S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J. ( 1 ) THE four appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 8-4-1993 of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge. Sehore passed in Sessions Trial No. 79/ 8r, by which the appellants have been convicted for an offence under Section 304-8 of the I. P. C. and each of them has been sentenced to suffer 7 years rigorous imprisonment. ( 2 ) THE appellants were prosecuted for offences under Sections 306. 198-A and 304-B of the I. P. C. on the ground that Hem lata who had been married to appellant No. 2 Mohanlal had committed suicide on 28-9-1987 within a period of 7 years from the date of the marriage as a result of t he cruelty administered to her by the appellants and the cruelty was in persistence oft he dowry demand. The prosecution story, in brief, was that appellant Mohanlal was the husband of the deceased Hemlata while appellant Jagdish, the brother of Mohanlal. Kiranbai is the wife of Jagdish while Gitabai is his mother. Mohanlal had married deceased Hemlata in the year 1986 in he community marriage and it is an admitted position that no dowry was settled nor any dowry is settled at such marriages. The prosecution. However, allowed that after the marriage the appellants had persisted in their dowry demand especially a cash sum of Rs. 10,000/ - and colour television and even prior to the date when Hemlata had committed suicide, appellant Jagdish had nsisted on the said dowry and had threatened that if the demand was not met they would see only the dead body of their daughter. Later the deceased died after consuming poison. ( 3 ) THE report of the death was made and Inquest was held of which report Ex. P /13 was prepared. Since the cause of death was not apparent, the Police Officer P. W. 8 Shrinivas Pandey considered it advisable to send the ijody for post-mortem examination and accordingly the autopsy was conducted by P. W. 6 Anil Kumar Jam who gave, his report Ex. P / 11. As per the evidence of Doctor Jam, the deceased had died due to unconsciousness perhaps meaning Coma and therefore, viscera was preserved and forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The report Ex. P / 11. As per the evidence of Doctor Jam, the deceased had died due to unconsciousness perhaps meaning Coma and therefore, viscera was preserved and forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The report Ex. P1 19 of the Forensic Science Laboratory dated 31-8-1988 indicated that the deceased had consumed Zinc Phosphate used for killing rodents. The statement of witnesses were recorded and report Ex. P/7 was sent by the complainant side and accordingly the case was registered vide Ex. P/16 on 25-11-1987. After completion of the investigation, the charge -sheet was filed against the appellants. ( 4 ) THE accused were initially charged for offences u/ss 306. 498-A of the IPC but later an alternative charge u/s 304-8 was also framed against them. The accused denied the charges and pleaded that marriage of Hemlata with Mohanlal had taken place in community marriages in which only persons opposed to dowry participate. The letters Exs, P /1 to P1 5 were denied to be in the handwriting of Mohanlal and it was further pleaded that Shrilal (P. W. 1) had demanded Rs. 2,000/- from the complainant side and since this demand was not met, he was annoyed and the accused were falsely implicated. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 6 ) THERE is no serious dispute and indeed there cannot be any, that Hemlata had committed suicide on 28-9-1987 and as confirmed by the report Ex. P/19 she has consumed poison Zinc Phosphate. The learned counsel for the appellants had, however, strenuously argued that there was no evidence to indicate that she had committed suicide on account of any dowry demand or on account of any harassment or cruelty administered to her and that the case was concocted by the family members of the deceased only with a view to harass the accused. The learned counsel for the appellants has also referred to the document Ext. D/1 and has contended that the said letter of P. W. 1 Shrilal also lends full assurance to the statement of the defence that because money demanded by Shrilal, brother of the deceased, had not been paid, he had taken steps to rope them in capitalizing on the untimely death of his sister. D/1 and has contended that the said letter of P. W. 1 Shrilal also lends full assurance to the statement of the defence that because money demanded by Shrilal, brother of the deceased, had not been paid, he had taken steps to rope them in capitalizing on the untimely death of his sister. ( 7 ) WITH regard to the harassment and demand of dowry, the prosecution has examined P. W. 1 Shrilal, brother of the deceased. P. W. 3 Krishnabai. P. W. 5 Mangilal S/o Bharulal and P. W. 7 Manobarlal, another brother of the deceased. P. W. 5 Mangilal has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile P. W. 1 Shrtlal has stated in his evidence that when his sister was taken last by appellant Jagdish who is the elder brother of her husband. Jagdish had Insisted on the demand of, dowry being satisfied but was, somehow, persuaded to take her. He has also stated that whenever his sister came to the house of her parents, she had complained that the appellants were, demanding dowry and harassing her. It is admitted by him that immediately on receiving intimation about the death of the deceased, he had rushed to the village of the accused and was present at the time of cremation. He has also admitted that his statement was recorded by the Police some two months after the incident and before that he had not sent any report nor informed anyone else that the appellants were demanding dowry and were harassing the deceased. This witness has been confronted with his letter Ex. D/1 addressed to the father of accused Mohanlal demanding money in connection with the construction of his house and while he tried to make a feeble attempt first to deny the letter, he had to admit that he had asked for that loan and in fact had received Rs. 2,000/which he had returned back through his mother. If this fact was true, then it is difficult to believe that the in-laws of his sister making a demand for cash of Rs. 10,000/- and television would be liberal and generous to give him Rs. 2,000/- by way of assistance in connection with the construction of house by P. W. 1 Shrilal. This completely demolishes the statement of P. W. 1 Shrilal that accused were making dowry demand and were harassing his sister. 10,000/- and television would be liberal and generous to give him Rs. 2,000/- by way of assistance in connection with the construction of house by P. W. 1 Shrilal. This completely demolishes the statement of P. W. 1 Shrilal that accused were making dowry demand and were harassing his sister. The fact that for two months this witness did not even whisper about dowry demand and harassment either to Police or to anyone else till his statement was recorded also belies his statement that the appellants were persisting in some dowry demand and harassing his sister. The evidence of P. W. 9 Veer singh A. S. I. shows that statement of P. W. 1 was recorded on 30-11-1987 and the letters Exs. P/1 to P/5 were seized on that date vide memorandum Ex. P/6. This silence on the part of P. W. 1 Shrilal for a period of two months in connection with the death of his own sister fully indicates that the story of demand of dowry and harassment was concocted with oblique motives. P. W. 3 Krishnabai, mother of the deceased, has deposed that her daughter was complaining that the appellants were harassing her in prosecution of their demand of dowry. She has been duly confronted with her statement Ex. D/3 u/s 61 Cr. P. C. where the facts deposed by her before the court are totally missing. She has also admitted that her statement was recorded by the Police on 27-11-1987 and before that, she had neither volunteered to make any report or statement to the Police or to inform anyone else. The statement of P. W. 4 Mangilal apart from being untrustworthy also suffers from the same vice as his statement was also recorded by the Police after two months of the incident. P. W. 7 Manoharlal, another brother of the deceased also admits that his statement was recorded by the Police after two months and further a substantial -part of the story deposed to by him does not find place in his statement Ex. D/5 to the Police. P. W. 7 Manoharlal, another brother of the deceased also admits that his statement was recorded by the Police after two months and further a substantial -part of the story deposed to by him does not find place in his statement Ex. D/5 to the Police. He admits that he had also gone to the house of the appellants on learning about the death and it is difficult to believe that a person whose own sister had died would not take steps to immediately bring the accused persons to book if it were true that the accused persons were demanding dowry and were harassing or otherwise acting cruelly towards his sister. This meaningful silence of all these witnesses for a period of two months clearly indicates that after deliberation, the story about demand of dowry and harassment was concocted. ( 8 ) FROM the analysis of the evidence of the prosecution and especially the fact that report Ex. P/7 was sent after two months of the incident after it was prepared in consultation with an Advocate, as admitted by P. W. 1 Shrilal, no sanctity can be attached to the statement of these witnesses and the documents placed on record by- them. There is nothing to indicate that Exs. P / 1 to P 15 and Ex. P/8 were in the handwriting of the husband of the deceased. No steps were taken to place on record the expert opinion in this behalf. ( 9 ) THOUGH it is unfortunate that a young bride has committed suicide yet, in the absence of some reliable evidence, it cannot be held that it was on account of any act on the part of any of the appellants constituting cruelty or abetment or harassment for dowry that she was driven to commit suicide. The conviction of the appellants for an offence u/s 304-B of the IPC cannot. Therefore, be sustained. The alternative charges u/s 306 IPC and 498-A IPC must also necessarily fail. ( 10 ) IN the result, this appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellants u/s 304-B and the sentence awarded there under is set aside and they are acquitted of all charges against them. The appellants 1 and 2 are in jail and they shall be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other matter. The appellant Nos. The conviction of the appellants u/s 304-B and the sentence awarded there under is set aside and they are acquitted of all charges against them. The appellants 1 and 2 are in jail and they shall be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other matter. The appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are on bail and their bail-bonds are, therefore, discharged. Appeal allowed. .