Hari Shankar Prasad, J.

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th March, 1999 and order of sentence dated 31st March, 1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 311/1996, whereby learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag held the appellants guilty under Section 304B/34, IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 10 years.

2, The case of the prosecution in brief is that Mangal Mahto submitted a report before the officer-in-charge, Barkagaon Police Station stating therein that his daughter Sarita Kumari was married with one Suresh Mahto in the year 1993 in which sufficient dowry was given. After solemnisation of marriage his daughter remained six months in her matrimonial home and there was cordial relation between his daughter and son-in-law Suresh but subsequently there was a demand of rupees ten thousand from the daughter of the informant. The informant could not make the payment due to his poor condition which led to torture upon his daughter in various ways and she was even turned out from her matrimonial home. The informant made efforts for reconciliation but he failed and the appellant pressed for payment of rupees ten thousand. The informant took his daughter to her matrimonial home and expressed his inability to fulfil their demand and on 10.4.1996 at about 5.00 p.m. informant came to know that his daughter has died and on such information informant inferred that this daughter had been murdered by the appellants due to non-payment of dowry. On the basis of written report a case under Sections 304B/34, IPC was registered being Barkagaon P.S Case No. 31/1996 dated 10.4.1996. After submission of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions and after framing of charges against the appellants trial proceeded and in course of trial several witnesses were examined. Learned Court below, after considering the evidence both oral and documentary, held the appellants guilty under Sections 304B/34, IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 10 years. Applants had pleaded not guilty to the charges. In course of trial 12 witnesses were examined and out of 12 witnesses PW 12 has been declared hostile. PW 3 is a tendered witness and PW 11 is formal witness.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants assailed the judgment on the ground that there is no witness to substantiate the allegation of demand of dowry of rupees ten thousand by the husband of the deceased and in absence of any such reliable evidence, the conviction is bad. The judgment has further been assailed on the ground that Sarita Devi (deceased) was suffering from heart ailment and this has been admitted by PW 1 himself. The learned Court below failed to take into consideration the petition filed by the informant through his own advocate stating therein that his daughter died due to heart failure. The doctor has not found any cause of death either in the post-mortem report or in evidence before the Court that in absence of any such specific evidence, appellants cannot be convicted. The allegation of administering poison to the deceased Sarita Devi has not been established and no forensic report to that effect has been received, the learned Court below has not framed questions correctly under Section 313, Cr PC and on this score also the appellants are fit to be acquitted.

4. PW 1, who is Sahdeo Yadav, has come to say that Sarita Devi was suffering from heart ailment and she died of diarrhea and she died after three years of her marriage. He has further stated that her sasural people never tortured her for anything.

5. PW 2 has been declared hostile but he has stated in his evidence that Sarita Devi was suffering from heart disease and her relation in her matrimonial home was cordial. PW 3 is tendered witness.

6. PW 4 Is Nago Mahto. He has come to say that he was told that Sarita Devi was poisoned to death by her sasural people by mixing poison in rice, as a result of which after consumption she died. O