JUDGMENT : 1. Heard and the judgment is as follows: 2. Order of acquittal in Sessions Trial Case Nos. 25/15 of 1993 of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Champua is under challenge. In that case both the Respondents as accused persons faced the Trial for the offence u/s 304 B, Indian Penal Code and u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Between the two accused Respondent No. 1 is the father and accused Respondent No. 2 is the son. Respondent No. 2 is the husband of deceased Jasobanti. Informant P.W. 1 is the father of Jasobanti. Rest of the witnesses from P. Ws. 2 to 6, except P.W. 4, are close relatives on the paternal side of the deceased. 3. Allegation against the accused persons is that on 04.05.1992 the deceased married accused No. 2, but on 15.09.1992 she was found dead and the cause of the death could not be ascertained in spite of postmortem examination and examination of viscera by the experts. Nonetheless, on the allegation of P.W. No. 1 about demand of dowry of a motorcycle and that the deceased was ill-treated, charge was framed for the aforesaid offence. 4. The Trial Court taking note of the evidence on record held that the cause of death could not be ascertained and that in the letters written by the accused No. 2 or the deceased there was no proof of demand of dowry or ill-treatment and torture on account of that. Accordingly he recorded order of acquittal in favour of the accused persons. 5. Learned Standing Counsel argues that when the death was within four months from the date of marriage and that too on a mysterious circumstance, therefore, the accused persons are liable for the same. Section 304 B, Indian Penal Code provides that 304 B. 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 subject 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. It is readable from the above quoted penal provision that none of the ingredients of the said offence is available in this case. Evidence of P.W. 4, postmortem report, Ext. 6 and the chemical examination report, Ext. 7 are proof of the said conclusion. In other words, in this case, prosecution has laid no evidence to show or suggest that the deceased suffered death not under normal circumstance. It may be noted here that shortly before the date of incident, the deceased had got the result of having not succeeded in the matriculation examination. Though nothing beyond that can be said but it is seen on record that in course of investigation that aspect was not at all investigated. 6. So far as the allegation of demand of dowry is concerned, the father, mother, brother and father's friend of the deceased appearing as the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution have made only bald allegations and that is not supported even by the letter written by their daughter (deceased), which is exhibited as Ext. 2. In that letter, a part is addressed to the mother and another part is addressed to the father. In the part of the letter addressed to the mother, the deceased had stated that she was living in in-laws' house happily. In the part addressed to the father, she stated about suffering torture without stating the reason thereof. A newly wedded young girl might have carried the feeling of torture on the scolding received from the in-laws. When she did not specifically mention about demand of dowry, the grievance of torture cannot be co-related to a case of demand of dowry. Under such circumstance, this Court finds no reason to agree to the argument of the Appellant for conviction of the accused-Respondents at least u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. For the reasons indicated above, the Government Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed