JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26th February, 1999 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore where by accused appellants were convicted for offence under Sections 304-Band 498-A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo 7 years' rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code and 3 years' rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code along with fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment to further undergo 15 days' rigorous imprisonment. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Mst. Babita, aged 22 years, one and half years after the marriage, at her in-laws' house, died due asphyxia caused by drowning. Ex.P-6 FIR dated 11.7.1997 was lodged by PW-6 Desra Ram, father of the girl, against Rajendra Kumar husband, Jethmal father-in-law and Mst. Dariya mother-in-law, who were apprehended on 13.8.1997 and after usual investigation, were challaned and charged for the above offences. Upon their pleading not guilty and claiming trial, prosecution examined 9 witnesses and exhibited as much documents. In their statement given under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, accused appellants denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against them and pleaded that they have been falsely roped in and witnesses were speaking lie. Thereafter, learned trial court by the impugned judgment, convicted and incarcinated the accused appellants, as stated above. 3. Mr. Kumbhat, learned Counsel appearing for the accused appellants, submitted before me that there was not an iota of evidence with regard to demand of dowry or any harassment or cruelty done to the deceased, immediately before her death yet the trial court has convicted the accused appellants for such serious offence and awarded them examplery sentence. On the contrary, learned P.P. supported the impugned judgment. 4. So far as homicidal death of Babita is concerned, Ex.P-13 post-mortem report of deceased Babita, has been admitted by the defence counsel. Dr. O.P. Sharma, conducting the autopsy on the dead body, was neither summoned nor examined. Even on the post-mortem report Ex.P.13, no indication is available resulting which it can be said that after giving beating, she was thrown in the 'Baodi' from where her dead-body was recovered. No ligature marks or any other injury on the dead body was found by the Doctor as per post-mortem report. Even on the post-mortem report Ex.P.13, no indication is available resulting which it can be said that after giving beating, she was thrown in the 'Baodi' from where her dead-body was recovered. No ligature marks or any other injury on the dead body was found by the Doctor as per post-mortem report. Therefore, Ex.P-13 post mortem report does not help the prosecution to prove harassment or cruelty immediately before death. 5. Undoubtedly, Babita was found drown dead in the 'Baodi' and her dead-body was identified not only by her father Desa Ram (PW-6) but also other persons of both families present at 'Baodi'. However, it is to be proved whether she was subjected to cruelty or harassment immediately before her death or at least some dowry demand of any sort was made. 6. Learned trial court relied upon the ocular testimony of PW-6 Desa Ram-father of the deceased as also testimony of PW-16 Mst. Dhapi mother of deceased, PW-11 Ashok brother of deceased and PW-9 Rawta, PW-10 Govind Ram and PW-12 Rajmal among others, who were members of the Panchayat settlement conducted a month & half prior to the occurrence; as also letter Ex.P-12 written by accused Rajendra Kumar to PW-11 Ashok. learned Counsel submitted that there was not an iota of evidence, cogent and convincing, that prior to death of Babita, any demand of dowry was made or she was subjected to cruelty or harassment yet the trial court has convicted accused appellants under Section 304-B as also under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code 7. To assess veracity of factum of demand of dowry and subjection of deceased to cruelty and harassment, I have carefully analysed and assessed not only Ex.P-6 the written FIR lodged by PW-6 Desa Ram but also testimony of PW-6 Desa Ram alongwith testimony of mother (PW-16) and brother (PW-11). Similarly, I have also analysed and assessed the testimony of 'Panchayat' witnesses. 8. Not only in Ex.P-6 FIR it is disclosed that Om Prakash (PW-13), immediately after the occurrence came to village Bagoda, to disclose that Babita was missing from her in-laws' house because her in-laws were giving her beating but PW-6 Desa Ram in his court statements also adhered to above version; meaning thereby, immediately before the occurrence whether Babita was subjected to any cruelty or harassment or not, was not in the personal knowledge of either PW-6 Desa Ram or her wife Mst. Dhapi or any other member of his family. Om Prakash (PW-13), who was not only maternal uncle of the deceased but also resident of Bhinmal, has, for the first time, disclosed that Babita was missing from her in-laws' house because she has been given beating for last four days. PW-13 Om Prakash has not stated in his deposition that Babita was given beating by her in-laws for 4 days prior to day of the occurrence. On the contrary, Om Prakash stated that mother-in-law of Babita told him that in the morning Babita left the residential house to attend call of the nature and did not return and therefore, he went to Bagoda and informed father of the deceased. Though PW-13 Om Prakash has not corroborated the version he gave to Desa Ram and on which basis Ex.P-6 FIR was lodged yet he came with a new version in the court statements, thereby for the first time deposing that Babita was thrown in the 'Boadi' after being killed by her in-laws.' Had it been so, at least Om Prakash should have disclosed this fact to Desa Ram when immediately after the occurrence he went to Bagoda or at least in the post-mortem report above version should have been corroborated sans it, it can not be believed that Babita was killed and thereafter thrown in the 'Baodi' or even she was subjected to cruelty and harassment immediately before the occurrence. 9. Though PW-6 Desa Ram, PW-11 Ashok and PW-16 Dhapi, who were close relative of deceased, have stated in the court that Babita has been subjected to cruelty and harassment by her in-laws because demand of dowry could not be fulfilled yet their testimony should not have been believed because at least this fact should have been mentioned in the Panchayat settlement which was conducted at the house of Desa Ram about a month & half prior to the occurrence or, at least some complaint to above effect should have been made by Desa Ram, Ashok or Mst. Dhapi to the members of the Panchayat who assembled at their house when Rajendra Kumar and Jethmal came to take Babita. 10. PW-8 Mohan Lal, PW-9 Rawta and PW-10 Govind Ram were members of the Panchayat who assembled at the house of Desa Ram because he refused to send Babita at her in-laws' house. Dhapi to the members of the Panchayat who assembled at their house when Rajendra Kumar and Jethmal came to take Babita. 10. PW-8 Mohan Lal, PW-9 Rawta and PW-10 Govind Ram were members of the Panchayat who assembled at the house of Desa Ram because he refused to send Babita at her in-laws' house. None of them have stated that Desa Ram or his son Ashok or wife Mst. Dhapi, made any allegation of cruelty or harassment before the Panchayat. All these witnesses are resident of Bagoda and not of Bhinmal and were summoned by Des Ram. It was on record abundantly that appellant Rajendra Kumar was eldest son and only married one and his two brothers were students and Mst. Dhaniya was a fatty women and was not capable of doing much work, therefore, all household work had to be done by Babita why was only person to undertake it. Even Ex.P.12 letter written by Rajendra Kumar to Ashok also gives indication that in absence of Babita, household work suffers, so also his education. So, she be sent to Bhinmal at an early date. 11. Had Babita been subjected to cruelty or harassment, at least she should have made such a complaint to her mother or brother or to any of the neighbours. Not an iota of fact is mentioned either in Ex.P-6 or in the testimony of above witnesses that on which date, time and place and which of the accused appellants gave beating, what was nature and extent of such beating to Babita. Even in the court statement, all these witnesses, in an omnibus way, stated that Babita used to be subjected to cruelty by the in-laws. Had it been so, at least Babita must have either complained to her family members orally or in writing. The factum of cruelty so deposed by these witnesses is not consistent nor they stated that how many times she was subjected to cruelty nor have they stated about month, day and time of such cruelty. Similar is the case with regard to demand of dowry. Had any dowry was demanded from Babita and had same was given, at least above fact should have been discussed in the so-called Panchayat assembled at the house of Desa Ram and must have been supported by PW-13 Om Prakash, who was real maternal uncle of the deceased and was resident of Bhinmal. Had any dowry was demanded from Babita and had same was given, at least above fact should have been discussed in the so-called Panchayat assembled at the house of Desa Ram and must have been supported by PW-13 Om Prakash, who was real maternal uncle of the deceased and was resident of Bhinmal. PW-7 Hari Ram, also resident of Bhinmal and residing nearby house of the accused appellants, admitted in the cross-examination that Desa Ram was his collateral uncle. Though this witness in his examination-in-chief has stated that accused appellants used to quarrel with Babita for demanding some dowry yet he has not deposed so in his Police statement Ex.P-1. When he was confronted with it, he simply reiterated but could not explain the lapse satisfactorily. Therefore, PW-7, to the above extent, has improved his version and is not reliable. Had there been any demand of dowry or at least Babita being subjected to cruelty or harassment, at least PW-13 Om Prakash should have deposed so when he was examined under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code Though he was examined 10 days after the occurrence yet he has not deposed anything about demand of dowry or about cruelty and harassment given to Babita. 12. Learned trial court seems to have been mislead by the court statements of Desa Ram, Ashok and Mst. Dhapi, who were father, brother and mother respectively of the deceased. The assessment and analysis drawn by the trial court and reasoning adopted by it is not only undependable but also defies logic and its conclusions were against weight of evidence and the judgment is manifestly erroneous. Learned trial court has not appreciated the same in right perspective, therefore, I accept this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused appellants and acquit them of the charges. The accused appellants are in custody. They be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other matter.Appeal allowed. *******