JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated August 7, 2007 of the learned Single Judge of Uttarakhand High Court who dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant against his conviction by Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal (for short, the Sessions Judge) for offences under sections 304-B and 201 Indian Penal Code (Indian Penal Code). The learned Sessions Judge awarded sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 304-B and two years' rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 201 Indian Penal Code with the direction that both the sentences will run concurrently. 2. The appellant was married to Kamla Devi on 10.10.1986. She died on 12.2.1987 i.e. after four months and two days of her marriage. The first information report was lodged by PW-1 Vikram Singh Bisht, brother of the deceased on 22.2.1987. 3. The prosecution case was that the appellant used to harass and ill-treat the deceased for not bringing sufficient dowry and her dead body was found hanging from the roof. It was alleged that on the night intervening 13/14.2.1987, the appellant visited Jakhdhoda and forced Jeet Singh to give written consent Ex. Ka-4 for disposal of the dead body and no information was given to the police or any other authority. On the same day, Jeet Singh sent a telegram to PW-1 Dr. Vikram Singh, who came to the village and lodged the first information report. 4. The prosecution examined PW-1, Vikram Singh Bisht (brother of the deceased), PW-2 Mangli Devi (wife of Jeet Singh), PW-3 Jeet Singh, PW-4 G.S. Martolia. The defence set up by the appellant was that the deceased was a patient of epilepsy and heart ailment and she died natural death. He also examined DW-1 Tika Ram and DW-2 Kalyan Singh (brother of the appellant). 5. The learned Single Judge relied upon the testimony of three prosecution witnesses and held that the appellant was guilty of committing offence under sections 304-B and 201, Indian Penal Code The learned Single Judge upheld the conviction by observing that the prosecution has been able to prove that the deceased was subjected to physical and mental torture for not bringing sufficient dowry. The learned Single Judge held that in view of section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court was entitled to presume that death was caused by the appellant. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned Single Judge held that in view of section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court was entitled to presume that death was caused by the appellant. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code, which has bearing on the decision of this appeal reads as under: “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 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. Explanation - For the purpose of this sub-section “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.” 7. An analysis of the above reproduced section shows that the conviction for dowry death must precede a finding that the death of a woman has been caused by bums or bodily injury or has occurred 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 in connection with any demand of dowry. 8. In the instant case, the Trial Court as well as the High Court have recorded finding of guilt against the appellant on the ground that death of Smt. Kamla Devi occurred within seven, years of marriage and the statements of the three witnesses revealed that she was subjected to harassment by her husband. However, no finding was recorded whether the death was caused due to burns or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. 9. In his statement, PW-1 only spoke of the alleged harassment inflicted upon the deceased by the appellant. PW-2 Mangli Devi spoke of the demand for dowry articles allegedly made by the appellant. However, no finding was recorded whether the death was caused due to burns or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. 9. In his statement, PW-1 only spoke of the alleged harassment inflicted upon the deceased by the appellant. PW-2 Mangli Devi spoke of the demand for dowry articles allegedly made by the appellant. She then stated that three persons i.e. Matbar, Bissu and Sakku came in the day time and told that her niece has eaten cellphone. She also stated that her husband was ill and therefore could not go. Smt. Mangli Devi stated that the three persons later on said that the deceased had hanged herself and she should go there, but nobody had gone there. In his statement, PW-3 stated that on 13.2.1987, Matbar, Bissu and Sakku came at about 3 p.m. at his place and told that his girl is not well and she has called him there. He then stated that on inquiry by him, the three persons stated that his girl is hanged and her tongue is out, her legs upto knee are above the ground and she is dead. He told them to lodge the report at Thana and also send message to Vikram Singh. He stated that the appellant forced him to sign papers by holding out threat. These statements reveal that the three persons, namely, Matbar, Bissu and Sakku are said to have seen the body of the deceased hanging from the roof but neither of them was examined by the prosecution to prove that the deceased had not died under normal circumstances. 10. From what we have mentioned above, it is clear that the prosecution failed to prove that death of the deceased Smt. Kamla Devi occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. Therefore, his conviction under sections 304-B and 201, Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment as also the one rendered by the Sessions Judge are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges under sections 304-B and 201, Indian Penal Code the appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. Appeal Allowed.