JUDGMENT 1. - The above named accused appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 21-1-1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions. Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No. 19/1997 by which he convicted and sentenced both accused appellants in the following manner : Name of accused appellants Convicted under Section Sentence awarded 1.Natwar Singh 304-B, Indian Penal Code Seven years S.I. 2.Smt. Sajjan Kamvar 498A, Indian Penal Code Three years S.I. and fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fineto further undergo one month S.I. 201. Indian Penal Code Three years S.I. and fine of Rs 100/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo, one month S.I. The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:- On 8-12-1996, P.W. 1 Ram Kunwar lodged a report Ex.P/1 before the SHO. Police Station Gadi District Banswara stating inter alia that her niece Smt. Bana Kunwar D/o Mohan Singh Rajput (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was married before five years with accused appellant Natwar Singh S/o Gopal Singh Rajput resident of Sharanpur according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. However, after the marriage, accused appellant No. 1 Natwar Singh (husband of the deceased), accused appellant No. 2 Smt. Sajjan Kanwar (mother-in-law of the deceased) and sister-in-law of the deceased used to torture deceased for dowry. It is further stated in the report that whenever the deceased came to her parents house she used to make complaint about the demand of dowry and torturing by the accused appellants. It is further stated in the report that accused appellants were advised not to do such acts, but they did not accede to their advice and on the other hand, they continued to harass and torture deceased. Since deceased was. being tortured in nuptial home, deceased came back to her parents' house. It is further stated in the report that on 29-11-1996, a notice Ex. D.9 was given by the accused appellant Natwar Singh stating therein that deceased be sent back to his house otherwise he would file the case in the Court. Thereafter, Nahar Singh. Mohan Singh and Smt. Anda Kunwar were sent to take deceased from her parents' house and on 1-12-1996. D.9 was given by the accused appellant Natwar Singh stating therein that deceased be sent back to his house otherwise he would file the case in the Court. Thereafter, Nahar Singh. Mohan Singh and Smt. Anda Kunwar were sent to take deceased from her parents' house and on 1-12-1996. a compromise took place between the parties and, thereafter, deceased was sent to the house of her in-law's. It is further stated in the report that on 6-12-1996, P.W. 2 Laxman Singh went to Sharanpur to meet deceased and at that time, he was told by deceased that her husband accused appellant Natwar Singh and other members of her in-law's used to torture her for dowry and upon this, he told to deceased not to worry and everything would be OK with the passage of time. It is further stated in the report that on 8-12-1996, complainant party came to know that deceased has been killed without informing her parents, her dead body was cremated hurriedly. Thereupon, P.W. 2 Laxman Singh. P.W. 7 Jai Singh and others went to the village Sharanpur and on being enquired, they were told that deceased fell down in the well and thereafter, she died and her dead body has been cremated. It is further stated in the report that they have strong suspicion that deceased died because of demand of dowry, cruel treatment and torturing by the accused appellants and her dead- body has been hurriedly burnt without informing the parents of the deceased. On this report, police registered regular F.I.R. Ex. P/2 and started investigation. During investigation, accused appellant No. 2 Smt. Sajjan Kanwar (mother-in-law of the deceased) was arrested through Ex. P/5 and accused appellant No. 1 Natwar Singh (husband of deceased) was arrested through Ex. P/6. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against both the accused appellants in the Court of Magistrate and from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and, thereafter, the case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara on 14-3-1997 framed charges under Sections 498A, 304-B and 201 Indian Penal Code against both the accused appellants. The charges were read over and explained to both accused appellants who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and got exhibited several documents. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara on 14-3-1997 framed charges under Sections 498A, 304-B and 201 Indian Penal Code against both the accused appellants. The charges were read over and explained to both accused appellants who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and got exhibited several documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused appellants under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code were recorded. In defence, seven witnesses were produced and it is pertinent to note that accused appellant Natwar Singh has also been produced in defence as D.W.6 and some documents were also got exhibited in defence. After conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara through his judgment and order dated 21-1-1999 convicted both the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them in the manner as stated above holding inter alia:- 1. That there is a possibility that deceased might have fallen in the well, but since no report about the incident has been lodged by the accused appellants before the police, nor postmortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted, nor parents of the deceased were informed before cremating her dead body, therefore, it cannot be said that death of the deceased was under normal circumstances and thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge adjudged death of the deceased as dowry death. 2. That learned Additional Sessions Judge has also drawn presumption of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. 3. That learned Additional Sessions Judge has also came to the conclusion that deceased was given cruel treatment and tortured by accused appellants for dowry and thus, according to him, all ingredients of the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 Indian Penal Code have been proved in the present case by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 21-1-1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara, the present appeal has been filed by the accused appellants. 3. In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the accused appellants:- 1. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 21-1-1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara, the present appeal has been filed by the accused appellants. 3. In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the accused appellants:- 1. That it is not a case of dowry death, but it is a case of accidental death and according to the learned counsel for the accused appellants, deceased was washing her clothes near the well and all of a sudden, she fell down in the well and, thereafter, she expired. Therefore, the fact that deceased died unnatural death cannot be held to be proved in the present case and thus, the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this respect are liable to be set aside. Besides, deceased was a patient of psychiatric depression and thus, from this point of view also, death of the deceased was accidental. 2. That so far as the accused appellant Smt. Sajjan Kanwar (mother- in-law of the deceased) is concerned she is an old lady of 70 years; she has nothing to do with the crime at all; she did not demand any type of dowry, she never harassed deceased and therefore, there is no evidence against accused appellant Smt. Sajjan Kanwar and thus, she should be acquitted of the charges framed against her. 3. That even against accused appellant Natwar Singh, no case of demand of dowry harassment and cruel treatment towards deceased by accused appellant Natwar Singh, is made out from the evidence produced by the prosecution, as no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. Hence, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and both accused appellants be acquitted of the charges framed against them. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. 6. In Shanti v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1226, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to explain the ingredients of Section 304B Indian Penal Code His Lordship K. Jayachandra Reddy (as he then was) said "A careful analysis of Section 304B Indian Penal Code shows that this section has the following essentials:- 1. 6. In Shanti v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1226, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to explain the ingredients of Section 304B Indian Penal Code His Lordship K. Jayachandra Reddy (as he then was) said "A careful analysis of Section 304B Indian Penal Code shows that this section has the following essentials:- 1. The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances. 2. Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage. 3. She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. 4. Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry." 7. What Section 304B Indian Penal Code requires is that death of the woman should be unnatural. In Shanti v. State of Haryana (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that for applicability of Section 304B Indian Penal Code, question whether unnatural death of a woman was homicidal or suicidal is irrelevant. 8. Section 304-B raises a presumption of culpability against the husband or relative hither to unknown to our jurisprudence. 9. The prosecution must prove with some positive evidence that there must be material to show that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. 10. In the cases of dowry death and suicide, circumstantial evidence plays an important role and inferences can be drawn on the basis of such evidence, that could be direct or indirect. In this respect, conduct of the husband and other relatives also plays a very vital role in coming to the conclusion of the guilt. In this respect, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Guru burhan Singh v. Satpal Singh, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 209, may be seen. 11. Motive for a murder may or may not be. But in dowry deaths, it is inherent. And hence, what is required of the Court to examine is as to who translated it into action as motive for it is not individual, but of family. (See Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan;). AIR 1990 Supreme Court 2134. Point No. 1 12. Motive for a murder may or may not be. But in dowry deaths, it is inherent. And hence, what is required of the Court to examine is as to who translated it into action as motive for it is not individual, but of family. (See Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan;). AIR 1990 Supreme Court 2134. Point No. 1 12. It may be stated here that since the dead body of the deceased was disposed of without putting her dead body for postmortem, therefore, there is no medical evidence in the present case and the evidence which is available on record has to be looked into. 13. In criminal trial, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but in the present case, to prove the facts about the death of the deceased after her death, no information was given to the police arid no information was given to the parents of the deceased, the evidence of defence led by the accused appellant can be seen as some of material facts are very much proved by defence evidence. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Babu Ram, JT 2000 (4) SC 456, has held that there is no different yard stick prescribed for judicial scrutiny of witnesses on either side, meaning thereby the yardstick for the defence witnesses as well as for the prosecution witnesses is the same. From this point of view also, in this case, it has become necessary to examine the defence witnesses first. 15. On behalf of the defence, seven witnesses. namely, D.W. 1 Vijay Singh, D.W. 2 Bhawani Singh, D.W. 3 Jawan Singh, D.W. 4 Kishore Singh, D.W. 5 Nahar Singh, D.W. 6 Natwar Singh (accused appellant No.1) and D.W. 7 Manoj Singh, have been produced and out of them, most important witness is accused appellant Nalwar Singh himself, who has been produced as D.W. 6. 16. D.W. 6 Natwar Singh (accused appellant No. 1) in his statement has admitted the following facts:- 1. That he was married to the deceased. 2. That he lives in Bombay. 3. That he gave notice Ex. D.9 dated 22-11-1996 to deceased. 4. That before the death of the deceased, he went to the Gadi Court for attending the Court and Ex. D/10 shows his presence in the Court on 6-12-1996. 5. That he was married to the deceased. 2. That he lives in Bombay. 3. That he gave notice Ex. D.9 dated 22-11-1996 to deceased. 4. That before the death of the deceased, he went to the Gadi Court for attending the Court and Ex. D/10 shows his presence in the Court on 6-12-1996. 5. That deceased died because of falling in the well and he has not participated in her funeral. 6. That before her death, he was in the village for the last 15 days. 7. That it is correct to say that no information was given to the police about the sudden death of the deceased. 8. That it is also correct to say that without informing the police and without getting the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased, her body was burnt. 9. That it is also correct to say that in his caste, when a woman dies, rites of putting chundri on her dead body are performed and the same is performed by the members of her parents' house. 17. Similarly, the other defence witnesses have also admitted the above facts. 18. That from perusing Ex. D/10 court proceedings, it appears that on 6-12-1996, accused appellant Natwar Singh attended the Court and deceased died on 7-12-1996. From perusing the notice Ex. D/9 dated 22-11-996, it appears that something was wrong between the husband accused appellant Natwar Singh and the wife-deceased and that is why accused appellant Natwar Singh wrote a letter to the deceased asking her to come to his house. 19. Thus, from the above evidence, the following facts should be treated as proved:- 1. That relationship between the deceased and accused appellant Natwar Singh was not cordial and for that, accused appellant. Natwar Singh has to give a registered notice Ex. D/9 to deceased on 22-11-1996. 2. That before the death of the deceased, accused appellant Natwar Singh (husband of the deceased) was in the village for the last 15 days and not at Bombay. 3. That deceased died because of falling in the well. 4. That after death of the deceased, no information was given to the police nor the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted. 5. That hurriedly the dead body of the deceased was cremated and burnt. 20. 3. That deceased died because of falling in the well. 4. That after death of the deceased, no information was given to the police nor the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted. 5. That hurriedly the dead body of the deceased was cremated and burnt. 20. It may be stated here that though it is the case of the defence that they informed the parents of the deceased, but from their evidence, this fact shall not be held to be proved as it would be discussed later on. Thus, it is held that dead body of the deceased was put to an end without informing her parents. 21. The next question which is to be considered is whether in the above circumstances, death of the deceased to be classified otherwise than under normal circumstances or not. 22. In this respect, reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti v. State of Haryana (supra), where it has been held : "Penal Code, 1860, Section 304-B. Dowry death. Accused, in- laws of deceased Evidence that accused drove out deceased's father and brother complaining that dowry has not been given Cruel treatment to deceased established - Death of deceased within seven years of marriage Body cremated hurriedly without even informing her parents - Indicates that death was unnatural - Accused liable to be convicted under Section 304-B - Question whether unnatural death was homicidal or suicidal is irrelevant". 23. From the above authority, it becomes crystal clear that in such a case where dead body of the deceased was cremated hurriedly without informing her parents, death should be treated as unnatural and in other words, otherwise other than under normal circumstances. 24. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused appellants that death of the deceased was accidental one cannot be accepted and the same stands rejected not only from the evidence of the prosecution, but from the evidence of the defence itself. 25. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused appellants that deceased was a patient of psychiatric depression, as admitted by P.W. 4 Smt. Gand Kunwar in her statement and thus, from this point of view also, the death of deceased was accidental, is also wholly untenable. 25. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused appellants that deceased was a patient of psychiatric depression, as admitted by P.W. 4 Smt. Gand Kunwar in her statement and thus, from this point of view also, the death of deceased was accidental, is also wholly untenable. There is no dispute that from the statement of P.W. 4 Smt. Gand Kunwar, it appears that she was a patient of psychiatric mental disease, but to hold that because of this disease she fell into the well, is altogether would be a foreign case, in as much as, accused appellant is responsible, if she has developed such disease, as the conduct of the accused appellant has created a situation where a person becomes depressed and mentally distressed and thus, in such a case, tendency to commit suicide may also arise. In the present case, though there is no specific evidence that deceased committed suicide, but fact is that either she committed suicide or she has been thrust into well by her husband and from both point of view, it can be held that death of the deceased was not normal one and theory of accidental death cannot be accepted. 26. Thus, the findings of the learned Additional Session's Judge that death of the deceased in the present case was not natural one are liable to be confirmed. The case of accused appellant No. 1 Natwar Singh (husband of the deceased). 27. In the statements of the prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Ram Kunwar, who is sister of deceased's father, P.W. 2 Laxman Singh, who is husband of the sister of deceased's father, P.W. 4 Smt. Gand Kunwar, who is mother of the deceased, P.W. 5 Mohan Singh, who is father of the deceased and P.W. 7 Jai Singh, who is nephew of the deceased, there is a clear cut evidence that there was demand of dowry and cruel treatment towards deceased by the accused appellant Natwar Singh (husband of the deceased). These witnesses have clearly stated that whenever deceased came to the house of her parents, she used to tell the same things. The death of the deceased has taken place within five years of the marriage and from perusing the notice Ex. These witnesses have clearly stated that whenever deceased came to the house of her parents, she used to tell the same things. The death of the deceased has taken place within five years of the marriage and from perusing the notice Ex. D/9, it also appears that there was a dispute between accused appellant Natwar Singh and deceased and the fact that a compromise took place on 1-12-1996 between the parties also reflects that relationship between both the parties were not cordial and the cause of it, was demand of dowry and cruel treatment towards deceased by accused Appellant Natwar Singh (husband of the deceased). From the statement of P.W. 2 Laxman Singh, it is very much clear that on 6-12-1996, he went to Sharanpur to meet deceased and at that time deceased also told to him about the demand of dowry and specific mention is found with respect to husband thus, on the next day i.e. on 7-12-1996 alleged incident took place. All the facts co-relate with each other and the conclusion that can be drawn from these facts is that deceased was being treated by her husband accused appellant Natwar Singh with cruelty and persistent demand of dowry was also being made from time to time by accused appellant Natwar Singh. 28. Though it has been argued on behalf of the accused appellants and some questions have been put to the witnesses of the prosecution that they were informed by the accused appellant Natwar Singh about the death of the deceased, but the prosecution witnesses have categorically stated in their statements that they were not informed about the death of the deceased by the accused appellants and this fact that no information was given about the death of the deceased to her parents by the accused appellant Natwar Singh is liable to be accepted, in view of the fact that had accused appellant Natwar Singh would have informed them, they would have certainly participated in her funeral. The fact that dead body of the deceased was hurriedly cremated by the accused appellant would itself go to show that no such information was given by him to the parents of the deceased and thus, the argument that parents of the deceased were informed about the death of the deceased stands, rejected. 29. The fact that dead body of the deceased was hurriedly cremated by the accused appellant would itself go to show that no such information was given by him to the parents of the deceased and thus, the argument that parents of the deceased were informed about the death of the deceased stands, rejected. 29. In such type of cases, direct evidence is hardly available and case is to be based on the circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the accused has to be taken into consideration for adjudicating upon the trustfulness or otherwise of the prosecution case. 30. In the present case, evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly testified to the greedy and lusty nature of the accused appellant in the manner that he persistently taunted the deceased and tortured her for not having brought sufficient dowry from her father and for that, he made a compromise also and sometimes, he did not send deceased to her parents' house and sometimes parents did not send deceased to the house of the accused appellant and further, the manner in which the dead body of the deceased was disposed of, would in all cumulative circumstances prove one fact that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband accused appellant Natwar Singh, which resulted in abnormal death of the deceased. 31. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also drawn presumption against the accused appellant after placing reliance on Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. 32. The presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act can be raised only on the proof of the following essentials:- 1. The question before the Court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304B Indian Penal Code 2. The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. 3. Such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any demand for dowry. 4. Such cruelty or harassment was taking place soon before her death. 33. The evidence, which has been discussed above, clearly establishes the above four conditions and thus, the learned Additional sessions Judge has drawn presumption against accused appellant after placing reliance on Section 113-B, he has committed no illegality in doing so. 4. Such cruelty or harassment was taking place soon before her death. 33. The evidence, which has been discussed above, clearly establishes the above four conditions and thus, the learned Additional sessions Judge has drawn presumption against accused appellant after placing reliance on Section 113-B, he has committed no illegality in doing so. In this respect, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hem Chand v. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 120, may be referred to where it has been held:- "(A) Penal Code (1860), Section 304-B - Dowry death - Wife dying an unnatural death namely by strangulation - Evidence showing that there was dowry demand and cruelty on part of accused husband - Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act is available Accused liable to be convicted under Section 304-B Penal Code." 34. Hence, for the reasons stated above, the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting accused appellant Natwar Singh for the offence under Sections 304-B Indian Penal Code, 498-AIndian Penal Code and 201 Indian Penal Code are liable to be confirmed and his appeal against conviction is liable to be dismissed. The case of accused appellant No. 2 Smt. Sajjan Kanwar (mother-in-law of the deceased). 35. Smt. Sajjan Kanwar, accused appellant No. 2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The allegations of dowry made in this case are of general nature so far as this accused appellant is concerned, who is old lady of 70 years of age and no specific allegations are there in the file which show that deceased was being tortured by this lady in respect of demand of dowry. 36. The prosecution case may be true but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted. Law does not require conclusive proof, but only proof beyond reasonable doubt. In criminal cases the prosecution is under an obligation to prove the presence beyond reasonable doubt and if there is any doubt, benefit must go to the accused. Suspicion, however, strong cannot take the place of proof. 37. Law does not require conclusive proof, but only proof beyond reasonable doubt. In criminal cases the prosecution is under an obligation to prove the presence beyond reasonable doubt and if there is any doubt, benefit must go to the accused. Suspicion, however, strong cannot take the place of proof. 37. However, a tendency has developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. This aspect should also be kept in mind while judging the case of the accused appellant Smt. Sajjan Kanwar (mother-in-law of the deceased). 38. Since the allegations against the accused appellant Smt. Sajjan Kanwar (mother-in-law of the deceased) are general in nature, therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt so far as the accused appellant Smt. Sajjan Kanwar is concerned and element of suspicion and doubt is there and, thus, benefit of doubt should be given to this old lady Smt. Sajjan Kanwar. The evidence led by the prosecution does not appeal to the conscience of the Court in the manner whether she was really a party for all acts done by the accused appellant Natwar Singh (husband of the deceased). In the absence of clear and oriented evidence against accused appellant Smt. Sajjan Kanwar, it would be unsafe to maintain her conviction. 39. Thus, for the reasons stated above, the case of the prosecution against accused appellant Smt. Sajjan Kanwar cannot be accepted and she is entitled to the benefit of doubt and thus, entitled to acquittal. Hence, the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting accused appellant Smt. Sajjan Kanwar under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 Indian Penal Code are liable to be set aside. 40. The result of the above discussion is:- 1. That the appeal of the accused appellant No. 1 Natwar Singh is dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order dated 21-1-1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara. 2. 40. The result of the above discussion is:- 1. That the appeal of the accused appellant No. 1 Natwar Singh is dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order dated 21-1-1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara. 2. That however the appeal of the accused appellant No. 2 Smt. Sajjan Kanwar is allowed and the judgment and order dated 21-1-1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswana, so far as they relate to accused appellant No. 2 Smt. Sajjan Kanwar, are set-aside and she is acquitted of all the charges framed against her. Since accused appellant Smt. Sajjan Kanwar is in jail, she be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed partly. *******