JUDGMENT : J. C. UPADHYAYA, J. The appellants, who were the original accused in Sessions Case No. 110 of 1997 came to be tried by the learned Presiding Officer, 2nd Fast Track Court, Rajkot in connection with the offences punishable under Sec. 304B read with Sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Sec. 306 read with Sec. 114 of the I.P.C. and Sec. 498A read with Sec. 114 of the I.P.C. and at the end of the trial, all the appellants came to be convicted for the aforesaid offences by the judgment and order dated 31st January, 2007, and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, and was imposed fine of Rs. 2500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months under Sec. 304B read with Sec. 114 of I.P.C. Each of the accused was also sentenced to undergo 5 years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1500/-, in default to pay fine to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months, under Sec. 306 read with Sec. 114 of the I.P.C. Each of the accused was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month under Sec. 498C read with Sec. 114 of the I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that deceased Zeenatben married appellant-accused No.1, Kadarkhan Samsherkhan Pathan on 14th January, 1996 in a mass marriage ceremony. Appellant-accused No.2, Samsherkhan Sarifkhan Pathan happens W be father-in-law of Zeenatben. Appellant accused No.3, Ayeshaben Samsherkhan Pathan happens to be the mother-in-law of Zeenatben. It is the case of the prosecution that after solemnisation of the marriage, Zeenatben went to her matrimonial home. Since, the marriage was solemnised in a mass marriage ceremony, neither any amount nor any valuable article nor dowry was given by the parents of Zeenatben to the appellants. Keeping grudge in the minds, it is alleged that the appellants acted cruelly with Zeenatben and she was meted out with cruel treatment coupled with demand of dowry. It is the case of the prosecution that during her matrimonial life, because of the ill-treatment and cruelty meted out to her by the appellants she had come to her parental home. Keeping grudge in the minds, it is alleged that the appellants acted cruelly with Zeenatben and she was meted out with cruel treatment coupled with demand of dowry. It is the case of the prosecution that during her matrimonial life, because of the ill-treatment and cruelty meted out to her by the appellants she had come to her parental home. It is the case of the prosecution that in the meanwhile Zeenatben had to file a criminal complaint against the appellants as well as against brothers of her husband. It is the case of the prosecution that after some time talks for settlement took place between elderly people from the side of Zeenatben and the appellants and by way of a compromise, Zeenatben again went to reside at her matrimonial home. It is the case of the prosecution that even after the alleged compromise when Zeenatben went to reside at her matrimonial home, she was again meted out with cruel treatment by the appellants coupled with demand of dowry as she was sent by her parents to her matrimonial home. After the alleged compromise, Zeenatben did not do anything and continued to suffer cruelty and ill-treatment meted out to her by the appellants. According to the prosecution case, she was not given food to eat and a good place to stay in her matrimonial home and she was made to stay in a store room infested with mosquitoes. It is the case of the prosecution that during the early morning hours on 9th March, 1997, because of the cruelty and ill-treatment caused to Zeenatben by the appellants and continuous demand of dowry, Zeenatben consumed acid used for washing tiles. She was immediately removed to Civil Hospital, Rajkot wherein during the treatment within hours she died. Yakubbhai Ibrahimbhai Pathan, brother of Zeenatben informed the incident to 'B' Division Police Station, Rajkot and his F.I.R. was registered. Police investigation was started. During the course of the investigation, statements of material witnesses were recorded. Necessary panchnamas were drawn in presence of panchas, medical evidence like post mortem report of the deceased and her treatment papers were collected. Yakubbhai Ibrahimbhai Pathan, brother of Zeenatben informed the incident to 'B' Division Police Station, Rajkot and his F.I.R. was registered. Police investigation was started. During the course of the investigation, statements of material witnesses were recorded. Necessary panchnamas were drawn in presence of panchas, medical evidence like post mortem report of the deceased and her treatment papers were collected. After collecting the required material for the purpose of lodgement of charge-sheet, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajkot, since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Rajkot, which was registered as Sessions Case No. 110 of 1997. 3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that appellant-accused No. 3-Ayeshaben Samsherkhan Pathan, who came to be convicted by the trial Court and during the pendency of this appeal, sentence awarded by the trial Court was suspended by this Court and she was released on bail. Learned Advocate for the appellants, Mr. Bharda submitted at the Bar that appellant accused No.3, Ayeshaben has died on 19th April, 2008. A copy of the death certificate issued by Rajkot Municipal Corporation is shown to us which shall be taken on record. Accordingly, the present appeal qua appellant accused No.3, Ayeshaben Samsherkhan Pathan stands abated. 4. The learned trial Judge framed charge against the appellants at Exh. 1, to which they did not plead guilty and came to be tried. The prosecution examined eight witnesses and produced necessary documentary evidence. After the prosecution concluded its evidence, the trial Court recorded further statements of the appellants under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the appellants in their further statements denied generally all the incriminating circumstances put to them by the trial Court and they stated that they were innocent and that as Zeenatben was sick and by accident she consumed acid that they were falsely implicated in this case. After appreciating the evidence on record and the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against all the three appellants, ultimately, recorded their conviction for the offence under Secs. 304B, 306, 498A read with Sec. 114 of the I.P.C. and awarded sentence as hereinabove referred to in this judgment. 5. 304B, 306, 498A read with Sec. 114 of the I.P.C. and awarded sentence as hereinabove referred to in this judgment. 5. We have heard the arguments of learned Advocate Mr. Bharda for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Sejpal for the State. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Bharda for the appellants submitted that the factum of marriage is not disputed and the relationship of the appellants with deceased Zeenatben is also not disputed. However, it is submitted in the instant case, the first informant, Yakubbhai Ibrahimbhai Pathan, brother of the deceased, Zeenatben, who lodged F.I.R is not examined as a witness by the prosecution. It is submitted that thus, the person, who moved the Police machinery has not come before the trial Court to prove the contents of the F.I.R on oath. It is submitted that though during the course of the evidence of P.S.I., P.W. 7, Mr. Chaudhary, F.I.R. is exhibited at Exh. 107, but thereby the contents of F.I.R. cannot be said to have been proved. It is, therefore, submitted that in absence of any evidence of the first informant, Yakubbhai Ibrahimbhai Pathan, the trial Court should not have recorded conviction holding that the prosecution proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt. 7. Learned Advocate Mr. Bharda for the appellants submitted that even if the evidence adduced by the prosecution is appreciated on merits, the prosecution failed to prove ingredients of any of the offences charged against the appellants. The prosecution relies upon the evidence of three witnesses, namely: (i) mother of the deceased, P.W. 4, Ayeshaben Pathan : (ii) brother of the deceased, P.W. 5, Pathan, and (iii) P.W. 6, Hafizaben Ayubbhai Pathan, who is brother's wife of deceased Zeenatben. It is submitted that examining their evidence only general and vague allegations regarding the so-called cruelty and demand of dowry have emerged. No specific evidence is forthcoming in connection with any of the offences charged against the appellants. It is further submitted that the evidence of all these three witnesses is contradictory and inconsistent and full of material improvements. The trial Court therefore, erred in relying upon the evidence of three witnesses, whose evidence is otherwise does not inspire confidence, and even otherwise, they are closely related with deceased Zeenatben. Learned Advocate Mr. Bharda for the appellants further submitted that in the instant case, the prosecution failed to prove even the cause of death. The trial Court therefore, erred in relying upon the evidence of three witnesses, whose evidence is otherwise does not inspire confidence, and even otherwise, they are closely related with deceased Zeenatben. Learned Advocate Mr. Bharda for the appellants further submitted that in the instant case, the prosecution failed to prove even the cause of death. Probable cause of death as opined by the Medical Officer who performed autopsy is on account of poisoning. Viscera collected from the dead body of Zeenatben was sent to F.S.L. The F.S.L. report clearly reveals that no poison was found in viscera. It is, therefore, submitted that in absence of clear and cogent evidence regarding cause of death, offence punishable under Secs. 304B and 306 of I.P.C. cannot be said to have been duly proved. Learned Advocate Mr. Bharda for the appellants submitted that so far as appellant-accused No. 3-Ayeshaben Pathan is concerned, she had died during the pendency of this appeal. So far as appellant-accused No.2, Samsherkhan Sharifkhan Pathan is concerned, nothing reveals that he caused any cruelty or ill-treatment to Zeenatben or he demanded any dowry. It is submitted that evidence on record reveals that it was appellant-accused No.2, Samsherkhan Pathan, who soon after the incident went to parental house of Zeenatben and informed the brother of Zeenatben about the incident and it was appellant-accused No. 2-Samsherkhan, who took brother of Zeenatben to the hospital where the deceased was hospitalised. That such conduct on the part of the appellant-accused No. 2-Samsherkhan as emerging from the evidence of the prosecution itself suggests that he is innocent and he is wrongly roped in the offence. Learned Advocate Mr. Bharda for the appellants relied upon certain judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same will be discussed at its proper place. Ultimately, it is submitted that the appeal may be allowed. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Sejpal vehemently opposed this appeal and submitted that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt, through evidence of witnesses as well as taking recourse to the presumptions laid down under Secs. 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act. It is further submitted that admittedly, the matrimonial life of the deceased was approximately of 14 months, out of those 14 months, for a period of about 7 months, because of the ill-treatment and cruelty meted out to her she stayed at her parental home. 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act. It is further submitted that admittedly, the matrimonial life of the deceased was approximately of 14 months, out of those 14 months, for a period of about 7 months, because of the ill-treatment and cruelty meted out to her she stayed at her parental home. It is submitted that apparently, it may appear that a compromise was arrived at and dispute was settled between Zeenatben and the appellants, but in fact, if the evidence adduced by the prosecution is appreciated in its true perspective it would appear that deceased Zeenatben settled the dispute only out of frustration as she had lost her father, her widowed mother was maintained by his brother, P.W. 5, Ayubbhai. Ayubbhai was doing only petty labour work. It is submitted that second time when Zeenatben went to her matrimonial' home, the appellants continued to cause cruelty and ill-treatment to her coupled with demand of dowry. It has come on record that on account of frustration, Zeenatben had to settle the dispute and had to stay at her matrimonial home. Therefore, second time she thought it fit to continue her stay at her matrimonial home despite the fact that she was meted out with cruelty at the hands of the appellants. That within the period of about 24-25 days from the date of her coming to the matrimonial home, the incident occurred. That the prosecution successfully established the above facts on record. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Sejpal for the State submitted that examining the evidence of mother, brother and brother's wife of Zeenatben, nothing emerges that there are any material improvements or contradictions in their evidence. It is submitted that examining the evidence of the Investigating Police Officer, it appears that at the time when the Police statements were recorded, witnesses were under immense shock, because of the death of Zeenatben. The evidence reveals that at the time when their statements were recorded, witnesses were weeping. Despite this all the essential facts were narrated by them in their Police statements. During the course of evidence of all these witnesses which unfortunately came to be recorded after lapse of about 9 years from the date of the incident, the witnesses described the same events, more elaborately, which they had described before the Investigating Officer. Despite this all the essential facts were narrated by them in their Police statements. During the course of evidence of all these witnesses which unfortunately came to be recorded after lapse of about 9 years from the date of the incident, the witnesses described the same events, more elaborately, which they had described before the Investigating Officer. That thus, there is no material improvements in their evidence, which would render their evidence a doubtful one. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Sejpal for the State relied upon certain judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed. 9. We have examined the record and proceedings in context with the submissions made by the rival sides. It is true that in the instant case, the F.I.R. was lodged by Yakubbhai Ibrahimbhai Pathan, brother of deceased Zeenatben. There is also no dispute that at the time when Sessions Case was put to trial and the prosecution started recording evidence of witnesses, presence of Yakubbhai Ibrahimbhai Pathan could not be secured by the prosecution. It has come on record that as he was involved in some case, he left his home and he was not traceable. Thus, the reason assigned by the prosecution for not examining the first informant, Yakubbhai as emerged from the evidence on record is not at all disputed by the appellants. Nothing is alleged that though Yakubbhai was available yet because of some ulterior motive, the prosecution suppressed his evidence. Moreover, considering the evidence of the Investigating Officer, P.W. 8, P.S.I. Mr. Jani, he categorically stated that the first informant, Yakubbhai had come before him and Mr. Jani had recorded F.I.R. lodged by Yakubbhai, which is at Exh. 107. Thus, lodgement of F. I. R. is duly proved by the prosecution through the evidence of P.S.I. Mr. Jani. On behalf of the appellants it was vehemently submitted that on account of mere lodgement of F.I.R. the contents of F.I.R. cannot be said to have been proved. Jani had recorded F.I.R. lodged by Yakubbhai, which is at Exh. 107. Thus, lodgement of F. I. R. is duly proved by the prosecution through the evidence of P.S.I. Mr. Jani. On behalf of the appellants it was vehemently submitted that on account of mere lodgement of F.I.R. the contents of F.I.R. cannot be said to have been proved. In the wake of such arguments we have examined the evidence of (i) P. W. 4, Ayeshaben Pathan, mother of deceased Zeenatben, (ii) P.W. 5, Ayubbhai, brother of Zeenatben, and (iii) P.W. 6, Hafizaben Pathan, brother's wife of Zeenatben: Examining the evidence of these three witnesses, it becomes clear that the first informant Yakubbhai and all these three witnesses were residing together, and according to the evidence of witnesses after the marriage whenever Zeenatben came to her parental home she used to meet all these three witnesses as well as the first informant, Yakubbhai and she used to tell all of them about the cruelty and ill-treatment caused to her by the appellants and about demand of dowry. Under such circumstances, here is not the case wherein only if the first informant Yakubbhai Ibrahimbhai Pathan enters the witness box of the trial Court, then only the contents of the F.I.R., Exh. 107 can be said to have been proved. The contents of the F.I.R., Exh. 107 are not such which can be said to be within the exclusive knowledge of Yakubbhai Ibrahimbhai Pathan and in absence of his oral evidence the contents cannot be proved by the prosecution. Under such circumstances if the evidence of the above-referred three witnesses together with the contents of the F.I.R., Exh. 107 are looked into it clearly transpires that through evidence of witnesses, the prosecution successfully established not only the lodgment of F.I.R. but the contents of the F.I.R. 10. Examining the evidence of the above-referred three witnesses, namely, P.W. 4, Ayeshaben, P.W. 5, Ayubbhai and P.W. 6, Hafizaben, so far as appellant-accused No. 1-Kadarkhan is concerned, who happens to be the husband of deceased-Zeenatben, it has clearly come on record that soon after the marriage -When Zeenatben went to stay with her husband, almost from day one, he was meted out with cruelty and ill-treatment by her husband coupled with demand of dowry. It is true that the evidence reveals that the marriage of Zeenatben with appellant No. 1-Kadarkhan was solemnised in a mass marriage ceremony and it has come on record that if the marriage is solemnised in mass marriage ceremony, no gift or valuable article is given by the parents of the bride to the family members of the groom. On behalf of the appellants on this count, it was submitted that when the appellants consented to have marriage solemnised in a mass marriage ceremony, that itself suggests that the appellants were not greedy of dowry,' and therefore, the allegations about dowry are baseless. If the evidence of these three witnesses is appreciated and scrutinised in its true perspective, it would appear that only because the marriage was solemnised in a mass marriage ceremony and because of the custom, the appellants could not demand dowry and at that time could not recover the same from the parents of Zeenatben. No sooner Zeenatben went to stay at her matrimonial home than husband of Zeenatben, namely, Kadarkhan started demanding dowry. This fact is further supported if some past events during the course of matrimonial life of Zeenatben are considered. The prosecution examined P.W. 1, Lady P.S.L, Smt. Chaudhary at Exh. 26 and P.W. 2, P.S.L, Mr. Chauhan, who at the relevant time was serving as Senior Security Squad, Rajkot and through their evidence it transpires that Zeenatben had complained to Social Security Squad on 21st June, 1996 about cruelty and ill-treatment meted out to her at her matrimonial home and especially by her husband. In this connection furthermore, if the evidence of P.W. 7, P.S.I. Mr. K. M. Chaudhary is considered it further transpires that on 4th July, 1996, Zeenatben filed one private complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot against the present three appellants as well as against three more persons, who happen to be her husband's brothers for the offences punishable under Sec. 498A, etc. of the I.P.C. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot directed the Police investigation under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said F.I.R. was investigated by P.S.I., P.W. 7, Mr. K. M. Chaudhary. Under such circumstances, the prosecution successfully proved that the matrimonial life of Zeenatben was not happy. 11. of the I.P.C. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot directed the Police investigation under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said F.I.R. was investigated by P.S.I., P.W. 7, Mr. K. M. Chaudhary. Under such circumstances, the prosecution successfully proved that the matrimonial life of Zeenatben was not happy. 11. However, it has come on record that about 24-25 days prior to the date of \he incident some compromise was arrived at between the two families. It has come on record that because of the cruelty and ill-treatment meted out to Zeenatben at her matrimonial home, she had to leave her matrimonial home and she stayed at her parental home for about 7 months. It has further come on record that Zeenatben has lost her father and her widowed mother was maintained by P.W. 5, Ayubbhai, by doing stray labour work Considering such economic background, examining the evidence of these three witnesses, it transpires that ultimately Zeenatben was sent to stay at her matrimonial home. Examining the evidence on record especially that of P.W. 5, Ayubbhai Pathan, brother of Zeenatben he deposed that even during the short span of 24-25 days prior to the date of the incident when Zeenatben went to her matrimonial home for second time, Ayubbhal met his sister. His sister, Zeenatben told him that cruel treatment meted out to her continues unabated, but as she was sent to her matrimonial home second time after some settlement, therefore, she did not want to again come back to her parental home and she would find out some way and she would face whatever consequences and circumstances which might arise. Such evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly reveals that only out of sheer frustration and considering the weak financial conditions of her brother and mother, Zeenatben decided to go to her matrimonial home. It has come on record that even during the short span of 24-25 days when second time Zeenatben went to stay at her matrimonial home, she was meted out with cruelty and ill-treatment, more particularly so far as her husband-appellant, accused No. 1-Kadarkhan is concerned. 12. On behalf of the appellants, it is vehemently submitted that in the instant case, the very base of the prosecution case, namely, unnatural death of the deceased is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. In connection with such submission if the evidence of autopsy of Dr. 12. On behalf of the appellants, it is vehemently submitted that in the instant case, the very base of the prosecution case, namely, unnatural death of the deceased is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. In connection with such submission if the evidence of autopsy of Dr. Tank, P. W. 3, coupled with the post mortem report, Exh. 70 is considered, it clearly transpires that the death of Zeenatben at least cannot be said to be a natural death. It has come on record that during the morning hours on the fateful day, Zeenatben had consumed acid used for cleaning tiles. The probable cause of death as opined by autopsy is cardio-respiratory arrest due to some poison. There is also no dispute that viscera was sent to F.S.L. and as per F.S.L. report, Exh. 112, F.S.L. opined that in viscera, presence of 'chemical poison' was not traced out. Therefore, it is submitted on behalf of the appellants that death due to poison cannot be said to have been proved. Now, in this respect during the course of the evidence of P. W. 3, Dr. Tank, the prosecution produced treatment papers of Zeenatben at Exh. 73 (colly.). Considering the treatment papers, it transpires that history of ingestion of acid poison (used for cleaning bath-room and latrine tiles) was given. It clearly transpires that at 7-30 a.m. on 9th March, 1997 when Zeenatben was brought to hospital she was found to be conscious and could follow commands but she was confused and was not able to speak. At 9-00 a.m. she was found bleeding from mouth. There is an endorsement made in the case paper at 8-30 a.m. by appellant-accused No.1, Kadarkhan, husband of Zeenatben that he was informed by the Medical Officer that the physical condition of his wife was not good. It further reveals that appellant-accused No.2, Samsherkhan went to the house of Zeenatben's mother, Ayesha and informed P.W. 5, Ayubbhai, brother of Zeenat that during the morning hours, Zeenatben had consumed acid. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that unnatural death of Zeenatben is not only established by adducing cogent and convincing medical evidence but even during the evidence of other witnesses examined by the prosecution, the prosecution successfully established the unnatural death of Zeenatben. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that unnatural death of Zeenatben is not only established by adducing cogent and convincing medical evidence but even during the evidence of other witnesses examined by the prosecution, the prosecution successfully established the unnatural death of Zeenatben. It is pertinent to note that at the time of further statement of the appellants recorded under Sec. 313, they explained that since Zeenatben was sick, therefore, by mistake she consumed acid. Nothing emerges that at the time of the incident she was suffering from an ailment, for which she was prescribed medicine by any doctor to her and by mistake she consumed acid. Considering the panchnama of scene of occurrence, Exh. 108, it transpires that from a small room usually used for storing miscellaneous goods in the house, a big bottle containing some acid used for cleaning tiles was recovered by the Police. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants even prima facie, failed to establish their defence that Zeenatben consumed acid by mistake. However, one fact can be said to have been clearly revealed even from the defence of the appellants that Zeenatben had consumed acid. At any rate, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution successfully proved the unnatural death of Zeenatben. Our attention was drawn by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Sejpal for the State to the relevant provisions regarding certain presumptions contained under Sec. 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act. Section 113A of the Evidence Act reads as under : "113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman : When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband." Section Il3B of the Evidence Act reads as under : "113B. Presumption as to dowry death :- 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 has 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." A bare reading of the presumptions suggests that the presumption contained under Sec. 113A of the Evidence Act can be raised when an accused is facing trial for offence punishable under Sec. 306 of the I.P.C. is concerned. Presumption contained under Sec. 113B of the Evidence Act pertains to the offence punishable under Sec. 304B of the I.P.C. is concerned. In the instant case, the appellants came to be convicted for both the offences. Perusing the presumption contained under Sec. 113A of the Evidence Act, to raise presumption is left with the discretion of the Court. However, so far as the presumption contained under Sec. 113B of the Evidence Act is concerned as stated above, it is clearly provided that in case of dowry death of a married woman if the prosecution establishes that soon before her death she was subjected by her husband or relative of her husband to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry, the Court 'shall' presume that such person had caused dowry death. Such presumption, if established shall have to be rebutted by the accused and if the presumption is not rebutted, the case against the accused is deemed to have been proved. In the instant case, as stated above so far as appellant No. 1-Kadarkhan is concerned not even an attempt appears to have been made to rebut the presumptions. So far as the case against appellant No. 2-Samsherkhan is concerned, we will examine this later on in this judgment. Under such circumstances, examining the evidence on record and presumptions in the Evidence Act, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant-accused No. 1Kadarkhan. 13. On behalf of the appellants it was vehemently submitted that the prosecution evidence is full of inconsistencies and improvements. In connection with such submission, we were taken through the evidence of P.W. 4, Ayeshaben, P.W. 5, Ayubbhai and P.W. 6, Hafizaben. 13. On behalf of the appellants it was vehemently submitted that the prosecution evidence is full of inconsistencies and improvements. In connection with such submission, we were taken through the evidence of P.W. 4, Ayeshaben, P.W. 5, Ayubbhai and P.W. 6, Hafizaben. It was submitted that their evidence is full of material improvements as before the Court they deposed such facts which initially they did not tell the Police when their Police statements were recorded. We have perused the evidence of these three witnesses and we have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. In connection with such submissions, we have also examined the evidence of the Investigating Officer, P.S.I., P.W. 8, Bakulbhai Vithalbhai Jani, who recorded statements of these three witnesses. We are of the considered opinion that during the course of the Police statements, the witnesses did not miss important events. It is further pertinent to note that as emerged from the evidence of Investigating Officer, P.S.I., P.W. 8, Bakulbhai Vithalbhai Jani that at the time when statements of these witness were recorded they were under shock since they had lost their kin and kith. In fact, they were weeping. Under such circumstances and situation, Investigating Officer, P.S.I., P.W. 8, Bakulbhai Vithalbhai Jani recorded their statements. Examining the evidence of these witnesses which could be recorded after about 9 years from the date of the event, viz. after 9 years from the date when their Police statements were recorded, still we do not find any material improvements in their evidence. We find that during the course of their evidence they merely elaborately described the events with some more details which though they had stated to the Investigating Officer, P.S.I., P.W. 8, Bakulbhai Vithalbhai Jani at the time when their statements were recorded. Thus, their evidence is rather supplementary in nature, supplementary to what they stated before the Police and can never be treated as evidence containing material improvements. Under such circumstances, the contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the evidence of these three witnesses is -full of material improvements cannot be considered on merits. 14. Examining the prosecution case qua the appellant-accused No.2, Samsherkhan Pathan is concerned, we are of the opinion that his conduct reveals his innocence. Under such circumstances, the contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the evidence of these three witnesses is -full of material improvements cannot be considered on merits. 14. Examining the prosecution case qua the appellant-accused No.2, Samsherkhan Pathan is concerned, we are of the opinion that his conduct reveals his innocence. Examining the evidence of P.W. 5, Ayubbhai, brother of Zeenatben, he categorically stated that on 9th March, 1997 at about 7-30 a.m., appellant No.2 had come to his house and had told him that Zeenatben has consumed acid. Appellant No.2, Samsherkhan then took P.W. 5, Ayubbhai to the hospital where Zeenatben was under treatment. In the hospital, appellant No.2, Samsherkhan allowed P.W. 5, Ayubbhai to meet Zeenatben alone in the room. Such conduct on the part of appellant No. 2-Samsherkhan reveals his innocence. Moreover, apart from this even otherwise, examining the evidence of P.W. 4-Ayeshaben, P.W. 5, Ayubbhai, P.W. 6-Hafizaben, so far as appellant No. 2-Samsherkhan is concerned only general allegation regarding cruelty appears to have been levelled against him. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the case qua appellant No. 2-Samsherkhan cannot be said to have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It may be noted that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and it is well established that circumstances proved by the prosecution qua any accused should be such which are pointing guilt of the accused and in the circumstances which is pointing to the innocence of such accused, chain of circumstantial evidence cannot be said to have been well established as in that case an important link of the chain can be said to have been missing. In the instant case, as stated above through prosecution evidence itself the circumstance leading to the innocence of appellant-accused No. 2-Shamsherkhan is revealed. Over and above, that the evidence qua appellant-accused No. 2-Samsherkhan is general in nature so far as cruelty and demand of dowry are concerned. 15. Learned Advocate Mr. Bharda for the appellants relied upon a case of State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Singh, reported in 2004 (13) SCC 147 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court on the basis of the facts, circumstances and evidence in the said case held that, " . . . . 15. Learned Advocate Mr. Bharda for the appellants relied upon a case of State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Singh, reported in 2004 (13) SCC 147 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court on the basis of the facts, circumstances and evidence in the said case held that, " . . . . though ocular evidence has to be given primacy over medical evidence, where the medical evidence totally improbabilises the ocular version that can be taken to be a fact to affect credibility of the prosecution case." Now, considering the facts of the said case along with other material infirmities, noted by the Hon'ble Apex Court emerging from the evidence of the prosecution, the inconsistencies between medical evidence and ocular evidence was such which almost changed the nature of the weapon used for killing the deceased by accused-Bhavarlal. Ocular evidence reveals use of sharp-cutting instrument, whereas the medical evidence reveals use of hard and blunt object. So, considering the combined effect of infirmities, the Hon'ble Apex Court recorded acquittal. The facts of the instant case are totally different. Nothing emerges that there is any inconsistency between the ocular evidence and medical evidence on record. To put it differently, we do not find any inconsistency regarding oral evidence about the cause of death and the medical evidence about the same. About the dowry death reliance was placed on the case of Sunil Bajaj v. State of M.P., 2001 (9) SCC 417 . Examining the ingredients contained under Sec. 304B of the I.P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court held that cruelty and ill-treatment meted out to a married woman should be within reasonable proximity to the time of unnatural death. There cannot be any dispute regarding proposition propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the instant case, even applying the proximity test as laid down by the Hon'ble 230 AUGUST 2010 Apex Court right from day one to the marriage of Zeenatben with appellant accused No.1, Kadarkhan till her last days, it has come on record that she was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment by her husband coupled with demand of dowry. Reliance was placed upon the case of Rameshkumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 (9) SCC 618 . Reliance was placed upon the case of Rameshkumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 (9) SCC 618 . In the said case, considering the provisions contained under Sec. 306 of the I.P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court held that merely because the accused is found guilty under Sec. 498A, he should not necessarily be held to be guilty under Sec. 306 on the basis of the same evidence. There cannot be any dispute regarding principle propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case as emerged from the evidence, the Hon'ble Apex Court ultimately recorded acquittal of the appellant-Ramesh Kumar. Reliance was placed on the case of Hans Raj v. State of Haryana, 2004 (12) SCC 257 , wherein interpreting the presumption contained under Sec. 113A of the Evidence Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that nature of such presumption is discretionary as the Court may raise such presumption. However, in the instant case, we have reproduced the provisions contained under Sees. 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act hereinabove. So far as the presumption contained under Sec. 113B of the Evidence Act is concerned there is no discretion left open to the trial Court as there is mandate of the legislature that in the event the prosecution proves the basic facts required to raise such presumption the Court shall presume commission of offence punishable under Sec. 304B of the I.P.C. 16. Considering the case of Satpal v. State of Haryana, 1998 (5) SCC 687 , the Hon'ble Apex Court in a dowry death case held that unnatural death of deceased-wife shall have to be proved by the prosecution. It is further held that accidental consumption of such poison and administration of such poison by some one are required to be ruled out by the prosecution. Now, in the instant case, as stated above through medical evidence and other evidence the prosecution successfully proved the unnatural death of deceased Zeenatben. Mere oral defence raised by the appellants at the time of recording of their further statements under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that Zeenatben was sick and by mistake she consumed acid cannot be even prima fade, said to have been established if the overall evidence adduced by the prosecution coupled with the panchnama of scene of occurrence, Exh. 108 is collectively taken into consideration. 17. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. 108 is collectively taken into consideration. 17. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Sejpal relied upon a case of Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in 1998 (3) SCC 309 . It was a case arising in connection with the offence of dowry death punishable under Sec. 304B of the I.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case held that demand of dowry is itself punishable. Even the other ingredients of Sec. 304B of the I.P.C are established. The cruelty meted out to a married wife by her husband in connection with demand of dowry shall be shown before the death of wife. Such demand does not conceive any agreement for dowry. Such cruelty or harassment may not be physical but also mental. Demand for scooter and fridge made soon after the marriage by the husband and his relatives and deceased's failure ~o meet with the demand leading to repeated taunts and mal-treatment amounts to cruelty. Even in the aforesaid case, the facts reveal that due to some intervention of some elderly people, the deceased went to her husband's home and the evidence reveal that while going back to husband's home, the deceased regretting that it would be difficult to see her face in future. If the evidence in the instant case is examined in its true perspective, we are of the considered opinion that an identical situation arises even in the instant case. Though, this aspect of the matter has been dealt with elaborately in this judgment, it is suffice to say that out of sheet frustration Zeenatben due to intervention of elderly' persons of her family had to go to her matrimonial home to stay with her husband and the incident of her unnatural death occurred. Moreover, considering the Pawan Kumar's case (supra) it further becomes clear that in the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court acquitting the relatives of the husband of the deceased, confirming the conviction of appellant No. 1-husband of the deceased, partly dismissed the appeal and the conviction of appellant No. I-husband, Pawan Kumar (supra) recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court for the offence punishable under Sec. 304B of the I.P.C. as well as Sec. 306 of the I.P.C. was upheld by partly dismissing the appeal. Thus, simultaneous conviction of the accused under Sec. 304B as well as 306 of the I.P.C. came to be upheld. 18. Thus, simultaneous conviction of the accused under Sec. 304B as well as 306 of the I.P.C. came to be upheld. 18. In the result, examining the evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly recorded conviction of appellant-accused No. 1-Kadarkhan Samsherkhan Pathan for the offences punishable under Sees. 304B, 306 and 498A of the I.P.C. He is, therefore, required to be convicted for the above offences simpliciter. However, we are of the considered opinion that conviction of appellant-accused No. 2Samsherkhan Sarifkhan Pathan recorded by the trial Court and sentence awarded to him thereunder deserves to be set aside. As stated above, the appeal qua appellant-accused No. 3-Ayeshaben, wife of Samsherkhan Pathan stands abated. The appeal is, therefore, required to be partly allowed as under. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of appellant No. 2-Samsherkhan Sharifkhan Pathan recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, 2nd Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 110 of 1997 by the impugned judgment and order dated 31st January, 2007 for the offences punishable under Secs. 304B, 306 and 498A read with Sec. 114 of the I.P.C. and the sentence awarded thereunder by the trial Court are set aside. Appellant-accused No.2, Samsherkhan Sarifkhan Pathan is ordered to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Fine, if paid, be refunded to him. However, the appeal preferred by appellant-accused No. 1 -Kadarkhan Samsherkhan Path an stands dismissed. He is directed to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court for the offences for which his conviction is recorded by the trial Court. The appeal qua appellant-accused No. 3-Ayeshaben, W/o. Samesharkhan Pathan stands abated. (SBS) Appeal partly allowed.