Judgment J.C. Upadhyaya, J.—All the three Criminal Appeals and the Criminal Revision Application arise out of a judgment and order rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anand [hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Judge’] dated 8.02.2000 in Sessions Case 268 of 1998. The learned trial Judge recorded the conviction of original accused No. 1 - Nileshkumar Parshotambhai for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act [hereinafter referred to as ‘the DP Act’]. He came to be acquitted so far as the charge of commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is concerned. The original accused No. 1 was awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment [RI] for 7 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, RI for 6 months for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC and RI for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, RI for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the DP Act. Substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. 1.1. The original accused No. 2 - Kanchanben Parshotambhai came to be convicted for offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. She was acquitted from the charge of commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. The learned trial Judge awarded sentence of RI for 8 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, RI for one year for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC and simple imprisonment [SI] for 5 years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, RI for one year for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the DP Act and SI for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, RI for one month for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the DP Act. Substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. 1.2. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, RI for one month for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the DP Act. Substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. 1.2. The original accused No. 3 - Parshotambhai Govindbhai came to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A read with Section 114 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. 2. The original accused No. 1 - Nilesh Parshotambhai and original accused No. 2 Kanchanben Parshotambhai challenged their conviction by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2000. At the time of admitting this appeal, the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 14.02.2000, in exercise of powers under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [CrPC] ordered to issue notices to the appellants accused Nos. 1 and 2 as to why the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge for offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC be not set aside and it was further directed that this may be treated as Revision Application, which came to be registered as Criminal Revision Application No. 175 of 2001. 2.1. The State of Gujarat preferred Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2000 against the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 [respondents therein] under Section 377 of the CrPC for enhancement of sentence. The State of Gujarat also preferred Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 2000 under Section 378 of the CrPC challenging the acquittal of original accused No. 3 - Parshotambhai Govindbhai. 3. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is as under :— 3.1. Marriage of deceased Hinaben was solemnized with original accused No. 1 - Nileshkumar on 04.12.1997. The accused No. 2 - Kanchanben and accused No. 3 Parshotambhai are parents of accused No. 1 - Nilesh and mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively of deceased Hinaben. All the 3 accused resided at Vidhyanagar and after the marriage Hinaben came to reside with the accused persons at Vidhyanagar. It is the case of the prosecution that during the short span of marriage, the accused used to demand dowry and Hinaben was meted out with physical and mental cruelty. Whenever Hinaben used to come to her parents’ house, she used to tell her mother Chandrikaben about the demand of dowry and the cruelty and ill-treatment caused to her by the accused. Whenever Hinaben used to come to her parents’ house, she used to tell her mother Chandrikaben about the demand of dowry and the cruelty and ill-treatment caused to her by the accused. It is further the case of the prosecution that Hina’s mother-in-law Kanchanben used to demand furniture, box type cot and cash and gift articles which were received by the parents of Hina at the time of her marriage. It is further the case of the prosecution that it was the accused No. 2 - Kanchanben who instigated accused No. 1- Nilesh and Nilesh ill-treated his wife Hinaben. It is the case of the prosecution that on the occasion of festival of Bhim Agiyaras when Hina was to come to her parents’ house, a specific demand of juicer mixer was made and when Hina returned to her matrimonial home from her parents’ house, she brought juicer mixer. 3.2. It is further the prosecution case that on 05.07.1998 at about 8.30 a m in the morning, Hina informed her mother on telephone that she was being treated cruelly and she was tired of ill-treatment and that she was going to put end to her life. It is further alleged that thereafter, in the morning, the accused No. 3 Parshotambhai, father-in-law of Hina informed on telephone to the parents of Hina that Hina had consumed poison and she would be removed to Karamsad Hospital. Therefore, both the parents of Hina went to Karamsad Hospital from Surat and reached at Karamsad Hospital at about 2.50 p m and she was unconscious and taking her last breath and soon thereafter doctor declared her dead. 3.3. Chandrikabe Dhirubhai, mother of Hina lodged the First Information Report in Vidhyanagar Police Station and the offence was registered. Police investigation was commenced. Statements of material witnesses were recorded. Necessary panchnamas were prepared in presence of panchas. Dead-body of Hina was sent for post mortem examination. Necessary articles seized by the police were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory [FSL] for analysis and examination. After collecting relevant material for the purpose of filing charge-sheet, the charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anand. As the offence was exclusively Triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Anand which was registered as Sessions Case No. 268 of 1998. 4. As the offence was exclusively Triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Anand which was registered as Sessions Case No. 268 of 1998. 4. The learned trial Judge framed charge against 3 accused persons at Exhibit 11 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 306, 498-A read with Section 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. All the 3 accused persons pleased not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereupon, the prosecution adduced oral and documentary evidence. After the prosecution completed its oral evidence, the learned trial Judge recorded further statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the CrPC. The accused persons denied generally all the allegations levelled against them by the prosecution and filed a detailed written reply, wherein also they denied the allegations regarding demand of dowry and causing ill-treatment, etc., to Hina and causing dowry death of Hina. 4.1. The accused persons expressed their desire to examine defence witnesses and 7 defence witnesses were examined by the accused. 5. After appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution and after considering the evidence adduced by the defence and after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides, the learned trial Judge acquitted the original accused No. 3 - Parshotambhai Govindbhai, the father-in-law of Hina, from all the charges of offences levelled against him, but convicted the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC and under the offence of DP Act and acquitted both the accused from the charge of offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and awarded the sentence as hereinabove referred to in this judgment. Therefore, the convicted accused persons and the State of Gujarat preferred these appeals as described above and suo-moto Criminal Revision Application came to be registered. 6. We have heard the submissions of learned advocate Mr. A.D. Shah for the convicted appellants original accused Nos. 1 and 2 and for respondent original accused No. 3 - Parshotambhai, who came to be acquitted by the trial Court as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. K.J. Shethna appointed by the State on behalf of he State of Gujarat and we have perused the records and proceedings of the trial Court in context with the submissions made on behalf of both the sides. K.J. Shethna appointed by the State on behalf of he State of Gujarat and we have perused the records and proceedings of the trial Court in context with the submissions made on behalf of both the sides. 7. Learned Advocate Mr. A.D. Shah submitted that perusing the entire oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the prosecution miserably failed to prove required ingredients of Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the IPC. That the marriage span of Hinaben with accused Nilesh was very short and approximately of 7 months and during such short span of marriage Hina frequently visited her parents’ house and the prosecution has come forward with unnatural case that soon after the marriage when Hina came to her parents’ house for the first time and since then she complained about cruelty and ill-treatment meted out to her by her husband and in-laws, to her mother Chandrikaben. As a matter of fact, except allegations of general nature, no specific, cogent and convincing evidence is adduced by the prosecution against any of the accused persons to prove the charges levelled against them. Considering the evidence of Hina’s father Dhirubhai, he clearly admitted that on 05.07.1998 when Hina telephoned that she was tired of the ill-treatment and that she was going to put end to her life and only thereafter he came to know through Hina’s mother Chandrikaben that Hina was meted out with cruelty and ill-treatment by her husband and in-laws. It is submitted that thus till Hina died, Chandrikaben did not inform Hina’s father Dhirubhai about such complaints. The cumulative effect would be that the allegations levelled by Chandrikaben in her first information report are got up and concocted just with a view to harass the accused persons. Dhirubhai is father of Hina and there is no evidence worth the name that Hina directly informed Dhirubhai regarding such cruelty. As per the evidence adduced by the prosecution, Chandrikaben did not inform her husband Dhirubhai about the cruelty and ill-treatment caused to Hina till Hina died, but she informed about it to witness Hasmukhbhai Patel, who happened to be distant brother of first informant Chandrikaben and thereupon Hasmukhbhai went to the house of the accused, but he neither met the mother-in-law nor father-in-law of Hina, but he talked with Hina’s husband Nilesh. Considering the evidence of Hasmukhbhai, nowhere he stated as to what did he tell to Nilesh and what was the reply and reaction of Nilesh. 7.1. Prosecution examined Aaratiben Patel, who is daughter of Hina’s mother’s sister and in her evidence she stated that Hina complained about cruelty and ill-treatment caused to her by her in-laws, but this witness Aaratiben thereafter never informed the parents of Hina that Hina was complaining such cruelty and ill-treatment meted out to her by her in-laws. Prosecution examined witness Sonalben Ravjibhai, who happened to reside in Surat in the neighbourhood of Hina’s parents and Sonalben stated that after about 20 days from the date of marriage when Hina had come to her parents’ house, Hina had met her and she was complaining about ill-treatment caused to her by her in-laws and Hina stated that the accused were demanding Rs. 5 lacs. 7.2. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that as per the prosecution case, Hina’s mother Chandrikaben though, was knowing the fact regarding cruelty and ill-treatment caused to Hina, but she never informed her husband Dhirubhai till Hina died. Aartiben and Sonalben were informed by Hina about so called cruelty and ill-treatment, but they did not think it fit to inform in turn to parents of Hina on the lame excuse that Hina had told them not to say anything to her parents. Even there is no consistent evidence regarding so called demand of dowry in form of juicer mixer, box type cot, scooter, etc. Neither in the first information report nor in the evidence of first informant Chandrikaben or Dhirubhai it has specifically come on record that by way of dowry, any cash was demanded, but the stranger like Sonalben in her evidence went to the extent saying that the accused were demanding cash amount to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs from Hina. 7.3. It is the case of the prosecution that during morning hours of 05.07.1998 when Hina was in her in-laws house at Vidhyanagar, she consumed poison named quick-phos which was aluminium phosphide. There is no dispute that at the time when the incident took place, none of the prosecution witnesses including Hina’s parents were present in the house and, therefore, the defence examined witness Harish Parshotambhai, the brother of accused No. 1 - Nilesh and son of accused Nos. There is no dispute that at the time when the incident took place, none of the prosecution witnesses including Hina’s parents were present in the house and, therefore, the defence examined witness Harish Parshotambhai, the brother of accused No. 1 - Nilesh and son of accused Nos. 2 and 3 at Exhibit 84 and about the incident he stated that on 05.07.1998 at about 7.30 a m his father - accused No. 3 had gone to attend his service and he himself and his brother accused Nilesh had left the house at about 7.45 a m to go to their factory. At about 8.30 a m his brother Nilesh received telephone of Hina and Nilesh told him that they will have to go to home immediately and thereafter he himself and Nilesh went to their home. While they were going to their home, on way accused Nilesh told him that Hina had consumed some drug by mistake. When they reached their home, Hina was all alone and Hina handed-over one bottle to Nilesh and told that by mistake she took half a table from this bottle. Hina told them that her mother-in-law, accused No. 2 - Kanchanben had gone to market. Thereafter, he himself and Nilesh took Hina to hospital and Hina was admitted in emergency ward. It is submitted that the defence witness Haresh was cross-examined at length by the prosecution, but nothing emerges to come to the conclusion that what he narrated about the incident took place on 05.07.1998, is a false and concocted story. That even considering the medical evidence on record, it has categorically come on record that the accused No. 1 Nilesh immediately took Hina to hospital and she was got admitted in the hospital and that at that time it was Nilesh who handed-over the bottle to the doctor in the hospital and said that she had consumed half a tablet from that bottle. Thus, the conduct of accused No. 1 - Nilesh, before, at the time and after the incident is required to be considered. If at all Hina had committed suicide, she would not have informed her husband on telephone that by mistake she consumed half a tablet of poison. In that case, accused Nilesh would not have cared to take Hina to hospital for her immediate treatment. If at all Hina had committed suicide, she would not have informed her husband on telephone that by mistake she consumed half a tablet of poison. In that case, accused Nilesh would not have cared to take Hina to hospital for her immediate treatment. Thus, no criminality is reflected from the conduct of accused Nilesh, the husband of Hina. That it has come in the evidence of prosecution that Hina was sick. Hina herself stated that by mistake she consumed half a table of quick-phos. Under such circumstances, the possibility of accidental death of Hina cannot be ruled out and the defence has successfully established by leading positive evidence the accidental consumption of drug by Hina. Under such circumstances, the basic fact of the prosecution case that Hina committed suicide cannot be said to have been proved or established by the prosecution. That it has come in evidence adduced by the defence that on the 1st anniversary of engagement, Hina delivered a greeting card to her husband - accused Nilesh. That there is no substance in the allegation that when Hina had gone to Surat for preparation and appearing in her T.Y. B. Com. Exam. and at that time her mother-in-law accused No. 2 Kanchanben called her back. On the contrary, it has come in the evidence that at that time the grandfather of accused Nilesh and father of accused No. 3 Parshotambhai had expired and immediately the accused were required to go to their native place and Hina was requested to come back to Vidhyanagar. However, during the days of her examination, she was permitted to go to Surat and in fact she appeared in the examination. On every occasion when Hina’s mother was sick at Surat, Hina was allowed to go to Surat. There was no restriction on her movement. There is no case of the prosecution about prior to the marriage or at the time of marriage there was any demand of dowry. About juicer mixer, it is submitted that it has come in evidence of Chandrikaben that by way of custom of Bhim Agiyaras, some gift article is brought by newly wedded wife to her in-laws’ house for her own use. About juicer mixer, it is submitted that it has come in evidence of Chandrikaben that by way of custom of Bhim Agiyaras, some gift article is brought by newly wedded wife to her in-laws’ house for her own use. It is submitted that the financial position of the accused is very sound and it has come in evidence that at the time of the incident, they had 2 cars and 2 scooters for family of 4 persons and they had a bungalow with furniture and even in the panchnama of scene of offence, it has come on record that the house was fully furnished. 7.4. It is submitted that a close relative of father of deceased Hinaben was a man having political influence and even the Investigating Officer investigated the so called crime as per his direction. That as a matter of fact, Hina’s condition was not as serious as the prosecution witnesses deposed. In fact she was able to speak and Police Head Constable witness Raijibhai Punambhai had actually visited the hospital and he had interrogated Hina and Hina had told him that she had accidentally consumed the drug, but a false story was concocted that when Raijibhai went to hospital, Hina was unconscious and could not inquire to her and on the same line a false story was concocted through the evidence of the Executive Magistrate Ramanbhai that he could not record dying declaration of Hina. Such material evidence came to be suppressed intentionally by the prosecution and considering the evidence of defence witness Haresh at Exhibit 84, all the above facts have elaborately been deposed by him on oath as from the time of admission of Hina in the hospital till she died, Haresh was present throughout in the hospital. 7.5. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that the prosecution has come forward with unnatural case and story and no ingredients of any of the offences charged against the accused can be said to have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Even the basic fact regarding suicide has not been established by the prosecution. No cogent and reliable evidence regarding the so called ill-treatment and cruelty has been adduced by the prosecution. The story regarding demand of dowry is after thought. Even the basic fact regarding suicide has not been established by the prosecution. No cogent and reliable evidence regarding the so called ill-treatment and cruelty has been adduced by the prosecution. The story regarding demand of dowry is after thought. That on the basis of same set of evidence, the father-in-law accused No. 3 - Parshotambhai came to be acquitted and even the learned trial Judge categorically observed that the prosecution failed to prove the charge regarding commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and even the accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to be acquitted from the charge of said offence. Therefore, it is submitted that the Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2000 preferred by the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 may be allowed. 7.6. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that since the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against original accused Nos. 1 and 2, the Criminal Appeal preferred by the State under Section 377 of the Cr. P.C for the enhancement of sentence deserves dismissal. It is submitted that the State challenged the acquittal order of the original accused No. 3 Parshotambhai by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 2000, but by assigning cogent and convincing reasons after appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge recorded the acquittal of the accused No. 3 Parshotambhai, hence there is no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge. Therefore, the State appeal preferred under Section 378 of the CrPC deserves dismissal. At the time of admission of the appeal preferred by the convicted appellants - accused persons, this Court issued notices to the appellants to show cause why their acquittal under the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC may not be set aside. It is submitted that the powers of the Court under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the CrPC are very narrow and limited. That even this Court cannot convert acquittal into conviction and there is no reason whatsoever to set aside the order of acquittal of the appellants original accused Nos. 1 and 2 - Nilesh and Kanchanben for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and to remand the matter. Therefore, it is submitted that even the Criminal Revision Application [suo-motu] does not survive. 1 and 2 - Nilesh and Kanchanben for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and to remand the matter. Therefore, it is submitted that even the Criminal Revision Application [suo-motu] does not survive. The State did not prefer any appeal challenging the acquittal of the appellants - accused Nos. 1 and 2 from the charge of offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. 8. Learned Senior counsel and Special PP appointed by the State Mr. K.J. Shethna submitted that the learned trial Judge did not err in convicting the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC and for the offences under the DP Act. That the prosecution successfully proved by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence that deceased Hina was harassed and ill-treated by the accused, she was subjected to physical and mental torture. Prosecution successfully proved its case about demand of dowry. The marriage of Hina was solemnized with accused No. 1 Nilesh on 04.12.1997 and the unhappy incident of unnatural death of Hina occurred on 05.07.1998. Therefore, the marriage span was only of 7 months. That during such short span of marriage, Hina used to go to her parents’ house and used to tell her mother, the first informant Chandrikaben about ill-treatment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused including the demand made of various articles and cash by way of dowry. That on the date of incident, soon before consuming poisonous drug, Hina telephoned her parents and she told her mother on telephone that because of the ill-treatment and cruelty caused to her by the accused, she was to end her life. That thus, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is cogent, clear and acceptable. 8.1. Mr. Shethna further submitted that the defence alleged that Hina’s father Dhirubhai has some political power and during the course of police investigation, some interference was caused by him and his closed relative. It is submitted that except the bare allegation on the part of the defence, there is no material whatsoever on record to come to the conclusion. 8.1. Mr. Shethna further submitted that the defence alleged that Hina’s father Dhirubhai has some political power and during the course of police investigation, some interference was caused by him and his closed relative. It is submitted that except the bare allegation on the part of the defence, there is no material whatsoever on record to come to the conclusion. The defence alleged that during the treatment Hina was conscious and even police head constable Raijibhai Punambhai examined at Exhibit 52, had recorded the statement of Hina, but that statement is concealed by the I O and a false case is concocted that Hina was unconscious. It is submitted that considering the evidence of head constable Raijibhai together with the medical evidence on record, during the course of her treatment and till she died on the same day at 2.15 p.m., Hina remained unconscious and was not in a position to speak or give statement. That even considering the deposition of Executive Magistrate Ramanbhai Harjivandas examined at Exhibit 45 he clearly stated that he could not record dying declaration as Hina was unconscious. That there is no reason whatsoever to not to accept the evidence of independent witnesses like Medical Officers and Executive Magistrate Ramanbhai. That thus the allegations levelled by the defence that the police investigation was guided by the father of Hina and that the investigation was not fair, deserve to be out-right rejected. That there was no delay in lodgement of FIR. 8.2. It is submitted that it has come in evidence that whenever Hina used to come to her parental house, she narrated the events of ill-treatment and cruelty meted out to her, to her mother Chandrikaben and she did not tell her father about it. That there is no harm in accepting such evidence for the simple reason that usually daughter will ventilate her grievance to her mother and not to her father. That even mother wisely, immediately did not inform her husband [father of Hina] to save matrimonial life of Hina, but when on the date of the incident Hina told her mother that because of the ill-treatment and torture she was ending her life, Hina’s mother immediately informed Hina’s father about the cruelty and ill-treatment caused to Hina. That even mother wisely, immediately did not inform her husband [father of Hina] to save matrimonial life of Hina, but when on the date of the incident Hina told her mother that because of the ill-treatment and torture she was ending her life, Hina’s mother immediately informed Hina’s father about the cruelty and ill-treatment caused to Hina. That the prosecution examined first informant and mother of Hina, Chandrikaben as well as Hina’s father Dhirubhai and considering their entire depositions, nothing emerges which would make their evidence a doubtful one. That in support of their evidence, the prosecution examined witnesses Artiben Patel at Exhibit 44, Hasmukhbhai Patel at Exhibit 48 and Sonalben Ramjibhai at Exhibit 65 and considering their evidence, the evidence adduced by the first informant Chandrikaben gets due corroboration. 8.3. That the defence examined 7 witnesses in this case and most of the witnesses were from telecommunication department producing the details of telephone calls. That there cannot be any dispute regarding details of telephone calls, but even considering said evidence, it clearly transpires that on 05.07.1998 when the incident occurred, at about 8.35 a.m., there was a telephonic talk from the house of Hina at Vidhyanagar on the telephone, in the house of Hina’s parents. That this fact clearly corroborates the case of the prosecution that soon before consuming poisonous drug, Hina telephoned her parents and disclosed her intention to end her life. It is submitted that the defence examined son of accused No. 1 named Haresh Parshotambhai, just to show that when Hina was under treatment, he was present and that Hina was conscious. That this witness Haresh is interested witness and his deposition is contrary to the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution on record. 8.4. It is further submitted that the defence tried to develop the case alleging that by mistake Hina consumed poisonous drug like aluminium phosphide. That there is no evidence whatsoever on record that at the time when Hina consumed the poisonous drug, she was sick and was taking any medicine on account of her sickness. That, thus there was no question that Hina took the poisonous drug on account of any mistake that what she was consuming was her regular medicine for some ailment. That thus the prosecution successfully proved that Hina committed suicide and it was not accidental death. That, thus there was no question that Hina took the poisonous drug on account of any mistake that what she was consuming was her regular medicine for some ailment. That thus the prosecution successfully proved that Hina committed suicide and it was not accidental death. That in our case, proximity of time is most suggestive because Hina telephoned to her mother and immediately she consumed the poison. 8.5. Mr. Shethna further submitted that the Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2000 preferred by the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 deserves to be dismissed. However, it is submitted that the sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge is too lenient. The same deserves to be enhanced. The incident occurred within a very short span of matrimonial life of Hina, she was meted out with extreme cruelty by the accused and dowry was also demanded. Under such circumstances, it is submitted that the Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2000 preferred by the State of Gujarat under Section 377 of the CrPC for enhancement of sentence deserves to be allowed and the sentence be appropriately enhanced. 8.6. It is submitted that the learned trial Judge acquitted the original accused No. 3 Parshotambhai Govindbhai from all the charges levelled against him. That the accused No. 3 Parshotambhai is father-in-law of Hina and considering the entire evidence on record, the prosecution successfully proved that Hina was also meted out with cruelty and ill-treatment by her father-in-law Parshotambhai. In the impugned judgment, the learned trial Judge did not assign any cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting the accused No. 3. Therefore, it is submitted the Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 2000 preferred by the State under Section 378 of the CrPC challenging the acquittal of original accused No. 3 deserves to be allowed. 8.7. It is submitted that it is true that both the accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to be acquitted by the learned trial Judge for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and that the State did not prefer any acquittal appeal challenging their acquittal for said offence. However, while admitting Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2000 preferred by original accused Nos. 1 and 2, this Court directed to issue show cause notice to both the accused Nos. However, while admitting Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2000 preferred by original accused Nos. 1 and 2, this Court directed to issue show cause notice to both the accused Nos. 1 and 2 as to why the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge for offence under Section 306 of the ICP be not set aside by exercising the powers under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the CrPC and it was treated as Revision Application which was registered as Criminal Revision Application No. 175 of 2001. That thus, their acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC may be interfered with. 9. We have considered the records and proceedings of Sessions Case No. 268 of 1998 in the context of the submissions made before us on behalf of both the sides. 10. There is no dispute that Hina, the daughter of first informant Chandrikaben married accused No. 1 - Nilesh Parshotambhai on 04.12.1997. Hina’s parents were residing at Surat and after her marriage, she went to her matrimonial home which was in Vallabh Vidhyanagar. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 happened to be the mother-in-law and father-in-law of Hina. There is also no dispute that while Hina was at her matrimonial home, because of consumption of poisonous drug like aluminium phosphide, she expired on 05.07.1998. Thus, the married life of Hina was only of 7 months. 11. Before the evidence adduced by the prosecution in form of examination of relative witnesses of deceased Hina is discussed, it would be necessary to consider medical evidence on record. Dr. Jigar Dave is examined at Exhibit 22. According to his evidence, on 05.07.1998when he was on his duty in Krishna Hospital, Karamsad, at that time Hinaben was brought by her husband - accused No. 1 Nilesh without any police Yadi before him. In his history given by the patient Hina as well as her husband, it was stated that the patient herself consumed poisonous drug and that the poisonous drug was “quick-phos”. That she had consumed half tablet. It was further stated in his history that the poisonous substance was consumed round about 8.45 a m. Thereafter, Dr. Dave started appropriate treatment. Hina was admitted in ICU of the hospital. In a clinical test, it was revealed that she had consumed aluminium phosphide. Husband of Hina, the accused No. 1 handed-over to Dr. It was further stated in his history that the poisonous substance was consumed round about 8.45 a m. Thereafter, Dr. Dave started appropriate treatment. Hina was admitted in ICU of the hospital. In a clinical test, it was revealed that she had consumed aluminium phosphide. Husband of Hina, the accused No. 1 handed-over to Dr. Dave a bottle containing tablets of aluminium phosphide, which was forwarded by Dr. Dave to Vallabh Vidhyanagar Police Station. During the course of his evidence, Dr. Dave produced copy of case papers at Exhibit 23. In his cross-examination Dr. Dave admitted that the bottle of aluminium phosphide which was handed-over to him by accused No. 1, was not opened by him, but he had only read the label affixed on the bottle. He even did not verify as to how many tablets were there in the bottle. He further admitted that aluminium phosphide is a very strong type of poison and as soon as it is consumed, it starts its adverse effect in the body immediately. He further admitted that in the case papers Exhibit 23, in the history, it is further stated that “H/o. Emotional phycho-social stress.” 11.1. Prosecution examined Dr. Trivedi at Exhibit 18. According to him, he himself performed the post mortem examination on the dead body of Hina between 3.10 pm to 4.17 pm on 05.07.1998. There were no marks of injury on the body of Hina. He deposed that the opinion regarding cause of death was kept in abeyance till report of FSL was received and after receipt of the FSL report Dr. Bhatt opined that the final cause of death was aluminium phosphide poisoning. P M report is produced at Exhibit 21 and the death certificate containing the cause of death is produced at Exhibit 20. Dr. Trivedi also admitted in his evidence that as soon as a patient consumes poison like aluminium phosphide, immediately its adverse effect in the body is started. 12. Therefore, considering the medical evidence on record, it becomes clear that the cause of death of Hina was consumption of poisonous drug like aluminium phosphide. However, as stated above, about the cause of death on account of poisonous drug like aluminium phosphide, there is no dispute even on behalf of the defence. 12. Therefore, considering the medical evidence on record, it becomes clear that the cause of death of Hina was consumption of poisonous drug like aluminium phosphide. However, as stated above, about the cause of death on account of poisonous drug like aluminium phosphide, there is no dispute even on behalf of the defence. However, the only dispute raised by the defence in this regards is that according to the defence of the accused persons, Hina by mistake consumed the poisonous drug; whereas as per the case of the prosecution, Hina with a view to commit suicide consumed it. It is true that as per the evidence adduced by Dr. Dave, Hina was brought before him by her husband, the accused No. 1 and according to Dr. Dave, the patient as well as her husband stated that the patient Hina had consumed the poisonous drug like quick-phos. Accordingly, Dr. Dave recorded the history in the case papers Exhibit 23. It is pertinent to note that neither the patient Hina nor her husband - accused No. 1 stated before Dr. Dave that Hina had accidentally consumed the poisonous drug or that by mistake it was so consumed. It is further emerging from the medical papers on record that as per the history, the poisonous drug was consumed at about 8.45 a m. It is reported in the case papers that when Hina was brought, she was complaining giddiness and weakness and there was emotional psycho-social stress. It has come in evidence that during the treatment, on same day i.e., 05.07.1998 at 2.15 pm Hina expired. Cause of her death was aluminium phosphide poisoning. 12.1. In light of the above medical evidence on record, considering the evidence adduced by the first informant Chandrikaben Dhirubhai Exhibit 35, who happens to be mother of Hina and evidence of Dhirubhai Exhibit 39, who happens to be the father of Hina, it has come in evidence that on the date of incident when Chandrikaben and her husband Dhirubhai were in Surat in their house, at about 8.00 am to 8.30 am they received a telephone call from Hina and she said that she was fed up because of the ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her by her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband and therefore, she was going to end her life. Thereupon, Chandrikaben told Hina that if Hina had any problem, the same may be communicated to her and that she was prepared to have talk with her father [Dhirubhai]. When the attempt was made by Dhirubhai to talk with Hina on telephone, the line was cut and Dhirubhai could not talk with Hina. Attempt was made to contact Hina on telephone at Vidhyanagar, but the phone could not be connected. It has come in evidence that thereafter Hina’s father-in-law [original accused No. 3 Parshotambhai] informed the parents of Hina on telephone that Hina has consumed poison and that they are taking her to Karamsad Hospital and that her parents should come to the hospital. Parshotambhai informed on telephone that in a childish manner Hina has consumed the poison. It is pertinent to note that even accused No. 3 - Parshotambhai did not specifically tell to the parents of Hina that either accidentally or by mistake Hina consumed the poison. 12.2. The defence examined Haresh Parshotambhai as defence witness at Exhibit 84. Haresh happens to be brother of the accused No. 1 Nilesh. About the incident, he stated that on 05.07.1998 his father - accused No. 3 left his home at about 7.30 am for the purpose of attending his duty and that he himself and his brother - accused no.1 left home to go to factory at about 8.00 am. At about 8.30 am Hina telephoned his brother - accused No. 1 and the accused No. 1 told him that they have to go to their home and on way to their home, accused No. 1 told Haresh that Hina had consumed poison by mistake. He stated that when they reached home, Hina was all alone in the home and Hina handed-over a bottle to the accused No. 1 stating that by mistake she consumed half tablet of poison. Thereafter, the accused No. 1 and Haresh took her to the hospital. 13. Thus, by examining witness Haresh, brother of accused No. 1, the accused attempted to show that Hina had by mistake consumed the poison. Considering the overall evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as considering the evidence adduced by the defence, it nowhere transpires that Hina was sick and on the date of incident, she was taking any medicine prescribed by any doctor. Considering the overall evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as considering the evidence adduced by the defence, it nowhere transpires that Hina was sick and on the date of incident, she was taking any medicine prescribed by any doctor. In other words, here is not a case wherein, believing that the tablet which was consumed by Hina was consumed by her under some mistake or misapprehension that in fact she was consuming the medicine prescribed by a doctor for her sickness. There is nothing in the evidence that the bottle containing the poison called aluminium phosphide or “quick-phos” was already there in the bedroom of Hina even prior to the incident, so that there was some possibility of consuming said poison, by mistake, in lieu of consuming any regular medicine. 13.1. Considering the evidence adduced by Chandrikaben and Dhirubhai, it has come in evidence that on the date of incident at about 8.30 a m when they were in Surat in their house, Hina telephoned them and expressed her desire to end her life. On behalf of the defence, by examining defence witnesses from telecommunication department, the lists showing outgoing telephone calls and incoming telephone calls are produced. Considering the list Exhibit 77, it transpires that on 05.07.1998 at about 8.35 a m telephone call was received at the residence of Dhirubhai, father of Hina. This fact corroborates the say of witnesses Chandrikaben and Dhirubhai that at about 8.30 a m on their telephone number, they had received the telephone from Vidhyanagar and that Hina disclosed her intention to end her life. In this context, again considering the evidence of Dr. Dave Exhibit 22 and the case papers Exhibit 23, as per the history given to Dr. Dave, Hina consumed the poisonous drug at 8.45 a m on 05.07.1998. 14. Under such circumstances, before consuming the drug, Hina on telephone tells her mother that she is going to end her life, at about 8.30 a m. At 8.45 a m she consumes the poison. Under such circumstances, in our opinion, in the impugned judgment, while appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly came to the conclusion that Hina had consumed poison with a view to commit suicide. Under such circumstances, in our opinion, in the impugned judgment, while appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly came to the conclusion that Hina had consumed poison with a view to commit suicide. Again in light of the entire above discussions and re-appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the defence raised by the accused that either on account of childishness or on account of any mistake, Hina consumed the poison, cannot be accepted. The trial Court, therefore, rightly not accepted such defence raised by the defence. We do not find any illegality or any irregularity committed by the trial Court while appreciating the evidence in this regards. 14.1. Under the circumstances, according to us, the prosecution successfully proved its case that on 05.07.1998 Hina with a view to put end to her life, at 8.45 a m consumed the poison and during her treatment she expired on the same day and the death was due to aluminium phosphide poisoning. 15. It is the case of the prosecution that Hina ended her life and committed suicide on account of cruelty and ill-treatment caused to her by 3 accused persons, who happened to be her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law. It is also the case of the prosecution that dowry in form of furniture, box type cot, juicer machine and the cash received by Hina on the occasion of her marriage from her relatives, etc., were demanded and on the question of demand of dowry she was meted out with ill-treatment and harassment. There is no dispute that the marriage span was a very short and it was about 7 months when Hina committed suicide. 16. On the question of harassment and ill-treatment and demand of dowry, the prosecution examined first informant Chandrikaben at Exhibit 35 and Dhirubhai Hirabhai at Exhibit 39. Both these witnesses are parents of Hina. The prosecution also examined witnesses Artiben Madhubhai at Exhibit 44, who happens to be daughter of Hina’s mother’s sister and Hasmukhbhai Patel at Exhibit 48, who happens to be common relative of both, parents of Hina and her in-laws. The prosecution also examined witness Sonalben Ravjibhai at Exhibit 65, who happens to be friend of deceased Hina, residing at Surat in the neighbourhood of her parents’ house. 17. The prosecution also examined witness Sonalben Ravjibhai at Exhibit 65, who happens to be friend of deceased Hina, residing at Surat in the neighbourhood of her parents’ house. 17. Considering the evidence of first informant Chandrikaben Exhibit 35, mother of deceased Hina, she stated that Hina married accused No. 1 on 0412.1997 and after her marriage, Hina went to her husband’s house at Vidhyanagar and she was residing with her husband, in-laws and her husband’s brother Haresh at Vidhyanagar. After about 20 days from her marriage, Hina had come to her parents house at Surat and at that time she told her mother that she was ill-treated by her husband and her in-laws. Chandrikaben deposed that at that time Hina told that without any cause she used to be rebuked by her mother-in-law in her day-to-day household work and her mother-in-law was instigating her husband against her and she was meted out with cruelty by her mother-in-law. Thereafter, Hina went to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, Hina came to Surat for the purpose of appearing in her T.Y. B.Com examination. Chandrikaben deposed that during her examination, she received telephonic call from mother-in-law of Hina, the accused No. 2 and she asked them to send back Hina to Vidhyanagar. That at that time Hina’s father-in-law, the accused No. 3 told on telephone that unnecessary Hina was kept at her parents’ house. 17.1. Chandrikaben stated that when Hasmukhbhai had come to meet her at Surat, she informed Hasmukhbhai about the ill-treatment and cruelty caused to Hina and after about 15 to 20 days Hasmukhbhai again came to meet Chandrikaben and told Chandrikaben that he had gone to Vidhyanagar, but the accused No. 2 - mother-in-law of Hina was not present, but accused No. 1 Nilesh was present and he had tried to convince him. 17.2. Chandrikaben stated that after abut 2 months from the date of marriage, Hina had come to Surat and at that time Hina told her mother that her mother-in-law, the accused No. 2, was demanding box type cot, furniture, juicer machine and the cash received by Hina at the time of her marriage or else Hina would be divorced. 17.2. Chandrikaben stated that after abut 2 months from the date of marriage, Hina had come to Surat and at that time Hina told her mother that her mother-in-law, the accused No. 2, was demanding box type cot, furniture, juicer machine and the cash received by Hina at the time of her marriage or else Hina would be divorced. Thereupon, Hina told her mother-in-law that if her mother-in-law would talk like this, she would die by consuming poison and her mother-in-law, the accused No. 2 said that if Hina would consume poison and would die, her son [accused No. 1] would be relieved. Thereafter, Hina was sent to her matrimonial house with her brother-in-law Hareshbhai. Then according to the evidence of Chandrikaben, on the date of incident, they received telephone call from Hina at about 8.30 a m and Hina disclosed her intention to end her life. Chandrikaben was cross-examined at length on behalf of the defence. During the course of her cross-examination, defence tried to bring on record certain facts that during the marriage span of 7 months, Hina visited her parents house at Surat on more occasions than what was deposed by Chandrikaben in her examination-in-chief. However, according to us, what is relevant is what Hina told her mother whenever she came to Surat and that can be said to be an important evidence than the number of visits of Hina to her parents’ house. However, considering the cross-examination made on behalf of the defence, it becomes clear that even there is no dispute on behalf of the defence that Hina used to visit her parents’ house at Surat frequently. Over and above this, Hina used to contact her parents at Surat from Vidhyanagar even by telephone calls. Chandrikaben, during the course of her cross-examination stated that at the time of marriage Hina was not given box type cot, furniture, juicer machine, etc., and the cash amount received by Hina from her relatives. It is also revealed from her cross that on 05.07.1998 at about 8.30 a m when telephone call of Hina was received and Hina told that because of the cruelty and ill-treatment meted out to her, she was going to end her life, thereafter Chandrikaben told Dhirubhai, the father of Hina, about ill-treatment and cruelty caused to Hina by her in-laws. On this count, on behalf of the appellants - accused, it was submitted that if at all Hina was meted out with cruelty by her in-laws and in turn Hina told these facts to her mother Chandrikaben, she would not have sat silent and would have immediately informed Hina’s father Dhirubhai about it. It is, therefore, submitted that as admitted by Chandrikaben she did not inform Dhirubhai till the morning of 05.07.1998 when Hina told them on telephone that she was going to end her life, would suggest that in fact Chandrikaben deposed out-right a concocted story in her evidence about cruelty and ill-treatment. 17.3. It is true that as admitted by Chandrikaben in her evidence, she did not inform Dhirubhai, the father of Hina about the ill-treatment and cruelty caused to Hina by her in-laws and only on the date of incident, after receipt of telephone call from Hina, she told about it to Dhirubhai. Dhirubhai in his evidence Exhibit 39 also admits that only on the date of incident he came to know that Hina was subjected to ill-treatment and cruelty by her in-laws. However, it is pertinent to note that the marriage span of Hina before she died, was very short. Usually a daughter would inform her mother about any cruelty or ill-treatment meted out to her by her in-laws. Merely because Dhirubhai was not immediately informed by Chandrikaben as soon as Hina told her about ill-treatment, it cannot be presumed that this creates any doubt regarding the evidence of prosecution pertaining to cruelty and ill-treatment caused to Hina. In the impugned judgment, the learned trial Judge discussed at length this aspect of the matter and we are of the opinion that the learned trial Judge rightly observed that non-informing to Hina’s father by her mother Chandrikaben about the cruelty and ill-treatment meted out to Hina would not make the evidence of either Chandrikaben or of Dhirubhai a doubtful one. As soon as on the date of incident, Hina disclosed her intention to end her life, Chandrikaben immediately informed Dhirubhai about the ill-treatment caused to Hina and what Hina told her previously about it. 17.4. As soon as on the date of incident, Hina disclosed her intention to end her life, Chandrikaben immediately informed Dhirubhai about the ill-treatment caused to Hina and what Hina told her previously about it. 17.4. In light of the above discussions and again evaluating the oral evidence in form of depositions of first informant Chandrikaben and Dhirubhai Hirabhai, it further clearly transpires that the prosecution duly proved the proximity test in the sense, about nexus between the ill-treatment and harassment caused to Hina and the consequential action on the part of Hina to commit suicide. Considering the deposition of Chandrikaben, it transpires that after the marriage, Hina went to reside at her matrimonial home and when she came to Surat at her parental house, as per the deposition of Chandrikaben after about 20 days and as per the defence of the accused much earlier than 20 days, Hina ventilated the grievances before her mother Chandrikaben. In other words, from her first visit till 05.07.1998 when she telephoned her parents disclosing her intention to put end to her life, Hina used to ventilate her grievances before her mother. It has come in evidence that on 05.07.1998 she consumed poisonous drug round about 8.45 in the morning and before that at about 8.30 am Hina contacted her parents on telephone and communicated that she was fed up by such ill-treatment and cruelty and, therefore, she was going to end her life. When such is the situation, while appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the cruelty and ill-treatment continued till Hina committed suicide. Under such circumstances, soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty, ill-treatment and harassment. 18. The prosecution examined witness Hasmukhbhai Patel at Exhibit 48. As revealed from the evidence of first informant Chandrikaben, Hasmukhbhai was requested to go to matrimonial home of Hina and to act as a mediator because he happened to be common relative of both the sides. According to Hasmukhbhai, he went to Vidhyanagar and at that time, only accused No. 1 Nilesh was available in the house. He stated that seeing him coming to the house, accused No. 2 Kanchanben immediately left the house. He deposed that he tried to convince accused No. 1 Nilesh as to why he was harassing Hina. Thereafter, he left the house. He stated that seeing him coming to the house, accused No. 2 Kanchanben immediately left the house. He deposed that he tried to convince accused No. 1 Nilesh as to why he was harassing Hina. Thereafter, he left the house. Certain questions were put to this witness by the trial Court, to which he replies that when he asked Nilesh as to why he was harassing Hina, Nilesh did not reply. In his cross-examination he admitted that on the day on which he went to Vidhyanagar, he did not discuss anything with accused No. 3 Parshotambhai, the father-in-law of Hina. He stated that he remained in the house of the accused for about half an hour and during that time the accused No. 2 - Kanchanben did not return. He admitted that at that time Hina was present in the house, but he did not discuss anything with Hina. Considering the deposition of Hasmukhbhai, it is clear that he visited the house of the accused and met the accused No. 1 Nilesh. However, he does not specifically provide any information in his deposition as to what exactly transacted between himself and Nilesh. He stated that when he asked Nilesh as to why he was harassing Hina, Nilesh did not reply. However, according to him, he remained in the house for half an hour and in the house only Nilesh and Hina were available. He admitted that he did not talk with Hina. Under such circumstances, it can be presumed that for half an hour he remained present in the house of the accused without any communication between himself and Nilesh. However, the important aspect emerging from the deposition of Hasmukhbhai is that when he went to the house of the accused, at that time mother-in-law of Hina, the accused No. 2 - Kanchanben, was available in the house, but seeing Hasmukhbhai coming to her house, she left the house. Hasmukhbhai was not stranger to Kanchanben. He was relative of Kanchanben. Despite this, to avoid any communication with Hasmukhbhai, accused No. 2 - Kanchanben left the house. Such conduct on the part of accused No. 2 - Kanchanben requires consideration. 19. The prosecution examined Artiben at Exhibit 44, who happens to be a niece of Hina. Hasmukhbhai was not stranger to Kanchanben. He was relative of Kanchanben. Despite this, to avoid any communication with Hasmukhbhai, accused No. 2 - Kanchanben left the house. Such conduct on the part of accused No. 2 - Kanchanben requires consideration. 19. The prosecution examined Artiben at Exhibit 44, who happens to be a niece of Hina. She stated that on 5.02.1998 on the occasion of her sister Manisha’s marriage at Surat, Hina attended said marriage and at that time Hina had told her that she was harassed by accused No. 2, her mother-in-law and used to rebuke her by finding her fault and she was mentally harassed. Arti further stated that on 15/6/1998 when she visited Chandrikaben’s house, at that time Hina was there and at that time Hina stated that she was harassed by all the 3 accused and that her mother-in-law - accused No. 2 demanded a juicer mixer like the one which was there in her parental house and that accused No. 1 Nilesh told her to bring scooter and furniture by way of dowry. She stated that thereafter Hina stayed for couple of days and when she went to her matrimonial house, she took with her a juicer mixer. Arti further stated that thereafter when Hina’s father Dhirubhai was going to Ahmedabad, she had accompanied her and at that time on their way to Ahmedabad, they went to Vidhyanagar at the house of Hina and at that time when she met Hina, she was weeping and complained that the accused persons did not allow her to make telephone call and that she was tremendously harassed and that her mother-in-law - accused No. 2 used to tell her to die so that Hina would be relieved and as also they would be relieved and was telling Hina as to why Hina was not bringing Rs. 50,000/- which she had received by way of gift at the time of her marriage. Arti further stated that at that time Hina also told that her mother-in-law used to say that it would have been better if some cash amount was brought by Hina by way of dowry instead of some articles so that they could have earned interest on the cash amount. According to Arti, Hina further told her that she will not leave her matrimonial home just with a view to protect reputation of her parents. According to Arti, Hina further told her that she will not leave her matrimonial home just with a view to protect reputation of her parents. Arti stated that Hina told her not to disclose these facts to her parents and she had accordingly promised Hina. Arti stated that when she met Hina it was Sunday and on next Sunday Hina has consumed poison. Thus, according to the evidence of Arti, she met Hina before about a week from the date of death of Hina and what Hina told her is narrated by her in her deposition. In her cross-examination, about juicer mixer, questions were asked on behalf of the accused about certain custom prevailing in their community, to the effect that after marriage when newly wedded wife comes to her parental house for the purpose of celebrating “Bhim Agiyaras”, at that time while returning to her matrimonial house, as per custom, newly wedded wife brings with her some gift articles. However, Arti in her cross-examination, out-right denied such suggestion regarding such custom. 20. Considering the evidence adduced by this witness Arti, it clearly transpires that just one week prior to the death of Hina, she had met Hina. Arti narrated the facts stated by Hina to her pertaining to ill-treatment on account of demand of dowry. Considering the evidence about what Hina told Arti as deposed by Arti, it clearly transpires that it was the mother-in-law - accused No. 2 Kanchanben who was harassing Hina and she was finding fault with Hina on trifling matters. It further transpires that it was the accused No. 2 Kanchanben, who told Hina that by way of dowry instead of any articles, it would have been better if Hina would have brought some cash amount from her parental house and more particularly Rs. 50,000/=, which Hina had received by way of gift at the time of her marriage so that on such cash amount they can earn interest. According to the evidence of Arti, it was the accused No. 2 - Kanchanben who told Hina to die so that not only Hina would be relieved but even they would be relieved. 21. The prosecution examined witness Sonalben Ravjibhai at Exhibit 65. According to her evidence, she is friend of Hina and was residing in the neighbourhood of Hina’s house at Surat. 21. The prosecution examined witness Sonalben Ravjibhai at Exhibit 65. According to her evidence, she is friend of Hina and was residing in the neighbourhood of Hina’s house at Surat. She stated that Hina married on 0412.1997 and after marriage Hina went to Vidhyanagar with her husband Nilesh. Thereafter, after about 20 days, Hina came to her parental house and at that time she had met Hina. She stated that at that time Hina told her that she was harassed by accused persons and that Hina’s mother-in-law - accused No. 2 asked Hina to bring Rs. 5 lacs by way of dowry. That Nilesh was also instigated by his mother, the accused No. 2. Witness Sonal further stated that thereafter on the occasion of “Bhim Agiyaras” Hina came to Surat at her parental house and at that time when she met Hina, Hina told her that she was harassed at her in-laws’ house. 22. On behalf of the appellants - accused, it was submitted that the first informant Chandrikaben no-where states either in her FIR or in her deposition that Rs. 5 lacs were demanded from Hina by way of dowry. Coming back to the evidence of Chandrikaben Exhibit 35 and her FIR Exhibit 36, it is true that no allegations are levelled against the accused to the effect that Rs. 5 lacs were demanded by way of dowry from Hina. However, from the very beginning, the case of the prosecution is that mother-in-law of Hina - accused No. 2 demanded from Hina a scooter, box type cot, furniture as well as cash amount which Hina received by way of gift on the occasion of her marriage. It is the further case of the prosecution emerging from the FIR Exhibit 36 that Hina’s mother-in-law, the accused No. 2 used to say that if Hina fails to bring the above referred articles and cash, then Hina should be divorced. Chandrikaben in her evidence Exhibit 35 reiterated the said facts which are stated by her in the FIR. Chandrikaben further stated that on the occasion of Bhim Agiyaras, when Hina had come to Surat, Hina told her that her mother-in-law asked her to bring juicer mixer like the one available there in her parents’ house at Surat. It has come in evidence that thereafter when Hina went to her matrimonial house, she took with her the juicer mixer. Chandrikaben further stated that on the occasion of Bhim Agiyaras, when Hina had come to Surat, Hina told her that her mother-in-law asked her to bring juicer mixer like the one available there in her parents’ house at Surat. It has come in evidence that thereafter when Hina went to her matrimonial house, she took with her the juicer mixer. In her cross-examination on behalf of the accused, a suggestion was made that on account of sheer love and affection, juicer mixer was given to Hina to bring the same at her matrimonial home and that the same was not demanded by the accused, to which the first informant Chandrikaben out-right denied such suggestion. Again in her cross-examination Chandrikaben submits that at the time of marriage, box type cot, juicer mixer, furniture and the cash amount which Hina received by way of gift at the time of her marriage, were not given to Hina for the purpose of taking the same at her matrimonial home. The cumulative effect of the evidence adduced by all the above referred witnesses would be that Hina was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment and on account of dowry. Further more, considering the overall evidence on record, as discussed above, it further transpires that it was the accused No. 2 - Kanchanben, the mother-in-law of Hina, who caused cruelty and ill-treatment to Hina and was responsible for demand of dowry and for mentally harassing Hina even during short span of her marriage life. Considering evidence of Chandrikaben, it was Hina’s mother-in-law, who demanded all such articles and cash and further told Hina that if she fails in doing so, she would be divorced. When Hina told her mother-in-law not to speak like this or else she would die and her mother-in-law told Hina that if Hina would die, her son [Hina’s husband Nilesh] would be relieved. 23. So far as the appellant - original accused No. 1 - Nilesh Parshotambhai, husband of Hina, is concerned, the trial Court convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act. We need not repeat here the evidence discussed hereinabove in this judgment. 23. So far as the appellant - original accused No. 1 - Nilesh Parshotambhai, husband of Hina, is concerned, the trial Court convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act. We need not repeat here the evidence discussed hereinabove in this judgment. Considering the oral evidence adduced by the first informant - Chandrikaben and witnesses Dhirubhai, Arti and Sonalben, it has come on record beyond any reasonable doubt that Hina’s mother-in-law - accused No. 2 used to cause cruelty and ill-treatment and mental torture to Hina and used to demand certain articles and cash with specific assertion that if Hina fails in it, she would be divorced and that if Hina dies, not only her husband - accused No. 1 would be relieved, but all of them [her in-laws] would be relieved. For day-to-day household matters, Hina used to be rebuked by her mother-in-law. It is significant to note that when Hasmukhbhai, common relative of both the sides, went to the house of the accused at Vidhyanagar, at that time seeing Hasmukhbhai coming to their house, accused No. 2 Kanchanben left the house and did not meet Hasmukhbhai. Only accused No. 1 - Nilesh remained in the house and talked with Hasmukhbhai. However, so far as accused No. 1 - Nilesh is concerned, in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, general allegations are levelled against him regarding causing ill-treatment and cruelty to Hina. It may be noted that almost similar general allegations were levelled by the prosecution about causing ill-treatment to Hina against the original accused No. 3 - Parshotambhai, father-in-law of Hina and the trial Court recorded acquittal of accused No. 3 - Parshotambhai. Reappreciating the entire evidence on record, we do not find much difference between the quality of evidence adduced by the prosecution so far as the accused No. 3 - Parshotambhai is concerned, who came to be acquitted by the trial Court and so far as accused No. 1 - Nilesh is concerned. In other words, so far as these two accused persons are concerned, the evidence is almost identical. The trial Court granted benefit of doubt to the original accused No. 3 - Parshotambhai, but convicted the accused No. 1 - Nilesh. 23.1. In other words, so far as these two accused persons are concerned, the evidence is almost identical. The trial Court granted benefit of doubt to the original accused No. 3 - Parshotambhai, but convicted the accused No. 1 - Nilesh. 23.1. Further more, it may be noted that the case of accused No. 1 - Nilesh rests at some higher footings in the sense that as per the evidence adduced even by the defence in form of deposition of witness Haresh, it was Hina who immediately telephoned Nilesh after she consumed the poison. It was Nilesh who came to their house and immediately took Hina to hospital. Medical evidence reveals that it was the accused No. 1 Nilesh who got Hina admitted immediately in the hospital. When witness Hasmukhbhai came to the house of accused, it was Nilesh who communicated with Hasmukhbhai. However, Hasmukhbhai says that he asked Nilesh as to why he was torturing Hina and Nilesh did not reply. However, Hasmukhbhai remained there in the house for half an hour and it cannot be believed that there was no communication whatsoever between Hasmukhbhai and Nilesh. Hasmukhbhai does not say that Nilesh demanded any article or cash or that Nilesh complained about Hina before him. Over and above this, as discussed above, the prosecution failed to adduce clear, cogent and specific evidence regarding demand of dowry and causing ill-treatment and cruelty to Hina against accused No. 1 - Nilesh. As against this, the prosecution adduced clear, cogent and specific evidence so far as the accused No. 2 Kanchanben is concerned. 23.2. In light of the entire above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution successfully proved its case against the accused No. 2 - Kanchanben, the mother-in-law of Hina. However, so far as the accused No. 1 - Nilesh is concerned, as stated above, the evidence adduced by the prosecution against him is general in nature and almost identical like the one adduced by the prosecution so far as original accused No. 3 Parshotambhai is concerned. Over and above this, as emerged from the above discussion, the conduct of the accused No. 1 is required to be considered in the sense that it was he who immediately removed Hina to hospital for immediate treatment along with the bottle of aluminium phosphate tablets. Over and above this, as emerged from the above discussion, the conduct of the accused No. 1 is required to be considered in the sense that it was he who immediately removed Hina to hospital for immediate treatment along with the bottle of aluminium phosphate tablets. Under such circumstances, the trial Court should have given benefit of doubt to the accused No. 1 - Nilesh. 24. On behalf of the appellants - accused, reliance was placed on a decision rendered in the case of Rajnesh Tandon vs. State of Punjab reported in 1995 SCC [Cri.] 817. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that in the absence of necessary ingredients under Section 304-B of the IPC, the presumption of dowry death as envisaged in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be attracted. Considering the overall evidence in the instant case, as discussed at length above, the prosecution evidence reveals that Hina was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by her mother-in-law, the accused No. 2 on account of demand of dowry. The evidence regarding this adduced by the prosecution is cogent, clear, consistent and reliable, so far as the accused No. 2 Kanchanben is concerned. Hina died within 7 months of her marriage. Under such circumstances, this is a fit case to raise presumption as envisaged in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. 24.1. Appellants also relied upon a decision rendered in the case of Sham Lal vs. State of Haryana reported in 1997 (1) Crimes 245 [SC]. Discussing the provisions contained in Section 304-B of the IPC read with Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and appreciating the evidence in said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that there was nothing emerging in the evidence that the deceased was treated with cruelty or harassed for demand of dowry soon before her death. It was, therefore, held that the prosecution failed to establish such important aspect of the matter and therefore, presumption envisaged under the Evidence Act cannot be drawn. We need not repeat here the entire above discussions, but suffice it to say that in the case on hand, there is clear, cogent and convincing evidence that during the short span of matrimonial life of Hina, she was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by her mother-in-law, the accused No. 2 almost from the beginning of her marriage life till her death. The prosecution successfully proved the proximity test and the nexus between the ill-treatment and suicide. 24.2. A decision rendered in the case of Satpal vs. State of Haryana reported in 1998 SCC [Cri.] 1372 was relied upon. In the said case, for offences under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B of the IPC, prosecution case was that a young wife consumed aluminium phosphate. Appreciating the evidence on record, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that there was absence of sufficient evidence to establish charge under Sections 306 and 304-B of the IPC. It was also observed that for the purpose of conviction under Section 304-B, the harassment on account of dowry demand must also be proximate to the time of death and if demand of dowry had been long back and thereafter there is no evidence that such demand had continued thereafter, then conviction under Section 304-B cannot be based. There was a sole evidence of brother of the deceased wife and the same was not corroborated by any convincing evidence. However, in the said case Hon’ble the Apex Court further observed that simply because aluminium phosphate, a poison was found in the viscera of the deceased, it cannot be held that the deceased had consumed the said poison for the purpose of committing suicide. The prosecution should rule out every possibility of accidental consumption of such poison. 24.3. Now in the instant case, the prosecution has successfully proved the proximity test. Moreover, in the instant case, soon before consumption of aluminium phosphate, Hina contacted her parents on telephone and expressed her desire to put end to her life. As discussed above, there is no evidence whatsoever to come to the conclusion that at the relevant time Hina was sick and was taking any medicine prescribed by any doctor and through oversight or by mistake she consumed the tablet of aluminium phosphate. In nut-shell, the facts and evidence in our case are different than the facts and evidence on record in Satpal’s case [Supra]. 2.4.4. In the decision rendered in the case of Satvir Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in JT 2001 (8) SC 208, Hon’ble the Apex Court observed that essential ingredients of an offence under Section 304-B are the death of a woman within seven years of marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances and cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry meted to her soon prior to her death. The evidence in said case revealed alleged demand for dowry and payment in November 1995 and Hon’ble the Apex Court held that the same cannot be considered to be the immediate provocation for attempting suicide in June 1996. It was further observed that all amounts paid by the in-laws of the husband of a woman cannot become dowry. Needless to say that the facts and circumstances and evidence on record in the instant case are totally different. We need not repeat it here; suffice it to say that the prosecution successfully established proximity between the demand of dowry and the suicide. There is no long gap between the two. In our case, considering the deposition of Dhirubhai, together with the documentary evidence Exhibits 41 and 42, it has come in evidence that on 09.07.1998, after the sad demise of Hina, in-laws of Hina returned all the articles which Hina had brought from her parents to her matrimonial home at the time of marriage. The prosecution case is not relating to those articles. On the contrary, the documentary evidence Exhibit 41 and Exhibit 42 further supports the case of the prosecution that despite the fact that by way of “Shtreedhan” all those articles enumerated in the documents were given to Hina by her parents, yet, the accused No. 2, the mother-in-law of Hina used to demand more articles and cash. Under such circumstances, there cannot be any dispute regarding the observations made by Hon’ble the Apex Court that all amounts paid by the in-laws of the husband of a woman cannot become dowry. However, in the instant case, over and above the articles, etc., which were given by the parents of Hina as enumerated in these two documents, more demands were made, coupled with causing cruelty to Hina. Under such circumstances, the facts and circumstances and evidence on record in our case are totally different than the facts of Satvit Singh’s case [Supra]. 25. On behalf of the appellants - accused reliance was placed on the decision rendered in the case of Rajbabu vs. State of M.P., reported in JT 2008 (8) SC 250. Under such circumstances, the facts and circumstances and evidence on record in our case are totally different than the facts of Satvit Singh’s case [Supra]. 25. On behalf of the appellants - accused reliance was placed on the decision rendered in the case of Rajbabu vs. State of M.P., reported in JT 2008 (8) SC 250. In said matter, arising in connection with the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC, the facts were that a married woman having marital life of 2 years, allegedly set herself on fire and before her death, as per her dying declaration, the deceased had stated that while pouring kerosene, she accidentally caught fire. Hon’ble the Apex Court appreciating the evidence on record, ruled out a case of suicide. However, it was further observed that for the purpose of attracting the presumption as to abetment of suicide by married woman, the prosecution must establish the factum of suicide as well as such suicide occurring within a period of 7 years from her marriage and that her husband or such relatives of her husband had subjected her to cruelty. The cruelty shall have the same meaning as in Section 498-A of the IPC. 25.1. Now in the instant case, no dying declaration is there on record. Medical evidence as well as the evidence adduced by the Executive Magistrate Ramanbhai Harjivandas examined at Exhibit 45, revealed that Hina was not in a position to speak and to give statement till she died. Hospital duty police constable Rayjibhai Punambhai examined at Exhibit 52 tried to contact Hina while she was under treatment, but he stated that when inquired in the emergency ward, it was revealed that Hina was unconscious and she was under treatment. On behalf of the appellants - accused, a defence was raised that the police head constable Rayjibhai did record the statement of Hina as deposed by defence witness Haresh Bhanderi Exhibit 84; but because of political influence of father of Hina and her relative, the investigating police agency concealed and suppressed said statement. As discussed above in this judgment, the medical evidence reveals serious state of health of Hina after consumption of aluminium phosphate. She was immediately admitted in ICU at about 9.30 am and she died at about 2.15 pm. The Executive Magistrate though tried to record her dying declaration, the attempt was in vain. As discussed above in this judgment, the medical evidence reveals serious state of health of Hina after consumption of aluminium phosphate. She was immediately admitted in ICU at about 9.30 am and she died at about 2.15 pm. The Executive Magistrate though tried to record her dying declaration, the attempt was in vain. Head constable Rayjibhai could not contact Hina. Defence witness Haresh, who is brother of accused No. 1 Nilesh and son of accused Nos. 2 and 3, deposed that one police constable had come to hospital and recorded the statement of Hina and subsequently Hina’s father and her relative Dilipbhai read said statement. We are of the opinion that such version of Haresh is contrary to the medical evidence on record and the evidence adduced by the independent witnesses like Executive Magistrate Ramanbhai. Haresh does not say as to what was stated by Hina in her alleged statement. Learned Special PP Mr. Shethna rightly submitted that if at all Hina’s father and her relatives were so influential that they can dominate the investigating police officer during the course of police investigation, then false dying declaration involving all the accused persons could have been concocted, but nothing whatsoever was done and the investigating agency investigated the case in its natural course. We are of the considered opinion that there is no reason to believe that Hina had given any dying declaration either before the Executive Magistrate or before the head constable Rayjibhai Punambhai. Over and above this, in the instant case, the prosecution successfully proved the required ingredients of Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the IPC, so far as the case of appellant - original accused No. 2 Kanchanben is concerned. Under such circumstances, the facts and circumstances and evidence in the instant case are totally different than the facts and evidence on record in Rajbabu’s case [Supra]. 26. On behalf of the appellants - accused it was submitted that the evidence on record and especially the panchnama of the scene of offence Exhibit 32 reveals sound financial position of the accused persons. It is submitted that it has come in evidence that the accused owned a well furnished bungalow and 2 cars and 2 scooters and, therefore, the case of the prosecution that accused demanded petty articles like cot, juicer mixer by way of dowry should not be accepted. It is submitted that it has come in evidence that the accused owned a well furnished bungalow and 2 cars and 2 scooters and, therefore, the case of the prosecution that accused demanded petty articles like cot, juicer mixer by way of dowry should not be accepted. We are of the considered opinion that the financial status of the in-laws of Hina will not play any important role in the instant case for the simple reason that despite such sound financial position, the evidence on record revealed that the accused No. 2 - Kanchanben demanded box type cot, scooter, juicer mixer and even the cash amount which Hina received by way of gift at the time of her marriage. It has also come on record that accused No. 2 - Kanchanben stated to Hina that instead of articles, if Hina would have brought cash amount from her parents, they would have earned interest on it and on the point of dowry when Hina requested her mother-in-law, the accused No. 2, not to speak like this, her mother-in-law said that if she fails to bring the dowry, she would be divorced and further said that if Hina dies, not only she would be relieved, but even they would be relieved. Under such circumstances, despite the sound financial status, such demands were made. In the impugned judgment, the learned trial Judge considered all the above aspects of the matter so far as accused No. 2 - Kanchanben is concerned. Even juicer mixer of the same type which was there in Hina’s parental house was demanded and said demand was satisfied. 26.1. So far as the appellants - original accused Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the order of sentence was suspended and they came to be released on bail pending their appeal. 27. In light of the entire above discussions, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge in respect of appellant - original accused No. 1 - Nilesh Parshotambhai deserves to be set aside. However, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge so far as appellant - accused No. 2 - Kanchanben Parshotambhai is concerned, the same deserves to be confirmed. The learned trial Judge awarded sentence of RI for 8 years and fine of Rs. However, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge so far as appellant - accused No. 2 - Kanchanben Parshotambhai is concerned, the same deserves to be confirmed. The learned trial Judge awarded sentence of RI for 8 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, RI for one year for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC and SI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, RI for one year for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the DP Act and SI for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, RI for one year for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the DP Act. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. While fixing the quantum of sentence, considering the impugned judgment and order rendered by the learned trial Judge, it appears that both the sides were heard including the convicted accused persons on the question of sentence. So far as the appellant original accused No. 2 - Kanchanben is concerned, the learned trial Judge observed that it is true that she is a lady accused, but despite the fact of sound financial position of her family, she used to demand dowry in form of certain articles and cash from her daughter-in-law Hina. On that count Hina was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment by her mother-in-law. Moreover, while fixing the quantum of sentence, overall evidence in respect of accused No. 2 - Kanchanben was taken into consideration by the learned trial Judge. However, the State of Gujarat preferred Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2000 under Section 377 of the CrPC for enhancement of sentence. However, so far as original accused No. 1 - Nilesh Parshotambhai [Respondent No. 1 in said appeal] is concerned, we have held that the learned trial Judge erred in recording his conviction and he is required to be acquitted and, therefore, no question of enhancement of sentence so far as accused No. 1 Nilesh is concerned. However, so far as original accused No. 2 - Kanchanben Parshotambhai [Respondent No. 2 in said appeal] is concerned, while fixing the quantum of punishment, the learned trial Judge took into consideration the relevant aspects and exercised his discretionary powers in fixing the quantum of punishment. However, so far as original accused No. 2 - Kanchanben Parshotambhai [Respondent No. 2 in said appeal] is concerned, while fixing the quantum of punishment, the learned trial Judge took into consideration the relevant aspects and exercised his discretionary powers in fixing the quantum of punishment. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any illegal or arbitrary exercise of discretionary powers on the part of the learned trial Judge while fixing the quantum of sentence in respect of offences for which the original accused No. 2 - Kanchanben came to be convicted. Sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge cannot be said to be either unduly harsh or unduly lenient. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the decision rendered in the case of Kamlesh Panjiyar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2005) 2 SCC 388 , in Para. 2 observed as under :— “2. Marriages are made in heaven, is an adage. A bride leaves the parental home for the matrimonial home, leaving behind sweet memories therewith a hope that she will see a new world full of love in her groom’s house. She leaves behind not only her memories, but also her surname, gotra and maidenhood. She expects not only to be a daughter-in-law, but a daughter in fact. Alas, the alarming rise in the number of cases involving harassment to the newly wed girls for dowry shatters the dreams. In-laws are characterised to be outlaws for perpetrating terrorism which destroys the matrimonial home. The terrorist is dowry, and it is spreading tentacles in every possible direction.” 27.1. In the result, in light of the entire above discussions, the Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2000 filed by the State of Gujarat under Section 377 of the CrPC deserves to be dismissed. The State of Gujarat preferring Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 2000 under Section 378 of the CrPC challenged the acquittal of original accused No. 3 - Parshotambhai Govindbhai, the father-in-law of deceased Hina. We have re-examined and re-appreciated the entire evidence on record as elaborately discussed in this judgment. We find that no specific allegations regarding demand of dowry and causing ill-treatment to Hina in respect of the accused No. 3 - Parshotambhai can be said to have been proved by the prosecution. We have re-examined and re-appreciated the entire evidence on record as elaborately discussed in this judgment. We find that no specific allegations regarding demand of dowry and causing ill-treatment to Hina in respect of the accused No. 3 - Parshotambhai can be said to have been proved by the prosecution. Hon’ble the Apex Court in a decision rendered in the case of Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 has observed as under :— (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it ought not be disturbed by the appellate court.” 27.2. Considering the overall evidence on record and in light of the observations made by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Chandrappa’s case [Supra], we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge so far as the original accused No. 3 - Parshotambhai Govindbhai Bhanderi is concerned. Considering the overall evidence on record and in light of the observations made by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Chandrappa’s case [Supra], we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge so far as the original accused No. 3 - Parshotambhai Govindbhai Bhanderi is concerned. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 2000 deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, in light of the entire above discussions made in this judgment, Criminal Revision Application No. 175 of 2001 also deserves to be dismissed. 28. For the foregoing reasons, Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2000 is partly allowed. The conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anand on 8.02.2000 in Sessions Case No. 268 of 1998, for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in respect of appellant-accused No. 1 - Nilesh Parshotambhai Bhanderi is set aside and he is hereby acquitted. Fine, if paid, be refunded to him and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. However, so far as the appellant-accused No. 2 - Kanchanben Parshotambhai Bhanderi is concerned, the order of conviction rendered by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the sentence awarded to her thereunder, is hereby confirmed and her bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The appellant - Kanchanben Parshotambhai is directed to surrender before the Sessions Court, Anand on or before 07.03.2009 for the purpose of undergoing the sentence, failing which the Sessions Court at Anand shall be at liberty to take coercive steps, in accordance with law to secure her presence. This order be immediately communicated to the Sessions Court, Anand for due implementation. The Criminal Appeal Nos. 238 and 239 of 2000 as well as Criminal Revision Application No. 175 of 2001 shall stand dismissed.