JUDGMENT : S.K. Mishra, J. - The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur on 01.09.1994 in ST. Case No. 159/20 of 1992-93. The respondents stood charged for committing alleged offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC for brevity. 2. The prosecution case, sworn of necessary details, is that the deceased was given in marriage to respondent Surendra ' Suren Suhula in the year 1991. Both the deceased and her husband remained as husband and wife in the house of the accused persons. During her life time the accused persons were dissatisfied with the presentation given by the father of the deceased at the time of her marriage with the accused Suren Suhula. The prosecution, further, alleges that the accused demanded a T.V. and a new wrist watch from father of the deceased as the wrist given at the time of marriage was old. Since the father of the deceased failed to supply the dowry demanded, the deceased was subjected to torture. On one day she died. Her dead body was buried by the accused persons after sending message of her death to her father. Since he was not intimated about the reasons of her death, father of the deceased suspected foul play and, therefore, he lodged an FIR before the Police. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was exhumed and inquest was held over it. The dead body was subjected to postmortem at V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla. After completion of investigation, the Investigation Officer submitted charge sheet against the accused persons for the alleged commission of offences as narrated above. 3. The defence resorted to the plea of denial with a definite plea that the deceased died due to illness. In this case the prosecution has examined only five witnesses and the defence has examined one. After taking into consideration the evidence led by both the sides, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the ingredients required for attracting the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 of the IPC are not made out in the case and, therefore, he proceeded to acquit the accused persons of the offences alleged. 4. Assailing such judgment of acquittal, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the ingredients required for attracting the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 of the IPC are not made out in the case and, therefore, he proceeded to acquit the accused persons of the offences alleged. 4. Assailing such judgment of acquittal, the learned Addl. Government Advocate strenuously argued that there is enough material on record to come to the conclusion that the deceased died an unnatural death and that she was subjected to ill-treatment and tortured for dowry. Hence, the judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that since the vital ingredients like unnatural death of the deceased and torturing the deceased soon before her death has not been established in this case, the appellate Court should not interfere with the findings of the learned trial Court. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 5. It is not disputed that in order to bring home the charges u/s 304-B of the IPC, the prosecution must establish the following: 1. the death of the deceased should have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; 2. such death should have been occurred within seven years of marriage; 3. she should have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband soon before such death and 4. such cruelty and harassment should be in connection with demand for dowry. In case all the ingredients are satisfied then the offences called dowry death is said to have been established against the accused persons. In such a case the presumption regarding dowry death of the deceased can arose u/s 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Since the main offence in this case is u/s 304-B of the IPC, it is apt for this Court to first examine whether this offence u/s 304-B of the IPC has been made out or not. 6. It is undisputed that the dead body was subjected to postmortem examination by a team of doctors comprising of P.W.2, Dr. P. Mohanty and Dr. A.K. Sarangi at V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla. It is stated on oath by Dr. Mohanty, P.W.2 that on post-mortem examination he found the following: i. contused abrasion 5 cm. x 1 cm. 6. It is undisputed that the dead body was subjected to postmortem examination by a team of doctors comprising of P.W.2, Dr. P. Mohanty and Dr. A.K. Sarangi at V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla. It is stated on oath by Dr. Mohanty, P.W.2 that on post-mortem examination he found the following: i. contused abrasion 5 cm. x 1 cm. on the left side of the fore head above the middle eye brow. On dissection he found ii. collection of blood in the right side of abdomen; iii. contusion 8 cm. x 5 cm. on the mesentery on ascending colour; iv. Left plank below postal cartilage, looks dark and contused. The scalp tissue contused corresponding to injury no. 1 external. External injury no. 1 and internal injuries nos. 2 and 3 were ante-mortem in nature. The doctor has further opinion that the external injury nos. 1, 2 and 4 are ante-mortem in nature. He has not come to a definite conclusion regarding cause of death and the viscera were preserved. The prosecution has not produced the chemical examination report of the viscera, if at all viscera were sent for examination. The doctor has not given definite opinion about the nature of the death of the deceased. 7. The learned Addl. Government Advocate has relied on the case of Smt Shanti and Another Vs. State of Haryana, and Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and Others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that where the death of a woman is caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before death of a women, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or her relations for, or in connection with any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death" and the husband or relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death and shall be punished with imprisonment for minimum of seven years but which may extend to life imprisonment. The aforesaid decision is of no avail to the prosecution in this case as there is no material on record that the death of the deceased was not under normal circumstances. The aforesaid decision is of no avail to the prosecution in this case as there is no material on record that the death of the deceased was not under normal circumstances. It was duty of the prosecution to prove that the death of the deceased was not under normal circumstances and to that effect, the doctor who has conducted post-mortem examination should have opined about such unnatural death under oath. There being no such evidence, the ingredients required for attracting the offence u/s 304-B of the IPC is not satisfied. 8. Secondly, P.W. 3, Bhimsen Dora, who happens to be the father of the deceased has stated on oath that the deceased came to his house and reported that accused Surendra and her in-laws demanded a T.V. and a new wrist watch as one given was old. She was also complaining that the accused persons were abusing her and assaulting her many times. He further stated that one year after the marriage once at night when he was taking his mean two persons came from the village of the accused and reported that his daughter died in the house of the accused. He hired a jeep and proceeded there. P.W. 1 is a co-villagers of the accused. He has also not stated about anything about the demand of dowry to torture allegedly meted out to the deceased. P.W.4, Keshabnanda Sohula has stated that he is a relative of the informant. He has stated that about a year, prior to his deposition, at about 9 P.M., one day two persons came from village Lipinda and reported that the daughter of P.W. 3 had died. They hired a vehicle and went to the house of the accused. By then, the dead body of the deceased was buried 3 to 4 k.ms. away from the house of the accused. He has also not stated anything regarding the demand of dowry articles by the accused persons. P.W. 5 has stated that the family members of the accused Surendra including himself and his father were not satisfied with the presentation given by the father P.W. 3. They demanded a radio, T.V. and a Wrist Watch. The deceased before her death came to their house and reported that the accused persons were torturing her for hose articles. P.W. 5 has stated that the family members of the accused Surendra including himself and his father were not satisfied with the presentation given by the father P.W. 3. They demanded a radio, T.V. and a Wrist Watch. The deceased before her death came to their house and reported that the accused persons were torturing her for hose articles. One year prior to his deposition before the Court, two persons came to the village of the accused and reported that the deceased has died. 9. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence it is not clear that nowhere the prosecution witnesses have given the particulars of demand of dowry as regards the date and time. Moreover, there is no specific evidence to the effect that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to any cruelty or ill-treatment in connection with any demand for dowry. Thus, the most vital ingredients to attract the provision of Section 304-B of the IPC are not satisfied in this case. 10. There are some allegations that the accused persons had demanded dowry from the relations of the deceased, It is apparent from the record that the deceased has allegedly revealed before her father and others that they have demanded Radio, T.V. and Wrist Watch. However, such evidence is not admissible in evidence u/s 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and cannot be acted upon. Thus, keeping in view the foresaid discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that the judgment to acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity requiring interference of the appellate Court. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal the same is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed