JUDGMENT This criminal appeal has been filed by the accused-appellants against the judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Murwara (Katni) in Sessions Trial No. 162 of 1987 whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under section 498A IPC. The prosecution case in brief was that the deceased Munnibai was married to accused-appellant No. 1 Lallu. Accused-appellant No. 2 Sanpathiya Bai was the mother-in-law of the deceased Munnibai. Both of the accused subjected the deceased Munnibai to such cruelty which was likely to drive Munnibai to commit suicide. On 5.4.1967 at village Khamariya, District Jabalpur, deceased Munnibai left the house of her in-law after precuring kerosene and thereafter at nearby Nala committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her cloth. When she was not found in the house, accused-appellant No. 1 Lallu made search and in that connection he also went to his in-laws house in village Dhanedi. Later on the dead body of Munnibai was found in the Nala. After completion of the investigation a challan for offence under section 306 and 498A of IPC was presented against the accused. The trial Court after assessing all the evidence on record came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to prove that the deceased Munnibai committed suicide in consequence of the abatement from both the accused and thus acquitted the accused-appellants from the charge under section 306 of IPC. The trial Court, however, held that the offence under section 498A of IPC against both the accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, it convicted the accused-appellants under section 498A of IPC and sentenced the accused-appellant No. 1 Lallu to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to accused-appellant No. 2 Sampatiya Bai to imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed upon them the accused-appellants have filed the present appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant-accused contended that the trial Court has erred in holding that the offence under section 498A of IPC has been established against both the appellants-accused. He further contended that there is no legal evidence to sustain the conviction under that section. The learned Counsel for the appellant-accused contended that the trial Court has erred in holding that the offence under section 498A of IPC has been established against both the appellants-accused. He further contended that there is no legal evidence to sustain the conviction under that section. As against that, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent-State urged that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt and therefore, there is no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the appellants-accused has taken us through the evidence of Phoolmati (PW 1), Laltabai (PW 2), Mullusingh (PW 3), Karansingh (PW 4), Shakunbai (PW 5), Surajsingh (PW 7) and Amar Singh (PW 8). Phoolmati bai (PW 1) who is mother of the deceased has deposed that Munnibai quite often told her that the accused-appellant No. 2 used to abuse Munnibai, maltreated her by giving beating and by not allowing her to prepare food. The version of (PW 1) Phoolmati has been corroborated by all the above witnesses. Though all the above witnesses are related to the deceased Munnibai yet their statements cannot be discarded on the mere ground that they are related to the deceased. Their statements are natural and inspire our confidence. Thus, it is manifest that the accused-appellant No. 2 used to beat deceased and was not permitting her to prepare food. The deceased was thus compelled to remain starved. It is, thus, evident that there was continuous harassment which had driven the deceased to commit suicide. The non-supply of food to her might have caused a reasonable apprehension in her mind to the effect that her living with mother-in-law would be harmful and injurious to her life and therefore, she might have decided to commit suicide. The conduct of accused-appellant No. 2 towards the deceased Munnibai definitely comes within the ambit of such harassment and cruelty which could have driven the deceased to commit suicide. So far as the accused-appellant No. 1 Lallu is concerned there is no evidence to prove that he also subjected the deceased Munnibai to cruelty. Though Laltabai (PW 2). Kallu (PW 3), Karansingh (PW 4) and Suraj Singh (PW 7) have deposed that whenever deceased Munnibai complained about the conduct of her mother-in-law i.e. accused-appellant No. 2 to her husband Lallu, he always supported his mother, but this fact was not disclosed by all of them during investigation. Though Laltabai (PW 2). Kallu (PW 3), Karansingh (PW 4) and Suraj Singh (PW 7) have deposed that whenever deceased Munnibai complained about the conduct of her mother-in-law i.e. accused-appellant No. 2 to her husband Lallu, he always supported his mother, but this fact was not disclosed by all of them during investigation. Since this fact does not find place in the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under section 161 of CrPC, the statements of these prosecution witnesses to that extent can not be considered reliable. They appear to be after thought. Moreover, the mother of the deceased, (PW 1) Phoolmati has categorically stated in Para 4 of her statement that deceased never made any complaint against accused-appellant No. 1 Lallu. In view of above, the impugned judgment of the trial Court so far as it directs conviction of the appellant-accused No. 1 cannot be sustained, but so far as it directs conviction of the appellant-accused No. 2 is found sustainable. The appeal in, thus, partly allowed. The conviction of the accused-appellant No. 2 Sampatiya Bai for offence under section 498A IPC is upheld. The sentence awarded to her does not call for any interference. However, the conviction of accused-appellant No. 1 is set aside and he is acquitted for offence under section 498A of IPC. He be set at liberty. The appellants shall appear before the CJM, Katni to know the result of this appeal on 28.3.1999.