Judgment ( 1. ) IN this appeal, the judgment-dated 17-1-1995 passed by Sessions judge, Jabalpur in S. T. No. 465/89 is the subject matter of challenge. By virtue of the judgment, the appellants, who are respectively father-in-law, brother-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of Shashiprabha (since deceased), stand convicted and sentenced as under with the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently ( 2. ) PROSECUTION story, in short, may be narrated as under : (i) Marriage of Shashiprabha (for brevity shashi), the daughter of Ramkripal Gupt (PW 3) and sister of Nitendra Kumar (PW 7), was solemnized with Satyanarayan (PW 15)on 22-11-1983 at village Karvi, Chitrakoot dhaam, Distt. Banda (U. P. ). Thereafter, till her untimely death, she resided with her husband and his relatives including the appellants in House No. 471, located in latkari-Ka-Padav, Jabalpur. In the wedlock, the couple was blessed with two sons namely sachin and Saurabh, who were respectively 3 years and 7 months of age at the time of the incident in question. (ii) On 27-3-1988 at about 7. 30 p. m. , in a severaly burnt condition, Shashi was taken to Victoria Hospital where she breathed her last on the following morning at 7. The corresponding information (Ex. P-18) given by her brother-in-law Jainarayan led to regsitration of a marg (death case) at P. S. Lordganj. After inquest proceedings, dead body was sent to Medical College Hospital for post mortem that was conducted by a team of doctors comprising Dr. N. K. Shrivastava and Dr. T. K. Sakalley (PW 5 ). They opined that cause of Shashis death was shock due to thermal burns. (iii) On 28-3-1988, on being informed that shashi was seriously ill, Ramkripal, a resident of village Karvi, reached Jabalpur on the same day and even after knowing about the circumstances leading to Shashis death, he did not come forward to lodge an FIR at the concerned Police Station. However, after his return to Karvi, he sent an application (Ex. P-4) on 14-4-1988 by registered post to SHO of P. S. Lordganj requesting him to initiate appropriate action against the parents-in-law and sisters-in-law of Shashi for her murder due to non-satisfaction of dowry demand. (iv) In the meanwhile, it was upon the FIR (Ex. P-1) lodged by Tejilal (PW 2), the occupant of adjacent part of house No. 471, suggesting that being consistently subjected to cruelty and harassment. (iv) In the meanwhile, it was upon the FIR (Ex. P-1) lodged by Tejilal (PW 2), the occupant of adjacent part of house No. 471, suggesting that being consistently subjected to cruelty and harassment. Shashi had committed suicide by self-immolation that a case under Section 306 of the I. P. C. was registered. He also produced a greeting card (Ex. P-2) said to have been dropped by Shashi through the space provided in the kitchen of appellants residence into the adjacent portion occupied by him. It contained certain details of cruelty meted out to Shashi in her matrimonial home and her apprehension that her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law would kill her. (v) During investigation, pieces of Shashis green terrycot Sari, one Bhabhka (a vessel with wick and kerosene to give light) and a burnt matchstick were seized from the place of occurrence. These articles were forwarded along with Shashis viscera preserved by the autopsy Surgeons to the FSL, Sagar for chemical examination. The corresponding report (Ex. P-20) indicated that it was not found to contain any chemical poison. (vi) On 27-4-1988, three letters (Ex. P-6 to P-8) said to have been written by Shashi to her parents, describing her sufferings at the hands of the appellants and co-accused manjulata (since discharged) and the consequent discontentment were seized. These letters along with the greeting card (Ex. P-2)were forwarded to the State Examiner of questioned Documents, Bhopal for examination. The expert opined that the incriminating recitals of the documents were scribed by a common author. ( 3. ) AFTER due investigation, charge-sheet in respect of the offences punishable under sections 498a and 306 read with 34 of the i. P. C. arraigning the appellants and manjulata, 18 years old sister-in-law of shashi, as accused, was submitted before c. J. M. , Jabalpur who committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. However, learned trial Judge, for the reasons assigned in the order dated 17-8-90, proceeded to discharge Manjulata for want of evidence. ( 4. ) THE appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded that at the time when electricity supply was suddenly disrupted, Shashi had accidentally sustained the burn injuries while lighting the Bhabhka in room adjacent to the room where she was watching T. V. programme with other members of the family. ( 4. ) THE appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded that at the time when electricity supply was suddenly disrupted, Shashi had accidentally sustained the burn injuries while lighting the Bhabhka in room adjacent to the room where she was watching T. V. programme with other members of the family. According to them, they were falsely implicated at the instance of Tejilal (PW 2)due to prevailing animosity in view of the civil proceedings initiated for his eviction from the accommodation unlawfully possessed by him. ( 5. ) THE prosecution sought to prove the charges by examining 15 witnesses in all including the first informant Tejilal (PW 2), his wife Subhadra Bai (PW 1) and Satyanarayan (PW 15 ). However, the State Examiner of Questioned Documents was not produced in evidence whereas the appellants called one Handwriting Expert namely keshar Rao Pillai to substantiate the plea that questioned contents of the greeting card (Ex. P-2) were not scribed by the deceased. The defence evidence further comprised of as many as 100 letters forming part of the correspondence between (a) Ramkripal (PW 3) and A1 (Ex. D-1 to D-33 ). (b) Shashi and her husband Satnarayan (PW 15) (D-34 to D-39 ). (c) Jitendra Kumar son of Ramkripal and satnarayan/shashi (D-40 to D-65 ). (d) Nitendra Kumar, son of Ramkripal and a1/satnarayan/shashi (D-66 to D-77 ). (e) Shailendra, son of Ramkripal and satnarayan/shashi (D-78 ). (f) Kalpana Jaiswal and Shashi (D-79 to D-100 ). Copy of the statement given in writing by ramkripal (PW 3) to the SHO of P. S. Lordganj indicating that Shashi had not made any complaint regarding ill-treatment in her matrimonial home was also filed. This apart, certified copies of the judgments/decrees passed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court in respect of the suit filed by Dasailal, the owner of House No. 471 and father-in-law of A1 for eviction against shantibai and other legal representatives of kashi Prasad, the original tenant, from the premises in occupation of Tejilal (PW 2), the devar (brother-in-law) of Shantibai was also tendered in evidence to establish enmity between him and A1. ( 6. ) TEJILAL (PW 2) and his wife Subhadra bai (PW 1) came forward to allege that shashi had met with a homicidal death. ( 6. ) TEJILAL (PW 2) and his wife Subhadra bai (PW 1) came forward to allege that shashi had met with a homicidal death. According to them having discovered that smell of burnt clothes was coming out from the appellants residence, they rushed to the spot where Shashi, whose entire body except the waist was burnt, had revealed that her in-laws had set her ablaze. But, learned trial Judge, while rejecting their testimony as unworthy of credence, proceeded to conclude that other evidence on record comprising the statements of Ramkripal (PW 3)and his son Nitendra Kumar (PW 7) and the incriminating contents of greeting card (Ex. P-2) and letters dated 19-6-85, 15-6-84 and 10-9-84 (Ex. P-6, P-7 and P-8) was sufficient to bring home the charges against all the four appellants. However, in doing so, he completely overlooked the following material aspects of the matter (i) There was no suicidal note or dying declaration in writing whereas Satyanarayan (PW 15) categorically deposed that while being taken to the hospital, Shashi had described as to how her Sari caught fire when she had ignited the matchstick to light the lamp. (ii) Probability of defence that Shashi had sustained the burn injuries in the accident, was not ruled out by the Autopsy Surgeon dr. T. K. Sakalley (PW 5 ). (iii) Although Ramkripal (PW 3) asserted that Shashi was being subjected to cruelty and harassment due to non-fulfillment of demand for refrigerator and scooter or a cash of Rs. 50,000/- in dowry yet, none of the earlier correspondence including the card (Ex. P-2) and the letters (Ex. P-6, P-7 and P-8) contained any reference to the dowry demand. His son Nitendra Kumar (PW 7) also did not corroborate the allegation as to the dowry harassment. A combined reading of the contents of the card and the letters would only suggest that Shashi was made to work like a maidservant by her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law even during the period of her indisposition and still, they nurtured a grievance that she used to shirk the household work by feigning illness. But, there was no evidence to indicate that any one of the appellants had aided or instigated Shashi to commit suicide. This apart, neither Horilal, a common relative to whom the letter (Ex. But, there was no evidence to indicate that any one of the appellants had aided or instigated Shashi to commit suicide. This apart, neither Horilal, a common relative to whom the letter (Ex. P-10) containing an instance of cruelty was written by Ramkripal nor Kalpana Jaiswal, a close friend of the deceased, was produced in evidence. (iv) The greeting card (Ex. P-2) did not contain any date whereas the letters (Ex. P-6 to P-8) related to the period between 15-6-84 to 19-6-85 but the incident leading to prosecution of the appellants had occurred on 17-3-88 and there was nothing to suggest that maltreatment allegedly meted to shashi had not ceased during the intervening period. As such, the alleged wilful conduct of the appellants was not proximate to her death. (v) Tejilal (PW 2), who had allegedly produced the greeting card (Ex. P-2) before the investigating Officer, was branded as a liar. ( 7. ) LETTERS (Ex. D-4 to D-39) written by shashi to her husband Satyanarayan (PW 15) during the period from 10-3-1984 to 8-11-1987 reflect that their married life was happy and consistently cheerful and it was satyanarayan only who completely damaged the prosecution case. Since, he was declared hostile by the prosecution, the defence could rely on his evidence (See : Mukhtiar Ahmed ansari v. State (N. C. T. of Delhi) AIR 2005 sc 2804 : (2005 Cri LJ 2569 ). Even otherwise, the probability of an accident drew support from the under-mentioned findings as recorded by the panel of doctors in the port-mortem report (Ex. P-17) and the circumstances at the spot as reflected by the investigating Officer in the spot map (Ex. P-24) (i) Smell of kerosene was not coming out from the dead body. (ii) Hair, face and back of the deceased were not involved in burns. (iii) No other injury except the burn injuries was found on the body. (iv) Burnt pieces of green coloured terrycot sari, a Bhabhka (chimney) in a tumbled down condition were found in a room adjacent to the room where television was installed. ( 8. (ii) Hair, face and back of the deceased were not involved in burns. (iii) No other injury except the burn injuries was found on the body. (iv) Burnt pieces of green coloured terrycot sari, a Bhabhka (chimney) in a tumbled down condition were found in a room adjacent to the room where television was installed. ( 8. ) BEFORE invoking the statutory presumption under Section 113a of the Evidence Act, it is necessary to establish that (i) the deceased committed suicide and (ii)she had been subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498a, I. P. C. Law is also well settled on the point that even in a case of suicide, letters written by the deceased which are directly connected with or related to death in question would fall within four corners of Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act (Sharad Biridhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 : 1984 Cri LJ 1738 referred to ). However, as further explained by the Apex Court in gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa (2002)2 SCC 619 , such an evidence would not be admissible with regard to the offences like 498a which do not relate to the declarants death. But, in absence of the conclusive finding as to suicide, the impugned conviction of the appellants for its abetment was not sustainable in law (See Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana, AIR 1989 SC 378 : 1989 Cri LJ 809 ). ( 9. ) ADVERTING to the offence of cruelty under Section 498a of the I. P. C, it may be observed that in absence of evidence regarding grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, Expln. (a) was not attracted to the facts of the case whereas a negative finding regarding dowry harassment was also sufficient to disprove the cruelty within the meaning of Expln. (b ). In this view of the matter, the conviction for the offence of cruelty also deserves to be set aside. ( 10. ) TO sum up, on a re-appreciation of the entire evidence in the light of reasoning assigned by learned trial Judge. I am of the view that on one hand, the prosecution evidence was not sufficient to prove guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt and on the other, probability of defence was duly established from the circumstances surrounding Shashis death. The appeal, therefore, deserves acceptance. I am of the view that on one hand, the prosecution evidence was not sufficient to prove guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt and on the other, probability of defence was duly established from the circumstances surrounding Shashis death. The appeal, therefore, deserves acceptance. ( 11. ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned convictions and consequent sentences passed against the appellants are hereby set aside. Instead, they are acquitted of the charges. ( 12. ) APPELLANTS are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Appeal allowed.