JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellants have been convicted under Sections 201, 498A and 304B/34 IPC and sentenced to Rl for 1 year and 10 years respectively but no separate has been sentenced under Section 498A IPC by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in S. Tr. No. 190/92/20/93. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the daughter of the Informant was married to the Appellant No. 3 about 5 years ago and there was no torture initially for 2 years after marriage but subsequently they started demand of dowry of Rs. 2,000. Subsequently he learnt that his daughter was unwell he went to see her then his daughter told him that she was being tortured. Still later while she was in her matrimonial home a relative of the Informant gave information that his daughter was very critical and when he went to her house the Appellant No. 2 did not allow him to see her and he learnt that his daughter had been murdered and cremated for ends of dowry. 3. The prosecution in all examined ten witnesses out of whom PW. 2, PW. 5 and PW. 7 had been declared hostile whereas PW. 6 and PW. 8 are tendered. PW. 1 is the mother of the deceased and PW. 2 is a relative. PW. 3 the brother of the deceased whereas PW. 4 is the father of the deceased. PW. 9 is the cousin of the deceased and PW. 10 is the Investigating Officer. During trial prosecution also brought Exh. A to A/3 series were allegedly written by the deceased but since they were unsigned and brought on record only during trial they were disbelieved by the Court. 4. The defence on its behalf examined two witnesses who were neighbours and testified that in fact the deceased had died on account of abdominal pain and there was never complaint of demands of dowry or torture for refusal of the same. 5. From the evidence of PW. 8, I find that he has stated in his cross-examination that he had heard that the deceased had died on account of abdominal pain. Similarly PW. 7 even though declared hostile had admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased had died on account of abdominal pain. 5. From the evidence of PW. 8, I find that he has stated in his cross-examination that he had heard that the deceased had died on account of abdominal pain. Similarly PW. 7 even though declared hostile had admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased had died on account of abdominal pain. It supports the defence version in a case of Section 304B IPC, the onus is on the Accused persons if it is proved satisfactorily by the prosecution that the death had occurred within seven years in unnatural circumstances and soon before the death the deceased had been tortured for ends of dowry. In this case the Accused persons have taken three pains to discharge their onus even though they were not required to do so since the prosecution has not been able to prove that death was unnatural or soon before the death the deceased was being tortured for ends of dowry. Further even the prosecution witnesses admitted that they had heard that the deceased had died on account of abdominal pain. 6. Hence I am not inclined to accept the prosecution case. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated, 6th September, 1995 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in S.Tr. No. 190/92/20/93 is set aside. The Appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds.