Judgment : RAJANI DUBEY, J. Since both these appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2008 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur in ST Nos.9/2007 and 17/2007, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. By the impugned judgment, each of the appellants stands convicted under Section 304B of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that marriage of Sukhmani Bai was solemnized with accused Harekrishna Satnami around four years prior to the date of incident. On 29.9.2006 she suffered 60% burn injuries at her matrimonial house and was admitted to Community Health Centre, Lormi. After receipt of information from the doctor, her dying declaration was recorded. However, she was referred to Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS), Bilaspur where during the course of treatment she died on 4.10.2006. During merg inquiry it revealed that the accused persons used to torture and harass her for bringing motorcycle and cash of Rs.40,000/- from her parental house as dowry as a result of which either she immolated herself or was burnt to death by the accused persons. After conducting postmortem of the deceased, preparing spot map, effecting seizure of burnt clothes of the deceased and recording statements of the witnesses, charge sheet under Section 304B/34 of IPC was filed against the accused followed by framing of charge accordingly by learned trial court which was abjured by them and they prayed for trial. 03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. 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. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. Hence these appeals. 05. Learned counsel for the appellants wound submit that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. As per dying declaration Ex.P/2 recorded by Dr. Gajendra Singh Dau (PW-1) it is clear that present is a case of accidental death and this fact is also corroborated by the postmortem report Ex.P/12. The postmortem report also shows that the burn is ante-mortem in nature. As per dying declaration Ex.P/2 recorded by Dr. Gajendra Singh Dau (PW-1) it is clear that present is a case of accidental death and this fact is also corroborated by the postmortem report Ex.P/12. The postmortem report also shows that the burn is ante-mortem in nature. He would next submit that at the time preparation of inquest report, though father of the deceased (PW-4 Satanand Bhaskar) was present but he did not make any allegation regarding demand of dowry against the accused persons at that time and it is only after about three months of the incident that the witnesses stated against the accused persons in their police statements, which is nothing but an afterthought. Learned trial Court did not properly appreciate the major contradiction and omission in the statements of the material witnesses i.e. PW-3 Jillar Bai and PW-4 Satanand, mother and father of the deceased. He would further submit that despite availability of independent witnesses, the prosecution did not examine them which creates doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. Though the parents of the deceased have stated that soon after marriage she was being harassed and ill-treated by the accused persons for dowry but they admit that no report was ever lodged by them against the accused persons to the police regarding demand of dowry and no social meeting was ever convened in this regard. The investigating officer (PW-13) has also categorically stated that prior to death of the deceased, no report was ever lodged by the deceased or her parents regarding demand of dowry by the accused persons. Moreover, there is inordinate delay of 83 days in lodging the FIR. There is no iota of evidence on record to show that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons regarding demand of dowry. Learned trial court has misinterpreted the provisions of Section 304B of IPC as well as Section 113 of the Evidence Act whereas in view of the overall evidence on record it stands established that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the necessary ingredients constituting the alleged offence against the accused/appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment being illegal and perverse is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sham Lal Vs. Therefore, the impugned judgment being illegal and perverse is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sham Lal Vs. State of Haryana , AIR 1997 SC 1873 ; judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the matter of Dr. Seetharamaiah Vs State of Karnataka , 2010 Cri.L.J. 3389 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramaiah @ Rama Vs. State of Karnataka , AIR 2014 SC 3388 ; Major Singh Vs. State of Punjab , AIR 2015 SC 2081 ; judgment dated 20 th April, 2023 of Hon’ble Supreme Court CRA No.447/2012 in the matter of Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand ; and judgment dated 5.2.2025 of this Court in CRA No.205/2005 in the matter of Santosh Kumar and others Vs. State of CG . 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellants submits that the learned trial Court upon proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and conduct of the accused persons has rightly recorded a finding that they caused dowry death of the deceased. As such, the impugned judgment being strictly in accordance with law needs no interference by this Court and the present appeals being devoid of any substance are 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/appellants were charged under Section 304B of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced them under Section 304B of IPC. 09. It is not disputed in this case that deceased Sukhmani Bai was wife of Harekrishna Chaturvedi and daughter-in-law of Shyamabai and Rohit Kumar. Her marriage with Harekrishna was solemnized about four years prior to 23.4.2008. She was admitted in hospital on 29.9.2006 with 60% burn injuries and succumbed to the same on 4.10.2006. 10. PW-12 Dr. Mahesh Kumar Rawatram along with Dr. VK Pathak on 5.10.2006 conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and found her 70% burnt of third degree. In their opinion, it was ante- mortem burn which could be caused accidentally, the cause of death was cardio respiratory failure as a result of septicemia from the burn injuries. 10. PW-12 Dr. Mahesh Kumar Rawatram along with Dr. VK Pathak on 5.10.2006 conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and found her 70% burnt of third degree. In their opinion, it was ante- mortem burn which could be caused accidentally, the cause of death was cardio respiratory failure as a result of septicemia from the burn injuries. The postmortem report is Ex.P/12 which bears his signature from A to A part and that of Dr. Pathak from B to B part. 11. PW-1 Dr. Gajendra Singh Dau recorded dying declaration of the deceased. He states that he recorded the dying declaration on 29.9.2006 at about 11 pm wherein she stated that at around 9.30 while she was taking out items kept on the almirah, at that time the chimney fell on her as a result of which her clothes caught fire and she got burnt. In reply to the question whether she was burnt by anyone, she answered in the negative. The dying declaration is Ex.P/2 which bears his signature from A to A part and thumb impression of the deceased is from B to B part. In reply to the question asked by the Court as to on what basis he recorded dying declaration of the deceased, he stated that he received a letter to this effect from Police Station – Lormi, on the basis of which he recorded her dying declaration. 12. PW-3 Jilar Bai, mother of the deceased and PW-4 Satanand Bhaskar state that Sukhmani Bai used to tell that Harekrishna, Rohit and Shyama Bai harass and torture her for motorcycle and cash of Rs.40000/-, they pour water on her food and threaten to kill her by burning. In cross-examination PW-3 Jilar Bai admits that at the time of Rakshabandhan also her daughter informed her about this ill-treatment but no report was lodged with the police and also no social meeting was convened and no relative was told about this. She then volunteers that it was not done with the hope that everything would get settled with the passage of time. PW-4 Satanand also admits that no report was earlier lodged with the police by her daughter/deceased or himself. 13. PW-5 Rukhmani Kurre, neighbour of the deceased, states that when she asked the deceased about her poor health condition, she disclosed that her brother-in-law (Jeth) and husband torture her for Rs.40,000-50,000/- and motorcycle. PW-4 Satanand also admits that no report was earlier lodged with the police by her daughter/deceased or himself. 13. PW-5 Rukhmani Kurre, neighbour of the deceased, states that when she asked the deceased about her poor health condition, she disclosed that her brother-in-law (Jeth) and husband torture her for Rs.40,000-50,000/- and motorcycle. In cross-examination she denied the statement given to the police that the deceased told her about demand of Rs.40,000-50,000/- and volunteers that the deceased told her about demand of Rs.40,000/-. 14. Learned trial Court on the basis of statements of mother and father of the deceased held the accused/appellants guilty u/s 304B of IPC but it is clear from the statement of PW-1 Dr. Gajendra that in her dying declaration the victim stated that while she was taking out items kept on the almirah, at that time the chimney fell on her as a result of which her clothes caught fire and she got burnt. The autopsy surgeon (PW-12) also opines that there is possibility of the victim suffering the burn injuries accidentally. There is no other dying declaration recorded during investigation. Further, as per FIR (Ex.P/13) the incident took place on 4.10.2006 whereas the report was lodged on 27.12.2006 and delay in lodging the report was attributed to merg enquiry. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh (supra) held in paras 11 & 21 of its judgment as under: “11. The interpretation of Sections 3048 and 498A IPC came up for consideration in Baijnath's case (supra). The opinion was summed up in paras 25 to 27 thereof, which are extracted below:- "25. Whereas in the offence of dowry death defined by Section 304-B of the Code, the ingredients thereof are: (1) death of the woman concerned is by any burns or bodily injury or by any cause other than in normal circumstances, and (ii) is within seven years of her marriage, and (iii) that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. The offence under Section 498-A of the Code is attracted qua the husband or his relative if she is subjected to cruelty. The offence under Section 498-A of the Code is attracted qua the husband or his relative if she is subjected to cruelty. The Explanation to this Section exposits "cruelty" as: “(1) 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), o? (II) harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawfül demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 26. Patently thus, cruelty or harassment of the lady by her husband or his relative for or in connection with any demand for any property or valuable security as a demand for dowry or in connection therewith is the common constituent of both the offences. 27. The expression "dowry" is ordained to have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The expression "cruelty", as explained, contains in its expanse, apart from the conduct of the tormentor, the consequences precipitated thereby qua the lady subjected thereto. Be that as it may, cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of his for or in connection with any demand of dowry, to reiterate, is the gravamen of the two offences.” 21. In the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution, none of the witnesses stated about the cruelty or harassment to the deceased by the appellant or any of his family members on account of demand of dowry soon before the death or otherwise. Rather harassment has not been narrated by anyone. 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 fulfil 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.” 16. The aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution does not fulfil 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.” 16. In the matter of Seetharamaiah and another (supra) where the father of the deceased was present at the time of inquest, had never lodged complaint as to demand of additional dowry, FIR was registered only after 10 days of incident, the prosecution failed to prove case against the accused regarding dowry and acceptance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court acquitted the accused of the charges. In paras 21, 22 & 23 of the judgment it was observed thus: “21. Of course, the defense of the accused is that the deceased was suffering from stomach-ache and also pain in the left lower limb as such, she being frustrated, committed suicide. It is seen, on some occasions the deceased had been treated at the hospital for which some documents are produced. Further, it is the specific case of the father of the deceased and other witnesses viz., PWs. 6 & 7, mother and sister that accused was never allowing the deceased to attend any of the ceremonies in their family. Even as per the prosecution, the deceased requested the 1st accused to take her to the house warming ceremony of one of her relatives and he refused to take her on which much thrust has been given in the evidence of PWs. 5 to 7. Of course, due to such an indifferent attitude on the part of 1st accused, the deceased must have felt humiliated or got annoyed. In the usual course, family bickering between spouses by itself, cannot be said to be a reason for her to commit suicide and it may not be a ground to hold against the accused that there was abetment to commit suicide and also that the accused is guilty of the offence u/s 498A, IPC. 22. From the evidence on record that of PWs. 5 to 7 and PW 15, it is seen, they have spoken about the deceased complaining of harassment to her whenever she used to meet them. In this regard, however, no complaint has been filed by the family of the deceased against the accused. 22. From the evidence on record that of PWs. 5 to 7 and PW 15, it is seen, they have spoken about the deceased complaining of harassment to her whenever she used to meet them. In this regard, however, no complaint has been filed by the family of the deceased against the accused. Apart from that, what is noticed is, the deceased was residing along with her husband and after marriage, for three years she lead marital life and also gave birth to a child. It is also noticed, the 1st accused was demanding Rs. 20,000/- as per the evidence of some of the witnesses and also they made arrangement to pay Rs. 15,000/-. In this regard, PW 5 has not stated or whispered anything before the Taluka Executive Magistrate. So, it appears to be an afterthought to make out a dowry harassment case to implicate the accused. Even with regard to the evidence as to collecting dowry is concerned, the statement of PW 5 is that the 2nd accused has collected dowry amount whereas in the further statement it is stated that 1st accused has collected the dowry amount and that itself shows that there is much contradictions and Ex.D5 also depicts the contradiction version. Moreover, in the absence of any such complaint being filed by PW 5 or 6 on coming to know of the death of the deceased except the suspicion they have expressed at the time of recording the inquest statement by the Tahsildar, no other steps have been taken by PW 5 to file the complaint. Even the FIR is registered for the alleged offences only after ten days. Certain of the contradictions marked at Ex.D4 to 6 show that there is no such demand by the accused for dowry; May be some misunderstanding between the husband and wife regarding not allowing the deceased to attend the function of her relative but, that itself cannot be treated as a cruelty harassment. In order to prove the offence u/s 304B, IPC, death must have occurred within seven years of marriage in unnatural circumstances in connection with dowry harassment. In order to prove the offence u/s 304B, IPC, death must have occurred within seven years of marriage in unnatural circumstances in connection with dowry harassment. The evidence of the neighbouring witnesses is consistent and contradicts the version of the relatives of the deceased and also, apart from that, the boy-PW 7 who was residing along with the deceased and the accused has not whispered anything about any untoward incident that has occurred to hold the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC. Even if some amount is given or taken, it appears to be in the form of customary practice having regard to the status of the family and, even for having made payment, there is no record made available. Believing the version of the relatives of the deceased as gospel truth the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused without looking into the various contradictions and admissions and also the delay in filing the complaint. The complaint is lodged, that too by the police, after ten days. Ex.D1 to D3 are the prescriptions of the deceased who was treated for ailments. The statement of PW 5 is recorded by the police only after 9 to 10 days after the death of the deceased and nothing has been stated by him in the Inquest Report regarding alleged demand for additional dowry by the accused. It appears to be an afterthought and improvement made by the prosecution witnesses, especially by PWs. 5 to 7. 23. In view of the above discussion, having noticed that deceased committed suicide within seven years of her marriage, it appears her death would have probably been due to misunderstanding between the deceased and the 1st accused in not sending her to attend the ceremony of her relative in the family of her parents. Although several wild allegations are made, there is no cogent evidence to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offences. The order of conviction and sentence rendered by the trial Court is without looking into the contradictions and also without considering the material evidence of the independent witnesses who got to speak about the attitude of the accused with the deceased.” 17. The order of conviction and sentence rendered by the trial Court is without looking into the contradictions and also without considering the material evidence of the independent witnesses who got to speak about the attitude of the accused with the deceased.” 17. As discussed above, in the present case also, it is clear that inquest memo was prepared by the police on 5.10.2006, at that time father of the deceased Satanand (PW-4) was present but did not make any complaint at that time and the FIR (Ex.P/13) was lodged after 83 days of the incident. PW-1 Dr. Gajendra recorded dying declaration of the deceased (Ex.P/2) wherein she categorically stated that while she was taking out items kept on the almirah, the chimney fell on her as a result of which her clothes caught fire and she got burnt. The autopsy surgeon (PW-12) also opined that the burn injuries could be suffered accidentally. However, learned trial Court did not appreciate all these statements and merely on the basis of statements of mother and father held the accused/appellants guilty under Section 304B of IPC. Though the prosecution has proved two of the three pre-requisites for constituting the offence u/s 304B of IPC that death of the deceased occurred by burn injuries within seven years of her marriage but utterly failed to prove the third ingredient 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 of dowry. There is thus no evidence to invoke presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act for constituting the offence of dowry death against the accused/appellants. 18. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment convicting the accused/appellants under Section 304B of IPC is hereby set aside and they are acquitted of this charge. They are reported to be on bail. 18. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment convicting the accused/appellants under Section 304B of IPC is hereby set aside and they are acquitted of this charge. They are reported to be on bail. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023, each of the accused/appellants is also 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, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 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.