JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8.10.1998 whereby the learned Special Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Jaipur City, Jaipur convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Narendra Kumar to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B I.P.C. and three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 498-A I.P.C. and the accused appellant Smt. Santosh Devi was convicted and sentenced with three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 498-A I.P.C. in sessions case No. 317/1997. Both the sentences awarded to accused Narendra Kumar were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story, in brief is that S.H.O. police Station Nahargarh Road, Jaipur City received a telephonic message on 28.7.1997 at about 10.10 a.m. through Sh. Ram Swaroop, compounder posted in S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur that Sh. Narendra Kumar and had come to the hospital at about 8.15 a.m. with his wife Smt. Manju, who was dead. This information was reduced in writing which is Ex.R 35. A.S.I. Sh. Shiv Pal Singh proceeded to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, where accused Narendra Kumar informed that he was married to Smt. Manju on 26.11.1992. Thereupon, A.S.I. Shiv Pal Singh informed S.D.M. Jaipur City, Jaipur vide letter Ex. P 28 to initiate proceedings under Section 176 Cr.RC. PW. 13 Sh. Sunil Sharma, S.D.M. initiated proceedings under Section 176 Cr.RC. Panchayatnama of the dead body Ex. R 5 was prepared on 29.7.1997. He also recorded the statements of some of the witnesses and forwarded the papers to investigation officer. In the mean time PW 7 Ashok Kumar, brother of the deceased Manju, submitted a written report Ex.P 8 to S.H.O., Nahargarh at about 8.55 p.m. on 29.7.1997 with the averments that his sister Manju was married to Narendra Kumar near about five years ago. The father of the informant had already expired and financial condition of their family was not good, hence in-laws of Manju were not satisfied with the dowry and they, just after the marriage, started harassing and beating his sister to bring dowry. Father-in-law Nathu Lal, elder sister-in-law Smt. Santosh, elder brother-in- law Vijay, Mahesh brother-in-law of Vijay, all started harassing his sister. Accused Narendra Kumar gave beating to his sister a number of times and she was left to her parents house at Deeg. Father-in-law Nathu Lal, elder sister-in-law Smt. Santosh, elder brother-in- law Vijay, Mahesh brother-in-law of Vijay, all started harassing his sister. Accused Narendra Kumar gave beating to his sister a number of times and she was left to her parents house at Deeg. She was not taken back to her in-laws house. Hence, Manju filed a criminal complaint under Sections 498-A and 406 I.RC. which is Ex.P 7 dated 3.2.1997. Thereafter, the accused Narendra Kumar along with his brother-in-law Mahesh came and took his sister with him on assurance of good behaviour. Accused Narendra Kumar used to live with his brother Vijay and sister-in- law (wife of Vijay) Smt. Santosh at Jaipur and he continued beating his sister. At about 10 p.m. on 28.7.1997, they came to know that Manju had died at Jaipur and they had got apprehension that her husband Narendra Kumar and other accused persons are responsible for her death. Formal F.I.R. Ex. R 9 under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.RC. was registered. Post-mortem of the dead body Ex.P 15 was conducted. Site plan Ex.P 5 was prepared on 30.7.1997. Accused appellant Smt. Santosh was arrested on 14.10.1997 vide arrest memo Ex. R 11 while accused appellant Narendra Kumar was arrested on 1.8.1997 vide arrest memo Ex. R 14 and some dowry articles were recovered at the instance of accused Narendra Kumar. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed, in due course, the case came up for trial before the learned Trial Judge who framed charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.RC. against both the accused appellants. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. The accused appellants were examined as provided under Section 313 Cr.RC. They denied all the allegations. In defence, the accused appellant Narendra Kumar apart from himself examined DW 1 Babu Lal and DW 2 Madan Lal. The learned Trial Judge, having heard final submissions acquitted the accused appellant Smt. Santosh for offence under Section 304-B I.RC. but convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as stated here-in-above. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and scanned the entire evidence. Before coming to the rival submission, it would be proper to reproduce the provisions of Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. which are as under: "498-A : Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and scanned the entire evidence. Before coming to the rival submission, it would be proper to reproduce the provisions of Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. which are as under: "498-A : Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation : (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the women to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 304-B. Dowry Death. - Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before hear death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub- section, "dowry", shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. 4. These facts are not in dispute that deceased Manju was married to the appellant Narendra Kumar at Alwar on 26.11.1992 and she was living with her husband at Jaipur at the time of her death in the morning on 28.7.1997. This is also not in dispute that two daughters were born out of this wedlock. 4. These facts are not in dispute that deceased Manju was married to the appellant Narendra Kumar at Alwar on 26.11.1992 and she was living with her husband at Jaipur at the time of her death in the morning on 28.7.1997. This is also not in dispute that two daughters were born out of this wedlock. It is also not in dispute that the appellant Narendra Kumar used to live and carry on his business activities with his elder brother at Jaipur even proper to his marriage with Manju and thereafter. Appellant Smt. Santosh, being wife of Vijay is elder sister-in-law of appellant Narendra Kumar. It is also not in dispute that death of Smt. Manju was caused by extensive burns, as stated here-in-above in post-mortem report Ex.P 15 which was prepared on 29.7.1997 by medical board consisting of two doctors. This post-mortem report was, during the course of the trial, admitted by learned counsel appearing for the accused appellants. Thus Smt. Manju died within seven years of her marriage. 5. As per allegations contained in the charges framed against the appellants, the prosecution had to prove that (i) the appellants subjected Smt. Manju to cruelty or harassment with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand of dowry, that (ii) soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. 6. Learned counsel Sh. Choudhary contended that there is no evidence show that appellant Narendra Kumar raised any demand of dowry. He referred the entire evidence oral as well as documentary. According to Sh. Choudhary, no independent evidence of demand of dowry or torture was produced and further there was no evidence of cruelty or harassment soon before her death and the evidence of relative witnesses is not reliable. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment placing reliance upon oral as well as documentary evidence, mainly placing reliance upon two letters which are said to be written by deceased Smt. Manju to her brother Manoj Kumar. These letters are Ex. R 3 and Ex.R 4. 7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and entire evidence. It is significant to mention here that the learned Trial Judge did not find appellant Smt. Santosh guilty of cruelty for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry. These letters are Ex. R 3 and Ex.R 4. 7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and entire evidence. It is significant to mention here that the learned Trial Judge did not find appellant Smt. Santosh guilty of cruelty for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry. She was found guilty of cruei behaviour with deceased Smt. Manju on the ground that accused Smt. Santosh was having illicit relations with her younger brother-in-law i.e. appellant Narendra Kumar and when Smt. Manju tried to intervene, both the appellants treated her with cruelty, hence appellant Smt. Santosh was held guilty for an offence under Section 498-A I.RC. As far as the appellant Narendra Kumar is concerned, the trial court found him guilty of making demands for one motor cycle and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as dowry and for that end, appellant Narendra Kumar subjected his wife Smt. Manju to harassment and cruelty. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the fact of demand for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and a motor-cycle does not find place even in the F.I.R. Ex. R 8 and there is no other reliable evidence to prove an such demand. The oral testimony on this point consists of the statements of PW 3 Harish Chandra, PW 4 Kailash, PW 6 Smt. Kasturi Devi, PW 7 Ashok Kumar. PW 3 Harish Chandra and PW 4 Kaiiash both residents of Alwar are respectively Mausa (husband of sister of PW 6 Smt. Kasturi Devi) and maternal uncle. PW 6 Kasturi Devi and PW 7 Ashok Kumar both residents of Deeg are respectively mother and brother of Smt. Manju. According to the statement of PW 3 Harish Chandra, Nathu Lai father-in-law, Vijay elder brother-in-law, Smt. Santosh elder sister-in-law and Narendra Kumar husband of Smt. Manju used to harass and beat her for more dowry. Smt. Manju after some time of her marriage returned to her mother and stayed there for about 4-5 months. Thereafter he along with Kailash came to Nathu Lal and had a talk with him and thereafter Smt. Manju came to her in-laws house at Alwar. It was also stated by Harish Chandra that Manju also told him that Nathu Lai, Vijay and Narendra Kumar treated her with cruelty for a demand of one motor- cycle and a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. It was also stated by Harish Chandra that Manju also told him that Nathu Lai, Vijay and Narendra Kumar treated her with cruelty for a demand of one motor- cycle and a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. In cross-examination, he 'admitted that the fact of demand of one motor-cycle and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was not disclosed by him when his statement under Section 161 Cr.RC. was recorded by Investigation Officer and also when his statement was recorded by S.D.M. He further admitted this fact that at the time of marriage of Manju with Narendra Kumar no demand for dowry was raised. Similar is the statement of PW 4 Kailash. According to Kailash, mother-in-law of Manju also treated Manju with cruelty for more dowry. PW 6 Kasturi Devi also stated before the trial court that Narendra Kumar, his parents and other members of his family started beating her daughter Manju 15-20 days after the marriage and this fact was disclosed to her by Manju. According to the statement of Smt. Kasturi Devi, a demand was raised for one motor-cycle and a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. In cross-examination, it was stated by her that she never came to Jaipur to see her daughter Manju. Similar is the statement of PW 7 Ashok Kumar.According to him, when his sister Manju came to their house after marriage, she told that her husband Narendra, Mahesh brother-in-law of Narendra, her father-in-law and mother- in-law, her sister-in-law Smt. Santosh and elder brother- in-law Vijay had raised a demand of one motor-cycle and a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. It was further stated by him that this demand was repeated a number of times. In cross- examination, he also admitted this fact that he never came to Jaipur to see his sister. Thus according to PW 3 Harish Chandra, Nathu Lal, Narendra Kumar and Smt. Santosh, according to PW 4 Kailash, mother-in-law Smt. Kamla, Vijay, Smt. Santosh, Narendra Kumar, according to Kasturi Devi, Narendra Kumar, his parents, his elder brother and his wife and in addition to these persons, Mahesh, brother-in-law of Narendra Kumar raised demands of one- motor-cycle and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- just after the marriage of Manju with Narendra Kumar and they continued to pressurise Smt. Manju to meet these demands. 20,000/- just after the marriage of Manju with Narendra Kumar and they continued to pressurise Smt. Manju to meet these demands. According to Harish Chandra, four persons demanded dowry, according to Kailash, five persons raised such demands, according to Kasturi Devi, five persons used to make such demands while according to PW 7 Ashok Kumar, six persons had raised such demands from time to time and police after investigation came to the conclusion that only Narendra Kumar and Smt. Santosh were responsible. It is also significant to say that PW 3 Harish Chandra and PW 4 Kailash did not make any such statement either before the investigation officer or before the S.D.M. making an inquiry that a demand of motor-cycle and sum of Rs. 20,000/- was made by the accused persons.Thus oral testimony of these witnesses, does not inspire any confidence that appellant Narendra Kumar subjected his wife Smt. Manju to harassment or cruelty for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry and further their oral testimony does not find any corroboration from the documentary evidence. The first relevant document, as usual is F.I.R. Ex.P. 8. No doubt, it is stated therein that in-laws of Manju were not satisfied with dowry articles given at time of marriage and they started harassing and beating Manju to bring more dowry just after the marriage. There is no mention of this fact that appellant Narendra Kumar or any other member of his family made a demand of motor-cycle or a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and further there is no explanation as to why this important fact was not mentioned in the F.I.R. Ex.P. 8. According to oral testimony, no demand was raised at the time of marriage and the marriage was solemnized happily and thus this evidence recorded by the trial court is contrary to this fact as stated in F.I.R. Ex. R 8 that in-laws of Smt. Manju were not satisfied with the articles of dowry given at the time of marriage. PW 3 Harish Chandra categorically admitted in cross-examination that marriage of Manju was solemnized happily and no demand was raised at that time. PW 4 Kailash also stated in cross- examination that he and one Raman Lal were mediators to arrange this marriage. PW 3 Harish Chandra categorically admitted in cross-examination that marriage of Manju was solemnized happily and no demand was raised at that time. PW 4 Kailash also stated in cross- examination that he and one Raman Lal were mediators to arrange this marriage. He did not state that any demand of dowry was made at the time of marriage or the in-laws of Manju were not satisfied with the dowry articles given at the time of marriage. Smt. Kasturi Devi and Ashok Kumar also did not give any such evidence that in-laws of Manju were not satisfied with the dowry articles given at time to marriage. It was admitted by Kasturi Devi in cross- examination that Narendra Kumar came to their house after marriage to have Manju and Manju went with her husband happily. Thus, this fact mentioned in the F.I.R. that in- laws of Manju were not satisfied with the dowry articles given at the time of marriage is found not true and as stated here-in-above, this fact does not find any mention in the F.I.R. that any demand for motor-cycle or a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was made by Narendra Kumar or other members of his family. Next relevant documents on this point are Ex.R 6 and Ex.R 7. Ex.P. 6 was an application under Section 125 Cr.RC. for maintenance filed by Smt. Manju on her own behalf and her minor daughter against the appellant Narendra Kumar in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Deeg on 3.2.1997. Ex. R 7 is copy of another complaint filed by Smt. Manju on the same day i.e. 3.2.1997 against her husband Narendra Kumar, Vijay Kumar and Smt. Santosh. This complaint was forwarded to concerned police station and the F.I.R. was registered for offence under Sections 498-A and 406 I.RC. The main allegations in application under Section 125 Cr.RC. were that she was living with her husband peacefully but after some time her husband started cruelty with her. The grounds of cruelty stated in Ex. This complaint was forwarded to concerned police station and the F.I.R. was registered for offence under Sections 498-A and 406 I.RC. The main allegations in application under Section 125 Cr.RC. were that she was living with her husband peacefully but after some time her husband started cruelty with her. The grounds of cruelty stated in Ex. R 6 are that she was not beautiful and was not liked by her husband, that she had suspicion regarding her husbands relation with her sister-in-law i.e. appellant Smt. Santosh, that when she objected to it, her husband started her treating with cruelty, that she delivered a female child and thereafter in April, 1996 her husband left her at her parents house saying that he does not like her, that after 6-7 months she came back to her husband but her husband declined to take her with him but after 3-4 months her husband agreed to have her with him under pressure of people of society, that he again after 3-4 months started beating her and in the mean time she was pregnant again and her husband left her at her mothers house, and thereafter declined to maintain her and also declined to return Stridhan. On careful consideration of this complaint Ex.R 6 it is evident that there is not a single word regarding any cruelty by Smt. Santosh and further there is not even whisper regarding any demand of dowry or any harassment or cruelty for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry. The main allegation in Ex. R 6 was that according the appellant Narendra Kumar, Smt. Manju was not beautiful, hence not liked by him and second allegation is that she had a suspicion about her husbands illicit relations with Smt. Santosh. Even though, she did not make any allegation of cruelty against Smt. Santosh in Ex. R 6. It is also significant to say here that this complaint was filed after a period of about four years and two months of the marriage of Smt. Manju. It is also significant to say that according to the allegations made in Ex.R 6, she was left by her husband at her mothers house only after a period of about four years and thus the oral testimony as discussed here-in-above that soon after the marriage Smt. Manju was left at her mothers house twice is found unbelievable. Ex. It is also significant to say that according to the allegations made in Ex.R 6, she was left by her husband at her mothers house only after a period of about four years and thus the oral testimony as discussed here-in-above that soon after the marriage Smt. Manju was left at her mothers house twice is found unbelievable. Ex. R 7 also contains similar allegations as contained in Ex. 6. Only this additional allegation was made in para 4 of Ex. R 7 that on raising objection with regard to illicit relations of both the accused persons, they started treating her with cruelty. There is no other allegation in this regard and further no details of cruelty were given in Ex. R 7.The allegation of demand of motor-cycle and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was made for the first time in para 5 of the this complaint Ex. R 7 but no particulars were given in this regard as to when such demand was raised for the first time. According to the allegations made in para 5 of the Ex. R 7 her husband Narendra Kumar told her that he does not like her and if she wanted to live with him she had to bring one motor-cycle and a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. This allegation was made for the first time after a period of more than four years of the marriage of Smt. Manju and in view of the entire discussion, oral as well as documentary evidence, these allegations seem to be unfounded and unreliable. As stated herein-in-above this complaint Ex.R 7 was filed earlier to Ex.R 8 and there is no mention in Ex.R 8 regarding a demand of motor-cycle and a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellants referred some documents compromising the complaint Ex.R 7. Ex. D. 6 is a certified copy of the affidavit of Smt. Manju dated 5.4.1997. According to this affidavit, this complaint Ex.R 7 was submitted under provocation and no demand of dowry was ever made. Ex.D. 7 is a certified copy of the affidavit of PW 6 Kasturi Devi and Ex.D 8 is a certified copy of the affidavit of Manoj Kumar, brother of the deceased Smt. Manju. No demand of dowry was made and Smt. Manju was never harassed as per both these affidavits. RW. Ex.D. 7 is a certified copy of the affidavit of PW 6 Kasturi Devi and Ex.D 8 is a certified copy of the affidavit of Manoj Kumar, brother of the deceased Smt. Manju. No demand of dowry was made and Smt. Manju was never harassed as per both these affidavits. RW. 6 Smt. Kasturi Devi stated before the trial court that Manju was taken to Bharatpur by Narendra Kumar and his brother-in-law Mahesh and under pressure she was made to write compromise and these facts were disclosed at Deeg by Manju. But this statement does not appear to be reliable at all, as all the three affidavits were sworn at Deeg and as per endorsement, these affidavits were submitted before the concerned investigation officer in F.I.R. No. 82/1997 which is Ex. R 7. Therefore, execution of any compromise at Bharatpur and that too under any pressure does not appear to be believable. In cross-examination, Kasturi Devi pleaded ignorance about this fact that compromise was written at Deeg and not at Bharatpur. She admitted this fact that she knows advocate Anil Kumar who was their counsel. She further pleaded ignorance about this fact that at the time of compromise she went to police station or not, she does not remember. PW 7 Ashok Kumar stated in examination in chief that Manju filed two complaints Ex. R 6 and Ex. R 7 and thereafter upon assurance of the accused persons, his sisters Manju went to her-in-laws house and at that time the matter was compromised. In cross-examination also he admitted this fact that his sister Manju was taken to Deeg for compromise and in the next breath he stated contrary to it that when Manju came to Deeg, she told that compromise was got written after beating her. But no such complaint was made any where that compromise was got executed by force. He further admitted this fact the he accompanied his sister Manju at police station Deeg as well as to the court of Deeg. Their mother and elder brother were also present there and their advocate Anil Kumar was also with them and at that time the matter was compromised. Narendra Kumar and his family members were also present at that time when matter was compromised. Their mother and elder brother were also present there and their advocate Anil Kumar was also with them and at that time the matter was compromised. Narendra Kumar and his family members were also present at that time when matter was compromised. Although, these affidavits were not put in cross-examination to PW 6 Kasturi Devi and PW 7 Ashok Kumar, these affidavits were tendered and proved in evidence by appellant Narendra Kumar himself when his statement was recorded by the trial court and the fact that Ex. R 7 was compromised is proved by Ex. D. 9, a certified copy of the order dated 30.7.1997 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg. According to this order dated 30.7.1997, the Final Report submitted by the police after investigating the F.I.R. No. 82/1997 Ex.R 7, which was accepted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as the complainant-party does not want any further action in this case. Thus the prosecution action in this case. Thus the prosecution case about harassment or cruelty for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry seems seriously doubtful. Learned Public Prosecutor has put much stress upon two letters Ex.R 3 and Ex. R 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that it is not proved that these letters were in the hand writing of the deceased Manju. According to Sh. Chaudhary, both these letters were addressed to Manoj Kumar, elder brother of the deceased but Manoj was not produced by the prosecution. But this objection does not carry any weight as PW Harish Chandra, PW 4 Kailash, PW 6 Kasturi Devi and PW 7 Ashok Kumar ail stated that these letters were in the hand writing of Smt. Manju and on this point they were not cross-examined at all and when these letters were put to accused appellant Narendra Kumar in cross-examination, he pleaded ignorance about the fact that as to whether these letters were in the hand writing of Smt. Manju or not but he admitted the address of Manoj on both these letters, and thus it is proved beyond doubt that these letters were in the hand writing of deceased Smt. Manju. But on the basis of these letters, no such conclusion can be drawn that accused appellant Narendra Kumar ever raised any demand for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry and Smt. Manju was subjected to any cruelty or harassment. But on the basis of these letters, no such conclusion can be drawn that accused appellant Narendra Kumar ever raised any demand for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry and Smt. Manju was subjected to any cruelty or harassment. Although both the letters reveals strained relations of Smt. Manju with both the appellants but there is no averment at all in both the letters about any demand of dowry and harassment for that purpose. 8. Ex. P.5 Panchayatnama of the dead body was prepared by S.D.M. on 29.7.1997 in presence of Ashok Kumar brother of the deceased, Kailash Chand maternal uncle of the deceased and others. In opinion of all the five Punchas Smt. Manju died by burns but no injury on her body was visible and there is no complaint of any demand of dowry or ill treatment on this count as mentioned in this document. To prove the allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty, the prosecution examined PW 1 Vidya Devi, PW 2 Kailash Nath, PW 5 Surendra Kumar. According to the statement of PW 1 Vidya Devi and her husband PW 2 Kailash Nath, deceased Manju and her husband Narendra Kumar were living in their house on rent with Vijay and his wife for about a month. They died any dispute between Narendra Kumar and his wife Manju. They denied their ignorance about relations of Narendra Kumar with Smt. Santosh. They further stated that Smt. Manju never made any complaint regarding relations of both the accused appellants. Both the witnesses were declared hostile. PW 5 Surendra Kumar was also a tenant in house No. 3801, wherein appellant Narendra Kumar was also a tenant and was having one room at third floor and was living with his wife deceased Manju. According to statement of PW 5 Surendra Kumar at about 7.20 a.m. on that day, the accused Narendra Kumar was brushing his teeth at the ground floor as water connection was at the ground floor and he himself was also at the ground floor and at that time having heard hue and cry both of them rushed to third floor and found the room was locked from inside and on breaking upon the door they found Smt. Manju burning and she was taken immediately to the hospital. This witness was not declared hostile and he also did not support the prosecution case regarding any demand of dowry or ill treatment by the appellant with his wife Manju. PW 14 Anil Kumar, Circle Officer investigated this case and he admitted in cross-examination that after investigation he came to know that at the time of this incident the room was closed from inside. Otherwise also, it is the admitted case of the prosecution that Smt. Manju committed suicide by burning herself. Learned counsel argued one more point that the parents of Manju were immediately informed regarding this incident and a car was sent to Deeg to bring them. PW 6 Kasturi Devi stated that information of this incident was given by police. In cross-examination, she showed ignorance as to whether any persons came by car from Jaipur to inform them. She denied this suggestion that Bajrang Lal and Rajendra came to have them by car. PW 7 Ashok Kumar also denied this fact that Bajrang Lal and Rajendra came from Jaipur by car to have them to Jaipur. But PW 13 Sh. Sunil Sharma, S.D.M. stated in cross- examination that Ashok Kumar (PW 7) admitted this fact before him that a car came from Jaipur and they were informed at Deeg about the death of his sister and thus this incident was brought to the notice of the mother and other members of his family and car was also sent from the accused side at Deeg to bring them. It is also not in dispute that it was appellant Narendra Kumar who took his wife immediately to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur though she was found dead at that time. Thus in view of the entire discussion as made here-in-above it was not proved beyond doubt that the deceased Manju was subjected to cruelty for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry. 9. Since there is no evidence on record that appellants subjected deceased Manju to cruelty soon before her death for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry, no presumption can be drawn under Section 113-B Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 10. One more point requires consideration before parting with this case. The learned Trial Judge recorded this finding that both the appellants had un-wholly relations and on that doubt also, she was subjected to ill treatment. Section 498-A I.RC. is in two parts. 10. One more point requires consideration before parting with this case. The learned Trial Judge recorded this finding that both the appellants had un-wholly relations and on that doubt also, she was subjected to ill treatment. Section 498-A I.RC. is in two parts. According to first part, any willful conduct of such a nature which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman would constitute the offence of cruelty. In the instant case, there was no such charge against both the appellants that by having any illicit relations with each-other, they treated Smt. Manju with cruelty at any point of time and in absence of any such charge, the conviction of the appellants under Section 498-A on this ground cannot be justified at all. Even on merits, at the most it can be said that the deceased Smt. Manju was having suspicion about illicit relations of her husband Narendra Kumar with her elder sister-in-law Smt. Santosh. It is not disputed that the appellant Narendra Kumar used to live with his elder brother Vijay and his wife Smt. Santosh even prior to his marriage with Manju and further the appellant used to carry on business jointly with his elder brother Vijay and according to the statement of PW 1 Smt. Vidya Devi and her husband PW 2 Kailash Nath and PW 5 Surendra Kumar, about a month prior to this incident, the appellant Narendra Kumar along with his wife Smt. Manju was living with his elder brother Vijay and his wife Smt. Santosh. As stated here-in-above, this fact was brought on record for the first time vide Ex.R 7 after a period of more than four years of the marriage of Smt. Manju that she was having suspicion about the relations of her husband with Smt. Santosh. it is important to say here that according to allegations made in Ex.R 6 and Ex.R 7, Smt. Manju was not definite regarding relations of her husband with the appellant Smt. Santosh and she was having only suspicion in this regard. 11. Consequently, this appeal, is allowed, the appellant Narendra Kumar is acquitted of charges under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC and appellant Smt. Santosh is acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A I.RC. 11. Consequently, this appeal, is allowed, the appellant Narendra Kumar is acquitted of charges under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC and appellant Smt. Santosh is acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A I.RC. The appellant Smt. Santosh has already remained in jail for about a month and she is now on bail. Appellant Narendra Kumar is in jail since the date of arrest i.e. 1.8.1997 and thus he has remained in jail for about a period of more than five years. He be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other case. *******