R. P. AWASTHY, J. ( 1 ) IT is an appeal against the finding of holding the accused/appellant guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that Smt Sunita Sahu was married to the accused/appellant within seven years of her suicidal death. It is also not in dispute that Daulal Sahu (PW 2) is the father and Smt Budda (PW 5) is the mother of the deceased Smt. Sunita Sanu. ( 3 ) PROSECUTION case is that at the time of marriage the accused/appellant demanded a Motor Cycle or in its lieu Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand) in dowry of his marriage. As Daulal Sahu was extremely poor and was not in a position to pay the said amount, he could not give either motorcycle or the said demanded amount to the accused/appellant. ( 4 ) AFTER about three years of marriage, the accused/appellant came in a Jeep to the house of Dulal Sahu along with 5 to 7 anti-social elements. They entered the house of Daulal Sahu and threatened to take forcibly Smt. Sunita Sahu from the house of Daulal Sahu. When Daulal raised alarm, the persons in the vicinity came there and asked the accused that he should come along with his elders, as per custom of the community, to perform Gouna after his marriage with Sunita. On being so pacified, the accused returned to the Jamuna Colliary, Police Station, Kotma, District Shahdol, where he was serving at that time. ( 5 ) IT was also contended for the prosecution that after bringing Sunita to his house the accused started subjecting her to cruelty for meeting the demand of Rs. 15,000/- or a motor cycle. On account of said subjection of cruelty Smt. Sunita committed suicide on 30. 7. 88 at about 10. 30 a. m. by pouring kerosene oil on herself and putting fire on her person. She had closed the door of the room in which she had committed suicide. Roof of the room was got cut by the persons residing in the vicinity and on the door being opened by Mohd. Jalil (PW 3), the other persons who were also residing in the neighbourhood, came inside the said room and found Sunita dead. She had closed the door of the room in which she had committed suicide. Roof of the room was got cut by the persons residing in the vicinity and on the door being opened by Mohd. Jalil (PW 3), the other persons who were also residing in the neighbourhood, came inside the said room and found Sunita dead. ( 6 ) DEAD body of Sunita was sent to the Primary Health Centre, Kotm3 where Dr. Ansari (PW 1) conducted autopsy on the said dead body. On receiving the information regarding untimely death of Sunita, Daulal Sahu (PW 2) came to the house of the accused/appellant. On 1. 8. 88 Daulal Sahu came to the District Court, Shadol where he got an application typed which he submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Shahdol. On receiving the said typed complaint, case for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 304-B of I. P. C. was registered at the Police Station Kota and investigation was conducted by Shri Hiramani Singh Chouhan (PW 16) as well as by Shri D. P. Singh (PW 15), who was S. D. O. (Police) Kotma at that time. ( 7 ) AFTER conduction of investigation, report under Section 173 of Cr. P. C. was filed in the Competent Court. On charge of alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 304-B, I. P. C. being framed against the accused, the accused denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded not guilty. ( 8 ) AFTER recording evidence, the Trial Court held the accused-appellant guilty and sentenced him as detailed above. ( 9 ) IT has been argued for the accused appellant that there is absolutely no evidence in the case that Sunita was subjected to cruelty by the accused/appellant and in any case it was not a case where maximum sentence of imprisonment for life could have been awarded to the accused/appellant. ( 10 ) IN reply it has been submitted that in view of the testimony given by Daulal Sahu (PW 2), Smt. Budda (PW 5) and Suklmandan (PW 11), it is fully established that the accused was making an unlawful demand of Rs. 15,000/- or a motor cycle and for fulfilling the said demand, he was subjecting Sunita to cruelty and hence she committed suicide within seven years of her marriage. It is also note-worthy that Sunita committed suicide in the house of the accused- appellant. 15,000/- or a motor cycle and for fulfilling the said demand, he was subjecting Sunita to cruelty and hence she committed suicide within seven years of her marriage. It is also note-worthy that Sunita committed suicide in the house of the accused- appellant. This also goes to indicate that she was subjected to cruelty and hence she was compelled to take the extreme step of ending her life. ( 11 ) IT has to be seen that for drawing an inference under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act or Section 304-B, I. P. C. , not only it has to be established that the lady concerned died under other than normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage but should also be established that either soon before Her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment or she had been subjected to such cruelty during the said period after her marriage and before her abnormal death. Further for the purpose of Section 306 or 113 -A or 304-B, IPC, the word Crueltyt has the same meaning as has been defined under Section 498 A, I. P. C. ( 12 ) UNDER Section 498-A, I. P. C. Crueltyt has been defined as below. Cruelty means: - (a) Any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical to a woman;or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any purpose or valuable security is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. ( 13 ) NOW in the present case, it has been already mentioned that only Daulal and Smt. Budda have deposed that the accused-appellant had demanded a motor-cycle or in its place Rs. 15,000/- Nevertheless their testimony does not inspire belief. Reasons for holding that their testimony is not worthy of credence are as below. According to prosecution itself, the accused had come prior to Gouna ceremony of Sunitato take her forcibly with him. Smt. Budda (PW5) has stated in para 3 in her examination-in-chief that when the accused-appellant had come on the said occasion, he was insisting that Sunita should be sent with him. According to prosecution itself, the accused had come prior to Gouna ceremony of Sunitato take her forcibly with him. Smt. Budda (PW5) has stated in para 3 in her examination-in-chief that when the accused-appellant had come on the said occasion, he was insisting that Sunita should be sent with him. He was also saying that the parents of Sunita had not given anything in the marriage of Sunita and would not be giving anything in Gouna ceremony also and, therefore; Sunita should be sent alongwith him at that very time. However, on being pacified by persons present, the accused returned to his house. ( 14 ) THIS testimony goes to indicate that the accused was keen to take Smt. Sunita with him and was not making any demand of article or any money. ( 15 ) THOUGH Bihari has stated that after departure of Onkar, Daulal had told him that the accused- appellant Onkar was demanding Rs. 15,000/- from him, yet Daoulal has not deposed that he had told the said fact to Bihari. On the other hand, according to Daulal, the said demand was made by the accused-appellant in presence of Bihari but Bihari does not say that any such demand was made by the accused- appellant in his presence. ( 16 ) IT is also note-worthy that Smt Budda has not stated that any such demand was made. On the other hand she has stated that the accused was saying that since nothing was given in the marriage, he did not expect that any article or amount would be paid in Gouna ceremony. Same statement has been given by Sobhit Sahu (PW13) who has stated that the accused was saying that Daulal had not given anything at the time of marriage and would not be giving any amount or article, at the time of Gouna ceremony, to him and, therefore, Sunita should be sent along with him at that very time [please see Paragraph No. 1 of the statement of Sobhit Sahu (PW13)]. ( 17 ) THUS the said testimony to a great extent destroys contention of any demand of motor, cycle or in its lieu Rs. 15,000/-, being made by the accused-appellant. ( 18 ) SECONDLY, Daulal (PW 2) has admitted that he had obtained Rs. ( 17 ) THUS the said testimony to a great extent destroys contention of any demand of motor, cycle or in its lieu Rs. 15,000/-, being made by the accused-appellant. ( 18 ) SECONDLY, Daulal (PW 2) has admitted that he had obtained Rs. 2,000/- by way of loan from the father of the accused-appellant and till Gauna he was unable to repay the said amount. (Please see paragraph 13 of the statement of Daulal ). Therefore, from a person who was not having Rs. 2,000/- for marrying his daughter with the accused-appellant and an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was borrowed from the father of the accused, it appears unnatural that a demand of motor-cycle would be made from such a person. ( 19 ) THERE is absolutely no evidence available on record to indicate that the accused was subjecting Sunita to cruelty. Mohd. Jalil (PW 3), who has not been declared hostile, has deposed that he was residing in the neighbourhood of the accused-appellant and that relationship between the accused appellant on one hand and his wife Sunita on the other, were cordial. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution has deposed that he had seen the accused either beating Sunita or quarrelling with her. It is also noteworthy that no injury, but for bum injuries was found on the dead body of Sunita. ( 20 ) DAULAL has deposed in paragraph No. 6 of his deposition that when he had gone to the house of the accused appellant on receiving information of untimely death of Sunita he had inquired from the accused as to how Sunita died. Thereupon the accused-appellant had told him that Sunita had not cooked rice fully and thereupon there was a quarrel between him and Sunita. Thus this was the first version given by the accused appellant and it cannot be said to be in any way improbable or unnatural. It is quite probable that on account of the meals not having been properly prepared there was some dispute between the accused and Sunita, in which the accused might have said something which caused annoyance to Sunita. ( 21 ) IN this regard it has to be seen that different persons react differently to different situations. If a person is very sentimental, even slight insinuation or incident may instigate him to commit suicide. ( 21 ) IN this regard it has to be seen that different persons react differently to different situations. If a person is very sentimental, even slight insinuation or incident may instigate him to commit suicide. But that would not amount to such cruelty as has been defined under Section 498-A, I. P. C. Cruelty should be such that in the given circumstance a normal lady would be driven to commit suicide: There is no evidence available on record that the accused subjected Sunita to such cruelty as was under the given circumstances, sufficient to drive a normal lady to commit suicide. Therefore, in the present case, neither there is any evidence of unlawful demand nor there is any evidence that the accused had been subjecting Sunita to cruelty. Consequently merely on account of the fact that Sunita met with a suicidal death within seven years of her marriage, it could not have been inferred that she was subjected to cruelty. In view of the said reasoning, in our opinion, the charges framed against the accused appellant could not be established against the accusedappellant and, therefore, the present appeal is allowed and the accused-appellant is held not guilty and is acquitted of the charges framed against him. However, the order, pertaining to articles produced in the Court, passed by the Trial Court, is maintained and confirmed. Appeal allowed. .