JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J. 1. Appellant Pramod Kumar. Sharma has been convicted under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code for causing dowry death of his wife and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. He has also been convicted under Section 201, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Deceased Manju was married to appellant Pramod Kumar Sharma on 26.4.1993 in a function where 32 couples were married. She died on 14.5.1994. Thus, her death took place within 7 years of her marriage. 3. The prosecution case was that the appellant was demanding a motor cycle or an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as dowry from the parents of his wife. She was being subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband. She died "otherwise than under normal circumstances". Her funeral was performed without waiting for the arrival of her parents. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty. His defence was that Manju met a natural death. 5. The Trial Court held that the deceased did not commit suicide but her death was unnatural. It has been further held that there was a persistent demand of motor cycle or an amount of Rs. 25,000/- soon before her death. Therefore, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offences mentioned above. 6. In this appeal, it is argued that the death of Manju was natural. There is no reliable evidence to show that there was any demand for motor cycle or any money by the appellant. 7. The evidence on record has been closely scrutinised by this Court. Badri Prasad (PW 1) is father of the deceased. He has deposed that he got the information at about 10.00 a.m. that his daughter has died. He reached Village Borkheda at 2.30 p.m. and by that time, she had been cremated. He lodged the report (Ex. P/1) on the same day at the police-station. In cross-examination, he admits that his daughter was not keeping well and she was suffering from blood pressure. Dr. (Smt.) Malti Patel (PW 8) was working in the Government Hospital at Harda. She has deposed that she had examined Manju on 22.4.1994 and she found her suffering from headache, body-ache and menstrual disorder. She prescribed treatment for her as per Ex. P/6. She has also stated that Manju was having high blood pressure. Dr. Dr. (Smt.) Malti Patel (PW 8) was working in the Government Hospital at Harda. She has deposed that she had examined Manju on 22.4.1994 and she found her suffering from headache, body-ache and menstrual disorder. She prescribed treatment for her as per Ex. P/6. She has also stated that Manju was having high blood pressure. Dr. R.K. Jain (PW 9) has testified that he had examined Manju on 12.5.1994 in the Government Hospital and he also found that she was suffering from headache, giddiness and vomiting. He also prescribed medicines as per Ex. P/7. According to him also, Manju was having high blood pressure. The prescription given by him is Ex. P/7. Thus, the medical examination by Dr. R.K. Jain was conducted two days before the death of Manju. There is no after evidence to indicate that the deceased was subjected to any-physical violence. There is no evidence on this point that she had any injury on her body. 8. Gajanand Sharma (PW 6) has deposed that he had informed the parents of Manju at 7.00 a.m. that she has died in the night. Accused Pramod Kumar Sharma has examined himself as a defence witness. He stated that his wife complained of headache and uneasiness in the night and she expired at about 1.00 a.m. He sent the message to his father-in-law and then he collected some family members. The funeral was performed in the noon at Chhipanner, a place where the funeral normally takes place. He has stated that it was the month of May. The dead body could not be kept for longer period in the summer season. 9. After perusal of the evidence of both the sides, it is found that Manju was not keeping well. She was suffering from high blood pressure and uneasiness. She was twice examined by the doctors shortly before her death. Therefore, it is difficult to hold that she died "otherwise than under normal circumstances". The burden of proving that she met an unnatural death, is on the prosecution. Some suspicion arose because the dead body of Manju was cremated before the arrival of her parents but keeping in view the evidence on record and in absence of any positive material to show that Manju was subjected to any physical violence, it cannot be held that her death was unnatural. Some suspicion arose because the dead body of Manju was cremated before the arrival of her parents but keeping in view the evidence on record and in absence of any positive material to show that Manju was subjected to any physical violence, it cannot be held that her death was unnatural. The evidence given by the accused on this point appears to be reasonably probable. The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after the introduction of Section 498A, Indian Penal Code and Section 113A of the Evidence Act State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418 . In the present case, it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Manju was otherwise than under normal circumstances. 10. The evidence on record, however, shows that there was persistent demand of a motor cycle or an amount of Rs. 25,000/- by the appellant from the parents of his wife. Badri Prasad (PW 1) has deposed that appellant Pramod Kumar Sharma was demanding Rs. 25,000/- or a motor-cycle. His daughter Manju had conveyed it to him shortly before her death. That is also found in the evidence of Gulab Bai (PW 2), Shanti Bai (PW 3), and Kailash Chand (PW 4). It is further borne out from the testimony of Hemraj (PW 5) and Om Prakash (PW 10) that the appellant had demanded an amount of Rs. 25,000/- or a motor-cycle and Manju was repeatedly complaining about this demand. Repeated demand of dowry amounts to harassment within the meaning of Section 498A, Indian Penal Code. Thus, Manju was being harassed by the appellant for the motorcycle. It was an unlawful demand. The act of the appellant is punishable under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code. 11. This appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 304B and 201, Indian Penal Code are set aside. Instead he is convicted under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. It is pointed out that he has already spent the period of 3 years in jail. If it is so, he will be set at liberty forthwith.