Conviction under Section 304-B IPC requires clear evidence of cruelty or harassment; mere allegations without substantiated proof are insufficient.

1. The Appellant, husband of the deceased stands convicted to life imprisonment under S.304 - B IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No. 102 of 1999 dated 18.09.1999.

2. The deceased was approximateIy 18 years of age. She died of burn injuries on 10.5.1999 at about 2:30pm, soon after she went to the matrimonial home after her "gauna" in January, 1999 pursuant to her marriage to the Appellant on 01.5.1998. Merg, Exhibit P - 4 was lodged by the father - in - law of the deceased PW - 4, Main Singh, on the date of occurrence at about 4:45 pm stating that when he came back home from outside and went to his room to rest. His wife and son, husband of the deceased were not at home and the deceased was in her room. About 2:30 pm he suddenly woke up due to the heat sensation generated by fire and found that the adjacent room was completely on fire. He shouted when villagers came. The deceased was lying on the floor dead due to burn injuries.

3. FIR, Exhibit P - 6 was registered by R. P. Lahri, PW - 8, the Officer - in - Charge, based on inquiry pursuant to the Merg intimation. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. M. G. Tiwari, PW - 9 and the report marked Exhibit P - 5. Smell of kerosene was stated to be coming from the body which had 100% burn injuries. The hair was charred over her scalp. The burns were bone deep. The abdominal area was also burnt with loops of intestine coming out and the air passage was congested. Death was opined to have occurred 25 hours earlier due to 100% burn injuries and its attended complications.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the conviction of the Appellant under S.304 - B IPC is not justified. PW - 3, an independent witness and resident of the village has deposed that the Appellant was not at home and came to his house along with the witness when word spread that the deceased had died due to burn injuries. The father - in - law of the deceased, PW4 has likewise deposed that when he shouted for help, his nephew Shiv Kumar,PW - 5 came and broke open the door which was bolted from inside. The witness went alone to the police station to report. No question was asked to the Appellant under S.313 Cr.P.C with regard to his presence at home at the time of occurrence in this regard denying him the opportunity of defence that he was not at home at the time of occurrence. The Trial Court has not disbelieved this fact by cogent reasoning but has perversely opined that it was all manipulated. The deceased had committed suicide.

5. Reliance has been placed on 2007 (2) CGLJ 55 (SC) : AIR 2007 SC 763 ( Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra ) to submit that even the evidence of PW - 1 and PW - 2, father and mother of the deceased that allegedly the Appellant had asked for Rs. 5000/- to open a cycle store will not constitute a demand for dowry. It was next submitted that even the trial court has arrived at the conclusion that the investigation was faulty by the police. The Appellant cannot be convicted on the basis of faulty investigation without material in support of the presumption raised under S.304 - B IPC unless it is absolute. If there is any iota of doubt that the deceased may have died for other reasons like committing suicide by herself without any instigation or provocation by the Appellant, he cannot be convicted under S.304 - B IPC. The presumption sought to be raised under Section, 113 - A of the Evidence Act shall also not be applicable because not a single