Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28th March, 1995 passed by Sri Bal Govind Prasad, 3rd Additional judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 575 of 1993 through which all those appellants were found guilty under Sec. 3048 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and further these appellants were also found guilty under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for three years each and it was further ordered that both the sentences will run concurrently. 2. The fact, in short, leading to the conviction of these appellants is that daughter of the informant was married with Sheopujan Sahu, appellant No. 3, about four years prior to the institution of the case and it has been alleged by the informant, the father of the deceased, namely, Pushpa Devi, that on 1.3.93, Santosh Sahu, the younger brother of the son-in-law of the informant, came and took bidai of his daughter, but, he was under the apprehension that his daughter will be ill-treated in her matrimonial house because her daughter case to tell about the torture by her in-laws. It has also been alleged that after 15 days, the informant had also gone to meet hex daughter and from her daughter, he could learn about the ill-treatment which was being meted to her and father the mother of the informant had gone to meet Pushpa Devi with some presentation, but, she was not allowed to meet Pushpa and presentations were not accepted. On 23.3.93, the informant got information through Surya Prasad Sahu that his daughter committed suicide. So he informed the local Rulanya and had gone to the matrimonial home of his daughter situated in village Ladhup within P.S. Silli Dist. Ranchi and found her daughter dead and as such he went to Silli P.S. and lodged the information in the afternoon of 29.3.93. He alleged in the FIR that as his daughter was not good to look at so she was being tortured and he had also paid Rs. 7000.00 to his son-in-law for securing a job. 3. Ranchi and found her daughter dead and as such he went to Silli P.S. and lodged the information in the afternoon of 29.3.93. He alleged in the FIR that as his daughter was not good to look at so she was being tortured and he had also paid Rs. 7000.00 to his son-in-law for securing a job. 3. On the basis of the fardbayan lodged by the informant, this case was instituted as against all the appellants and the I.O. went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased buying on a cot and inquest was prepared and dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The police after completing the investigation submitted chargesheet as against all the appellants under Sec. 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court after conclusion of the trial found all the appellants guilty under Sec. 304B and 498A of the LF,C and convicted and sentenced them in the manner indicated above. 4. Begin aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order of conviction, this appeal had been preferred of all the appellants mainly on the ground that the prosecution utterly fails to prove that it was a case of dowry death and further practically there is no evidence on the record to show that the deceased was begin tortured by her in-laws and the deceased herself committee suicide due to the fact that she had a desire to live with her husband at Tatisilwai where her husband was doing his service, but some how or the other her husband could not take her there. 5. To prove the prosecution case, on behalf of the prosecution, as many as 7 witnesses were examined. Out of them, P.W. 1 and 2 who are co-villagers of the appellants were declared hostile by the prosecution; whereas P.W. 3 is Chinta Devi, the mother of the deceased, P.W. 4 is Sarju Devi Grand-mother of the deceased, P.W. 5 Sahdeo Bhagar the father and informant of the case P.W. 6 Chandshyam Mahto was the Mukhiye of the village; P.W. 7 is Sri C.P. Yadav, I.G. of the case. The accused persons were charged and convicted for the offence under Sec. 304B and also Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and it is admitted position that the deceased begin the daughter of the informant was married to the appellant, Sheo Pujan Sahu four years prior to the institution of the case and admittedly the appellants Nandlal and Basasnti Devi are the father and mother of the husband and the other appellant Santosh Sahu is the younger brother. 6. No doubt in this case the doctor who held the port mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased could not be examined by the prosecution-without any explanation. Nevertheless this is more or less admitted position that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself in the night of 28/29th March, 1993 in her matrimonial house. Admittedly from the inquest report also, no apparent bodily injury could be detected and it has also come in evidence that the dead body was found hanging in a room which was bottled form inside and the witnesses broke open the room and brought the dead body. 7. Now the question for consideration is whether actually the deceased was subjected to cruelty and torture in connection with demand of dowry which ultimately resulted in compelling the deceased to commit the suicide and further the husband and his faintly members also committed torture and cruelty as against the deceased? 8. No doubt the deceased committed suicide on the alleged date of, occurrence, but in order to attract Sec. 304B of the Indian Penal Code, that is, to bring within the purview of dowry death, the prosecution has to prove five important ingredients which are as follows: (i) The death of a women should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (iv) Such cruelty or has assessment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry; (v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. Unless prosecution proves all the aforesaid ingredients meaning thereby unless there is evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death and such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any demand for dowry, the mere death of. the deceased who was admittedly the wife of the appellant, Sheopujan Sahu, will not attract the penalty of Sec. 304B of the Indian Penal Code. It is quite possible that the deceased might have committed suicide for various other reasons and in order to attract the provisions of dowry death, the prosecution has to lead evidence satisfying the ingredients mentioned above and only then a presumption as required under Sec. 113B of the Evidence Act, that the Court shall presume that such person has caused the dowry death, will be attracted. 9 The Orissa High Court in a case reported in 1995 Criminal Law Journal 174 Keshab Chandra Panda V/s. State expressed a similar view. Moreover the Supreme Court considering the question of dowry death and the circumstances under which the presumption as required under Sec. 113B of the Evidence Act shall be attracted and in a case reported in 1995 SCC (Cr.) 817 Rajesh Tandan V/s. State of Punjab. It was held that the prosecution had to lead evidence to satisfy the ingredients as provided under Sec. 304IPC and mere fact that the death of a married woman took place within seven years, that too in an unnatural circumstance will not lead to a presumption that dowry death had already been committed. 10. Considering the guideline? discussed above, in this case P.W. 5 who is the informant himself and the father of the deceased has not stated a single word in his evidence to show that there was any demand of dowry by in-laws nor he has stated that her daughter was complaining about the torture by her in-laws. In the FIR also nothing has been alleged specifically to show that any demand of dowry was made, rather this much was alleged that he paid Rs. 7000.00 to his son-in-law for scoring his job which is not a dowry demand. 11. Similarly P.W. 3 who is the mother of the deceased had claimed in her cross examination that actually no torture was caused to his daughter in her presence; rather she learnt about the same from others and no doubt she has. 7000.00 to his son-in-law for scoring his job which is not a dowry demand. 11. Similarly P.W. 3 who is the mother of the deceased had claimed in her cross examination that actually no torture was caused to his daughter in her presence; rather she learnt about the same from others and no doubt she has. stated that her son in law used to demand Rs.1000.00 or Rs. 2000.00 and she gave the same two or three times. But from the evidence of I.G. who was figured as P.W. 7 this much can be said that this witness has not stated a single word that her son-in-law made any demand of money. P.W. 4 Sarju Devi the grand mother of the deceased had also not stated anything about the any dowry as demanded by in-laws and she has simply claimed that on the date of occurrence she had gone to village Ladhup with some presentation such as Chura, soap, biscuit and oil etc. but the in-laws has not properly treated her and not allowed to give presentation, So P.W. 4 also has not stated anything about the dowry demand and no doubt stated about torture in the examination-in-chief, but from her cross-examination it can be said that the female members properly treated her and they had shown due courtesy to her by offering her food etc. which she refused. 12. On the other hand, P.W. 1 and 2 who are co-villagers were not doubt declared hostile but they also have not stated a single word that there was ill-relation between the husband and the wife and the most important witness is P.W. 6 Ghanshyam Mahto who is the local Mukhiya one who has got his house at 300 yards from the P.G. He specifically stated that there was no ill-relation between the husband and the wife and he had not heard about any torture to the deceased. Further more, the another of the deceased had also admitted that her son in law used to come to her house and to further letter (Ext. A) which is dated 31.12.92, that is, immediately prior to the occurrence. allegedly written by the informant, that is father of the deceased to his son in law clearly indicates that there was good relation between the husband in-laws. 13. A) which is dated 31.12.92, that is, immediately prior to the occurrence. allegedly written by the informant, that is father of the deceased to his son in law clearly indicates that there was good relation between the husband in-laws. 13. So the evidence on the record also would clearly show that there was no ill-relation between the husband and the wife and so far the demand of dowry in concerned that has not been proved at all. 14. Thus from the consideration of the entire evidence on the record, as discussed above, this can be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove that there was ill-relationship between the husband and the wife and the deceased was subjected to cruelty and torture in connection with demand of dowry. If at all the deceased committed suicide for some reason or the other, then for that the appellants are not to be held guilty under Sec. 304B or that of Sec. 498A of the IPC unless there is evidence to that extent to bring home the guilt under these counts. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the order and judgment of conviction and sentence dt. 28th March, 1995 as recorded by the 3rd Addl, Judicial Commissioner, Kanchi in S. Tr. 575/83 is hereby set aside and all the appellants are acquitted of the charges, levelled against them. The appellant No. 3 Sheopujan Sahu who is in custody should be released from Jail Custody forthwith, if not required in any other case and the other appellants who are on bail are discharged from the liability of their respective bail bonds.