JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants under section 374 of CrPC against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.12.2000 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar District Guna, in ST No. 69/2000, by which the appellants have been convicted under section 304-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years each with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each with default stipulations. 2. This is a case of dowry death with the allegation that the deceased Urmila married with appellant No.2 on 10.5.1998. Appellant No.1 is the father-in-law of the deceased. The allegation against the appellants is that they demanded dowry and also ill-treated the deceased Urmila. When she came to the house of her parents, she informed that the Spark bike had been returned by the appellants and demanded Rs. 20,000/- for purchasing new vehicle. Rs. 20,000/- were given to the appellant No.2 to purchase the new vehicle. Thereafter, she was not sent to her parents house by the in-laws of the deceased. They also refused to send her during Rakhi festival. At the time of Nav-Durga, the brother of the deceased Omprakash and cousin Pappu went to bring the deceased but there was a demand of Rs. 50,000/- by the in-laws of the deceased and subsequently, she died on 27.10.1999 by consuming poisonous substance. She was admitted to the hospital. The doctor informed the police about the case and after her death merg was registered. The case belonged to the Police Station Shadora, therefore, police Guna made over the case to the concerning police station for its investigation. The· body of the deceased was recovered through Panchayatnama by giving notice to the witnesses and post-mortem was conducted by the doctor. The post-mortem report is Ex. P-l. As per the report, the cause of death was due to cardio-respiratory failure. The definite cause of death is not given but it is advised that the viscera to be examined by FSL for confirmation poisonous substance. 3. The trial Court initially framed the charge under section 304B of IPC and in the alternative 306 of IPC against the appellants and co-accused Saraswati Bai and Anand (accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the trial Court). 3. The trial Court initially framed the charge under section 304B of IPC and in the alternative 306 of IPC against the appellants and co-accused Saraswati Bai and Anand (accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the trial Court). Appellants have been convicted under section 304B of IPC and acquitted against the charge under section 306 of IPC while the co-acused Saraswati Bai and Anand were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants on the ground that the trial Court has erroneously convicted the appellants because father-in-law of the deceased informed to the father of the deceased about the illness. The deceased was not keeping well and she remained ill, therefore, she was mentally disturbed. Therefore, she committed suicide and apart from the above facts, the statements of the prosecution witnesses are improvements to their police diary statements and in the statements of Chunnilal (PW 2) and Munnibai (PW 4), who are the parents of the deceased, there are material contradiction and omissions in their testimonies during the evidence. Therefore, both the witnesses are not reliable and it would not be safe to convict the appellants on the unreliable testimonies of the witnesses. 5. No doubt the death of the deceased was caused in suspicious circumstances. Dr. Seetaram Singh Raghuwanshi (PW 1) conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and proved his report which is Ex. P-l. According to the doctor, the cause of death was failure of cardio respiratory system but he was unable to give definite opinion about the cause of death and therefore, he advised to send the viscera to FSL, Sagar for its examination. From the report of FSL, Sagar, Ex. P-16, it is found that in the viscera zinc phosphide chemical which is used to kill mice was found. 6. Chunnilal (PW 2) deposed that Urmila was his daughter, who was married to appellant No. 2 in the year 1998. At the time of marriage, Spark Bike was given but after fifteen days of the marriage Bike was returned by the appellant No.2 and demanded other vehicle. The daughter informed that there was demand of Rs. 20,000/- for purchasing the vehicle and due to this she was being tortured by her in-laws. Thereafter, he had given Rs. 20,000/- for purchasing the vehicle. The daughter informed that there was demand of Rs. 20,000/- for purchasing the vehicle and due to this she was being tortured by her in-laws. Thereafter, he had given Rs. 20,000/- for purchasing the vehicle. At the time of Raksha Bandhan he sent his son Omprakash and nephew Pappu to bring Urmila but they refused to send her alongwith them and demanded Rs. 50,000/-. Before Dussera festival she died. When his daughter died, appellant No. 1 informed him on phone. He informed that she was not keeping well and was admitted in the hospital. When he came to Guna and inquired that how she died, doctor informed that she died as she had consumed poison. Doctor had given intimation to police Kotwali, Guna. In para 7, he deposed that on 31.10.1999, appellant No.2 and his brother-in-law threatened him not to lodge any report against them. In para 8, he also deposed that when no action was taken in the matter, he lodged a written report (Ex. P-1 A) after one and half months of the death of the deceased. In cross-examined para 9, he admits that her treatment was continued in the in-laws' house. In January, 1999, he came to see his daughter. At that time she was suffering from head-ache. In para 12, it is stated by the witness the fact, that the Spark Bike was returned by the appellants and after IS days of the marriage, was not disclosed at the time of his statement but he cannot say that why this fact has not been mentioned in his police-diary statement Ex. D-2. This fact was also not mentioned in his written report Ex. P-1A. In para 13, the witness stated that when the police seized the documents, his statement was again taken on 17.2.2000. In para 14, there is an omission in the police diary statement Ex. D-1, that Rs. 20,000/- was given for taking new bike. Similarly, he admits that this fact was also not mentioned in his written report Ex. P-l and in para 16, 18 also there are material omissions regarding the statement when her daughter was ill-treated and about the threat given by the in-laws'. 7. Munnibai (PW 4) is the mother of the deceased. In her examination-in-chief, she corroborated the version as given by her husband Chunnilal (PW 2) but in the cross-examination there are material omissions and contradictions in her testimony. 7. Munnibai (PW 4) is the mother of the deceased. In her examination-in-chief, she corroborated the version as given by her husband Chunnilal (PW 2) but in the cross-examination there are material omissions and contradictions in her testimony. The relevant facts which were omitted in the police diary statement Ex. D-4, Ex. D-5, are that it is not mentioned that after the marriage the Bike was returned by the appellant No.2. This fact was also omitted that Rs. 20,000/- were demanded and paid to them in her statements Ex. D-4 and Ex. D-5. 8. Pappu (PW 6) examined on the point that when he went to bring Urmila alongwith Omprakash but the in-laws of the deceased Urmila refused her to send with them and they returned. At that time, Urmila informed him that she was tortured by them. In para 5, there is an omission in his police diary statements Ex. D-6 and Ex. D-7 that Urmila told about the demand of dowry and they will leave her (~ ~). 9. Shrivastava (PW2) is the SDO (P). He deposed that on 28.10.1999 he prepared the Panchnama of the body of the deceased which is Ex. P-6 and before making Panchnama, notices were given to the witnesses through Ex. P-7. As the matter belonged to the Police Station, Shadora, it was forwarded to the concerning police station. In para 2 of his cross-examination he admits that Chunnilal (PW 2) was also present at the time of making Panchnama (Ex. P-6) but he cannot remember that he disclosed that she was died due to poison given by her in-laws. 10. O.R. Kalawat (PW 7) proved the FIR. V.S. Tomar is the SDO (P), Ashoknagar (PW 8) proved that he received written report Ex. P-1 A and also recorded the statements of the witnesses and also proved the contradictions and omissions of the witnesses. The evidence of Anil Tripathi (PW 6), IO, was also recorded by the prosecution. He also proved certain documents and the statements of the witnesses recorded by him. 11. The defence of the appellants is that they have falsely been implicated by the parents of the deceased and from the side of the defence five witnesses were examined. Dr. H.H.N. Garg (DW 1) deposed that he was on duty and posted at Primary Health Center,-Shadora. 11. The defence of the appellants is that they have falsely been implicated by the parents of the deceased and from the side of the defence five witnesses were examined. Dr. H.H.N. Garg (DW 1) deposed that he was on duty and posted at Primary Health Center,-Shadora. The deceased was brought to the hospital and she informed that she had taken Sulphas tablets and then she was referred to the Guna hospital. Her condition was not satisfactory but she was mentally fit and she was talking. When he enquired, she disclosed that she consumed Sulphas tablets due to mistake of medicine. She was also enquired whether there was any quarrel took place with anybody but her response was negative. Then he sent intimation to the police station vide Ex. P-14. In cross-examination, he deposed that when she was brought in the hospital, her father-in-law and mother-in-law were also present. She was being brought in the bullock-cart. In para 4, he deposed that when he talked with Urmila, her in-laws were also present there. 12. Raghunath (DW 2) deposed that his house is adjacent to the appellants' house. When he knew that the daughter-in-law of the appellant No. 1 consumed something, then he asked his son to take her in a Thela to the hospital. He deposed that deceased never told about anything regarding demand of dowry or ill-treatment made to her. Similar statement was given by Suresh Kumar (DW 3). 13. Kok Singh (DW 4) and Devendra (DW 5) were also examined on the point that the appellant No. 1 was on duty in his school on 24th to 26th October, 1999. According to Koksingh (DW 4), appellant No. 1 was the headmaster in the school and he was engaged in pulse polio and appellant No. 1 was also present alongwith him. Devendra (DW 5) proved Ex. D-9, the attendance register of 27th October, 1999 in which appellant No. 1 was present in the school. In the cross-examination, he admits that he was posted in the institutions from 6.11.1999 and when he joined the appellant No. 1 was on leave. 14. Now, the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that from the testimonies of the father and mother of the deceased, some material contradictions have appeared in their testimonies regarding the demand of dowry and they gave Rs. 20,000/- for purchasing the new Bike. 14. Now, the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that from the testimonies of the father and mother of the deceased, some material contradictions have appeared in their testimonies regarding the demand of dowry and they gave Rs. 20,000/- for purchasing the new Bike. The story is doubtful. Further the father of the deceased Chunnilal (PW 2) was present at the time of Panchnama of body (Ex. P-6) but he did not disclose anything about the demand of dowry. Further it has come in the evidence that she was not keeping well and was mentally disturbed, therefore, she consumed Sulphas tablets for that it cannot be said that there is any abetment on the part of the appellants to commit suicide. Further the evidence is also not sufficient to hold the appellants guilty under section 304-B of IPC for dowry death. He referred the testimony of Dr. H.H.N. Garg who was the doctor at Primary Health Center and on his interrogation the deceased had disclosed him that she consumed Sulphas tablets and they were taken due to mistake of medicine. There is no evidence on record that soon before her death she was ill-treated or tortured by the appellants. 15. Counsel for the appellants relied on the Rajesh Tandon v. State of Punjab reported in [1995 SCC (Cri) 817] in which it is laid down that in the absence of the necessary ingredients under section 304B the presumption of dowry death as envisaged in section 113-B of the Evidence Act was not attracted, therefore, the apex Court acquitted -the appellant against the charge under section 304B of IPC. He also relied on Bhagwandas v. State of M.P. reported in [ 1998 (2) JLJ 259 ]. This is a case under section 302 of IPC in which the Court observed that wife dying of bum injuries-accused husband tried his best to save her life, brought to hospital-prior and after conduct not showing guilty mind-accused cannot be convicted on the basis of unreliable dying declarations. Regarding sections 306 and 107 of IPC, counsel for the appellants relied on Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in [2001 (2) BLJ 113 = 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088]. As there is no conviction under section 306 of IPC, hence, it is not necessary to go in detail regarding above citation. 16. Regarding sections 306 and 107 of IPC, counsel for the appellants relied on Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in [2001 (2) BLJ 113 = 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088]. As there is no conviction under section 306 of IPC, hence, it is not necessary to go in detail regarding above citation. 16. Counsel for the State submits that as per prosecution- story there was demand of dowry made by the in-laws of the deceased and Rs. 20,000/ - was given to them for purchasing new Bike and subsequently Rs. 50,000/ - was also demanded by the appellants, therefore, the demand was made and the deceased died within seven years of her marriage, hence, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants under section 304B of IPC. 17. After having heard both the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt because the testimonies of the material witnesses i.e. Chunnilal (PW 2) and Munnibai (PW 4) are not trustworthy due to contradictions and omissions on material particulars as discussed above. Further the doctor who treated the deceased at the Primary Health Center was examined by the defence as Dr. H.H.N. Garg (DW 1) and on his inquiry, the deceased told that she had consumed Sulphas tablets due to mistake of medicine and did not blame anybody regarding the demand of dowry or false instigation for consuming the Sulphas tablets. In para 5, doctor deposed that he intimated police by Ex. P-14 but the talk which took place between him and the deceased was not written in Ex. P-14 but it does not make any difference because the testimony could not be challenged by the prosecution during the cross-examination. Further in this case, at the time of Panchnama of the body (Ex. P-6) the father of the deceased was also present. In Ex. P-6 only this fact was mentioned that she died due to consumption of poisonous substance. Further the written report was filed on 24.11.1999 which is Ex. P-l while the death of the deceased caused on 27.10.1999. The police statement was also recorded on 5.12.1999 and subsequently on 27.2.2000. 18. P-6) the father of the deceased was also present. In Ex. P-6 only this fact was mentioned that she died due to consumption of poisonous substance. Further the written report was filed on 24.11.1999 which is Ex. P-l while the death of the deceased caused on 27.10.1999. The police statement was also recorded on 5.12.1999 and subsequently on 27.2.2000. 18. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the entire record, it appears that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, hence, the conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court under section 304-B of IPC is hereby set aside. If the amount of fine is realized, it be refunded to the appellants. The bail bonds of the appellants shall stand discharged. The appeal is allowed accordingly.