JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — The appellant having been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 304-B/498-A of the Indian Penal Code, (in short, ‘I.P.C’) and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short, ‘D.P. Act’) by the learned 1st Addl.Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Sessions Case No.11 of 2001/Sessions Case No.54 of 2001 G.D.C., has preferred this appeal against the order of conviction and sentence. For offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C. the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life, for conviction under Section 498-A of I.P.C., he has been sentenced to imprisonment for three years and for conviction under Section 4 of D.P. Act, he has been sentenced to imprisonment for two years. However, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution as revealed from the record is that the deceased-P. Bhagyabati was working as an Anganwadi Worker in Tikabali in the district of Phulbani and she was given in marriage to the appellant on 7.12.1995. At the time of mar¬riage cash of Rs.50,000/-, a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards furniture and 5 tolas of gold ornaments were given to the deceased and one tola of gold ornament was given to the mother of the appellant. It was agreed that the deceased would continue in her service and the appellant would start a business at Tikabali. For about two years after the marriage, the deceased continued at Tikabali and the appellant was joining with her. Thereafter, it is alleged that the appellant started putting pressure on the deceased for getting the house at Tikabali registered in her name and also started ill-treating her. As promised at the time of marriage, preliminary arrangements were made for opening a shop at Tikabali and the appellant was asked to invest a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The appellant, on the other hand, insisted that the deceased should leave her job and join him at his own place at Chikitipentha after selling the house at Tikabali. For this dispute, the caste members called a meeting on 1.8.1999 at the instance of the appellant. It was decided in the caste meeting that the deceased would proceed on leave and join the appellant in his village and the document transferring the house in the name of the deceased would be registered and the same would not be sold without per¬mission of the caste members. It was decided in the caste meeting that the deceased would proceed on leave and join the appellant in his village and the document transferring the house in the name of the deceased would be registered and the same would not be sold without per¬mission of the caste members. Accordingly, the deceased joined the appellant in his house on 18.8.1999. A gift deed was executed in favour of the deceased in respect of the house at Tikabali. After the normal relationship was restored, the appellant again insisted upon the deceased to sell the house at Tikabali. But the deceased was unwilling to do so. Ultimately, both of them went to Tikabali and sold the house for a sum of Rs.95,000/- on 29.3.2000 to the daughter of P.W.1. Suddenly on 20.5.2000 at 8.05 A.M., the deceased was admitted to M.K.C.G. Medical College Hospital, Berhampur by the appellant with 99% burn injuries. P.W.9 after this occurrence lodged the F.I.R. at Mahila Police Station, Ber¬hampur. The Inspector-in-charge of the said Police Station visit¬ed the Hospital and found the deceased in a precarious condition. The deceased died on 26.5.2000 at about 9.40 A.M. After comple¬tion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the I.P.C. as well as under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges examined 12 witnesses whereas, one witness was examined on behalf of the defence. The plea of the appellant is that he was working as a Conductor and the deceased was working at Tikabali. During first two years of marriage, he was often going to Tikabali. When his left hand was operated and his father also became ill, the deceased did not come to his house, even though she was called. On the other hand, he was asked to come to Tikabali and stay with her as an illatom son-in-law, which he refused. Accord¬ing to the appellant, the deceased caught fire from gas burner while boiling water and a false case had been foisted against him. 4. Out of 12 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecu¬tion, P.W.9 is the informant and brother of the deceased. P.W.1 is the father of one Samita Panigrahi, who had purchased the house from the deceased. Accord¬ing to the appellant, the deceased caught fire from gas burner while boiling water and a false case had been foisted against him. 4. Out of 12 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecu¬tion, P.W.9 is the informant and brother of the deceased. P.W.1 is the father of one Samita Panigrahi, who had purchased the house from the deceased. P.W.2 deposed about the decision taken in the caste meeting and the pressure put on the deceased by the appellant for selling the house. P.W.3 is a witness to seizure and P.W.4 is the Constable, who had accompanied the dead body for post mortem examination, P.W.5 is a witness to the inquest and P.W.6 is a witness to seizure of some gold and silver ornament and other materials. P.W.7 deposed about the conduct of the parties after marriage and P.W.8 is the Doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination, P.W.10 is a witness to the seizure of the bed head ticket, P.W.11 is the brother-in-law of the deceased and P.W.12 is the I.O. 5. On analysis of evidence of these witnesses examined by the prosecution in course of trial, the trial Court came to a conclusion that the death of the deceased occurred within 7 years of the marriage in the house of the appellant and the cause of death remains unexplained by the appellant who had a duty to explain the same. It is also found that the death was directly connected with cruelty meted out for fulfilment of dowry demands and accordingly, the trial Court found the appellant guilty of the charges and convicted him thereunder. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the ingredients of Sec¬tion 304-B of I.P.C. had not been established by the prosecution in course of trial. With a reference to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that though the death of the deceased occurred within 7 years of marriage, there is no evidence on record to show that preceding the death of the deceased there was any demand of dowry or that the deceased was tortured for non-fulfilment of such dowry demand. It was also contended by the learned counsel that immediately after marriage, there is no material to show that there was any demand and, therefore, the appellant could not have been convicted for commission of offence either under Section 498-A of I.P.C. or under Section 4 of D.P. Act. 7. Learned Addl.Govt. Advocate in support of impugned judgment submitted that the appellant insisted upon selling of the house belonging to the deceased at Tikabali for the purpose of utilizing the consideration money for his own purposes and six days prior to the death of the deceased, the house had been sold for a sum of Rs.95,000/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no demand of dowry or that the deceased had not been subjected to torture for non-fulfilment of dowry demand immediately preceding her death. Admittedly, as the death has occurred not in normal circumstances within 7 years of marriage, the presumption is that it is a case of dowry death. 8. Keeping in mind the submissions made by the counsel appearing for both the parties and the findings arrived by the trial Court, we examined the evidence carefully. P.W.9 who is the brother of the deceased lodged the F.I.R. In his deposition, he stated that during marriage besides furniture and gold ornaments cash of Rs.50,000/- had been given to the appellant. Since the deceased was working as a Teacher in the Anganwadi Centre at Tikabali, it was decided that the appellant would shift to Tikab¬ali and stay there in the house given to the deceased by her father and the appellant had agreed to the said condition. For a month or two after the marriage, the deceased remained in the house of the appellant and thereafter both of them came to Tikab¬ali. A house was arranged and furniture were prepared for running a shop and the appellant was requested to make an initial invest¬ment of Rs.10,000/-. Two months thereafter, the appellant refused to come to Tikabali to run the business and about one month thereafter, the appellant took away the deceased for a festival and did not allow her to come back Tikabali and join service for about a month. On return to Tikabali, the deceased told him that the appellant was insisting her to give up the job and stay with him where he intends to start a business. On return to Tikabali, the deceased told him that the appellant was insisting her to give up the job and stay with him where he intends to start a business. She also expressed that the appellant asked her to bring money from her father to start a business at Khani Poda. The deceased, however, continued to serve for one and half months. Thereafter, the appellant took her back on the ground of his father’s illness. The deceased was not al¬lowed by the appellant to join at Tikabali and ultimately this witness along with his brother brought her to Tikabali. This witness further alleges that 10 days later the appellant started demanding a sum of Rs.15,000/- which was paid. When this dispute was going on and the deceased was serving at Tikabali, the appel¬lant filed a petition before the caste society alleging therein that the deceased was not being allowed to join with him. The caste society advised the family of the deceased that the de¬ceased must give up her job and the house spared by the father of the deceased should be registered in the name of the deceased. On 1.8.1999, the Maha Sangha of their caste society asked them to appear and a decision was taken to the effect that the deceased would go on leave and the house at Tikabali would be registered in her name but the appellant shall not transfer the house with¬out permission of the Maha Sangha. According to the above deci¬sion on 18.8.1999, the deceased was left in the house of the appellant and the house at Tikabali was also registered in the name of the deceased. Thereafter, the relationship became normal with usual exchange of visits. Towards March, 2000, this witness came to know from the deceased that the appellant was insisting her to sell the house at Tikabali and was ill treating her. Though a complaint was made before the Maha Sangha, no decision was taken and on 29th March, 2000, the deceased sold the house to one Biswanath Panda. After the house was sold, the appellant and the deceased came to the house of this witness and paid Rs.95,000/- towards sale proceeds. However, on the next day morning, both of them went back with the money to the place where the appellant used to stay. After the house was sold, the appellant and the deceased came to the house of this witness and paid Rs.95,000/- towards sale proceeds. However, on the next day morning, both of them went back with the money to the place where the appellant used to stay. On 20th May, 2000, they heard about the injuries sustained by the deceased and when he came to the Hospital, he saw the deceased lying with her entire body burnt. She was incapable of talking. Next day morning, he lodged a report before the Police. We have carefully perused the cross-examination of this witness, but did not find any material to disbelieve his testimony. 9. P.W.7 is another witness, who stated that before mar¬riage, the deceased was serving as Anganwadi Teacher at Tikabali and during marriage negotiation, the father of the deceased proposed that after marriage, the deceased would continue in service and if necessary, the appellant may have to stay at Tikabali in his house which was promised to be given to the deceased. He has further stated that the appellant insisted the deceased to sell the house at Tikabali as he was in need of money and utilize the same for some new business. He has further stated that during stay of the deceased with the appellant, one day early morning, the appellant and his brother came to his house at about 5.00 A.M. and requested him to go to their house to shift the deceased to the hospital saying that the deceased had been burnt alive by an accidental fire from a Kerosene fed lamp as her synthetic saree got fired while she had been to attend the call of nature. P.W.2 has stated that in the year 1999, there was a report of misunderstanding and family conflict between the ac¬cused and his wife, for which he as the Secretary of the caste society, went to bring about reconciliation and settle the dis¬pute. In his deposition, he further stated that as far as he remembers, it was decided that the house given to the deceased by her parents would not be sold without permission of the caste society, but some time thereafter the deceased once came to him and said that she was being pressurized by the appellant to sell the house. 10. P.W.11 is another witness who is related to the de¬ceased. 10. P.W.11 is another witness who is related to the de¬ceased. He has supported the allegations made by P.W.9 to some extent. The other witnesses except the doctor and the I.O. are not material for the purpose of the case. P.W.8 is the doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination and he was of the view that the burn injuries were ante mortem in nature caused by dry heat and the cause of death was due to septicaemia shock as a result of complications arising out of the burn injuries. He further stated that if a person is poured with kerosene oil and lit with a matchstick while in a sleeping condition, such in¬juries are very much possible. 11. On analysis of the above evidence, it is clear that the deceased died due to burn injuries sustained by her. There is no charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and the only charge is under Section 304-B of the said Code. Section 304-B, I.P.C. defines dowry death. It prescribes that where the death of a woman is caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 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 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. Undisputedly, in the present case, the death of the deceased is caused by burn injuries and within 7 years of marriage. The prosecution was further required to prove and establish that soon before the death of the de¬ceased, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appel¬lant for or in connection with any demand for dowry. The evidence adduced by the prosecution through P.Ws.7, 9 & 11 establish that prior to the death of the deceased, the appellant was pressuring the deceased to sell the house standing in the name of the de¬ceased at Tilabali and ultimately the said house had been sold. Whether this conduct of the appellant would come within the purview of “subjecting the deceased to the cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry”, is a matter to be exam¬ined. 12. Whether this conduct of the appellant would come within the purview of “subjecting the deceased to the cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry”, is a matter to be exam¬ined. 12. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellant in a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Prema S. Rao and another v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and others reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 271. In the said reported case, the deceased was married to the appellant on 26.6.1988. Dowry was given at the time of marriage including 5 acres of land and a house site as a customary gift to the deceased by her father. Three to four months after the marriage, the husband started demanding that the landed property standing in the name of the wife be transferred to him. When the deceased refused, trouble between the two started and it was alleged that the husband subjected the deceased-wife to harassment. While considering the question as to whether such conduct of the husband in insisting the wife to transfer the land in his favour would amount to demand for dowry or not, the apex Court took the following view. In paragraph 16 of the said Judgment, it has been held that :- “....The evidence which has been found acceptable by the Courts below against Accused 1 is that the cruel treatment and harassment of the deceased by him led her to commit suicide which was a death “otherwise than under normal circumstances”. To attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that “soon before her death” she was subjected to cruelty and harassment “in connection with the demand for dowry”. There is no evidence on record to show that the land was demanded as a dowry. It was given by the father to the deceased in marriage ritual as pasupukumkuma. The harassment or cruelty meted out to the de¬ceased by the husband after the marriage to force her to transfer the land in his name was “not in connection with any demand for dowry”. One of the main ingredients of the offence of “demand of dowry” being absent in this case, the High Court cannot be said to have committed any error in acquitting Accused 1 for offence under Section 304-B IPC.” 13. One of the main ingredients of the offence of “demand of dowry” being absent in this case, the High Court cannot be said to have committed any error in acquitting Accused 1 for offence under Section 304-B IPC.” 13. In the present case as stated earlier, the only allega¬tion against the appellant is that he pressurized his wife (the deceased) to sell the house at Tikabali. There is no other mate¬rial to show that the deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty for any other demand which can be termed as dowry demand. In view of what has been decided by the apex Court in the afore¬said case, we hold that the conduct of the appellant in putting pressure on the deceased to sell the house at Tikabali does not come within the purview of requirement of Section 304-B of the I.P.C. and accordingly, the appellant could not have been con¬victed thereunder. So far as offences under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act are concerned, as is evident from the evidence of P.W.9 at no point of time there was any demand except the articles which had been given at the time of marriage to the deceased. Therefore, the appellant could not also have been convicted for commission of offences under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or under Section 4 of the D.P. Act. For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. It is stated that the appellant is in custody till now. If that be so, he be set at liberty forth¬with unless his detention is required in any other case. B.P. RAY, J. I agree. Appeal allowed.