R.C. CHAVAN, J.:- Being aggrieved by respondents' acquittal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No.273 of 1996 and the victim's brother has preferred Criminal Revision No.99 of 1996. 2. The facts which led to the prosecution of the respondents are as under: Victim Neeta was married to accused No.3 on 27-06-1990. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of respondent No.3 and Respondent No.4 is his brother. On 11-11-1991 in the morning victim Neeta sustained severe burn injuries and died in the residential house of respondent Nos.1 to 4. Victim's parents at Hyderabad were informed on telephone. The police were also informed. 3. After inquest the police sent dead body for post-mortem examination which revealed that the victim had met with her death on account of 100% ante-mortem burns. Police registered the offence on the report of victims' brother, examined witnesses, seized incriminating articles, sent them to the Forensic Science Laboratory and on completion of investigation arrested and charge-sheeted the four respondents. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, before whom the charge-sheet was filed, committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Nagpur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, to whom the case was made over, charged the respondents of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Penal Code or, in the alternative, 304B read with 34 of the Penal Code. The respondents pleaded not guilty and hence, were put on trial. 5. The prosecution examined in all nine witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused. Upon consideration of the prosecution evidence, in the light of defence of denial of complicity raised by the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment came to acquit the respondents. Aggrieved thereby the present appeal and revision petition have been filed. 6. We have heard Adv. Yengal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State expounding the grounds made by him in the Memo of Appeal. We have also heard Adv. Shri. N. C. Phadnis for the Revision Petitioner and Adv. Shri. M. R. Daga for the respondents/ accused. With the help of the learned counsel we have gone through the entire evidence in order to find out whether, the learned trial Judge rightly concluded that the complicity of the respondents was not established. 7. P.W.7 Dr. Shri. N. C. Phadnis for the Revision Petitioner and Adv. Shri. M. R. Daga for the respondents/ accused. With the help of the learned counsel we have gone through the entire evidence in order to find out whether, the learned trial Judge rightly concluded that the complicity of the respondents was not established. 7. P.W.7 Dr. Deoskar who had conducted post mortem examination proved his notes at Exh.26 which would show that the victim had died of 100% burns. Dr. Deoskar stated that there was smell of kerosene from the body of the victim. Victim's footwear adhered to the sole of foot. In cross-examination Dr. Deoskar stated that victim of burns will try to extinguish fire: He stated that only in case of suicide if victim is pre-determined he/she will not shout. The fact that footwear of Neeta were burnt and adhered to the sole of Neeta was noticed by the Doctor, who stated that this can happen in suicidal or accidental burns. Thus, Dr. Deoskar seems to be ruling out possibility of burns being homicidal in nature. 8. There is no witness to the incident which occurred in the house of the respondents. Suspicion that respondent's were involved in the mysterious death of Neeta arose because it was reported to the victim's parents that the victim had died because she caught fire due to gas, when infact, the victim seems to have sustained burns with kerosene, as observed not only by P.W.7 Dr. Deoskar but also in the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory at Exh.39. Police had performed three panchanamas of the spot. First at Exh.22 was performed soon after the incident when the victim's dead body was very much at the spot. Near victim's body a glass bottle and a match box is found lying near the gas cylinder. Panchanama at Exh.31 was conducted on 15-11-1991. This panchanama was basically directed towards examining locking mechanism of door of the kitchen. However, samples of soot were also taken in the course of panchanama. Surprisingly four days after the incident the police were able to collect in poly thin bag some samples of burnt clothes and also liquid lying on the floor which was soaked with cotton balls. It was also found that regulator of the cylinder, which was kept near the cooking platform, was detached from the tube. Third panchanama was performed on 16-11-1991 and is at Exh32. It was also found that regulator of the cylinder, which was kept near the cooking platform, was detached from the tube. Third panchanama was performed on 16-11-1991 and is at Exh32. The locking mechanism and some other articles were seized in the course of this panchanama. 9. There is no evidence whatsoever from either P.W.1 Rasubhai, victim's father or P.W.5 Shantilal victim's brother, that there was any demand for dowry or any ill-treatment or harassment to the victim on account of such demand. In view of this even if the victim met with an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage it does not follow that her death was dowry death. Therefore, charge under Section 304-B of the Penal Code was totally uncalled for. 10. P.W.1 Rasubhai stated that after the marriage when respondent No.3 came to Hyderabad he did not come directly to the house of Rasubhai but went to his maternal uncle and was then called at Rasubhai's house. Respondent No.3 took meals with them and took Neeta with him to NagpuL Thereafter Rasubhai's elder daughter Rukhmini had come from United States of America, therefore, Neeta had been to Hyderabad for 8-10 days. There was a telephone call from respondent No.2 where respondent No.3 told Neeta that if she did not return immediately to Nagpur she would not be needed. Thereafter Shantilal took Neeta to Nagpur. Rasubhai states that once in September, 1991 he had gone to bring Neeta to Hyderabad but she was not sent and found that Neeta was not talking freely as in the past. Rasubhai states that on 09-11-1991 he received a telephone call from respondent No.4 about business matters. He had called Neeta on phone who told him that she was fine and she would come to Hyderabad on 18-11-1991. A telephone call of Neeta's death was received on the next day. 11. Evidence ofP.W.5 Shantilal is all most to the same effect. Both Shantilal and Rasubhai admit that they did not actually hear conversation between respondent No.3 and Neeta calling Neeta back to Nagpur. In any case not much need to be made in respondentNo.3's asking Neeta to immediately return when she had stayed at her parental house for about 7-8 days, because the couple was recently married and there is nothing wrong about husband's longing for the company of his wife. In any case not much need to be made in respondentNo.3's asking Neeta to immediately return when she had stayed at her parental house for about 7-8 days, because the couple was recently married and there is nothing wrong about husband's longing for the company of his wife. Therefore, it may be seen that the entire evidence of Rasubhai and Shantilal does not disclose even trace of any matrimonial discord or any harassment or ill-treatment to Neeta to conclude that the respondents did away with Neeta on the fateful morning. 12. P.W.2 Bharti, maid-servant at the respondent's house, had stated that once in-laws of Neeta were quarreling with Neeta and Neeta was weeping. She also stated that Neeta had given her a letter for being posted. Though she claimed to have stated to the police about quarrel between Neeta and her in laws she could not state as to why it was missing from her statement. 13. P.W.3 Kantilal is an occupant of the neighbouring flat. Kitchens of the two flats are separated only by a wall. He stated that on 10-11-1991 accused No.2 returned from a temple in· the morning and then shouted, attracting them to the house of respondents where Neeta was found lying dead in the kitchen. P.W.4 Smita is another neighbour of the accused. After turns and twists, she stated that she had been to the respondent's flat before proceeding to vegetable market that morning and found respondent No.2 telling that her daughter-in-law had died due to bums in the kitchen. She stated having seen body of Neeta in the kitchen. 14. Other witnesses examined are P.S.I. Choudhari P.W.6 who drew panchanama Exh.32, Dy. S. P. Penurkar P.W.8 who sent charge-sheet, and P.S.I. Patil P.W.9 Investigating Officer. Patil had sent several incriminating articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory by requisition at Exhs.34, 43, 49 and 58. Report of Laboratory at Exh.38 about viscera discloses absence of recognisable position. Report at Exh.39 discloses presence of kerosene residues. Other reports at Exhs.44, 45,46,50,51 and 59 do not indicate anything that would connect the respondents to the crime. Reports at Exhs.52 to 56 are about the blood groups of the respondents which also have no bearing on the case. This being the state of evidence, there is nothing to show that the respondents killed Neeta or were in any manner responsible for her death. Reports at Exhs.52 to 56 are about the blood groups of the respondents which also have no bearing on the case. This being the state of evidence, there is nothing to show that the respondents killed Neeta or were in any manner responsible for her death. True, the victim died in the house of respondents, which was her house too. But this in itself would not be enough to indicate complicity of the respondents. 15. In view of this, the learned trial Judge rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. Consequently both Criminal Appeal No.273 of 1996 and Criminal Revision No.99 of 1996 are dismissed. Bail bonds, if any furnished by the respondents shall stand cancelled.