JUDGMENT P. K. PATRA, J. — Appellants Banambar Misra and Satyabhama Misra have been convicted under Sec. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Appellant Banambar Misra has further been convicted under Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months thereunder. Appellant Satyabhama Misra has further been convicted under Sec. 498-A, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years thereunder. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. The judgment dated 31.10.1998 passed by Shri K.B.Sahu, Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri in Sessions Trial No. 17/170 of 1994 convicting the appellants and sentencing them as stated above has been challenged in this appeal. 2. The appellants are husband and wife and are residents of village Harisaranpur under Satyabadi Police Station in the district of Puri. Their son Harihar Misra (P.W.2) had married deceased Suchitra, daughter of Jayakrushna Misra (P.W.4) of village Dugal on 17.6.1986 and the couple were blessed with two sons and a daughter. They were residing in a rented house at Ottasahi in village Sakhigopal which is at a distance of about 1½ kms from village Harisaranpur. About five months prior to her death the deceased and her children were residing in the house of the appellants of village Harisaranpur since P.W.2 was frequently remaining absent from his house in connection with his business. It is alleged by the prosecution that the appellants had demanded dowry in the shape of cash of Rs. 5,000.00 and gold ornaments worth Rs. 10,000.00 at the time of negotiation of marriage of their son with the deceased and the father of the deceased had paid Rs. 3,000.00 to the appellant No. 1 prior to the marriage promising to pay the balance amount and gold ornaments at the time of marriage. For non-payment of the balance amount of Rs. 2,000.00 and a gold necklace, the appellants and their two sons, Shyamsundar Misra and Pravakar Misra as also the daughter Santi¬lata Misra, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively before the trial Court, were subjecting the deceased to cruelty and torture for which P.W.2 had to take a house on rent at Sakhigopal and reside separately from them. 2,000.00 and a gold necklace, the appellants and their two sons, Shyamsundar Misra and Pravakar Misra as also the daughter Santi¬lata Misra, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively before the trial Court, were subjecting the deceased to cruelty and torture for which P.W.2 had to take a house on rent at Sakhigopal and reside separately from them. On 28.11.1992 while the deceased, her husband and the children were in the house of the appellants, the husband of the deceased (P.W.2) left the house for marketing and when he returned home at 9.15 p.m. he found the deceased lying dead on the floor. To his query none of the inmates of the house could tell him as to how the deceased died. So P.W.2 went to the village of his father-in-law and informed about the death of the deceased. Sasanka Misra (P.W.3), brother of the deceased, went to the house of the appellants, ascertained the cause of death of the deceased and lodged a written report (Ext.3) at 8 a.m. on 29.11.1992 at Satyabadi Police Station. The Officer-in-charge of the said Police Station (P.W.12) treated the same as FIR, regis¬tered the case and took up investigation. During investigation he examined witnesses, visited the spot, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the house of the appellants, sent the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination in the District Headquarters Hospital at Puri, sent the viscera for chemical examination at the S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh and seized the wearing apparels of the deceased after the post mortem examina¬tion as also some other articles given in dowry at the time of marriage of the deceased. On 20.12.1992 he arrested both the appellants and forwarded them to Court in custody. On 15.2.1993 he made over charge of investigation to P.W.13, an Inspector of Police attached to H.A.D.D.Cell at Cuttack. After completion of the formalities of investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the appellants and their two sons and a daughter who were shown as absconders. All of them stood their trial. The two sons and daughter of the appellants who were accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 respectively before the trial Court have been found not guilty and acquitted while the appellants were found guilty and convict¬ed by the learned trial Court and sentenced as stated earlier. 3. The defence plea is one of denial. 4. The two sons and daughter of the appellants who were accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 respectively before the trial Court have been found not guilty and acquitted while the appellants were found guilty and convict¬ed by the learned trial Court and sentenced as stated earlier. 3. The defence plea is one of denial. 4. In order to bring home the charge against the appellants, prosecution has examined thirteen witnesses, of whom P.W.2 is the husband of the deceased, P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased who lodged the FIR in this case, P.W.4 is the father of the deceased, P.W.5 is the mother of the deceased, P.W.1 is a co-villager of the informant, P.W.6 is also another co-villager of the informant who attended the marriage ceremony of the deceased, P.W.7 is another brother of the deceased, P.W.8 is also another co-villager of the informant and P.W.9 is the elder sister of the deceased. P.W.10 was the Addl. Tahasildar-cum-Executive Magis¬trate, Satyabadi who was present at the time of inquest held over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.11 was the medical officer who conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. P.Ws. 12 and 13 were the investigating officers. 5. The medical officer P.W.11 has stated that he conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased alongwith one Dr. P.K.Patnaik who was also working as an Asst. Surgeon in the same hospital, on 11.12.1992 at 11 a.m. and his report is Ext. 5. They noticed rigour mortis on the dead body and post mortem lividity on dependent parts was prominent. There was bluish-violet colour on the right side of face, nose, neck, finger nails, nail beds of both limbs and left side back of the chest on dependent parts. The lips were cynosed. There were abraisons and bruises on the margins of alaenasi. No marks of ligature or bruise or finger nail mark around the neck was noticed. On dissection of the dead body, all visceras, i.e. liver, lungs, larynx, trachea, oesophagus, spleen and kidneys were found congested. Stomach contained whitish sweet smelling liquid mixed with food particles and some petechial haemorrhages were detedted in the stomach. Heart showed liquid dark colour blood in the right ventricle and left ventricle was almost empty. Meninges of brain were engorged and congested and there were epidural haemorrhages. Brain was slightly oedamatous. Stomach contained whitish sweet smelling liquid mixed with food particles and some petechial haemorrhages were detedted in the stomach. Heart showed liquid dark colour blood in the right ventricle and left ventricle was almost empty. Meninges of brain were engorged and congested and there were epidural haemorrhages. Brain was slightly oedamatous. Skeletal muscular system was normal. Uterus was multiparous, not gravid and tubes were wrinkled. According to him, the mode of death of the deceased was asphyxia and the injuries found on the deceased were ante mortem in nature. The cause of death was kept reserved till receipt of chemical examination report of viscera which was preserved and was handed over to a Constable in a sealed cover for onward transmission to S.F.S.L. He also replied to the query of the investigating officer that the mode of death was asphyxia and that as there were no marks of ligature or other signs of forceful violent asphyxia, asphyxia could be attributed to central narcotic poisoning of which chemical examination of visceras would be helpful. He further opined that the deceased died an unnatural asphyxial death because no disease leading to natural asphyxial death would be attributed from the post mortem findings. Ext. 6 is his report in reply to the query of the investigating officer. To the further query of the investigating officer he opined that the injuries on nose (alaenasi) were ante mortem in nature, possibly by pinching the nose with fingers to try forceful open¬ing of the mouth when the deceased was alive but unconscious and that the said injuries had nothing to do with the death. He also opined that all the vital organs of the deceased were congested and haemorrhages were noticed in all vital organs including stomach and that the possible cause was due to sudden death due to respiratory depression and cardiac arrest in diastole due to some central acting poison taken in massive dose. Ext. 7 is the report of P.W.11 in this regard. After receiving the report from the Director-cum-Chemical Examiner of S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh on examination of the viscera, Ext. 18, it was found that chloroquin was detected in the viscera, to the further query of the investi¬gating officer (P.W.13), the doctor P.W.11 replied vide Ext. Ext. 7 is the report of P.W.11 in this regard. After receiving the report from the Director-cum-Chemical Examiner of S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh on examination of the viscera, Ext. 18, it was found that chloroquin was detected in the viscera, to the further query of the investi¬gating officer (P.W.13), the doctor P.W.11 replied vide Ext. 8 as follows : A. The cause of death was unnatural asphyxial death due to ingestion of massive dose of chloroquin which was quickly and completely absorbed in stomach with rapid rise of blood concentration and deposit in visceras, causing intoxication to brain resulting in respiratory centre paralysis and cardiac centre paralysis of brain stem. Features were exactly simulating to violent asphyxial death. B(i). Chloroquin could cause such type of unnatural asphyxial death due to rapid, complete massive absorption from stomach if used for suicidal purpose. It depresses both respiratory centres and cardiac centres of brain stem and causes rapid death due to anexia. The quantum of chloroquin to cause such asphyxial death is massive depending on the body weight and three grams to five grams of chloroquin phosphates would constitute a fatal dose. (ii) The possible cause of abrasion and bruise which were ante mortem in nature, detected on margin of alaenasi was by pinching of nose for opening the mouth forcefully when the deceased was alive or unconscious. 6. From the medical evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased died an unnatural death due to heavy dose of chloroquin and that her death was within seven years of her marriage. The medical officer (P.W.11) has opined that the possible cause of abrasions and bruises which were ante mortem in nature, detected in the margin of alaenasi was pinching of nose for opening the mouth forcefully when the deceased was alive or unconscious. The medical officer has ruled out the possibility of unnatural asphyxial death due to any disease and as such the defence plea that the deceased was ailing for which she consumed poison and committed suicide has been overruled by the trial Judge. Placing reliance on the statements of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellants were responsible for the death of the deceased within seven years of her marriage and that it was a dowry death. Placing reliance on the statements of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellants were responsible for the death of the deceased within seven years of her marriage and that it was a dowry death. But he came to the conclusion that there is no satisfactory evidence against the other three accused persons to hold them guilty of the charge. 7. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellants, strenuously contended that the trial Judge failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and while acquitting the other three accused persons, he ought not to have held the appellants guilty of the charge on the same materials on record and that the finding as to torture on the deceased soon before her death is erroneous and unsustainable. 8. The learned Addl. Govt. Advocate supported the findings of the trial Judge as correct and legally sustainable. The rival contentions require careful consideration. 9. Besides the statements of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8, the statement of P.W.2, husband of the deceased, may be taken into consideration for a just decision of the case. He has stated that his marriage with the deceased was solemnised on 17.6.1986 and the deceased died on 28.11.1992, i.e. within seven years of the marriage. He has denied that there was any dowry demand at the time of the marriage though he has stated that he was not aware of any ill-treatment to the deceased by the accused persons. He has not categorically stated that there was no ill-treatment to the deceased by the accused persons, but has stated that he was residing with the deceased and three children in a rented house at Ottasahi at Sakhigopal, at a distance of 1½ kms from the village Harisaranpur and he was usually remaining absent from the village in connection with his business. He has not stated as to why he was required to reside in a rented house with his wife and children at Sakhigopal leaving the house of his parents in spite of the fact that he was remaining away from his family in connec¬tion with his business. From the statements of P.Ws. He has not stated as to why he was required to reside in a rented house with his wife and children at Sakhigopal leaving the house of his parents in spite of the fact that he was remaining away from his family in connec¬tion with his business. From the statements of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 it appears that constant torture by the appellants on the deceased forced P.W.2 to leave his parents’ house and reside separately in a rented house with his family members at Sakhigo¬pal which has not been refuted by P.W.2. P.W.2 has stated that on 28.11.1992 he left the house in the village for market and re¬turned at about 12.30 p.m. when the deceased reported to him that she was not feeling well and requested him to serve food to the children and thereafter the deceased slept and after serving food to the children P.W.2 asked the deceased to take her food and she woke up after some time and took her food. In the afternoon the deceased again told him that she was not feeling well and asked him to bring something from the market for her food and he left for the market in the evening and returned at about 9.15 p.m. After returning home in the night he found that the deceased was lying unconscious on the floor covered by a ‘Chadar’ and did not respond to the calls, for which he pulled out the 'chadar' and found her lying unconscious and at this sight he also lost his con¬sciousness. After regaining his consciousness after half an hour he found the deceased dead and none of the accused persons could told him the cause of death of the deceased when he enquired from them. So he went to Dugal, the village of his father-in-law, and informed the family members of his father-in-law, regarding death of the deceased. From the statement of P.W.2, reasonable inference cannot be drawn that the accused persons forcibly administered poison on the deceased. The deceased might have consumed chloro¬quin and committed suicide and the sister and brothers of P.W.2 might have tried to administer water in her mouth which resulted in the injuries on the nose of the deceased. From the statement of P.W.2, reasonable inference cannot be drawn that the accused persons forcibly administered poison on the deceased. The deceased might have consumed chloro¬quin and committed suicide and the sister and brothers of P.W.2 might have tried to administer water in her mouth which resulted in the injuries on the nose of the deceased. P.W.3 who came to the house of P.W.2 with P.W.2 immediately lodged the FIR at the police station and the investigating officer reached the house of the deceased, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the same for post mortem examination. 10. P.W.1 who attended the marriage of the deceased and P.W.2 has stated that there was no dispute in his presence be¬tween the parties to the marriage regarding demand of any dowry. P.W.6 who also attended the said marriage as a barber has sup¬ported the prosecution case that there was dispute between the parties relating to dowry demand before solemnisation of mar¬riage. P.W.8 has also stated about the complaints made by the deceased to her regarding harassment by her in-laws due to non-fulfilment of dowry demand. P.Ws. 3 and 7, brothers of the de¬ceased, P.Ws. 4 and 5, parents of the deceased, and P.W.9, the elder sister of the deceased, are consistent in their statements regarding complaint of harassment to the deceased by her in-laws for not fulfilling the dowry demand regarding a gold necklace. Only P.W.3 has added that there was dowry demand of Rs. 2,000.00 more. 11. For better appreciation, the provisions of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, relevant for the purpose of this case, may be extracted below : “304-B. DOWRY DEATH - (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise 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. (Emphasis supplied). xx xx xx” 12. The deceased and her husband (P.W.2) had consummated their married lives for about six and half years and they were blessed with two sons and a daughter. (Emphasis supplied). xx xx xx” 12. The deceased and her husband (P.W.2) had consummated their married lives for about six and half years and they were blessed with two sons and a daughter. They were residing sepa¬rately in a rented house, but had returned to the house of the accused persons about five months prior to the death of the de¬ceased. There is no evidence on record that during these five months the appellants and their co-accused persons ever tortured the deceased for non-fulfilment of any dowry demand. None of the prosecution witnesses has whispered a word relating to harassment or torture to the deceased by the appellants during the period of said five months of her stay in the house of the appellants although they have made a general statement regarding complaints of the deceased to them of harassment by the appellants after her marriage. Therefore, the finding of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry is found to be erroneous and unsus¬tainable. As such, the death of the deceased cannot be called “dowry death” punishable under Sec. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly held that there is no satisfactory evidence on record against the other three accused persons who have been acquitted of the charge. 13. In view of the discussions made above, the conviction of the appellants under Sec. 304-B, IPC cannot be sustained in the absence of any evidence to show that the deceased committed suicide because of dowry harassment. Hence, the conviction of both the appellants under Sec. 304-B, IPC and further convictions of appellant No. 1 under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and of appellant No. 2 under Sec. 498-A, IPC are liable to be set aside and they are entitled to be acquitted of the said charge. 14. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Both the appellants are found not guilty of the charge under Sec. 304-B, IPC. Further, appellant No. 1 is also not found guilty under Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and appellant No. 2 is also found not guilty under Sec. 498-A, IPC. They are acquitted of the charge and the conviction and sentences passed thereunder are set a side. Further, appellant No. 1 is also not found guilty under Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and appellant No. 2 is also found not guilty under Sec. 498-A, IPC. They are acquitted of the charge and the conviction and sentences passed thereunder are set a side. The appellants be set at liberty forthwith if their detention is not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.