JUDGMENT : Appellantshave preferred this appeal challenging their conviction and order of sentencepassed by Special Judge, Rewa in S.T. No.93/99,decided on 26.04.2000. 2.Appellants have been convicted under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced torigorous imprisonment for one and half year with fine of Rs.500/-, in defaultfurther rigorous imprisonment for one month, by the impugned judgment. 3.According to prosecution, deceased Maya Devi (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was married to appellant No.3 Harivilas , the son of appellant No. 1 in the year 1989. Her gauna was performed in the year 1993. After her gauna , appellants, i.e. the husband, father-in-law andbrother-in-law of the deceased, subjected her to cruelty and harassment, as aresult of which deceased Maya Devi committed suicideby consuming Celphos on 1.08.98. The intimation ofher death was given to the Police by her father-in-law, Awdhesh Prasad Dwivedi , on the basis of which merg intimation was recorded at Police Station, Atraila and merg inquest wasmade. Dead body of deceased Maya Devi was sent forpostmortem examination. After merg enquiry, anoffence was registered against the appellants and was investigated. After dueinvestigation, appellants were prosecuted under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPCand were put to trial. 4.Appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. According toappellants, deceased was an educated person and hailed from well to do family;appellants being poor persons were unable to fulfill her demands, which led herto commit suicide. 5.Learned Special Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidenceadduced in the case, acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 304-Bof IPC by extending them benefit of doubt, but found them guilty for committingoffence under Section 498-A of IPC, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaidby the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. 6.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Trial Court erroneouslyconvicted the appellants, though no case was proved against them. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the Trial Courtdisbelieved the evidence of the related witnesses against the appellantsregarding demand of dowry, but erroneously convicted them under Section 498-Aof IPC on the same evidence. He also submitted that the Trial Court gravelyerred in relying upon the letter (Ex.D-1) as corroborative evidence against theappellants, though there was nothing in the letter (Ex.D-1) to indicate thatthe appellants illtreated the deceased or physically or mentally tortured her. He also submitted that the Trial Court gravelyerred in relying upon the letter (Ex.D-1) as corroborative evidence against theappellants, though there was nothing in the letter (Ex.D-1) to indicate thatthe appellants illtreated the deceased or physically or mentally tortured her. Reliance was also placedin this behalf on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Stateof Maharashtra vs. Ashok Narayan Dandalwar reported in AIR2000 Supreme Court 3568 and decision of this Court rendered in the case of Annapurnabai @ Bhoori vs. Stateof M.P. reported in 1999(2) M.P.L.J. Page 85. 7.Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported theconviction of the appellants. 8.Perused the evidence on record. P.W- 3 Ashwini Kumar,the father of the deceased, deposed in his evidence that three appellants usedto beat the deceased for "dowry and asked for motorcycle and fiftythousand rupees cash. According to P.W-3 Ashwini Kumar, whenever his daughter (deceased) came to his place one year prior to herdeath she told that appellants harassed her and gave her beating in order tocoerce her to bring motorcycle and fifty thousand cash. As per the evidence of Ashwini Kumar (P.W-3), when he went to the place ofappellants to take his daughter on the eve of Rakshabandhan ,she told him that the three appellants would kill him if their demand forvehicle and cash was not fulfilled, and the appellants also declined to sendhis daughter with him until their demand for motorcycle and cash was fulfilled. 9.P.W-3 Ashwini Kumar was extensively cross-examined.He was also contradicted with his police statement (Ex.D-2) as to omission ofaforesaid facts in his police statement. S.D.O.P. Kartar Singh (P.W-12), who recorded the police statement (Ex.D-2) of P.W-3 Ashwini Kumar, also admitted that Ashwini Kumar had not stated the aforesaid facts, during his police statement regardingharassment and marpeet for dowry and demand formotorcycle and cash etc. P.W-3 Ashwini Kumar himselfadmitted in his cross-examination that he stated it for the first time beforethe Court that when he had gone to the house of appellants to take his daughteron the eve of Rakshabandhan , she had told thatappellants would kill her unless their demand for cash or vehicle wasfulfilled. It is thus apparent that P.W-3 has made a definite improvement inhis statement and has given an exaggerated or invented version regarding demandof dowry by the appellants and the harassment or cruelty to the deceased inorder to fulfill their demand. It is thus apparent that P.W-3 has made a definite improvement inhis statement and has given an exaggerated or invented version regarding demandof dowry by the appellants and the harassment or cruelty to the deceased inorder to fulfill their demand. 10.P.W-4 Ganga Devi , mother ofthe deceased also deposed in her evidence that deceased used to tell her thatthe three appellants were asking for fifty thousand cash and a vehicle and gaveher beating in order to fulfill their demand. According to her, deceased hadalso written two letters in this behalf, but admittedly she did not producethose letters either before the Police or before the Court. P.W-4 Ganga Devi was also confrontedwith her police statement (Ex.D-4) as to the omission regarding demand ofdowry, marpeet and cruelty by the appellants to thedeceased in order to fulfill their demands. S.D.O.P. Kartar Singh (P. W-12) also admitted in his cross-examination that P.W-4 Ganga Devi did not state theaforesaid facts during her police statement (Ex.D-4). 11.Likewise, the statement made by Ramsagar Pandey (P.W-11), the uncle of the deceased to the effectthat the deceased told him that appellant Harvilas was asking for vehicle and fifty thousand cash and the other appellants abusedher and did not give her enough food, also does not find place in his policestatement (Ex.D-5) with which he was confronted, and admittedly he made suchstatement before the Court for the first time. 12.Thus, it is quite evident that the mother, father and the uncle of thedeceased, namely, Ashwini Kumar (P.W-3), Ganga Devi (P.W-4), Ramsagar Pandey (P.W-11) as also Rajkumar (P.W-7) have given an exaggerated version againstthe appellants regarding demand of dowry by them as well as the harassment ofthe deceased in order to fulfill their demand. Had it been a fact, thesewitnesses would have given the same statement before the Police as well at theearlier point of time. 13.None of the aforesaid witnesses have given any direct evidence to the effectthat the three appellants harassed the deceased or subjected her to marpeet or cruelty, physical or mental torture for dowry orotherwise deprived her of food etc. The evidence of almost all the witnesses inthis regard is based on the oral complaints made to them by the deceasedagainst the appellants regarding ill-treatment or demand of dowry by theappellants. The evidence of almost all the witnesses inthis regard is based on the oral complaints made to them by the deceasedagainst the appellants regarding ill-treatment or demand of dowry by theappellants. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Gananath Patnaik vs. State of Orissa reported in (2002)2 SCC Page 619 = 2002 (1) ANJ (SC) 506 such statements madeby the deceased are not admissible in evidence for the offence punishable underSection 498-A of 1PC and has to be termed as being only hearsay evidence andcannot be relied upon for finding the guilt of the accused for offence underSection 498-A of IPC. 14.Needless to point out that the statement made by Ashwini Kumar (P.W-3), the father of the deceased that appellants had declined to sendhis daughter with Mm unless their demand for motorcycle and cash was fulfilled,is not reliable due to omission of this fact in his police statement (Ex.D-2). 15.In fact, upon scanning the entire evidence on record it is found that there isno such direct, substantial, dependable and legal evidence on record that thethree appellants ill treated the deceased, deprived her of enough food or gaveher beating in order to meet their demand for dowry or otherwise harassed heror subjected her to physical or mental torture and cruelty. 16.On the other hand, it transpires from the evidence of some of the prosecutionwitnesses like Virendra Kumar (P. W-5) and a neighbour Shyama Devi (P. W-6) that the appellants never maltreated thedeceased and actually the deceased did not feel happy due to poor financialcondition of the appellants. The mere fact that the deceased had to work forthe cattle or look after them, cannot amount to ill-treatment or such crueltyso as to drive her to commit suicide. Even P.W-3 Ashwini Kumar also admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased never complainedto him any discontent regarding working for the cattle. 17.As regards the letter (Ex.D-3), which has been relied upon by the Trial Courtfor coming to the conclusion about cruelty on the part of the appellants, thereis nothing in it depicting even a slightest indication that appellantsill-treated the deceased or subjected her to cruelty or harassment inconnection with demand of dowry or otherwise. Rather Ex.D-1 is a formal andgeneral letter admittedly written by P.W-3 Ashwini Kumar to appellant No.1 ( Awdhesh Prasad Dwivedi ) regarding exchange of well-being and other routinematters. Rather Ex.D-1 is a formal andgeneral letter admittedly written by P.W-3 Ashwini Kumar to appellant No.1 ( Awdhesh Prasad Dwivedi ) regarding exchange of well-being and other routinematters. The finding of cruelty arrived at by the Trial Court on the basis ofthis letter Ex.D-1 is totally misconceived. 18.In fact, there is no cogent, dependable or legal evidence on record so as toconclude beyond all reasonable doubt that appellants ill-treated the deceasedor subjected her to mental or physical torture or cruelty or harassed her inconnection with the demand of dowry or otherwise. No case under Section 498-Awas proved against the appellants beyond periphery of doubt. The conviction ofthe appellants under Section 498-A of IPC, therefore, cannot be safelymaintained. 19.Appeal is, therefore, allowed. The conviction of the appellants and sentenceawarded to them under Section 498-A of IPC are hereby set aside. Appellants areon bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.