Judgment R. C. CHAVAN,J. ( 1 ) TAKING exception to the respondents acquittal by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana, of the offences punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A read with section 34 of the Penal Code, the State has preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) FACTS which gave rise to prosecution of the respondents are as under : ( 3 ) VICTIM Shobha was married to respondent No. 1 Ramdas about eight to nine months prior to her death on 7th March, 1991. At the marriage, dowry amount was fixed at allegedly Rs. 4,500/- and Rs. 4,000/- have been paid. According to the prosecution, for the balance, the victim was ill-treated by her husband Ramdas, his father Jairam and sister Dropadi, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. This ill-treatment led the victim to commit suicide by consuming an insecticide Dimecron, which is normally found in farmers houses. On a report by the Police Patil, police registered an offence, performed panchanama of the spot, made an inquest, sent victims body for post-mortem examination, recorded statements of witnesses, caused viscera to be examined by Forensic Science laboratory and on completion of investigation, sent charge-sheet to the learned judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehkar, who committed the case to the Court of sessions at Buldana. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was assigned, charged the respondents of the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 304-B read with section 34 of the Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges and consequently were put on trial. In its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined in all nine witnesses. The defence of the accused appears that they have no role to play in the victims death and that they had not illtreated the victim. Upon consideration of the prosecution evidence rendered in the light of the arguments advanced, the learned trial Judge came to hold that the prosecution of failed to prove the charge and acquitted the accused persons. Aggrieved thereby, the State has appealed. ( 5 ) WE have heard Shri. A. G. Mujumdar, the learned Additional Public prosecutor for the State, and Shri. V. N. Morande, the learned Advocate, who was appointed to defend the respondents. Aggrieved thereby, the State has appealed. ( 5 ) WE have heard Shri. A. G. Mujumdar, the learned Additional Public prosecutor for the State, and Shri. V. N. Morande, the learned Advocate, who was appointed to defend the respondents. With their help, we have gone through the record in order to ascertain whether the findings recorded by the learned Trial judge were deducible from the evidence tendered. There can be no dispute about the fact that victim Shobha met with the death on account of poisoning. The notes of post-mortem examination at Exhibit 18 would show that the doctor could not give any opinion about the cause of death and had preserved viscera. Viscera was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory by the police. Report of the laboratory in respect of viscera at Exhibit 12 would show that insecticide phosphamidon dimecron was found in the viscera. Therefore, it is clear that the death occurred on account of consumption of poison by the victim. Since it is nobodys case that the victim was forcibly administered poison, it has to be concluded that deceased Shobha committed suicide in the house of the husband. ( 6 ) IT has now to be found out whether the respondents/accused subjected shobha to cruelty, as defined in section 498-A of the Penal Code, to drive her to commit suicide or whether the respondents/accused could be held guilty of dowry death, as defined in section 304-B of the Penal Code. PW 1 Maroti, maternal uncle of the victim, stated that accused persons were demanding a sum of Rs. 500/-, which remained due from the dowry agreed. He stated that for the first 2 to 3 months, the victim was treated well and thereafter accused No. 3, sister-in-law of the victim, had beaten the Victim with footwear. Obviously, PW 1 maroti could have got this knowledge from the victim herself. He stated that after 2 to 3 months of her marriage when the victim came to her parents house, she told her parents about the illtreatment. He further stated that the father-in-law of the deceased, that is accused No. 2, met him and told to ask his sister to send shobha back to matrimonial home or pay an amount of Rs. 500/ -. This is rather strange. He further stated that the father-in-law of the deceased, that is accused No. 2, met him and told to ask his sister to send shobha back to matrimonial home or pay an amount of Rs. 500/ -. This is rather strange. Ordinarily, person making demand of balance of dowry would say that unless the balance is paid, the bride would not be permitted to re-enter the matrimonial home. Asking PW1 Maroti to cause Shobha to be sent back or to pay Rs. 500/-, does not get with the case of demand of balance of dowry. ( 7 ) THE witness further stated that he then went to the house of his sister where deceased Shobha reported that she was subjected to illtreatment by accused Nos. 1 and 2. According to PW 1 Maroti, accused No. 2 then assured that Shobha will not be illtreated and so it was agreed to send Shobha to the matrimonial home. Shobhas father agreed to pay Rs. 500/- to the accused. Accused No. 2 and Shobha then met the witness in a bus where Shobha reported symptoms of morning sickness. Therefore, she was taken to Dr. Sanchetis clinic at Lonar. Dr. Sancheti diagnosed that the victim was pregnant. This is corroborated by the notes of post-mortem examination. Five to six days thereafter, PW1 Maroti came to know that the victim had died. ( 8 ) UNFORTUNATELY, most of the things, which PW 1 Maroti stated in his examination-in-chief, were not to be found in his statement before the police, like, accused No. 3 beating the victim with footwear, the demand of balance of dowry of Rs. 500/-, the complaint of illtreatment by Shobha to her parents, the demand by accused No. 2 to either send Shobha or pay Rs. 500/-, etc. All these omissions were duly proved by PW 9 ASI Giri, who stated that PW 1 Maroti had not made any such disclosure to him. The witness went on to contradict what he had stated before the police in respect of information about death of Shobha received by him through accused No. 1 Ramdas. The fact that accused No. 1 ramdas went to inform PW 1 Maroti of death of Shobha, is significant and cannot be lightly brushed aside. ( 9 ) THE evidence of PW 2 Gitabai would show that she was merely called at the time of inquest panchanama at Exhibit 16. The fact that accused No. 1 ramdas went to inform PW 1 Maroti of death of Shobha, is significant and cannot be lightly brushed aside. ( 9 ) THE evidence of PW 2 Gitabai would show that she was merely called at the time of inquest panchanama at Exhibit 16. PW 3 Zugalabais evidence is absolutely of no significance. Rather than helping the prosecution, she stated that the accused person were treating Shobha well. She is a neighbour of the accused and also related to them. ( 10 ) VICTIMs father Dharmaji was examined as PW 4. He too came out with a story similar to that narrated by PW 1 Maroti. He stated that since the victim had reported to him about illtreatment when she had come to his house for a village fair, he refused to send her back with accused No. 2. He stated that accused No. 2 thereupon promised him that he would not ill-treat Shobha. Hence she was sent with accused No. 2. This was the last occasion to see Shobha. Thereafter the witness saw Shobha only when she had died. The witness admitted in cross-examination that the accused persons are financially sound. His daughter had gone happily with accused No. 1 when she had come for Diwali. The fact of demand of balance of dowry of Rs. 500/- by the accused persons, which was also admitted by the witness, was not found in his police complaint or in his statement before police. Even his claims that he had stated to police that the accused persons beat Shobha and that accused No. 2 promised that he would not illtreat shobha, are not borne out by his police statement. A perusal of report at Exhibit 23 would show that actually the story of demand of Rs. 4000/- was made out in the report. ( 11 ) PW5 Gulabrao, the brother of the victim, states in the same lines and has similar omissions in his police statement. PW 6 Shankar claimed to have been present at the engagement and states about dowry being fixed at Rs. 4,500/-, out of which Rs. 4,000/- wera paid and Rs. 500/- remained to be paid. This, as already pointed out, is contradictory to the report at Exhibit 23, which states about demand of Rs. 4,000/- conveyed by Shobha to her parents. PW 6 Shankar claimed to have been present at the engagement and states about dowry being fixed at Rs. 4,500/-, out of which Rs. 4,000/- wera paid and Rs. 500/- remained to be paid. This, as already pointed out, is contradictory to the report at Exhibit 23, which states about demand of Rs. 4,000/- conveyed by Shobha to her parents. PW 7 Janabai, aunt of the deceased, too had claimed that Shobha complained of illtreatment to her, but admitted in cross-examination that she had not stated before the police that the accused used to beat Shobha on account of demand of dowry. She stated that all of them had come together to the Court and had decided to depose against the accused. PW 8 Suman, victims sister, admitted in cross-examination that she had not stated before the police that Shobha had told her that the accused persons used to beat Shobha. It is thus clear that the entire story about illtreatment or demand of Rs. 500/- as balance of dowry, is an afterthought and, therefore, unreliable. If that be so, it would be difficult to conclude that there was any illtreatment on the part of the accused to Shobha, which drove her to commit suicide or that Shobha met with her death on account of any unfulfilled demand of dowry. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the learned Trial judge are perfectly plausible and even on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, we are not in a position to come to any different conclusion. ( 12 ) THE appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by the respondents shall stand cancelled. Appeal dismissed