JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The three accused persons namely Ram Dhani Sao, Basanti Devi and Sudamia Devi were charged for the offence under Section 304(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing down death of the deceased Renu Devi. During trial, the 3rd accused Sudamia Devi died. By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.02.2004 and 23.02.2004 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No. 333 of 1993, the Additional sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-Vth, Giridih convicted the rest of the two accused persons namely Ram Dhani Sao and Basanti Devi (Appellant herein) i.e. the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code road with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. 2. During pendency of this appeal, the Appellant No.1 Ram Dhani Sao died and as such the appeal against him has abated. The remaining appellant Basanti Devi (Appellant No. 2) i.e. the mother-in-law of the deceased is now the sole appellant in the present appeal. 3. According to the prosecution, the deceased Renu Devi was married with Suresh Sao, the son of the present appellant in the year, 1988 and thereafter, on 24th July, 1990, the deceased Renu Devi died at her in-law place in the house of the appellant under an abnormal circumstances. The cause of death, as per the Doctor (P.W.-7) was asphyxia due to hanging. Therefore, there is no dispute of the fact that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage and that she died otherwise than under normal circumstances. 4. The prosecution case in short is that the husband of the deceased namely Suresh Sao was not happy after the marriage since he was not given motorcycle in the dowry by the in-laws and therefore, the Appellant No. 1 (now died) asked the informant either to give motorcycle or to given cash of Rs. 20,000/-to the husband of the deceased and then only Bidai of the bride would be possible. Further case of the prosecution is that when the informant party showed their inability to fulfil the demand of dowry, the husband of in-laws as well as the aunt (Mausi Sas) carted torturing the deceased and ultimately she was done to death in the night of 24th July, 1990. 5. Further case of the prosecution is that when the informant party showed their inability to fulfil the demand of dowry, the husband of in-laws as well as the aunt (Mausi Sas) carted torturing the deceased and ultimately she was done to death in the night of 24th July, 1990. 5. The defence of the accused, as it appears from the evidence of the D.W. 1 Budha Sao that the husband of the deceased was working as. a rickshaw puller in Calcutta and he was not taking his wife with him because he was not in a position to maintain her whereas, the wife was insisting take her to Calcutta, it is because of the fact that her husband did not take her to Calcutta and therefore, she committed suicide at her own and there was no demand of dowry etc. 6. In order to establish the charges, altogether eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom, P.Ws,-1, 2, 3 and 6 are hearsay witnesses. P.W.-4 was tendered and P.W.-5 was declared hostile P.W.-6 is the Doctor who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and P.W.-8 is the Investigating Officer. Learned Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence on record, convicted the appellants as stated in earlier paragraphs. 7. It is a settled law that in order to convict an accused under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, the following essential must be satisfied: i. The marriage took place within seven years of death; ii. The death of the woman must have been caused under abnormal circumstances i.e. burns or bodily injuries or otherwise than any normal circumstances; iii. Such torture and ill treatment must be for or in collection with demand of dowry; and iv. Soon before the death, the woman must have been subjected to harassment or cruelty by her husband or in-laws. It is only when the above ingredients are established by the acceptable evidence, such death shall be called dowry death and such husband or his relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death. 8. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that so far the appellant Basanti Devi, the mother-in-law of the deceased is concerned, there is no evidence at all that in fact she ever demanded dowry or ever tortured her daughter-in-law i.e. the deceased Renu Devi. 8. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that so far the appellant Basanti Devi, the mother-in-law of the deceased is concerned, there is no evidence at all that in fact she ever demanded dowry or ever tortured her daughter-in-law i.e. the deceased Renu Devi. He further argued that even according to the prosecution witnesses namely P.Ws.-1, 2, 3 and 6, specific evidence has come only against the husband, the father-in-law and the aunt-in-law Sudamia Devi (since deceased) who was the Mausi Sas of the deceased. In this regard, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan has referred the evidence of P.W.-2 at paragraph - 4 and the evidence of P.W.-3. He further submitted that there is no direct link or proximity between the death of the deceased and the demand of alleged dowry or torture upon the deceased by the appellant and therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is erroneous. 9. In order to arrive at the conclusion, it is necessary to scrutinise the evidence of P.Ws. P.W.-1 Smt. Chandra Devi, in her evidence has stated that after the marriage of her daughter, the in-laws i.e. the mother-in-law, father-in-law and her husband tortured her daughter because of non fulfilment of demand of dowry. In paragraphs 11 and 12 of her evidence, she further stated that just after the marriage, the demand of dowry and torture was started by the accused persons. P.W.-2 Ram Dhani Saw is the father of the deceased. In his evidence at paragraph-2, he has stated that his Samdhi told him that his son was angry as he was not given motorcycle in dowry and therefore, he will not go to the house of his in-laws. In paragraph-4 of his evidence, this witness has stated that since the motorcycle was not given to Suresh Sao the husband of the deceased, his daughter Renu was being tortured by her husband Suresh Sao, her mother-in-law Basanti Devi, father-in-law Ram Dhani Sao and Mausi Sas Sudamia Devi. P.W.-3 Basu Deo Saw, the neighbour of the informant has corroborated the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. P.W.-3 Basu Deo Saw, the neighbour of the informant has corroborated the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. P.W.-6 Kishori Saw, the brother of the deceased, at paragraph-2 of his evidence has stated that whenever his deceased sister used to come to the house, she always used to say that because of non fulfilment of demand of dowry, her in-laws used to torture her. There is no dispute of the fact that on 20th July, 1990, the deceased was taken by her in-laws to their place in village Bhojpuro and just after a few days i.e. on 24th July, 1990, she was found dead not under normal circumstances. 10. From the statements of P.W.-2 particularly at paragraph-11, it appears that prior to the date of occurrence, the whole day, there was quarrel between the deceased on the one hand and the accused Ram Dhani Sao, Basanti Devi and Suresh Sao on the other hand. This statement of P.W.-2 establishes the fact that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty. 11. Section 113B of the Evidence Act speaks about the presumption and envisages that the question as to whether a person has committed dowry death or not, it has to be show that soon before her death, the woman was subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry, then the Court will presume that such person has committed the dowry death. Here in the present case, though it has been established that soon before the death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty as stated by P.W.-2 at paragraph-11, but has not been stated that the deceases was subjected to such cruelty in connection with demand of dowry, which is one of the main ingredient of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act for raising presumption of guilt against the in-laws for commission of dowry death. In the present case, I find that no specific and direct evidence has come against the present appellant Basanti Devi, the mother-in-law that the demanded dowry or she tortured or ill treated her daughter-in-law i.e. the deceased in connection with the non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry. 12. In the present case, I find that no specific and direct evidence has come against the present appellant Basanti Devi, the mother-in-law that the demanded dowry or she tortured or ill treated her daughter-in-law i.e. the deceased in connection with the non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry. 12. Here in the present case, as discussed above, though the prosecution has established that the deceased tortured before her death, but it appears the prosecution has not been able to prove that such torture was in connection with demand of dowry and therefore, the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be raised against this appellant so as to make her liable for conviction under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. In view of the above discussions and findings, I hold that the prosecution has not been able to establish the charge against the appellant. 14. Accordingly, I hold that the learned Trial Court has committed error both in law as well as on facts in convicting the appellant Basanti Devi for the charge under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court against the appellant Basanti Devi is hereby set aside. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liability of bail bonds. Appeal allowed