AKSHAY H. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants original accused nos. 1 and 4 of Sessions Case No. 58 of 1987 of City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad, have preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional City Sessions Judge, 14th Court, Ahmedabad dated 17/6/1988. The learned trial Judge has convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Section 306 and has sentenced appellant no. 1 to suffer rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000. 00. He has also convicted appellants for offence u/s. 498 A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has sentenced appellant no. 1 to suffer RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000. 00, in default to suffer further RI for a period of three months on each count. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The learned trial Judge has granted appellant no. 2 benefit under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act and ordered her to be released on probation on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 5,000/with surety of like amount for a period of two years from the date of execution of the bond. Alongwith the appellants, original accused no. 2 and no. 3 were tried in the said case. The appellants as well as original accused no. 2 and 3 faced charge of committing ofence u/ss. 302, 306 and 498 of the IPC. They have been acquitted of offence u/s. 302 of the IPC. Accused nos. 2 and 3 have also been acquitted of offence u/ss. 306 and 498a of the IPC. The State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge in favour of the accused. ( 2 ) BEFORE the hearing of the appeal commenced, Mr. Jayant M. Panchal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants made a statement that appellant no. 2 Jamnaben Gordhanbhai Soni has expired on 6/7/1995 and in support of the said statement, he has produced death certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad. The Ld. APP Mr. N. D. Gohil does not dispute the statement and he has no objection to the said certificate being taken on record. In view of this, the appeal of appellant no. 2 abates by virtue of provisions of section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P. C. ). The Ld. APP Mr. N. D. Gohil does not dispute the statement and he has no objection to the said certificate being taken on record. In view of this, the appeal of appellant no. 2 abates by virtue of provisions of section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P. C. ). ( 3 ) THE relevant facts leading to the prosecution of the accused stated in nutshell are as follows :- the complainant of this case Ramdev Roduji had five daughters, namely (1) Bhagvatiben, (2) Ramila, (3) Santosh, (4) Kamla and (5) Premila. He also had three sons, namely (1) Ramesh, (2) Gopal and (3) Vishnu and wife named Fulaben. Ramdevs daughters Premila and Santosh were married to present appellant no. 1 and original accused no. 2 Brijesh respectively. Their marriage had taken place during their childhood. Two years after the marriage, Premila was sent to her matrimonial home which is situated in Virnagar society, Bungalow no. 1. During the course of marriage life Premila gave birth to son Navin aged 5 years and daughter Bharati aged 2 years at the time of incident. Santosh was still staying with the parents as she was quite young and had not attained the age of majority at the time of incident. According to the prosecution, initially Premila was treated well in the family, but gradually the family of the accused became finanfially well off and they started causing harassment to Premila as the complainants financial position was not sound and the accused thought that if they could get rid off Premila, appellant no. 1 could marry to a girl from a wealthy family. At the time of incident Premila had already been staying with her husband for the last about 8 years. According to the prosecution about 2 months prior to the present incident, original accused no. 2 wrote a letter to complainant Ramdev informing him that he was not willing to keep Santosh as his wife because he was graduate, whereas Santosh was uneducated. He also informed his father-in-law i. e. Ramdev that since their marriage had taken place in the childhood, it was not a valid marriage in the eye of law and he should get Santosh married somewhere else. Accused no. 2 also stated in the letter that he wanted to marry a girl who was quite educated. He also informed his father-in-law i. e. Ramdev that since their marriage had taken place in the childhood, it was not a valid marriage in the eye of law and he should get Santosh married somewhere else. Accused no. 2 also stated in the letter that he wanted to marry a girl who was quite educated. According to the prosecution on the day of Raksha Bandhan, Premila did not visit the house of her parents as she was not allowed by her husband and deceased appellant no. 2 to go there. Hence, Ramesh went to the hosue of Premila and asked her as to why she did not go to the parents house on Raksha Bandhan day and he was informed that appellants nos. 1 and 2 did not permit her to go there. Ramesh thereafter returned home and told his father about this. According to the prosecution on 2/9/1986 early in the morning at 4. 00 Oclock the police van came to the house of the complainant and the police informed complainant Ramdev that his daughter Premila had received burns. On receiving this information, the complainant alongwith his wife and son Ramesh went to the house of Premila and saw Premila and her daughter Bharati lying dead on the cot in a room. They had died on account of the burns. They also came to know that Navin, son of appellant no. 1 and Premila, had received extensive burns and he was removed to the hospital for treatment. Later in the day, the police recorded complaint of Ramdev and in the complaint he expressed his suspicion that the accused might have killed Premila and the children. He also stated in the complaint that accused caused harassment to Premila as she was poor and uneducated. The police on receiving the information, registered offence under sections 302 and 498 A of the IPC against the accused and arrested them. After usual investigation was carried out, the police submitted charge-sheet against all the accused for alleged commission of offences u/ss. 302, 498a and 114 of the IPC. At the trial, initially the accused were charged for committing offence u/s. 302 read with section 34 of the IPC as well as for offence u/s. 498a of the IPC vide charge at Exh. 3. However, the same subsequently came to be amended in view of order at Exh. 12 passed by the Ld. At the trial, initially the accused were charged for committing offence u/s. 302 read with section 34 of the IPC as well as for offence u/s. 498a of the IPC vide charge at Exh. 3. However, the same subsequently came to be amended in view of order at Exh. 12 passed by the Ld. trial Judge and charge of offence u/s. 306 of the IPC was added in the alternative. The accused pleaded no guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. At the trial, the defence of the accused was that of general denial. At the end of the trial, the Ld. trial Judge as stated above, found only appellants nos. 1 and 2 guilty of committing offence u/s. 306, 498 A read with section 34 of the IPC. ( 4 ) MR. Panchal, learned counsel for the appellants took me through the evidence of the witnesses as well as other relevant record of the case including the judgment of the trial Court. He submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellants had committed the aforesaid offences. He also argued that there was no cogent and reliable evidence on record to convict the appellants for committing aforesaid offences. He further argued that the evidence of father and mother of deceased did not contain any allegation with regard to cruelty and harassment caused to Premila by the accused - appellants and hence, the Ld. trial Judge committed grave error in convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences. He also contended before me that the evidence of Premilas brother Ramesh did not inspire any confidence as the allegations made by him in his evidence against the accused with regard to harassment caused to Premila were not supported by any other prosecution witness. He also contended before me that the prosecution has failed to prove the reason for which Premila committed suicide alongwith her two children. According to Mr. Panchal, Rameshs evidence contained serious allegations against all the accused but the same were as a result of an after thought and the complainant and his relatives had tried to involve as many persons as possible in this offence. He, therefore, submitted that the appellant - accused no. 1 be acquitted of the offences for which he is convicted. Panchal, Rameshs evidence contained serious allegations against all the accused but the same were as a result of an after thought and the complainant and his relatives had tried to involve as many persons as possible in this offence. He, therefore, submitted that the appellant - accused no. 1 be acquitted of the offences for which he is convicted. He has also cited certain decision of the Honble Supreme Court, to which I will refer to little later. ( 5 ) AS against this, the Ld. APP Mr. N. D. Gohil submitted that the prosecution has conclusively proved that the appellants had committed offence u/ss. 306 and 498 A and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Ld. trial Judge are just, proper and leagl. It is further submitted that the accused wanted to get rid off Premila and to have a girl from wealthy family for appellant no. 1 and that was the reason for which she was being harassed. He has further submitted that the prosecution witnesses have given cogent evidence before the Ld. trial Judge, which conclusively proved the evil design of the appellants. He, therefore, submitted that the prosecution has established guilt of accused and the order of conviction recorded by the Ld. trial Judge for aforesaid offences may not be disturbed and appeal be dismissed. Moreover, according to Mr. Gohil this being a case for offence u/s. 306 and 498 A, Court should take strict view about it. ( 6 ) I have carefully considered the submissions made by the rival parties and have also examined the evidence in detail. The prosecution has examined four witnesses, to establish the harassment caused to Premila by the accused, which ultimately compelled her to commit suicide alongwith two children. This set of witnesses includes P. W. 1 Ramdev Exh. , P. W. 3 Fulaben Exh. , P. W. 8 Ramesh Ramdev Exh. and P. W. 10 Bhanuben Naranbhai Exh. The prosecution has also examined Medical Officer Dr. Prashant Mahendrabhai P. W. 2 at Exh. 33, who performed the post mortem of Navin, personnel of the Fire Brigade Department, who arrived at the scene to extinguish the fire on receiving information from father of the appellant no. 1, they are Sulemanbhai P. W. 5 at Exh. 41, Sandipkumar Hariprasad P. W. 6 at Exh. Prashant Mahendrabhai P. W. 2 at Exh. 33, who performed the post mortem of Navin, personnel of the Fire Brigade Department, who arrived at the scene to extinguish the fire on receiving information from father of the appellant no. 1, they are Sulemanbhai P. W. 5 at Exh. 41, Sandipkumar Hariprasad P. W. 6 at Exh. 42 and personnel of the Police Department, namely Mangalbhai Ganabhai P. W. 7 and at Exh. 43, Laxmanbhai Godarbhai P. W. 11 at Exh. 46, Dadir Alikhan Anikhan Pathan P. W. 12 Exh. 59, Hareshkumar Khodabhai Patel PW. 13 Exh. 60 and Balvant Nandram P. W. 14 Exh. 61. Over and above this, the prosecution has also examined Panch witnesses and other witnesses whose evidence is not of much relevance to decide this appeal. ( 7 ) PROSECUTION witness No. 1 Ramdev has stated in his examination-in-chief that he had 5 daughters, out of which Premila and Santosh were married to appellant no. 1 and original accused no. 2 - Brijesh respectively in their childhood. Premila started residing with her husband two years after her marriage; whereas Santosh remained with her parents till the time of incident as she was not major. He has stated that about 2 months prior to the present incident original accused no. 2 wrote a letter to him informing him that accused no. 2 did not wish to keep Santosh as his wife as he was a graduate and his wife Santosh was uneducated. He, therefore, requested the witness to get her married elsewhere. Accused no. 2 also wrote in the letter that since the marriage had taken place in the childhood, it was not a valid marriage in the eye of law as at the time of marriage he had not attained the age of 21 years and Santosh had not attained the age of 18 years. According to the witness his daughter Premila used to visit them once in a year and whenever she visit them, she was accompanied by her sister-in-law (Nanand ). Whenever she visit his family members, she used to talk about her plight in the in-laws place. According to the witness his daughter Premila used to visit them once in a year and whenever she visit them, she was accompanied by her sister-in-law (Nanand ). Whenever she visit his family members, she used to talk about her plight in the in-laws place. This witness has further stated that on the day of Raksha Bandhan prior to the present incidient, she did not come to their house and hence on the next day he sent his son Ramesh to her place, who after returning home informed him that Premila was not permitted to visit parental house on Raksha Bandhan by present appellants. According to this witness, on 2/9/1986 in the morning at about 4. 00 Oclock he was informed by police that Premila had received serious burns and, therefore, he in the company of his wife and son Ramesh went to the house of Premila and found Premila and Bharati lying dead on a cot in the room. He also come to know that Premilas son Navin was removed to hospital for treatment as he had also received serious burn injuries. He has further stated that the accused nos. 1 and 3 i. e. present appellant no. 1 and his father were dealing in the business of gold and silver and at the time of incidient they had become financially well off. However, at the time of the marriage of his daughters Premila and Santosh, financial condition of the accuseds family was not at all sound. According to him, now that accused had become wealthy and his daughter Premila was uneducated and belonged to a poor family, they intended to kill her and to get appellant no. 1 married to a girl from wealthy family. In the cross-examination on behalf of appellant no. 1, this witness has stated that his family as well as that of the accused are followers of Ramdevpir and in the months of Shravan and Bhadrava, they observe certain rituals, including observing celibacy. He has also stated that his his daughters followed these rituals. It is further stated by him that when he first went to the scene of offence, he had met certain police officers including Police Inspector Mr. He has also stated that his his daughters followed these rituals. It is further stated by him that when he first went to the scene of offence, he had met certain police officers including Police Inspector Mr. Brahmbhatt and the police officers had come to know by that time that he was father of the deceased Premila and that during their first meeting no police officer had made any inquiry from him. It was only after he returned to the scene of offence again, after reaching his wife home, the police made detailed inquiry which lasted for about one hour. According to this witness, FIR was recorded between 10. 00 a. m. and 10. 30 a. m. He has stated that when the FIR was recorded, his son Ramesh and Rameshs father-in-law Narayanji were present. According to this witness, after having seen Premila and her daughter Bharati at the scene of offence, he felt sure that Premilas husband and the in-laws were responsible for their deaths and that they had committed the offence of murder of Bharati and Premila. He also admits that he had developed a feeling of hatred towards the accused and their family. He has also admitted that at the time of lodging the FIR he had discussed the matter with his relatives and members of his community, who were present at the scene of offence. This witness has also stated in his cross-examination that Premila was living with her husband and in-laws for the last 8 years and that she was of very sensitive nature and she used to feel very sad if anybody scolded her. It is further stated that when letter of original accused no. 2 was recdived, he had discussed the matter with Premila and his son had taken the letter with him and met Premila and they had a detailed talk regarding what could be done to save the marriage life of Santosh. Evidence of this witness also reveals that Premila knew everything, but as she had no say in the family, she could not solve the problem. He has further admitted that on every Raksha Bandhan day Premila did not visit their hosue and whenever she did not come, Ramesh went to her place for Raksha Bandhan. Evidence of this witness also reveals that Premila knew everything, but as she had no say in the family, she could not solve the problem. He has further admitted that on every Raksha Bandhan day Premila did not visit their hosue and whenever she did not come, Ramesh went to her place for Raksha Bandhan. His evidence further reveals that when Premila started living with her husband, the financial condition of her in-laws was very good and they were quite wealthy and also that the members of the matrimonial home of Premila had willingly accepted her in the family. According to this witness, the real trouble started for Premila only after letter Exh. 48 was received by them. In the cross-examination on behalf of original accused nos. 2, 3 and present appellant no. 2, this witness has stated that since he was head of the family, the other members of the family used to disclose to him whatever that happened concerning the family members and if Premila had any difficulty, that would have also been told to him. However, neither his wife nor his sons had told him about any harassment being caused to Premila. This witness has admitted in his evidence that the daughtersin-law of the family in their society are not allowed to move out alone and whenever they go out, the member of the family would accompany them. This witness has further stated that when Premila started living in the matrimonial home, the accused had already acquired a bungalow for their residence and at that time the relations between the two families were quite cordial. Evidence of this witness reveals that Santosh had studied upto 5th standard and that the two elder brothers of appellant no. 1, namely Harish and Rajesh were married to two sisters who are not educated. Harish and Rajesh have their separate living. It also reveals that the sisters of appellant no. 1, namely Kaushalya and Laxmi did not have much education and appellant no. 1 himself was also not much educated. He has admitted that except original accused no. 2 who was graduate, no member of the family of appellant no. 1 was educated. This witness has also admitted that it was original accused no. 1, namely Kaushalya and Laxmi did not have much education and appellant no. 1 himself was also not much educated. He has admitted that except original accused no. 2 who was graduate, no member of the family of appellant no. 1 was educated. This witness has also admitted that it was original accused no. 2 alone, who was not willing to accept Santosh as his wife and rest of the family members did not have any objections to accept Santosh in the family. Accused no. 2 was not willing to accept Santosh only because she was not educated and he did not have any objection to the family of Santosh being financially poor. He has further admitted that the parents of accused no. 2 i. e. original accused no. 3 and present appellant no. 2 were persuading accused no. 2 to accept Santosh as his wife and to bring her home. He has stated that in his community there were only few families who were financially well off and he wished that his daughter Santosh would become a member of a family which was financially very sound and also had good reputation in their community. According to this witness, on the day on which the FIR was lodged, age of Santosh was 16 years. ( 8 ) THE evidence of this witness clearly reveals that Premila was accepted in the family of the accused willingly and that when Premila started living in the matrimonial home, the financial position of the family of the accused was very good and that they had even purchased a bungalow for their residence. It also reveals that he was head of the family and he would be informed about any important matter concerning their family by his wife and other members of family. However, nobody had talked to him about the harassment caused to Premila by all the accused. He has clearly stated that if Premila had suffered any harassment, his wife and sons would have certainly informed him about it. However, nothing of the sort was told to him by either his wife or his sons. If one carefully reads the evidence of this witness, it clearly reveals that at no point of time he has stated about any harassment being caused to or cruelty being practised upon Premila. However, nothing of the sort was told to him by either his wife or his sons. If one carefully reads the evidence of this witness, it clearly reveals that at no point of time he has stated about any harassment being caused to or cruelty being practised upon Premila. It is important to note that this was a very serious matter and looking to the fact that each and every matter relating to their family was being brought to the notice of this witness, the sufferings of Premila would have been certainly revealed to him by his family members. This witness has categorically admitted that no-one had talked to him about the harassment and cruelty caused to Premila. It may be noted here that according to this witness when he was interrogated by police for the purpose of recording his complaint, he had detailed discussion with his relatives as well as members of his community. His son Ramesh and Rameshs father-in-law Naranji were also present at that time. However, neither in the FIR nor in the evidence before the trial Court a word is said about what cruelty or harassment was being caused to Premila by the accused. In the examination-in-chief this witness has tried to say that at the time of marriage of Premila and Santosh with appellant and accused no. 2 the financial position of both the families was the same i. e. both the families were very poor. However, with the passage of time, the family of the accused became very wealthy and, therefore, appellant no. 1 started disliking Premila. He has also tried to alleged that because of his poor condition and the fact that Premila was not much educated, the family of the accused wanted to get rid off Premila any how so that appellant no. 1 could remarry to a girl belonging to wealthy and educated family. However, his evidence in the cross-examination clearly reveals that when Premila was received in the family of the accused, their family had already become rich and had even purchased a bungalow. Moreover, so far accused no. 2 is concerned, he alone had the objection to having Santosh as his wife, because he himself was a graduate and Santosh had studied only upto standard 5 and that except accused no. 2 no-one else in the family had any objection to accept Santosh in the family. Moreover, so far accused no. 2 is concerned, he alone had the objection to having Santosh as his wife, because he himself was a graduate and Santosh had studied only upto standard 5 and that except accused no. 2 no-one else in the family had any objection to accept Santosh in the family. On the contrary, the rest of the family members persuaded accused no. 2 to accept Santosh as his wife. This clearly establishes that the family of accused was not concerned either with the poverty of complainants family or with the less education of the complainants daughters, namely Premila and Santosh. The say of the complainant that the accused caused harassment to Premila because appellant no. 1 wanted to marry a girl from wealthy and educated family does not stand to reason. If Santosh was acceptable to the accused, there was no reason for the accused to get rid off Premila on account of her being not educated and the family of complainant being financially poor. It is important to be noted here that Premila had been staying for the last 8 years in the family and appellant no. 1 and Premila had two children, namely Navin and Bharati. It may be also be of importance to note that according to this witness trouble for Premila arose only after accused no. 2 wrote letter Exh. 48 to his father-in-law i. e. the present complainant. Till then she was quite happy at matrimonial home. It, therefore, cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the poverty and less education were the causes for cruel treatment being meted out to Premila. The witness has admitted that he developed a feeling of hatred towards the family of accused after seeing the dead bodies of Premils and Bharati and he felt that it was the family of the accused which was responsible for causing deaths of Premila and Bharati. In the circumstances, it can well be inferred that the complainant might have thought it fit to lodge complaint against the accused for offence of murder. Admittedly the trial Court has found that this was not case of murder. ( 9 ) NEXT witness examined by the prosecution to prove harassment is wife of the complainant, namely, Fulaben Ramdev, P. W. No. 3 at Exh. 36. Admittedly the trial Court has found that this was not case of murder. ( 9 ) NEXT witness examined by the prosecution to prove harassment is wife of the complainant, namely, Fulaben Ramdev, P. W. No. 3 at Exh. 36. In the examination-in-chief she has stated that whenever Premila visited them, she told her that there was great harassment in the matrimonial home and despite the fact that she did all household work, she was being taunted by the family members. According to this witness, Premila also requested her to bring her back and to allow her to stay with them. In the cross-examination by the defence she has stated that in their community neither the daughters nor the daughters-in-law of the family are being allowed to go out alone and whenever they were required to go out, a member of the family accompanied them. This witness has denied the suggestion that they came to know about miserable plight of Premila only after accused no. 2 wrote letter at Exh. 48. She has stated that they knew from the beginning that Premila was being harassed. This witness has further stated in the cross-examination that whenever Premila visited the parents, her sister-in-law (Nanand) came with her. Premila at that time used to talk to the witness regarding the harassment being caused by the accused. The witness has, however, stated that she never reprimanded the sister-in-law for this and never told her that she should tell her parents not to behave with Premila in this fashion. This witness admits that she had not talked to any body in the family regarding the harassment being caused to Premila. Her evidence reveals that if letter Exh. 48 was not received, they would have sent Santosh to her matrimonial home. The evidence of this witness reveals that present appellant no. 2 at the relevant time was keeping indifferent health and she was also operated upon and as a result of that and because of her obesity she was not able to do the household work. ( 10 ) THE evidence of this witness, if carefully scrutinised, shows that except a generalised statement to the effect that Premila told her that she was being harassed in the family, nothing more comes out from her evidence. ( 10 ) THE evidence of this witness, if carefully scrutinised, shows that except a generalised statement to the effect that Premila told her that she was being harassed in the family, nothing more comes out from her evidence. This witness does not say which of the accused was responsible for causing harassment to Premila and what sort of harassment was being caused to her. According to this witness, Premila told her that though she did the household work, she was being taunted. This, however, does not reveal that who gave her taunts and what was the taunting like. It may be noted here that the evidence of this witness reveals that appellant no. 2 was unable to do the hosuehold work because of her ill-health and obesity. Naturally Premila being the only lady in the family capable of doing the household work, was required to do it and for that no fault could be found on the part of the accused. So far taunting is concerned, there is hardly any evidence on record. Atleast the evidence of this witness does not prove it. The evidence of this witness, therefore, does not help the prosecution in proving the aspect of harassment to Premila by the accused. If one considers the evidence of this witness in the light of the evidence of the complainant, it becomes clear that she would have certainly revealed to her husband the harassment complained of by Premila, but she has not done so and, therefore, it raises a grave doubt whether Premila ever complained to her about the harassment. The evidence of this witness, therefore, does not help the prosecution. ( 11 ) THE next witness examined by the prosecution on the point of harassment is Ramesh Ramdev, P. W. 8 at Exh. 45, who happens to be brother of deceased Premila. This witness in his examination-in-chief has alleged that whenever he visited Premila, she used to tell him that her husband, her brother-in-law and the parents in law beat her and gave her mental torture and whenever her husband was not there, other accused did not give her food and made her starve. This witness in his examination-in-chief has alleged that whenever he visited Premila, she used to tell him that her husband, her brother-in-law and the parents in law beat her and gave her mental torture and whenever her husband was not there, other accused did not give her food and made her starve. She also used to say that her parents-in-law gave her old and torn clothes to wear and despite the fact that there were two other ladies in the family, the accused made her do all the household work and no member of the family helped her in doing it. She used to complain that though there was a facility of gas burner, she was not permitted to use it and was given only coal furnace for cooking food. This witness has stated that Premila informed him that she could not come on Raksha Bandhan day because appellant no. 2 did not allow her to go despite repeated requests and ultimately in the evening when Premila again requested, appellant no. 2 told her that not she but her dead body would go to her parents. According to this witness, he felt that in view of the threat given by appellant no. 2, it was the accused who had systematically conspired to kill Premila and her two children. In the cross-examination this witness has stated that after the birth of Navin, within six months they came to know that Premila was being harassed by the accused and, therefore, he and his parents discussed the matter to find out the solution. He has further stated that when he inquired from Premila why she was being harassed, she informed him that the family of the accused had become rich and it had acquired good reputation in the society and the family of the complainant still remained financially poor and hence their reputation was being adversely affected in the society. In the cross-examination this witness has also stated that his brother Gopal often visited Premila and Premila told him everything regarding harassment caused to her. This witness has further stated in the cross-examination that he has a talk with Premils in reslect of letter Exh. 48 and she told him that she would not be able to do anything in the matter. This witness in the corss-examination on behalf of original accused nos. 2 and 3 and present appellant no. This witness has further stated in the cross-examination that he has a talk with Premils in reslect of letter Exh. 48 and she told him that she would not be able to do anything in the matter. This witness in the corss-examination on behalf of original accused nos. 2 and 3 and present appellant no. 2 was shown several photographs of deceased Premila alongwith other members of the family of the accsed, her children Bharati and Navin and he was asked whether he could say after seeing photographs that Premila was not being treated well. His answer to the said question was that he would not be able to say that. However, he has voluntarily stated that this was only with a view to project that Premila was being treated well in the family. It appears that even after looking to these photographs, this witness was not prepared to admit that Premila was being treated as a part of the family of the accused and that she was being looked after well by the accused. ( 12 ) IN his evidence of this witness has alleged that Premila was being harassed by the accused and the manner in which the harassment was caused to her. However, if the evidence of this witness is considered in the light of other evidence on record, it creates a doubt regarding truthfullness of the allegations levelled by this witness against the accused. Neither the father nor the mother of deceased Premila has stated that Premila was being beaten by the accused on flimsy grounds and that she was not being given sufficient food to eat and was made to starve and that she was being given old and torn clothes to wear. This witness has stated that he and his parents on several occasions had discussed the matter regarding harassment to Premila. Had that been so prosecution witnesses Ramdev and Fulaben would have certainly stated about it in their evidence. Not a word is said about such harassment to Premila by either of the witnesses. It may also be noted here that at the time of recording of the complaint Ramesh was very much present, but nothing has been stated in the complaint regarding the nature of harassment that was caused to Premila by the accused. Not a word is said about such harassment to Premila by either of the witnesses. It may also be noted here that at the time of recording of the complaint Ramesh was very much present, but nothing has been stated in the complaint regarding the nature of harassment that was caused to Premila by the accused. The version of this witness, therefore, becomes very doubtful and no reliance can be placed on his evidence to base the conviction of the accused. According to this witness, the accused by entering into a systematic conspiracy had committed murder of Premila and her two children. This fact is not believed even by the trial Court. One can only say that the witness has gone out of the way to level false allegations against the accused to involve them in this case. It may also be noted here that this witness has tried to allege that though two other ladies were available in the family to do the household work, Premila alone was made to do it. Now it has come on record that the elder two brothers of appellant no. 1, namely, Harish and Rajesh with their respective wives were staying separate and they had their separate household establishments. The mother-in-law of Premila was unable to do the hosuehold work for the reasons stated above. In the circumstances, it was Premila alone who could have done the household work and for that no allegation of cruelty or harassment could be levelled against the accused. Moreeover, this witness has stated that one of the ways of causing harassment was that Premila was not provided with gas burner for cooking food and that she was asked to cook food on coal furnace. Now it has come in evidence that the favourit food of their community is Dal Bati, which can only be cooked on coal furnace. Therefore, there does not appear to be any substance in such allegation. The evidence of this witness, on its own also does not take the case of the prosecution any further. ( 13 ) THE last witness examined by the prosecution to prove harassment is Bhanuben Naranbhai Gajjar P. W. 10 at Exh. 55. This witness is a neighbour of the complainants family. The evidence of this witness, on its own also does not take the case of the prosecution any further. ( 13 ) THE last witness examined by the prosecution to prove harassment is Bhanuben Naranbhai Gajjar P. W. 10 at Exh. 55. This witness is a neighbour of the complainants family. According to this witness, she had visited Premila about six months prior to the incident in the company of Fulaben and she had asked Premila that looking to her bungalow, it appeared that she was very happy. However, Premila told her that she was not at all happy because she was made to put on old and torn clothes and she had to eat stale food and she apprehended that members of her in-laws family would not allow her to live even for 12 months and would kill her. In the cross-examination this witness has stated that whenever Premila visited her parents, she used to meet her and used to talk about her miserable plight. She has also admitted that she had not stated before the police that Premila had informed her that the members of her in-laws family would not allow her to live even for 12 months and would kill her. She has also admitted that she had not stated before the police that she had consoled Premila and had told her that she should endure the harassment for some time and everything would be all right. She has further admitted that she had suffered shock when she heard the news of Premilas death. ( 14 ) THE evidence of this witness cannot be accepted because the version which given in the evidence is not supported by the evidence of any other witness. Even independently considered her evidence becomes very doubtful because if she had known before about the miserable condition of Premila, she would not have asked her when she visited Premila that looking to the bungalow, it appeared that Premila was very happy. Moreover, if Premila had talked to her about harassment and also her apprehension that the family members of the accused would not allow her to live for 12 months and would kill her, she would have certainly revealed this fact to Fulaben, the mother of Premila, with whom this witness has gone to the house of Premila. Her conduct therefore, sounds very unnatural. Her conduct therefore, sounds very unnatural. No person muchless a close friend of Premila would refrain from giving such information to the mother of Premila. Fulaben does not speak a word about it. It also appears that at several places she has tried to level serious allegations against the accused even when she had not stated about it in her statement before the police. It may also be noted here that she is a neighbour of the parents of Premila and a very close friend of deceased. Therefore, she would be anxious to go even out of the way to help the prosecution. ( 15 ) MR. Panchal, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that considering the fact that all these witnesses are closely connected with the deceased, they would be anxious to see that the accused are punished any how and for that reason their evidence should not be accepted at its face value and great care and caution should be exercised before accepting it. I am inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Panchal since the witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the aspect of cruelty and harassment to Premila by the accused are parents, brother and the close friend of the deceased. It is but natural that since their dear one has met with an unnatural death, they would hold the accused responsible for the death and a feeling of revenge would prompt them to give exaggerated version and to make even false allegations against the accused to see that they are penalised by the Court. As has been observed by different Courts in the decisions that the natural tendency on the part of close relatives of the victim to make efforts to secure conviction of the accused any how and for that they may go totally out of the way to help the prosecution. In support of his aforesaid contention Mr. Panchal has cited decision of the Honble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sharad v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 . He has drawn my attention to the relevant portion, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-"44. BEFORE discussing the evidence of the witnesses we might mention a few preliminary remarks against the background of which the oral statements are to be considered. He has drawn my attention to the relevant portion, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-"44. BEFORE discussing the evidence of the witnesses we might mention a few preliminary remarks against the background of which the oral statements are to be considered. All persons to whom the oral statements are said to ahve been made by Manju when she visited Beed for the last time, are close relatives and friends of the deceased. In view of the close relationship and affection any person in the position of the witness would naturally have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts which may not have been stated to them at all. Not that this is done consciously but even unconsciously the love and affection for the deceased would create a psychological hatred against the murderer and, therefore, the Court has to examine such evidence with very great care and caution. Even if the witnesses are speaking a part of the truth or perhaps the whole of it, they would be guided by a spirit of revenge or nemesis against the accused person and in this process certain facts which may not or could not have been stated may be imagined to have been stated unconsciously by the witnesses in order to see that the offender is punished. This is human psychology and no one can help it. "considering the evidence in light of the aforesaid observations, I find that the evidence of prosecution witnesses and in particular the evidence of Ramesh and Bhavnaben, shows a feeling of revenge and hence it cannot be accepted. ( 16 ) MR. Gohil, Ld. APP appearing on behalf of the respondent State has submitted that looking to the conduct of the accused immediately after the incidient, it clearly appears that they were responsible for compelling Premila to commit suicide. To highlight the guilty conduct he has placed reliance on two aspects, namely that the police was not immediately informed about the incidient and that no effort has been made by the accused to put out the fire and rescue Premila and her two children. The contention of Mr. Gohil cannot be accepted because the evidence of fire brigade personnel, namely Sulemanbhai Vithankhan P. W. 5 Exh. 41 and Sandipkumar Hariprasad P. W. 6 Exh. 42 clearly reveals that the fire brigade had received telephone call at 2. 05 hours on 2/9/1986 calling for the help. The contention of Mr. Gohil cannot be accepted because the evidence of fire brigade personnel, namely Sulemanbhai Vithankhan P. W. 5 Exh. 41 and Sandipkumar Hariprasad P. W. 6 Exh. 42 clearly reveals that the fire brigade had received telephone call at 2. 05 hours on 2/9/1986 calling for the help. This telephone call was made by none other than original accused no. 3 i. e. father of appellant no. 1. That evidence also reveals that when they reached there, the fire was almost put out and whatever that had remained was extinguished by the persons of the fire brigade. This shows that the accused had not only promptly called for the help of the fire brigade but they had even made efforts to extinguish the fire and had succeeded to a considerable extent in doing it. The second aspect of Mr. Gohils contention that police was not informed immediately cannot stand because alongwith the fire brigade the police had also arrived at the scene. Moreover, the first anxiety on the part of the accused would be to put out the fire and to save the human lives, namely, that of Premila and two children. They cannot be expected to run to the police station and inform the police about the incident. The anxiety of any person in such a situation would be to first extinguish the fire and then to take other steps. The conduct of the accused, therefore, sounds very natural and it cannot be termed as unnatural. Mr. Gohil has also contended that alongwith Navin the accused also should have taken Premila and Bharati to the hospital for securing medical help and since the accused had failed to do so, it shows their guilty mind. This contention is not sustainable because it is obvious that there was no purpose in removing the dead persons to the hospital. Since Navin was alive when the fire brigade arrived, he was immediately sent to the hospital in the vehicle of the fire brigade and appellant no. 1 had gone with Navin in the same vehicle to the hospital. If Navin could have been taken to the hospital, there was no reason for the accused not to remove two others to the hospital, if they had shown any sign of life in them. No fault of the accused can be found on this count. Mr. 1 had gone with Navin in the same vehicle to the hospital. If Navin could have been taken to the hospital, there was no reason for the accused not to remove two others to the hospital, if they had shown any sign of life in them. No fault of the accused can be found on this count. Mr. Gohil has also submitted that appellant no. 1 upon inquiry by the police officer on duty at the hospital did not tell him about the incident. One should not forget that appellant no. 1 happened to be the father of Navin who was in a precarious condition. This person had also seen his wife and other child lying dead in his house. The state of mind would not be so calm and composed so as to give detailed narration of the incident to the concerned police officer. The first and formost thing in his mind would be to secure medical aid for his son. His conduct in the circumstances, therefore, was quite natural and competitible with his innocence. The submission of Mr. Gohil for the aforesaid reasons cannot, therefore, be accepted. ( 17 ) THE prosecution has also examined other witnesses like Panch and police officers whose evidence is not of much relevance to prove the harassment by the accused. The prosecution has also produced medical evidence in the form of post mortem reports of Premila and Bharati to establish that their deaths had occurred due to burn injuries. The defence has no quarrel on that issue and hence the medical evidence is not required to be discussed in detail. ( 18 ) MR. Panchal has also drawn my attention to the judgment rendered by the trial Court and has argued that the learned trial Judge was in grave error in comparing the evidence of prosecution witnesses with the statements of the accused made u/s. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is a well settled law that prosecution has to stand on its own feet and no aid can be sought from the statements of the accused to fill up the lacunas in the case of the prosecution for basing conviction. It is a well settled law that prosecution has to stand on its own feet and no aid can be sought from the statements of the accused to fill up the lacunas in the case of the prosecution for basing conviction. Having carefully gone through the judgment and order rendered by the learned trial Judge, I find that the learned trial judge has committed error and has at every step sought aid from the statements of the accused to prove their guilt. This is not permissible in law. Moreover, the learned trial Judge has also on several occasions drawn unwarranted conjunctures without there being any evidence to that effect on the record. The learned trial Judge while doing so has totally forgotten the well settled principle of criminal law that there is a great distance between "may" have happened and "must" have happened and the prosecution is required to travel every inch of such distance so as to hold the accused guilty of the offence with which they have been charged. It is true that there are number of decisions rendered by different Courts to the effect that in cases under Section 306 of the IPC the Courts have to take strict view, but it does not mean that the Courts are permitted to draw presumptions and/or conjunctures to fill up the missing lacunas in the prosecution case and then to hold the accused guilty of such offence. Like any other criminal case, in case of offences u/ss. 306 and 498 A of IPC also the prosecution has first to establish case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and if the prosecution succeeds in doing so, then alone the Court should take a strict view in the matter of awarding sentence to the accused. In the instant case, as discussed above, there is hardly any reliable evidence on record to show that the deceased was so much harassed by the accused, that she had no other alternative but to commit suicide. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was of very sensitive nature and it has also come in evidence that the entire trouble started after letter at Exh. 48 was sent by accused no. 2 to the father of deceased. In the said letter Exh. 48 accused no. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was of very sensitive nature and it has also come in evidence that the entire trouble started after letter at Exh. 48 was sent by accused no. 2 to the father of deceased. In the said letter Exh. 48 accused no. 2 had made it very clear that he was not inclined to accept Santosh as his wife since she was not educated and he had categorically made a request to brother of the deceased to find out another match for Santosh. Naturally since Premila was member of family of accused no. 2 she might be in dilemma whether to take side of accused no. 2 or to take the side of her sister. From the evidence it is also clear that her parents as well as Ramesh were asking her to do something in the matter. It is, therefore, quite possible that having found herself in totally helpless condition to bring about any amicable solution to save the married life of her sister, she might have got terribly upset and depressed being person of very sensitive nature. In the circumstances, one cannot rule out the possibility of her taking the extreme step. The very fact of deciding to end her own life and also that of her two children, would indicate her very sensitive nature and also the tremendous frustration she might have experienced at that time. The accused cannot be said to have driven her to such situation. I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt and the benefit thereof must go to the appellants. ( 19 ) IN the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge against appellant no. 1 are hereby quashed and set aside. Fine, if paid, is ordered to be refunded to appellant no. 1. Appeal against appellant no. 2 is abated. .