R. K. MERATHIA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Mr. T. R. Bajaj, for the appellant and Mr. S. K. Dutta learned APP for the State.

( 2 ) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment dated 15th February, 2000, passed by Shri Sheo Kumar Prasad, learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 272 of 1997 convicting the appellants under Sections 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each.

( 3 ) ON the basis of a written report (Ext. 4) of Devendra Mohan Prasad (Informant PW 6) father of Baby Sunita Kumari (deceased) FIR (Ext. 6) was drawn. As per the written report, Sunita Kumari got married with Dr. Abinash Chandra Prabhakar (appellant No. 3) about a year ago. At the time of marriage, informant had given dahej according to his capacity but the in-laws of the daughter were not satisfied with it and they used to demand more dahej on telephone and through letters. On 7/3/1996, the informant gave a Maruti Car to his daughter in hedaigirit. Thereafter his daughter was happy for sometime but the in-laws again started torturing her after a month for the demand of more dowry. On 3/12/1996 at about 5. 45 a. m. in the morning, informant received a message on telephone by appellant No. 1 that Sunita Kumari had sustained some burn injuries while she was boiling milk. Telephone was cut. He waited for more information. He became suspicious. Thereafter he along with his son, Manoj Kumar (PW 5), his brother Dr. Ashok Mehta (PW 2) and his neighbour Abhay Kumar Singh (PW 4) reached at the official quarter of appellant No. 1 at Patratu. He found his daughter dead lying in the kitchen with burn injuries on her person. It is alleged that the cause of death is that the in-laws of Sunita Kumari were not satisfied with dahej and were demanding more. A car was given. Then there was peace for sometime but again the demand started. Sunita used to tell that she may be killed for dowry, but he did not take it seriously and told her to live in sasural with adjust-ment. It was further alleged that on 24/11/1996, Manoj Kumar, brother and uncle of the deceased, had gone to her in-laws house to bring her to attend the marriage of Manoj Kumar, scheduled to be held on 7/12/1996 but they were not allowed to see her and she was not allowed to go to her parents house. It is further alleged that when Sunita Kumari had met Manoj Kumar she complained that she was not liked by her in- laws and her husband and they were always ill-treating her for dowry and she had apprehension that she might be killed by her husband and in-laws. But the informant thought that there will be adjustment between Sunita and her in-laws. It is further alleged that her husband Dr. Abinash Chandra Prabhakar in order to save him has made show of some burns on his person.

( 4 ) CHARGE-SHEET was submitted against the appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and then a supplementary charge-sheet was also submitted against two nanads namely Suchitra Devi, Kiran Devi and Sudhir Chandra Prabhakar, bhainsurt of the deceased, appellant No. 4. The said nanads namely Suchitra Devi and Kiran Devi have been acquitted by the trial Court.

( 5 ) THE accused persons were charged under Section 304-B/34, IPC.

( 6 ) MR. Bajaj, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that all the ingredients of Section 304-B, IPC are not made out in this case. He admitted that the first two ingredients namely un-natural death by burns and within seven years of marriage are not disputed. However, the other ingredients namely, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in connection with any demand of dowry, by her husband or relative of her husband have not been satisfactorily proved by the prosecution.

( 7 ) HE submitted that the following facts are admitted. The marriage took place on 2/12/1995 at Hazaribagh. After reception at Patratu, on 6/12/1995, Sunita Kumari returned to Hazaribagh with her father, where she remained for about three months. On