JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 26-9-2005 rendered by learned IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Special Trial No. 219/05 thereby convicting the appellant under sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing to undergo 2 years RI and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine six months RI and 7 years RI and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of fine 6 months RI respectively. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case was unfolded before the learned trial Court is that Sita Bai, wife of the appellant, was married with the appellant two years prior to her death by hanging on 31-5-2005 in the house of the appellant. The appellant himself lodged the report which was recorded as merg intimation No. 6/05 on the same day. According to this report, the appellant was selling mango fruit in the market, at that time his younger brother in the evening came and informed him that his wife committed suicide by hanging. It is also mentioned in this report that on 30-5-2005, she had gone to her father's house and returned back on 31-5-2005. On the basis of this information, police reached on the spot and prepared inquest report Exhibit P-3 as per provisions under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Police effected the seizure of copper electric wire which was said to have used for hanging. In inquest inquiry police recorded the statement of prosecution witnesses and registered FIR Exhibit P-8 on 2-6-2005 for commission of offences under sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant, his mother, father and two younger brother. The dead body of deceased was sent for post-mortem examination and its report is Exhibit P-7. (This report has been admitted by the defence counsel as per provision under section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code). The appellant was arrested on 3-6-2005. Investigating Officer prepared the spot map on 1-6-2005 (This spot map is also marked as Annexure P-6). On completion of investigation, 5 accused were charge-sheeted for commission of offence under sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The appellant was arrested on 3-6-2005. Investigating Officer prepared the spot map on 1-6-2005 (This spot map is also marked as Annexure P-6). On completion of investigation, 5 accused were charge-sheeted for commission of offence under sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Accused persons denied the charge-sheet and their defence was that deceased went to her parents house on 30-5-2005 and had some sort of dispute regarding her compensation amount received by her parents as sufferer of gas tragedy (Bhopal) and parents refused to give this money, thereafter she returned back to her matrimonial house on 31-5-2005 and committed suicide. They have examined DW-1, Awadesh Kumar Bhargav in defence. 4. Learned trial Court upon hearing of the parties while acquitting other co-accused persons convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated hereinabove. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the entire record, it emerges that the conviction of the appellant is mainly based on testimony of Devilal (PW-1) and Daulat Bai (PW-6), brother and mother of the deceased. 6. The moot question for determination by this Court is that whether on the basis of evidence of these two witnesses, prosecution has established the necessary ingredients of the offence under sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Devilal (PW-1), in examination-in-chief given general and omnibus statement against the appellant and all other family members four in number. The deceased came to his house in an engagement ceremony of his younger brother and told his mother that all the accused were asking her to bring Rs. 50,000/-, received as her compensation for the incident of gas tragedy, from her, and were also harassing her. In examination-in-chief, he has nowhere stated that the deceased ever disclosed anything against the appellant. He has also not stated that his mother Daulat Bai (PW-6) told her about demand of compensation amount by the appellant. In cross-examination, paragraph-8, this witness has voluntarily stated that the deceased Sita Bai disclosed him bringing of Rs. 50,000/- of her compensation amount received by them but the appellant never demanded this money from her. In paragraph-9, he has deposed specifically that Sita Bai had not disclosed as to how and who harassed her and in what manner. In cross-examination, paragraph-8, this witness has voluntarily stated that the deceased Sita Bai disclosed him bringing of Rs. 50,000/- of her compensation amount received by them but the appellant never demanded this money from her. In paragraph-9, he has deposed specifically that Sita Bai had not disclosed as to how and who harassed her and in what manner. On a perusal of the statement of Devilal, there is no clear evidence available as to how and when and by whom deceased was ill-treated or harassed for demand of dowry. It is admitted position that the deceased went to her parents house for attending engagement ceremony of his brother along with her brother-in-law Narayan and after attending the ceremony both remained in their house for whole night and thereafter on the next day Narayan expressed his desire to go back to house because he was to go on duty, at that moment, Sita voluntarily came to him and told him that she was also going with him. Sita Bai and Narayan returned back on 31-5-2005 at the house of the appellant and on the same day in the evening, Sita Bai committed suicide by hanging. There is no evidence on record that after return from her parents house, she was ill-treated by the appellant for Rs. 50,000/-. It is clear from the statements of Devilal as well as Daulat Bai that Sita Bai came voluntarily with her brother-in-law Narayan and after attending the engagement function returned back, meaning thereby, at that time, she was not under any kind of threat of demand of money and ill-treatment in pursuance thereof. It is also clear that she was in normal condition and attended the engagement function with her brother-in-law, Narayan and also returned back on the next day. In the considered opinion of this Court, if the appellant asked his wife to bring her compensation amount which was received by her parents, it cannot be defined as dowry. For establishing commission of offence under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, Prosecution is required to establish necessary ingredients :- (i) Death of woman by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) Death within seven years of her marriage; (iii) Soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband or his any relative; (iv) For demand of dowry. Out of these ingredients, prosecution has failed to establish any kind of demand of dowry by the appellant from his wife and cruel behaviour or harassment soon before her death by the appellant. See Supreme Court judgment in the case of Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder and others vs. State of W.B., (2008) 1 SCC 202 ; Tirath Kumar and another vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2005 SC 4429 ; Naranjanmurthy vs. State of Karnataka and another, AIR 2008 SC 2377 and Shyamlal vs. State of M. P., (2008) 1 MPLJ (Cri) 145. 7. Daulat Bai (PW-6), mother of the deceased has given contradictory statement to the statement of Devilal. She has deposed that deceased and her brother-in-law Narayan were demanding compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- and Sita Bai was not ready to go to him but on asking by Narayan, she went to her matrimonial house where she was killed. In cross-examination, she was controverted with the case-diary statement Exhibit D-2 wherein demand of money by the appellant is not mentioned and in function demand of Rs. 50,000/- by Narayan and Sita Bai is also not mentioned, and Daulat Bai gave no reasonable or plausible explanation for this material omission which amounts to contradiction. In paragraph-4, she has stated that she disclosed some facts to police and also did not disclosed the some relevant facts, she has also denied recording of her statement by police and stated that her thumb impression was taken by the police on blank paper. In paragraph-6, she has specifically admitted that she did not disclose to police in case-diary statement Exhibit D-2 as to why accused were ill-treating Sita Bai. The statement of Daulat Bai is contradictory to the statement of Devilal regarding demand of compensation amount by Narayan. 8. In the opinion of this Court, if the appellant or his parents were asking the deceased to bring her compensation amount from the parents, the same cannot be defined as demand of dowry because it was money of the deceased Sita Bai and she was entitled for the same. 9. In the wake of aforesaid legal and factual discussion, this Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, this appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court against the appellant is hereby set aside. 9. In the wake of aforesaid legal and factual discussion, this Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, this appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court against the appellant is hereby set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to release the appellant forthwith, if not required in any other criminal case. 10. Office is directed to send the copy of the judgment along with the record immediately to the learned trial Court for its compliance.