Judgment SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25-9-1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 21/96 (72/93) by which he acquitted the accused respondents of the charges for the offence under Section 304b and 498a, IPC. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows : on 22-3-1993 at about 4. 15 p. m. the accused respondent No. 1 Gyneshwar, who is husband of Suman (hereinafter referred to as decease) gave statement before the Police Station Nayasahar District Bikaner stating inter alia that he was married with the deceased on 28-6-1991 and since then, deceased was living with him and in his house, his father and mother also used to live with him. It was further stated by the accused respondent No. 1 Gyaneshwar that before the alleged incident, deceased asked him that he should take food alongwith her. On the fateful day i. e. on 22-3-1993, his friend Ram Singh was with him and at about 2. 00 p. m. Ram Singh had gone and when he went to see his wife, he found the door of room closed and smell of kerosene oil was coming out and after breaking the door he entered the room and found the deceased in burnt condition and she was conscious to some extent and on being asked how incident took place, deceased told him that since he had not taken food with her, therefore, she had burnt herself and, thereafter, she died. On this statement given by the accused respondent No. 1 Gyaneshwar, police registered murg FIR No. 7/93 (Ex. P/18) under Section 174, Cr. P. C. and started investigation. During investigation, post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted and the post-mortem report is Ex. P/19 where it was opined that cause of death of the deceased was shock due to about 100% burns. On 28-3-1993, PW-4 Bhanwarnath, father of the deceased, lodged a written report Ex. P. C. and started investigation. During investigation, post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted and the post-mortem report is Ex. P/19 where it was opined that cause of death of the deceased was shock due to about 100% burns. On 28-3-1993, PW-4 Bhanwarnath, father of the deceased, lodged a written report Ex. P/5 with the Police Station Nayasahar, Bikaner stating inter alia that his daughter was married with the accused respondent No. 1 Gynaeshwar on 28-6-1991 and he had given dowry as per his capacity in that marriage, but the accused respondents No. 1 Gyaneshwar, husband of the deceased, No. 2 Mohan Nath, father-in-law of the deceased were not satisfied with the dowry given to them in that marriage. It was further stated in the report that the accused respondents demanded Rs. 40,000. 00 for the purpose of purchasing Taxi and he refused to give that amount to them. It was further stated in the report that on 22-3-1993 at about 12. 30 p. m. , his younger brother PW-3 Jethnath went to in-laws house of deceased for the purpose of taking her, but they did not send deceased with him and they told him that she would come later on. It was further stated in the report that on the same day, accused respondent No. 1, Gyaneshwar, husband of deceased, came to his house and informed that deceased had been burnt. It was further stated in the report that deceased was burnt by the accused respondents as their demand of Rs. 40,000. 00 was not fulfilled by him. On this report Ex. P-5, police registered the case for the offence under Sections 498a and 304b, IPC and chalked out regular FIR Ex. P-13. After usual investigation, police submitted challan for the said offences against the accused respondents in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 7-1-1994, the learned Trial Judge framed charges for the offence under Sections 304b and 498a, IPC against the accused respondents. The charges were read over and explained to the accused respondents. The accused respondents denied the charges and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 9 witnesses and got exhibited several documents. Thereafter, statements of accused respondents under Section 313, Cr. P. C. were recorded. The charges were read over and explained to the accused respondents. The accused respondents denied the charges and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 9 witnesses and got exhibited several documents. Thereafter, statements of accused respondents under Section 313, Cr. P. C. were recorded. In defence, no evidence was led by the accused respondents. After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner vide his judgment and order dated 25-9-1996 acquitted the accused respondents of the charges for the offence under Sections 304b and 498a, IPC holding inter alia that since PW-4 Bhanwarnath and PW-5 Shanti, who are respectively father and mother of the deceased, have been declared hostile, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment and such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with demand of dowry. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 25-9-1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner, this appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan. ( 3 ) IN this appeal, the only contention raised by the learned Public Prosecutor is that though PW-4 Bhanwarnath and PW-5 Shanti, who are father and mother of the deceased respectively have been declared (hostile) but still there is sufficient evidence on record to hold the accused respondents guilty of the charges for the offence under Sections 304b and 498a, IPC. Hence, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner be set aside and the accused respondents be convicted and sentenced for the said offences. ( 4 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents supported the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner. He has further submitted that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner are based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and, therefore, they do not call for any interference by this Court in this State appeal. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents and perused the record of the case. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner are based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and, therefore, they do not call for any interference by this Court in this State appeal. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents and perused the record of the case. ( 6 ) IN Shanti v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 1226 , the Honble Supreme Court had an occasion to explain the ingredients of Section 304-B, IPC. His Lordship K. Jayachandra Reddy (as he then was) said "a careful analysis of Section 304b, IPC shows that this section has the following essentials:-1. The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances. 2. Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage. 3. She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. 4. Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry. ( 7 ) IN this respect, I would like to first discuss the medical evidence in this case. ( 8 ) THE post-mortem report of the deceased is Ex. P/19 and the same has been proved by the prosecution. The post-mortem report Ex. P/19 shows that deceased died because of shock due to about 100% burns. Therefore, it can be said that the death of the deceased was unnatural one. ( 9 ) THERE is also no dispute in this case on the point that death of the deceased occurred within seven years of her marriage. ( 10 ) HENCE, points No. 1 and 2 have been proved by the prosecution. ( 11 ) NOW points No. 3 and 4 are to be considered. ( 12 ) PW 4 Bhanwarnath is the father of the deceased, who lodged the report Ex. P/5 on 28-3-1993, though the alleged incident took place on 22-3-1993 and he was informed by the accused respondent No. 1 Gyaneshwar on the same day i. e. on 22-3-1993. ( 13 ) PW 4 Bhanwarnath has been produced by the prosecution and he has stated in examination -in -chief that his daughter (deceased) was being treated fairly with love and affection by the accused respondents and there was no dowry demand of any kind by them. ( 13 ) PW 4 Bhanwarnath has been produced by the prosecution and he has stated in examination -in -chief that his daughter (deceased) was being treated fairly with love and affection by the accused respondents and there was no dowry demand of any kind by them. He has further stated that on 22-3-1993 when police and ADM came, he informed them the same thing. He has further made clear in cross-examination that there was no demand of Rs. 40,000. 00 from the side of accused respondents for the purpose of purchasing Taxi. This witness has been declared hostile. ( 14 ) PW 5 Shanti is mother of the deceased and she has also been declared hostile. ( 15 ) PW 6 Mst. Chandrawali and PW 7 Mst. Dhai, who are relatives of the deceased, have also been declared hostile. ( 16 ) PW 8 Sujan Singh, who made investigation in this case has also admitted in his statement recorded in Court that City Magistrate while making investigation of murg FIR No. 7/93 under Section 174, Cr. P. C. also came to the conclusion that no offence was made out against the accused respondents. He has further admitted that even in his investigation, case for dowry demand was not found against the accused respondents. ( 17 ) WHEN the material witnesses have been declared hositle, therefore, the statements of other witnesses, namely, PW 1 Indrajeet Singh, PW 2 Ram Chandra and PW 3 Jethnath, who are brother and uncles of the deceased woud be of no avail, especially when lodger of the report Ex. P/5, namely, PW 4 Bhanwarnath has been declared hostile and he does not say anything against the accused respondents. ( 18 ) THUS, prosecution has failed to prove ingredients No. 3 and 4 against the accused respondents. ( 19 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner are liable to be confirmed, as they are based on correct appreciation of evidence. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 has given cogent reasons while acquitting the accused respondents of the charges framed against them. It cannot be said that the approach of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 in dealing with the evidence is manifestly erroneous and the conclusions drawn are wholly unreasonable and perverse. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 has given cogent reasons while acquitting the accused respondents of the charges framed against them. It cannot be said that the approach of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 in dealing with the evidence is manifestly erroneous and the conclusions drawn are wholly unreasonable and perverse. Hence, no case for interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is made out and this State appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is dismissed , after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25-9-1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sesions Judge No. 2, Bikaner. Appeal dismissed. .