JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant was the accused on the file of learned Special Judge (Sati Nivaran) and Additional Sessions Judge Jaipur City bearing Sessions case No.8 of 1996. He was found guilty under Sections 304 B and 498 A of the Indian Penal Code convicted thereunder and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 B IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-under Section 498 A (In default of payment of fine to further undergo three months R.I.). It was also directed that sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the action for filing the instant appeal has been resorted to. 3. The prosecution case in short is that Manju Kanwar had committed suicide by consuming insecticide poison on September 10, 1995 in the house of her husband (the accused appellant) and the in-laws within a period of two years from the date of marriage which was solemnised between Manju Kanwar and the accused appellant Sahdev Singh on February 15, 1994. An FIR was lodged with the Police Station Shastri Nagar Jaipur by Ganpat Singh, the father of deceased Manju on Sept. 10, 1995 against the accused Sahdev Singh, his elder brother Roop Singh, his mother and wife of Roop Singh, stating therein that shortly after the marriage the accused persons had started demanding dowry. They started ill-treating Manju and prevented her from meeting her near relatives. They had threatened the informant Ganpat Singh to kill Manju. if Rs. two lacs are not arranged. Case under Section 304 B IPC was registered and after completion of the investigation the charge sheet was laid only against the accused appellant. 4. Charges under section 304 B and 498 A IPC in the alternative under section 306 IPC were framed. The accused denied charges and claimed by the prosecution. Thereafter statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.PC. was recorded and after hearing the rival submissions the learned trial court convicted the accused. 5. I have heard Mr. S.R. Bajwa, Sr. Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Mr. M.L. Goyal, Public Prosecutor for the State and scanned the record carefully. 6. Thereafter statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.PC. was recorded and after hearing the rival submissions the learned trial court convicted the accused. 5. I have heard Mr. S.R. Bajwa, Sr. Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Mr. M.L. Goyal, Public Prosecutor for the State and scanned the record carefully. 6. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the accused appellant can be held guilty for offence under section 304 B IPC on account of suicide committed by her wife Manju within seven years of marriage which could be called a "dowry death." 7. It is therefore necessary to critically examine the prosecution evidence. Ganpat Singh (PW.3) deposed that when he had gone to the accused house after marriage he was asked by the accused, his brother Roop Singh his mother and the wife of Roop Singh that marriage was solemnised by him without dowry. At that time Manju told him that they used to treat her with cruelty and ask her that unless rupees two lakhs are paid to Sahdev by her father what work shall Sahdev do, that day he took Manju with him to the village. After five seven days, Sabal Singh, the father of accused Sahdev Singh came to his village and asked him to send back Manju to her Sasural. Ganpat Singh then narrated the whole story to him and refused to send back Manju. Sabal Singh with folded hands requested Ganpat Singh to send Manju with him and promised that the cruel act shall not be repeated. Manju accordingly was sent to her Sasural with Sabal Singh. But again when Ganpat Singh went to meet Manju, demand of rupees two lacs was repeated. Ganpat Singh wanted to lodge report with the police but Manju prevented him. In the cross examination this witness admitted that at the time of marriage no demand of dowry was made by the accused and no letter was written by Manju to him. Fie was confronted with his statement under section 161 Cr.PC. in which he had not stated what he deposed in his examination in chief, to which he only explained that he told the police but the police did not incorporate it. Fie also deposed that he did not know whether Sabal Singh (father of the accused) died on August 21, 1995, but he admitted to have attended his 'Pagri Dastoor'. in which he had not stated what he deposed in his examination in chief, to which he only explained that he told the police but the police did not incorporate it. Fie also deposed that he did not know whether Sabal Singh (father of the accused) died on August 21, 1995, but he admitted to have attended his 'Pagri Dastoor'. A critical look at the deposition of Ganpat Singh demonstrates that Manju visited twice or thrice to his house after her marriage. Fie stated this fact in his statement before police marked as Ex.D/1, but denied having given it before the learned trial court. He also admitted that he did not say about the demand of rupees two lacs to anybody. Ram Ratan Singh (PW.4) is the cousin of Ganpat Singh. He also made improvements in his deposition. The material facts which he deposed before the court did not find place in his statement under section 161 Cr.PC. Ex. D2. There are material contradictions between his statement before court and before the police. Ram Singh (PW.5) is also near relative of Ganpat Singh. He also made improvements in his statement and there are material contradictions between his statement before court and the statement (Ex.D3) before the police. Mahaveer Singh (PW.6) is the Maternal uncle of Manju. His testimony has been shattered in the cross examination. He was contradicted with his earlier statement Ex.D.4. Balwant Singh (PW.7) is the real brother of Ganpat Singh. He made improvements in his statement. There are material contradictions between his statement before the court and the statement under section 161 Cr.PC. (Ex.D.5). Kan Singh (PW.8) is near relative of Ganpat Singh. He also made improvement in his statements. His testimony was shattered in the cross examination. He has resiled from his earlier statement Ex.D.6. 8. Bhanwar Lal Chauhan (PW.10) handled the initial investigation and recorded the statements of the witnesses. He stated that during investigation he was told by Ram Singh s/o Balwant Ram and Bahadur Singh that Sahdev had asked Manju to sleep with his mother, and on account of this, Sahdev gave beating to Manju in the night of Ninth. Bhanwar Lal Chauhan was Dy. S.R at the relevant time and the S.P had withdrawn the investigation from him on November 8, 1995. Dinesh Sharma (PW.11) conducted investigation thereafter. He deposed that statements of witnesses Ex. Bhanwar Lal Chauhan was Dy. S.R at the relevant time and the S.P had withdrawn the investigation from him on November 8, 1995. Dinesh Sharma (PW.11) conducted investigation thereafter. He deposed that statements of witnesses Ex. D.1 to D.5 were recorded by him in the same manner as the witness deposed. Fateh Singh (PW.12) is the maternal grand father of Manju. He admitted in his cross examination that at the time of marriage no demand of dowry was made by the accused. He made improvement in his statement before the court and resided from his earlier statement Ex.D.8 made before the police. 9. A criminal case is required to be decided on its own merits. There is no straight jacket formulae for appreciation of evidence in criminal cases. In one case an accused can be convicted on the basis of single testimony of a witness whereas in another the testimony of more than one witnesses may not be of sterling worth. In the case on hand the evidence of Ganpat Singh (PW.3) Ram Ratan Singh (PW.4) Ram Singh (PW.5) Mahaveer Singh (PW.7) Kan Singh (PW.8) and Fateh Singh (PW.12) is not natural. All these witnesses are interested witnesses and there are major contradictions in their statements. The Investigating Officer also examined independent witnesses under section 161 Cr.PC. but they were not produced before the court. Linder these circumstances it is not safe to rely the testimony of these witnesses and the prosecution has failed to establish the demand of rupees two lacs. 10. Now I come to charge under section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. Section 498 A IPC provides thus - "498 A. Whoever, being the husband or the relatives of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 498 A IPC provides thus - "498 A. Whoever, being the husband or the relatives of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation - For the purpose of this section, 'cruelty' means - (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the 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 property or valuable security is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 11. The autopsy had revealed as many as 10 injuries ante mortem in nature on the person of Manju. The injuries were diffuse swelling over left side of forehead and over left temporal zygomatic region, left eye (black) abrasions over left eye and lower eye lid, left cheek. Lacerated wound over lower lip and Bruise over left thigh. Though Dr. Sahab Singh (PW.14) in his cross examination admitted that those injuries could have been caused as a result of fall on account of jerky movements after consuming poison but I cannot brush aside the testimony of Bhanwar Lal Chauhan (PW.10) who deposed that after initial investigation he came to know that the accused gave beating to Manju in the night of ninth and she committed suicide the next day. It is difficult to believe that the injuries over eye lid, fore head, cheek, lower lip and thigh could have been caused as a result of one fall after consuming poison. It appears reasonable that the accused wanted Manju to sleep with her mother in law. When she protested he gave beating to her which led her to commit suicide. The conclusion of entire prosecution evidence is that the death of Manju was occasioned not on account of any demand of dowry but because of the beating given by the accused on the preceding night when she refused to sleep with her mother in law. This suggestion was made by the counsel for the accused in the cross examination of Ganpat Singh (PW.4). This suggestion was made by the counsel for the accused in the cross examination of Ganpat Singh (PW.4). The testimony of the prosecution witnesses in respect of demand of dowry does not inspire confidence. Unless there was evidence of dowry demand, section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code, would not be attracted. The cruelty otherwise inflicted on the deceased would be a relevant circumstance to maintain the conviction of the accused appellant under section 498 A of the I.PC. 12. The authorities relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor and distinguishable and it is not necessary for me to refer them. A reading of section 304 B IPC would show that when a question arises whether a person has committed the offence of dowry death of a woman what all that is necessary is it should be shown that soon before her unnatural death, which took place within seven years of the marriage, the deceased had been subjected, but such person, to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand for dowry. If that is shown then the court shall presume that such a person has caused the dowry death. In the instant case the prosecution has failed to establish that soon before her death, Manju was subjected by the accused to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. The death of Manju was occasioned not on account of any demand of dowry but because of other factors which I have enumerated above. 13. In State of H.P v. Nikku Ram ( AIR 1996 SC 67 ) their Lordships of the Supreme Court held thus - "Having however held that in the present case the injuries as found on the person of Roshani could not have caused her death, despite the demands being dowry, the offence would not attract the mischief of section 304 B." In the said case Roshani consumed naphthalene balls which proved fatal and on account of which she died within seven years of her marriage. There were allegations against her mother in law for inflicting two injuries on her person by sharp edged weapon. Supreme Court convicted her under Section 324 IPC. only. 14. The result of the foregoing discussion is that charge under section 304 B IPC is not proved against the accused appellant. He is found guilty under section 498 A IPC. 15. Resultantiy, the appeal stands allowed in part. Supreme Court convicted her under Section 324 IPC. only. 14. The result of the foregoing discussion is that charge under section 304 B IPC is not proved against the accused appellant. He is found guilty under section 498 A IPC. 15. Resultantiy, the appeal stands allowed in part. The conviction of the accused appellant under section 304 B IPC stands set aside, and his conviction under section 498 A IPC is maintained. He was convicted under section 498 A to undergo two years R.l. and a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default to further undergo three months R.I.). The accused appellant was arrested on September 11, 1995 and since then he is in confinement. He has already undergone a period of more than thirty months in custody i.e. more than the sentence awarded to him under section 498 A IPC. thus he shall be entitled to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. *******