JUDGMENT : (1) Appellant has preferred this appeal challenging her conviction and order of sentence passed by special sessions judge, sagar in s. T. No. 100/99, decided on 21. 01. 2000. (2) Appellant has been convicted under section 498 - a of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of rs. 500/ - , in default further simple imprisonment for three months, by the impugned judgment. (3) According to prosecution, deceased krishna bai (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was married to santosh prajapati of bazar ward, deori, two and half years prior to her death. Appellant nanhi bai is the mother - in - law of the deceased. After the marriage of the deceased, appellant nanhi bai used to make demand of a cow, a sewing machine and money for constructing her house, in dowry from the parents of the deceased, which they could not fulfill. Appellant ill - treated the deceased and subjected her to cruelty in order to fulfill her demand. Deceased used to make oral complaints to her parents. As a result of ill - treatment, mental and physical cruelty meted out to the deceased by the appellant, krishna bai committed suicide on 29. 12. 98 by hanging herself at her in - laws' place at deori. The intimation of her death was given to the police by onkar prajapati, the father - in - law of the deceased, whereupon a merg intimation was recorded and merg inquest was made. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination. After merg inquiry, an offence was registered against the appellant and was investigated. The nylon rope used in the commission of suicide by the deceased and broken pieces of bangles were seized from the spot. The spot map was also drown. After due investigation, appellant was prosecuted under section 304 - b of ipc and was put to trial. (4) Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. (5) Learned additional sessions judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, acquitted the appellant of the charge under section 304 - b of ipc, but found her guilty for commission of offence under section 498 - a of ipc, convicted and sentenced her as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. (6) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that despite acquitting the appellant of the charge under section 304 - b of ipc, the learned trial judge erroneously convicted the appellant under section 498 - a of ipc without there being any cogent and substantive evidence against her. (7) Learned counsel for the state, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellant. (8) Perused the evidence on record. Kaushalya bai (p. W - 1) , the mother of the deceased deposed in her evidence that whenever her daughter came to her, she used to tell her that appellant demanded a sewing machine and money for constructing the house as dowry and used to quarrel with her day and night and beat her; but she subsequently admitted in her cross - examination that deceased krishna bai never complained to her about any marpeet, nor she made any complaint against her in - laws'. Kaushalya bai (p. W - 1) also admitted that appellant never made any demand to her when she went to deori after the marriage of her daughter. It has also come in her evidence that after her marriage deceased stayed for two years at her mother's place for studies, then appellant also used to visit her and send some money for her. It is also reflected from her evidence that her another son - in - law lakhan prajapati had taken an amount of rs. 800/ - from the appellant at the time of marriage, which was spent in the marriage of the deceased. In view of these facts, the statement made by kaushalya bai (p. W. 1) in her examination - in - chief about the demand of dowry etc. , by the appellant becomes quite suspicious and unacceptable. (9) Similarly, malti bai (p. W - 2) , the sister - in - law of the deceased deposed nothing against the appellant in her examination - in - chief, but when declared hostile and cross - examined by the prosecution, she conceded to the suggestions made in cross - examination that deceased krishna bai used to complain that appellant was asking her to bring a cow and sewing machine plus rs. 20,000/ - for building the house and beat her; but she also admitted subsequently that deceased never told her anything personally about demand of dowry or marpeet and she came to know of it only after her death. (10) Seetaram prajapati (p. W - 3) and sunil kumar prajapati (p. W - 4) , the brothers of the deceased also tried to depose that krishna bai told them about appellant harassing her and making a demand for cow and sewing machine, but seetaram prajapati (p. W - 3) too admitted in cross - examination that deceased krishna bai never informed him about any marpeet by the appellant, nor she ever complained to him against the appellant orally. According to this witness seetaram prajapati (p. W - 3) , deceased had sent a letter intimating that appellant was harassing her, but there is no such letter on record. Seetaram (p. W - 3) also admitted that appellant met her at deori for two times, but there is no such evidence that appellant made any demand to him. On the other hand, sunil kumar (p. W - 4) , another brother of the deceased admitted in his cross - examination that the marriage of the deceased was performed without any demand and appellant never demanded any dowry before marriage of the deceased. He also admitted that even during the stay of krishna bai at her mother's place for studying, appellant never made any demand of dowry. Sunil kumar (p. W - 4) further admitted that after the marriage of his sister, krishna bai, he went to deori for five - six times, but appellant never made any demand to him, nor any dispute occurred before him at her in - laws' place. (11) Sandhyabai (p. W - 6) , the sister of the deceased also admitted in her evidence that appellant had never made any demand at the time of marriage of the deceased, nor she made any demand during the stay of the deceased in her parental house. She also admitted that appellant never personally talked to her in this behalf. (11) Sandhyabai (p. W - 6) , the sister of the deceased also admitted in her evidence that appellant had never made any demand at the time of marriage of the deceased, nor she made any demand during the stay of the deceased in her parental house. She also admitted that appellant never personally talked to her in this behalf. (12) Lakhan prajapati (p. W - 5) , the husband of sandhyabai, also deposed nothing against the appellant in his examination - in - chief, but on cross - examination by the public prosecutor, he accepted the suggestions given to him like krishna bai told him that appellant used to make a demand for a cow and a sewing machine and also beat her, but he also admitted that talk of dowry never occurred before him and the marriage of the deceased was also performed without any dowry. (13) Thus there is no substantive, cogent and dependable evidence against the appellant that she made a demand for cow, sewing machine or money from the relatives of the deceased or ill - treated her in connection with such demand. On the other hand, it transpires from the evidence on record that the marriage of the deceased was performed without any settlement of dowry and even after her marriage when the deceased stayed at her parents' house for a period of two years, no demand was made by the appellant. (14) There is also no such direct or substantive evidence on record that after the period of two years, appellant put forth any demand from the mother, brothers or the relatives of the deceased and subjected her to cruelty in order to fulfill her demand. None of the abovementioned related witnesses ever witnessed any incident of marpeet or beating or harassment of the deceased at the hands of the appellant for dowry. No external injury except the ligature mark over the neck was found by dr. B. C. Jain (p. W - 12) on the postmortem examination of the deceased. (15) In fact, whatever evidence has been attempted to be given is in the nature of oral complaints made by the deceased to some of her relatives regarding demand of cow and sewing machine etc. By the appellant, but that too is found to be quite incoherent, inconsistent, contradictory and it lacks credence. (15) In fact, whatever evidence has been attempted to be given is in the nature of oral complaints made by the deceased to some of her relatives regarding demand of cow and sewing machine etc. By the appellant, but that too is found to be quite incoherent, inconsistent, contradictory and it lacks credence. (16) The apex court in the case of gananath pattnaik vs. State of Orissa reported in (2002) 2 supreme court cases page 619 has held that such evidence, although admissible in respect of the offence under section 304 - b by virtue of the section 32 of the evidence act as it related to the cause of death, is not acceptable for the offence punishable under section 498 - a of ipc and has to be termed as being only hearsay evidence. It would be pertinent to refer to the following observation made by their lordships in the case of gananath pattnaik (supra) with reference to the statement made by the deceased to her relatives:- "such a statement appears to have been taken on record with the aid of section 32 of the indian evidence act at a time when the appellant was being tried for the offence under section 304 - b and such statement was admissible under clause (1) of the said section as it related to the cause of death of the deceased and the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death. Such a statement is not admissible in evidence for the offence punishable under section 498 - a of the indian penal code and has to be termed as being only a hearsay evidence. Section 32 is an exception to the hearsay rule and deals with the statements or declarations by a person, since dead, relating to the cause of his or her death or the circumstances leading to such death. If a statement which otherwise is covered by the hearsay rule does not fall within the exception of section 32 of the evidence act, the same cannot be relied upon for finding the guilt of the accused. If a statement which otherwise is covered by the hearsay rule does not fall within the exception of section 32 of the evidence act, the same cannot be relied upon for finding the guilt of the accused. " (17) In view of the legal position enunciated above, the evidence of all the related witnesses, namely, kaushalya bai (p. W - 1) , malti bai (p. W - 2) , seetaram prajapati (p. W - 3) , sunil kumar prajapati (p. W - 4) , lakhan prajapati (p. W - 5) and sandhyabai (p. W - 6) regarding the oral complaints made to them by the deceased against the appellant regarding the alleged demand of cow, a sewing machine or money and quarrelling or beating her on that count were not admissible in evidence for the purpose of offence under section 498 - a of ipc and could not form the legal and substantive evidence against the appellant for the said offence. It is also pertinent to mention that there has been no state appeal against the acquittal of appellant under section 304 - b of ipc. (18) Needless to repeat that there is no such direct evidence against the appellant that she made any demand of dowry or property from the aforesaid witnesses after the marriage of the deceased and physically tortured or subjected her to cruelty or harassment in order to fulfill her demand. (19) In the wake of aforesaid, there being no cogent and legal evidence on record against the appellant for commission of offence under section 498 - a of ipc, her conviction under section 498 - a of ipc cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. (20) Appeal is, therefore, allowed. The conviction of appellant and sentence passed on her under section 498 - a of ipc are set aside and she is acquitted of the charge. (21) Appellant is on bail. Her bail bonds shall stand discharged.