JUDGMENT The appellants have been convicted for an offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months' simple imprisonment, by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Sessions Trial No. 13/1986. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the ingredients of section 306 Indian Penal Code are not proved against the appellants. The abetment of offence is denied in section 107 Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants is bad in law. It is alleged that on 1.7.1985 deceased Sarita committed suicide by burning herself inside the room. The room was locked from inside. According to the prosecution, there was perpetual demand of dowry and on account of non-fulfilment of dowry to deceased was made to burn. In the evidence PW 1, Radheshyam, brother of the deceased has categorically stated that there was perpetual demand of dowry immediately at the marriage. In the cross-examination, the witness had denied that Rs. 2,600/- have been paid to the appellants. Since the death occurred after seven years of marriage, therefore, the offence under section 306 Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the case of Meka Ramaswamy v. Desari Mohan & another [1998 SCC (Cri) 604] and submitted that unless for demand of dowry, cruelty, ill-treatment and harassment to the wife is established, the appellants cannot be convicted. In the present case, counsel for the appellants invited attention to the fact that the deceased burnt herself at about 12 o' clock by locking herself in a room. The door was bolted from inside which was broken open. Learned counsel submitted that the photograph Ex. P/10 itself demonstrates that the door was broken. As regards the allegation of demand of dowry, it was alleged that an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was demanded, but the prosecution has not proved this fact. For proving the guilt under section 306 IPC the ingredients under section 107 IPC should be proved. In the present case, on examining the entire evidence on record, it appears that the ingredients of section 107 IPC are not proved. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants cannot be maintained under Section 306 IPC. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. In the present case, on examining the entire evidence on record, it appears that the ingredients of section 107 IPC are not proved. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants cannot be maintained under Section 306 IPC. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges. Their bail bonds and sureties are discharged.