JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal arises out of the decision dated 22.4.1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in sessions case No. 17/88. 2. In this case, accused appellants were tried for the offences under Secs. 304-B and 306 IPC. They were acquitted by the Trial Court under Section 304-B IPC but they were convicted under Section 306 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants stressed that it was in accidental death. The demand of money alone, as alleged by the prosecution, is not sufficient to bring home the offence under Section 306 IPC. He has placed reliance on two Supreme Court Judgments in the case of Chanchal Kumar & Ors. v. Union of Territory, Chandigarh (1999 Cr.L.R. (SC) 152 ) and Mahendra Singh & Anr. v. State of M.P, (1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 ) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere demand of money cannot made out a case for conviction under Section 306 IPC. 4. Learned PP. has stated that demand of dowry has made the deceased to commit suicide and that should be constructed to be a factor by virtue of which, she was forced consideration to the rival submissions. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. 6. There was demand of dowry at one point of time but not soon before the death. No other circumstances have been brought forward by the prosecution on record to suggest that any ingredient of Section 306 IPC has been established. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforesaid cases, it cannot be said that a case under Section 306 IPC will be made out. In this view of the matter, the order of conviction under Section 306 IPC is not liable to be sustained. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Conviction of the appellants under Section 306 IPC is set aside. Their sentences are also set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly.Appeal allowed. *******