JUDGMENT : PER ANANDA SEN, J. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for the State at length. 2. This appeal arises out of judgment of conviction dated 17.01.2018 and order of sentence dated 23.01.2028 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum Special Judge, FTC, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum in Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2014 whereby and whereunder appellants have been convicted under section 304B of IPC. Appellant no. 1 was sentenced to RI for 8 years and appellant no. 2 was sentenced to RI for life. 3. Mrs. Moushmi Chatterjee, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish basic ingredients of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. None of the witnesses have stated that soon before death there was demand of dowry and the deceased was subjected to cruelty in reference to it. In absence of the aforesaid ingredients the appellants cannot be convicted under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. It is argued that alternative charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has failed and there is no evidence of dowry death to prove the charge under section 304B of IPC. 4. The learned APP submits that PW1 who is the father and PW2 the brother of the deceased stated that there was demand of money and gold chain and due to non-fulfillment of the same the deceased was done to death. Admittedly the deceased died within seven years of marriage. From the postmortem report it is clear that the death is not natural. He submits that there is demand of dowry and death has occurred within seven years of marriage and the death is unnatural and in terms of Section 113B of the Evidence Act, the onus shifts upon the appellants to prove their innocence. In this case the reverse burden has not been discharged by the appellants, thus, as per the legal presumption they are to be held guilty and the Court has rightly convicted the appellants. 5. In order to appreciate the rival argument made on behalf of both the sides it will be desirable to extract Section 304B of IPC which reads as follows: “304B. 5. In order to appreciate the rival argument made on behalf of both the sides it will be desirable to extract Section 304B of IPC which reads as follows: “304B. 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.” 6. The basic ingredient of section 304B of IPC is that the prosecution has to establish that the deceased-wife died within seven years from the date of marriage, the death was unnatural or by burn or any bodily injury which occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband or in connection with any demand for dowry. If the prosecution establishes all these three ingredients then in terms of section 113B of Evidence Act the burden would shift upon the accused to prove their innocence. Only after the prosecution has established these three main ingredients then a question of reverse burden would arise and not before that. 7. Considering the proposition of law, we have to analyse the evidence led by the prosecution. PW7 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem of the deceased. He found tip of tongue protruded and clinched in between teeth. Blood discharge through nostrils. On dissection soft tissues under skin along temporal region of scalp found contused, brain was found contused and soft tissues along airways over thyroid region was also found contused without any corresponding mark of injury (pressure externally over neck). He opined that aforesaid injuries were ante-mortem in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. Blood discharge through nostrils. On dissection soft tissues under skin along temporal region of scalp found contused, brain was found contused and soft tissues along airways over thyroid region was also found contused without any corresponding mark of injury (pressure externally over neck). He opined that aforesaid injuries were ante-mortem in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. Death was due to head injury, however non-fatal pressure had been applied over neck as well. The time elapsed since death was 30 to 36 hours approximately. 8. Thus from the evidence of the doctor, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove that the death is due to bodily injury and is otherwise than under normal circumstances. One of the ingredients has been established by the prosecution. Further PW1 the father and PW2 the brother of the deceased have stated that deceased was married in the year 2009 and death had taken place on 31.05.2013, thus within seven years from the date of marriage death had taken place. The second condition to attract section 304B of IPC is also proved and established by the prosecution. 9. Now the last condition that soon before death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with demand of dowry has to be seen. In this case though eight witnesses were examined, we find that PW4, PW5 and PW6 were declared hostile they have stated nothing. PW3 though not declared hostile but has not stated anything about demand of dowry or cause of death. PW8 is the investigating officer and PW7 is the doctor. On this point PW1 and PW2 are the main witnesses who are the father and brother of the deceased; they have stated that the deceased was married sometime in the year 2009. After the marriage the appellants started demanding dowry and torturing the deceased. The demand was for money and gold chain. From the evidence, since we find that the deceased was married in the year 2009 then we can assume that torture was made sometime in the year 2009-10 itself. When we go through the entire evidence of these two witnesses we find that there is nothing to suggest that soon before death i.e. soon before May 2013 there was any demand for dowry or any torture or any harassment. When we go through the entire evidence of these two witnesses we find that there is nothing to suggest that soon before death i.e. soon before May 2013 there was any demand for dowry or any torture or any harassment. The prosecution has not brought any evidence to suggest that the deceased was tortured soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry. Thus we come to a definite opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove soon before death the deceased was harassed or tortured for dowry or in connection with any demand of dowry. 10. From what has been held above, we find that out of the three basic ingredients, the prosecution had to establish all of them simultaneously. In this case prosecution has failed to prove one. Thus when they have failed to prove one of the basic ingredients, there can be no conviction under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution has not been able to prove the charge under section 304B IPC and when the ingredient has not been established there is no question of reverse burden in this case in terms of section 113B of Evidence Act. 11. Considering what has been held above, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of these appellants. The conviction of the appellants under Section 304B of IPC vide judgment of conviction dated 17.01.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum Special Judge, FTC, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum in Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2014, is hereby set aside and accordingly, the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 23.01.2018 to both the appellants is also set aside. 12. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the appellant no. 2, namely, Lakheshwar Mahto to be released forthwith from custody, if not required in any other case. So far as appellant no. 1, namely, Latika Mahto @ Latika Mahato is concerned, she is on bail and, accordingly, she and her bailors are discharged of the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished by them. In view of the order passed in the instant appeal, pending I.A. No. 5104 of 2024 stands disposed of. Let a copy of the judgment along with the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.