Judgment M.L.Singhal, J. 1. The prosecution case, in brief is that Smt. Rajinder Kaur daughter of Satnam Singh son of Jaimal Singh of village Giddaranwali, District Sirsa was married to Gurdeep Singh son of Jit Singh of Giddarbaha (Punjab) on 14.10.1989 with great pomp and show. On her marriage, lot of money was spent. Her family spent on her marriage money even beyond their means. After marriage, her husband Gurdeep Singh, his brothers Bhajan Singh, Happy and sisters Darshan Kaur, Daljit Kaur, mother-in-law Satnam Kaur and father-in-law Jeet Singh were not satisfied with the dowry she had brought in marriage. They continued demanding more items of dowry. So that she felt coerced in fulfilling their demand for dowry, they continued giving her beating. Whenever Gurdev Singh and other members of his family came to see Rajinder Kaur at the house of her in-laws at Gidderbaha, she told them that her husband, her mother-in-law, father-in-law, sisters-in-law and brothers-in-law were beating her actuated by greed. They gave her beatings sometimes in the presence of Gurdev Singh. Gurdev Singh and his family did not take up the matter further because of the constraints imposed by the society on the divorcees remarriage. A year prior to the death of Rajinder Kaur, Rajinder Kaurs husband Gurdeep Singh demanded mother-cycle. Somehow, Gurdev Singh raised Rs. 25,000/- and gave the amount to Gurdeep Singh for the purchase of motor-cycle. Instead of purchasing motor-cycle Gurdeep Singh purchased a plot with that amount. Gurdeep Singh did not feel appeased after receiving Rs. 25,000/- from the family of his wife. His wifes family gave him the amount of Rs. 25,000/- so that there was no ill-treatment to Rajinder Kaur and she kept inducted into the matrimonial home. Inspite of receiving Rs. 25,000/- from the family of Rajinder Kaur there was no letup in the demand for motor-cycle. Gurdev Singh brought Panchayat of village Gidaranwali to Gidderbaha with a view to make entreaties to Gurdev Singh, etc. not to persist in their demand for dowry and to keep Rajinder Kaur in the matrimonial home with love and affection. There was no letup in their ill-treatment of Rajinder Kaur. Eventually on 27.7.1995, they gave her poison. She died. After three days of the death of Rajinder Kaur, information was received by Gurdev Singh about the death of Rajinder Kaur from Mohan Devi, the daughter of the manufacturers of "Chaar Photo Naswar". There was no letup in their ill-treatment of Rajinder Kaur. Eventually on 27.7.1995, they gave her poison. She died. After three days of the death of Rajinder Kaur, information was received by Gurdev Singh about the death of Rajinder Kaur from Mohan Devi, the daughter of the manufacturers of "Chaar Photo Naswar". Gurdeep Singh and his family did not wait for Gurdev Singh and his family and cremated the dead body hurriedly and surreptitiously. Gurdev Singh gave application Ex. PB to SHO, Police Station, Gidderbaha. On the basis of application Ex. PB, DDR No. 377 was recorded in the Daily Diary Register of Police Station, Gidderbaha. After preliminary probe case FIR No. 44 dated 8.8.1995 was registered Under Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Gidderbaha. After investigation, Gurdeep Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Daljit Singh, Jeet Singh, Satnam Kaur, Darshah Kaur and Daljit Kaur were challaned Under Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code. 2. Case was committed to the Court of Session by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gidderbaha vide order dated 22.12.1995. Charge was framed Under Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 3. At the conclusion of the trial, vide order dated 15.7.2000, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mukatsar found the charge Under Section 304-B, I.P.C. proved against Gurdeep Singh, Jeet Singh and Satnam Kaur. He accordingly convicted them Under Section 304-B, I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 10 years each. He gave benefit of doubt to Harbhajan Singh, Daljit Singh, Darshan Kaur and Daljit Kaur and acquitted them. 4. Not satisfied with the order dated 15.7.2000 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mukatsar convicting and sentencing them Under Section 304-B, I.P.C., Gurdeep Singh, Jeet Singh and Satnam Kaur have come up in appeal to this Court. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the record. 6. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that no case could be said to have been made out against Gurdeep Singh, Jeet Singh and Satnam Kaur Under Section 304-B, I.P.C. as there is no evidence on the record suggesting the proof of the requirements of this provisions of the Indian Penal Code by the prosecution. 7. 6. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that no case could be said to have been made out against Gurdeep Singh, Jeet Singh and Satnam Kaur Under Section 304-B, I.P.C. as there is no evidence on the record suggesting the proof of the requirements of this provisions of the Indian Penal Code by the prosecution. 7. Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code defines "dowry death" in the following terms : "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. Explanation-For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. (2) Whoever 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." 8. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that for bringing one within the mischief of Section 304-B, I.P.C, the prosecution is required to prove that : (i) the marriage of the woman was less than 7 years old at the time of her death; (ii) her death was unnatural; (iii) her death was occasioned due to maltreatment meted out to her by husband or his relative or both for or in connection with any demand for dowry made but not fulfilled. 9. It was submitted that in this case there is proof only of this fact that Rajinder Kaur was married to Gurdeep Singh on 14.10.1989 and that on 27.7.1995 when Rajinder Kaur died her marriage was less than 7 years old. The fact that the marriage of Rajinder Kaur was less than 7 years old at the time of her death was admitted in their statements recorded Under Section 313, Cr. P.C. by Jeet Singh, Satnam Kaur and Gurdeep Singh, etc. accused. The fact that the marriage of Rajinder Kaur was less than 7 years old at the time of her death was admitted in their statements recorded Under Section 313, Cr. P.C. by Jeet Singh, Satnam Kaur and Gurdeep Singh, etc. accused. It was submitted that there is no evidence that there was any demand for dowry or that they fulfilled their demand only to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- for the purchase of motor-cycle and that there was not letup in their demand even after receiving Rs. 25,000/-. 10. In this case, there are statements of Gurdev Singh KW. 2 (who is the brother of the deceased) and Satnam Singh RW. 3 (who is the father of the deceased) in which they have stated that sufficient dowry was given to Rajinder Kaur at the time of her marriage to Gurdeep Singh, Gurdeep Singh, his father, mother, brothers and sisters were, however, not satisfied with the dowry brought by Rajinder Kaur in marriage. They had been giving beating to her and had also been threatening to kill her. They had been demanding motor-cycle. Whenever her brother and father went to see her at the matrimonial home, she told them that they are ill-treating her and beating her because they were asking for a motor-cycle which demand they were not fulfilling. They gave a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for the purchase of motor-cycle. Instead of purchasing motor-cycle, he purchased plot with that amount. After receiving Rs. 25,000/- they did not give up their demand for motor-cycle. Rather, they persisted with their demand for motor-cycle They took Panchayat to Gidderbaha to the house of the accused and entreated to them to treat Rajinder Kaur properly and not to raise any demand for motor-cycle or any other item. Their request went unheeded. They continued maltreating Rajinder Kaur. Eventually, on 27.7.1995, Rajinder Kaur was given poison. She died. No information was sent to them (Rajinder Kaurs family) by them (Gurdeeps family) so that they could attend the cremation. It was after 3 days of her death that they came to know of her death from one Mohan Devi who is the daughter of the manufacturers of "Chaar Photo Naswar", Gidderbaha. She died. No information was sent to them (Rajinder Kaurs family) by them (Gurdeeps family) so that they could attend the cremation. It was after 3 days of her death that they came to know of her death from one Mohan Devi who is the daughter of the manufacturers of "Chaar Photo Naswar", Gidderbaha. It is true that it lay upon the prosecution to prove that Rajinder Kaurs was an unnatural death brought about by her husband and other members of his family because she could not satisfy their demand for dowry and they unleashed rein of cruelty on her on account of her inability to fulfil their demand for dowry, it was held in Harish Kumar @ Harish v. The State of Haryana, I (1991) DMC 268=1991 (1) CLR 397, that to prove an offence punishable Under Section 304-B, I.P.C. the prosecution is to prove that the death of the deceased occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7years of her marriage and that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. Where there is no evidence to show the cause of death of the deceased nor there was evidence to establish that the deceased had been maltreated due to the demand of dowry or that her dead body was secretly disposed of with a view to destroy the evidence of alleged crime, accused cannot be convicted. 11. In Akula Ravinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, II (1991) DMC 537=1992 (1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 608, the Honble Supreme Court observed that where the prosecution fails to establish that death was otherwise than in normal circumstances, no offence Under Section 304-B, I.P.C. can be said to be made out. A perusal of Section 304-B, I.P.C. shows that the essential ingredients that have to be established are that death was otherwise than in normal circumstances, that the death occurred within 7 years of the marriage and that before her death they had harassed her for or in connection with demand for dowry which remained unfulfilled. It is true that the prosecution has not led direct evidence to establish that death was otherwise than in normal circumstances. It can, however, be strongly inferred from all the attendant facts and circumstances of the case that hers was an unnatural death. It is true that the prosecution has not led direct evidence to establish that death was otherwise than in normal circumstances. It can, however, be strongly inferred from all the attendant facts and circumstances of the case that hers was an unnatural death. If she had died a natural death, why should not Gurdeep Singh have informed his in-laws about the death of Rajinder Kaur. No information was sent by Gurdeep Singh to his in-laws regarding the death of Rajinder Kaur. Rajinder Kaur was surreptitiously and hurriedly cremated. It was after 3 days that they came to know about the death of Rajinder Kaur through one Mohan devi daughter of "Chaar Photo Naswar, Gidderbaha". It was after the receipt of the information about the death of Rajinder Kaur that her brother Gurdev Singh reached Gidderbaha on 30.7.1995. 12. It was submitted that no poison was detected in the bones and ashes of the dead body by the Forensic Science Laboratory and this also suggests that hers was not an unnatural death. Suffice it to say, Rajinder Kaur died at the house of the accused. It was for the accused to explain the reason of Rajinder Kaurs death. Rajinder Kaur was the wife of Gurdeep Singh and daughter-in-law of Satnam Kaur and Jeet Singh. They should have explained the cause of the death of Rajinder Kaur. It was submitted that Gurdev Singh P.W. 2 has stated that they received information about the death of Rajinder Kaur after 3 days of her death from Mohan Devi. His father Satnam Singh P.W. 3 has stated that they received information about the death of Rajinder Kaur after 2 days through his niece Kirpal Kaur who is married in village Rania where Mohan Devi resident of Gidderbaha is also married to one Ram Niwas. Mohan Devi is the sister of Babu Ram of "Chaar Photo Naswar". They did not meet Mohan Devi or Babu Ram to enquire about the death of Rajinder Kaur. Fact, however, remains that information of the death of Rajinder Kaur was not sent to her family by Gurdeep Singh or his family. If there had been no foul play in the death of Rajinder Kaur, they would have readily informed Rajinder Kaurs family about her death on 27.7.1995. Fact, however, remains that information of the death of Rajinder Kaur was not sent to her family by Gurdeep Singh or his family. If there had been no foul play in the death of Rajinder Kaur, they would have readily informed Rajinder Kaurs family about her death on 27.7.1995. Cremation of the dead body by Gurdeep Singh and his family without informing Rajinder Kaurs family about her death raises needle of suspicion against them. 13. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants there is no evidence that soon before her death Rajinder Kaur was harassed or she was treated with cruelty and the reason was their demand for dowry and Rajinder Kaurs inability to fulfil that demand. It was submitted that Rajinder Kaur was married on 14.10.1989. She died on 27.7.1995. During all this period, she never wrote any letter to her father or brother about the demand of Gurdeep Singh, etc. She never wrote any letter to them that she was being treated with cruelty. Gurdev Singh P.W. 2 has stated that whenever they went to see Rajinder Kaur she told them about the ill-treatment of the accused towards her. They gave a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to Gurdeep Singh for the purchase of motor-cycle. He, however, purchased a plot with that amount. They continued maltreating Rajinder Kaur and persisting with their demand for motor-cycle. They took Panchayat to Gidderbaha and requested them to treat Rajinder Kaur well and not lay any demand but their entreaties went unheeded by them. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in their statements Exs. DA and DB, Gurdev Singh, etc. had stated that they attended the cremation of Rajinder Kaur. Gurdev Singh, etc., however, have stated that they attended the cremation of Rajinder Kaur. It was submitted that plot was purchased for Rs. 57,000/- by Gurdeep Singh vide sale deed dated Ex. DH on 28.7.1994. Payment of Rs. 25,000/- to Gurdeep Singh by Gurdev Singh tallies with the date of the sale deed Ex. DH, as Satnam Singh P.W. 3 has stated that about a year prior to the death of Rajinder Kaur he had given Rs. 25,000/- to Gurdeep Singh for the purchase of motor-cycle and he invested that amount for the purchase of a plot. 25,000/- to Gurdeep Singh by Gurdev Singh tallies with the date of the sale deed Ex. DH, as Satnam Singh P.W. 3 has stated that about a year prior to the death of Rajinder Kaur he had given Rs. 25,000/- to Gurdeep Singh for the purchase of motor-cycle and he invested that amount for the purchase of a plot. In this case, however, there is no convicing evidence that Rajinder Kaur was being ill-treated and harassed by her father-in-law and mother-in-law also. It is in evidence that Gurdeep Singh and Rajinder Kaur were staying separate from them and they were holding separate ration cards. This fact is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt that Rajinder Kaur was ill-treated and harassed by her father-in-law and mother-in-law also because of any demand for dowry having been made on her but not fulfilled by her. Demand of motor-cycle appears to have been raised by Gurdeep Singh alone as Rs. 25,000/- was given to Gurdeep Singh for the purchase of motor-cycle. Gurdeep Singh, however, invested that amount in the purchase of a plot. 14. In my opinion, there may be suspicion against the father-in-law and mother-in-law of Rajinder Kaur in the participation of her death but suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of proof. Satnam Kaur and Jeet Singh should be given the benefit of doubt. They are accordiiigly given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. For the reasons given above, I am driven to conclude that Gurdeep Singh was justifiably convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mukatsar and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years. This appeal fails as regards Gurdeep Singh both in the matter of conviction and sentence. Appeal succeeds as regards Satnam Kaur and Jeet Singh. The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mukatsar convicting and sentencing Gurdeep Singh is maintained. It is set aside as regards Satnam Kaur and Jeet Singh convicting and sentencing them. They are accordingly given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.