JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The three appellants have been convicted under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.P.O.') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, and two years respectively. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. Appellant No.2 is the husband and appellant Nos.1 and 3 are respectively the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. The elder brother of appellant No.2 who had been charged along with the convicted appellants has been acquitted of all the charges. 3. F.I.R. was lodged by P.W.1 the brother-in-law (sister's husband) of the deceased. It is alleged that marriage between the deceased and appellant No. 2 had taken place about two years prior to the incident. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that a sum of Rs. 700/- towards dowry was still outstanding for which the husband, parents-in-law and the elder brother-in-law of the deceased were very often quarrelling with her and the mother of the deceased had promised to pay up the balance amount. On 25.11.1990 the informant learnt that the deceased had expired in the night of 24.11.1990. Accordingly, the informant went to village Langaleswar and asked the father-in-law of the deceased who replied that the deceased had committed suicide in the previous night on the railway track and her dead body had been cremated. On persistent query, he further stated that he along with his son Trinath (since acquitted) had buried the dead body near "Padukei Thakurani" on the side of Chilka. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that a meeting with the villagers of Langaleswar had taken place at 1 p.m. on 25.11.1990 and the father-in-law of the deceased offered to pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation to the mother of the deceased. On these allegations it was stated that the deceased had been killed by her parents-in-law, brother-in-law and husband in connection with dowry and the dead body had been taken away and buried near Chilka and a case was registered under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201/34, I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On completion of investigation the accused persons were charged under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201/ 34, I.P.C. 4. The plea of the accused persons was one of denial. 5. On completion of investigation the accused persons were charged under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201/ 34, I.P.C. 4. The plea of the accused persons was one of denial. 5. Apart from P.W.l the prosecution examined P.Ws.2 and 4, the mother and father of the deceased and P.W.3 the Priest, who had performed the marriage ceremony in support of the allegation that there was demand for dowry for which the deceased was being frequently harassed. P.W. 5 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, P.W.6 is the Constable who was present at the time when the dead body was recovered, P.W.7 a co-villager of Langaleswar and P.W.9, the Tahasildar of Khalikote were present at the time when the dead body of the deceased was recovered and are witnesses to the inquest, P.Ws. 10 and 11 are the police officials who had taken part in the investigation at various stages. Relying mainly upon the evidence of P.W.1, 2 and 4 regarding harassment for dowry and on the evidence of P.W.5 regarding the homicidal death of the deceased, the trial Court has convicted the three appellants. However, the trial Court acquitted the brother of appellant No.2 on the ground that there was no evidence regarding any assault by the said accused. 6. It is first contended that possibility of the deceased having met with an accident on the railway track cannot be discounted and the prosecution should have adduced material to indicate that the death was not accidental. P.W.5, the doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination has stated in categorical terms that in fact, the death was homicidal in nature. He was categorically denied the possibility of death on account of any accident due to impact of the train. The doctor has opined that the several injuries sustained by the deceased were not possible by being hit by a train. In the absence of any other material on record, merely from the suggestion given to the witnesses, it is not possible to come to a conclusion that the death was accidental in view of the evidence of the doctor. 7. In the absence of any other material on record, merely from the suggestion given to the witnesses, it is not possible to come to a conclusion that the death was accidental in view of the evidence of the doctor. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that in order to bring home a charge under Section 304-B, I.P.C. prosecution has to establish that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons for or in connection with demand for dowry. In the present case it has already been found that the death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances, undisputedly within seven years of marriage. Therefore, the prosecution is required to prove that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons for or in connection with demand for dowry. The relevant portion of the evidence of P.W.1 is as follows: "...As per negotiation, on the marriage pendal, cash of Rs. 1800/- Cycle, Wrist Watch and a gold chain was given to the accused Bhramara Dalei as dowry demand, and it was agreed that the remaining amount is to be paid by instalments... During my visit, to the deceased Ahalya, she requested me to tell her father to pay the remaining amount as all these four accused were quarrelling with her and also assaulting her for the outstanding amount. She had specifically told me that her husband assaulted her for the amount. I informed the matter to the father of the deceased. So he paid Rs. 2000/- and four bags of paddy in the month of Asada to the accused Bhramara and my father-in-law informed me that after payment, still Rs. 700/- is outstanding. P.W.2, the mother of the deceased has stated that:- "...After negotiation, the dowry was settled for payment of cash of Rs. 4500/- one cycle, one wrist watch and one gold chain to be given to accused Bhramara. At the time of marriage we gave to the accused Bhramara cash of Rs. 1800/-, one cycle, one wrist watch and one gold chain at the house of accused persons since marriage took place at their house and it was agreed upon by the parties the balance amount is to be paid subsequently. At the time of marriage we gave to the accused Bhramara cash of Rs. 1800/-, one cycle, one wrist watch and one gold chain at the house of accused persons since marriage took place at their house and it was agreed upon by the parties the balance amount is to be paid subsequently. After the marriage, P.W.l informed me that deceased informed him that for non-payment of the balance amount, she was abused by accused Trinath, and assaulted by other 3 accused persons. 2. My husband agreed upon to pay the remaining amount. After 3 months of the marriage, Ahalya came to our house. Ahalya told us that for the remaining non-payment amount she was being abused and assaulted by the family members, and requested us to pay the amount as it was becoming unbearable. Again Ahalya came to our house at 7th month of her pregnancy as per custom with her husband. My husband paid accused Bhramara Rs. 2000/- and left them at their house and accused Bhramara was given also four bags of paddy. After payment, still Rs. 7000/- was outstanding which was agreed by my husband to repay subsequently and went to Bombay for work. After leaving Ahalya in her father-in-law house subsequently I had been to her house. There they insisted me for payment of the remaining amount..." P.W.4, the father of the deceased has stated that:- "...The marriage was settled on the ground of payment of cash of Rs. 4500/- one cycle, one wrist watch and one gold chain as dowry. On the marriage day, accused Bhramara was given cash of Rs. 1800/-, one cycle, one wrist watch and one gold chain. After marriage Ahalya resided at her father-in-law's house, she had come 5 to 6 months after her marriage and requested me to pay balance amount, for that she was being abused and assaulted. Then I left Ahalya at her father-in-law's house and requested them for time to make payment of the balance amount. Accordingly in the month of Asada I paid cash of Rs. 2000/- and four bags of paddy to accused Bhramara..." From the aforesaid evidence it becomes clear that at the time of marriage some amount of dowry had been paid to accused Bhramara and subsequently, further amount had been paid to him. Accordingly in the month of Asada I paid cash of Rs. 2000/- and four bags of paddy to accused Bhramara..." From the aforesaid evidence it becomes clear that at the time of marriage some amount of dowry had been paid to accused Bhramara and subsequently, further amount had been paid to him. However, the evidence is not clear that the other appellants had also received the dowry at the time of marriage or subsequently. Though P.W.1 has stated that the deceased had told him that the four accused persons were quarrelling with her and also assaulted her, he has categorically stated that the deceased had specifically told him that her husband assaulted her for the amount. The evidence of P.W.2 discloses that the deceased had told that for the remaining amount she was being abused and assaulted by the family members. P.W.4 has stated that the deceased had requested him to pay the balance amount for which she was being assaulted. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 is not specific regarding any demand of dowry and harassment at the hands of the father-in-law. mother-in-law and the brother-in-law of the deceased. In fact the brother-in-law, Trinath Dalai, has already been acquitted by the trial Court. Though, P.W.1 had implicated all the four accused persons in a general manner, his subsequent statement only points out the culpability of the husband of the deceased. 8. The materials on record including the seizure list indicate that incriminating materials and blood stains were recovered from the bed room of appellant No.1. There is no other specific materials against the other appellants namely, appellants 1 and 3. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the evidence, it would not be safe to conclude that appellants 1 and 3 had tortured the deceased soon before the incident in connection with the dowry demand though conclusion can be drawn that appellant No.2 had treated her with cruelty in connection with payment of dowry. Thus relying on the presumption available under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, a conclusion can be drawn that the appellant No.2 had caused the dowry death of the deceased but there is doubt regarding the role played by the parents-in-law, that is to say, the appellants 1 and 3. Therefore, while upholding the conviction of appellant No.2 under Sections 304-B and 498-A, I.P.C. appellants 1 and 3 are given the benefit of doubt. Therefore, while upholding the conviction of appellant No.2 under Sections 304-B and 498-A, I.P.C. appellants 1 and 3 are given the benefit of doubt. 9. Coming to the commission of offence under Section 201, I.P.C. there seems to be no categorical material to implicate the appellants. It has been contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the dead body had been recovered from near a deity at Chilka on the basis of statement of appellant No.1. P.W.6, the Constable has stated that he had been deputed to guard the place of burial and the place was shown by accused Gurubari. P.W. 10, the A.S.I. has stated that as per the statement of appellant No.1 he and P.W.6 went to the spot along with appellant No.l and the spot was shown by appellant No.1. However, P.W.1 has stated that he had gone to the place of burial when the dead body was recovered. He has further stated that Dhobi Pradhan and himself brought out the dead body from the place of burial. He has nowhere stated that appellant No.1 was present at that time. Likewise, P.W.9, the Tahasildar, who was present when the dead body was recovered has categorically stated that the Investigating Officer pointed out the spot. He does not implicate appellant No.l in any manner. P.W.7 a co-villager, also has not implicated appellant No.1 in the matter of discovery of the dead body. In view of such contradictory evidence, it would be unsafe to come to a conclusion that, in fact, the dead body was recovered on the basis of the statement of appellant No.l or that appellant No.1 had pointed out the spot. There is no other material on record to prove conclusively that the other appellants had hidden the dead body. It is, therefore, difficult to come to a conclusion that appellant No.l and the other appellants are liable under Section 201, I.P.C. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While upholding the conviction and sentence of appellant No.2 under Sections 304-B and 498-A, I.P.C. he is acquitted of the charge under Section 201, I.P.C. The appellants 1 and 3 are acquitted of all the charges. Final Result : Allowed