JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.8.86 of Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore passed in S.T. No. 69/86 whereby accused-respondents have been acquitted for the offence punishable Under Section 306 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. It is not in dispute that deceased Sharda was married to respondent Sukhdeosingh. Respondent No. 1 Shivpujan Singh is the father of Sukhdeosingh and respondent No. 2 Ramdulari in his mother. P.W.1 Ramdharsingh and P.W. 2 Shantibai are father and mother respectively of deceased Shardabai. Ramdharsingh was working in 24th Battalion of SAF. This marriage took place on 28.4.84, Dowry nearly worth Rs. 10,000/- was given and list Ex. P/2 was prepared. Sharda sustained 100% burn-injuries in the morning of 21.7.84. She died on the spot. It is alleged that during marriage accused Sukhdeosingh with the active connivance of accused. Shivpujan Singh and Shivpujan Singh demanded Luna from Ramadhar Singh. Ramadhar Singh was not in a position to meet the demand. As such they did not take food in the house of Ramadhar. However, bride Sharda was sent alongwith them. It is also alleged that sarcastic remarks were made against Sharda and she was being harassed as the demand of Luna was not fulfilled. She was also pressurised for bringing Luna from her father. Harassed with unpalatable remarks from the in-laws and husband she committed suicide. 3. An intimation for the same was given by the neighbours to the police. The police took charge of the body; prepared inquest report and sent the body for post-mortem examination. 4. Autopsy on the body of deceased Sharda was conducted by P.W. 9 Dr. A.S. Vishnar who has opined that the burns were antemortem in nature and Sharda died of shock due to 100% burns (vide Ex. P/6). 5. After usual investigation challan against accused persons was filed and the same was committed to the Court of Sessions in due course. Accused persons abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. 6. After trial learned Judge has acquitted all the accused-respondents. Hence this appeal by the State against acquittal. 7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant State is that body with 100% burns was found inside the house and therefore, burden lies on the accused persons especially on Sukhdeo Singh husband of Sharda to explain as to how Sharda sustained burn-injuries. 8. Hence this appeal by the State against acquittal. 7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant State is that body with 100% burns was found inside the house and therefore, burden lies on the accused persons especially on Sukhdeo Singh husband of Sharda to explain as to how Sharda sustained burn-injuries. 8. As against it learned Counsel for accused-respondents has submitted that no fact of cruelty or harassment immediately before the alleged suicide was proved. If has also been submitted that the case is of accidental burns. 9. It may be observed at the outset that none of the persons residing in the neighbourhood have supported the case of the prosecution. It appears that the case has proceeded with half-hearted investigation. Ex. P/8 site-map and Ex. P. 10 inquest Report does not indicate as to whether there was any smell of Kerosene in the body of deceased or whether any object leading to suicide was found near the body. 10. No effect was made to obtain the opinion of the Doctor as to whether the death was homicidal or not. 11. P.W. 1 Ramadhar Singh and P.W. 2 Shantibai have stated about the demand of Luna by accused Sukhdeo Singh and his father Shivpujan Singh who were present in the bridegroom party. That fact has been corroborated by Ramnath Oza (P.W. 3) and Sachchitanand (P.W. 8) though certain omissions have been suggested but those are not very material. From the evidence of these three witnesses and P.W. 8 Sachchita Nand it is proved that there was a demand of Luna by accused Sukhdeo Singh in connivance with his father Shivpujan Singh and that could not be fulfilled by Ramdhar Singh. 12. But there is no clear and cogent evidence to show as to whether harassment was caused to the deceased, for that reason. As against it the evidence was come that Shivpujan Singh has celebrated the marriage of his son, no persons from the neighbourhood has stated about the cruelty having been practised against Sharda. 13. Though it is true that if a woman married within seven years (as in this case within 3 months) is treated with cruelty and she commits suicide in consequence thereof it shall be deemed that the husband and the inlaws and the persons who has prosecuted have abetted to commit suicide. 14. 13. Though it is true that if a woman married within seven years (as in this case within 3 months) is treated with cruelty and she commits suicide in consequence thereof it shall be deemed that the husband and the inlaws and the persons who has prosecuted have abetted to commit suicide. 14. Similarly the fact of harassment is also required to be proved like any other evidence. 15. Unless a consistent cruelty or harassment is shown and proved this presumption cannot be raised. There may be cases where cruelty or harassment may be immediate proximate cause of suicide and in that situation the facts are required to prove clearly. 16. Thus, despite the fact of demand of dowry haying been proved, in the absence of proof of consistant cruelty or harassment or any such act showing to be the immediate proximate cause of homicide the offence cannot be found to be proved. 17. Learned Trial Judge has also found this link missing in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 18. It is an accepted rule of law that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the same is not weakened in any way because of the pronouncement of acquittal. 19. It is also note worthy that in cases of appeal against acquittal the finding of fact arrived at by the Trial Court are not required to be disturbed if it is supportable otherwise unless it is wholly perverse or there has been miscarriage of justice because of rejection of important relevant and admissible evidence. This is not the case. We do not find sufficient ground for interference in the judgment of acquittal pronounced by the Trial Judge. 20. As a result the appeal is dismissed.