ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This is an appeal by the accused who has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akot for having committed offences punishable under Section 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. She was sentenced to undergo 10 years and 7 years imprisonment respectively for commission of those offences. The accused no.1 has not preferred any appeal. The appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as accused no.2. 2. The deceased Meena was living at the house of maternal uncle with her mother. She was married to accused no.1 on 2/6/2003. Accused no.2 is mother-in-law of Meena. After the marriage, Meena was treated nicely. She had come to the house of maternal uncle once or twice after the marriage. When she had come for the Mahalaxmi Pujan, at that time she complained that her husband and mother-in-law were asking her to bring a T.V.Set and Rs.10,000/-, as they were not given in the marriage. When she used to refuse to bring the T.V.set and money, it is alleged that she was being beaten and was being kept without food. She was, however, persuaded to go back to the house of the accused. Madhukar, the complainant, provided a T.V.set and gave it to her husband. Thereafter also the demand of the dowry amount continued. Eight days prior to death when Meena had come to the house of the complainant, she was weeping. She once again told that she was being harassed and was being still asked to bring Rs.10,000/-. The accused no.2 ñ mother-in-law- used to say to accused no.1 that he should kill Meena and get remarried. Meena was turned out of the house by the accused persons and was told that she should not come back unless she brings money. The accused no.1 was, therefore, called at the house of the complainant. The complainant paid Rs.4000/- to accused no.1 and sent Meena back to his house with him. On 8/5/2004, the complainant received a message that Meena had died. He went to the house of the accused early in the morning. Accused no.1 did not allow the complainant to enter into the room in which Meena was lying dead. Later the door was opened and it was found that Meena was lying dead in a burnt condition. He, therefore, lodged report with the police. The police registered an offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Accused no.1 did not allow the complainant to enter into the room in which Meena was lying dead. Later the door was opened and it was found that Meena was lying dead in a burnt condition. He, therefore, lodged report with the police. The police registered an offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of the investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed against the accused persons. 3. The Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) committed the case to the court of Sessions. The court of Sessions framed a charge. Accused pleaded not guilty. On consideration of the evidence, the Sessions Judge found both the accused guilty under both sections and convicted them. It is against this order of conviction that this appeal has been preferred by accused no.2 alone. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused no.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. The prosecution examined five witnesses and they are PW 1 Madhukar ñ the maternal uncle, PW 2 Shriram ñ the neighbour, PW 3 Kamla ñ the mother of deceased, PW 4 Ramkrishna ñ another maternal uncle of the deceased and PW 5 is the Investigating Officer. 6. The first thing that is required to be seen is whether the death had occurred due to burning, bodily injuries and otherwise than in normal circumstances and that it had occurred within seven years of marriage. The Post mortem note (Exh.46) (since admitted) shows that the cause of death is a shock due to burning. The burns were 100%. The death is, therefore, certainly proved to be due to burn injuries suffered by the deceased. It is, therefore, clear that the death had occurred due to burning and otherwise than in normal circumstances. It is stated by PW 1 Madhukar that the marriage had taken place on 2/6/2003 and deceased had died on 8/5/2004 i.e. within a period of one year from the marriage. 7. The next thing that is required to be seen is if there was any demand of dowry and for that whether there was any harassment to the deceased. Dowry has been defined as follows in the Dowry Prohibition Act. 7. The next thing that is required to be seen is if there was any demand of dowry and for that whether there was any harassment to the deceased. Dowry has been defined as follows in the Dowry Prohibition Act. ìDowryî - In this Act, ìdowryî means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly - (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before [or any time after the marriage] [in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include] dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. 8. It is thus clear that the dowry is any property given or agreed to be given before or at the time of marriage or after the marriage in connection with the marriage. Thus, what is necessary is that one party must have agreed to give it in connection with the marriage. If it was not agreed to be given in connection with the marriage, that may become unlawful demand at the most, but cannot be treated as a demand for dowry. 9. PW 1 Madhukar ñ the complainant- has deposed that deceased was treated nicely for 2-3 months and she was visiting his house intermittently. He states that she had come for Mahalaxmi festival and she told that accused were harassing her for dowry of Rs.10,000/- and T.V.set. He states that he purchased T.V. and handed it over to accused. He further states that he persuaded accused no.1 not to beat her and he will make arrangement of money. He further goes on to state that Meena again came to his house and demanded Rs.10,000/- and told that she was beaten and no food was being provided to her. He goes on to depose that he then called accused no.1, collected Rs.4000/- and paid Rs.4000/- to him. Identical is the evidence of PW 4 Ramkrishna ñ the brother of PW 1 Madhukar. However, if the evidence of PW 2 Kamalabai ñ the mother ñ is seen she does not speak of any demand of Rs.10,000/- towards dowry. She vaguely states that the money was demanded. Identical is the evidence of PW 4 Ramkrishna ñ the brother of PW 1 Madhukar. However, if the evidence of PW 2 Kamalabai ñ the mother ñ is seen she does not speak of any demand of Rs.10,000/- towards dowry. She vaguely states that the money was demanded. She does not utter a word of dowry at all. Even otherwise it is not stated by PW 1 Madhukar or PW 4 Ramkrishna that this demand of Rs.10,000/- and T.V.set was in connection with the marriage and same was agreed to be fulfilled at the time or after the marriage. If there was a demand which did not arise out of the settlement of marriage, it is not a dowry. The incident of demand is not proved to be connected with the marriage or agreement of fulfilling the same sometime after the marriage. The demand, therefore, to my mind, does not fall in the category of dowry at all. 10. The next ingredient that is required to be proved is harassment of the deceased soon before the death. The entire evidence is hearsay i.e. whatever the deceased told to the witnesses prior to her death. No direct evidence is available. PW 2 Shriram who is the neighbour of the accused does not support the case of the prosecution. 11. PW 1,3 and 4 merely said that the deceased was beaten and not provided food. As far as allegation that the deceased was not provided food is concerned, it may be mentioned that, that stands disproved. In column No.10 of the post mortem note (Exh.46) it is noted that the body was well nourished. If no proper food would have been provided to deceased for 7 to 8 months, this finding would not have been there. The allegation is thus patently false. Had food not been provided for a period of 7-8 months when the deceased was living with the accused, she would not have been a well nourished person. The post mortem note also makes it clear that no bruise is found on the person of the deceased. If the deceased was being beaten, there ought to be some injury on the person of the deceased. Therefore, statement of witnesses that she was beaten is not supported by the finding in the post mortem note. It is, therefore, very clear that there was no illtreatment or beating etc. If the deceased was being beaten, there ought to be some injury on the person of the deceased. Therefore, statement of witnesses that she was beaten is not supported by the finding in the post mortem note. It is, therefore, very clear that there was no illtreatment or beating etc. prior to her death. It is not the case of the prosecution that she was being mentally harassed. It must, therefore, be shown that the physical harassment was such that any person would have preferred to put an end to the life instead of bearing the physical harassment. The evidence does not show that when deceased had come to the house of PW 1 twice or thrice she was required to be taken to any physician for treatment of any injuries. This also negatives the theory of alleged incident of beating and harassment. 12. Finally it is admitted by PW 1 Madhukar that after he came to village, the villagers and relatives gathered together and they decided to lodge the report. The report is, therefore, a result of deliberations and has thus lost spontaneity and trustworthiness. This is apparent because the mother of the deceased i.e. PW 3 Kamalabai, as stated earlier, does not speak a word of demand of Rs.10,000/- and that too as a dowry. No injury was found on the person of the deceased any time and she was not required to be taken to any physician for the treatment of any injury. Her body was found to be well nourished and this negatives the entire story put up by the prosecution and it is, therefore, clear that this accused no.2 has been unnecessarily implicated in the matter. In the result, the appeal must succeed. The appeal is allowed. The appellant/accused no.2 is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. She be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.