JUDGMENT : Rajani Dubey, J. 1. This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentenced dated 27.06.2007 passed in Session Trial No. 463/2006, thereby the learned 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) has convicted the appellants under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 07 years. 2. Admitted facts of the case is that in the month of April, 2005 (Jeth-Vaishakh, 2005), the marriage of deceased Fulwati was solemnized with appellant. 3. The Prosecution story, in brief, is that the appellant was harassing deceased Fulwati for not bringing motorcycle from her parental house and due to the said harassment, on 04.05.2006, deceased Fulwati consumed poison. Thereafter, she was taken to nearby Govt. Hospital where doctor declared her brought dead. The death of deceased Fulwati was informed by Dr. K.K. Tamrakar (PW-11) to police Station Bishrampur vide Ex.P-6, which was recorded in the form of Merg (Ex.P-7) by Kumar Sai Thakur (PW-12), Sub Inspector. After obtaining the due permission from the Sub Divisional Magistrate and after summoning the panch witnesses vide Ex.P-1, inquest on the body of deceased was prepared vide Ex.P-2 and dead body was sent for postmortem examination to Community Health Center, Bishrampur vide Ex.P-8, where Dr. (Smt.) Snehlata Trikey (PW-15) conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased and gave her report under Ex.P-8 noticing following injuries/symptoms. (i) Nails were blue, tongue was inside the teeth, fecal mater absent. (ii) Postmortem hypostasis (purplish read discoloration) more clearly seen because bodies of fair people reduced hemoglobin of the blood, tendering to sink by force of gravity. Present back of the body usually well developed. The doctor has opined that cause of death of deceased to be suspected poisoning and mode of death was asphyxia. 4. The information of merg intimation registered in the police station Bishrampur was forwarded to police station Jainagar, where meg intimation (Ex.P-12) was again registered. Viscera of the deceased were preserved and seized vide Ex.P-5. FIR for the offence under Section 304/34 of IPC was registered against the appellant vide Ex.P-10. Police prepared spot map vide Ex.P-11. Patwari prepared spot map vide Ex.P-4. Viscera of the deceased was sent for its chemical examination to FSL, Raipur vide Ex.P-13 and FSL report was obtained by the prosecution vide Ex.P-14, according to which, organo phosphorous poison was found in the viscera of the deceased. Police prepared spot map vide Ex.P-11. Patwari prepared spot map vide Ex.P-4. Viscera of the deceased was sent for its chemical examination to FSL, Raipur vide Ex.P-13 and FSL report was obtained by the prosecution vide Ex.P-14, according to which, organo phosphorous poison was found in the viscera of the deceased. 5. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC before the A.C.J.M., Surajpur. 6. After filing of the charge sheet, the trial Court framed the charge against accused/appellant under Sections 304-B of the IPC. The accused/appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. 7. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 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. 8. 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. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, incorrect and perverse. The incident took place on 04.05.2006 and the family members of the deceased were present right from the conduction of postmortem till last rituals of the deceased and after passage of 3-4 months, the father of deceased lodged the complaint, as such, there is huge delay in lodging the FIR and the said delay has not been explained properly by the prosecution. Learned counsel also submits that there is contradiction in the statement of prosecution witnesses. The father (PW-6), Mother (PW-7), and Sister (PW-3) of the deceased have not stated about the factum of harassment for bringing motorcycle but they have stated that ‘her mother and father have given motorcycle and he will take you by the said motorcycle. The evidence of neighbours of the deceased are not relevant as the same is afterthought and all the statement of witnesses are hearsay. The prosecution witnesses themselves have stated that the appellant used to give school fees of the deceased, as such, question of harassment does not arise. The evidence of neighbours of the deceased are not relevant as the same is afterthought and all the statement of witnesses are hearsay. The prosecution witnesses themselves have stated that the appellant used to give school fees of the deceased, as such, question of harassment does not arise. Learned counsel further submits that after marriage, the deceased used to reside in her parental home for maximum period. The 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. There is no independent witness from the locality, neighborhood, or community confirming cruelty or harassment. It is settled in law that omnibus, general, and vague allegations against in-laws are insufficient for conviction. 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/appellant. Thus, the benefit of doubt, of course, has to go to the appellant. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kans Raj V. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2000) 5 SCC 207 Narayanamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in (2008) 16 SCC 512 , Kaliyaperumal & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2004) 9 SCC , Charan Singh alias Charanji Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhan reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 454, Karan Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 214 and the decision of this Court in the matter of Kunwarlal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 10956. 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. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 10956. 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 appellant subjected the deceased to continued harassment for dowry. The learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and convicted the appellant. Therefore, the conviction of the accused/appellant be upheld, and the appeal may 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 against the accused/appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted accused/appellant accordingly. 13. It is not disputed before the learned Trial Court that deceased Fulwati was wife of accused/appellant Dilrakhan and their marriage was solemnized in the month of April, 2005 and deceased Fulwati committed suicide by consuming poison on 04.05.2006 i.e. within 07 years of her marriage. 14. Now the question which arises for consideration by this Court is whether deceased Fulwati must have been subjected to cruelty soon before her death by her husband/appellant & whether such cruelty or harassment begin in connection with any demand of dowry. 15. Somen Lakda (PW-1) is the neighbor of deceased. She has stated that the marriage of deceased Fulwati was solemnized with the appellant as per social custom. In the said marriage, the parents of deceased Fulwati had given T.V., cooler, fan, cycle and utensils etc. After marriage, when deceased Fulwati came to her parental home, she asked her how she is and how she resides in her in-laws house then deceased Fulwati told that her (this witness’s) son-in-law was demanding motorcycle. She has also stated that she has suspicion that deceased Fulwati died as a result of being poisoned as she had told that her mother-in- law and sister-in-law torture her. Deceased Fulwati had only told this. This witness, in para 10 of her cross examination, has admitted this suggestion that after marriage, deceased Fulwati was studying in her parental house and sometimes she used to come to her house. Deceased Fulwati had only told this. This witness, in para 10 of her cross examination, has admitted this suggestion that after marriage, deceased Fulwati was studying in her parental house and sometimes she used to come to her house. This witness has also admitted that deceased Fulwati completed her one year study while staying in her father’s house. She has also admitted in para 14 of her cross-examination that she had not seen anyone administering poison to the deceased and no one had uttered about demand of dowry in her presence. 16. Chhote Singh (PW-2) is the neighbor of the deceased. He has stated that when deceased Fulwati came to parental house, she had told him that her husband (appellant) demand motorcycle from her. This was told by deceased Fulwati. He has also stated that after 11 days of informing this demand of motorcycle, the news of death of deceased Fulwati came. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that parents of deceased Fulwati did not inform him about the appellant’s demand of motorcycle. 17. Tarawati (PW-3) is the sister of deceased Fulwati. She has stated that when her sister came to from her in-laws’ house, she used to tell that accused/appellant was asking her (deceased) to bring the motorcycle. She has also stated that in-laws of her sister probably administered poison. In cross- examination, this witness has admitted this suggestion that accused/appellant had left her deceased sister in parental house for study and she has never visited her sister's in- laws' house. 18. Alfosa Lakda (PW-4) has stated that deceased Fulwati used to told her that whenever she (deceased) said the accused/appellant to drop her at school, he used to say that did her parents give him motorcycle ? So he could drop her. This witness has also stated the deceased had told her that if the her (decease’s) parents didn’t give him a motorcycle, he would perform another marriage. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that she never talked with parents of deceased Fulwati. This witness has admitted this suggestion that she had knowledge that deceased was studying in her parental house and appellant had left the deceased in her parental house for study. She has also admitted that whenever appellant came to drop the deceased at her parental house, he used to leave her on motorcycle. 19. Rameshwari Devi (PW-5) is aunt (elder mother) of deceased. She has also admitted that whenever appellant came to drop the deceased at her parental house, he used to leave her on motorcycle. 19. Rameshwari Devi (PW-5) is aunt (elder mother) of deceased. She has stated that deceased Fulwati used to say that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law told her to bring oil and soap from her parental house and used to taunt her for motorcycle. She has stated that she does not know how deceased died. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that parents of deceased Fulwati had never talked about in-laws of deceased. 20. Chandra Prakash (PW-6) is the father of deceased. He has stated that at the time of marriage, it was agreed by the in- laws of his deceased daughter that they would educate his daughter and his son-in-law (appellant) had paid admission and tuition fees of four months. He has also stated that his deceased daughter used to go to her in-laws’ house on holiday and Sunday, and when she used to say appellant to take her parental house, the appellant used to say that did her parents give him a motorcycle, so he could drop her. He has also stated that his deceased daughter used to tell him that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to torture her for oil and soap. He has also stated that after the exam of his deceased daughter got over, her mother-in-law, aunt-in- law, uncle-in-law and one girl had come to his house to take his deceased daughter. They had stayed in his house for two hours and thereafter, his deceased daughter got ready to go with them. Thereafter, after 5 days, he went to his daughter in-laws’ house, at that time, his deceased daughter was well, and after 11 days he came to know that his deceased daughter was taken to Govt. Hospital, Bishrampur and his deceased daughter had already died. This witness has stated that accused/appellant, his mother and aunt have killed his daughter after administering poison. In cross- examination, this witness has admitted that his statement was recorded after 5-6 months of death of his daughter. This witness has admitted this suggestion of defence in para 8 that after marriage his deceased daughter was studying in class 11 th while staying in her parental house. In cross- examination, this witness has admitted that his statement was recorded after 5-6 months of death of his daughter. This witness has admitted this suggestion of defence in para 8 that after marriage his deceased daughter was studying in class 11 th while staying in her parental house. The in-laws of his deceased daughter had also told that they would educated his daughter and they have no issued in this and that payment of copy, books and admission was done by the appellant. He has also admitted that during holiday, the appellant used to take his deceased daughter to his house and drop her after opening the school. This witness has also stated that whenever his deceased daughter told the appellant to take her at her parental house, the appellant used to leave/drop her and he does not know whether the motorcycle in which his son-in-law used to drop his daughter off belonged to appellant or his brother. This witness has denied this suggestion that after bell his deceased daughter used to roam with other girls. 21. Mino Bai (PW-7) is the mother of deceased. She has stated that her deceased daughter used to tell that her in-laws used to harass for not bringing oil and soap. She has also stated that her deceased daughter had told her that accused/appellant used to say that her (deceased’s) parents have not given him a motorcycle, then how would he drop her there. In cross-examination, this witness had admitted that her statement was recorded after 03 months of death of her daughter and no meeting with regard to filing of report or demand of dowry was convened in their society. 22. Close scrutiny of evidence of aforesaid witnesses makes it clear that deceased Fulwati only complained against her sister-in-law that she used to taunt her for not bringing oil and soap & she only stated against the appellant/husband that he used to say that did her parents give him a motorcycle, then how would he drop her. Further, it is the admission of father (PW-6), mother (PW-7) and other close relatives of the deceased that they never called any social meeting in this regard and did not file any complaint against the appellant. 23. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Charan Singh (supra), has held in para 11 as under :- “11. Further, it is the admission of father (PW-6), mother (PW-7) and other close relatives of the deceased that they never called any social meeting in this regard and did not file any complaint against the appellant. 23. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Charan Singh (supra), has held in para 11 as under :- “11. The interpretation of Sections 304B 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 the offence of dowry death defined by Section 304-B of the Code, the ingredients thereof are: (i) 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 Explanation to this Section exposits "cruelty" as: (i) 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), or (ii) harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawfula demand for any property or valuable security ora 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 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. 27. The expression "dowry" is ordained to have the same meaning 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”. 24. This Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh , 2023 SCC OnLine Chh 4466, held in para 21 as under :- “21. ….. The exact date, time, place of occurrence and specific details of incident of any money demand and assault have not been presented. Therefore, allegations related to cruelty in the above form are not complete and clear, which can be established as ‘cruelty’ and on the basis of which, appellants can be convicted.” 25. Having considered the rival submissions, scrutinized the entire evidence on record and examined the legal principles governing Section 304-B IPC, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC beyond reasonable doubt. To sustain a conviction under Section 304-B IPC, prosecution must prove: (I) the death of a woman caused by burns, bodily injury, or otherwise than in normal circumstances; (ii) such death occurring within 7 years of marriage; (iii) the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death and (iv) such cruelty must be for, or in connection with, demand of dowry. Elements (i) and (ii) are admitted, since deceased Fulwati committed suicide within seven years of marriage. The controversy relates to elements (iii) and (iv). 26. There is delay in lodging the FIR which has not been properly explained. The incident took place on 04.05.2006, yet the father of deceased (PW-6) lodged complaint after 3– 4 months. The family participated in all rituals and had full knowledge of the death circumstances. Such inordinate delay, without satisfactory explanation, creates serious doubt about the genesis of prosecution case. Further, there is contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and some of them are hearsay and there is no direct evidence of cruelty or demand of dowry. The family participated in all rituals and had full knowledge of the death circumstances. Such inordinate delay, without satisfactory explanation, creates serious doubt about the genesis of prosecution case. Further, there is contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and some of them are hearsay and there is no direct evidence of cruelty or demand of dowry. Neighbours Somen Lakda (PW-1), Chhote Singh (PW-2), Alfosa Lakda (PW-4) and Rameshwari (PW-5) have admitted that no incident of demand or harassment occurred in their presence. Their evidence is purely hearsay, based on general statements allegedly made by the deceased. Further, sister (PW-3), father (PW-6) and mother (PW-7) of the deceased also gave vague, omnibus allegation and all of them unequivocally stated that no social meeting was called in this regard and it transpires from their evidence that deceased mostly lived in her parental home for study and appellant had paid school fees, bought books, and regularly dropped/picked her from school/parental home and while dropping and picking he used to say that did parents of deceased give him motorcycle, which shows his normal anger as usually happens between husband and wife. These admissions of these witnesses dilute the prosecution claim of cruelty “soon before death.” The only allegation against the appellant is the statement attributed to him - “Did your parents give me a motorcycle so that I can drop you?”. Even if this statement is assumed, it does not demonstrate a persistent, coercive demand for dowry, nor any harassment linked to such demand and any proximate connection with the suicide. As held in Kaliyaperumal (supra), for Section 304-B IPC, the demand must be unlawful, persistent, and shown to have nexus with the death. That standard is not met. There is absence of requirement of “Soon Before the Death”. All the witnesses have admitted that the deceased was staying in her parental house for most of the period in connection with his 11 th class study. No complaint of harassment was made at any time prior to her death and no specific incident of cruelty proximate to the suicide is alleged. The prosecution therefore fails the mandatory “soon before death” test laid down in Charan Singh (supra) and Narayanamurthy (supra). That apart, the prosecution has not been able to establish circumstantial evidence. No complaint of harassment was made at any time prior to her death and no specific incident of cruelty proximate to the suicide is alleged. The prosecution therefore fails the mandatory “soon before death” test laid down in Charan Singh (supra) and Narayanamurthy (supra). That apart, the prosecution has not been able to establish circumstantial evidence. There is no forensic, medical, or independent witness links the appellant with forcing suicide and evidence of physical assault, threats, or dowry-related cruelty is missing. No witness has been any unnatural conduct by appellant. The appellant’s conduct in paying for education and personally dropping the deceased to school shows normal matrimonial behaviour. Further, the medical evidence clearly proved that the death of deceased was suicidal and not homicidal and it was due to consumption of organo-phosphorous poisoning. No external injuries and no marks of violence has come in the postmortem report. The autopsy surgeon (PW-15) opining death was due to asphyxia following poisoning, not forceful administration. No witness has seen or reported any act of administering poison by appellant. The allegation of administration of poison by the appellant is purely speculative. 27. On the basis of aforesaid analysis of the evidence, this Court is 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 extending benefit of 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. 28. 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. 29. The appellant is on bail. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. 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.