ORDER : The appellants happen to be the father-in-law and husband of the deceased-Saroj and aggrieved by their conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of seven years are before us with the leave of the Court. 2. According to the prosecution, three daughters of PW 3 Hari Singh, namely, Saroj Bala (deceased), Raj Bala PW 1 and Bimla were married to the three brothers, namely, Ram Parshad, appellant No. 2 herein, Dharamvir and Surender in the year 1984. It is their case that, at the time of settlement of these marriages, Hari Singh had promised to pay a sum of Rs. 21,000/- each in the marriage of the three daughters. It is further alleged that after the settlement of the marriage and before its solemnisation, the Panchayats of several villages unanimously resolved that a sum of Rs. 100/- only to be given to the groom or his parents at the time of marriage. In light of the said decision, according to the prosecution, Hari Singh PW 3 paid Rs. 100/- to each of his three sons-in-law separately at the time of the marriages of his three daughters. This caused annoyance to appellant No. 1-Dod Ram, father-in-law and when he went to the house of Hari Singh PW 3 in connection with 'Muklawa' ceremony, reminded Hari Singh of his promise to pay Rs. 21,000/- to him. However, the amount was not paid but a promise was made that the payment shall be made in instalments and, accordingly, 'Muklawa' ceremony was performed and the deceased-Saroj was taken to the matrimonial home. The demand for dowry was repeated by appellant No. 1 on several occasions thereafter. 3. In the night between 29.05.1988 and 30.05.1988, Hari Singh PW 3 was informed that his daughter-Saroj was lying ill in the hospital. Hari Singh PW 3 along with his uncle and about 30 co-villagers came to the house of Saroj where she was found lying dead in the court-yard. He did not suspect any foul play and participated in her cremation along with her other relations. However, on 1.06.1988, when his another daughter, namely, Rajbala PW 1, informed about the beating of Saroj by her husband, she got suspicious. He did not suspect any foul play and participated in her cremation along with her other relations. However, on 1.06.1988, when his another daughter, namely, Rajbala PW 1, informed about the beating of Saroj by her husband, she got suspicious. On the basis of the information gathered by the father, he gave report to the Police and on that basis F.I.R. No. 91 dated 2.06.1988 under Section 302/34, 304-B and 201/34 of the IPC was registered. 4. After usual investigation, the Police submitted the charge sheet against the appellants, i.e., father-in-law and the husband besides brother-in-law, mother-in-law and the sister-in-law. 5. During the trial, charges under Section 498-A and 304-B and in the alternative under Section 302/34 and 201 of the IPC were framed. The accused denied to have committed any offence and their plea is that the deceased died of heat strokes and, therefore, they cannot be held guilty of the offence for which they have been charged. The Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, by the judgment and order dated 12.02.1990 convicted all the accused, excepting the brother- in-law of the deceased i.e. Dharamvir, under Section 304-B of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Aggrieved by the same, the convicts preferred an appeal before the High Court and the High Court by the impugned order dated 27.08.2003 has upheld the appellants' conviction but acquitted others of the charges. This is how the appellants are before us with the leave of the Court. 6. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that there is no evidence brought by the prosecution that the deceased Saroj died otherwise than under normal circumstances and hence one of the ingredients necessary for constituting the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC is missing. 7. Mr. Rahul Bakshi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of Haryana, submits that the very fact that the deceased was beaten in the night preceding the date of her death clearly shows that she died otherwise than under normal circumstances. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and find substance in the submission of Mr. Jain. 9. Rahul Bakshi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of Haryana, submits that the very fact that the deceased was beaten in the night preceding the date of her death clearly shows that she died otherwise than under normal circumstances. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and find substance in the submission of Mr. Jain. 9. It is well settled that for establishing an offence under Section 304-B of the IPC, it is imperative to establish the following ingredients:- (i) Death of the woman is caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise under normal circumstances; (ii) Such a death has occurred within seven years of the marriage; (iii) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband or his relatives; (iv) Such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any demand of dowry; and (v) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before the death. 10. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides for drawing presumption as to dowry death, which reads as follows: "113B. Presumption as to dowry death.- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a women and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)." 11. In our opinion in order to establish the offence under Section 304-B, the prosecution is required to prove the ingredient referred to above and it is only on prove thereof the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act shall come into play. The view which we have taken finds support from a decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. M.V. Manjunathegowda and Anr. reported in 2003 (1) DMC 201 SC : 2003 (1) SLT 159 : 2013 (1) CCR 99 SC : (2003) 2 SCC 188 , wherein it has been held as follows: "22. The view which we have taken finds support from a decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. M.V. Manjunathegowda and Anr. reported in 2003 (1) DMC 201 SC : 2003 (1) SLT 159 : 2013 (1) CCR 99 SC : (2003) 2 SCC 188 , wherein it has been held as follows: "22. The aforesaid legal position, as it stands now, is that in order to establish the offence under Section 304-B IPC the prosecution is obliged to prove that the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances and such death occurs 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. Such harassment and cruelty must be in connection with any demand for dowry. 23. If the prosecution is able to prove the aforesaid circumstances then the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act will operate. It is the rebuttable presumption and the onus to rebut shifts on the accused." 12. Here, in the present case, the deceased had died within seven years of the marriage and there is ample evidence to show that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand for dowry soon before her death. However, we find that there is nothing to show that the deceased died of burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances. Hari Singh PW 3, the father of the deceased and her sister Rajbala PW 1 had clearly stated in their evidence that they have not found any injury on the person of the deceased. Further, the father of the deceased-PW 3, along with a large number of his co-villagers had participated in the cremation of the deceased-Saroj without any protest. There is no evidence in regard to her state of health at that particular point of time. Dr. Virender Kumar Jain DW 4 had stated in his evidence that when he came to examine Saroj at the instance of her in-laws, she was already dead. In his opinion, she had died about 20 minutes earlier due to dehydration on account of heat stroke. Dr. Virender Kumar Jain DW 4 had stated in his evidence that when he came to examine Saroj at the instance of her in-laws, she was already dead. In his opinion, she had died about 20 minutes earlier due to dehydration on account of heat stroke. He had further stated, in his evidence, that seven to eight deaths had taken place in the area during that period due to heat stroke. The father (PW 3) and sister (PW 1) of the deceased as also the Investigating Officer had admitted that during that period there were heat waves going in the area. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of Dr. Virender Kumar Jain DW 4. Simply because she has been examined at the instance of the accused does not render his evidence doubtful. 13. In the face of what we have found and observed above, it is difficult to hold that the deceased-Saroj died otherwise than under normal circumstances so as to attract the mischief of Section 304-B of the IPC. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the appellants deserve to be given the benefit of doubt and we grant that accordingly. 14. In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence. The appellants are on bail. They are discharged of their bail bonds. Appeal allowed - High Court judgment reversed.