O. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. Present appeal is against the judgment and order dated 25. 4. 1991, passed by Special Sessions Judge, Unnao by which the appellants were convicted under Sections 498- A, 304-B, I. P. C. and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to two years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine further 15 days R. I. under Section 498-A, I. P. C. , seven years R. I. under Section 304-B, I. P. C. and six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000 each under Section 4, Dowry Prohibition Act and in default of payment of fine, further one months RI, the sentences running concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that deceased Suneela was married to appellant Susheel alias Suneel but the appellants were not satisfied with the dowry and were demanding Payal and Bala. The prosecution case is that because of non-fulfilment of the said dowry, Smt. Suneela, who died of burn injuries, was killed by the appellants. The report of this incident was lodged by Ram Jeewan (P. W. 1) on 12. 8. 1989 at 2. 30 P. M. while the incident is of the same date at 8. 00 A. M. Post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. V. D. Ravi (P. W. 7 ). The case was registered in the G. D. (Ext. Ka-8 ). During investigation, site-plan (Ext. Ka- 12) was prepared and the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C. were recorded and finally the appellants were charge-sheeted, vide charge-sheet Ext- Ka-13. 3. After commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, the appellants were charged under the aforesaid sections. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined Ram Jeevan (P. W. 1 ). Vishram (P. W. 2), Smt. Ram Beti (P. W. 3), Ram Chand (P. W. 4), Arun Kumar (P. W. 5), Shiv Kumar (P. W. 6), Dr. V. D. Ravi (P. W. 7), H. C. Subedar Khan (P. W. 8) and S. I. Ashok Kumar Dwivedi (P. W. 9 ). 5. Upon consideration of the evidence, learned trial Court found the appellants guilty and, therefore, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 6. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and learned A. G. A. in this appeal. 7. 5. Upon consideration of the evidence, learned trial Court found the appellants guilty and, therefore, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 6. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and learned A. G. A. in this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that Ram Jeevan (P. W. 1) who is brother of the deceased, has not supported the prosecution case either on the ground of demand of dowry or even regarding lodging of the F. I. R. by him. It has further been argued that other two witnesses of fact, namely, Smt. Ram Beti (P. W. 3) and Ram Chand (P. W. 4), who had stated about demand of dowry, had also stated that they had not disclosed the fact regarding demand of dowry to anyone else except C. O. during investigation. It has also been argued that although it is said that Ram Chand (P. W. 4) also accompanied with Ram Jeevan (P. W. 1) when they had gone for Bidai of their sister and demand of Payal and Bala was made by the appellants but this statement has been contradicted by S. I. Ashok Kumar Dwivedi (P. W. 9 ). Learned counsel for the appellants argued that Arun Kumar (P. W. 5), who scribed the report, has also stated that his signatures were obtained at the police station after 3-4 days of the incident. 8. I have gone through the statement of Ram Jeevan (P. W. 1), who is informant of the case and brother of the deceased. He has clearly denied that there was any demand of dowry or his sister made complaint regarding demand of dowry. He further stated that he had not got scribed any report from Arun Kumar (P. W. 5) and that he did not lodge any such report as alleged by the prosecution. In the cross-examination, he has gone to the extent of saying that marriage of Suneela was performed with appellant Suneel against her wishes. It is also in his statement that Suneela wanted to marry someone else and was not willing to go with appellant Suneel. This statement of the informant of the case and brother of the deceased clearly demolishes the prosecution case. It is also in his statement that Suneela wanted to marry someone else and was not willing to go with appellant Suneel. This statement of the informant of the case and brother of the deceased clearly demolishes the prosecution case. Besides this, statement of Ram Jeevan (P. W. 1) has also contradicted the averments made in the F. I. R. that he was informed by Pappu about the incident. He has stated that he was informed about the incident by Anil, brother of appellant Susheel alias Suneel. 9. Arun Kumar (P. W. 5) scribe of the report has also stated in cross-examination that he was called at the Police Station after about 3-4 days and his signatures were obtained without the contents read over to him. 10. Smt. Ram Beti (P. W. 3), mother of the deceased admitted in the cross-examination that she informed the C. O. regarding demand of Bala and Payal for the first time. It is also in her statement that Radhey Shyam and Dr. Shiv Kumar were the persons who were involved in the settlement of marriage of her daughter with Susheel and that they are alive but they have not been examined. She admitted that she never made any complaint regarding demand of Bala and Payal to these persons. Similarly Ram Chandra (P. W. 4) has also admitted that before giving statement to the C. O. in this case he did not tell any one regarding demand of Bala and Payal by the appellants. 11. Although according to Smt. Ram Beti (P. W. 3) and Ram Chand (P. W. 4) both Ram Chand and Ram Jeevan had gone for Bidai of their sister and Smt. Suneela had complained about demand of Bala and Payal by the appellants but S. I. Ashok Kumar Dwivedi (P. W. 9) has contradicted this statement by saying that it is not in the case diary that Ram Chand had also accompanied Ram Jeevan when they had gone for Bidai of their sister. As already mentioned, Ram Jeevan (P. W. 1) has totally denied demand of Bala and Payal. Smt. Ram Beti (P. W. 3) although had stated that Ram Jeevan is living separately but Ram Chand (P. W. 4) has admitted that both Ram Jeevan and he are living in the same house having one main door and that they are jointly cultivating their field. Smt. Ram Beti (P. W. 3) although had stated that Ram Jeevan is living separately but Ram Chand (P. W. 4) has admitted that both Ram Jeevan and he are living in the same house having one main door and that they are jointly cultivating their field. The appellants have stated in their statements under Section 313 Cr. P. C. that since the marriage of Suneela was performed against her wishes she committed suicide. The statement that marriage was performed with appellant Susheel against her wishes is substantiated by the statement of informant Ram Jeevan (P. W. 1 ). 12. From what has been referred above from the statements of prosecution witnesses, it is clear that demand of dowry is not proved from the evidence on the record beyond all reasonable and probable doubt. There is no direct evidence regarding setting Suneela ablaze. The appellants, therefore, deserve atleast benefit of doubt. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and has to be allowed. 13. The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants is hereby set aside. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Appeal allowed. .