Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment, they have heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellants have been convicted under sections 304(B), 498(A) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each under section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code. They have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. They have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 4 of the D.P. Act. No separate sentence has been passed under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. However, the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. Prosecution case, in short, is that the informant Umakant Prasad gave his written report dated 2.9.97 to the Officer- in-Charge, Bhabua stating therein that on 19.6.97 his daughter Kalyani Kumari alias Kumari Priti had been married to Ajay Kumar alias Munna, son of Badri Prasad. After marriage his daughter was living in her Sasural from 20.6.97. It was alleged that on demand of Badari Prasad he gave freeze, colour T.V., clothes, ornaments etc. It has been further stated that after going to her Sasural demand of dowry was increased by the in laws of her Sasural and she was tortured due to non-fulfilment of the same which was clear from the letter dated 7.7.97 written by her daughter to him. After receiving the said letter the informant went to the house of Badari Prasad where his behaviour was not good. He met with his daughter and she told that she was tortured by her in laws. She stated that when she fell ill she was not treated. He requested Badri Prasad not to torture his daughter and his demand of dowry will be fulfilled. Thereafter he returned back to his house at Patna. After returning from his daughters Sasural he was managing to give the dowry as demanded by Badri Pd. but, in the meantime, on 23.8.97 one Gupteshwar Prasad who was resident of Jagdishpur and was Samdhi of Badri Prasad came to his house and informed that Kalyani Kumari died on 22.8.97 due to burn injury and he refused to say anything about the occurrence. but, in the meantime, on 23.8.97 one Gupteshwar Prasad who was resident of Jagdishpur and was Samdhi of Badri Prasad came to his house and informed that Kalyani Kumari died on 22.8.97 due to burn injury and he refused to say anything about the occurrence. On 24.8.97 he along with his elder son Bhola Shankar came to Bhabua and went to the house of Badri Prasad where the house was locked and on enquiry neighbours said that he went away with family. It was confirmed by the neighbours that he had killed his daughter in law by setting fire and kept the dead body in the closed car and went away some where. They also informed that at the time of occurrence the mother in law, father in law, brother in law and husband of his daughter were present. He had full confidence that all above four persons hatching conspiracy killed his daughter as he was not informed till the dead body was disposed of and entire family escaped away from the house and the house was locked up. It was further alleged that some persons who were related to Badri had given threatening to him and his son not to lodge any F.l.R. and they followed them till they left Bhabua town. However, they went to the S.P. and D.M. Bhabua to seek their help but unfortunately they did not meet them and thereafter the informant lodged first information report and came back to Patna. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellants. Accordingly cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions where the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. The appellants pleaded not guilty. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether four witnesses. P.W. 1 is Uma Kant Prasad (informant), father of the deceased, P.W. 2 is Bhola Shankar, brother of the deceased and son of the informant. P.W. 3 is Puja Priya, daughter of the informant and P.W. 4 is B. Kujur, l.O. of the case. 5. P.W. 1, the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution as stated in his first information report regarding the marriage of his daughter with the appellant Ajay Kumar. According to him, the occurrence took place on 22.8.97. His daughter was married with the son of Badri Prasad namely Ajay Kumar (appellant). 5. P.W. 1, the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution as stated in his first information report regarding the marriage of his daughter with the appellant Ajay Kumar. According to him, the occurrence took place on 22.8.97. His daughter was married with the son of Badri Prasad namely Ajay Kumar (appellant). After marriage his daughter went to her Sasural and was living there. On the occasion of mariage ceremony he gave freeze, colour T.V., ornaments and sufficient clothes to his daughter. Even then demand of dowry was made from the in laws of his daughter and for the same she was badly tortured and harassed by her in laws. He has also stated about the letter dated 7.7.97 which was written by his daughter in which she has stated about demand of dowry. According to him, after receiving the said letter he went to the house of his daughter and she also met with her. She told that she was being tortured by her in laws. She had complaint that when she was ill she was not taken to the doctor. According to him, he met appellant Badri and requested him not to torture and harass his daughter as he will fulfil their demand. He was assured by the in laws of his daughter and he returned back to his house at Patna. He started arranging articles to be given to the appellant Badri but in the meantime on 23.8.97 he met Gupteshwar Prasad who informed him that his daughter Kalyani died on 22.8.97 and he did not disclose about the occurrence. On 24.8.97 he along with his eldest son Bhola came to Bhabua and went to the house of Badri where he saw that the house was locked up and on enquiry from the neighbours he came to know that they had left the house without telling them anything. The neighbours also informed him that his daughter was burnt to death. They also kept the dead body in a car and left the house. He has stated that when they went to lodge first information report they were threatened by the persons of Badri. They went to meet the D.M. and S.P. Bhabua but since they were out of station they returned to Patna. They also kept the dead body in a car and left the house. He has stated that when they went to lodge first information report they were threatened by the persons of Badri. They went to meet the D.M. and S.P. Bhabua but since they were out of station they returned to Patna. Thereafter he sent his son in law Munna with written report to D.M. Bhabua who reached Bhabua on 27.8.97 and handed over the application to the D.M. Thereafter on 2.9.97 he came at Bhabua along with his son Bhola Shankar and handed over a typed application to the Officer-in-charge Bhabua and also filed a protest petition against Bhabua Police. The other witnesses P.Ws. 2 and 3 have also corroborated the version of P.W. 1. P.W. 4, l.O. has also supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that on 21.8.97 he was Officer-in-Charge Bhabua. According to him, the informant on 2.9.97 came to the police station and gave a written application and on the basis of written report he registered first information report. He also visited the place of occurrence and gave description of the same. He raided the house of the accused persons but they were not available. He also got a letter written by the deceased to her father (Ext. 1). 6. In this case the defence has also examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. D.W. 1. Dr. Ram Naresh Kumar, D.W. 8, Dr. Vijay Lakshmi and D.W. 9, Dr. Ashok Kumar had treated the patient on different dates. D.Ws. 2 and 3, Sanjay Kumar and Rajesh Kumar Singh were working in the medical shop and proved some cash memos. D.W. 4 is Pintu Kumar who informed the D.W. 5, Gupteshwar Prasad who informed the father of the deceased Umakant Prasad. D.W. 6, Vinod Prasad is neighbour of the accused and stated that deceased died due to diarrhoea. D.W. 7 is Ajay Kumar a resident of Alamganj P.S. at Patna and closely related to the son of Umakant. He was mediator of the marriage and he denied the case of the prosecution. D.W. 10 is Haridwar Dome who gave the fire at the time of cremation of the dead body of Kalyani and D.W. 11 Md. Nasim is also a neighbour of accused and supported the defence version and denied the case of the prosecution. 7. He was mediator of the marriage and he denied the case of the prosecution. D.W. 10 is Haridwar Dome who gave the fire at the time of cremation of the dead body of Kalyani and D.W. 11 Md. Nasim is also a neighbour of accused and supported the defence version and denied the case of the prosecution. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that although the deceased died within seven years of her marriage but there is no evidence that she died unnatural death by burning. According to the evidence adduced by the defence doctors had treated her when she was suffering from diarrhoea and D.W. 1 has issued death certificate as he had declared her dead. It has been further submitted that absolutely there is no evidence that the deceased was tortured and harassed by her in-laws soon before her death. He has relied on the decisions in the case of Meka Ramaswamy V/s. Dasari Mohan and Ors. ( AIR 1998 SC 774 ), Chando Devi V/s.The State of Bihar (2002 Cr. L.J. 2783) and Chandra Rai and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar [PLJR 1998 (1) 295]. 8. In this case there are four witnesses to support the case of the prosecution. From perusal of their evidence it appears that the prosecution has established that the marriage was solemnised between the deceased and the appellant Ajay in the year 1997 and she died only after two months of her marriage. All the prosecution witnesses in their evidence have stated that she was burnt to death. From the letter written by the deceased which has been made Ext. l it appears that the general health of the deceased Kalyani was not in good condition. She was having pain in her stomach and also headache. It also appears from the letter that the in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry and they used to taunt her. She has stated that she was not allowed to move out side of her house, even not to go to the doctor because she was a new bride and there was Parda system in the family. She has also indicated in her letter that her husband had himself told her that her in-laws were very greedy and he had asked her to bring sewing machine from her Maike. She has also indicated in her letter that her husband had himself told her that her in-laws were very greedy and he had asked her to bring sewing machine from her Maike. From the letter Ext.l it appears that she had no grievance with her husband except that he was also not allowing her to go out. On demand of dowry from the evidence of P.W. 1 in paragraph 23 it appears that just after the marriage the father in-law of the deceased Badri Prasad (appellant) demanded motorcycle, Sofa set and sewing machine. P.W. 2 has also stated about the demand of dowry and also stated that she was tortured for dowry. However, from the letter Ext. A written by the brother of the deceased to his sister it appears that there was very cordial relation between them and it appears that he had no grievance, as appears from the letters. P.W. 3 has also stated about the demand of dowry. As submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, not a single witness has come forward to prove that it was un-natural death. On the contrary there are numbers of witnesses who have supported that the deceased was treated by Dr. Ram Naresh Kumar (D.W. 1). Even two medicine shop owners have been examined to prove that medicines were supplied for the deceased on the prescription of the doctors. From perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it appears that they learnt that the deceased was burnt to death, which they first came to know from one Gupteshwar Prasad, Samadhi of appellant Badri Pd. and later on by neighbours. However, neither any neighbour nor he has been examined by the prosecution to support this point. But D.W. 5 has not supported the case as stated by P.W. 1, the informant. Rather he has clearly stated that the deceased died due to diarrhoea. He has further stated that D.W. 4 neighbour of the appellant was sent to him by the appellant Badri to inform the family members of P.W. 1 about the death of the deceased Kalyani and this fact has been corroborated by D.W. 4 who has also supported that the deceased died due to diarrhoea. It appears that a number of witnesses including D.W. 1, the Dr. It appears that a number of witnesses including D.W. 1, the Dr. who examined the deceased and in whose clinic she was admitted in the evening of 21st August, 1997, have stated that the deceased was having loose motion and vomiting and also suffering from diarrhoea. After her death D.W. 1 also issued death certificate. D.Ws. and 3 are medicine shop owners. They have stated that medicines were purchased from their shop. There are number of other witnesses who have supported the death of the deceased due to illness. However, D.W.8 the lady doctor has been examined to show that on 14.8.97 the deceased had pregnancy of two months. From the evidence of the witnesses it is clear that the prosecution could not establish that it was a case of un-natural death on the other hand the defence gave sufficient evidence to show that the deceased died due to diarrhoea and dehydration. The conduct of the appellants are also not suspicious as they got the ailing Kalyani treated by the doctor and after her death they sent a responsible person who was Samadhi of appellant Badri Pd. to inform the family members of the deceased about her death. As such the factum of un-natural death has not been proved. The submission of the learned counsel that necessary ingredients of offence punishable under section 304 B are lacking has force, as the prosecution could not establish the offence punishable under section 304B of the Code. As such, the appellants deserve benefit of doubt under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. In that event even question of disappearance of evidence by burning the dead body hurriedly also does not arise. Thus, appellants also deserve acquittal under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them for the offence punishable under section 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the prosecution has been able to establish charge of demand of dowry and also harassment for non-fulfilment of dowry. As such, their conviction under section 498A and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is upheld. They are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment awarded by the court below under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is maintained. As such, their conviction under section 498A and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is upheld. They are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment awarded by the court below under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is maintained. In the result, these appeals are partly allowed.