JUDGMENT : (1) Challenge is to the judgment dated 10. 12. 2004 passed by additional sessions judge, multai in s. T. No. 17/04, whereby the appellants shaym singh, natthu singh and devki bai have been convicted under sections 304 - b/34 and 498 - a of the ipc and under section 4 of dowry prohibition act, 1961 and sentenced to undergo for ten years rigorous imprisonment and fined rs. 1,000/ - in default three months rigorous imprisonment and two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of rs. 500/ - in default three months rigorous imprisonment and three months rigorous imprisonment respectively. (2) The admitted facts of the case are that marriage of the deceased ranjna bai was solemnized on 11. 6. 2003 with the appellant no. 1 shyam singh. Ranjna died on 21. 11. 2003 by drowning in well. Her death is caused within seven years of her marriage under otherwise then normal circumstances and the appellant no. 2 natthu singh is father - in - law and the appellant no. 3 devki bai is mother - in - law of the deceased ranjna bai. (3) The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that after marriage, the appellants demanded rs. 20,000/ - and motorcycle in dowry. Due to non - fulfillment of demand of dowry, the appellants harassed and subjected ranjna to cruelty. On 21. 11. 2003 at 7:30 a. M. , ranjna went to answer the call of nature but she did not return. The appellant shyam singh lodged report (ex. P/10 - c). On search the dead body of ranjna was found in a well situate in village. Dr. P. K. Tiwari (pw - 12) conducted postmortem of ranjana and found ten ante mortem injuries on her person. Ranjna died due to asphyxia due to drowning. The father of the deceased filed a typed complaint ex. P/5 to s. D. O. Police betul. After merg inquiry, case was registered against the appellants. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 cr. P. C. After completion of investigation, the appellants were charge sheeted. Case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. (4) Learned trial court framed charges under sections 498 - a, 398 - b, 306, 304/b and 306/34 of ipc and section 3/4 dowry prohibition act against all the appellants. All the appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. (5) Prosecution examined 16 witnesses. Case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. (4) Learned trial court framed charges under sections 498 - a, 398 - b, 306, 304/b and 306/34 of ipc and section 3/4 dowry prohibition act against all the appellants. All the appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. (5) Prosecution examined 16 witnesses. The appellants examined two witnesses in defence. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, perusing evidence and material on record, learned trial court convicted the appellants and sentenced them as hereinabove mentioned. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment the appellants have preferred the appeal. (6) I have heard learned counsel for both the parties, perused impugned judgment, evidence and material on record. (7) It is admitted fact that ranjna got married with the appellant no. 1 shyam singh on 11. 6. 2003 and she died on 21. 11. 2003 due to asphyxia due to drowning and some ante mortem injuries were found on her person, hence it is proved beyond doubt that the death of ranjna is caused within seven years of her marriage, under otherwise then normal circumstances. The crucial question to be considered in this appeal is that whether the appellants demanded dowry from the parents of the deceased ranjna and they subjected her to cruelty due to non - fulfillment of demand of dowry. (8) Natyasingh (pw - 1) turned hostile. He is not supporting the prosecution case. Jagdeo (pw - 2) father of the deceased, yagsingh (pw - 3) brother of the deceased, nandibai (pw - 4) mother of the deceased, vandna bai (pw - 6) sister of the deceased, jitendra (pw - 7) younger brother of the deceased, indirabai (pw - 8) , jyotibai (pw - 9) and manohar singh (pw - 10) categorically deposed that shyam singh demanded rs. 20,000/ - from the parents of the deceased ranjna. They also deposed that ranjna informed that shyam used to beat her. Some witnesses deposed that all the three appellants demanded rs. 20,000/ - from the parents of the deceased. Jandeo (pw - 1) father of the deceased specifically deposed that ranjna told him that shyam singh demanded rs. 20,000/ - to pay installment of tractor. Jitendra (pw - 7) real brother of the deceased deposed that in his presence, shyam singh demanded rs. 20,000/ - from the deceased to pay installment of tractor. Jandeo (pw - 1) father of the deceased specifically deposed that ranjna told him that shyam singh demanded rs. 20,000/ - to pay installment of tractor. Jitendra (pw - 7) real brother of the deceased deposed that in his presence, shyam singh demanded rs. 20,000/ - from the deceased to pay installment of tractor. Jyotibai (pw - 9) deposed that ranjna told her that jijaji (appellant shyam singh) demanded rs. 20,000/ - and due to non - fulfillment of demand, he used to beat her. Father and real brother of the deceased i. E. Jagdeo (pw - 1) and jitendra (pw - 7) specifically deposed that only appellant no. 1 shyam singh demanded rs. 20,000/ - to pay installment of tractor. Jyotibai also specifically deposed that ranjna told her that shyam singh demanded rs. 20,000/ - from her parents. There are two sets of evidence on record that only shyam singh demanded rs. 20,000/ - and second one is that all the appellants demanded rs. 20,000/ - from the parents of the deceased. It is settled principle of law if there are two sets of evidence on record, which is favourable to the accused must be adopted looking to the evidence of jagdeo, jitendra and jyotibai. Evidence of other witnesses in respect of demand of dowry by all the appellants becomes doubtful. At the strength of evidence of jagdeo, jitendra and jyotibai, it can be safely held that the appellants shyam singh demanded rs. 20,000/ - from the parents of the deceased to pay installment of tractor, against loan taken by shyam singh. In the evidence of these witnesses, there is no evidence that the appellant no. 1 shyam singh demanded rs. 20,000/ - in dowry. In appasaheb and another vs. State of maharashtra, 2007 vol. Ix scc 721 observed as under: - section 2 of dowry prohibition act reads as under: - "2. In the evidence of these witnesses, there is no evidence that the appellant no. 1 shyam singh demanded rs. 20,000/ - in dowry. In appasaheb and another vs. State of maharashtra, 2007 vol. Ix scc 721 observed as under: - section 2 of dowry prohibition act reads as under: - "2. Definition of "dowry" - in this act "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly - (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the muslim personal law (shariat) applies. In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in india. It is well settled principle of interpretation of statute that if the act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning. (see union of india vs. Garware nylons ltd. Air 1996 sc 3509 and chemicals and fibres of india vs. Union of india air 1997 sc 558 ). A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. Air 1996 sc 3509 and chemicals and fibres of india vs. Union of india air 1997 sc 558 ). A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in section 2 of the dowry prohibition act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure. Since an essential ingredient of section 304 - b ipc viz. Demand for dowry is not established, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that there is absolutely no evidence either direct or circumstantial to show that bhimabai committed suicide. He has submitted that the insecticide thimet is extensively used by the farmers for preservation of crop and is kept stored in their houses and it could be a case where thimet accidentally got mixed with some food item and was consumed by bhimabai. It has thus been submitted that no offence under section 306 ipc is made out against the appellants. We do not consider it necessary to examine this question. As already stated, the appellants were also charged under sections 498 - a and 306 read with section 34 ipc but were acquitted of the said charges by the learned sessions judge, which order has attained finality for the reason that the state did not prefer appeal against the same. The appeal before the high court and also in this court has been preferred by the appellants challenging their conviction under section 304 - b read with section 34 ipc. The appeal before the high court and also in this court has been preferred by the appellants challenging their conviction under section 304 - b read with section 34 ipc. It has been held in state of Andhra pradesh vs. Thadi narayana, air 1962 sc 240 that section 423 (1) (b) (i) of code of criminal procedure, 1898 (which corresponds to section 386 (b) (i) of code of criminal procedure, 1973) is clearly confined to cases of appeals preferred against orders of conviction and sentence, the powers conferred by this clause cannot be exercised for the purpose of reversing an order of acquittal passed in favour of a party in respect of an offence charged, in dealing with an appeal preferred by him against the order of conviction in respect of another offence charged and found proved. Therefore, we have refrained from expressing any opinion as to whether the appellants could be held guilty of having committed the offence under section 498 - a or 306 ipc on the basis of evidence available on record as their acquittal under the aforesaid charges has attained finality and cannot be reversed in the appeal filed by the appellants challenging their conviction under section 304 - b ipc. 11. In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in india. It is well settled principle of interpretation of statute that if the act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning. (see union of India vs. Garware nylons ltd. (see union of India vs. Garware nylons ltd. Air 1996 sc 3509 and chemicals and fibers of India vs. Union of India air 1997 sc 558 ). A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in section 2 of the dowry prohibition act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure. Since an essential ingredient of section 304 - b ipc viz. Demand for dowry is not established, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. " in case in hand, it is clear from the prosecution evidence that the financial stringency came before the appellant shyam singh and for meeting such urgent domestic expenses, he demanded rs. 20,000/ - to pay installment towards tractor loan. (9) In this scenario, no demand for dowry could be said to be made by the appellant shyam singh and there is no sufficient and reliable evidence on record to prove that the appellant no. 2 natthu singh and the appellant no. 2 devki bai demanded dowry from the parents of the deceased, hence all the three appellants could not be convicted for the offences punishable under sections 304 - b of ipc and learned trial court committed error in convicting them accordingly. Since demand of dowry has not been proved before or after marriage of the appellant and they cannot be convicted under section 4 of dowry prohibition act. Learned trial court committed error in this respect. (10) On going through the evidence of prosecution witnesses, i am of the view that there is overwhelming evidence on record that the appellant shyam singh due to demand of rs. 20,000/ - to pay installment towards tractor was subjected the deceased ranjna to cruelty and harassed her. There is sufficient evidence on record that mental and physical cruelty subjected to the deceased ranjna by the appellant shyam singh, hence i am of the view that learned trial court did not commit any error in convicting the appellant shyam singh under section 498 - a of ipc and sentencing him accordingly. There is sufficient evidence on record that mental and physical cruelty subjected to the deceased ranjna by the appellant shyam singh, hence i am of the view that learned trial court did not commit any error in convicting the appellant shyam singh under section 498 - a of ipc and sentencing him accordingly. Hence judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial court under section 498 - a of ipc against the appellant no. 1 shyam singh is hereby affirmed. (11) I have gone through the evidence of prosecution witnesses carefully and cautiously, i am of the view that there are general and omnibus allegations against the appellant no. 2 natthu singh and the appellant no. 3 devki bai in respect of subjecting the deceased ranjna to cruelty or harassing her. There is no specific evidence on record that the appellant no. 2 natthu singh and the appellant no. 3 devki bai beaten the deceased ranjna bai or tortured her in any way. I am of the view that learned trial court committed error in convicting the appellant no. 2 natthu singh and the appellant no. 3 devki bai under section 498 - a of ipc. Hence no offence is proved against both the appellants under section 498 - a, 304 - b/34 of ipc and section 4 dowry prohibition act, hence judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against both the appellants is not tenable in law. (12) Consequently, appeal of the appellant no. 2 natthu singh and the appellant no. 3 devki bai is hereby allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial court against both these appellants is hereby set aside and they are acquitted of charges levelled against them. Both the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged. If, fine amount has been deposited by both the appellants, it be refunded back to them. (13) Appeal of the appellant no. 1 natthu singh is partly allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence under section 304 - b ipc and section 4 of dowry prohibition act passed by learned trial court is hereby set aside. He is acquitted of these charges. The conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court under section 498 - a of ipc against the appellant no. 1 shyam singh is hereby affirmed. He is acquitted of these charges. The conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court under section 498 - a of ipc against the appellant no. 1 shyam singh is hereby affirmed. The appellant shyam singh is in jail, if he has undergone jail sentence awarded under section 498 - a of ipc and if he has deposited fine amount and he is not required in any other criminal case he be released.