Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 242 (CHH)

Shailendra Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

2009-09-11

T.P.SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. Challenge in this appeal is the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.8.2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No.21/2007 whereby and whereunder learned First Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code for commission of dowry death sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. 2. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged on the ground that without there being any evidence of torture and cruelty soon before the death of the deceased, learned Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that deceased Neera Tiwari was married to appellant No.1 Shailendra Kumar and appellants No.2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. Marriage between the deceased and appellant No.1 was performed on 30.5.2006 in Ratanpur Mahamaya Temple. She committed suicide in the house of the appellants by pouring kerosene upon her and setting herself on fire on 9.8.2006. Merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P/9 at the instance of appellant No.2 on 10.8.2006. Father of the deceased also lodged written compliant vide Ex.P/2 in which it has been mentioned that the appellants have demanded dowry, committed cruelty and torture upon her daughter and as a result of such torture and cruelty, she committed suicide. After summoning the witnesses vide Exs. P/1 and P/4, inquest over the dead body was prepared vide Ex.P/3. Plastic container, burn piece of clothes, broken pieces of bangles and match stick were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P/5. Death body was sent for autopsy vide Ex.P/7. Autopsy was conducted by Dr.Vijay Kumar Verma vide Ex.P/6. Smell of kerosene was coming from dead body, burn injuries were found. Brain membrane was congested, carbon particles were present incise brochia and lungs. Burn was ante-mortem and cause of death was shocked as a result of excessive burn and toximiya. Accused were arrested vide Exs.P/8, P/10 and P/11. Spot map was prepared by patwari vide Ex.P/13. F.I.R. was lodged vide Ex.P/16. Investigating officer has also prepared spot map vide Ex.P/17. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `the Code'). Accused were arrested vide Exs.P/8, P/10 and P/11. Spot map was prepared by patwari vide Ex.P/13. F.I.R. was lodged vide Ex.P/16. Investigating officer has also prepared spot map vide Ex.P/17. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `the Code'). After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilaspur, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bilaspur from where First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur received the same on transfer for trial. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the appellants/accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses. Statements of the accused/ appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code where they denied the material appearing against them. The appellants have taken specific defence that prior to marriage, the deceased was working as Nurse and when she left her service after marriage, she was distressed, therefore she committed suicide. 6. I have heard Shri Surendra Singh, Senior counsel with Shri Tarun Dadsena, counsel for the appellants and Shri Akhil Mishra, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent and perused the judgment impugned and record of the Court below. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that though deceased Neera Tiwari, wife of appellant No.1 and daughter-in-law of appellants No.2 and 3 has committed suicide on 9.8.2006 in the house of the appellants within 2 months and 8 days of her marriage, she died in abnormal circumstances within 7 years of her marriage, but these facts are not sufficient for drawing inference that the appellants have committed torture and cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and that too soon before her death. This is a criminal case, the prosecution is required to prove all essential ingredients of the offence beyond all shadow of doubt. Only on the ground of death within 3 months under abnormal circumstances is not sufficient for drawing inference that the present appellants are the persons who have committed "dowry death" of the deceased. This was a case of "Samuhik Vivah" in the temple where several persons have married in a common platform in the presence of responsible persons of the society with a view to avoid any transaction of dowry. This was a case of "Samuhik Vivah" in the temple where several persons have married in a common platform in the presence of responsible persons of the society with a view to avoid any transaction of dowry. Learned counsel further argued that evidence of the relatives of the deceased reveals that before marriage the appellants had demanded motor-cycle for appellant No.1 which they have provided before the marriage and they have satisfied the dowry demand. After such satisfaction even there was no occasion for further demand because daughter of Shiv Kumar Tiwari (PW-3) and sister or daughter of other relatives have committed suicide and ended her life, therefore, maternal relatives of the deceased have deposed against the appellants. Statements given under sentiments or in ground of announce is not a true statement admissible under the law. In the absence of such demand, cruelty and torture and that too soon before death of the deceased, all appellants are entitled for acquittal. Learned counsel also argued that evidence of relatives of the deceased reveals that husband of the deceased i.e. appellant No.1 used to drink liquor and used to beat her excludes the possibility of cruelty and torture by appellants No.2 and 3. At the worst, it appears from the evidence that the deceased was not satisfied with the behavior of appellant No.1 who used to drink and beat her, therefore, she ended her life and the same does not fall within the category of torture and cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. 8. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others1 in which the Apex Court has held that in-laws of deceased cannot be roped in only on ground of being close relations of husband of deceased. Overt acts attributed to them should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra2 in which it has been held by the Apex Court that close relatives of the victim have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts. The Court should examine their evidence with great care and caution. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra2 in which it has been held by the Apex Court that close relatives of the victim have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts. The Court should examine their evidence with great care and caution. Learned counsel also placed reliance in the matter of Salamat Ali and another v. State of Bihar3 in which it has been held by the Apex Court that in the absence of clear and cogent evidence involving parents of accused in demands of dowry, evidence of prosecution witness stating that there were frequent quarrels, but only between husband and wife, parents are not liable for any conviction. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the judgment impugned and argued that this is a case of dowry death where the appellants i.e. husband and relatives of the husband had committed dowry death of the deceased within 2 months and 8 days of her marriage. Learned counsel further argued that the prosecution has adduced sufficient evidence to show that the appellants are the persons who have demanded motor-cycle and after receiving motor-cycle they have again demanded Rs.50,000/- and when the parents of the deceased failed to satisfy such demand, then they committed cruelty and torture upon the deceased and as a result of such torture and cruelty she committed suicide and took drastic action of ending her life. No person including a woman of common prudence will end his/her life on the trifle ground unless he/she was compelled to take such action. Learned counsel further argued that the Court below has rightly convicted the appellants and sentenced as aforementioned and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case they do not deserve any sympathy. Conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants are just and proper. 10. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, I have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. In the present case, it is undisputed that deceased Neera Tiwari was married to appellant No.1 on 30.5.2006 at Ratanpur Temple under social arrangement (Samuhik Vivah). Appellants No.2 and 3 were father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. She committed suicide by burn in the house of the appellants on 9.8.2006. In the present case, it is undisputed that deceased Neera Tiwari was married to appellant No.1 on 30.5.2006 at Ratanpur Temple under social arrangement (Samuhik Vivah). Appellants No.2 and 3 were father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. She committed suicide by burn in the house of the appellants on 9.8.2006. Death was abnormal by suicide within 7 years of her marriage, otherwise also established by the statements of Dr.Vijay Kumar Verma (PW-7), autopsy report (Ex.P/6) that deceased Neera Tiwari died as a result of burn injuries. Burn was ante-mortem and cause of death was shocked as a result of excessive burn and toximiya. 11. Dowry death has been defined under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:- "304B. Dowry death.-(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub- section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. 12. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act provides presumption as to dowry death which reads as under:- "113-B. When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in S.304BG of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). 13. Word cruelty has also been explained under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:- "498A. Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in S.304BG of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). 13. Word cruelty has also been explained under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:- "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-for the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or heath (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her tom et any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 14. For decision of this case, the substantial question involve is whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty and torture soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry. The prosecution has adduced evidence of maternal relatives of the deceased. Kumaribai Tiwari (PW-1) mother of the deceased has deposed that marriage of her daughter was performed at Ratanpur Mahamaya Temple. Just two days before the marriage, appellants No.1 and 2 demanded two-wheeler then they sold some land and provided motor-cycle. After one month of the marriage, deceased Neera Bai telephoned to her nephew Rajesh Tiwari and told that there is danger to her life and she called them. Rajesh Tiwari informed them and then Rajesh Tiwari and her husband Shiv Kumar Tiwari went to the house of the appellants where both advised to the appellants that they should not beat his daughter. They also requested to permit the deceased to go with them, but the appellants refused their request. After 15 days, appellant No.1 came to her house with the deceased where appellant No.1 demanded Rs.50,000/- and when she shown her inability, at that time appellant No.1 annoyed. They also requested to permit the deceased to go with them, but the appellants refused their request. After 15 days, appellant No.1 came to her house with the deceased where appellant No.1 demanded Rs.50,000/- and when she shown her inability, at that time appellant No.1 annoyed. After sometime at the time of Raksha Bandan festival appellant No.1 came to her village and again demanded money and again annoyed. On the morning of Raksha Bandan she came to know that her daughter has burn. She went to the hospital. Deceased died as a result of cruelty and torture committed by the appellants. Shiv Kumar Tiwari (PW- 3), father of the deceased, has also corroborated the statement of Kumaribai Tiwari (PW-1). Rajesh Tiwari (PW-2) cousin brother of the deceased has also corroborated the statement of Kumaribai Tiwari (PW-1). Rajesh Tiwari (PW-5) S/o Shri Chhedilal Tiwari, cousin brother of the deceased has also corroborated the same thing. He has deposed in his evidence that one day deceased telephoned him and told that appellant No.1 used to consume liquor and used to assault her. She also requested him that they immediately took her, otherwise members of in-laws house will kill her. They advised and come back. He has also deposed that on the demand of the appellants, father of the deceased sold the land and gave C.D.Down Hero Honda motor cycle. 15. Admittedly, Kumaribai Tiwari (PW-1), Rajesh Tiwari (PW- 2), Shiv Kumar Tiwari (PW-3), Dev Kumar Pathak (PW-4) and Rajesh Tiwari (PW-5) are mother, father and brothers of the deceased. As held by the Apex Court in the matter of Sharad (supra), in view of the close relationship and affection any person in the position of the witness would naturally have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts which may not have been stated to them at all. Not that this is done consciously but even unconsciously the love and affection for the deceased would create a psychological hatred against the supposed murderer and, therefore, the Court has to examine such evidence with very great care and caution. Para 48 of the said judgment reads as under:- "48. Before discussing the evidence of the witnesses we might mention a few preliminary remarks against the background of which the oral statements are to be considered. Para 48 of the said judgment reads as under:- "48. Before discussing the evidence of the witnesses we might mention a few preliminary remarks against the background of which the oral statements are to be considered. All persons to whom the oral statements are said to have been made by Manju when she visited Beed for the last time, are close relatives and friends of the deceased. In view of the close relationship and affection any person in the position of the witness would naturally have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts which may not have been stated to them at all. Not that this is done consciously but even unconsciously the love and affection for the deceased would create a psychological hatred against the supposed murderer and, therefore, the Court has to examine such evidence with very great care and caution. Even if the witnesses were speaking a part of the truth or perhaps the whole of it, they would be guided by a spirit of revenge or nemesis against the accused person and in this process certain facts which may not or could not have been stated unconsciously by the witnesses in order to see that the offender is punished. This is human psychology and no one can help it. 16. The aforesaid witnesses are close relatives of the deceased, but their evidence cannot be discarded only on the ground that they are close relatives. Only it requires minute scrutiny and if the separation of exaggeration and falsehood from truth would possible, then the Court is required to separate the truth from falsehood. 17. In the matter of Salamat (supra), the Apex Court has held that in the absence of clear and cogent evidence against the appellants, conviction of the appellants not proper. Para 3 of the said judgment reads as under:- "3. By the conviction of Salim Ahmed, it stands confirmed that the deceased met a suicidal death and that Salim Ahmed was responsible for it, whether by himself or conjointly with others. The only point to be examined is whether there is clear and cogent evidence to involve the parents in the demands of dowry made or were they otherwise responsible for inflicting any cruelty on the deceased. We have been taken through the relevant portions of the evidence led by the prosecution. The only point to be examined is whether there is clear and cogent evidence to involve the parents in the demands of dowry made or were they otherwise responsible for inflicting any cruelty on the deceased. We have been taken through the relevant portions of the evidence led by the prosecution. Uniformly every witness has said that the family members of the husband, i.e. Sasuralwale had been making demands of dowry in the form of television and scooter. The nature of the demand is some indication. The demand of scooter predominantly must have been raised by the husband. It cannot be expected that the father-in- law would be demanding a scooter for himself or that the mother-in-law needed it for her use. Different considerations, however, could, in certain events, apply to the television demand, but here again, it predominants that the husband wanted it more than his parents. Evidence of P.W.1 is clear on this point that there were frequent quarrels, but only between husband and wife. In other words, the parents had no part to play in the quarrels between the spouses. P.W.7, the father of the deceased also had said that his daughter had told him that the demand had been made by the husband, but he had then not taken it seriously. Thus, the allegations against the appellants are general in nature attributed to the husband's family. They have been identified because they were members of his family. It is not clear on the record as besides them who else were members of the family. It thus appears to us that in the absence of clear and pointed evidence it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction of the parents, on vague allegations that the demand of dowry was made by the husband's family members. In this view of the matter, we would record their acquittal." 18. While dealing with the question of tendency of relatives of the deceased in the matter of Kans (supra), the Apex Court has held that in-laws of deceased cannot be roped in only on ground of being close relations of husband of deceased. Over acts attributed to them should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. While dealing with the question of tendency of relatives of the deceased in the matter of Kans (supra), the Apex Court has held that in-laws of deceased cannot be roped in only on ground of being close relations of husband of deceased. Over acts attributed to them should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Para 5 of the said judgment reads as under:- "5......In the light of the evidence in the case we find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the defence that respondents 3 to 5 were roped in the case only on the ground of being close relations of respondent No.2, the husband of the deceased. For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusation are made, the over acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the maters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case." 19. In the light of decisions of the Apex Court in the matters of Sharad & Kans (supra), minute scrutiny of the evidence of close relatives is required. Kumaaribai Tiwari (PW-1) has specifically deposed that her nephew Rajesh Tiwari and her husband went to the house of the appellants after receiving telephone call from her daughter. Appellant No.1 came two times to her village and demanded Rs.50,000/-. Appellant No.1 also used to beat her daughter after consuming liquor. In her detail cross-examination, she has stated that marriage of her daughter has performed in Adarsh Vivah and she knows that demand and receipt of dowry is a crime. She has denied the suggestion that the appellants No.1 and 2 have not demanded motor-cycle. Appellant No.1 also used to beat her daughter after consuming liquor. In her detail cross-examination, she has stated that marriage of her daughter has performed in Adarsh Vivah and she knows that demand and receipt of dowry is a crime. She has denied the suggestion that the appellants No.1 and 2 have not demanded motor-cycle. She has also denied the suggestion that the deceased has not telephoned to Rajesh Tiwari and Rajesh Tiwari and her husband have not advised to the appellants. She has also denied that after marriage at the instance of appellant No.1, deceased has left her service of nurse and she was perturbed and as a result of such mental problem, she committed suicide. Shiv Kumar Tiwari (PW-3) father of the deceased, has specifically deposed that appellants No. 1 and 2 came to his house and demanded Rs.50,000/- and again appellant No.2 demanded Rs.50,000/-. He has lodged written report (Ex.P/2) on 10.8.2006 in which it has been specifically mentioned that the appellants have demanded motor-cycle and has given C.D.Dawn motor cycle. After marriage, appellant No.1 also demanded Rs.50,000/-. He has admitted in para-9 of his cross- examination that he was in police service and he knows that demand and giving dowry is a crime. He has denied the suggestion that who are unable to give dowry, performed the marriage in Adasrh Vivah system. He has also denied the suggestion that appellants No.1 and 2 have not come to his house and demanded dowry. He has admitted in para-15 of his cross-examination that his daughter used to compel that appellant No.1 used to consume liquor and used to beat her. Rajesh Tiwari (PW-5) who has received telephone has specifically deposed that father of the deceased has given motor-cycle before the marriage of her daughter. He has given number of telephone. He has admitted in para-6 of his cross- examination that when they went to the house of the appellants, his sister told him that appellant No.1 used to consume liquor and used to quarrel with her. She also told him that they immediately took her, otherwise appellant No.1 will kill her. 20. There are some contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses with their previous statements recorded by the police (Exs.D/1 to D/3). She also told him that they immediately took her, otherwise appellant No.1 will kill her. 20. There are some contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses with their previous statements recorded by the police (Exs.D/1 to D/3). Shiv Kumar Tiwari (PW-3), father of the deceased, has deposed that after 15 days of marriage of his daughter, appellants No.1 and 2 came to his village and demanded Rs.50,000/-, but this evidence does not find place in his previous statement (Ex.P/2). This part has not been supported by other witnesses, but other witnesses have deposed that after receiving telephone call, he went to the house of the appellants where he met with the appellants. Statement of Shiv Kumar Tiwari (PW-2) reveals that demand of Rs.50,000/- was between appellants No.1 and 2, but he has exaggerated and tried to involve appellant No.3 who is wife of appellant No.2. 21. Incident took place between 2 months and 8 days of the marriage of deceased Neera Tiwari within a short span of her marriage and first demand of motor-cycle by appellants No.1 and 2 even before the marriage shows tendency of demand of dowry by appellants No.1 and 2 which they continued even after marriage till the death of the deceased. The deceased has committed suicide in the house of the appellants on the day of Raksha Bandhan festival. Evidence of day-to- day conversation, demand or cruelty made by the husband and his relatives are not normally possible. 22. While dealing with the question of death soon before her death, the Apex Court in the matter of Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab4 has held that implies not much interval between concerned cruelty or harassment and death in question, there must be proximate and live link between the two. Para 13 of the said judgment reads as under:- "13. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of `death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances'. The expression `soon before' is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304- B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of `death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances'. The expression `soon before' is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304- B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by the prosecution. `Soon before' is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression `soon before her death' used in the substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression `soon before' is not defined. A reference to the expression `soon before' used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods `soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession'. The determination of the period which can come within the term `soon before' is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression `soon before' would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence." 23. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence." 23. In the present case, dowry was demanded prior to marriage by appellants No. 1 and 2 shows their greediness. Shiv Kumar Tiwari (PW-3) has specifically deposed that all the appellants have demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/- after marriage. Shiv Kumar Tiwari was responsible person for giving dowry or to satisfy the demand, but in Hindu Family, normally discussion take place with male members. In discussion or demand of dowry by mother-in-law of the deceased to father of the deceased is not common. The evidence of Shiv Kumar Tiwari relating to demand of dowry by appellant No.3 is not supported by other independent sources, but statement reveals that appellants No. 1 and 2 have firstly demanded motor-cycle and subsequently they demanded Rs.50,000/- and within short span of time the deceased committed suicide and that too on the festival of Raksha Bandan in the house of the appellants. 24. In these circumstances, the only inference can be drawn that the appellants No.1 and 2 have committed cruelty and torture upon the deceased in connection with demand of dowry and as a result of such demand, no option except to end her life was left and she has taken drastic action for end of her life. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is sufficient for drawing inference of dowry death against appellant No.1 Shailendra Kumar @ Shailu Tiwari (husband of the deceased) and appellant No.2 Jawla Prasad (father-in-law of the deceased), but evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient for drawing inference of commission of dowry death against appellant No.3 Smt.Shashi Tiwari. The suspicion, however, great cannot take place of evidence and only on the ground of suspicion, the conviction of appellant No.3 is not sustainable. 25. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the Court below have convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. Conviction of appellants No.1 and 2 are sustainable under the law. As relates to the conviction of appellant No.3, her conviction is not based on reliable and clinching evidence. Her conviction is not sustainable under the law. 26. 25. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the Court below have convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. Conviction of appellants No.1 and 2 are sustainable under the law. As relates to the conviction of appellant No.3, her conviction is not based on reliable and clinching evidence. Her conviction is not sustainable under the law. 26. As regards the question of appellants No.1 and 2 is concerned, First Additional Sessions Judge has sentenced the appellants No.1 and 2 rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Taking into consideration the death of bride within 2 months and 8 days of her marriage, sentence awarded to appellants No..1 and 2 is just and proper. I do not find any scope for interference in the judgment impugned. 27. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence of appellant No.1 namely, Shailendra Kumar @ Shailu Tiwari (husband of the deceased) and appellant No.2 namely, Jawla Prasad (father-in-law of the deceased) are hereby maintained, however, conviction and sentence of appellant No.3 namely, Smt.Shashi Tiwari is hereby set aside. She is acquitted of the charge of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. She is in custody. She be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.