Judgment BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD SINGH, J. 1. Though four persons including appellant was put on trial, while others were acquitted, appellant alone suffered conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, for which he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years. 2. The factual matrixKiran Devi was married to the appellant sometimes in the year 1996. However, happiness of Kiran Devi was quite short lived, as her in-laws became hostile to her for insufficiency of dowry provided to them by her parents. There had been torture on Kiran Devi inlaws house and eventually, the information about tragic end of Kiran was received from one Shobha Nand Yadav who stated that Kiran had been poisoned by her in-laws and her dead body was being cremated. The father of Kiran Devi along with others allegedly rushed to the cremation ground where he noticed dead body of Kiran Devi being cremated. When Police Officer happened to come there, the appellant and other in-laws left the place, and with these accusations, fardbeyan of father of deceased Kiran Devi was recorded by Police on 7.30 hours on 6th June, 1997, pursuant to which investigation commenced. During investigation, police collected evidence and on its conclusion laid charge-sheet before the Court. At trial, not less than 34 witnesses were examined by the State. 3. Defence of the appellant had been that of plea of innocence and false implication for no good evidence. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that though a large number of witnesses were examined by State at trial, majority of them had turned volte face to the State disowning allegations attributed to the appellant, and on marshalling of evidences, only material evidence which merits consideration was that of Vijay Yadav, PW 19, who stated that the appellant had told him that he had asked in-laws for provision of two wheeler to him. Even Hari Bole Yadav, PW 32, who was father of the deceased and also maker of the fardbeyan, had turned volte face to the State disowning all allegations attributed to the appellant about poisoning of Kiran Devi by him. The father in no uncertain terms stated at trial that never there was any demand of dowry by the in-laws and that apart, he had no knowledge as who had been torturing his daughter. The father in no uncertain terms stated at trial that never there was any demand of dowry by the in-laws and that apart, he had no knowledge as who had been torturing his daughter. Some witnesses stated at trial that Kiran was ailing, for which she was treated by the in-laws. Since there has been evidence of some witnesses that they noticed dead body of Kiran Devi being cremated, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that simply evidence about cremation of the deceased which happened to be follow up action on death of a person, would not be adequate to invoke provision of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Contentions are raised that there has not been unimpeachable evidence about demand of dowry or torture inflicted on the deceased, and that a part, to attract mischief of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, there must be evidence to show perceptible nexus between the death of the deceased and torture for dowry related demand. None of the witnesses examined by the State testified even about the period when such demands were made or for that Kiran Devi was tortured, and as has been noticed earlier, though the State has to its credit 34 number of witnesses, evidences fall short of the requirement to make appellant answerable within the ambit of mischief of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and findings recorded by the Court below in the circumstances, cannot be sustained. 5. In the circumstances, the finding of guilt and also sentence recorded the Court below is set aside and the appellant who is shown to be in custody is directed to be set free forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The appeal accordingly succeeds.