ORDER : This appeal has been preferred by appellants - Brother-in-law, Sister-in-law and Mother-in-law of the deceased against judgment dated 25th May, 2010 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 525-SB of 1999. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants and affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 498-A and 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows : Complainant Ram Phal, father of deceased - Bimala, lodged a report with the Police Station stating therein that daughter - Bimala was married with accused Ajit in the year 1990 and on the same date, his another daughter Guddi was also married with accused Bijender, brother of co-accused Ajit. Bimala gave birth to two children whereas Guddi has no issue. The complainant gave dowry more than his capacity but both Ajit and Bijender as well as their mother Smt. Chanderpati and sister Bimla maltreated both Bimala and Guddi and used to taunt them for bringing less dowry. Accused Ajit and Bijender made demands from time to time and about 2 years prior to the occurrence of the said event, they both demanded Rs.50,000/- for purchasing a tempo and on account of his helplessness to pay such amount, the accused started harassing both the daughters of the complainant. He also took the Sarpanch of his village, to the Village of the accused twice and the accused assured not to harass Bimala and Guddi in future. About one month prior to the occurrence, Guddi visited her parental home and told them about the harassment. Thereafter on 6th February, 1994, the complainant got an information about the death of Bimala and on the next day, he was accompanied by ex-sarpanch Surat Singh went to the house of the accused and found 5-6 people sitting on the ground outside the house. At that time, Sitar Singh told that a mistake had been committed and begged for forgiveness. According to the complainant, all the accused had killed his daughter Bimala on 4th February, 1994 on account of dowry and cremated the body. On the basis of this Statement, a case was registered against the accused for the offence under Section 498A, 304-B and 201 IPC. According to the complainant, all the accused had killed his daughter Bimala on 4th February, 1994 on account of dowry and cremated the body. On the basis of this Statement, a case was registered against the accused for the offence under Section 498A, 304-B and 201 IPC. However, at the stage of framing of the charge, trial court framed charges for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC. 3. To prove the case, prosecution placed 11 witnesses; a number of exhibits were also produced. The defence in support of their case produced 10 witnesses, a number of exhibits including out door patient prescription slips of Bimala Exb. DG, prescription slips Exb. DH and Exh. DI etc. 4. The accused in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded their innocence. 5. The Trial Court after going through the evidence on record convicted the accused/appellants as noticed above. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellants and another accused - Ajit preferred appeal before the High Court. Learned Single Judge of the High Court mainly relying on statement of PW-8 Ramphal, PW-4 Guddi, PW-7 Surant Singh and PW-6 Dhoop Singh held the charges proved, dismissed the appeal and upheld the finding of the trial court. 7. The main plea taken by learned counsel for the appellants is that the prosecution failed to prove the basic ingredients, namely, (i) the death of the deceased was caused by burn or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances and (ii) soon before her death the deceased has been subjected to cruelty or harassment by any of the accused for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, in view of the statement of the witnesses, namely PW-4, PW-8, PW-6 and PW-7, the Trial Court and the High Court rightly held that the accused committed dowry death and they committed harassment. 9. We have heard the parties and perused the record. 10. PW-8-Ram Phal-complainant and the father of the deceased-Bimala in his deposition while given details regarding the marriage of Bimala and Guddi with accused Ajit and Bijender, stated that the accused Ajit and Bijender came to his village at his house and put up a demand of Rs.50,000/- to purchase a tempo. He told them that because of his poor financial position, he cannot fulfil their demands, at which, accused went away. He told them that because of his poor financial position, he cannot fulfil their demands, at which, accused went away. Thereafter, the accused started harassing his daughter all the more. He accompanied by Sheoraj, Dhup Singh and Zile Singh went to the house of the accused, and talked to the father of the accused who with folded hands begged apology and agreed to treat his daughter properly in future. Since Sitar Singh father of the accused has not been made as a witness, as such, the evidence of the PW-8 on that count was opposed by learned counsel for the accused/appellants. PW-8 stated that the accused killed his daughter Bimala after she had given birth to a male child. His daughter was killed on 4th February, 1994 and he came to know about her demise on 6th of February, 1994. He further stated that one boy came in his house and in his absence told his son that Bimala had died. 11. The son of PW-8 was not examined as prosecution witness. Therefore, the statement of PW-8 about elimination of his daughter-Bimala by accused being not trustworthy cannot be relied upon, as to the fact. His statement that some boy told his son that Bimala has been eliminated by the accused, cannot be relied upon, as to ascertain the fact the accused eliminated the deceased Bimala or Bimala died otherwise, under normal circumstances. 12. PW-4-Guddi is the sister of deceased Bimala. She is the wife of accused Bijender. She was aged about 18-19 years at the time of deposition. In her statement while she stated that both the accused used to harass and beat both of them. She further stated that they used to raise a demand of Rs.50,000/- in cash, about two years prior to the death of her sister. She further stated that they informed her parents about the demand on which their father took Sarpanch to the house of the accused to sort out the issue. After some time, they raised demand of motor cycle and coloured T.V. and all the accused also raised demand of domestic small flour mill (atta chakki) and chalf cutter. To meet out their demand, their father paid sum of Rs.10,000/- to accused. However, her statement was not accepted by the Court below in absence of any corroborating evidence in her support. 13. To meet out their demand, their father paid sum of Rs.10,000/- to accused. However, her statement was not accepted by the Court below in absence of any corroborating evidence in her support. 13. PW-4-Guddi in her deposition stated that her sister was murdered and was cremated. On 6th February, 1994 at about 6.00 P.M. she came to know about mishap. She further stated that on 1st January, 1994, her sister had given birth to a male child. However, in her cross examination, she stated that she had visited her husband's house only thrice after her marriage. First time, she stayed for 5(five) days, second time for 15(fifteen) days and third time for 20(twenty) days. At the time of death of her sister. PW-4 - Guddi was not staying in the matrimonial house. 14. In cross-examination, the defence counsel made suggestion relating to cause of death of the deceased Bimala. In reply, PW-4-Guddi stated that it is incorrect to suggest that on 01.02.1994 his sister fell ill and died on 04.02.1994 on account of Pneumonia. She further denied the suggestion that at the time of death of her sister, her father was informed and that her father went to her in-law house and attended last rites of her sister in the cremation ground. She further denied the suggestion that after three days of her death, her father in collusion with some of the witnesses and police got registered the false case against the accused. 15. PW-6-Dhup Singh deposed that he was a member of the Panchayat which had been taken to village Majra twice. First in the month of February and secondly in March/April, 1992. At that time father of accused Ajit and Bijender assured that they shall not harass Bimala in future. The said witness was declared hostile though he admitted that the panchayat was held because the accused used to harass Bimala and Guddi both. 16. The prosecution failed to bring on record any evidence to suggest that the death of the deceased was caused by burns or any bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances. In fact, the death took place on 04.02.1994 after that her body was cremated. Later on after two days FIR was lodged. 16. The prosecution failed to bring on record any evidence to suggest that the death of the deceased was caused by burns or any bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances. In fact, the death took place on 04.02.1994 after that her body was cremated. Later on after two days FIR was lodged. There is no evidence relating to the cause of death except the suggestion given by defence during cross examination of the PW-4 and the defence witnesses produced by the accused/appellants in their defence. In absence of the aforesaid main ingredient, we hold that prosecution failed to make out a case for conviction under Section 304-B, IPC. 17. It is interesting to note that the statement of defence witnesses and the evidence placed on behalf of the defence. 18. DW1-Dr. C.R. Dagar, Upkar Hospital, Charkhi Dadri Sikri, Bhiwani claimed that he had retired as Medical Officer, Incharge, Hospital , Dadri in the year 1975 and since thereafter he had been doing private practice. He deposed that Patient Bimala wife of Ajit came to his clinic on 1.2.1994, and was diagnosed of Pneumonia. He treated her as out door patient. In support of his statement, the prescription slip Ex. DG. was proved by him. 19. DW2-Dr. Satya Julka deposed that she issued prescription slips Ex. DH and Ex. D1 in respect of treatment of a lady Bimala. Ex. DH is dated 30.07.1993 and Ex. D1 is dated 16.09.1993. The said witness made clear that on 16.09.1993, the patient was pregnant by 18 weeks and the delivery was expected in January, 1994. 20. However, statements of aforesaid both the doctors and the evidence placed them were disbelieved by the trial court only on the ground that doctors have failed to take the name of the Village of the patient and the address of Bimala. It is common knowledge that in a prescription of a patient the doctor writes the name of the patient, age of the patient, disease from which patient is suffering and the medicine which is prescribed apart from test, if prescribed. No address, parentage and name of the Village are mandatory to be written in the law. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence placed by the defence in its proper aspect and wrongly discarded the defence evidence. 21. No address, parentage and name of the Village are mandatory to be written in the law. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence placed by the defence in its proper aspect and wrongly discarded the defence evidence. 21. Statement of Ram Phal (PW8), Guddi (PW4) and Dhup Singh (PW6) does not inspire confidence and cannot be relied upon to come to a definite conclusion, that all the four accused used to harass the deceased and her sister for having not taken adequate dowry. PW-4 Guddi in her statement has stated that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to taunt and harass them. All the four accused used to cause beat them. PW-6 - Dhup Singh deposed that the accused Ajit and Bijender assured that they shall not harass Bimala in future. PW8-Ram Phal stated that Ajit and Bijender came to his house and demanded Rs.50,000/- to purchase a tempo two years before the occurrence of the event. There is no specific allegation made by any of the aforesaid witnesses about harassment of Bimala with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand. If two brothers asked for Rs.50,000/- for purchase of tempo, in absence of corroborating evidence, it cannot be concluded that such demand was unlawful. In normal course, many times one relation may ask for some loan from the other relation for purchase of vehicle or property. In the present case there is no allegation that due to non-payment of the amount two years back the deceased was harassed by the accused. In absence of any specific evidence to prosecute under Section 498A IPC, we are of the view that the accused appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt as prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. 22. For the reason aforesaid, we have no other option, but to set aside the judgment dated 24th May, 1999/26th May, 1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar in Sessions Case No. 24 of 1998 as affirmed by the impugned judgment dated 25th May, 2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 525-SB of 1999 in so far it relates to the accused appellants. 23. Appeal is allowed. Bail bonds shall stand discharged.