Judgment M.L.Visa, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6-5-2003 and order dated 7-5-2003 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari, in sessions Trial No. 392 of 2002/ 50 of 2002 convicting and sentencing both the appellants to undergo R. I. for 10 years each u/s. 304-B and R. I. for 1 year each u/s. 201 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, Indian Penal Code, 1860 ). Both the sentences have, however, been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that Sudha Kumari, the deceased daughter of informant Vijay Kumar Singh (PW-3) was married to appellant Sanjay Singh in the year 1998. After marriage deceased went to her Sasural and six months thereafter informant brought her to his house but 10-15 days thereafter appellant Sanjay Singh called her of Raxaul and from Raxaul he took her to his village Parsauna Tapsi. 2-3 months thereafter when informant went to Parsauna Tapsi to meet his deceased daughter she by weeping told him that she was being tortured by the members of family of her Sasural and her mother-in-law, father-in-law appellant Bhup Narayan Singh, husband appellant Sanjay Singh and Devar on demand of a buffalo used to assault her. Informant made a request to appellants, mother-in-law and Devar of deceased not to torture his deceased daughter and promised that he would arrange money and thereafter would give them a buffalo but in spite of this assurance, appellants and their relations continued torture on deceased. One month prior to occurrence informant after purchasing a buffalo handed over the same to family members of Sasural of her deceased daughter. For some time every thing remained normal but again daughter of informant was put to torture and this time on the demand of a sum of Rs. 1 lakh for purchasing a Commander Jeep. On getting information of this fact, informant went to village Parsuna Tapsi where his deceased daughter told him that appellants and their relations were giving her threatening that if informant did not give them a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh they would kill her. Informant tried to explain his inability of fulfilling the demand of a sum of Rs. On getting information of this fact, informant went to village Parsuna Tapsi where his deceased daughter told him that appellants and their relations were giving her threatening that if informant did not give them a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh they would kill her. Informant tried to explain his inability of fulfilling the demand of a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh to appellants and their relations but they did not listen to him and informant then returned to his house and narrated this fact to his villagers namely, Dharmdeo Singh (PW-4), Jagat Singh (not examined), Ramayan Singh (PW-1) and others. They all advised the informant to bring his daughter to his house and informant on a number of times went to Village Parsauna Tapsi for bringing her daughter with him but he was not allowed to do so and whenever he met his daughter at her Sasural she told him that in case of non fulfilment of demand of appellants and their relations in respect of a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh she would be killed. On 15-7-2001 at about 6 P. M. Madhusudan Singh (not examined) came to the house of informant and told him that appellant Sanjay Singh was ill and he had been called by his Samadhi Bhup Narayan Singh at Ramgarhwa. Informant then with Madhusudan Singh went to Ramgarhwa on a motorcycle and met the appellant Bhup Narayan Singh who informed him that his deceased daughter Sudha was seriously ill at Parsauna Tapsi and advised him to see her there. This information caused suspicion to informant because Madhusudan Singh had not told him about the illness of his deceased daughter and when he inquired from Madhusudan Singh who told him that his deceased daughter had died at her Sasural at village Parsauna Tapis. The informant came to his village and from there went to village Parsauna Tapsi along with a number of villagers but he did not find the dead body of his daughter in her "Sasural but Bir Bahadur Singh (PW-5), ex-Mukhiya of village Parsauna Tapsi and his younger brother Chhote Lal Singh (PW-6) told him that appellants and their family members had taken the dead body of his deceased daughter to the bank of Gad river for cremation on a tractor. Informant then along with this villagers and Bir Bahadur Singh and Chhote Lal Singh went to Pakariya Ghat of Gad river where he found some persons running away from a lonely place and in the light of a torch he identified appellant Sanjay Singh and his brother Pramod Singh, Satyadeo Singh and Janardan Singh of village Parsauna Tapis. He also found marks of burning of dead body, smell of kerosene oil and some small pieces of bones. The Fardbeyan of informant (Ext. 2) was recorded by SI H. N. P. Singh (PW7) on the same day at village Parsauna Tapsi at 11 P. M. In the Fardbeyan informant further stated that his deceased daughter had a daughter aged about one year who was also traceless. In Fardbeyan he claimed that for non fulfilment of demand for a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh appellants, Munni Devi, mother-in-law and Pramod Singh, brother-in-law of the deceased committed her murder and in order to get the evidence disappeared they burnt her dead body. 3. On the basis of Fardbeyan of informant a case under Secs. 304-B/34/2001 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the appellants as well as against Munni Devi, Pramod Singh, Satyadeo Singh, Janardan Singh and 7-8 unknown persons. 4. After investigation chargesheet against both the appellants was submitted under Secs. 304-B/201/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 Keeping the investigation pending against remaining accused persons named in the FIR. cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session where charges u/s. 304-B and 201 read with sec. 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 were framed and after trial both the appellants were held guilty and were convicted and sentenced as indicated above. 5. The defence of the appellants before the trial Court was complete denial of charges against them. No witness on behalf of the defence was examined. 6. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 7 witnesses. Ramayan Singh (PW-1), Ram Kishore Singh (PW-2), Dharmadeo Singh (PW-4), Bir Bahadur Singh (PW-5) and Chhote Lal Singh (PW-6) have not supported the case of prosecution and they have been declared hostile. Vijay Kumar Singh (PW-3) who is father of deceased Sudha Kumari is the informant. H. N. P. Singh (PW-7) is I. O. of the case. 7. Ramayan Singh (PW-1), Ram Kishore Singh (PW-2), Dharmadeo Singh (PW-4), Bir Bahadur Singh (PW-5) and Chhote Lal Singh (PW-6) have not supported the case of prosecution and they have been declared hostile. Vijay Kumar Singh (PW-3) who is father of deceased Sudha Kumari is the informant. H. N. P. Singh (PW-7) is I. O. of the case. 7. Vijay Kumar Singh (PW-3) in his evidence has said that his deceased daughter was married to appellant Sanjay Singh on 12-5-1999 and he used to go to Sasural of his daughter to meet her and six months after the marriage his daughter had come to his house and from there appellant Sanjay took her first to Raxaul and thereafter to his house in his village and thereafter he went to meet his daughter who told him that family members of her Sasural were demanding a buffalo and then he after purchasing a buffalo gave it to appellants and some days after when he went to Sasural of his daughter she informed him that appellants and family members of her Sasural were demanding a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh. He has further said that he was not in a position to pay the aforesaid amount to appellants and on 15-7-2001 Madhusudan Singh came to his house and told him that he was being called by appellant Bhup Narayan Singh and he then along with Madhusudan Singh went to Ramgarhwa where he was told by appellant Bhup Narayan Singh that his daughter had died because she was ill. He then returned to his village and from there along with some villagers went to Sasural of his daughter at village Parsauna Tapsi where he was informed by the Mukhiya that dead body of his daughter had been taken to the bank of river and because police had reached the village he along with police went to the bank of Gad river where he found burnt dead body and also found appellant Sanjay Singh, Madhusudan Singh, Satyadeo Singh, Markandey Singh and some others running away. He said that Fardbeyan was recorded by police on which he put his signature (Ext. 1). He said that Fardbeyan was recorded by police on which he put his signature (Ext. 1). In cross examination he has said that at the time of marriage no demand of buffalo was made and he at his own will had decided to give buffalo to appellants but at the time of marriage because of financial strain he could not give the buffalo which he gave later on after purchasing the same. He has further said that neither at the time of marriage nor thereafter any demand of dowry was made either from him or any member of his family and his deceased daughter was never tortured in her Sasural on account of demand of dowry. He has further said that because his daughter died all of a sudden, therefore, some suspicion arose in his mind and he then lodged the FIR but Fardbeyan was not read over to him. 8. Hari Nandan Prasad Singh (PW-7) has said that on 15-7-2001 he was posted at Malangwa Police Station when informant appeared before him and he recorded his fardbeyan. He has proved the fardbeyan in the pen of Jamadar Asan Pandey bearing his signature. Fardbeyan was marked Ext. 2. He has further stated that he took up investigation of the case and inspected the place of occurrence which is house of appellants. He has added that on the third floor of the house there was a room situated on south with a door opening of which was towards north and this room was of deceased Sudha Devi as he was told and on inspection of the room he found that room had been freshly washed with water and there were signs of smoke on all the four walls and ceiling of the room and one plank of the door was found broken from which it appeared that deceased had died due to burning and members of her Sasural might have taken out her dead body after breaking down the door and room was hurriedly washed and dead body had been taken to the bank of Gad river situated about 4 K.M. from the place of occurrence for its disposal by burning and making into pieces and throwing it in the river. He has further said that he also found smell of kerosene oil in the room and thereafter in search of dead body reached Gad River. He has further said that he also found smell of kerosene oil in the room and thereafter in search of dead body reached Gad River. On the bank of this river he inspected the place pointed out by informant and Raj Kumar Singh where he found fresh ash and half burnt pieces of bones and soil containing kerosene oil which he seized in presence of two independent witnesses namely, Raj Kishore Singh and Braj Mohan Singh and prepared a seizure list (Ext. 3). He has said that after completing the investigation he submitted chargesheet. In cross-examination he has said that from the inspection of place of occurrence and observing the condition of door of the room it appeared to him that door must have been broken by pushing it from outside and family member of the Sasural of the deceased might have broken the door. 9. In this case, as stated above, besides the informant and I. O. other witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution and they all have been declared hostile. These witnesses include Raj Kishore Singh, own brother of deceased and Dharm Deo Singh (PW-4), uncle of deceased. They both have said that they do not know how the deceased died. The informant who is only witness on the point of facts of this case, no doubt in his examination-in-chief has said that his deceased daughter told him that members of her "Sasural were demanding a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh for purchasing a jeep for the business of appellant Sanjay but in cross examination he has categorically stated that neither at the time of marriage nor thereafter any demand of dowry was made either from him or his any family member. He has further stated that his daughter was never tortured by members of her Sasural on account of demand of dowry and because his daughter died all of a sudden, therefore, suspicion arose in his mind and he lodged FIR but fardbeyan was not read over to him. 10. The Court below after observing that if there was demand of Rs. 1 Lakh without any condition and that demand was at first instance named as demand of dowry it is difficult to say that demand was not in the shape of dowry. 10. The Court below after observing that if there was demand of Rs. 1 Lakh without any condition and that demand was at first instance named as demand of dowry it is difficult to say that demand was not in the shape of dowry. It is further observed that if the amount was not demanded as dowry then the witnesses might have stated that, it was being demanded for limited period and there was condition of return of money. It is also added that there is nothing of the sort on the record and the statement in the fardbeyan which was at the earliest stage can not be thrown aside nor it can be said that this demand was not for dowry. The informant in his examination in-chief has no where stated that his daughter told him that a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh was demanded by appellants or their relations from him as dowry. He has simply stated that his daughter told him that members of family of her Sasural were demanding a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh for purchasing a jeep for the business of appellant Sanjay. Under these circumstances to give the meaning of this statement that the demand was on account of dowry because in fardbeyan this fact is mentioned is not according to law because fardbeyan is not a substantive piece of evidence. When the informant in his examination-in-chief has not said that demand of a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was being made on account of dowry, then there was no occasion for him to again explain it in his cross examination that this demand was not a demand of dowry and it was a demand for a limited period and there was condition of return of money, particularly when informant in his cross examination has clearly stated that neither at the time of marriage nor thereafter any demand of dowry was made by appellants and their relations either from him or from his family members. The Court below considering the statement of informant in Fardbeyan that daughter of informant told him that appellants and their relations were demanding a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and considering the evidence of I. O. who made certain observation about the living room of the deceased has come to a finding that presumption of dowry death in this case is attracted. 1 lakh as dowry and considering the evidence of I. O. who made certain observation about the living room of the deceased has come to a finding that presumption of dowry death in this case is attracted. It is further observed that no evidence has been produced on behalf of the defence to show that deceased was being kept with proper love and affection and she was being treated at the hands of her Sasural members. 11. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence on the point of murder of deceased by appellants. There is also no evidence that how deceased died. For the sake of argument if it is presumed that deceased died of burn injuries, even then there is no evidence on record to show that appellants set fire to her. If it is presumed that deceased committed suicide and her death was not under normal circumstance even then appellants cannot be held guilty u/s. 304-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 because for holding them guilty under this section the third ingredient that deceased soon before her death was subjected to cruelty or harassment by appellants or any relative of her husband on account of demand of dowry is completely missing in this case. The informant, as stated above, has clearly stated that no demand of dowry either at the time of marriage or thereafter was made by appellants or their any relative either from him or any member of his family. He has gone to the extent of deposing that his deceased daughter was not subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry by the members of her Sasural. I, therefore, find that prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. In this view of the matter, the conviction of appellants cannot be upheld. 12. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the Court below convicting and sentencing the appellants is hereby set aside and appellants are acquitted. Since the appellants are in custody, issue release order at once for the release of appellants from jail custody if they are not wanted in any other case.