JUDGMENT R. N. BISWAL, J. : This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.8.1991 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 1990, wherein he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Addl. C.J.M.-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Sessions Trial Case No.109/28 of 89. 2. The fact of the case, as unfolded by the prosecution in nub is that the Respondent led Nalini Pradhan to the altar on 6.2.1988. The couple led a happy conjugal life for about one month and thereafter skirmishes errupted between them as the demand of the Respondent for a motor cycle from the father of Nalini Pradhan could not be complied with. It is alleged that when the torture on Nalini Pradhan became unbearable, she took poison on 16.3.1988 and was admitted to I.G.H., Rourkela, but as good luck would have it, she could survive and was discharged from the hospital on the same day. Still then, cruelty and tor¬ture on Nalini Pradhan in the hand of Respondent continued unabat¬ed for which she drenched herself with kerosene and set fire on her. Immediately, she was shifted to I.G.H., Rourkela again, where she succumbed to the injuries on the next day. On the very day on receipt of a casualty memo from the attending physician, A.S.I. R. N. Sahu of Sector-3 Rourkela P.S. (P.W.18) registered U.D. Case No.11 of 1988, in absence of the I.I.C. or any other senior Police Officer and enquired into the matter. In course of enquiry, he visited the spot, held inquest over the body and on the same date handed over charge of the enquiry to Sri Pradipta Kumar Sahani, S.I. of Police (P.W.11). While the enquiry was in progress, on the report of P.W.6 dated 25.6.1988, the I.I.C., Sector-3, Rourkela P.S. registered P.S. case No.44 of 1988, under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and directed P.W.11 to investigate the case. In course of investigation P.W.11 examined the informant, whereafter on the same date he made over charge of investigation of the case to the D.S.P. (P.W.17) who after conclusion of the investigation submitted Charge Sheet under Sections 498-A/304-B/306/201 of I.P.C. read with Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act. The case having been committed to the Court of Session was trans¬ferred to the Court of the C.J.M.-cum-Asst. The case having been committed to the Court of Session was trans¬ferred to the Court of the C.J.M.-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Rourkela who framed charge against the Respondent under Sections 498-A/304-B/306/201 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of D.P. Act. The Respondent denied the allegation and specifically pleaded that the deceased died as her synthetic saree caught fire from the heater, while she was preparing tea and that four to five days after her death P.W.10, her father gave a proposal to him to marry Sukanti, daughter of his brother and when he did not agree to it, the case was falsely foisted against him. 3. In order to bring home the charge against the Respond¬ent prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses, whereas the Respondent examined 4 witnesses to prove his innocence. After assessing the evidence on record, the trial Court found the Respondent guilty for the offence under Sections 304-B/306/498-A/201 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of D.P. Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C. and R.I. for three years on each count for the offence under Sections 306/498-A of I.P.C. and it did not prefer to pass any separate sentence for the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of D.P. Act. 4. Being aggrieved with said order of conviction and sentence, Respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No.46 of 1990 before the Court for Sessions Judge, Sundargarh who after going through the trial Court judgment and the evidence on record, held that the deceased died as her saree caught fire in coming in contact with the radiant wire of the heater, while she was pre¬paring tea and that prosecution failed to prove the allegation that the Respondent subjected the deceased to ‘cruelty’ for non-fulfillment of his demand of a motor cycle towards dowry and as such, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. The State has preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal. 5. Learned Addl.Standing Counsel submitted that admittedly the deceased married the Respondent on 6.2.1988 and expired due to burn injury on 17.6.1988. The State has preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal. 5. Learned Addl.Standing Counsel submitted that admittedly the deceased married the Respondent on 6.2.1988 and expired due to burn injury on 17.6.1988. There are also materials to show that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the Respond¬ent for non-fulfillment of his demand of dowry for which she committed suicide and that to screen himself, he falsely declared that the saree of the deceased caught fire while preparing tea. So, the trial Court had rightly convicted the Respondent, but without assessing the evidence on record properly, the appellate Court committed gross error in allowing the appeal and acquitting him. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, per contra, submitted that prosecution miserably failed to prove that the Respondent subjected the deceased to cruelty for non-fulfillment of any demand of dowry. In fact the saree of the deceased acci¬dentally caught fire, while preparing tea for which she sustained burn injuries and succumbed to the same on the next date. So, the lower appellate Court rightly allowed the appeal and acquitted the Respondent of all charges. 6. Section 304B(1) of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:- “304B. Dowry death.- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.” So, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand of dowry by the Respond¬ent. Once it is established, then the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act would be drawn that the Respondent caused dowry death. P.Ws.1 to 3,5,6,8 and 10 are projected as witnesses to the demand of dowry, torture and harassment to the deceased soon before her death. P.Ws. 1,7 and 10 are mother, brother and father of the deceased. Once it is established, then the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act would be drawn that the Respondent caused dowry death. P.Ws.1 to 3,5,6,8 and 10 are projected as witnesses to the demand of dowry, torture and harassment to the deceased soon before her death. P.Ws. 1,7 and 10 are mother, brother and father of the deceased. P.Ws.2 and 3 are her sisters, while P.Ws.5 and 8 are the husbands of P.Ws.2 and 3 respectively. So they are closely related to one another and are interested for the success of prosecution, as such, their evidence required to be scanned carefully. A fascicle reading of their evidence shows that after solemnisation of the marriage between the deceased and the Respondent, they went to the native place of the Respondent and lived there for about one month happily, whereafter they returned to Rourkela and lived in Qr. No.B/29, Sector-2. While they were living there, once the deceased complained that the Respondent harassed and tortured her as the cost of a motor cycle was not given to him towards dowry. In one occasion he assaulted her with an iron pipe on her back, thigh and arm. But while being examined in the U.D. Case, none of them had stated so, before the I.O. None also reported it, in Police Station or disclosed it before anybody. On 16.3.1988 the deceased was admitted to I.G.H., Rourkela as she took poison and was discharged on the same day. As found from the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses she dis¬closed that she took poison as the Respondent tortured and har¬assed her for non-fulfillment of his demand of dowry. This fact was also not reported at the Police Station. On the other hand, P.W.10 stated before the I.O. while being examined in the U.D. Case, that the deceased and the Respondent were leading a happy conjugal life. D.W.2, an immediate neighbour of the Respondent stated that he had no knowledge about any ill feeling between the deceased and the Respondent. They were leading usual conjugal life. In view of such evidence the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be attracted. As appears from the evidence of P.W.18, P.W.10 himself wrote in column No.9 of the inquest report dated 17.6.1988 (Ext.3) that undoubtedly deceased died as her saree caught fire, while preparing tea in a heater. They were leading usual conjugal life. In view of such evidence the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be attracted. As appears from the evidence of P.W.18, P.W.10 himself wrote in column No.9 of the inquest report dated 17.6.1988 (Ext.3) that undoubtedly deceased died as her saree caught fire, while preparing tea in a heater. Of course during the trial, he stated that while he was weeping under a tree, because of the bereavement, A.S.I. Sahani Babu came to him and took his signature on a piece of paper marked Ext.3. But in fact, the inquest report was not prepared by Mr. Sahani and he was S.I. Police and not A.S.I. On the other hand, A.S.I. Sri R. N. Sahu (P.W.18) held inquest over the dead body and prepared Ext.3. So, the evidence of P.W.10 that A.S.I. Sahani Babu obtained his signature in a document while he was not in a proper state of mind cannot be accepted. P.W.15, the Medical Officer, I.G.H., Rourkela who was attached to Casualty Department stated that the deceased stated before him, in presence of his staff and the Respondent that while preparing tea in a heater, accidentally her saree caught fire, which was recorded in Ext.9, the Admission Card. So the contention of learned Addl. Standing Counsel that Respondent subjected the deceased to cruelty for non-fulfillment of his demand dowry for which she committed suicide by burning herself cannot be accepted. In my considered opinion the appellate Court rightly acquitted the Respondent of the charge under Section 304B of I.P.C. Since there is no materi¬al to show that the deceased committed suicide, the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. cannot be attracted; even if with the aid of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. Similarly, since no offence has been committed by the Respondent there is no question of giving false information to screen himself from legal punish¬ment. So the appellate Court rightly acquitted the Respondent of the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C. Since there is no reli¬able evidence that the Respondent demanded a motorcycle or the cost thereof towards dowry, the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act cannot be attracted against him. So the appellate Court rightly acquitted the Respondent of the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C. Since there is no reli¬able evidence that the Respondent demanded a motorcycle or the cost thereof towards dowry, the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act cannot be attracted against him. As the prosecution failed to prove that deceased committed suicide, the question of abatement of suicide does not arise, as such the liability under Section 306 of I.P.C. cannot be fastened to the Respondent. The lower appellate Court rightly allowed the appeal and acquitted the present Respondent of all the charges. Therefore, under such premises, the Government Appeal stands dismissed and the order of the appellate Court is hereby con¬firmed. Appeal dismissed.