The presumption of dowry death is not applicable if evidence does not establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty shortly before her death.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appeal being Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 888 of 2007 has been filed by Balram Pal, father-in-law of the deceased, and Manju Devi mother-in-law of the deceased, while the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1443 of 2008 has been filed by Shankar Pal, husband of the deceased.

2. Both the appeal arises out of the common judgment of conviction and sentence, as such, listed together for analogous hearing and hereby disposed of by the common order.

3. The instant appeal is preferred against the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.02.2007 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge Pakur in S.C. No. 162 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the above appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C.

4. In nutshell case of prosecution is based upon the fardbeyan of one Golak Swarnkar, Son of Guhi Swarnkar, village-Umbra, P.S.-Andal, District-Bardwan (West Bengal) who happens to be maternal uncle (mama) of deceased, who stated therein that his niece Mamuni Devi, daughter of late Vasudev Das, resident of Burdwan, West Bengal got married with Shankar Pal, son of Balram Swarnkar, resident of Sunderpur, District-Pakur on 03.03.2006 and he had given gift, utensils of Kansa and gold ring and one ear ring, other articles also worth of Rs. 40,000/- to her neice and she was sent to her in-laws house and on the same day Manju Devi (mother-in-law), Balram Swarnkar (father-in-law) and Shankar Pal (husband) started demanding Rs. 20,000/- as dowry and also said that if such demand is not fulfilled then they would not keep the girl and they would solemnize other marriage of the boy by which they would get more dowry. Informant requested that as per his capacity he had given gift and they should show mercy to her and he returned to his place. It is further alleged by the informant that after lapse of sometime, message was sent by deceased to the informant that her father-in-law, mother- in-law, brother-in-law and husband repeatedly giving beatings to her and extending threat to the deceased to get Rs. 20,000/- from her mama, then again informant along with others visited to the in-laws place of deceased and again tried to make them understand and on 29.04.2006 at about 05.00 a.m. in the morning he got information telephonically that her niece died on account of stomach-ache at about 04.00 a.m. in the morning, then informant, his sister (mother of deceased) and other persons visited to Hiranpur, Sunderpur i.e. in-laws place of his niece, then no one was present in the house and informant came across the fact from nearby person that his niece was put to fire by aforesaid persons. She succumbed to burn injury in Pakur hospital and they had circulated the news that his niece died on account of fire due to stove burst. Informant entered into the house of her niece and found that there was sign of fire in the room and an old stove in broken condition was kept and there was hole in the tank from outside and as no person was present in the in-laws house of deceased therefore they came to Pakur hospital where they found dead body of his niece in burnt condition. On the aforesaid basis, informant alleged that as dowry to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- was not given, therefore, his niece was put to fire and accused persons have propounded a story of stove burst.

5. On the basis of aforesaid