JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by Ganpat Lal and his mother Indra Devi against a judgment dated 18.7.2001, delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jodhpur, whereby both were found guilty under Sections 304- B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code For the offence under Section 498- A, each one has been awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- . For non- payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 months has been provided. For the offence under Section 304- B, both have been awarded 8 years rigorous imprisonment. Principal sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The accused-appellants belong to village Daikara under Police Station, Dangiawas and Ganpat Lal was married on 8.12.97 in the township of Pali with Durga Devi (deceased). 3. Some time during the night intervening 3rd/4th November, 1991, Durga Devi committed suicide by jumping into the water tank situate in the filed of PW 6 Dhokal Ram. In the morning' of 4.11.99, at about 8 a.m., the body of the deceased was found floating in the water tank. The said Dhokal Ram proceeded to Police Station, Dangiawas and lodged the report (Ex.P/5). According to the report, he called the neighbouring persons after the discovery of the dead body and the accused Ganpat Lal identified the dead body as that of his wife. It is not in dispute that the appellants were living on the neighbouring field in the vicinity. The police registered the case under Section 174 of the Cr.RC. PW 8 Hemant Kumar, the S.D.O., Jodhpur proceeded to investigate the matter and prepared the Panchnama of the dead body and other documents on the spot and recorded the statements of the witnesses. 4. Meanwhile, on 5.11.99, at 10.30 a.m., the brother of the deceased PW 26 Narsingh lodged the FIR (ExR45) at Police Station, Dangiawas. According to the report (Ex.R 45), the torture of Smt. Durga stared 4- 5 months after the marriage and the appellant started to harass her. She was occasionally beaten by the appellants and the information was many a times given by her to her father and the four brothers. She told them that the appellants were demanding Rs. 50,000/- and were threatening to kill her, if the amount was not paid. 5. Further, it was stated in Ex. She was occasionally beaten by the appellants and the information was many a times given by her to her father and the four brothers. She told them that the appellants were demanding Rs. 50,000/- and were threatening to kill her, if the amount was not paid. 5. Further, it was stated in Ex. P/45 that the matter was referred to the respectable persons of the community, who persuaded the deceased to go back to her in- laws house and Ganpat Lal, Vijay Raj and Shyam Sunder under- took the responsibility that in future, no harassment would be made. Upon this undertaking, Babulal (PW 20) and Man Mohan (PW 3) both went with the deceased to village Daikara, where the deceased told them that this time she will not be spared by the appellants. According to the FIR (Ex.P/45), the appellant Smt. Indra, some 4- 5 months prior to the death of Durga, came to Pali at the house of PW 7 Vijayraj, where she stated in the presence of PW 13 Manmohan and PW 26 Narsingh that if Durga did not obey her properly, in that case, the appellant Indra would definitely kill her. According to the report, Durga was murdered on 3.11.99 and after the murder, her dead body was put in the water tank during night, from where it was recovered in the morning. 6. A case under Sections 498A and 304- B of the IPC was registered on this report and after investigation, both the appellants were challaned in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur, from where the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions at Jodhpur, who initially transferred the same to the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur and then to the said trial Court. The accused persons were charged for the offences under Sections 498A and 304- B of the IPC and both pleaded not guilty, 27 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its story. The accused appellant Ganpat Lal examined himself as D.W.1 and stated that the relations of the appellants with the deceased were very cordial. As a proof, he produced four letters (Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/4) which allegedly were written by his wife to him. According to the witness, the death was accidental and the deceased just slipped into the tank, where she had gone to fetch water. As a proof, he produced four letters (Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/4) which allegedly were written by his wife to him. According to the witness, the death was accidental and the deceased just slipped into the tank, where she had gone to fetch water. The learned trial Court then heard the arguments and delivered the judgment on 18.7.2001. against which this appeal has been filed. 7. Apart from the father of the deceased PW16 Ramehandra, the three brothers PW 13 Manmohan, PW 25 Tulchhiram and PW 26 Narsingh have been examined by the prosecution. PW 17 Navratan and PW18 Viramdeo are the cousins of the deceased. PW20 Babulal and PW21 Narain Shanker are the brothers- in- law of the deceased, who are married to the two sisters of the deceased. PW23 Vimla (wife of PW20 Babulal) is the sister of the deceased. PW22 Dharmendra, PW24 Bhagunath and PW27 Vijayraj have been examined to provide the independent corroboration. 8. PW26 Narsingh is the lodger of the FIR (Ex.P/45). He has deposed that after some 8- 9 months of the marriage, the deceased returned all alone and complained that the appellants often beat her and they are demanding Rs. 50,000/- . According to the witness, the appellant Ganpat Lal reached Pail within 2- 3 hours, following the deceased and demanded to know as to whether they have done the job, for which the deceased was sent to them. He further threatened that if the money demanded by him is not paid, the consequences would not be happy. According to the witness, he immediately summoned PW27 Vijayraj and complained about the matter. Vijayraj gave the assurance that in future, no such demand would be made. Consequently, after 2- 3 days, the deceased was sent back with her father and PW27 Vijayraj to the place of the appellants. The witness has further stated that 2- 3 months subsequent to that, the deceased made a phone call to the effect that the appellants were pressing for Rs. 50,000/- and are subjecting her to beating. The brother Sukhdeo was sent to village Daikara who returned with Durga to Pali, where she remained for the next about 5 months. After five months, the appellant Ganpat Lal came alone to fetch her, but was sent back without Durga. Subsequently, the appellant Ganpat Lal came again with PW27 Vijayraj, Shyamji and Parasram. The brother Sukhdeo was sent to village Daikara who returned with Durga to Pali, where she remained for the next about 5 months. After five months, the appellant Ganpat Lal came alone to fetch her, but was sent back without Durga. Subsequently, the appellant Ganpat Lal came again with PW27 Vijayraj, Shyamji and Parasram. They offered an undertaking of future good behaviour on the part of the appellants and, consequently, the deceased was sent to her in- laws; place. Subsequent to this, six months prior to the death of Durga, the appellant Indra visited the house of PW27 Vijay Raj, where she threatened that if the deceased disobeyed her and the payment of money was not made, she will be done to death. According to the witness, on 4.12.99, they received the message regarding the deceased and reached the Jodhpur Hospital, where her dead body was lying in the mortuary and on 5.11.99, he lodged the FIR (Ex.P/45) with the police. 9. In cross- examination, he has admitted that he never visited village Daikara. He further admitted that when they reached the hospital, the S.D.O., the SHO of the Police Station and the Circle Officers all were present, but no grievance in respect of any foul play was made by him or other members of his family. He has admitted that during the enquiry under Section 174 of the Cr.PC., his statement (Ex.P/10) was recorded by the SDO and at that point of time, he neither mentioned they any demand of Rs. 50,000/- was made or any demand in respect of any other dowry item was made. He has further admitted that initially, the FIR was not lodged, but subsequently, all the persons, including PW20 Babulal entered into deliberations and then the FIR was lodged. 10. PW25 Tulchhi Ram is another brother of the deceased, who has stated that as early as two months after the marriage, Durga made a complaint to the effect that the appellants regularly beat her and were demanding dowry. The matter was brought to the notice of PW27 Vijayraj, who assured them regarding future conduct on the part of the appellants and on this assurance, the deceased returned to the house of her in- laws. The matter was brought to the notice of PW27 Vijayraj, who assured them regarding future conduct on the part of the appellants and on this assurance, the deceased returned to the house of her in- laws. According to the witness, 4- 5 months thereafter, Durga came to Pali and complained that she was closed in a room for 4- 5 days and was not allowed to have food during this period. She further stated that her ornaments were removed by her mother- in- law and, thereafter, an attempt was made to burn her by pouring kerosene on her body. Thereafter, Durga remained at her maternal house for about a month or two and then, PW27 Vijayraj and Shyamji persuaded them to send the deceased to her in- laws house. The witness has further stated that while he was taken ill, the appellant Smt. Indra, her daughter and daughters husband Vijayraj (PW27) came to his house to enquiry about his health and then Smt. Indra shouted that unless Rs. 50,000/- are paid, they will suffer the consequences and she will arrange a second marriage of Ganpat Lal. She demanded Rs. 50,000/- for the business of the appellant Ganpat Lal who was unemployed. During cross- examination, the witness has stated that he actually resides in village Manadar and rarely comes to Pali. He admitted that his statement (Ex.P/11) was recorded by the S.D.O. and it does not contain any allegation that dowry or Rs. 50,000/- was ever demanded by the appellants. 11. The third brother PW13 Manmohan has stated that four months after the marriage, the ornaments of the deceased were forcibly taken away and a demand for Rs. 50,000/- was made. Further, he has stated that five months prior to the death of Smt. Durga, she was closed in a room, was beaten black and blue and was kept hungry for four days. Ganpat Lal proceeded towards the kitchen to bring kerosence, in order to burn her, but she ran away and returned to her maternal house. According to the witness, thereafter, she was at Pali for the next four months and just 22 days before her death, she was sent to Daikara at the persuasion of Parsaram, Shyamlal and Vijayraj. According to the witness, every time, when Durga came, she told that she is being belaboured by the appellants regularly in connection with the demand of Rs. 50,000/- . According to the witness, every time, when Durga came, she told that she is being belaboured by the appellants regularly in connection with the demand of Rs. 50,000/- . He has admitted that at the time of post mortem, the Dy. S.P. and other Police Officers were present, but no such complaint was made by any body to them at that point of time. He has admitted that he got recorded his statement (Ex.P/9) to the S.D.O. and did not mention that any demand for Rs. 50,000/- was ever made by the appellants. 12. PW16 Ramehandra is the father of the deceased. According to this witness, when the deceased returned to the house, 4- 5 months after her marriage, she complained to the effect that the mother- in- law had snatched away her ornaments and the husband was demanding Rs. 50,000/- and, in this connection, she was regularly being beaten by the accused persons. He has also admitted that his statement (Ex.P/8) was recorded by the S.D.O. and at that point of time, he made no mention in respect of the alleged demand made for Rs. 50,000/- . 13. PW 17 Navratan and PW18 Biramdeo are the cousins of the deceased. PW17 Navratan does not say that any demand of Rs. 50,000/- was made. PW18 Biramdeo does not say that any instance of Durga receiving beating at the hands of the appellants came to his notice. 14. PW20 Babulal has stated that he is a resident of Khinvsar and used to receive telephone calls from the deceased. She used to say that she was being harassed by the appellants in connection with their, demand of Rs. 50,000/- . He has stated that he accompanied the deceased to her in- laws house some 20 days prior to her death. PW21 Narain Shanker, another brother- in- law, has stated that Durga used to tell him about her torture at the hands of the appellants in connection with the demand of dowry. He has stated that some 4- 5 months prior to her death, Ganpat Lal attempted to put her to fire. PW23 Vlimla has stated that 4- 5 months prior to her death, Durga narrated her ordeal regarding the harassment for dowry. He has stated that some 4- 5 months prior to her death, Ganpat Lal attempted to put her to fire. PW23 Vlimla has stated that 4- 5 months prior to her death, Durga narrated her ordeal regarding the harassment for dowry. She allegedly also told Vimla that her mother- in- law is a women of easy virtue, on account of which she was very unhappy and was not prepared to visit and live at her in- laws house. 15. PW22 Dharmendra has stated that six months prior to her death, Durga informed him that the appellants were harassing her in connection with the demand of dowry. PW24 Bhagunath has stated that some 25 days prior to her death, she found Durga weeping and telling her brother Manmohan that the in- laws were demanding money. 16. PW27 Vijayraj is the person who was the middle man in the marriage of the deceased with the appellant Ganpat Lal. According to this witness, the deceased and her husband were not happy with each other and he persuaded the deceased to go to village Daikara assuring that she will not be put to any inconvenience. However, according to the witness, Durga herself never told him any thing. He has stated that accused Ganpat Lal was actually living some- where in Maharashtra as he was serving there. He further admitted that Durga never complained to him that she was inconvenienced at her in- laws place on any account. 17. From the testimony of Dr. N.S. Kothari (PW9), it is clear that the cause of death of Smt. Durga was found to be drowning. The witness has further admitted that her visceral were sent for chemical examination and the chemical examination report (Ex.P/49) was received, according to which, the contents of her stomach, liver as well as the blood samples suggested that she also consumed the organophosphorus insecticide. According to Dr. Kothari, the cause of death was drowning, but the insecticide consumed by her, was also sufficient to cause her death. This goes to show that she consumed the said insecticide and soon jumped into the tank and died as a result of drowning. It is not disputed that her marriage took place on 8.12.97 and thus, she died an unnatural death within a span of seven years after her marriage. This goes to show that she consumed the said insecticide and soon jumped into the tank and died as a result of drowning. It is not disputed that her marriage took place on 8.12.97 and thus, she died an unnatural death within a span of seven years after her marriage. It is, therefore, to be seen as to whether she was subjected to any cruelty in connection with the alleged demand of dowry and whether there was some cogent material to establish that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants in connection with the alleged demand for dowry. 18. After going through the evidence and hearing the two sides, I am of the view that it is very difficult to sustain the conclusions drawn by the learned trial court. The evidence which has come on record, does not inspire any confidence and falls much short of proving the guilty of the appellants. 19. PW26 Narsingh Joshi is the lodger of the FIR and he has admitted that no FIR was lodged on 4.11.99 and the same was lodged on the next day after long deliberations between the brother- in- law PW20 Babulal, father PW16 Ram Chandra and other relations. It is not in dispute that the maternal side was duly informed without any loss of time. The SDO recorded the statement (Ex.P/10) of the brother Narsingh Joshi and there is a clear mention to the effect that the father and brother etc. had left Pali at 2.30 p.m. for Jodhpur. The distance between Pali to Jodhpur is about 80 Km. and, in this way, they reached Jodhpur at about 4 p.m. If the history of the case, as given by the witnesses is to be believed, there was no reason not to lodge the FIR on 4.11.99 itself. However, the expected promptness was not shown and the FIR was lodged on 5.11.99 at 10.30 a.m. The police as well as the SDO were available on 4.11.99 itself and the fact that no grievance was put to them, regarding any foul play, speaks for itself. PW20 Babulal and PW25 Tulchhiram both have admitted that the FIR was lodged as a result of deliberations amongst all the family members and other relations. 20. PW20 Babulal and PW25 Tulchhiram both have admitted that the FIR was lodged as a result of deliberations amongst all the family members and other relations. 20. In the FIR, there is a specific mention to the effect that the dispute was referred to the Panchas of the community and many a times, it were the Panchas who were responsible in persuading the deceased to go to her in law house. However, these Panchas of the community have not been examined. Needless to say that they had the best knowledge of the controversy and non- production of such persons in the Court casts a serious doubt in respect of the reliability of the prosecution story. In the FIR Ganpat Lal, Shaym Sunder, Paras Ram and Vijay Raj (PW27) have been specifically named. It is mentioned that the said Ganpat Lal is a brother- in- law of PW25 Tulchhi Ram who lodged the FIR. Strangely enough, neither Ganpatlal, nor Shaym Sunder nor Paras Ram have been examined and the learned trial Court has drawn an adverse inference against the appellants stating that it was the duty of the appellants to examine them as witnesses. It is difficult to concur with this approach of the learned trial Court. 21. In the FIR (Ex.P/45), there is a specific mention that for the first time, the torture started some 4- 5 months after the marriage. However, the lodger of the FIR P.W26 Narsingh Joshi, in his testimony, has deposed that for the first time, he learnt about the torture some 8- 9 months after the marriage when the deceased came all alone from Daikara. The statement of PW25 Tulchhi Ram (Ex.P/11) was recorded by the SDO and as per this statement, the torture started, soon after the marriage and just after one month of the marriage when the deceased returned for the first time, she narrated her woes. During his testimony in the Court, Tulchhi Ram has stated specifically that when she returned, a couple of months after the marriage, she narrated that she was being beaten and harassed by the appellants for the sake of dowry. This type of contradictions can only come when the whole case is a complete concoction. 22. The witnesses, during their deposition, have mainly stated that at her in- laws place, all her ornaments were removed by the appellants. This type of contradictions can only come when the whole case is a complete concoction. 22. The witnesses, during their deposition, have mainly stated that at her in- laws place, all her ornaments were removed by the appellants. She was closed in a room and was kept there without any food for 4- 5 days and the appellants attempted to murder her by pouring kerosene over her body, but some how, she was able to escape and reached the maternal house. Strangely enough, none of these allegations find place in the FIR which was lodged after due deliberations. 23. During the testimony of PW14, Vikram Singh, Sub- Inspector, it has come that a suicide note was recovered from the room of the deceased and the same was to be delivered by Shyam Lal to the Circle Officer, who was investigating the case. However, the concerned suicide note was never tendered in evidence, nor the prosecution has explained as to what happened to the suicide note. The said Shyam Lal and the concerned Circle Officer have not been examined. The defence side has produced the photostat copy of the suicide note (Ex.D/5) and it does not blame anybody for the suicide. 24. The witnesses have contradicted each other in material aspects and have made liberal improvements over and above the allegations made in the FIR and the earlier statements recorded by the SDO during the enquiry under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. It is not in dispute that the SDO recorded the statement (Ex.P/8) of the father- Ramehandra- Strangely enough, it does not say that any demand for Rs. 50,000/- was ever made. Similarly, it does not say that any Kerosence was ever poured over the person of the deceased by any of the appellants. The other brother Manmohan, in his statement (Ex.P/9), makes a mention that the husband Ganpat Lal used to beat the deceased after consuming "bhang" and she was severely, beaten in the presence of her brother Sukhdev and the neighbour Mangilal. The allegation does not find place in the FIR and neither Sukhdeo, nor Mangilal has been examined to corroborate the allegation. Further, Ex.P/9 contains the allegation that the husband gave a beating in the presence of PW27 Vijayraj and the mother- in- law Indra saved her. There is no such mention in the FIR, nor PW27 Vijayraj has provided the corroboration. Further, Ex.P/9 contains the allegation that the husband gave a beating in the presence of PW27 Vijayraj and the mother- in- law Indra saved her. There is no such mention in the FIR, nor PW27 Vijayraj has provided the corroboration. Ex.P/9 further says that under duress, a letter was got written from the deceased by her husband and the same is in the custody of Vijayraj. Vijayraj does not say that any such letter was.got written or he is in possession of any such letter. Nar Singh Joshi, in his earlier statement (Ex.P/10), does not say anything against the husband Ganpatlal and has repeatedly mentioned that the conduct of the mother- in- law is highly suspect in the matter. Tulchhi Ram, in his earlier statement (Ex.P/11), has made no mention to the effect that the demand of Rs. 50,000/- was ever made. He does not say that any Kerosene was poured over the deceased or any attempt on her life was made. Ex.P/12 is the earlier statement of Babulal and he implicates only Ganpat Lal. He does not say anything against the appellant Indra, nor he says that any attempt on the life of the deceased was ever made by pouring Kerosence over her. So much so, that the father PW16 Ramehandra, in his deposition, in the Court, does not make any mention in respect of the allegation that any of the appellants trial to pour Kerosence or tried to burn the deceased. PW21 Narain Shanker, who is a brother- in- law of the deceased, does not make a mention in his deposition that the mother- in- law was responsible in torturing the deceased or any demand was made by her. Needless to say that the prosecution evidence in too unreliable to be believed. 25. The letters (Ex.D/1, Ex.D/2, Ex.D/3 & Ex.D/4) have been produced in defence which purportedly were written by the deceased to her husband, who was in Maharashtra in connection with his employment. These letters were shown to PW13 Manmohan, one by one, during his cross- examination. Initially, when the letters (Ex.D/1) was shown to him, he conceded that the letter was in the hand- writing of the deceased and the same was sent by her to her husband Ganpatlal. These letters were shown to PW13 Manmohan, one by one, during his cross- examination. Initially, when the letters (Ex.D/1) was shown to him, he conceded that the letter was in the hand- writing of the deceased and the same was sent by her to her husband Ganpatlal. However, subsequently, the witness became wise and in respect of the letter (Ex.D/2, Ex.D/3 & Ex.D/4) he deposed that they were not in the hand- writing of the deceased. The witnesses, who were examined after Manmohan, came prepared and PW16 Ramehandra, PW20 Babulal, PW21 Narain Shanker, PW23 Vimla as well as PW26 Narsingh took the stand the deceased was uneducated and, thus, could not write any letters. In this connection, the earlier statement (Ex.P/8) of PW16 Ramehandra recorded by the SDO becomes significant. There is a specific mention in Ex.P/8 to the effect that she used to write letters and a letter written by her from her in- laws house to Ramehandra was duly received by him. This type of behavior on the part of the principal witnesses leaves me in little doubt that there is no truth in the prosecution story and the witnesses have deposed irresponsibly, showing little respect for oath. All the four letters (Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/4.) apparently are in the hand- writing of the same person and in view of the admission of Manmohan that the letter (Ex.D/1) is in the hand- writing of the deceased, there is no reason to conclude that the other three letters were not written by her. All the four letters contain the address of the appellant Ganpatlal and as per the address, he was working at Jain Sweets, Purshottam market, Shop No. 49, Shahda, District Nadurbar (Maharashtra). The prosecution witnesses were given the suggestion to the effect that in connection with his service, the appellant Ganpatlal used to live at the above address in Maharashtra. Strangely enough, none of the witnesses admitted to the suggestion and came with an answer that they do not know. I find the witnesses highly unreliable and unbelievable. 26. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that even if the testimony of the close relations is ignored, there is independent corroboration of the prosecution story in the testimony of PW22 Dharmendra, PW24 Bhagunath and PW27 Vijayraj. I find that the testimony of these three witnesses is of no consequence to the prosecution side. 26. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that even if the testimony of the close relations is ignored, there is independent corroboration of the prosecution story in the testimony of PW22 Dharmendra, PW24 Bhagunath and PW27 Vijayraj. I find that the testimony of these three witnesses is of no consequence to the prosecution side. So far as PW22 Dharmendra and PW24 Bhagunath are concerned, they are apparently created witnesses. PW22 Dharmendra has stated that the deceased told him that her in- laws were asking for Rs. 50,000/- . The witness could, however, neither disclose the name of the village to which the accused- persons belonged, nor he could tell anything about the native place of Smt. Durga, PW24 Bhagunath cLalms that in his presence Smt. Durga narrated her ordeal to her brother Manmohan. This witness is a close friend of the brother of the deceased and his testimony does not inspire any confidence. 27. According to the prosecution story, the entire cruelty was committed in village Daikara, where she was regularly beaten and was put to unbearable torture. The marriage was two years old and it was natural that the neighbours and other villagers of village Daikara would be knowing about the alleged torture. However, there is not a single person of village Daikara to provide any corroboration. In the testimony of PW13 Manmohan, it has come that soon after the attempt on her life, she ran from the house of the in- laws and the first person whom she approached was one Loona Ram. His testimony further discloses that a friend of the deceased Smt. Santosh and neighbours Padam Kumar Jain. Raghuveer and Kamala Devi had the knowledge about the problem and in their presence, the deceased was sent for the last time to her in- laws place. I find that neither Loonaram, nor the other four persons have been examined in the Court. Thus, the independent witnesses who could have normally known about the problem, have all been with- held and persons who are interested only, have been produced. PW27 Navratan is resident of village Balesar. He is a cousin and does not support the prosecution story that any demand of Rs. 50,000/- was made. Neither the other cousin PW18 Viramdeo does support that Smt. Durga was ever beaten at her in- laws place. PW27 Navratan is resident of village Balesar. He is a cousin and does not support the prosecution story that any demand of Rs. 50,000/- was made. Neither the other cousin PW18 Viramdeo does support that Smt. Durga was ever beaten at her in- laws place. PW20 Babulal is resident of another village Khinvsar and has come with the story that all the details of torture used to be conveyed to him by the deceased on telephone. No such mention of telephone finds place in the FIR. During his cross- examination, he was confronted with his earlier statement (Ex.P/12) which contained an allegation that the deceased was asked to bring money from her father. The witness stated that the said mention in Ex.P/12 was not correct. He further admitted the suggestion in the cross- examination to the effect that no demand for dowry was ever made by the appellants. PW21 Narain Shanker also does not belong either to Pali or to Daikara, but is a resident of village Khinvsar. He does not say a single word against the appellant Indra, during his testimony. PW23 Vimla is also resident of village Khinvsar. During her testimony, she has changed the focus of the story and has stated that because the appellant Indra was a woman of easy virtue, the deceased was reluctant in going to her in- laws place, on account of this. The testimony of PW25 Tuichhi Ram is at complete variance with the FIR. He states the that months after the marriage, the deceased complained about the torture for the sake of dowry, whereas, according to the FIR, the cruelty started some 4- 5 months after the marriage. He further states that the matter was referred to PW27 Vijayraj. PW27 Vijayraj does not say any such thing. Further, Tulchhi Ram states that the deceased was kept without food in a room for 4- 5 days and, thereafter, kerosene was poured over her. But the FIR does not contain any such allegation. According to the FIR, the appellant Indra visited Pali and at the house of PW27 Vijayraj stated that if the deceased continued to disobey her, she would be done to death. However, Tulchhi Ram has stated that he was ill and Indra along with Vijayraj came to his house to enquire about his health and made a demand of Rs. 50,000/- . However, Tulchhi Ram has stated that he was ill and Indra along with Vijayraj came to his house to enquire about his health and made a demand of Rs. 50,000/- . This witness is not a resident of Pali, but is a resident of village Manadar. He has admitted that when his statement (Ex.P/11) was recorded by the SDO, he did not make a mention in respect of any demand of Rs. 50,000/- . 28. In short, the witnesses are interested and are wholly untrustworthy. PW1 Ramuram and PW2 Kum. Pappu are prosecutions own witnesses and both of them have stated that the relations of the deceased with the appellants were very cordial. PW4 Pemsingh, PW5 Gokul Ram and PW6 Dhokal Ram are also residents of village Daikara and they have denied the suggestion that their relations were strained. None of these witnesses is a hostile witness. Similarly, PW10 Shaym Lal is prosecutions own witness and he has stated that the deceased was never harassed by any of the appellants. PW12 Premsingh, Dy. S.R, has stated that the maternal side was present in the hospital and no FIR was given to him by any of them. PW19 Sita is a resident of village Daikara and has deposed that the relations between the deceased and the accused were cordial. 29. PW27 Vijayraj undoubtedly is the person who, according to the prosecution, was in the knowledge of the every thing. This witness has stated in his examination- in- chief that just one month before Smt. Durga died, there was some problem between the two. He, however, has specifically deposed that Durga never complained about any problem to him. In cross- examination, he has admitted that the appellant Ganpat Lal used to live in Maharashtra in connection with his service and the deceased never complained that she was having any problem with her in- laws. Vijayraj is not a hostile witness and from his testimony, the prosecution side cannot draw any solace. In these circumstances, I find that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, who have tried to implicate the appellants, is highly inconsistent, contradictory, vague and omnibus and it does not inspire any confidence. 30. Vijayraj is not a hostile witness and from his testimony, the prosecution side cannot draw any solace. In these circumstances, I find that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, who have tried to implicate the appellants, is highly inconsistent, contradictory, vague and omnibus and it does not inspire any confidence. 30. As many as 16 rulings, including the below mentioned 5, were pressed into service by the defence, during arguments- (1) Lekhram v. State of Punjab (1992 C.L.R. (SC) 394) (2) Mahesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (1997 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 209) (3) Jairam v. State of Rajasthan (1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 36) (4) Kailash Chand v. State of Rajasthan (1998 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1) (5) Chanchal Kumari v. Union Territory of Chandigarh. (1999 Cr. L.R. (SC) 152) 31. The learned trial Court was honest enough to reproduce all the 16 citations, in its judgment, but disposed them of all with a single observation that none of them was relevant and applicable to the facts of the case at hand. I find it difficult to concur with this approach of the learned trial Court. In the case of Lekhram (Supra), the facts were that the maternal side of the deceased was informed immediately and there was no promptness in filing the FIR. The relations of the deceased made no allegations of any foul play forthwith and the FIR was a result of some deliberations. There was lack of independent corroboration and conflicting versions were given by the interested witnesses. The Apex Court found that in such a case, it was not possible to arrive at a finding of guilt. Needless to say that all these circumstance are present in the case at hand. In the case of Mahesh Kumar (Supra), there was no evidence to suggest that any cruelty was committed in respect of demand of dowry, soon before the death. Further, there was the circumstances that the person who brokered the marriage did not support the allegation of cruelty. In the instant case, similarly, there is no evidence to suggest that after her arrival at village Daikara, till her death, any cruelty was committed by the appellants. Similarly, PW27 Vijayraj, who was the middle man in the marriage, has not supported the prosecution allegations. In the instant case, similarly, there is no evidence to suggest that after her arrival at village Daikara, till her death, any cruelty was committed by the appellants. Similarly, PW27 Vijayraj, who was the middle man in the marriage, has not supported the prosecution allegations. In the case of Jairam (Supra), the principal circumstance cited by the Court was that the neighbours, who were the natural witnesses, were not examined to corroborate the prosecution story. In the instant case also, no neighbours of village Daikara has corroborated the story of cruelty. On the other hand, as pointed out earlier, all the residents of village Daikara, who have been examined, have deposed to the effect that the relations of the deceased with the appellants were rather cordial. In the case of Kailash Chand (Supra), the Court found that the Panchas of the Community Panchayat were not examined. In the instant case, the FIR contains an allegation that the persons of the community were involved many a times in the reproachment, but none of them has been examined. In the case of Chanchal Kumari (Supra), the FIR was not lodged promptly and the letter (Ex.D/1) written by the deceased to her husband was inconsistent with the prosecution case. There was a suggestion to the effect that the in- laws wanted money for building a house. The Apex Court found the first two circumstances were fatal to the reliability of the prosecution story and observed that unless coupled with some cruel behaviour, simply a demand for money for construction of a house could not be construed as abetment of suicide. It, thus, cannot be said that the cases cited by the defence, during the course of arguments, were of .no consequence and did not require the learned Court to discuss them. 32. In view of what has been said above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the trial Court dated 18.7.2001 is set aside. Both the appellants are acquitted of the charges, for which they were tried. They shall be released forthwith, unless wanted in connection with some other case.Appeal allowed. *******