JUDGMENT 1. - The abovenamed accused appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 6.11.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 130/96, by which he convicted the accused appellants for the offence under sections 304B and 498 A IPC and sentenced in the following manner : Names of the Accused appellants Convicted under section Sentence awarded 1. Giriraj) 2. Dalip 3. Ashok Kumar 304B IPC Seven years' RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months RI 498-A IPC One year RI and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo, seven days RI Both substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. By the same judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Smt. Kaushaliya Devi of the charges under sections 498A and 304B IPC. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows : On 28.7.1995, accused appellant No. 1 Giriraj lodged a written report Ex. P/22 before PW 12 Sunderlal, SHO, Amet stating inter alia that his son accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar was married with Vandana (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) (daughter of PW 1 Ramswaroop) three years back i.e. on 16.1.1993 and after the marriage, deceased used to quarrel and used to threaten and, therefore, she was left at her parents' house at Raipur. It is further stated in the report that before one and half months back, his son accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar met with an accident and, therefore, she was brought back from her parents' house to her in-laws house at Amet. It is further stated in the report that accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar used to live in upper story in one room and deceased used to talk very less to other persons and she did not do any work. It is further stated in the report that on that day at about 5.30 PM, accused appellant No. 2 Dalip Kumar, who is son of the informant, accused appellant No. 1 Giriraj, informed him (Giriraj Prasad, accused appellant No. 1) that his Bhabhi (deceased) has been burnt. Thereupon, he rushed to his house and found the deceased burnt severely and, thereafter, he informed the police and she was brought to the hospital, where she was declared dead. Thereupon, he rushed to his house and found the deceased burnt severely and, thereafter, he informed the police and she was brought to the hospital, where she was declared dead. On this report, police registered the case under sections 174 and 176 Cr.P.C. and murg FIR No. 16/95 was registered and investigation was started by PW 10 Kailash Chandra, Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate, Amet. During investigation, post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted by Medical Board. The post mortem report of the deceased is Ex. P/20, where cause of her death has been mentioned in the following manner: "In our opinion, death is due to neurogenic (Pain) and cardiovascular shock as a result of extensive superficial to deep dry heat burn (100% burn). However, viscera are preserved for chemical analysis for evidence of poisoning. Vaginal swab preserved for evaluation of sexual assault." PW 10 Kailash Chandra, after usual investigation, submitted his report Ex. P/29 before the SHO, Police Station Amet stating that death of the deceased was because of dowry demand and thus, he described her death as as dowry death and on this report. PW 12 Sunderlal registered the case for the offence under sections 304B, 498A, 34 IPC against the accused appellants and chalked out FIR No. 142/95 Ex. P/23 on 1.8.1995 and started investigation.When the investigation in murg FIR was being conducted by PW 10 Kailash Chandra, PW 1 Ram Swaroop, father of the deceased lodged a report Ex. P/13 before PW 10 Kailash Chandra stating that her daughter (deceased) was married with the accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar on 16th January 1993 and after one month of the marriage, she was being tortured for not bringing dowry, by accused appellants, especially father-in-law, mother-in-law and her Dever. It is further stated in the report that on 28.7.1995 he was informed that deceased was ill and hospitalised and then he contacted at Amet through telephone with accused appellant No. 1 Giriraj. Thereafter he went there and he came to know that she has been killed by burning. Since before this report, investigation was going on, PW 10 Kailash Chandra put up that report Ex. P/13 in that file and not only this, on 30.7.1995, PW 1 Ram Swaroop gave another report Ex. Thereafter he went there and he came to know that she has been killed by burning. Since before this report, investigation was going on, PW 10 Kailash Chandra put up that report Ex. P/13 in that file and not only this, on 30.7.1995, PW 1 Ram Swaroop gave another report Ex. P/21 to PW 10 Kailash Chandra stating that husband of the deceased is also the main accused and as his condition was not stable, therefore, his name was not mentioned by him in his earlier report Ex. PI13. He has further stated in the report that from the letters, it would be revealed that he is also the main person responsible for dowry death. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against four accused persons in the Court of Magistrate and from where the case was committed to the Court of Session and thereafter, the case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. Rajasmand.On 5.2.1996, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajasmand framed charges under sections 3048 and 498A against the present accused appellants and one Kaushaliya Devi. The charges were read over and explained to the accused appellants. They denied the charges and claimed trial.In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and got exhibited several documents. Thereafter, the statements of the accused appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. In defence some documents were got exhibited, but no evidence was led.After conclusion of trial, the leyned Additional Sessions Judge. Rajasmand vide his judgment and order dated 6.11.1996 convicted the present accused appellants for the offence under sections 304B and 498A 30 IPC and sentenced each of them in the manner stated above holding inter alia that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the present accused appellants. However, by the same judgment and order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted accused Kaushaliya Devi of the charges framed against her. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 6.11.1996 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Rajasmand the present accused appellants have preferred this appeal. 3. In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by the earned counsel for the accused appellant : 1. Sessions Judge acquitted accused Kaushaliya Devi of the charges framed against her. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 6.11.1996 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Rajasmand the present accused appellants have preferred this appeal. 3. In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by the earned counsel for the accused appellant : 1. That from exchange of letters, no case for dowry death is made out and at the most, there was a dispute between PW 1 Ramswaroop and accused appellant No. 1 Giriraj over charging the rate of interest over money which was taken on loan by accused appellant No. 1 Giriraj from PW 1 Ram Swaroop, father of the deceased. 2. That deceased committed suicide not because she was tortured by any of the accused appellants, but since her ego was very much high, therefore she committed suicide and for that nobody should be held responsible. 3. That in the report Ex. P/13 which was lodged by PW 1 Ram Swaroop, the name of the accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar (husband of deceased) was not there, therefore, no case is made out against him. 4. That similarly, there is no evidence to connect accused appellant No. 2 Dalip Kumar (Devar of deceased) with the demand of dowry. Thus, the findings of the learned trial Judge recorded against him are perverse one and this accused appellant No. 2 Dalip Kumar should also be acquitted of the charges framed against him. Hence, it is prayed that this appeal be allowed and the 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, Rajasmand. 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 SC 1226 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to explain the ingredients of Section 304B IPC. His Lordship K. Jayaschandra Reddy (as he then was) said `A careful analysis of Section 304B 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. His Lordship K. Jayaschandra Reddy (as he then was) said `A careful analysis of Section 304B 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. In this respect, I would like to first discuss the medical evidence in this case. 8. The post mortem report of the deceased is Ex. P/20 and the same has been proved by PW 15 Dr. M.S. Devra. He states in his statement that on 29.7.1995 he was Incharge of the Referal Hospital, Amet and on the request of the SHO, Police Station Amet, he conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased Vandana. He has stated that when deceased was brought to the hospital, she was having 100% burns. He found the following injuries on her body. 1. Contusion, 3 parallel contusions of size 15 cm x 11/2 cm each extending from left shoulder joint to left breast on section clotted blood seen in tissue. Ante mortem in nature. 2. Lacerated wound- 3cm x 2cm x 1/2 Central Perineal area- between Anus and Forchette. Mons Pubis, Right vaginal area, Part of upper thigh and adjoining area are soiled with blood. Ante mortem in nature. 3. Lacerated wound-2 112cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm Left frontal aspect of 1st Meta tarsal area. 4. Abrasion 4cm x2cm-lateral aspect of the elbow joint. Antemortem in nature. He has proved post-mortem report Ex. P/20. 9. Thus, from the statement of PW 15 Dr. M.S. Devra, it can be easily said that death of the deceased was not natural one and her death was 50 unnatural one. 10. What Section 304B IPC 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 IPC, question whether unnatural death of a woman was homicidal or suicidal is irrelevant. 11. 10. What Section 304B IPC 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 IPC, question whether unnatural death of a woman was homicidal or suicidal is irrelevant. 11. Since in the present case, marriage of the deceased with accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar took place on 16.1.1993 and she died on 28.7.1995, therefore, her death has taken place within seven years of the 5 marriage, of the deceased with accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar. Thus, the findings of the learned trial Judge in this respect are liable to be confirmed and condition No. 1 for proving offence under section 304B IPC stands proved. 12. The next point which is to be considered is whether deceased has been subjected to cruelty or harassment by accused appellants Giriraj, Dalip to Kumar and Ashok Kumar and such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry not. 13. 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. 14. 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 he directed or indirect. Direct evidence is hardly available. It is the circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the accused persons which are to be taken into consideration for adjudicating upon the trustfulness or otherwise of the prosecution case. In this respect, conduct of the husband and other relatives also plays a very vital role in coming to the conclusion of the guilt. 15. 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.The case of accused appellant No. 1 Giriraj, father in-law of deceased. 16. In this case, apart from oral evidence. 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.The case of accused appellant No. 1 Giriraj, father in-law of deceased. 16. In this case, apart from oral evidence. documentary evidence in the shape of various letters has been produced by the prosecution and the relevant extracts of some of them are very much material for coming to the conclusion whether deceased has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry or not. 17. The first letter is Ex. P/1 dated 6.3.1993, which was written by accused appellant No. 1 Giriraj to PW 1 Ramswaroop, father of deceased. The said letter is small one and thus, the same is reproduced hereinbelow: " v= dq'kye~ LO;kLFkqA vki dks eksuw th ds lkFk lekpkj Hksts fQj i= fn;k ijUrq fdlh dk tokc ugha fn;k bldk D;k eryc le>wa] vki pqipki gSA D;k eSa gh csodwQ gWwa tks ckj&ckj fy[krk gwWa vki ugha vkrs gks rks oSlk fy[ks rks ge ogkWa vk tkosA ckr dks c<+kus dh bPNk gS rks oSlk djs gekjk fnekx cgqr [kjkc gSA vkius dqN ugha fd;k rks vPNk ugha gSA vkidks ;gkWa vkdj ge ls rqjUr feysA 'ks"k 'kqHke& 18. Another letter is Ex. P/7 which is dated 10.3.1993 and the same was written by accused appellant No. 1 Giriraj to Ramswaroop, PW 1. father of deceased. Another letter is Ex. P/7 which is dated 10.3.1993 and the same was written by accused appellant No. 1 Giriraj to Ramswaroop, PW 1. father of deceased. From perusing this letter, it appears that there was some dispute over the charging of rate of interest and other important contents are as follows : rc vkidk fn;k lc lkeku lcds lkeus okil vkidks Hksts nsosaxsA vkius viuh ykMyh csVh dks D;k&Dk dke fl[kk dj Hkstk ;g rks lkeus gS vkSj oks tks ckrsa vki yksxksa ds fy, cksyrh gS D;k ;g Hkh geus dgk gksxk oks rks vki dh gSA mls iwN ysuk nwljk vkidk taokbZ vkidh csVh ls cksyrk ugha ;g ckr C;k.kth dks oUnuk us dg fn;k Fkk rd jde ds C;kt dh Hkh oUnuk dks dg nsrs rks jde Hkst nsrkA vki yksx eq>s cnuke djuk pkgrs gks igys rks cM+h&cM+h ckrsa djh fookg ds i'pkr~ /kje /kDdk ns fn;k vkSj csVh dks dqN ugha fl[kk;k vkSj cqyk;k rks C;kt dh fy[kh lks bruk iSlk gSA csVh dk fookg djuk gh vki yksxksa dk dke Fkk oks dSls gS ;g tkuuk vki dk dke ugha gSA /kU; gS vki ds ?kj ls& 19. Another letter is Ex. P/3 dated 29.3.1993 which was written by accused appellant No. 1 Giriraj to PW 1 Ramswaroop, father of deceased and the important contents of that letter are as follows. oUnuk ds lkFk esa tks M~sflax Vsfcy vki us D;ksa Hksth ;gkWa D;k t:jr Fkh vkidks igys fy[k fn;k fd dqN Hkh ugha Hkstsa vkius ldjikjs Hksts lks ;gkWa tkfr esa ldjikjs dk yko.k caVrs oks geus feBkbZ yM~Mw cukdj caVokus iM+s D;k vki ds taokbZ ds fy, Hkh 100 xzke feBkbZ ugha FkhA vki nksuksa dh ,d ckr esjs le> esa ugha vkbZ fd vkidh csVh ls vki dk taokbZ cksyrk ugha gSA i/kkj tkos ;gka vkSj viuk lkeku ;gka ls ys tkosA vkidks igys dgk Fkk fd tks nsuk gks eq>s iwN ysuk Ms~flax Vsfcy Hksth lks ;gkWa igqWaprs gh VwV xbZ blls vPNh ysrk iSls feykdj ij vkius ,d ckr esjh ugha ekuh vc eSa vkidh ckr dSls j[kwaA i= dk /;ku j[kuk vxj 5&6 rkjh[k rc vki dk tokc ugha vk;k rks lc lkeku ysdj vkus dk izksxzke cukmaxkA 20. Ex. Ex. P/5 is a letter dated 20.12.1994 which was written by accused appellant No. 1 and the important contents of that ietter reads as follows : " fookg esa okns djds vkius tks csodwQ cuk;k oks rks Bhd gS ijUrq vkt rd cuk jgs gks ;g cnkZ'r dh lhek lekIr gks xbZ gS vki viuh bTtr ls Hkh ugha Mjrs nqfu;k ds lkeus vki dgka [kM+s gSa dqN le> ugha vkrkA xyrh esjh ;g jgh fd vkidh bTtr dk [;ky djrs gq, vki ds dkdkth ds lkeus jk;iqj esa lc ckrsa lkQ&lkQ djrk rks Bhd jgrk& ;g xyrh eSaus fookg dh lc ckrsa uDdh fdlh rhljs dks chp esa j[k dj ugha djh bldk mYVk vki uktk;t Qk;nk mBk jgs gksA fookg dks nwljk lky [kRe gksus dks vk;k ijUrq vkius diM+s ds lwV ds :i;s ugha Hksts u cM+k csl Hkstk vkSj lksQk fQzt dqN fn;k mYVh viuh csVh dks >waB cksyuk pksjh&pksjh lkeku [kkuk vkSj ukVd djuk ;g lc vPNh ckrsa fl[kk dj esjs 'kkUr ?kj esa ,d rwQku jkst iSnk djuk D;k ;gh vkidh oks cM+h&cM+h ckrsa gSA vc rks ;g ikuh ukd ds mij ls xqtj x;k ;k rks jk;iqj okil tk dj vkids ?kj cM+s dkdkth dks dgwWa ;k fQj ,d ckj tgktiqj vkdj lc ds lkeus vki dh lc ckrs dgwWa rks dksbZ gy fudysxk] vki rks csVh dh L;knh de nkeksa esa cM+s vkjke ls viuh cyk Vky x, vkSj pSu dh calh ctk jgs gSa iSls lkeku rqjUr Hkstsa o vkiuh ykMyh dks ge yksxksa ls NqVdkjk fnykus dh dk;Zokgh djkosaA " 21. Ex. P/6 is another letter dated 16.2.1993 which was written by deceased from Amet to her father and mother and the contents of that letter are quoted below : " vkius ;gkWa tks lkeku nsus ds fy, dgk Fkk oks ugha fn;kA vkSj eq>s eEehth ckj&ckj lqukrs gSa fd mUgksaus tks Hkh dgk oks ,d Hkh ckr iwjh ugha fd vkSj vkids daoj lkgc Hkh blh rjg ukjkt gSaA vkSj eq>ls vf/kdrj ukjkt gh jgrs gSaA ikikth vki bl i= dks i<+dj okil tokc ;gkWa fpV~Bh esa er fy[kuk cl vki lg lkeku Hkstuk] dwyj] lksQk lSV] vkyekjh ikik th fy[krs gq, cgqr 'keZ vk jgh gS exj eSa lquus dh cnkZ'r dks ikj dj pqdh gwWa vkSj esjh fcYdqy Hkh fpUrk u djsaA " 22. Ex. Ex. P/7 is another letter dated 21.1.1993, which was written by deceased to her father and mother and the important contents of that letter are reproduced hereinbelow : " ikikth ;g i= eSa fNikdj fy[k jgh gwWa ;fn vki eq>s ysus ugha vk, rks eSa vkRegR;k dj ywWaxh vc vkSj lgu ugha gksrk gS ;s yksx eq>s ekufld ;kruk,a ns nsdj ikxy dj nsaxs blfy, d`ik djds vki eq>s ;gkWa ls dqN fnuksa ds fy, tgktiqj ys tk,a rkfd eSa ckck ds ;gkWa Hkh tk ldwWaA d`ik djds vki i= dk tokc ugha nsos vkSj cl ;gkWa vkdj Hkh bl i= ds ckjs esa dqN ugha dgs eq>s ;gkWa FkksM+s fnuksa ds fy, tgktiqj ys tkvks ugha rks eSa ikxy gks tkmaxh i= i<+rs gh vki ogkWa jokuk gks tkukA " 23. Ex. P/8 is another letter dated 4.7.1994, which was written by accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar (husband of deceased) to PW 1 Ramswaroop, father of deceased and the important contents of that letter reads as under : " oSls xyfr;ka lc oUnuk dh gS ;gkWa fdlh dks nks"k nsuk mldh xyrh gS vxj oks eq>s pkgrh ;k ekurh vkSj esjs ftUnxh xqtkjuk pkgrh rks i= dks rkj le> dj QkSju vk tkosA " 24. Ex. P/10 is another which was written by deceased to her father and mother and the important contents of that letter reads as under : ikikth ;gkWa eq>ls dksbZ dke ugha djokrs gSa vkSj u gh dksbZ ckr djrs gSaA eq>s ;gkWa dksbZ ugha pkgrs gSaA mijksDr ckrksa ds dkj.k eSa ;gkWa ugha jguk pkgrh gwWaA esjk dksbZ bartke fd;k tk, esjs ?ke.M vkSj vdM+ dh otg ls eSa ;gkWa espqj ugha gks ldrh gwWa eSa Hkh ;gkWa fdlh ls ugha cksyrh gwWaA eq>s ,slk ifr vkSj lkl&llqj ugha pkfg, eSa viuh isV HkjkbZ [kqn dj ywaxhA oUnuk 25. The above letters furnish circumstantial evidence. The above letters furnish circumstantial evidence. From perusing the above letters, it becomes crystal clear that relations between PW 1 Ramswaroop, father of deceased and accused appellant No. 1-Giriraj, father of accused appellant No.3 Ashok Kumar (husband of deceased) were very strained one and from these letters, it further appears that not only there was a dispute over charging of rate of interest, but demand of dowry in clear terms has come out and, therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused appellant that there was only dispute with regard to charging of rate of interest and not dowry demand is not at all tenable and the same is rejected. 26. The above letters themselves proved that demand of dowry was being raised by accused appellant No. 1 Giriraj from the Lather of the deceased i.e. PW 1 Ramswaroop not for one time, but from time to time. Apart from these letters, there is oral evidence which is found in the as statements of PW 1 Ramswaroop, father of the deceased, PW 5 Deepak, brother of the deceased and PW 8 Geeta Devi, mother of the deceased and from their statements, the fact that there was demand of dowry by the accused appellant is well established. 27. Thus, the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting accused appellant No. 1-Giriraj for the offence under section 304B and 498A IPC are liable to be confirmed and his appeal is liable to be dismissed. The case of accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar, husband of the deceased. 28. It has been argued on behalf of the accused appellants that in report Ex. P/13, nothing has been levelled by PW 1 Ramswaroop against this accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar and, therefore, case for dowry demand has been concocted by the prosecution and its witnesses later on falsely. 29. To meet out this argument, the above letters have to be seen again. In all these letters, there is a clear but mention of the fact that this accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar, who is husband of the deceased, did not talk to his wife i.e. deceased. It is also in evidence that most of the time deceased used to live in her parents house and when he met with an accident, then she went there and, thereafter, fateful incident had taken place. It is also in evidence that most of the time deceased used to live in her parents house and when he met with an accident, then she went there and, thereafter, fateful incident had taken place. This aspect also goes to show that she was being tortured not only by accused appellant No. 1 Giriraj, father in law of the deceased, but also by her husband i.e. accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar. In the letter Ex. P/6, there is a clear mention by deceased herself that her husband is very angry with her. From letter Ex. P/8, it is also very much clear that he has put all blames on his wife i.e. deceased. 30. In the present case, deceased died because of 100% burn injuries and from the post mortem report, it is clear that some injuries are also found on her body which were assigned by the doctors as ante mortem in nature. It means before her death, she received some injuries also. Therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be said with certainty whether her death was homicidal or suicidal, but the fact that her death was unnatural is well proved. For the sake of argument, her death may be classified as suicidal one. Had her death been classified as homicidal, the matter becomes very serious one, but for disposal of this appeal, her death is classified as suicidal one. 31. It may be stated here that normally one would not commit suicide unless there are strong and compelling reasons for it. Thus, ordinarily there has to be very pressing motive behind every case of suicide. That is why, emphasis should be made as to why a person commits suicide. 32. In the present case, since deceased has committed suicide, therefore, this accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar, who is husband of the deceased, should also be held responsible for making such an atmosphere resulting in committing suicide by deceased. That is why, emphasis should be made as to why a person commits suicide. 32. In the present case, since deceased has committed suicide, therefore, this accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar, who is husband of the deceased, should also be held responsible for making such an atmosphere resulting in committing suicide by deceased. The demand of dowry from the letters quoted above is well established and the fact that this accused appellant No. 3, husband of the deceased, was not having talking terms with his wife i.e. deceased is also established and it is also well established that this accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar has put all blames on his wife i.e. deceased and in these circumstances, if deceased has committed suicide, the whole responsibility should be shared by this accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar, being the husband of the deceased and he cannot escape from the liability. The demand of dowry itself amounts to cruelty as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy, AIR 1988 SC 121 . The accused appellant No. 1 Giriraj, father of this accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar has written so many letters to PW 1 Ramswaroop, father of the deceased making demand of dowry. Had this accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar been innocent, he should have certainly come forward to help deceased, but this is not the case. Therefore, in all demands of dowry, which are found in the letters written by accused appellant No. 1 Giriraj, father of accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar, to PW 1 Ramswaroop, father of deceased, there was implied consent on the part of the accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar, husband of deceased, for raising such demands of dowry and he cannot say that he is innocent or he is unaware when such demands are being made by his father. 33. The argument that deceased was lady of hot temperament and of to obstinate nature, therefore, because of this, she has committed suicide and thus, no liability can be fastened on the accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar and accused appellant No. 1 Giriraj as no case of demand of dowry is made out, is wholly untenable in view of the discussion just made above. The fact is very well proved that accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar was not having talking terms with his wife i.e. deceased. A married woman goes to the marital home of her husband with a fond hope and expectation that she would have not only a happy but also peaceful conjugal society with her husband. In the present case, when deceased found that her husband i.e. accused appellant No. 3. Ashok Kumar was not talking to her, then it can be presumed that he was not performing the marital obligation. Which is one of the important factors to cement bondage of affection and cordial relationship in marital home. Thus, it would be perpetual agony for the wife to continue to live in peace in the conjugal home. The result would be that in cases of woman of a sensitive and sentimental nature, it has usually been observed that if they are tired of their life due to the action of their kith and kin, they become so desperate that they develop a spirit of revenge and try to destroy those who had made their lives worthless and under such strong spell to revenge, sometimes they can go to the extreme limit of committing suicide with a feeling that the subject 30 who is the root cause of their malady is also destroyed. This is the thing that has happened in the present case. If deceased is adjudged as obstinate lady, for that she cannot be blamed and in the letters of her husband, it is found that all blames have been put on her. Therefore if she has committed suicide, for that also, accused appellants No. 1 Giriraj, father in law of deceased and No. 3 Ashok Kumar, husband of deceased should be held responsible. 34. Thus, the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting this accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar for the offence under sections 304B and 498A IPC are liable to be confirmed and his appeal is liable to be dismissed.The case of accused appellant No. 2 Dalip Kumar, Devar of the deceased. 35. In this case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the statement of PW 6 Shankarlal for connecting this accused appellant No. 2 Dalip Kumar with the demand of dowry. 35. In this case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the statement of PW 6 Shankarlal for connecting this accused appellant No. 2 Dalip Kumar with the demand of dowry. PW 6 Shankar Lal as has stated that once this accused appellant No. 2 Dalip Kumar has stated that had he been in place of his brother i.e. accused appellant No. 3 Ashok Kumar, he would have done the same thing. In my opinion, this evidence is not sufficient to connect this accused appellant No. 2 Dalip Kumar with the demand of dowry, especially when in all the letters referred so to above, nothing is found against this accused appellant No. 2 Dalip Kumar. 36. Thus, evidence of the prosecution case so far as this accused appellant No. 2 Dalip Kumar is concerned, is not sufficient to prove the offence under sections 3048 and 498A IPC against this accused appellant No. 2 Dalip Kumar and he is entitled to benefit of doubt. Hence, the findings 5 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicting this accused appellant No. 2 Dalip Kumar are liable to be set aside and he is entitled to acquittal. The result of the above discussion is : 1. That the appeal of the accused appellant No. 1 Giriraj and No. 3 Ashok Kumar are dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order to dated 6.11.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajasmand. 2. That the appeal of the accused appellant- No. 2 Dalip Kumar is allowed and the judgment and order dated 6.11.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand so far as they relate to this accused appellant No. Dalip Kumar are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Since accused appellant No. 2 Dalip Kumar is on bail, he need not surrender and his bail bonds stand cancelled.Appeal of `D' allowed; Appeal of `G' and `A' dismissed. *******