JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J. 1. Appellants Ramesh Kumar, Rajni and Ramnath have been convicted under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 2. Deceased Guddi was married to appellant Ramesh Kumar. Her dead body was taken out from the well near the house of the accused on 27.5.1993. 3. The prosecution case is that the marriage of Guddi with accused Ramesh Kumar had taken place within 7 years of her death. She committed suicide by jumping into the well. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of accused Ramesh Kumar. All the accused persons were demanding radio, watch and cycle as dowry. They were harassing Guddi for not bringing these items from her father. She used to make complaint to her brother Ram Pratap (PW 1) regarding the demand of dowry and harassment. A Panchayat was called 15 days before the death of Guddi in the house of Ram Pratap (PW 1). In that Panchayat, all the three appellants were present. Guddi made a complaint in that Panchayat that they were demanding the above items as dowry. She also made a complaint that she was being treated with cruelty by the appellants. 4. The accused persons pleaded not guilty. Their defence is that they never demanded any item from the father of the deceased. According to the appelants, Guddi slipped into the well and that was cause of her death. 5. The Trial Court held that all the ingredients of the offence under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code are established and therefore, they have been convicted and sentenced as stated above. 6. In this appeal, it is contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not precise. It does not establish the charge against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 7. The evidence on record has been carefully scrutinised. Dr. Badri Singh (PW6) has deposed that he had conducted autopsy on the body of Guddi on 28.5.1993 and found that she died due to the asphyxia caused by drowning. The post mortem report is Ex. P/7. The defence examined Chhotkawan (DW 1) and Mohar (DW 2). They have deposed that they saw deceased Guddi pulling water from the well. Chhotkawan (DW 1) says that the rope which was being used for pulling water was entangled with the leg of the deceased and that took her into the well. The post mortem report is Ex. P/7. The defence examined Chhotkawan (DW 1) and Mohar (DW 2). They have deposed that they saw deceased Guddi pulling water from the well. Chhotkawan (DW 1) says that the rope which was being used for pulling water was entangled with the leg of the deceased and that took her into the well. Mohar (DW 2) says that piece of wood which was kept on the well gave way and that was the reason that the deceased fell into the well. The evidence of these two witnesses is not consistent. It appears that they have not seen Guddi falling into the well. They did not come forward before the police to make a statement that they have seen Guddi slipping into the well. The Trial Court has rightly rejected their evidence. There was no rope or bucket near the well. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly held that the deceased committed suicide by jumping into the well. 8. It is not in dispute that the marriage of the deceased with appellant Ramesh Kumar had taken place within 7years of her .death. Ram Pratap (PW1) is the brother of the deceased. He has deposed that the accused persons were demanding radio, watch and cycle but his father was not able to give these articles due to his poverty. His sister used to come to his house and then, she used to tell that the accused persons are demanding these articles and if she does not bring these articles, they will not allow her to go to her parents house. She had also stated that she was beaten by her husband Ramesh Kumar, her father-in-law and mother-in-law, Ramnath and Jamuni. She had come to his house 15 days before the incident. All the three accused persons had come to take her. He called some persons of his village. In their presence, Guddi had complained that the accused persons were demanding cycle, watch and radio as dowry. The accused persons said that her father had promised to give these articles at the time of the marriage but he did not fulfil his commitment. The accused persons were asked by those persons that they would not make demand of these articles as the financial condition of the father of Guddi was not good. They took her to her husband's place. The accused persons were asked by those persons that they would not make demand of these articles as the financial condition of the father of Guddi was not good. They took her to her husband's place. In cross-examination, the attention of this witness was invited to his statement under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code which has been marked as Ex. D/1. There is no material omission in that statement. It is only the use of words who had made some apparent discrepancy between the two statements. 9. Raghunath Prasad Sharma (PW 3) has corroborated the evidence of Ram Pratap (PW 1). He has confirmed that Guddi had made the complaint that the accused persons were demanding the articles mentioned above as dowry. 10. The evidence adduced by the prosecution as against appellant Ramesh Kumar is satisfactory. That proves beyond reasonable doubt that he was demanding dowry and harassing his wife as it was not being given by the parents of Guddi. He was harassing his wife for not bringing the above items. The conviction of appellant Ramesh Kumar under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code is well founded. 11. So far as appellant Nos. 2 and 3, Rajni and Ramnath are concerned, the evidence of Ram Pratap (PW 1) against them is of general nature. There is no precise evidence to this effect that they were beating or harassing the deceased. The prosecution evidence against them is not of such a character from which an inference can be drawn that they are guilty for the offence under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution evidence on this point against the father-in-law and mother-in-law should be more clear and cogent. 12. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of appellants Rajni and Ramnath are set aside. The conviction of appellant Ramesh Kumar under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code is upheld. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years imposed upon him by the Trial Court is reduced to 7 years.