has been subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Therefore, even for attracting Section 113-B, the prosecution must establish that the deceased was subjected by the appellant to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death. Unless these facts are proved, the presumptions under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked. 17. … Therefore, the prosecution did not prove the material ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304-B. Not a single incident of cruelty covered by Section 498-A was proved by the prosecution. Section 304-B of the IPC was brought on the statute book in 1986. This Court has repeatedly laid down and explained the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B. But, the Trial Courts are committing the same mistakes repeatedly.” 18. In light of above, if the facts and evidence emerging in the present case are appreciated it is crystal clear that all the material witnesses have unequivocally admitted that no demand of dowry was raised by the accused at the time of marriage; the deceased whenever visited her parental home never made complaint against the accused regarding demand of dowry or any ill-treatment in connection therewith. The witnesses have only stated that there used to be some normal family disputes as commonly happen in other families. Not a single incident of cruelty covered by Section 498A of IPC has been proved by the prosecution. In order to constitute offence under Section 304B of IPC, the prosecution must establish that the death of the woman must be by burns, bodily injury, or otherwise than under normal circumstances, it occurred within seven years of marriage and that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or her husband's relatives in connection with demand of dowry. If these conditions are met, the law presumes the death to be a dowry death. However, in this case, the prosecution though succeeded in proving that the deceased suffered unnatural death within seven years of marriage but utterly failed to prove that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty by the accused for or in connection with demand of dowry. Rather the evidence goes to show that there was no demand ever made by the accused. However, learned trial Court without proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence recorded a finding of guilt against the accused/appellant which being perverse and illegal is liable to be set aside. 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment in respect of the accused/appellant is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the charge under Section 304B/34 of IPC. Accused/appellant is reported to be on bail. However, keeping in in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023 he is directed to furnish a personal bond for a 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 alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, he on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 20. 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. A copy of this judgment be also forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action.