Judgment 1. This appeal by the sole appellant has been directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Sri Baleshwar Prasad Singh, First additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No. 302/88/ 30/88 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Secs. 304 - Band 201 of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to life for former and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the latter offence. However, both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. The appellant and his parents Laddu MandaI and Tusia Devi were prosecuted on the basis of First Information Report lodged by one Nemchand MandaI of village Sirsia in the district of Giridih on 19-11-1986 alleging that his sister Jageshwari Devi was married to the present appellant some four years back and was living a happy conjugal life. When he went to take her to the parental home on the occasion of Karma Puja that year, the appellant and his parents made a demand for Rs. 5,000.00 cash a cow and a bicycle. The informant expressed his inability due to property. However, his sister Jageshwari Devi was allowed to go to her parental home. He further alleged in the FIR that when the appellant went to Sirsia on the occasion of Durga Puja for taking back his wife, he again repeated the demand. A sum of Rs. 700.00 was borrowed from a co-villager Sudhir Prasad a bicycle was purchased and given to the appellant. Consequently, he went back with Jageshwari Devi to the matrimonial home again pressing for the fulfilment of the demand for cash and cow. After about fifteen days the first informant again went to the house of the appellant situated at village Barai within (sic) P.S. in the same district after managing a sum of Rs. 2,000.00 (rupees two thousand) but he did not meet any adult member of the family including his sister Jageshwari Devi. He waited for some time and came back without making payment of the money. However, on 31-10-1987 he happened to come across the father of the appellant by the side of river Irga and at that time the father of the appellant enquired from him about Jageshwari Devi stating that she had fled away from the matrimonial home. A search was made, but she could not be traced out. However, on 31-10-1987 he happened to come across the father of the appellant by the side of river Irga and at that time the father of the appellant enquired from him about Jageshwari Devi stating that she had fled away from the matrimonial home. A search was made, but she could not be traced out. It so happened that in the morning on 3-11-1987 the dead body of the deceased Jageshwari Devi was found floating inside a well situated close to the house of the appellant and U.D. case was registered on the basis of the information lodged by the father of the appellant. One J. Tirkey, S.I. of Birni investigated the a UD case respecting the death of the deceased and went to village Sirsia on 19-11-1987 and recorded the fardbeyan of Nemchand MandaI and on the basis thereof a case under Secs. 304-B and 201 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant and his parents alleging that they killed the deceased for dowry and consigned the dead body inside a well to cause disappearance of evidence. 3. All the three accused-persons were put on trial for commission of the offences under Secs. 304-B and 201 of Indian Penal Code. However, they denied the charge and pleaded that the death of the deceased had occurred due to accidental fall in the well which went un-noticed until her dead body was found floating in the well. There was absolutely no demand for any dowry. The relationship between the deceased and her husband and in-laws was quite cordial. As a matter of fact, the husband had purchased a piece of land jointly in the name of the deceased and his younger brother. 4. The prosecution examined nine witnesses including the doctor who held post-mortem and the Investigating Officer. The defence also examined four witnesses and brought on record the sale-deed in question (Ext. A). On consideration of the evidence on record the first Addl. Sessions Judge. Giridih came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the charge against the parents of the appellant. Therefore, he acquitted both of them of the charges under Secs. 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. He however, came to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of causing dowry death of his wife and concealment of the dead body. Therefore, he has convicted the appellant on both the charges. Therefore, he acquitted both of them of the charges under Secs. 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. He however, came to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of causing dowry death of his wife and concealment of the dead body. Therefore, he has convicted the appellant on both the charges. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the finding of conviction of the appellant cannot be justified as there is no evidence that there was any demand for dowry and consequent torture of the deceased be fore her death. He submits that there is evidence on record to show that whatever dowry was settled was paid at the time of marriage itself four years back. Therefore, any further demand of bicycle, cash or a cow cannot amount to dowry. He has further submitted that the First Information Report was lodged making -false allegation without considerable delay. Only when the first informant failed to obtain from the accused-persons a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 cash and 10-bhars of gold which had admittedly been paid to the accused - persons at the time of the marriage. Therefore, the point for consideration in the present appeal is whether the appellant was in any way instrumental to the death of his deceased wife due to non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry as alleged by the prosecution. 6. In course of his evidence, PW 1 Nemchand Mandal has stated that the marriage of his sister Jageshwari Devi with the appellant had taken place sometime in the year 1983 and thereafter, his sister was residing at the matrimonial home. However, she used to go to the parental home and come back to the matrimonial home after staying for some time with her parents. He has stated that on the occasion of Karma Puja in 1987 when he had gone to the accuseds place to take the deceased to the parental home, the appellant and his parents placed a demand for bicycle, a cow and Rs. 5,000.00 cash. They stated that if he wanted that his sister lived in peace, those things were to be given. He took the deceased to the parental home and informed his mother and father when the latter came home on the occasion of Durga Puja. 5,000.00 cash. They stated that if he wanted that his sister lived in peace, those things were to be given. He took the deceased to the parental home and informed his mother and father when the latter came home on the occasion of Durga Puja. He has further stated that when the appellant went to his house to take back the deceased at the time of Durga Puja, he again made the demand. Even though they expressed their inability to fulfil all the demands, a bicycle was purchased for a sum of Rs. 700.00 borrowed from a covillager (PW 3) and given to the appellant who went back with the deceased stressing the desirability of fulfilling the remaining demands. The witness also stated that after 15 days he went to the house of the appellant, but found none there, not even his sister. Therefore, he came back. He has further stated that after some time, he came across the father of the appellant and latter asked him whether his sister had reached home as she had fled away from the matrimonial home. Naturally, he dented and there was a search. The witness further stated that in course of the search of the deceased, he reached Giridih and in the night he stayed at Giridih Hospital. In the morning on 4-11-1987, he came across the father of the appellant who disclosed to him that the deceased had died of drowning. Thereafter, he went home. 7. PW 5 is the mother of the deceased. She has also stated that when PW 1 came back with the deceased from her matrimonial home at the time of Karma Puja, he told that the appellant and his parents were demanding bicycle, Rs. 5,000.00 and cow. The deceased also corroborated this fact. When the appellant came to take back the deceased, to the matrimonial home on the occasion of Durga Puja, he also repeated the same demand. A bicycle was purchased and given to him and the appellant returned home with the deceased. PW 6 is the father of the deceased and he has also made a similar statement. PW 3 has stated that on the occasion of Durga Puja. PW 1 had borrowed Rs. 700.00 from him saying that he needed that much money. However, he has not stated that any bicycle was purchased out of that money and given to the appellant. PW 3 has stated that on the occasion of Durga Puja. PW 1 had borrowed Rs. 700.00 from him saying that he needed that much money. However, he has not stated that any bicycle was purchased out of that money and given to the appellant. PW 2 Sukar Mandal, a co-villager of the appellant and related to him as maternal grand-father has stated that whenever the deceased used to go to the parental home, she used to tell him that her parents-in-law always used to abuse her and even deprived her of food probably because she had failed to bear any child even after lapse of 4 years of marriage. According to this witness, he learnt from PWs 1 and 5, that too after 19-11-1987, respecting the demand made by the appellant and his parents for a bicycle a cow and Rs. 5,000.00 cash. 8. PW 8 Dr. B.P. Singh of Sadar Hospital at Giridih. has stated that on 1-4-1987 at 8.30 a.m. he performed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found that whole of the body was swollen; the skin of the palms and soles was wrinkled and white to some extent. However, he did not find any external injury of any kind on the dead body. However, on dissection he found that the 5th and 6th ribs of the left side and 6th ribs on the right side of the chest were fractured. He could not ascertain what was the cause of death. Therefore, he persevered the viscera for chemical examination. It is not known whether the viscera was never sent for examination to any forensic laboratory and if so, with what result. The doctor stated that the death of the deceased occurred within three/four days prior to the autopsy. From the evidence of the doctor, it appears that he did not find any water either in the lungs or in stomach. When put to cross-examination, he stated that there was no symptom of death by drydrowning. 9. PW 9 is the Investigating Officer and he had visited the place of occurrence much after the dead body of the deceased was retrieved from the well. Therefore, no ocular evidence could be found. When put to cross-examination, he stated that there was no symptom of death by drydrowning. 9. PW 9 is the Investigating Officer and he had visited the place of occurrence much after the dead body of the deceased was retrieved from the well. Therefore, no ocular evidence could be found. The S.I. who had investigated the UD case, has not been examined, nor any attempt has been made to bring on record the information lodged by the father of the appellant respecting the death of the deceased. Be that as it may the fact remain that the wife of the appellant was found inside a well. The defence plea is that she fell into the well accidentally and died. The prosecution says that she was killed for dowry and thereafter, her dead body was thrown into the well to give a colour of drowning by accidental fall. The doctor says that he was unable to give any information regarding the cause of the death even though a few ribs of the deceased were found fractured. In other words, the fracture of the ribs of the deceased was not the cause of her death. Therefore the medical evidence rules out the drowning of the deceased into the well after causing her death. Nevertheless, the death of the deceased had not taken place under normal circumstances as stated above. Sec. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code defines dowry death and prescribes punishment there for. Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 304-B lays down that "Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs other wise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called dowry death and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death, "Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section, Dowry shall have the same meaning as in Sec. 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961." Sub-Section (2) of Sec. 304-B provides that whosoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. 10. 10. While considering a case based on similar allegation, a Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Sarkar, J) was a party, held in Chandan Rai V/s. State of Bihar, that in order to attract application of Sec. 304- B of Indian Penal Code, the following essential ingredients are to be proved:- (i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) Such a death should have occurred within 7 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 harassment should be for, or in connection with, demand of dowry; (v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. 11. As indicated above, the death of the deceased occurred within seven years of her marriage and the death was certainly not under normal circumstances. Regarding the demand of dowry, it has been alleged that even though the marriage had taken place four years back, for the first time in 1987 when the first informant went to the matrimonial home of the deceased for taking her to the parental home, there was demand for a bicycle, cow and Rs. 5,000.00 cash. The same demand was repeated by the appellant when he went to his sasural on the occasion of Durga Puja and, in fact, a bicycle was given to him. However, there is absolutely no whisper that after making of the demand, as aforesaid, and nonfulfilment of the same, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband or any of his relatives including his parents. But, the witnesses have stated that probably, she used to be abused by the parents of the appellant far not bearing, child even after four years of her marriage. That, torture was, certainly not for, or in connection with dowry. Therefore, even if the three ingredients of death in the circumstances other than normal within 7 years of the marriage and demand of dowry are present in the present case, the remaining two ingredients of torture and that too far, and hi connection with, dowry are entirely lacking. That, torture was, certainly not for, or in connection with dowry. Therefore, even if the three ingredients of death in the circumstances other than normal within 7 years of the marriage and demand of dowry are present in the present case, the remaining two ingredients of torture and that too far, and hi connection with, dowry are entirely lacking. On the other hand, the evidence on record is that the relationship between the deceased on the one hand and her husband and in-laws was very cordial. The prosecution witnesses themselves have stated that the appellant used to take care of the deceased and whenever she fell ill, he used to get her treated. 12. This apart, the evidence on the record shows that only sometime back, a piece of land had been purchased in the name of the deceased, of course, jointly with her younger brother-in-law. This conduct on the part of the husband and in-laws, naturally, rules out the element of cruelty meted out to her by them. The delay in lodging the First Information Report also only improbabilises the prosecution story. The evidence on record is that the first informant came to know of the disappearance of his sister on 31.10.1987, 1t self when he came across the father of the appellant. Again, even though omission of lodging the complaint in this regard by the first informant can lead to no-adverse inference; his keeping silence for a fortnight even after finding his sister dead is certainly unnatural. As he says, he met the father of the first informant in the hospital at Giridih in the morning on 4-11-1987. After the postmortem was performed, he went home and did nothing. Only when the police officer investigating the UD case went to record his statement he stated regarding demand of dowry by the appellant and his parents. There is evidence on record that the first informant asked the appellant and his parents to return the amount of dowry and the gold, which had been given to them on the occasion of the marriage. When his demand was not fulfilled, he decided to implicate the appellant and his parents by weaving a case of demand of dowry and the murder of the deceased due to non-fulfilment thereof. 13. When his demand was not fulfilled, he decided to implicate the appellant and his parents by weaving a case of demand of dowry and the murder of the deceased due to non-fulfilment thereof. 13. Regarding the charge under Sec. 201 of Indian Penal Code, one finds that there is absolutely no evidence that the deceased was killed somewhere else and the dead body was subsequently thrown into the well to cause disappearance of the evidence of murder. The evidence is entirely lacking if precaution had been taken to tie the dead body of the deceased with some heavy material, like stone boulder, etc. so that the dead body did not come on the surface of water and thereby the evidence of murder caused to disappear. Besides, there is nothing to indicate that the appellant who was admittedly working somewhere in Jharia was present at the village, at the time the death of the deceased had occurred. Therefore, like charge under Sec. 304- B, that under Sec. 201 of Indian Penal Code is also not established against the appellant. 14. In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under Secs. 304-B and 201 of Indian Penal Code and discharged from the liability of the bail bond.