“22. The 1.O. Md. Yasin Ansari P.W.7 has stated in para 10 of cross- examination that the deceased or her family members had not got any case registered in police station before the occurrence. He has stated also in para 13 of crossexamination that the deceased had not made any complaint regarding torture for demand of dowry before the occurrence. The witnesses of village Nayakhap are not eye witness of the occurrence. I have gone through the evidence of material witnesses of prosecution and I find that except making bald allegations of "ill- treatment" and "assault", there is no evidence adduced by them to prove any particular act of cruelty or harassment to which the deceased was subjected to by the accused or that any complaint was made to the police about any such assault or harassment before the death of the deceased. In a case of Biswajit Halder v. State of W.B., (2008) 1 SCC 202 It has been held that there is practically no evidence to show that there was any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry. There is also no finding in that regard. This deficiency in evidence proves fatal for the prosecution case. Even otherwise mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to bring in application of Section 304-B IPC. It has to be shown in addition that such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with the demand for dowry. There is no specific and reliable evidence towards torture and cruelty soon before death for demand of dowry. The soon before death is not synonymous with "immediately before" as held in a case of Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (6) SCC 477 but the existence of proximate and live link between cruelty and death is an essential ingredient to bring the case under the ambit of Section 304B of IPC. The prosecution has not been able to link any such cruelty for dowry demand resulting death of deceased and in absence of such evidence, the presumption U/s 113B of Evidence Act is not permissible. There is no existence of live link between the cruelty and death. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act provides that when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and shown that soon before 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 has caused the dowry death, but, to draw the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the prosecution has to lead evidence to show that there was a demand for dowry and further that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death by the accused in connection with such demand for dowry. The grievance between the parties had been resolved through Panchayat about one and half year ago and the said Panchayat was not held for subjecting her cruelty or harassment for dowry demand. Therefore, the presumption U/s 113B of Evidence Act is not available to the prosecution. In absence of evidence regarding cruelty or harassment for the demand of dowry during the period between her having been taken from her parental home and her tragic end then it is not permissible to take recourse to the legal presumption envisaged in Section 113 B of Evidence Act.”
