JUDGMENT Mehtab S.Gill, J.:- This is an appeal against the judgment/order dated 1.6.2001/2.6.2001 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar whereby he convicted appellant Sanjiv Bhasin son of Rishon Lal, Roshan Lal son of Gurdas Mal and Smt. Santosh wife of Roshan Lal under Sections 302/34, 498-A, 406 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo various terms of rigorous imprisonment. 2. Appellant Santosh wife of Roshan Lal died on 10.12.2002 as per the statement of the learned counsel for the appellants. Appeal qua Santosh has thus abated. 3. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement of Ram Sarup Ex.PA/3 given to ASI Faquir Chand on 10.9.1997 at 12.15 p.m. at Guriya Hotel, Bahadurgarh. Ram Sarup stated, that he is a practising Advocate in the Jhajjar Courts. He solernnised the marriage of his daughter Sapna with Sanjiv Bhasin son of Roshan Lal according to Hindu rites. Dowry beyond his capacity was given. Two sets weighing about 25 tolas and 8 bangles were given. Valuable clothes and a sofa set was also given. On the next day of marriage i.e. on 8.11.1995 Santosh Bhasin stated, that no set has been given to her. Sanjiv told her that he was expecting a car in dowry, but even a scooter has not been given. Roshan Lal father-in-law of the deceased taunted her that no ring has been given to him. Sapna narrated these demands to her father Ram Sarup and her mother and brother. After about 20 days of the marriage, Sanjiv along with Santosh and Roshan Lal came to take Sapna. Ram Sarup told them that he had given dowry according to his means. In lieu of a scooter, a fridge and Rs.50,000/- were handed over to them, but inspite of this, they kept taunting his daughter. On persistent demand, Ram Sarup gave Chetak Bajaj scooter to his son-in-law Sanjiv in the month of January, 1996. The demands of the accused still did not stop. About 10 days before the occurrence, Sapna told Ram Sarup on telephone that she was being harassed for demand of dowry. Ram Sarup along with his wife went to see his daughter at Bahadurgarh on 31.8.1997. Sanjiv demanded Rs.50,000/- more and promised, that if this amount is given, he would not harass Sapna. Roshan Lal and his wife also stated, that if this amount is given, they would not harass theis daughter. Ram Sarup along with his wife went to see his daughter at Bahadurgarh on 31.8.1997. Sanjiv demanded Rs.50,000/- more and promised, that if this amount is given, he would not harass Sapna. Roshan Lal and his wife also stated, that if this amount is given, they would not harass theis daughter. Santosh mother-in-law of Sapna told them that on 5.9.1997 there was a marriage of her Bhanja (sister’s son). A big set of gold should be sent to her which she wanted to wear. Ram Sarup went back and sent a gold set through his son, which he had in his locker. On 5.9.1997 Sapna rang them up again and told them crying, that she was still being harassed by the accused. A demand of Rs.50,000/- was being made by them. On 10.9.1997 at 9 O’clock Ram Sarup’s relative Roshan told him on telephone from Bahadurgarh, that his daughter Sapna had slept well in the night, but did not wake up and was unconscious. Ram Sarup and his wife went to Bahadurgarh. They found injuries on the throat and the legs of their daughter. Ram Sarup asked the accused as to what they had done to his daughter. Sanjiv after touching the feet of Ram Sarup said, that Sapna was rude to him, so he pressed her throat and his parents caught her arms and legs. Santosh then begged pardon from Ram Sarup’s wife and said, sister, all was done in a fit of anger and they should forgive them. Roshan Lal stated that all the three of them in a fit of anger had committed the murder of their daughter by mistake, they should be pardoned. Ram Sarup told them that they had murdered his daughter of demand for dowry. In the meanwhile, Ranbir Kumar Majithia, Advocate, resident of Bahadurgarh came there and told them, that at about 11 p.m. he was passing and he heard the cries of a woman from inside the house. He also heard the pleas to save the person who was being beaten. Ranbir Kumar Majithia knocked at the door and an old woman came. He asked her as to whom they were beating. The old lady stated, that it was their family issue and he should go away. On the basis of this statement F.I.R. Ex.PA/2 was recorded on 10.9.1997 at 12.30 p.m. 4. Ranbir Kumar Majithia knocked at the door and an old woman came. He asked her as to whom they were beating. The old lady stated, that it was their family issue and he should go away. On the basis of this statement F.I.R. Ex.PA/2 was recorded on 10.9.1997 at 12.30 p.m. 4. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box Chand Singh PW-1, Constable Sukhpal Singh PW-2, MHC Braham Sarup PW-3, Constable Rameshwar Dass PW-4, Dr. Murari Lal PW-5, Virender Mohan PW-6, Constable Baljeet PW-7, Constable Bijender PW-8, Ram Sarup PW-9, Harsh; Jaidka PW-10, Ranbir Kumar Majithia PW-11, Hari Chand PW-12, Bharat Bhushan PW-13, SI Faquir Chand PW-14 and Raghbir Singh PW-15. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated, that the post-mortem report prepared by Dr. Murari Lal PW-5 is full of infirmities. He did not detect any phosphorus pesticide. He stated in his testimony that this was the second post­mortem being conducted by him. He had no experience. Dr. Murari Lal PW-5 further stated that the blood and sliva was detected on the clothes of the deceased. This clearly pointed towards hanging and not strangulation. When death is by hanging, these type of cases are not homicidal, but suicidal. The statement of Dr.Murari Lal PW-5, should be read along with the statement of Dr. Chander Kant DW-5, who in his testimony has stated, that he has performed more than 18,000 post-mortem examinations. He works in Safadarjang Hospital, New Delhi. In the year 1983 he was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to appear as an Intervener before a Constitutional Bench, considering the execution of death penalties by hanging and his written submissions were appreciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This has been reported in 1983 All India Reporter S.C. 1154. He stated that he has seen the photostat copy of the post-mortem report of deceased Sapna. He has also seen the carbon copy Ex.PE. He has also seen the F.S.L. Report Ex.PW and Ex.PW/1. There was no fracture of thyroid cartilage hyoid bone, cricoid cartilage and laceration and hemorrhage of neck tissues corresponding with the ligature mark injury externally. As per him, after studying the relevant documents, he observed the cause of death in this case was of typical hanging and not by strangulation. 6. There was no fracture of thyroid cartilage hyoid bone, cricoid cartilage and laceration and hemorrhage of neck tissues corresponding with the ligature mark injury externally. As per him, after studying the relevant documents, he observed the cause of death in this case was of typical hanging and not by strangulation. 6. Learned counsel has further argued that taking the medical evidence into consideration and the suicide note Ex.D.13, it is a case of suicide. Sapna being fed up with the ways of life of her husband, committed suicide. Further, she got frustrated as she was not in a position to bear a child. 7. The statement of the witnesses Ram Sarup PW-9, Harsh Jaidka PW-10 and Ranbir Kumar PW-11 are not trustworthy. All the three are Advocates. Ram Sarup PW-9 father of the deceased retired as a District Attorney and practised at Jhajjar on the criminal side. In the F.I.R. Ex.PA/2 he has very cleverly brought in the ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C. making it a dowry death. Not only that, but there is an extra judicial confession made by the appellants to him. He has also introduced Ranbir Kumar PW-11 in F.I.R.Ex.PA/2. Dowry was never an issue, but has been made so by the statement of Ram Sarup PW-9. The trustworthiness of this witness is demolished, when he stated that he did not know where his daughter was employed. Further, he refused to acknowledge, but denied the letters and other writings of his deceased daughter. The demand of dowry as per him started on the next day i.e. 8.11.1995 immediately after the marriage. 8. The Chetak Bajaj scooter was in fact bought by Harsh Jaidka PW-10 for himself, but was shown as having been bought for appellant Sanjiv Bhasin. Since Sanjiv Bhasin was residing in Delhi, thus the scooter had to be bought in his name. When the accident of scooter took place, it was Harsh Jaidka PW-10 who submitted the insurance papers which he has confessed in his statement. Not only Ram Sarup PW-9 disowned the handwriting of his daughter, but also of his wife and son. 9. Learned counsel for the State along with Shri Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate has argued that the case of death of Sapna is homicidal and not suicidal. The post-mortem report Ex.PE and the F.S.L. Report Exs.PW and PW/1 clearly point towards a homicidal death. 9. Learned counsel for the State along with Shri Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate has argued that the case of death of Sapna is homicidal and not suicidal. The post-mortem report Ex.PE and the F.S.L. Report Exs.PW and PW/1 clearly point towards a homicidal death. There are injuries on the person of the deceased and death is due to consumption of Organophosphorus pesticide and strangulation. There is a ligature mark on the neck which is well defined. The victim was strangulated. There is post-mortem staining on the back of the deceased. It has not been stated by the appellants in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they brought the body down after they saw that Sapna had hung herself. Post-mortem stains show that Sapna was lying on a bed on her back for hours and that is the reason that post-mortem staining was detected. The testimony of Dr. Chander Kant DW-5 does not inspire confidence. Similarly, the statement of the so called expert witness Dr. Ashok Kashyap DW-2 also does not inspire confidence. He claims to be a Handwriting Expert but his qualifications are suspect. 10. The suicide note Ex.D.13 on which the defence is relying heavily, saw the light of day on 2.2.1999 when Ram Sarup PW-9 came into the witness­box, when he was confronted with the suicide note. The occurrence had taken place on 10.9.1997. Appellants were arrested on 11.11.1997 and produced in Court on 12.11.1997. If this document was in possession of the appellants, they could have handed it over to the Investigating Officer or when they were produced in Court. They could have shown it to the Court. Nowhere in the statements of SI Raghbir Singh PW-15 or Faquir Chand PW-14 it comes out, that the suicide note Ex.D.13 was ever shown to the Investigating Officer. 11. The conduct of the appellants was all along very suspicious. The occurrence had taken place on 9/10.9.1997. The police came on the next day and if it had been a case of suicide, appellants would not have touched the body, but would have left it hanging, so that the Investigating Officer could make up his mind as to the theory of Sapna having committed suicide. The occurrence had taken place on 9/10.9.1997. The police came on the next day and if it had been a case of suicide, appellants would not have touched the body, but would have left it hanging, so that the Investigating Officer could make up his mind as to the theory of Sapna having committed suicide. It is on the next day, that information was given to Ram Sarup PW -9 and it is then, when he came and saw that the body of Sapna was lying on a double bed. Appellants made an extra judidal confession before both Ram Sarup PW-9 and Harsh Jaidka PW-10. The name of Ranbir Kumar Majithia PW-11 is also mentioned in the F.I.R. Ex.PA/2. All the details are given in the F.I.R. Hari Chand PW-12 before whom another extra-judicial confession was made, has corroborated the statements of both Ram Sarup PW-9 and Harsh Jaidka PW-10. It is a case of dowry death where Rs.50,000/- was demanded and in 10 January 1996 a Chetak scooter was bought in the name of appellant Sanjiv Bhasin and handed over to him. A gold set was also given to Santosh (since dead). The statements of Ram Sarup PW-9, Harsh Jaidka PW-10, Ranbir Kumar Majithia PW-11 and Hari Chand PW-12 corroborate each other inter-se and also get corroboration from the medical evidence. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 13. The occurrence in this case had taken place on 9/10.9.1997 in the matrimonial home of appellant Sanjiv Bhasin husband of Sapna deceased. Sanjiv Bhasin and Sapna were married on 7.11.1995 and the death of Sapna took place on 9.9.1997. On the statement Ex.PA of Ram Sarup PW-9 father of Sapna, F.I.R. Ex.PA/2 was recorded. Ram Sarup (PW -9) in his testimony before the Court has stated that his daughter was married on 7.11.1995 and on the very next day i.e. on 8.11.1995 appellant Sanjiv Bhasin demanded a scooter. Santosh (since dead) demanded a gold set and appellant Roshan Lal told Sapna that he was not given even a gold ring. In January, 1996, he bought a Bajaj Chetak scooter in the name of appellant Sanjiv Bhasin, which was given to him. Inspite of this, appellants kept harassing Sapna. Santosh (since dead) demanded a gold set and appellant Roshan Lal told Sapna that he was not given even a gold ring. In January, 1996, he bought a Bajaj Chetak scooter in the name of appellant Sanjiv Bhasin, which was given to him. Inspite of this, appellants kept harassing Sapna. On 10.9.1997 at 9 a.m. appellant Roshan Lal told him on telephone that Sapna had gone to sleep the previous night, but on the next day she did not wake up and was found unconscious. He along with his wife went to Bahadurgarh and found Sapna lying on a bed. He noticed injury marks around her neck as well as on her legs. Further he recorded that appellant Sanjiv Bhasin touched his feet and stated that Sapna had got into an argument with him and he had strangulated her while his father Roshan Lal and mother Santosh caught hold of her legs and arms. He had committed a mistake. Appellant Roshan Lal stated that all the three of them had killed Sapna and should be pardoned. At that time, Ranbir Kumar Majithia also arrived there and told them that on the previous night at about 11p.m. when he was passing from the house of the accused, he heard a lady weeping and crying, “Bachao, bachao”. On hearing the noise, he knocked at the door. A lady opened the door and on his enquiring, she told him that it was their family affair and he should leave. 14. Similarly, Harsh Jaidka PW-10 who is a pratising Advocate and is the brother of Sapna deceased and son of Ram Sarup PW-9, has also stated on the same lines. He added that Sapna had also told him about the demand of Rs.50,000/-, a gold set and a scooter. 15. Taking the statements of both Ram Sarup PW-9 and Harsh Jaidka PW-10 both practising Advocates being the father and son respectively of the deceased, we are of the considered opinion that they do not inspire confidence. Ram Sarup, Advocate PW -9 has stated about the extra-judicial confession made by the appellants. If the appellants had made an extra-judicial confession regarding the putting to death of Sapna by them, they would have also mentioned about the Organophosphorus pesticide, which as per the F.S.L. Report Exs.PW, PW /1 was found in the viscera of the deceased. Ram Sarup, Advocate PW -9 has stated about the extra-judicial confession made by the appellants. If the appellants had made an extra-judicial confession regarding the putting to death of Sapna by them, they would have also mentioned about the Organophosphorus pesticide, which as per the F.S.L. Report Exs.PW, PW /1 was found in the viscera of the deceased. Appellants would have also confessed that they had given this pesticide to Sapna. Nothing of this sort has been said so in the so-called extra-judicial confession made to Ram Sarup PW-9. At that moment of time Ram Sarup PW -9 did not know that the death of Sapna was on two counts, one by the administering of pesticide and the second by strangulation. Strangely, Ram Sarup PW-9 stated that he does not know whether appellant Roshan Lal was residing in a official residence in Sunder Nagar, He also did not know whether Santosh had retired on 31.1.1997. He did not know whether Sapna liked to write poetry and that her poems had been published in the name of Sapna Jaidka in National papers, nor did he know that her poems had been published in Magazine/newspapers mark D2 and D3. He did not know whether the writings on mark D4, D5 and D6 were in the hands of Sapna. He could not say whether letters mark D7 and D8 were in the hands of Sapna or not. Further. he did not know whether the greeting cards mark D9, D10, D11 and D12 were in the handwriting of Sapna or not. Further, he denied that writings mark D15, D16 and D17 are in the handwriting of Sapna. Further, he was not definite whether writings mark D18 and D19 were written by his wife or not. He has stated that his son Harsh Jaidka PW -10 started- practising at Delhi in 1996 and further denied that Chetak scooter was purchased to Harsh Jaidka in the name of appellant Sanjiv Bhasin. He further stated that he cannot identify his handwriting on mark D15. He further denied that he cannot identify the handwriting of his son Harsh Jaidka on mark D20, which is a copy of the insurance claim application regarding the scooter. He further stated that he cannot identify his handwriting on mark D15. He further denied that he cannot identify the handwriting of his son Harsh Jaidka on mark D20, which is a copy of the insurance claim application regarding the scooter. He denied that purchase of Chetak scooter had to be done from Delhi as a local address had to be given and that was of appellant Sanjiv Bhasin, so that it could be registered in Delhi. He further stated that since January, 1996 till Sapna’s death, he did not pay any cash amount and did not deliver any article to the accused except customary gifts on festival occasions. He further stated, that it is correct that the photograph Ex.DB of Sapna and Sanjiv showed Sapna wearing the same very gold set which appellant Santosh had demanded that she wanted to wear. 16. It is clear from his statement and he has denied the document mark D20 which is an insurance claim application and is filled in by his son Harsh Jaidka PW-10 and the photograph Ex.DB of Sapna showing Sapna wearing the same gold set which was demanded by Santosh. In fact, both the Chetak scooter and the gold set were in possession of Harsh Jaidka PW-10 and Sapna respectively. The alleged demand of Rs.50,000/- was only there, but this amount was never given. 17. Ranbir Kumar Majithia, Advocate PW -11 who was known to Ram Sarup Advocate (PW-9) father of the deceased since 1978, did not make any effort to save Sapna even though knowing that Sapna was martied in the house where he stated that he went at 11 p.m. on 9.9.1997. He stated that he saw through the window glass that a young man and an old person were beating a young lady. He identified the young man to be Sanjiv Bhasin and the old man to be Roshan Lal. It was next morning at 9/9.30 a.m. that he heard about the death of Sapna. At 10.30 a.m. he went to the house of the appellants and there he met Ram Sarup PW-9. He told them about the incident. Strangely, this witness though knowing Ram Sarup PW-9 for a long time and who was living about 2/2-1/2 kms. It was next morning at 9/9.30 a.m. that he heard about the death of Sapna. At 10.30 a.m. he went to the house of the appellants and there he met Ram Sarup PW-9. He told them about the incident. Strangely, this witness though knowing Ram Sarup PW-9 for a long time and who was living about 2/2-1/2 kms. away from the house of the appellants, did not make any effort to save the life of Sapna, nor to inform Ram Sarup PW -9 about the plight of his daughter especially on the night intervening 9/10.9.1997. He himself has stated that he knew Ram Sarup, PW-9 since 1978-79. He attended the marriage of Sapna as he was invited by Ram Sarup PW-9. He confessed that he did not take the help of any neighbour to rescue the life of Sapna. He did not narrate the incident to anyone. He did not inform the police, though the Police Post was only at a distance of one furlong from the house of the appellants. The testimony of Ranbir Kumar Majithia, Advocate PW -11 also does not inspire confidence. 18. Now coming to the statement of Harsh Jaidka PW-I0, he has repeated what his father has stated. He has added that he took the gold set which was demanded allegedly by Smt.Santosh. This set was allegedly demanded in dowry. It was in fact, used by Sapna. He has denied that he can identify the handwriting of Sapna. He could not say whether the writings mark D4, D5 and D13 are in the hands of Sapna. He could not identify the handwriting of his mother. He could not say whether mark D18 and D19 are in the hands of his mother. He confessed that the Chetak scooter which was bought in 1996, met with an accident, while he was driving. He had filed a claim with the Insurance Company. From his statement it is clear that the alleged demand of scooter by appellant Sanjiv Bhasin was not there, but the scooter was bought by Harsh Jaidka PW-10 in the name of his brother-in-law appellant Sanjiv Bhasin, as the local address of Delhi had to be given. Since Harsh Jaidka PW-10 was not staying in Delhi, he gave the address of his brother-in-law Sanjiv Bhasin. There was no need for Harsh Jaidka PW-10 to file an insurance claim, if Sanjiv Bhasin was the actual owner. Since Harsh Jaidka PW-10 was not staying in Delhi, he gave the address of his brother-in-law Sanjiv Bhasin. There was no need for Harsh Jaidka PW-10 to file an insurance claim, if Sanjiv Bhasin was the actual owner. He has admitted that he recognised his photographs Exs.DD, DE and DF and it is Sapna who is wearing the gold set which was allegedly demanded by Smt. Santosh. 19. The statements of these witnesses Ram Sarup PW-9, Harsh Jaidka PW-10 and Ranbir Kumar Majithia PW-11 do not inspire confidence. They have tried to make out a case of homicide, which they have miserably failed to do so. 20. The medical evidence as brought out by Dr. Murari Lal PW -5 shows that there was a ligature mark around the entire neck above the thyroid cartilage. There were 4 injuries on the left thigh and right leg of the deceased, all being contusions. There were not the injuries given by the appellants, but they were due to blood which had clotted as a result of hanging, thereby causing ecymoses. Dr.Murari Lal PW-5 has clarified further, that contusions and ecymoses are the same things. In cases of hanging, there may be congestion and cumulation of blood which is different from contusions, which may happen on the thighs, back and neck areas. It can happen on the legs also. Similarly, Dr. Chander Kant DW-5 has stated that he has performed 18,000 post-mortem examinations and his work was also appreciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in 1983 All India Reporter (S.C) 1154. He has examined the post-mortem report Ex.PE. of Sapna and the F.S.L. Report Exs. PW and PW/1 relating to the chemical analysis of the viscera. The cause of death according to him in this case was a case of typical hanging, and not strangulation. Dr.Murari Lal PW-5 has stated that prior to conducting this post­mortem on the body of Sapna, he had conducted only one case earlier. It comes out from the statements of both these witnesses that Sapna died due to hanging. As per Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 22nd Edition at page 270, the characteristics of hanging is that there will be saliva dribbing out of the mouth. There is no such dribbing of sliva in cases of strangulation. It comes out from the statements of both these witnesses that Sapna died due to hanging. As per Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 22nd Edition at page 270, the characteristics of hanging is that there will be saliva dribbing out of the mouth. There is no such dribbing of sliva in cases of strangulation. Similarly, in the Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology written by Dr.K.S.Narayan Reddy in the Ist Edition (pages 389,381,382), it has been stated, that in case of hanging sliva of often runs out of the mouth and in case of strangulation saliva is absent In Taylor’s Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence written by A. Keith Mant (pages 313 to 317), it has been stated that post-mortem lividity is most marked in the dependent parts and ecchymoses may be seen in the skin of the lower arms and legs. Similarly, in Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 7th Edition as pointed out by Dr. P.C. Dikshit at page-361, in case of hanging saliva runs out of the mouth and in case of strangulation saliva is absent. In the case in hand, as per the report of the F.S.L. Madhuban, Haryana, Exs. PW and PW/1, blood as well as saliva was detected on Ex.2A (nighty). Similarly, as per Ex.PW, the result was that an Organophosphorus pesticide was detected in Exs.1-A and 1 - B i.e. the stomach, small and large gut, lever, spleen and kidney. Dr.Murari Lal PW -5 has opined that the death was due to Organophosphorus poison and strangulation. The injuries on the legs as per Dr.Murari Lal PW -5 and taking the authorities into consideration, were due to ecchymoses which occurred in the case of hanging. This was due to the congestion and accumulation of blood in the leg region. 21. As discussed above and the statement of witnesses Ram Sarup PW­ 9, Harsh Jaidka PW-IO and Ranbir Kumar Majithia PW-12 that inspite of documents being put before them, have denied whether it was the handwriting of their daughter or their own handwriting. Ram Sarup PW-9 has gone to the extent of denying the handwriting of his daughter on form mark X which was submitted by her to the Government authorities, where her photograph has been pasted and the form has been filled in her hand. She has signed on the form. Ram Sarup PW-9 has gone to the extent of denying the handwriting of his daughter on form mark X which was submitted by her to the Government authorities, where her photograph has been pasted and the form has been filled in her hand. She has signed on the form. Though we are not inclined to rely heavily on the statement of Ashok Kashyap DW-2, the Handwriting and Finger Print Expert, but still we cannot ignore his statement as he has compared the signatures of deceased Sapna with the document especially mark Ex.D13 the suicide note. He has come to a conclusion that the signatures of Sapna on the document mark X and D13 and other documents submitted by the defence are similar. Mark D13 is a suicide note written by Sapna in her own hand. The writing is legible and written in good English. She has in her note written about her difficult life and the plight she has been put to by appellant Sanjiv Bhasin who has made her unhappy. She has stated that she is very lonely and nothing is left for her in life than to commit suicide. The parents have made her weak otherwise she would have left the company of appellant No.1 Sanjiv Bhasin. She is tired and she has no other alternative apart from finishing her life. She has got treatment like an animal from appellant Sanjiv Bhasin. Deceased Sapna as per the suicide note mark D13 was under great stress. It was not only that she was not being looked after by her husband Sanjiv Bhasin appellant, but the non-compatibility of a young, highly educated, sensitive girl, was a total dismatch for her husband appellant Sanjiv Bhasin, who was not educated and did not understand her. Going through the documents placed on record by the defence, she seemed to be fond of poetry. Coupled with appellant Sanjiv Bhasin in not looking after her and the statements of Dr. Ravi Kapoor DW-4 and Dr. Shalini Aggarwal DW-3, who have stated that the right fallopial tube of Sapna deceased was not in medical order and as per Dr.Shalini Aggarwal DW-3, Sapna had been diagnosed as a case of primary infertility. The documents D14, DI5, D16, D17, DI8/1, DI9, D20 show that Sapna was not in a position to bear a child. Shalini Aggarwal DW-3, who have stated that the right fallopial tube of Sapna deceased was not in medical order and as per Dr.Shalini Aggarwal DW-3, Sapna had been diagnosed as a case of primary infertility. The documents D14, DI5, D16, D17, DI8/1, DI9, D20 show that Sapna was not in a position to bear a child. Deceased Sapna not being able to bear a child, would not have taken her into such a depression if she had been taken care of in a more human way by appellant Sanjiv Bhasin her husband. In the suicide note mark D13, nowhere has, it been mentioned that the cause of her committing suicide was appellant Roshan Lal. The blame has been squarely put on appellant Sanjiv Bhasin, the husband of Sapna deceased. Benefit of doubt is given to appellant Roshan Lal son of Gurdas Mal. He is acquitted of the charges framed against him. As per the discussion and observations made above, the case does not fall within the ambit of Section 302 I.P.C. Appellant Sanjiv Bhasin is convicted under Section 306 I.P.C. for the abetment of suicide of Sapna. He is sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years. Further, he is directed to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac to be paid to the father of deceased Sapna. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo Rl for 2 years. Appeal qua Roshan Lal allowed. Appeal qua Sanjiv Bhasin is dismissed, except for above modification in conviction and reduction in sentence. ————————————