JUDGMENT 1. - The abovenamed accused appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.5.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 71/96, by which he convicted them for the offence under section 304-B IPC and sentenced each of them to ten years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month R.I. 2. It arises in the following circumstances - PW 2 Hariram on 18.4.1993 lodged a report Ex.P/14 in the Police Station Tibi, District Hanumangarh stating inter alia that his daughter Kailash (hereinafter referred to as deceased) was married with accused appellant Rajpal two years back and after the marriage, her in-laws were not happy on account of demand of dowry and all accused appellants used to torture deceased for dowry. Six months back deceased was to deliver a child and her in-laws left the deceased at the place Fatehgarh and five months back, a son was born to the deceased and on the occasion of Namkaran Ceremony, accused appellants came and they also told to PW 2 Hariram that at the time of marriage, he did not give sufficient goods, but on this occasion, at least goods worth Rs. 1 lac should be given otherwise, deceased would be left and Rajpal would re-marry with another girl. Before this incident, Dalip, PW 3 brother of PW 2 Hariram went to Surewala, the house of her in-laws. At that time, deceased told PW 3 Dalip that she should be taken from this house otherwise accused would kill her. It is further alleged in the report that all accused used to beat her and on 17.4.1993 deceased has been killed by the accused appellants by pouring kerosene oil on her. On this report, police chalked out FIR Ex.P/15. On the information received from the accused-appellant Rajpal, husband of the deceased, FIR No. 8/1993, Ex.P/1 under section 1/4 Cr.P.C. was also registered at the Police Station Tibi and police investigation was also conducted under that FIR. On this report, police chalked out FIR Ex.P/15. On the information received from the accused-appellant Rajpal, husband of the deceased, FIR No. 8/1993, Ex.P/1 under section 1/4 Cr.P.C. was also registered at the Police Station Tibi and police investigation was also conducted under that FIR. In that FIR Ex.P/1, accused appellant Rajpal told the police that on 17.4.1993, he heard the cries of his wife from the room and he found that her clothes were burning and he tried to cool down the fire by putting quilt on her and his mother also came there and also called his brother Surendra for calling the doctor and the doctor came there and he told that she should be brought to the hospital, Hanumangarh and then, she was brought to the Hospital, Hanumangarh. She was admitted in the hospital, but in the early morning of 18.4.1993 at about 1.00 A.M. she died. After her death, post-mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Rajendra Kumar, PW 5 and post-mortem report is Ex.P/8, which shows that she was having 95% burn on her body.After usual investigation, police submitted challan against only two accused persons, namely, Rajpal (husband of the deceased) and Mst. Gangadevi (mother-in-law of the deceased).When the challan was filed in the court, an application was moved on behalf of the father of the deceased before the Magistrate praying that cognizance be also taken against Mst. Parmeshwari and Devilal and the Magistrate vide his order dated 20.9.1993 took cognizance against these accused appellants also. Note- Mst. Parmeshwari is the Nanad of the deceased and Devilal is Nandoi of the deceased. Charges under section 304-8 IPC were framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 31.1.1994 against all the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and many documents were got exhibited and. thereafter, statements of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Two witnesses have been examined by the accused in defence.The learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide his judgment and order dated 30.5.1996 convicted all the accused appellants under section 304-B IPC and sentenced each of them, as stated above.In his judgment dated 30.5.1996, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge came to the following conclusions- 1. That the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide his judgment and order dated 30.5.1996 convicted all the accused appellants under section 304-B IPC and sentenced each of them, as stated above.In his judgment dated 30.5.1996, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge came to the following conclusions- 1. That the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has ruled out that it was the case of accidental death. 2. That unnatural death of the deceased took place between the seven years of her marriage. 3. That accused appellants used to torture deceased for demand of dowry and thus, treated her with cruelty. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 30.5.1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the accused appellants have preferred this appeal. 3. During the course of hearing of this appeal, the learned counsel for the accused appellants has argued that so far as the case of accused appellant Rajpal, who is husband of the deceased, is concerned, it is for the Court to decide as he has already served out the sentence of seven years from the date of his arrest. 4. For accused appellant Mst. Gangadevi, who is mother-in-law of the deceased, it has been argued that she is a lady of more than 80 years and from the evidence on record also, there is no case against her and she should be acquitted. 5. For Mst. Parmeshwari and Devi Lal, who are Nanad and Nandoi of the deceased, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the accused appellants that there is zero evidence against them and that is why, the police did not submit challan against them and cognizance was taken by the Magistrate and, therefore, they should be acquitted. 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. 8. In Shanti v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 1226 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to explain the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC. His Lordship K. Jayachandra Reddy (as he then was) said "A careful analysis of Section 304-B IPC shows that this section has the following essentials : 1. 8. In Shanti v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 1226 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to explain the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC. His Lordship K. Jayachandra Reddy (as he then was) said "A careful analysis of Section 304-B IPC 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." 9. In this respect, I would like to first discuss the medical evidence in this case. 10. The post mortem report of the deceased is Ex.P 18 and the concerned doctor is PW 5 Dr. Rajendra Kumar. PW 5 Rajendra Kumar has stated that when the deceased was admitted in the hospital, she was having 95% burns on her body and he has proved the post mortem report Ex.P/8 and cause of death as per PW 5 Dr. Rajendra Kumar was due to extreme burns on her body. Therefore, it can be said that the death of the deceased was not natural one and her death was unnatural. 11. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge in his judgment dated 30.5.1996 has clearly held that deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her body, therefore, in this case, death though it would be termed as unnatural death, but it will also be classified as suicidal death. 12. What Section 304-B 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 304-B IPC, question whether unnatural death of a woman was homicidal or suicidal is irrelevant. 13. Therefore, in this case, it is held that death of the deceased was suicidal one and it should be termed as unnatural and there is also no dispute on the point that such death has taken place within seven years of the marriage of the deceased with the accused appellant Rajpal. The findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to that extent are upheld. 14. The findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to that extent are upheld. 14. The next point which is to be considered is whether deceased has been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband and other relatives Mst. Gangadevi, Mst. Parmeshwari and Devi Lal and further to see whether such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry or not. 15. 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. 16. In the case 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. 17. In the present case, from the statement of PW 1 Dhapa, mother of the deceased, it appears that accused appellant Rajpal lives with his mother Smt. Gangadevi and other two accused appellants did not live with him. 18. PW 2 Hari Ram, who has lodged the report Ex.P/14, has admitted in his cross-examination 1. That in the hospital, SDO, PW 9 Indra Singh and other police officials were there, but he did not give any report in writing to them at that time. 2. That in police statement Ex.D/2, it is not written that accused would leave the deceased and second marriage would be arranged. 3. That alongwith the accused Rajpal, only his mother accused appellant Smt. Ganga Devi lives. 4. That from the marriage of the deceased upto her death, no Panchayat was held on the point that deceased was being tortured by the accused appellants. 19. PW 3 Dalip, who is brother of PW 2 Hari Ram, has admitted in his cross-examination that it is true that in his statement he has stated that deceased was being tortured for dowry, but the same is not found in the statement Ex.D/1. 20. PW 7, Hanuman Dutt, CO has stated in his statement that in his investigation only accused Rajpal and Smt. Gangadevi were found. Note - It may be stated that challan was filed only against these two accused appellants. 20. PW 7, Hanuman Dutt, CO has stated in his statement that in his investigation only accused Rajpal and Smt. Gangadevi were found. Note - It may be stated that challan was filed only against these two accused appellants. This witness has further admitted that at the time Df investigation of the FIR No. 8/93 under section 174 Cr.PC. PW 2 Hari Ram, PW 3 Dalip and PW 4 Devilal were there, but they did not make/give any report in writing to him. 21. PW 9 Indra Singh is the witness, who was SDO on 18.4.1993 at Hanumangarh He has admitted in his cross examination that when he prepared Panchnama, Ex.P/2 of the dead body of deceased. PW 2 Hari Ram and PW 4 Devilal did not give any information about the incident and they did not give any statement when the investigation under section 174 Cr.PC. was being conducted by him. He further states that these witnesses further told that they would give statement when they would be satisfied.Case of accused appellants No. 3 Mst. Parmeshwari @ Rameshwari and No. 4 Devi Lal 22. From the evidence produced by the prosecution and some of the averments admitted by the prosecution witnesses, it appears that so far as accused appellants Mst. Parmeshwari and Devilal are concerned, evidence led by the prosecution is not at all sufficient to link them with the commission of crime. These two accused appellants live separately and Mst. Parmeshwari, who is sister of the accused Rajpal, husband of the deceased is a married lady and it might be possible that she might visit the house of mother of deceased i.e. PW 1 Dhapa, but to confine her that she is instrumental in making the demand of dowry is not a correct one. In this respect, the fact that when the statement under section 174 Cr.P.C. was being recorded by PW 9 Indra Singh, no report was lodged, therefore, the possibility that the names of these two accused appellants have been purposely added and they are innocent, cannot be ruled out. Not only this, in police investigation, they were also not found accused. 23. For the reasons stated above, the prosecution has not been able to prove case against both these accused appellants Mst. Parmeshwari and is Devi lal beyond reasonable doubt and thus, the findings of the learned Addl. Not only this, in police investigation, they were also not found accused. 23. For the reasons stated above, the prosecution has not been able to prove case against both these accused appellants Mst. Parmeshwari and is Devi lal beyond reasonable doubt and thus, the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicting these accused appellants under section 304-B IPC are liable to be set aside.Case of Mst. Gangadevi, accused appellant No. 2 24. Mst. Ganga Devi 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 an old lady of more than 80 years of age now 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. 25. 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. 26. In the present case, as already stated above, report Ex.P/14 was 35 lodged by PW 2 Hari Ram after considerable consultations and, therefore, the possibility that this accused appellant Smt. Gangadevi has been implicated simply because she is mother-in-law, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it can be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove case against this accused appellant Smt. Gangadevi beyond reasonable doubt and element of suspicion and doubt is there and, therefore, benefit should be given to this lady. Apart from this, evidence led by the prosecution does not appeal to the conscience of the Court in the manner that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, so far as this accused appellant Smt. Gangadevi is concerned. 27. Thus, for the reasons stated above, the case of the prosecution against accused appellant Smt. Gangadevi cannot be accepted and she is entitled to the benefit of doubt and thus, entitled to acquittal. 27. Thus, for the reasons stated above, the case of the prosecution against accused appellant Smt. Gangadevi cannot be accepted and she is entitled to the benefit of doubt and thus, entitled to acquittal. Hence, findings of conviction recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge against this accused appellant Smt. Gangadevi are liable to be set-aside. Case of accused appellant No. 1 Rajpal, who is husband of deceased. 28. In dowry death cases, the main person is husband and in such cases, after death of deceased, there is a general tendency among the relatives of victim to implicate as many as persons in the case. In the present case, this aspect has been considered and that is why, other three accused appellants are going to be acquitted. But, so far as this accused appellant Rajpal is concerned, the prosecution has been able to prove the case against him beyond reasonable doubt. 29. It may be mentioned here that deceased in this case committed suicide and 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. 30. Causes of suicide are many. Cruelty is one of them. In this case, since the deceased has committed suicide being the wife of the accused appellant Rajpal and as stated earlier, in normal way, nobody would commit suicide, therefore, there must be some compelling reasons for her to commit suicide and for that, being the wife of accused appellant Rajpal, accused appellant Rajpal should be held responsible for making such an atmosphere resulting in committing suicide by deceased and that element of cruelty accompanied with dowry demand as alleged by some of the prosecution witnesses appears to be true and thus, the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge so far as this accused appellant is concerned, that deceased was tortured with cruelty for making dowry demand are correct one. 31. Hence, the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicting accused appellant Rajpai for the offence under section 304-8 IPC are liable to be confirmed and his appeal against conviction is liable to be dismissed. 32. Sessions Judge so far as this accused appellant is concerned, that deceased was tortured with cruelty for making dowry demand are correct one. 31. Hence, the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicting accused appellant Rajpai for the offence under section 304-8 IPC are liable to be confirmed and his appeal against conviction is liable to be dismissed. 32. The learned counsel for the accused appellants has further argued that this accused appellant Rajpal is in jail since 21.4.1993 and he has served out the sentence of seven years so far. Therefore, some leniency, if it appeals to the conscience of the Court, may be shown in awarding sentence to this accused appellant. 33. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, ends of justice would be met if the accused appellant Rajpal is sentenced to 8 years R.I. instead of 10 years, as ordered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The result of the above discussion is- 1. That the appeal of the accused appellants Mst. Ganga Devi, Mst. Parmeshwari @ Rameshwari and Devilal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 30.5.1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, so far as they relate to them, are set-aside and they all are acquitted of the charge under section 304-B IPC. Since accused appellants Mst. Ganga Devi, Mst. Parmeshwari @ Rameshwari and Devilal are on bail, they not need surrender and their bail bonds stand cancelled. 2. That the appeal of the accused appellant Rajpal so far as his conviction under section 304-B IPC is concerned, the same is dismissed. after confirming the judgment dated 30.5 1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, so far as it relates to him. However, accused appellant Rajpal is sentenced to 8 years R.I. so instead of 10 years R.I. and to that extent, the order of sentence dated 30.5.1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh stands altered. It is made clear that order dated 30.5.1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh imposing fine of Rs. 1,000/- against accused appellant Rajpal and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month R.I., is maintained. Order accordingly. *******