JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 28.1.1988 of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, in Sessions Trial No. 47 of 1986, by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced, respectively, to Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and two years. Both sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The appellant was married to the deceased Sunita on 27.6.1985. It is alleged that the accused had made a demand of three Tolas of gold. The deceased Sunita, after her marriage, had gone to the house of the accused, but on learning that her mother belonged to Gond community, the accused, it is alleged, started humiliating her and persisted in his demand of three Tolas of gold. After about 2-1/2 months of the marriage, it is alleged that Sunita had come back to her parents' house and when the accused Harish Chandra tried to bring her back to his house, she refused to go with him as he was, according to the prosecution, harassing her in perseverance of his demand for three Tolas of gold. It is alleged that Sunita, in order to save herself from this harassment, went to the house of her Jija (brother-in - law) Hiraji (PW 4). She was, however, persuaded by her parents and the accused to accompany the accused and while on way to the house of the accused they had stayed in the house of Ram Prakash Tripathi (PW 6), Sunita committed suicide in the said house. 3. Awdhesh Tiwari (PW 11) was posted as Station House Officer at Police Station Junnardeo. After the Marg No. 56/85 was registered in relation to the unnatural death of Sunita, he recorded the statements of Baldeo Sharma, Ramvatibai, Ram Prakash, Ku. Rashmi and others and on that basis registered the case under section 306 and 498A, IPC and commenced the investigation. He recorded the first information report Ex. P-11 and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. 4. The accused denied the charges' and pleaded that he was innocent. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, on trial found the appellant guilty of the said offences and convicted and sentenced him, as stated above. 5. Counsel for the parties were heard and record perused. 6. P-11 and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. 4. The accused denied the charges' and pleaded that he was innocent. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, on trial found the appellant guilty of the said offences and convicted and sentenced him, as stated above. 5. Counsel for the parties were heard and record perused. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the testimony of Baldeo Prasad (PW-1), father of the deceased Sunita, and Ramvatibai (PW-2), her mother. Learned counsel has pointed out that the deceased Sunita had lived happily for about 2 1/2 months with the accused and in the normal course had gone to the house of her parents. He has further pointed out that it emerges from the prosecution case itself that the accused had gone to bring her back to his house and it was on account of the reluctance of the deceased Sunita to accompany the accused to the matrimonial home and her having gone to, the house of her Jija Hiraji (PW 4) that the parents of the deceased and the accused himself had to persuade her to go with the accused. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the reason for disinclination of Sunita in accompanying the accused had been either demand of gold as alleged, or her humiliation because her mother belonged to a different community, the parents of the girl would not have been at pains to persuade her to go with the accused. Likewise, the accused would also not have been so anxious to bring her back to his house without the demand having been satisfied. Learned counsel for the State has, however, pointed out that the reluctance on the part of the deceased to go with her husband, the accused, was on account of some strong reason and that reason could be nothing else but the demand of dowry and humiliation with regard to the mother of the deceased being from another community. Learned Govt. Advocate has, thus, supported the order of conviction and sentence. 7. The prosecution has examined a large number of witnesses. Prosecution has examined eleven witnesses, but a large number of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the demand of dowry and cruelty by resort to humiliation of the deceased, has not supported the prosecution case. Learned Govt. Advocate has, thus, supported the order of conviction and sentence. 7. The prosecution has examined a large number of witnesses. Prosecution has examined eleven witnesses, but a large number of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the demand of dowry and cruelty by resort to humiliation of the deceased, has not supported the prosecution case. The evidence in this behalf is therefore, confined to the testimony of Baldeo Prasad (PW 1), Ramvatibai (PW 2) and Hiraji (PW 4). 8. Baldeo Prasad (PW 1) is the father of the deceased Sunita. In his statement, he has stated that he has six daughters and two sons. Sunita was his second daughter and at the time the marriage was arranged, he had offered to give three Tolas of gold to his son-in-law. However, he could not give the gold and barely .managed to give a gold ring of 1/4 Tola, one wrist watch, one Palang and 96 pieces of utensils. He has stated that he had told the accused that he would give the gold later. He has further stated that his daughter lived with the accused for about two or 2 1/2 months and thereafter he brought her back to his house where she lived for two months. While Sunita so lived with him, she had told him that the accused had returned the ring and was demanding three Tolas of gold and was threatening her with dire consequences if there was failure to satisfy the demand. He has also stated that his daughter had also informed him that the accused was harassing her as she was a daughter of a Gond woman. After two months, the accused came to take back his daughter, but she was not willing to go with him and she, instead, went to village Kolhiya. He along with his wife and Ram Prakash Tripathi, therefore, went to the village and persuaded Sunita to go to her husband's place. Sunita then went with the accused and Ram Prakash Tripathi and next day he learnt that she had committed suicide. Ramvatibai (PW 2), mother of the deceased, has also stated that at the time of the marriage, her husband had promised to give three Tolas of gold. After Sunita returned, she complained that she would not go back to her husband's place as he was demanding gold and harassing her. Ramvatibai (PW 2), mother of the deceased, has also stated that at the time of the marriage, her husband had promised to give three Tolas of gold. After Sunita returned, she complained that she would not go back to her husband's place as he was demanding gold and harassing her. She has also confirmed that when the accused came to take back Sunita, she went away to the house of Hiraji (PW 4) and then all of them persuaded her to go with the accused. Next day they learnt that Sunita had committed suicide. 9. From the testimony of these two witnesses, what transpires is not the demand at the time the marriage was settled but the promise of the father of the deceased to give three Tolas of gold in dowry. It does not appear from the evidence that when the accused came to take back Sunita, he made any demand at that time of three Tolas of gold. It also does not stand to reason that if the accused was persisting in demand of dowry as alleged by the prosecution, he would be so anxious to take his wife back without demand being first fulfilled. It has not been stated by the parents of the deceased that the accused laid any condition for taking Sunita with him. On the contrary, the evidence reveals that the accused was trying his best to persuade Sunita to go with him but Sunita was resisting and instead of her accompanying the accused she preferred to go to the house of her Jija Hiraji (PW 4). The fact that her parents, the accused and others had to go in a Jeep to the house of Hiraji to persuade Sunita to go with the accused also contra-indicates any demand on the part of the accused of dowry or any harassment having been administered by him. It appears that for some reason the deceased was not willing to live with the accused and may be that on account of this unwillingness a story of dowry demand and harassment on account of mother of the deceased being from Gond community has been put forward. The accused knew that her mother belonged to Gond community but still spared no effort to persuade her to accompany him, which shows that the story of the accused having discarded her on this ground in not true. 10. The accused knew that her mother belonged to Gond community but still spared no effort to persuade her to accompany him, which shows that the story of the accused having discarded her on this ground in not true. 10. Hiraji (PW 4) has deposed that Sunita had come alone to his house and on being asked had informed him that she had come to him because her husband had come to her house to take her away. He had enquired from her the reason and she had told him that the accused harasses her and says that she was not suitable for him. Hiraji is a person who is closely associated with the family of the deceased. He is related to Ramvatibai. It the reason for Sunita' s disinclination to join her husband was the demand of dowry, there was no reason why Sunita would not have disclosed that to Hiraji (PW 4). This also confirms that it was not on account of any demand of dowry or of gold, as projected by Baldeo Prasad (PW 1) and Ramvatibai (PW 2) that Sunita was not willing to go to her husband's house. She had merely informed Hiraji that the accused was harassing her by saying that she was not befitting him. If this statement is to be taken as true then the story about the accused having discarded her on account of the fact that her mother was a Gond, stands completely belied and demolished. It has already been observed that the accused made every endeavour to persuade her to come with him, which indicates that he had no conditions for taking her with him, such as dowry or the like. Ram Prakash Tripathi (PW 6), at whose house the deceased and her husband had stayed, has been declared hostile by the prosecution. He has deposed that the accused had not made any demand when the marriage was settled. The accused has examined Vishambhar Dayal (DW 1) in his defence. He has deposed that while the accused and the deceased lived in his house for a month or so, they lived with utmost cordiality. He has stated that the accused was looking after her and had never demanded anything. 11. There is no evidence to suggest that any person had witnessed the accused ill-treating or harassing his wife or acting with cruelty towards her. He has stated that the accused was looking after her and had never demanded anything. 11. There is no evidence to suggest that any person had witnessed the accused ill-treating or harassing his wife or acting with cruelty towards her. The statements of prosecution witnesses also rule out any demand being made at the time when the accused had gone to take his wife from the house of her parents. The fact that the deceased Sunita had gone to the house of Hiraji (PW 4) and had been persuaded not only by the accused and Ram Prakash Tripathi (PW 6) but also by her parents to go with the accused also indicates that the story about harassment or demand of dowry was put-forth only because Sunita had committed suicide. It is quite improbable that if the accused had been demanding gold, as alleged, and threatening Sunita with dire consequences if demand was not met, the parents would, not only readily but on the basis of the efforts made by them, send their daughter with him. The prosecution has, therefore, not been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond doubt. 12. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant and the sentence passed against him is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges against him and set at liberty. The accused-appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.