Judgment ( 1 ) HAJARIMAL, appellant No. 1, is the husband of deceased Saurabh Devi, Bagaram, appellant No. 2, her father-in-law and Smt. Koku, appellant No. 3 is her mother-in-law. All of them have been convicted under S. 498-A, IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. For offence under S. 304-B, IPC each one of them has been sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore by his judgment dated 16-8-1997. ( 2 ) IT was appellant No. 1 Hajarimal who lodged report with the S. H. O. Bagra on 16-8-95 at 8 p. m. to the effect that he was married to Saurabh Devi about 7 years ago. The couple was having two children. He was jointly living with his father. The family had two houses in the village and old one was situated within thickly populated area of the village where at about 5 p. m. Smt. Saurabh Devi went and poured kerosene oil and burnt herself. She thereby committed suicide. Information was given to him by Tolaram in the new house. He and his father immediately rushed to the old house and found that 10-15 persons of the mohalla were throwing water on Saurabh Devi. By the time, he and his father reached there, Saurabh Devi had died. Saurabh Devi was asking him for some time that the couple should live separate from his parents and on the fateful day in the morning she had asked to separate early. Hajarimal was trying to make her understand that his grandmother had died very recently and that the guests were coming and that they would live separately with effect from coming Diwali. She was angry on this account and, therefore, she committed suicide. It was also stated in the report that Saurabh Devi and his parents had never quarrelled. On this report, police started inquiry under S. 174, Cr. P. C. Panchnama of dead body was prepared. Postmortem of Smt. Saurabh was conducted by the medical officer of Primary Health Centre, Bagra according to which the cause of death of Saurabh was extensive burns leading to shock and death. When the post-mortem was performed, her mouth was found semi open and tongue was found protruded in between the teeth. Carbon particles were present in the mouth. Postmortem of Smt. Saurabh was conducted by the medical officer of Primary Health Centre, Bagra according to which the cause of death of Saurabh was extensive burns leading to shock and death. When the post-mortem was performed, her mouth was found semi open and tongue was found protruded in between the teeth. Carbon particles were present in the mouth. S. D. O. Jalore after inquest submitted a written report to the S. P. Jalore on 19-8-95 which is Ex. P/3. According to this report the witnesses on the parents side of Saurabh Devi stated that accused appellants used to harass Saurabh Devi and she was given beatings by all the three about a month ago. She had suffered an injury in her head and the wound was stitched and she was treated in Bagra by her father-in-law and mother-in-law. The husband was working at Bhiwandi (Maharashtra) from where he had come during those days and the father of the girl was having a jeep which was being demanded by the husband, appellant no. 1, and that his father used to supply the edible goods. The parallel story, as disclosed by the witnesses of the accused-appellants, was that on 16-8-95 a quarrel took place between Saurabh Devi and the accused-appellants. Saurabh Devi thereafter threw the container consisting of flour in the house of her father-in-law and went back to her home and after pouring kerosene oil on herself committed suicide. The report mentions that since the death of Saurabh Devi had taken place in suspicious circumstances, a case under various sections of I. P. C. may be registered. Thereupon the police registered a case under Ss. 304-B and 498-A, IPC on 22-8-95. Accused-appellants were arrested and after investigation they were challaned before the Judicial Magistrate of Jalore. He committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge who framed charges under these two sections against the appellants on 15-4-96. They denied their indictment and claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses on its behalf. Then the accused-appellants were examined under S. 313, Cr. P. C. They produced three witnesses in defence. Learned Sessions Judge, Jalore after hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as stated above vide his judgment dated 16-8-97. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length and have also gone through the record. P. C. They produced three witnesses in defence. Learned Sessions Judge, Jalore after hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as stated above vide his judgment dated 16-8-97. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length and have also gone through the record. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that no offence under s. 304-B, IPC was made out because the marriage had not taken place within a period of 7 years. There was no allegation of demand of dowry in the FIR which is based on the report of S. D. M. Instead there is evidence to the effect that a quarrel took place because a demand of ghee, flour etc. was made by the deceased herself which could not be supplied by the in-laws, therefore, she committed suicide. She was enraged because she was not separated from in laws. A letter Ex. P/12 written by accused-appellant Hajarimal has been exhibited by which he requested his father-in-law to engage him as a driver for his jeep for a short period and no demand of dowry was made. He also submitted that there is evidence to the effect that earlier, deceased Saurabh Devi had suffered some injuries on her head and it were her in-laws who got her treated. He also submitted that no independent witness or even a neighbour has been produced by the prosecution to prove the cruelty against Saurabh Devi. Even Shantilal was withheld by the prosecution. He has been produced by the defence. He submitted that when two parallel theories are running together, one favourable to the accused-appellants should be belived. In nut- shell he has submitted that the case of the prosecution suffers from a number of lacuna and the accused-appellants deserve acquittal. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned PP has vehemently controverted all these arguments and has supported the judgment of learned Sessions Judge. He submitted that Smt. Saurabh Devi had an unnatural death and she died in suspicious circumstances. He also submitted that the story of demand of flour and pulses by Smt. Saurabh Devi was a fictitious story created by defence. Instead there was definitely demand of dowry by accused-appellant Hajarimal and it is well proved that the accused-appellants treated Smt. Saurabh cruelly and she committed suicide on account of demand of dowry. He also submitted that the story of demand of flour and pulses by Smt. Saurabh Devi was a fictitious story created by defence. Instead there was definitely demand of dowry by accused-appellant Hajarimal and it is well proved that the accused-appellants treated Smt. Saurabh cruelly and she committed suicide on account of demand of dowry. ( 6 ) BARE reading of S. 304-B it is clear that in order to bring home the guilt under S. 304-B, IPC the prosecution has to prove following four ingredients :- (1) The death of woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances ; (2) Within seven years of her marriage; (3) It is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of husband; and (4) For or in connection with any demand for dowry. ( 7 ) BESIDES presumption under S. 113-B of Evidence Act is also to be looked into. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act lays down that if soon before the death, such woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry, then the court shall presume that such person has committed the dowry death. The meaning of cruelty for the purpose of these sections has to be gathered from the language as found in S. 498-A, IPC. It means that any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cuase grave injury or danger to life or harassment to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unalwful demand for any property or valuable security or it so on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. As per the definition of dowry, any property of valuable security given or agreed to be given either at or before any time after the marriage, comes within the meaning of dowry. With this background of provisions of law, I will examine the facts in this case. But first I may give a gist of citations which the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants has cited. With this background of provisions of law, I will examine the facts in this case. But first I may give a gist of citations which the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants has cited. ( 8 ) IN Lila Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1992 Raj Cri C 549 it was found that no convincing evidence was available on record to the effect that the death of the girl occurred within 7 years of marriage and that she was treated with cruelty soon before death. It was held that offence under S. 304-B, IPC was not made out. ( 9 ) IN Devinder v. State of Haryana, 1994 Cri LJ 1679 (Punj and Har) death of the wife took place by consuming poison and there was only circumstantial evidence but there was no material on record that the accused harassed her or meted out cruelty to her within reasonable time of her death. Instead deceased was taken to hospital by accused immediately on consuming pills proved their good conduct. There was no exact date of marriage and it could not be presumed that the death occurred within 7 years of marriage. It was held that the offence was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. ( 10 ) IN State of Karnataka v. Hanumanthegowda, 1997 Cri LJ 4285 it was observed by Karnataka High Court that the evidence of aggrieved witnesses in such cases has to be scrutinised with high degree or circumspection when there was general allegat-ions that accused-in-laws were responsible for death of deceased. ( 11 ) IN Jai Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cri LJ 1020, there was allegation that the in-laws had shown resentment and dissatisfaction and were taunting deceased for bringing insufficient dowry. Alleged demand of scooter by husband was not proved and it was also not proved that the deceased received mal-treatment or was treated cruelly soon before her death by husband and her-in-laws because the allegations were vague, inconsistent and untrustworthy. It was held that in such a case presumption of dowry death attracting under S. 113-B of Evidence Act was not available and the husband could not be convicted under Ss. It was held that in such a case presumption of dowry death attracting under S. 113-B of Evidence Act was not available and the husband could not be convicted under Ss. 304-B and 498-A, I. P. C. ( 12 ) IN Mishriya v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cri LR (Raj) 542, the accused persons were discharged by the High Court from the offence under S. 304-B, IPC because the basic ingredient of this offence that the lady was treated with cruelty or was harassed soon before the death was not available on record. It was observed that the words soon before the death means within reasonable time and quite close in proximity prior to death. ( 13 ) IN Ratanlal v. State of M. P. , 1993 Cri LJ 3723, the M. P. High Court observed that failure of prosecution to produce cogent and reliable evidence vis-a-vis demand of dowry, cruelty, harassment, death within 7 years of marriage not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, presumption of dowry death could not be available to the prosecution. ( 14 ) IN another Rajasthan citation, Bhakhar Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cri LJ 1345 it was observed that when evidence about alleged cruelty on the part of the accused soon before the death of deceased was quite vague, incomplete, inconsistent and unworthy of credence, it could not be concluded that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by accused soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry. Hence provisions of S. 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be pressed into service against the accused for raising presumption as to dowry death. ( 15 ) IN Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 (2) RCD 219 (Raj), there was allegation of dowry death but it was not proved that the harassment or cruelty was done with the deceased soon before the death in connection with demand of dowry as it was initial burden on prosecution to prove these ingredients. From the evidence it was found that the death of deceased occurred due to her fall into a diggi. It was an accidental death as cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning. So it was held that offence under S. 304-B, I. P. C. was not made out but conviction of accused under S. 498-A, I. P. C. was not discharged. It was an accidental death as cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning. So it was held that offence under S. 304-B, I. P. C. was not made out but conviction of accused under S. 498-A, I. P. C. was not discharged. ( 16 ) IN Bhagwan Sahai v. Raju alias Rajendra Kumar, 1996 Cri LJ 2290, it was observed that when there was no evidence of cruelty or harassment before occurrence. S. 404-B, IPC was not applicable. ( 17 ) IN a Division Bench case, Gurditta Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 Cri LR (Raj) 303 : (1992 Cri LJ 309), it was observed that simply because a young lady has brought her life to a tragic end by committing suicide it cannot be said that she has embraced death on account of any demand of dowry by her husband or mother-in-law which was not satisfied. It was further observed that in absence of material to bring home the guilt against the accused it cannot be held that the case of prosecution was esablished. ( 18 ) IN Baljit Singh v. State, (1996) 3 Cur Cri R 73 : (1996 Cri LJ 2574), a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the presumption under Section 498-IPC is to be drawn if the death is unnatural and takes places within seven years of the marriage but the presumption can be drawn only if it is first proved that there was some harassment on account of demand of dowry. ( 19 ) IN Ram Gopal v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 Raj Cri C 630, it was held that deceased Harpyari who was married to Ram Gopal died of burn injuries. Prosecution case hinged on evidence of close relatives of deceased. They were highly interested. There was no evidence on record to show that the accused husband or his relatives had even made demand of more dowry or tortured. The real uncle of deceased stated in the cross-examination that no dowry had ever been demanded by appellant or his parents. It was held that this statement of close relatives had destroyed the very foundations of prosecution case. The other evidence produced was not reliable and was untrustworthy. Therefore, the case was not proved and conviction was set aside. The real uncle of deceased stated in the cross-examination that no dowry had ever been demanded by appellant or his parents. It was held that this statement of close relatives had destroyed the very foundations of prosecution case. The other evidence produced was not reliable and was untrustworthy. Therefore, the case was not proved and conviction was set aside. ( 20 ) ANOTHER citation relied by the learned Counsel for the appellants is Amit Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, SBCr. Appeal No. 126/96, decided on 14-1-1998 by brother Satish Chandra Mital, J. in which after discussing all the previous rulings, it was held that it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death with regard to the dowry which led her to commit the suicide. In this citation the evidence of the relations of the deceased was contradictory which did not prove any demand of dowry. Instead the deceased suffered from asthma and also suffered from a severe disease in her legs and was unable to move and hence suffered severely and used to feel suffocation and, therefore, she committed suicide. ( 21 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants, in the end, cited 1997 SCC (Cri) 842, Salamat All v. State of Bihar wherein it has been observed that in absence of clear and pointed evidence it would be unsafe to maintain conviction on the vague allegations that the demand of dowry was made by the husbands family members. ( 22 ) IN nut shell, the four ingredients which I have stated earlier, have to be proved by the prosecution. ( 23 ) FIRST of all I have to see if the prosecution has been able to prove that the marriage took place within 7 years from the date of death? There is no documentary evidence such as invitation card or independent witness who might have attended marriage but the evidence of the relations of deceased. The relations of the deceased are P. W. 1 Hanmant Singh, P. W. 2 Lakhma Ram, P. W. 8 Kapura (all three uncles of deceased ). P. W. 10 Smt. Champa (mother of deceased) and P. W. 11 Bhanwar Singh (father of deceased ). The relations of the deceased are P. W. 1 Hanmant Singh, P. W. 2 Lakhma Ram, P. W. 8 Kapura (all three uncles of deceased ). P. W. 10 Smt. Champa (mother of deceased) and P. W. 11 Bhanwar Singh (father of deceased ). Learned counsel for the appellants has criticised them saying that they are relations of the deceased and are coming out with a false statement about the period of marriage to bring the offence under S. 304-B, I. P. C. He submitted that P. W. 6 Ujjawal Rathore had received information on wireless that marriage took place seven years before. I have gone through the statements of these witnesses. ( 24 ) HANMANT Singh, P. W. 1, has statedtat the marriage had taken place only six years before the date of his statement. P. W. 2 Lakhma Ram also stated that the marriage was solemnized six years before the death of Saurabh Devi. According to P. W. 8 Kapura the marriage had taken place 7 years ago from the date of his statement (18-2-97 ). P. W. 10 Smt. Champa has stated in her examination in chief that the marriage had taken place within six years of the death of Saurabh Devi while P. W. 11 Bhanwar Singh corroborating her also stated so. Accused Hajarimal stated in Ex. P/1 that marriage had taken place seven years before but when he examined himself as witness he admitted that the marriage had taken place within 6 years of death of Saurabh Devi. Therefore, the controversy comes to an end on the basis of his admission. ( 25 ) THE next question is if the death of Saurabh was caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances? P. W. 4 Dr. S. N. Sharma performed the autopsy of Saurabh at 10. 30 a. m. on 17-8-95. Another Dr. J. P. Choudhary was with him. According to him the cause of death of Saurabh was extensive burns leading to shock and death. She had 100% burns. It is not disputed by the accused appellants. So it is proved that the death of Saurabh was caused by burns. ( 26 ) NOW the question comes whether the death was for or in connection with demand of dowry and whether Saurabh Devi had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by appellants? She had 100% burns. It is not disputed by the accused appellants. So it is proved that the death of Saurabh was caused by burns. ( 26 ) NOW the question comes whether the death was for or in connection with demand of dowry and whether Saurabh Devi had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by appellants? The case of the defence is that immediate cause of suicide was that she had come to her mother-in-law to ask for edibles and ghee and since she was told that ghee was not available she threw the flour and pulses and went back to the house in village where she was living where she committed suicide. But the story of the prosecution is that Saurabh was being treated cruelly by the husband as well as his parents with regard to demand of dowry. I have to look into the evidence of above named five relative witnesses of deceased. I am conscious that their statements should be read cautiously. ( 27 ) P. W. 1 Hanmant Singh has stated that Saurabh told him that her mother-in-law and father-in-law used to demand dowry from her. But this statement is vague and cannot be believed because even according to him most of the time Saurabh used to live with her parents. According to him she was living with her parents as Bagaram and Smt. Koku used to harass her. But it does not appear to be the true reason. The reason appears that accused appellant Hajarimal was most of the time living Bhiwandi leaving wife and children in village. There is evidence to the effect that there were two houses belonging to the parents of Hajarimal in the village. Ex. P/3, the inquest report, itself mentions of these two houses. In one house Bagaram and Smt. Koku used to live while in another house Smt. Saurabh and her husband were living. So when she was all alone without her husband, she would like to live with her parents. Her husband could not have left the service as he was to feed his wife and children. From the evidence of P. W. 1 Hanmant, it cannot be believed that she used to live with her parents because these two accused appellants i. e. Smt. Kolu and Bagaram harassed her on account of demand of dowry. Her husband could not have left the service as he was to feed his wife and children. From the evidence of P. W. 1 Hanmant, it cannot be believed that she used to live with her parents because these two accused appellants i. e. Smt. Kolu and Bagaram harassed her on account of demand of dowry. P. W. 1 Hanmant admitted that these two accused appellants never gave any beating to Saurabh before him neither did he go to get Saurabh treated. According to him Saurabh was given beatings by her in-laws as it was told to him by Saurabh. But this is an improvement in his statement before the Court as he never told to the police about it during the investigation in his statement Ex. D/1. Such a witness cannot be relied. ( 28 ) PW-2 Likhma Ram has stated that Saurabh whenever used to come to her parents told that she was ill-treated by her in-laws. He has also stated that about a month before the death of Saurabh he saw that the head of Saurabh was tied with a bandage. He inquired and then Saurabh told that her in-laws had given beatings. He has also stated that the in-laws of Saurabh did not use to give her even edibles. But these are all improvements. He never told to the police in his statement Ex. D/2 that Saurabh was not being supplied edibles by her in-laws. On close scrutiny of the statement of this witness I find that he is interested in the prosecution as he is an uncle of Saurabh. His statement is vague and is not reliable so far as demand of dowry and cruelty are concerned. ( 29 ) SIMILAR is PW-8 Kapura. He has stated that Saurabh had come 15-20 days before her death to her parents and then he had seen an injury on her head and on her leg and Saurabh told that her in-laws had given these beatings. On close scrutiny of statement of this witness it can safely be said that he is not reliable as his statement is vague and contradictory to the other witnesses. According to PW-1 Hanmant, Saurabh had come to her parents about a month before while according to this witness she had come only 15-20 days before. On close scrutiny of statement of this witness it can safely be said that he is not reliable as his statement is vague and contradictory to the other witnesses. According to PW-1 Hanmant, Saurabh had come to her parents about a month before while according to this witness she had come only 15-20 days before. While the facts, as they are appearing from the evidence, are that the death of the grand-mother of appellant Hajarimal had taken place about 15 days before the death of Saurabh. Her husband had come from Bhiwandi. So she could not have come to the village of her parents 15-20 days prior to her death. I find that he has not proved any demand of dowry nor cruelty soon before the death of Saurabh. ( 30 ) PW-10 Smt. Champa has given a very improved version by saying that accused-appellants used to demand tractor and jeep from them. She, being mother of deceased, is very much angry with the accused-appellants. She has stated that Saurabh was happy till after one year of her marriage but thereafter all the three accused-appellants started harassing her. She further stated that Saurabh was being beaten by them. She has given vague statement that even before 15 days of her death Saurabh might have been given beatings by her in-laws and, therefore, she suffered injury on her head. She has stated that when the grand-mother of Hajarimal died, Saurabh went to her husbands house and at that time she told that her in-laws used to harass and treated with cruelty. But from her statement, I find that she is giving exaggerated versions. She did not tell to police in Ex. D/3 that when Saurabh went to her husbands house she told that her in-laws used to trouble her. She has stated that accused-appellants used to demand tractor and jeep but this has never been the case of the prosecution and nobody has supported it. She has not stated even in Ex. D/3, police statement, that the accused-appellants used to demand dowry and Saurabh was being ill-treated with cruelty on account of demand of dowry. It is an improved version that the accused-appellants started demanding tractor and jeep after one year of marriage of Saurabh. These versions of the witness cannot be believed. She has not stated even in Ex. D/3, police statement, that the accused-appellants used to demand dowry and Saurabh was being ill-treated with cruelty on account of demand of dowry. It is an improved version that the accused-appellants started demanding tractor and jeep after one year of marriage of Saurabh. These versions of the witness cannot be believed. She is the mother of deceased and naturally is not happy with the accused-appellants and, therefore, she has given such a false statement. ( 31 ) PW-11 Bhanwar Singh is the most important witness. He has given more improved version than of his wife by saying that the accused-appellants used to ask for gold, jeep and tractor etc. He has further stated that mother-in-law (Smt. Koku) and father-in-law (Bagaram) gave beatings to Saurabh on account of demand of dowry which included ornaments. But the statement recorded during the inquest Ex. D/4 does not mention such a demand. Even in his statement Ex. D/5 recorded by the police does not mention that Saurabh used to tell about harassment meted out to her by her in-laws and the husband. He has stated that he told to the S. D. M. while inquest was made but that statement Ex. D/4 also does not contain it. He has stated that Saurabh suffered injury on her head as she was given beatings by her father-in-law and mother-in-law and that the injury was treated in his village. But this fact was also not stated by him in his police statement Ex. D/5. Instead Ex. D/5 mentions that the injury of Saurabh was not treated by her father-in-law. The witness is exaggerating even in his cross-examination by saying that even at the time of marriage demand of dowry was made and he made mention of the demand by saying that 10 tolas of gold and 1 kilogram of silver were demanded by the in-laws but he gave 2 tolas of gold and 30 tolas of silver. He said that his daughter was treated with cruelty because he was not in a position to give more dowry. This version is not given either in Ex. D/5 or Ex. D/6, the two police statements, or in Ex. D/4 the statement recorded by the S. D. M. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that Saurabh was being ill-treated because of demand of dowry is not believable. This version is not given either in Ex. D/5 or Ex. D/6, the two police statements, or in Ex. D/4 the statement recorded by the S. D. M. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that Saurabh was being ill-treated because of demand of dowry is not believable. ( 32 ) IT appears from the evidence of these five witnesses of the prosecution that there is a caste panchayat in the village but there is no evidence that such a caste panchayat assembled to settle the dispute. P. W. 10 Smt. Champa has stated that complaints were made to the people of her caste about ill-treatment on two occasions, i. e. immediately after one year of marriage when the accused appellants started ill-treating Saurabh and secondly on the occasion when Saurabh suffered an injury on her head. But no other witness supports it. Even P. W. 11 Bhanwar Singh, the father of deceased though stated in Ex. D/6, his police statement, that he did not call the caste panchayat as he was ashamed nor he drew the attention of the in-laws of deceased Saurabh. But in his statement before the Court he stated that he directly talked to the grand-mother of Hajarimal. It appears that she has been introduced because she has not to come to the Court as she is no more alive. The witness has denied this portion of his statement Ex. D/6 but it hardly matters because no caste panchayat was held. Had there been a cruelty, it could be brought to the notice of caste panchayat. The grand-mother-in-law of Saurabh is no more alive and could not have come to corroborate what this witness Bhanwar Singh was telling. P. W. 10 Smt. Champa, mother of Saurabh, has said that she has been telling to the people of caste right after passing of one year of the marriage. While P. W. 11 Bhanwar Singh, the father of deceased, is telling something different. He gave a different version before the police. So none of them is to be relied on this account as well. ( 33 ) THE triumph card of the prosecution is a letter Ex. P/12. According to the prosecution, this letter speaks volumes about demand of dowry. The letter is written by accused Hajarimal and he admits it. He gave a different version before the police. So none of them is to be relied on this account as well. ( 33 ) THE triumph card of the prosecution is a letter Ex. P/12. According to the prosecution, this letter speaks volumes about demand of dowry. The letter is written by accused Hajarimal and he admits it. According to the prosecution the purport of the letter is that accused Hajarimal demanded a jeep from his father-in-law P. W. 11 Bhanwar Singh. But the purport of the letter has been misread by the witnesses. P. W. 11 Bhanwar Singh has stated that he received letter Ex. P/12 from Hajarimal in which he demanded his jeep and if it was not given, the letter stated that something which was not dreamt of, would take place. Other witnesses have also stated that the letter had been received. But this letter Ex. P/12 simply mentions that Hajarimal wanted to work as driver on the jeep of his father-in-law for short period. It has come in evidence that this letter was written 5 months before the death of Saurabh. Accused-appellant Hajarimal was working in Bhiwandi from where he used to come once in a year to his village. He was not able to live with his wife and children and, therefore, when his father-in-law had purchased a jeep he wanted that he may live with his wife and children in the village for some time and, therefore, he wrote Ex. P/12. It appears from the language of the letter itself that he was very eager to come to his village and live with his wife and children and that in the facts and circumstances of this case accused appellant could have written such a letter. He was residing in Bhiwandi even much before his marriage as there was no job in the village. But he loved his wife and children and wanted to live with them. It appears that he was not having regular job in Bhiwandi as well and, therefore, he wanted his father-in-law to employ him as a driver of his jeep. The whole purport of the letter is moving. Accused Hajarimal went to the extent of saying that if he was not employed as such the father-in-law may not see his face, meaning thereby that the appellant may die. The whole purport of the letter is moving. Accused Hajarimal went to the extent of saying that if he was not employed as such the father-in-law may not see his face, meaning thereby that the appellant may die. However, the prosecution says that this letter was written as a threatening to give dowry. I do not agree as the prosecution has not been able to prove that on earlier occasion any such demand was made. False story of demand of jeep, tractor and gold etc. has been created during the trial so that the prosecution may support the demand by documentary evidence i. e. letter Ex. P/12. It may be that accused-appellant Hajarimal might be disturbed because of his long absence from his village and being far away from his wife and children and, therefore, he wrote a letter in which he has been apologising his father-in-law time and again and requesting that he may be called to the village and that he was ready to work as a driver for a short period on the jeep which his father-in-law had purchased. By no stretch of imagination it can be presumed or held from this letter that any demand of jeep was made as dowry. So the case of the prosecution false like a house of cards. When it is not proved from the evidence that any demand of dowry was made, presumption under S. 113-B against the accused-appellants cannot be made. ( 34 ) THE parallel theory of defence is that Saurabh committed suicide because of the fact that Saurabh had a quarrel with the accused appellants with regards to edible articles and the edible articles were not supplied by her in-laws as per her requirement, she therefore, threw the container of flour before her mother-in-law and after going back she committed suicide by burning herself. This theory in favour of the accused-appellants is available in Ex. P/3, the inquest report, on the basis of which FIR was registered and is further proved by the defence witness Shantilal D. W. 1. In view of above discussion, the case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the accused-appellants deserve acquittal. ( 35 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is allowed and the accused-appellants are acquitted from the charges under Ss. P/3, the inquest report, on the basis of which FIR was registered and is further proved by the defence witness Shantilal D. W. 1. In view of above discussion, the case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the accused-appellants deserve acquittal. ( 35 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is allowed and the accused-appellants are acquitted from the charges under Ss. 304-B and 498-A, I. P. C. They are in custody and shall be released at once if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.