JUDGMENT 1. -This criminal appeal under section 374 Cr.RC. by accused appellants viz. Man Singh and Jai Ram has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.9.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur by which he has convicted the accused appellants for the offence under sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and sentenced each of them as under: Under section 498-A IPC. Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo,simple imprisonment of fifteen days. Under Section 304-B IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 13.4.2001 PW3 Ram Prasad Meena lodged a written report at Police Station, Kotwali, Sawai Madhopur, alleging therein that his sister was married to appellant Man Singh Meena about 7-8 years ago. The 'Gona' was done about a year back and since then she used to visit her in-laws place. It is further alleged that appellant Man Singh informed him on telephone from the hospital that Phoolwati has died. He further alleged because of pressure and cruelty by appellants Man Singh, Jairam and one Hanuman, her sister committed suicide by setting her on fire. A day prior i.e. on 12.4.2001, his sister telephonically informed him that members of her In-laws' family used to beat her and requested him to bound them not to do so, else she will die. Lastly, the complainant alleged that he had fulfilled their demand by making them available a motor cycle. 3. On the basis of the above report Ex.P/3 the police registered a case against the appellants and one Hanuman for offence under Sections 498 A and 304B IPC vide FIR, Ex.P/4 and proceeded with the investigation. 4. During investigation, police prepared site plan, Ex.P/5 and seized a plastic bottle from the place of incident vide memo Ex.P6. On receipt of letter Ex.P11 from General Hospital, Sawai Madhopur, informing the police about the death of Phoolwati by burn injuries, the police registered case (Marg) No.5/2001 under section 176 Cr.P.C. and forwarded it to the SDO for Panchayatnama and enquiry. 5. The dead body of deceased was referred to the Hospital for post-mortem, PW16 Dr. Abdul Ajij Kagzi, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Sawaimadhopur conducted autopsy on the dead body and prepared post-mortem report Ex.P/12. 5. The dead body of deceased was referred to the Hospital for post-mortem, PW16 Dr. Abdul Ajij Kagzi, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Sawaimadhopur conducted autopsy on the dead body and prepared post-mortem report Ex.P/12. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death of Smt. Phoolwati was shock brought about as a result of extensive dry flame burn and it was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 6. Having, completed the required formalities, the police submitted a charge sheet against the accused appellants in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate having found the case exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, committed the case to the court of Sessions. 7. The learnd Sessions, Judge, after hearing counsel for the parties, framed charges against the appellants under section 498A and 304B IPC. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. In the course of trial, the prosecution, to prove its case, examined as many as 20 witnesses and exhibited some documents. Thereafter the trial court examined the appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C. In his explanation, appellant Man Singh stated that his wife had illicit relations with his brother-in-law (Sadhu) and has committed suicide because of diffidence. Another appellant Jai Singh has stated in his explanation that his daughter-in-law has committed suicide as a result of difference. The accused appellants also examined 5 witnesses in their defence. 8. At the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the prosecution case, as alleged d proved and accordingly found the appellants guilty of having committed offence under sections 498A and 304B IPC and convicted them of the said offence and sentenced them as aforesaid. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellants have come to this court through the present appeal. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the judgment under appeal and the evidence and material on record. 11. At the out-set, it need be mentioned that the prosecution has examined two witnesses, namely PW1 Mahavir Prasad Jain and PW2 Vimla, who runs a PCO at their house, to prove that on 11.4.2001 the deceased Smt. Phoolwati had informed her brother to immediately reach at her place. However, these two witnesses have not supported the prosecution version and have been declared hostile. 12. However, these two witnesses have not supported the prosecution version and have been declared hostile. 12. Firstly, I shall find out the correctness of the finding arrived at by the trial court in holding the appellants guilty under section 304B IPC.To convict a person under section 304B IPC, the prosecution is obliged to prove beyond doubt the following features : 1. The death of a women should be caused by burns or bodily injury otherwise than under normal circumstances; 2. Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage; 3. The victim must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; 4. Such cruelty or harassment should be for in connection with demand or dowery; and 5. The deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death. 13. From the record there seems to be no controversy on the point that the death of Smt. Phoolwati was suicidal. PW16 Govindi has specifically stated in her statement that when she reached the house of Phoolwati, she found no body present in the house where Phoolwati committed suicide. According to this witness, she found Phoolwati burning in fire. PW16 Dr. Kagzi who conducted autopsy on the dody of deceased has, in his cross examination, expressed his opinion that as per his report Ex.P/12 the burn injuries were suicidal. PW11 Iqbal Hussain, who carried out investigation under sec.174 Cr.PC. has stated that according to the statements of witnesses recorded by him. the death of Phoolwati was suicidal. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2001) 8 SCC 633 while dealing 1 with a case of dowry related death have held as under: "We are, therefore, unable to concur with the contention that if the dowry related death is a case of suicide it would not fall with the purview of Section 304 IPC at all. In Shanti v. State of Haryana and in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab , this court has held that suicide is one of the modes of death falling within the ambit of section 304B IPC." In view of the settled position that suicide is one of the modes of death falling within the ambit of section 304B IPC. In Shanti v. State of Haryana and in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab , this court has held that suicide is one of the modes of death falling within the ambit of section 304B IPC." In view of the settled position that suicide is one of the modes of death falling within the ambit of section 304B IPC. I have to consider whether the 1 death of deceased Phoolwati occurred within 7 years of her marriage.To decide the controversy, it would be beneficial to refer to the prosecution evidence, oral as well as documentary.The written report, Ex.P3 which is the first version of the incident mentions the period of marriage of deceased Phoolwati with appellant Man 1 Singh between 7 and 8 years. PW1 Ram Prasad, brother of the deceased and author of the FIR has categorically stated that the marriage of her sister was solemnized 7-8 years prior to the incident. PW4 Bajranglal, father of deceased has stated that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized about 6-7 years back. PW7 Ram Swaroop, one of the relations of father of the deceased stated 2 that the marriage of Phoolwati D/o Bajrang Lal had taken place 8-9 years back. PW7B Bharat Lal, cousin brother of the deceased has stated that the marriage of his sister was solemnized before 10-11 years back. PW8 Ram Swaroop and PW9 Bhori, mother of the deceased have stated that the marriage of deceased was solemnized 7 years earlier. PW14 Ram Niwas one of the neighbours of the 2 accused has stated that the appellant got married with Phoolwati 10-12 years prior.All the witnesses referred to above have also given a similar statement that 'Gona' ceremony was celebrated a year prior to the death of deceased.It is true that there is no document on record of the case to show as to : on which date the marriage of deceased Phoolwati and appellant Man Singh was solemnized. However, from the evidence discussed above, it is crystal dear that there is not an iota of evidence to conclude that the death of Phoolwati occurred within 7 years of her marriage.The learned trial court has not discussed the prosecution evidence to arrive at a conclusion whether the death of deceased occurred within seven years of her marriage, which resulted into unwarranted conviction of the appellants u/s 304B IPC. It need be taken note of that the trial court should have been cautious enough to deal with each and every ingredient of the offence before arriving at a just conclusion. Reiyings upon the prosecution evidence, the trial court has recorded a finding that death of Phoolwati occurred within 12 months of her 'Gona' ceremony. The important question which now emerges for consideration of this court is whether the date of marriage can be reckoned from the date of 'Gona' ceremony. This court while dealing with similar question in Heera Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 Cr.L.R.(Raj 505 has resolved the controversy in the following manner: On plain reading of the Apex Court Decision in the case of Bhaurao Shanker Lokhande (supra) and Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh (supra), this court feels that the decision of the single Judge based on such principles which is not relevant to decide a dispute in Hindu Law. In this view of the matter, the argument that the date of marriage from its solemnisation should not be reckoned as to be the date of marriage but it should be reckoned from the date of 'Mukiava' cannot be considered valid. The trial court refused taking of cognizance on the complaint complaint-petitioner and on of the revision, the revisional Court refused to interfere, in this misc. Petition, the only point urged has been discussed above and has been held against the petitioner. Therefore, no interference is called for. The misc. Petition having no force is dismissed. In the case at hand from the evidence discussed herein-above, it can be concluded that the marriage of the deceased was, in any case, solemnized more than 7 years prior to the date of incident and, therefore, in the absence of evidence regarding the basis ingredient of the offence under section 304B IPC that death of accused (sic deceased) Phoolwati occurred within 7 years of her marriage, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable. 14. The next question which now requires consideration is whether the conviction of the accused appellants under section 498A IPC is sustainable, or whether the appellants can be convicted under section 306 IPC. 14. The next question which now requires consideration is whether the conviction of the accused appellants under section 498A IPC is sustainable, or whether the appellants can be convicted under section 306 IPC. To arrive at a definite conclusion on the factual aspect of the matter whether deceased Phoolwati was subjected to cruelty of harassment by the appellants No.1 and 2, husband and father-in-law of the deceased, respectively with an intention to coerce her or her parents to meet in lawful demand and thereby abetted her to commit suicide, it would be all the more necessary to appreciate the evidence adduced during trial. 15. A perusal of written report, Ex.P3 shows that there is no mention of any demand of dowry either from the side of husband or the father-in-law, except the demand of a motor cycle. The complainant, brother of the deceased, has mentioned in his written report that he had satisfied the demand of motor cycle at the time of 'Gona' ceremony, it is mentioned in the report that a day prior to the suicide i.e. on 12.4.2001, her sister Phoolwati had telephonically informed him that these persons used to beat her. She asked her brother to bound down them, else she would die. However, the Prosecution witnesses Mahavir Prasad Jain (PW1) and his wife Smt. Vimla (PW2), owners of the PCO, and Kanya (PW 19) and DW.5 Dhodi have not supported the fact that deceased Plhoolwati and Dhodi both went to the PCO of PW 1 Mahavir Prasad and from their Phoolwati talked to her brother Ram Prasad on phone, but since Ram Prasad was not available in the village, Kanya attended the telephonic call. It may be mentioned that Dhodi with whom the deceased alleged to have gone to the PCO at the house of Mahavir Prasad, was named as prosecution witness No.5, but the Public Prosecutor did not examine her and dropped her and she was examined as a defence witness. 16. The prosecution witnesses, namely, Ram Prasad (brother of the deceased), Ram Swaroop, one of the relations of deceased parents and PW 8 Ram Swaroop have categorically stated that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage of Phoolwati. 17. Having scanned the evidence, it becomes clear that there is no mention about the demand of Rs. 16. The prosecution witnesses, namely, Ram Prasad (brother of the deceased), Ram Swaroop, one of the relations of deceased parents and PW 8 Ram Swaroop have categorically stated that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage of Phoolwati. 17. Having scanned the evidence, it becomes clear that there is no mention about the demand of Rs. 50,000/- nor there appears to be demand for anything except that one motor cycle was demanded at the time of 'Gona ceremony' which took place 12 months prior to the death of deceased. To my mind, the prosecution witnesses have tried to improve their statements by stating that appellants demanded Rs. 50,000/-.PW3 Ram Prasad has stated that after the 'Gona' ceremony, his sister started visiting the house of her in-laws and there was nothing objectionable for some-time. But later-on, the appellant Man Singh raised a demand for Rs. 50,000/- from Smt. Phoolwati and Phoolwati inturn, informed him about the said demand. PW 4 Bajranglal, father-in-law of deceased has stated that Man Singh demanded Rs. 50,000/- from him. PW 6 Panchi wife of brother deceased has not stated a single word about the alleged demand of Rs. 50,000/-. PW 9 Bhoori, mother of deceased has also stated that her daughter informed her about the demand of Rs. 50,000/- by her husband Man Singh when she came to her house after Gona ceremony. However, this fact does not find place in her police statement, Ex.D4. 18. it appears from the evidence on record that rest of the prosecution witnesses have either denied the demand of Rs. 50,000/- or have not stated a word about any demand. PW 12 Govindi, neighbour of the appellants, whose statement has been relied upon by the learned trial court in arriving at a conclusion that the death of Smt. Phoolwati was suicidal and who is not a hostile witnesses, has categorically stated that Phoolwati used to complain her about Chothmal, brother-in-law (sadhu) of the appellant that Chothmal is an impediment in their happy married life because the residents of the village used to talk of her illicit relations with Chothmal. The witness has further stated that Phoolwati used to admire her father-in-law and mother-in-law. 19. Having scrutinised the prosecution evidence, as above, it is evident that the prosecution witnesses have made material improvements to make out a case of dowry related death. The witness has further stated that Phoolwati used to admire her father-in-law and mother-in-law. 19. Having scrutinised the prosecution evidence, as above, it is evident that the prosecution witnesses have made material improvements to make out a case of dowry related death. In this view of the matter, keeping in view the evidence of independent witnesses, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the demand of Rs. 50,000/- having been raised by the appellants. 20. Further, there is an affidavit (Ex.D6) of PW 3 Ram Prasad Meena, in which he has admitted his signatures marked A to B and C to D. In cross examination, this witness has tried to clarity by stating that his signatures were got while he was in hospital and his condition was serious. However, DW 1 Dinesh Goyal, Notary Public has stated that he attested the affidavit, Ex. D6 on 16.7.2001 and PW 3 Ram Prasad put his signatures C to D in his presence and one Nagendra identified him and DW 2 Nagendra has supported the statement of DW1 Dinesh Goyal. The document, Ex.D6 specifically mentions that Man Singh and his father are neither responsible for the suicidal act of his sister nor they harassed her for dowry. Her sister committed suicide because the residents of the village used to talk of illicit relations between Chothmal and Phoolwati. Thus, I see no reason to disbelieve the statements of these two defence witnesses namely Dinesh Goyal, Notary Public and Narendra who identified PW 3 Ram Prasad. 21. It may also be mentioned that undisputedly, father, mother and brother of deceased Phoolwati have denied the fact of illicit relations between Phoolwati and Chothmal. PW 12 Govindi has deposed that there was some what rumour in the village about the illicit relations between Chouthmal and Phoolwati. However, this witness has denied the truth of the rumour. She has specifically deposed that Phoolwati committed suicide because of her brother-in-law (Jija). Similar is the statement of prosecution witness Ram Niwas. 22. It has come in evidence that villagers used to talk about the illicit relations between Phoolwati and Chothmal, but at the same time there is no evidence on record to establish that they had illicit relations. Thus, the possibility of suicide by Phoolwati as a result of her disrepute in the village cannot be ruled out. 23. 22. It has come in evidence that villagers used to talk about the illicit relations between Phoolwati and Chothmal, but at the same time there is no evidence on record to establish that they had illicit relations. Thus, the possibility of suicide by Phoolwati as a result of her disrepute in the village cannot be ruled out. 23. Having established that there was no demand of dowry from the side of appellants at the time of marriage and that the demand of a motor cycle was satisfied at the time of 'Gona' of the deceased and further that even after 'Gona' there was no such unlawful demand, the only inevitable conclusion is that Phoolwati was not subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants with a view to coerce her and her parents to meet out unlawful demand. It must also be concluded that there is no evidence on record to establish that the appellants abetted Phoolwati to commit suicide. As such, the appellants are not liable to conviction either under Section 498A or under Section 306 IPC. 24. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal must succeed and it is hereby allowed. The judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellants is set aside and both the appellants are acquitted of the offences charged with. Appellant Man Singh is in jail and he be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Appellant Jai Ram is already on bail and he need not surrender to his bail bonds.Appeal allowed. *******