JUDGMENT Appellants Gopalrao, Pandurang and Yenubai have been convicted under section 498A Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. The prosecution case was that on 10.8.1986 accused Gopalrao asked his wife deceased Fekanbai to bring an amount of Rs. 1,200/- from her mother, Dhurpatabai (PW 7). She had sold a piece of land for Rs. 2,400/- to Rajaram (PW 10). Accused Pandurang and Yenubai are parents of Gopalrao. They were also asking Fekanbai to bring money from her mother. The accused persons were harassing Fekanbai and threatening to cause her death if she did not bring this money from her mother. The dead body of Fekanbai was recovered from the canal on 1.9.1986. The accused persons pleaded not guilty. The trial Court acquitted the accused persons of the charges under sections 302 and 306 IPC but convicted them for the offence punishable under section 498A IPC. The point for determination in this appeal is whether the accused persons subjected Fekanbai to cruelty. Dhurpatabai (PW 7) is mother of deceased Fekanbai, she has deposed that she had two daughters namely Fekanbai and Pokanbai. Both were married in village Choti. She sold a piece of land belonging to her for Rs. 2,400/- to Rajaram (PW 10). Her daughter Fekanbai came to her and asked her to pay her Rs. 1,200/-. She disclosed to her mother that she has been asked by her husband and parents-in-law to bring this money from her mother. She had also told her that if she would not pay money, they would cause her death. In cross-examination in para 10 she has stated that her daughter did not complain to her before this incident that she was being harassed or beaten by her husband or her in-laws. She has further stated that her daughter Fekanbai used to tell her that she is happy with her in-laws. Jeewanlal (PW 8) is uncle of Fekanbai. He has stated that Fekanbai had told her that her in-laws and husband have demanded an amount of Rs. 1,000/-. He has further stated that Fekanbai told him that she was being harassed by her in-laws. In cross-examination he has stated that this was first complaint which was made by Fekanbaito him. Rajaram (PW 10) is father-in-law and Pokanbai is sister of the deceased. 1,000/-. He has further stated that Fekanbai told him that she was being harassed by her in-laws. In cross-examination he has stated that this was first complaint which was made by Fekanbaito him. Rajaram (PW 10) is father-in-law and Pokanbai is sister of the deceased. He has deposed that Fekanbai had told him that her in-laws asked her to bring an amount of Rs. 1,000/- from her mother. Rajaram (PW 10) does not say that Fekanbai had told him that she was being beaten or harassed by her in-laws. After carefully going through the evidence of the three witnesses mentioned above, it is found that deceased Fekanbai demanded an amount of Rs. 1,000/- from her mother. It appears that her mother had sold a piece of land of Rs. 2,400/- and therefore her husband was expecting half of the amount as the share of his wife. Dadulal (PW 9) is neighbour of the accused persons. He has deposed that there used to be a quarrel between Fekanbai and her husband. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is not of such a nature which may prove cruelty towards Fekanbai by the accused persons. It is admitted by Dhurpatabai (PW 7) in cross-examination that Fekanbai never complained to her earlier that she was being beaten or harassed by her husband or her in-laws. It is only when she sold a piece of land for Rs. 2,400/-, a demand for almost half of the amount came from Fekanbai at the instance of her husband or in-laws. The conduct of the accused persons was not such whi.ch was likely to drive Fekanbai to commit suicide or she was not harassed with a view to coerce her to bring money from her mother. Simply asking Fekanbai to bring some money from her mother for buying a sewing machine cannot be said that a demand for dowry was being made. Dhurpatabai (PW 7) had two daughters only and the accused persons might have expected half of the sale proceeds of the land as a share of Fekanbai. The evidence on record does not establish that the accused persons subjected Fekanbai to cruelty within the meaning of section 498A. The death of Fekanbai has not been proved either homicidal or suicidal. Therefore, the accused persons have been acquitted of the charges under sections 307 and 306 IPC. The evidence on record does not establish that the accused persons subjected Fekanbai to cruelty within the meaning of section 498A. The death of Fekanbai has not been proved either homicidal or suicidal. Therefore, the accused persons have been acquitted of the charges under sections 307 and 306 IPC. There is no State appeal against acquittal of the appellants for those charges. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellants under section 498A, IPC and the sentence are set aside.