Honble VERMA, J. – This appeal is directed by Nemi Chand and his mother RAm Pyari against the judgment and order dated 27.11.1993 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur whereby the appellant Nemi Chand has been convicted to undergo life imprisonment under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short as ``IPC) with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment to further undergo 6 months `rigorous imprisonment and also to undergo 3 year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment to further undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 498A of the IPC. Smt. Ram Pyari has also been convicted under Sec. 498-A IPC to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. (2). The facts as per the prosecution case are that on 14.7.90, Ghanshyam had lodged a report as Ex. P. 6 stating therein that his sister was married to appellant Nemi Chand son of Sh. Jagdish on 27.6.89 in accordance with the Hindu Rites. After sometime of the marriage, his sister used to be harrassed by her mother-in- law and her husband Nemi Chand on the ground that she had brought very less dowry and they had started giving troubles to her. Her sister had informed them against the behaviour of her inlaws through her letters and also on her visit to village Jetaran Nemi Chand also used to give threats by writing letters to the fact that he can do anything and the consequence will be bad and that the parents of Mst. Seni Devi will have to bear the consequences. The mother-in-law also used to give threat that Nemi Chand is her son and she could get doen anything from him. It was further alleged in the FIR that on 3.7.90, Nemi Chand, appellant had come to village Jetarn, accompanied by some of his relatives and he had some discussions. He had also given a threat that the complaint should go to the village Hariyadhana alongwith him and should talk to his mother, otherwise the result will be very had. It was further alleged in the FIR that on 3.7.90, Nemi Chand, appellant had come to village Jetarn, accompanied by some of his relatives and he had some discussions. He had also given a threat that the complaint should go to the village Hariyadhana alongwith him and should talk to his mother, otherwise the result will be very had. On the next day i.e. on 4.7.90, at about 1.30 A.M. in the morning hours, father in laws of his sister accompanied by Magji Nai of village Ranshi had come to his house on jeep and told that Mst. Seni Devi had threatened that she would commit suicide by jumping in the well. After being told so, he was alarmed in view of the previous attitude of the family of her-inlaws i.e. mother-in-law, brother-in-law (Devar) and husband. His brother Sampat and a neighbour Govind Das went alongwith them in the samp jeep and found his sister Mst. Seni Devi lying dead at their residence. They started weeping, as they were least expecting that Nami Chand, the mother-in-law of the sister, the sister-in-law Santosh, and brother-in-law Manohar would do such a henious crime as to kill Seni Devi. (3). On the above facts, an FIR was registered under Secs. 498A and 302 IPC against the accused persons on the registration of the FIR, bearing No. 105/14.7.90 (Ex.P.21) and after registration of the FIR, statements of the witnesses were recorded, post mortem was got conducted and the accused were ultimately challaned under Secs. 302, 498A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The accused had denied committing of the offences. The prosecution examined as many as 21 prosecution witnesses. The statements of accused persons under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code were recorded. The accused had also produced two DWs i.e. Rakesh Agarwal (DW1) and Jagdish (DW 2). Ultimately, the trial Court vide its order dated 27.11.1993 had convicted the appellant Nemi Chand under Secs. 302 and 498-A IPC and Smt. Ram Pyari, under Sec. 498-A IPC only and were sentenced, as already narrated above. Smt. Ram Pyari was acquitted of the charges under Secs. 302 and 304-B IPC after giving her beneift of doubt. Accused Manohar, brother of the appellant were acquitted of the charges under Secs. 302, 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code after giving him benefit of doubt. Smt. Ram Pyari was acquitted of the charges under Secs. 302 and 304-B IPC after giving her beneift of doubt. Accused Manohar, brother of the appellant were acquitted of the charges under Secs. 302, 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code after giving him benefit of doubt. The appellant Nemi Chand was acquitted of the charges under Sec. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. There is no counter appeal by the State against any of the accused persons who have been acquitted of the charges framed against them. (4). It is admitted that the death had taken place in the unnatural way, almost after a one year of the marriage as to bring the offence under Sec. 498-A IPC or under Sec. 304B. It was necessary for the provision to prove that the death had taken place because of the cruelty and because of the demand of dowry. (5). It has been stated in the medical evidence by way of statements of Dr. S.R. Choudhary, PW 9 and Dr. Kailash Narayan, PW 10, after conducting the post mortem of the deceased that the death had been caused because of strangulation. (6). The prosecution had produced as many as 21 witnesses. PW 1 Kailash Chand is witness of the spot inspection (Ex. P.1). The star witness as per the prosecution case is PW 2 Ghanshyam Ram, brother of the deceased who had deposed about the relations between the parties in a similar manner as has been narrated above in the FIR. PW 3 Moda Ram is a signatory of the memos Ex. P.2, prepared by the Magistrate and even memo Ex. P.3 as well of Panch-Nama of the dead-body (Ex. P.4). Similarly Sumer Singh (PW 16) is a witness to Ex. P.2, P.3 and P. 4, the memos prepared by the police after visiting the place. PW 20 Shelendra Kumar, ACM, Bilara had visited the site on 5.7.90 by going to village Hariyadhana and had inspected the hut of Manohar and had prepared Ex. P.2, Ex. P. 3 and Panch-name of the dead body Ex. P. 4 and had also got post mortem conducted vide Ex. P.9, prepared the site plan Ex. P. 22. This witness PW 20 has also admitted that at the time of preparing the memos, aforesaid. Ghanshyam, brother of the deceased had not mentioned any complaint against the inlaws. P.2, Ex. P. 3 and Panch-name of the dead body Ex. P. 4 and had also got post mortem conducted vide Ex. P.9, prepared the site plan Ex. P. 22. This witness PW 20 has also admitted that at the time of preparing the memos, aforesaid. Ghanshyam, brother of the deceased had not mentioned any complaint against the inlaws. PW 18 Om Prakash had taken the photo graphs Ex. P 14 to Ex. P. 20. PW 20, the Magistrate in Ex. P. 2 after inspection on 5.7.90 had found that the dead body of deceased Seni Devi was lying on the cot and roof of the hut of Manohar was covered by ``Balies and the height of the roof was aobut 9 fit. By the side of cot, one rope of the length of about 33 ft. was also lying. There was no knot on such rope. Manohar has told this witness that deceased Seni Devi had hanged herself with this rope by typing it with the ``Balies of the roof and she had committed suicide. Ex. P. 3, mentioning the condition of dead body, was prepared and it was found that the mouth was open. There was clotted blood on the nose. There were abrasions on the right and left side of the neck. There was bluish mark on the chin, the skin of the little finger of left hand of the deceased, had also come out. At the time of preparation of Panch-nama, the witnesses on the panch- name had also expressed their opinion about the suspicious circumstances resulting into the death of Seni Devi. Thus, facts to lead to the conclusion that the death of Seni Devi was in unnatural circumstance. The question arises, whether the death had occurred because of committing of suicide by way of hanging by tying the rope with ballies of the roof which does not bear any knot or it is a case of murder. For the reason that there is no eye witnesses, and also for the reason that in the house where the death of the lady had taken place, there were 4 persons staying in the house i.e. Father in law, Mother-in-law. Manohar brother-in-law and husband, who is as employee of the Railway and posted. out. (7). The trial Court had proceeded against three accused persons. Manohar brother-in-law and husband, who is as employee of the Railway and posted. out. (7). The trial Court had proceeded against three accused persons. Out of these three accused persons, two accused persons Manohar, brother and Ram Pyari, mother of the accused No. 3 i.e. appellant were acquitted of the charge of Sec. 302 IPC. The main allegation of, so called, previous alleged beating and harassment to the deceased was mainly attributed to Manohar, accused who had been acquitted by the Trial Court of the charges under Secs. 302 and 498-A IPC. The Mother-in-law has already been acquitted of the charge under Sec. 302 IPC, but has been convicted under Sec. 498- A IPC. All the accused had been acquitted of the charge of Sec. 394-B IPC. All three persons were being charged under Sec. 302 IPC, who were amongst the occupants of the house and nothing has been attributed to any single accused for committing the murder, acquitting of the two accused out of three and convicting the appellant only, the question arises whether on the evidence produced or the circumstances narrated by the prosecution, is it possible to uphold the conviction under Sec. 302 IPC in regard to the appellant? The main prosuection witnesses relied upon by the prosecution and the Trial Court are Ghanshyam, complainant (PW 2), brother of the deceased, Bhawri (PW 13), mother of the deceased, Amba Lal (PW 14), father of the deceased and PW 15 Trishla and PW 17 Sawar Lal Joshi. The documents relied upon by the Trial Court are the letters Ex.P. 8 and Ex. P. 9, said to have been written by the deceased and some other letters produced in defence. (8). The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the story of the prosecution is not credit worthy and does not repose any confidence (ii) that it is a case of suicide and not of homicidal murder (iii) FIR itself is delayed for about 10 days (iv) no circumstance had been brought on record to show any cruelty or demand of dowry by the appellant (v) as the main allegations of cruelty are levelled against the Mother-in-law and Manohar, brother-in-law, if at all there was any cruelty, have been acquitted, then could the appellant be convicted for murder. The medical evidence does not positively prove the murder, but points out to suicide. (9). The medical evidence does not positively prove the murder, but points out to suicide. (9). It is true that PW 20 Shelendera Kumar had stated in the examination before the court that he had recorded the statements of number of witnesses while conducting the proceedings under Sec. 176 Cr.P.C., but they are not on the record of the Trial Court. We had directed the counsel for the respondent/State to produce the record relating to proceedings under Sec. 176 Cr.P.C. After going through the report and the statements, it is found that there was an effort made on the part of accused to show that the deceased had actually hanged herself. However the report prepared by the Magistrate under Sec. 176 Cr.P.C. proceedings was against the accused persons. (10 Dr. S.R. Choudhary (PW 9) and Dr. K.N. Prajapati (PW 10) had found the following injuries on the deceased : 1. An abrasion 6 cm x 1 cm over anterio-lateral aspect of Rt. side of neck pointing from medical to lateral down ward & backward. 2. Four small Bruises in an area of 4 cm x 1.5 cm just below left lower Jaw (below mandible outside). 3. An abrasion 0.75 cm x 0.25 cm-1 above tip of nose extending toward Lt. side. 4. Multiple small cuts of almost same size in an area of 2 cm x 1.5 cm over left alae of nose and left side of upper lip (suggesting of Rat bites) 5. Abberaded area of 2 cm x 1.5 cm on dorsal aspect of terminal phalynx of Rt. index finger (suggesting of Rat bites) 6. A deep abberated area 2 cm x 1.5 cm on tip of Rt. Great to below the nail (suggestion of Rat bite). (11). In the cross-examination Dr. Choudhary (PW 9) had opined that there were no impressions of nail, thumb or fingers around the injury No.1. Injury, No.2 can also be caused by way of violence or by pressing Asphyxia can also be caused by hanging. There was no fracture of cervical vertibrae, Trachea and Hyoid bone. He could not opine whether the injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3 could be caused by struggle or not. Injury Nos. 1 to 3 were superficial. (12). Similarly Dr. K.N. Prajapati (PW 10) had stated that the death of deceased was because of Asphysia on account of strangulation. There was no fracture of cervical vertibrae, Trachea and Hyoid bone. He could not opine whether the injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3 could be caused by struggle or not. Injury Nos. 1 to 3 were superficial. (12). Similarly Dr. K.N. Prajapati (PW 10) had stated that the death of deceased was because of Asphysia on account of strangulation. There was no finger prints of any finger or thumb or nail found around the injury No.1. Injury Nos. 2 and 3 and could be caused by falling as well. He has also stated that cervical vertibra, larynx Trachea and Hyoid bone were not fractured. He has also stated that he has not been able to show whether the injury Nos. 1 to 3 can be caused by Struggle. Modi, in his books : medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (XXI Edition, 1989, at page 199) has stated that it should be noticed here that hyoid bone and superior cornuae of thyroid cartrilege are not as a result of fracture of any other means than by strnagulation although the larynx and trachea may fracture as a result of fall. Taylor, in his book : Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence (13th Edition) at Page 315, has stated that ``internal injuries are remarkably infrequent and when present, suggest that some violence has occurrence such as from a drop. In addition to soft tissues, injuries which are infrequent fractures, may occur in both the larynx and hyoid bone. The frequency with which they occurred, vary considerably in different seires. In our own practice, the fracture of thyroid cartrilege are approximately equal to fracture of the greater zone of larynx. They are considerably less commonly found in strangulation. Parikh, in his Book : Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, at pages No. 210, observed that ``fracture of the hyoid bone seldom occurs in hanging or strangulation by legature. It is strongly in favour of throttling. When found, it is a region of cornuae which are generally squeezed violengly during press, the broken ends being displaced inwards. Parikh, at page No. 661 of his aforesaid book, has further observed that the hyoid is a ``U shaped bone having blood and a greater cornuae and lesser cornuae on either side of the body. When found, it is a region of cornuae which are generally squeezed violengly during press, the broken ends being displaced inwards. Parikh, at page No. 661 of his aforesaid book, has further observed that the hyoid is a ``U shaped bone having blood and a greater cornuae and lesser cornuae on either side of the body. The lessor cornuae is small concical eminence at angle of junction of the bond with the greater cornuae Common injuries of this bone are cuts are fractures. Cuts are normal encountered in a throat injuries. Fractures are ancountered in hanging, strangulation, throttling in a throat injuries. Fractures are ancountered in hanging, strangulation, throttling and in direct trauma such as run-over injuries. Cloister, in his Treaties on Medical Jurisprudence (13th Edition, at Page 183) has stated that ``fractures of the hyoid bone are common occurrence and when it is present, indicates that considerable violence has been applied. C.J. Polson and D.J. Gee, in their Book : Essential of Forensic Medical, at Page 23) has stated that ``fracutre of the hyoid bone or the larynx as a result of strnagulation is presumptive evidence of homicide and should be thus regarded until other possibilities have been statisfactorily excluded. In the case of throtting or strangulation, there is, also, some degree of respiratory obstruction which results in bulging of eye and protuding the tongue. The tongue, if it supervenes, is caught between the teeth. Fracture of hyoid bone, also, occurs in the case of throttling. (13). In the present case, PW 9 Dr. Choudhary has specifically mentioned that there was no fracture of survical vertibra. While dealing with Chapter IX Deaths from Asphyxia and ``Hanging, Modi in his Medical Jurisprudence has specifically stated that ``when a materila with which an individual is alleged to have been hanged is sent for medical examination the medical jurist should see, if the mark on the neck corresponds with its thickness, and if it is strong enough to bear the weight of the body or the sudden strain. He should also note its texture and length, and after labelling it with some distinctive mark for future identification should return it in a sealed packet to the police constable who brought it. It has been shown return it in a sealed packet to the police constable who brought it. He should also note its texture and length, and after labelling it with some distinctive mark for future identification should return it in a sealed packet to the police constable who brought it. It has been shown return it in a sealed packet to the police constable who brought it. It has been shown that the site of ligature in the neck affects the amount and time of onsent of asphysical symptoms; it occurs in few seconds when it is over the cricoid cartilage and in one or two minutes when it is on the larynx or on or above the hyoid bone. The noose of the ligature is tied either as a granny or reef knot or as a simple slip knot which makes a running house. If there are two knots usually one is not as right as the second except in homicidal cases. The larynx or the rings of the trachea may be fracutred, when considerable force is used. A first or karate blow to the neck may result in fractures of superior cornuae of thyroid cartilage with vertical fracturing of the thyroid cartilage besides vertical tears in the carotid arteries. It should be noted here that the hyoid bone and superior cornuae of the thyroid cartilage are not, as a rule fractured by any other means than by strangultion, although the larynx and trachea may, in rare cases, be fractured by a fall. (14). It has been noted by the Modi that the fracture of the larynx and trachea, very rare in the hanging; whereas fracture of the larynx and trachea, found in strangulation and in hyoid bone as well. (15). In the present case, it cannot be made out on the basis of Medical Jurisprudence that it was a definite case of strnagulation of homicidal murder as non-fracture of hyoid bone, larynx and trachea gives an indication that the present case may fall in the category of hanging as well. This benefit of doubt goes to the accused appellant. (16). Profit from the above, there is no direct evidence produced on record by the prosecution except the relatives PW 2, PW 14, PW 15, PW 17 etc. etc. This benefit of doubt goes to the accused appellant. (16). Profit from the above, there is no direct evidence produced on record by the prosecution except the relatives PW 2, PW 14, PW 15, PW 17 etc. etc. No doubt, all the PWs brother mother and father of the deceased appearing as PW 2, PW 13 and PW 14 have stated that the deceased had complained earlier to the fact that her mother-in-law was taking more work from her, even beyond her capacity and used to give threats that when her husband i.e. appellant would come, she would ask him to beat her. It is also said that the deceased had told her parents that Manohar used to ask her to carry load beyond her capacity and once or twice even he had given beatings to her. May it be so, but these two accused persons have been acquitted of the charge under Sec. 302 IPC by the Court below and there is no appeal against the acquittal. (17). The only evidence produced against the appellant by way of statement of PWs aforesaid is that a day earlier i.e. 3.7.90, the apellant had visited the house of his father-in-law and asked them to accompany him to his village and to make her daughter understand so that she obeys her mother-in-law and also they should talk to his mother as well. It is unimaginable that this very person who is inviting her inalws to visit his house, would take quick action in finishing her wife at about 6 or 7 PM on the next day. It has been proved in evidence that at no time any dowry was asked by the appellant. PW 2 Ghanshyam has stated that (i) ``at the time of engagement or the marriage, there was no demand of dowry ever made by the appellant or his family(ii) ^^;g lgh gS fd lxkbZ o kknh ds le; dksbZ ngst r; ugha gqvk Fkk Fkk usehpan ds ?kj okyksa us ml le; dksbZ ngst dh ekax ugha gqbZ FkhA Lo;a us dgk fd geus ;s dgk fd ge vius J)kuqlkj ngst nsaxsA** (18). It is also stated by him that Nemi Chand, appellant had never demanded any money from them even upto the death of his sister. It is also stated by him that Nemi Chand, appellant had never demanded any money from them even upto the death of his sister. ^^;g lgh gS fd kknhds ckn o lxkbZ ds ipkr~ o tc rd esjh cfgu Js.kh nsoh dh e`R;q gqbZ rc rd usehpUn us esjs ls dksbZ iSls ;k ngst ugha ekaxk FkkA** He has further admitted that the appellant had written to him as well in the letter that the appellant had taken an oath, not to take any dowry at all. ^^;g lgh gS fd usehpUn us vius ,d i= esa eq>s ;g fy[kk Fkk fd esjh ngst ugha ysus dh izfrKk yh gqbZ gS blfy, ngst ugh ywaxkA eq>s ngst dk ykyp ugha gS ;g Hkh fy[kk FkkA** (19). PW 2 had further admitted that he was never told by his sister that she is being harrassed by her mother-in-law becuase of the reason that she shirks work. He has admitted that he had never mentioned in his FIR or otherwise that a demand of 5 tolas gold was even made. (20). Similarly PW 13 Bhawari, mother of the deceased had admitted that the inalws of her daughter had never made any demand in regard to anything at all for gold or silver or any other articles. (21). She has not given in writing to any person or to the police that at any time, demand of 5 tolas gold was made. She has also admitted that Nemi Chand or his mother or brother had never made any demand whatsoever either from her (PW-13), from her husband (PW 14) or from her son PW 2. ^^esjs ls o esjs ifr o csVs ls usehpUn o muds eka HkkbZ us dksbZ lksuk pkanh ugha ekaxkA** (22). PW 14, Amba Lal, father of the deceased had also admitted that at the time of engagement, marriage or even after the engagement or after the marriage, the appellant had not made any demand of dowry at all. He has also admitted that Ram Pyari (accused-appellant) had never told him that his son is Post Graduate and therefore she be also given 5 tolas of gold because younger sister of the deceased had been given such gold in her marriage. He has also admitted that Ram Pyari (accused-appellant) had never told him that his son is Post Graduate and therefore she be also given 5 tolas of gold because younger sister of the deceased had been given such gold in her marriage. ^^lxkbZ o kknh ds le; rFkk mlds ckn usehpUn us esjs ls dksbZ ngst dh ekax ugha dhA ;g ckr lgh gS fd eq>s jkeI;kjh us dHkh ugha dgk fd esjk yM+dk lksyoha ikl gS] mldks ikap rksyk lksuk fn;k gS rks bls D;ksa ugha fn;kA** (23). He has also admitted that the letters received by them from their daughter Seni Devi only mention that they all were happy at her inalws house. (24). The above admission on the part of PWs i.e. mother, brother and father do show that there was hardly any demand of dowry made by the inlaws of the deceased at any time and, as such, the Trial Court also was right in acquitting all the accused of the charge under Sec. 304B IPC. (25). Now in view of the circumstances above, the question arises as to why deceased will kill herself. The only conclusion which could be drawn is that the husband was definitely not happy with the marriage with this deceased. The reasons can be (i) husband was post graduate, but the deceased was illiterate, she can only write a few words. She had no education at all, not even upto the primary class, as it seems from the letter Ex. P. 8 and Ex. P. 9 and, therefore, the appellant was not mentally prepared to acdept the marriage which had taken place in the year 1989, engagement to marriage was done in the year 1974; (ii) the appellant was obsessed with the idea that his wife should serve his mother and father more than the service rendered to him as wife; (iii) as is usual, Ram Pyari, accused behaved like a rigid mother-in-law and expected more and more work from her dauther-in-law (deceased) to which the deceased was not willing to submit and that is why of different occasions, she had complained that her mother-in-law and brother-in-law were forcing her to work more and carry more load which was beyond her capacity to do. This circumstances did not show that there was any threat to the life of the deceased. (26). This circumstances did not show that there was any threat to the life of the deceased. (26). It is also clear from the evidence that the deceased had requested her parents to take her back for the reasons mentioned above and also told them that she would either commit suicide or could be killed. In all probabilities the deceased might have taken the extreme unfortunate step and had thought to finish herself. Nothing has been brought or record which may show that husband ever wanted to kill her. The so-called cruelty brought on record are too minor for taking such steps, but it cannot be ruled out that because of the taunts and abuses and because of no affection being meted up to her by her mother-in-law or brother- in-law and also to some extent by the husband also, she might have been compelled to take the exteeme step of committing suicide and for this count. The appellant Ram Pyari cannot escape the liability and responsibility for committing the offence under Sec. 498-A IPC and, therefore, she has been rightly convicted under Sec. 498-A IPC. The reasons given by the trial Court for convicting her under Sec. 498-A IPC are convincing and the conviction is to be maintained. The evidence for convicting her for offence under Sec. 498-A IPC have already been brought on record by the PWs 2, 13, 14, 17 and the letter Ex. P. 8 and Ex. P.9. (27). No acts of atrocities or cruelties have been brought on record, which could be said to have been committed by the appellant Nemi Chand towards his wife. Whatever has been deposed by the PWs is either against the mother-in-law Ram Pyari or brother- in-law Manohar and, as such, in the circumstances, specially when the PWs have admitted that the appellant Nemi Chand himself was against accepting any dowry whatsoever as a principle, Nemi Chand cannot be said to have been committed any cruelty under Sec. 498- A IPC. There is no evidence against him in this regad. Hence he is to be acquitted of this charge. (28). For the reasons mentioned above, the Nemi Chand, appellant cannot be convicted under Sec. 302 IPC as there is no evidence against him proviling that he had actually killed the deceased. There is no evidence against him in this regad. Hence he is to be acquitted of this charge. (28). For the reasons mentioned above, the Nemi Chand, appellant cannot be convicted under Sec. 302 IPC as there is no evidence against him proviling that he had actually killed the deceased. None of the PWs have stated anything against the appellant in regard to the murder of his wife and whatever, has been said by the PWs is against either Manohar or Ram Pyari for committing cruelty. (29). In Bhagwan Dass vs. State of Haryana (1), almost in similar circumstances, when Bhagwan, his brother and parents were tried for instigating for killing of the wife by way of strangulation and appellant & his brother were charged under Sec. 302 and the parents were charged under Sec. 114 read will Sec. 302 IPC and it was found that death of Shanno Devi was homicidal becaus eshe had died of strangulation and the Trial Court had convicted Bhagwan Dass and his brother Rajindra; and has acquitted their parents. In the appeal before High Court. Conviction against Bhagwan Dass was maintained and becasue of weak evidence against Rajindera, he was acquitted. It was observed by the Honble Supreme Court :– ``On careful scrutiny of the evidence, we find that there are various missing links in the chain of circumstances and on the basis of the evidence, it cannot be said that the appellant and the appellant alone had caused the death of Shanno Devi even if it is believed that the appellant had a strong motive to get of her. It was the prosecution case that not only the appellant but Rajinder and the parents of the appellant were also ill treating Shanno Devi and wanted to get rid of her. The allegation was that at that instigation of the parents and with the help of the brother Rajinder, the appellant has caused the death of his wife. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court committed a grave error in coming to the conclusion on the basis of such insufficient evidence that it was the appellant and appellant alone who caused the death of Shanno Devi. (30). In another case reported in Mulak Raj & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (2), the accused were charged under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC and Sec. 201 read with Sec. 34 IPC. (30). In another case reported in Mulak Raj & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (2), the accused were charged under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC and Sec. 201 read with Sec. 34 IPC. When the accused have been acquitted by the Trial Court, Punjab and Haryana High Court had accetped the appeal against the acquittal and after holding that the death of Krishna Kumar was because of homicidal death. It was observed by the Apex Court as follows : ``It is true that the scene of offence was shown to be kitchen in the household of the accused where all the four accused were staying. It is also true that at the time when the dead body of deceased was found lying in the kitchen witness Santosh Kumari, PW 14 found that the kitchen was in perfect order and there was no smoke in the kitchen. Kitchen was neat and clean and there was no smell emanating frm the kitchen. But even if that is so, it is difficult to appreciate how this circumsance by itself points a guilty finger to the accused or any one of them. Merely because deceased Krishan Kumari who was staying with the accused had died a homicidal death in their household and her deadbody was found in the kitchen with post mortem burns it cannot be said that the circumstances by itself would correct all the accused or any one of them with the crime. ``The question still remains as to who killed the deceased Krishna Kumari whether it was accused Nos. 1 to 2 or 3 or 4 or whether all of them joinly had taken in killing her by sufforcating her. Further question remains as to who was the principle accused guilty of offences under Sec. 302 out of the four accused and who were guilty of offence under Sec. 302 read with 34 for having shared the intention to murder her. It is difficult to appreciate how accused No. 3 a minor girl aged 15 years and half years being sister in law of the deceased had shared such committing intention if at all there was any. All these questions remain unanswered on the basis flaw in the case lies in t he lukewarm and cursbry investigation initiated by these accused. Result was that prosecution case became lame from the very . . . . . (31). All these questions remain unanswered on the basis flaw in the case lies in t he lukewarm and cursbry investigation initiated by these accused. Result was that prosecution case became lame from the very . . . . . (31). In case of Narain Lal vs. State of Raj. (3), it was held that ``there were no less than twelve members of the family living in the same house. Not only the husband but the parents in law of the deceased used to beat her and the evidence is far from conclusive to exclude the possibility of any one but the husband having perpertrated the crime. The husband may have been a party to the crime but there is the possibility that another or others may have done it without his help. The High Court acquitted the appellants father entertaining doubt about his taking part of the crime. Although this Court does not ordinarily take a view of the evidence different from that of the courts below, specially if they are concurrent, the evidence being entirely circumstantial and being far from conclusive, we find ourselves unable to endorse the view of the courts below. In the result the appeal must be allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant set aside. (32). To sumup, it cannot be ruled out of the medical evidence that it was more a case of suicide than homicidal death and in such circumstances, the benefit is to go to the accused appellant and even it be a case of homicidal death, in view of the authorities as discussed above, where other persons are living in the house and have been charged without attributing any special overt, act to anyone of them separately from others. It is difficult to convict the appellant while acquitting other two accused persons of the charge of Sec. 302 IPC by the Trial Court. As there is no appeal against the acquittal of any of the accused acquitted by the Trial Court under any of the charge, the result is to follow as stated above. It is also brought on record that the accused appellant had never asked for any dowry as brought out in the prosecution evidence of close relatives themselves. As there is no appeal against the acquittal of any of the accused acquitted by the Trial Court under any of the charge, the result is to follow as stated above. It is also brought on record that the accused appellant had never asked for any dowry as brought out in the prosecution evidence of close relatives themselves. The only cruelty for which the deceased might have been forced to take the exteeme step of committing suicide, was regularly harassing her because of taunts or abuses that she was not doing the work properly at home or was doing less work or that she was not carrying load beyond her capacity of that Manohar brother-in- law might have given one or two beatings amounting to cruelty under the provisions of Sec. 498-A IPC which is attributed to mother-in-law and brother-in-law. (33). In the result, appeal of the appellant Nemi Chand is accepted and his conviction under Sec. 302 IPC is set aside by giving him benefit of doubt. His appeal against conviction under Sec. 498-A is also accepted. The conviction of Ram Pyari under Sec. 498-A likely to be maintained for the reasons that evidence has been brought on record that she had made the life of the deceased difficult the line by her constant abuses or ill- behaviour, but it shall not be appropriate to send her back to Jail after such a long time and the sentence/conviction is modified to the extent of undergone, the fine is maintained. (34). The appellant Nemi Chand, shall be, released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appeal of appellant Ram Pyari is dismissed, but the sentence under Sec. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is reduced to the period already undergone with fine already imposed. She is already on bail. She is released forthwith, if not required in any other case.