Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 279 (CHH)

PREMLAL @ GHASIYA VERMA v. STATE OF C. G.

2012-10-19

PRITINKER DIWAKER

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.06.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur, in Sessions Trial No. 18/2007 convicting the accused/appellants U/S 304B and 498A IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.1,000 U/S 304B and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.500 U/S 498A IPC, plus default stipulations. 2. In the present case deceased is Kusum wife of accused/appellant No.1 Premlal whereas appellant No.2 is Shyam Bai - mother-in-law of the deceased. Date of incident is 13.05.2007 whereas the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with accused/appellant No.1 on 12.03.2007 i.e. just two months prior to the date of incident. On 13.05.2007 deceased suffered 95% burn injuries and succumbed to the same on 14.05.2007. Merg intimation was recorded at the instance of Dr. Kalpna Temburnikar who then gave the information to the Police through a ward boy namely Nakul Koshle. After giving notice of inquest Ex.P-1, inquest EX.P-2 was prepared and after Merg enquiry on 22.06.2007 an un-exhibited FIR was registered. Post mortem examination on the body of the deceased was conducted by Shiv Narayan Manjhi (PW-10) vide Ex.P-6 and according to him cause of death was cardio respiratory failure as a result of burn and its complications. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by the police on 16.07.2007 under Section 304B/34 IPC. Subsequently, the Court below also framed the charge under the same section. 3. In support of its case, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charge levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. This apart, one Romnath (DW-1) has also been examined by the defence in support of its case. 4. After hearing the parties, the Court below has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. 5. Counsel for the accused/appellants submits that there is an inordinate delay in recording the statements of the witnesses under section 161 Cr. 4. After hearing the parties, the Court below has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. 5. Counsel for the accused/appellants submits that there is an inordinate delay in recording the statements of the witnesses under section 161 Cr. P.C. as according to him, the statements of Purusortam (PW-1), Parvati Bai (PW-2), Pawan Kumar (PW-4), Mongra Bai (PW-5) and Kumari Chameli Bai (PW-7) were recorded on 27.06.2007 whereas that of Rajaram (PW-3) was recorded on 16.07.2007 and the same has not been properly explained by the prosecution. He submits that at the time of inquest Ex.P-2, mother, father and grand-father of the deceased were present but they have not made any allegation against the accused/appellants which shows that subsequent statements of the witnesses are nothing but an afterthought just to implicate the accused/appellants in a false case. He further submits that there is no evidence on record to show that soon before death the deceased was subjected to cruelty and therefore by no stretch of imagination the accused/appellants can be convicted under section 304B of IPC. He submits that as there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses particularly Purusotam (PW-1), Parvati Bai (PW-2), Rajaram (PW-3), Pawan Kumar (PW-4), Mongra Bai (PW-5) and Kumari Chameli Bai (PW-7) and therefore the conviction of the accused/appellants is not in accordance with law. He submits .that as per the statement of Pawan Kumar (PW-4) - brother of the deceased and Romnath (DW-1), the deceased had admitted the fact that she had committed a mistake which shows that accused/appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that as the deceased was not interested in living in a village, she committed suicide and unfortunately the accused persons have been implicated therein. Referring to the statement of Chameli Bai (PW-7) counsel for the appellants submits that as per the evidence of this witness the deceased had informed her about the cruelty on 23.05.2007 whereas on the said date she was not active and this shows that this witness has made a false statement. He further submits that as the statement of Chameli Bai (PW-7) becomes doubtful, same would be the fate of the statement of Parvati Bai (PW-2) and Rekha Bai Banjare (PW-6). 6. He further submits that as the statement of Chameli Bai (PW-7) becomes doubtful, same would be the fate of the statement of Parvati Bai (PW-2) and Rekha Bai Banjare (PW-6). 6. On the other hand, supporting the judgment impugned, counsel for the respondent/State submits that as the deceased died just within two months of marriage, burden is on the accused/appellants to prove that they are not guilty. He submits that all the witnesses have categorically deposed that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for dowry and that the deceased could hardly live for two months after the marriage and during this period she was subjected to cruelty, it can be said that soon before death she was subjected to harassment for demand of dowry. So far as the delay in recording 161 Cr. P.C. statement of the witnesses is concerned, he submits that it is not fatal in every case especially in a case like present one because no such question was put to the Investigating Officer as to why the delay has occurred in recording the statements of the witnesses. He submits that purpose of recording inquest is not to record the statements of the witnesses in brief or to make allegation against the accused persons but it is something quite different as has been elaborated in section 174 Cr. P.C. In the case in hand, according to the counsel for the respondent/State, requirement of Section 174 Cr. P.C. has duly been fulfilled by the prosecution. He submits that in the case of dowry death like the present one where the deceased died just two months after marriage, her parents being in shock and trauma could not have given their statements promptly, and therefore the accused/appellants cannot take advantage of the same. He submits that minor contradictions and omissions in the court statement of the witnesses if compared to their case diary statements, are of no significance because a plain reading of the evidence goes to show about the cruelty and harassment meted out to the deceased. He further submits that in the case of dowry death as per section 113-B of the Evidence Act the presumption is against the accused persons unless, it is rebutted by them. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. He further submits that in the case of dowry death as per section 113-B of the Evidence Act the presumption is against the accused persons unless, it is rebutted by them. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Purusottam (PW-1) - the father of the deceased has stated in his court statement that marriage of his daughter was solemnized with accused/ appellant No.1 Premlal about a month prior to the date of incident and that she has been killed after causing bum injuries to her. After her marriage he had gone to her matrimonial home 2-3 times where she had told him that the accused persons were harassing her demanding a two wheeler. This witness in turn used to make her understand to live happily as he had given the articles in marriage as per his capacity. According to him, once accused/appellant No.1 Premlal had told him that in his village quite often people would die either by hanging or after sustaining bum injuries. Ten days before her death the deceased had visited his house and told her grand mother weeping that the accused/ appellants used to demand motorcycle and money on which her grand mother had made her understand to live as the situation demands because they were poor people. Thereafter he received a telephonic information about the serious condition and hospitalization of his daughter but not about her sustaining bum injuries. On hearing this information his father went to see his daughter and found that she had sustained bum injuries. On being informed by his father he also went to the hospital and by that time the deceased was no more. As the vehicle etc. were not given to the accused persons they are stated to have killed his daughter by causing bum injuries to her. This witness has admitted his signature on the notice of inquest EX.P-1 and inquest Panchnama Ex.P2. In cross examination this witness has admitted that deceased was his eldest daughter, that she was brought up by him with great love and affection and that the proposal for her marriage was first made by the accused/appellants. Before marriage, this witness made an enquiry about the accused/appellants and came to know that though they were poor financially, they were very good people. Before marriage, this witness made an enquiry about the accused/appellants and came to know that though they were poor financially, they were very good people. He has also admitted that as father of accused/appellant No.1 Premlal had expired at a young age, the accused/appellant No.1 could not carry on his higher study and that his daughter (deceased) was more educated then her husband Premlal. He has admitted that after being duly satisfied he had settled the marriage of his daughter with accused/appellant No.1 and that no demand of dowry was made by the accused persons. He has stated that in Kurmi community which he belongs to, there is no compulsion for giving dowry but if somebody volunteers for that he can do so. According to this witness, there was a lot of difference in the living standard of his family and that of the accused/appellants. He has clarified that his standard of living is better than that of the accused/appellants and that in his house the deceased used to live happily but in the house of accused/appellants she felt restrictions in her life style. The deceased is also stated to have felt offending because of the cow dung and garbage etc. in the house of the accused/appellant and she used to tell him that if her husband got a job, she would prefer to live at Raipur. In cross examination a specific question was put to this witness that whether the incident could have been averted if the deceased had gone to live at Raipur, to which he has replied that all this is an excuse and the incident as was fixed has already taken place. He has also stated that he was not aware of the fact that the fire was extinguished by accused/appellant No.2. He has admitted the fact that it is the accused/appellants who had hospitalised his daughter at Raipur. He has reiterated that after the incident when the message was sent by the accused persons they had not informed about the deceased having suffered burn injuries and it was only informed to him that she was sick and after reaching hospital he came to know that she had suffered bum injuries which made him angry and sad. By the time he reached Raipur, postmortem examination was already conducted and inquest was done in his presence by the Naib Tehsildar. By the time he reached Raipur, postmortem examination was already conducted and inquest was done in his presence by the Naib Tehsildar. He has further admitted that Naib Tehsildar had asked him as to what had happened. He has however denied that he ever informed the Naib Tehsildar that his daughter was not happy and therefore she got burnt or that she was subjected to cruelty by the accused/appellants and other family members. He has further admitted that he did not inform about the demand of dowry and motorcycle. In paragraph 20 of his evidence he has admitted that at the time of inquest he did not inform the police that accused persons had ill-treated the deceased for demand of dowry and that after funeral he went back to his house. He has denied that villagers had asked him to proceed against the accused persons and then he has stated that after consulting at home a decision was taken to take action against the accused persons. He has stated that on account of death of his daughter he was angry with the accused persons. He has stated that two days after the death of his daughter, he went to police station, Palari, and met the police but no report was registered and the police had asked him to give report in writing. He has denied that no report was made to the police by him. He has further admitted that police recorded his statement after one and a half months of the incident and that he had informed the police that his daughter was burnt by the accused persons but if it was not recorded by the police he could not tell the reason for that. Parvati Bai (PW -2) - the grand-mother of the deceased has stated that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with accused/appellant No.1 namely Premlal and that she used to inform her that as the vehicle was not given to the accused/appellants, they as well as her brother-in-law used to quarrel with her. 8-10 days prior to deceased having sustained bum injuries, when this witness had met her she told about being harassed by the accused/appellants for demand of motorcycle and dowry. A telephonic information was received from the accused/appellants about the deceased being in a serious condition whereupon her husband went to the hospital at Raipur and he also informed her about the same. A telephonic information was received from the accused/appellants about the deceased being in a serious condition whereupon her husband went to the hospital at Raipur and he also informed her about the same. This witness has stated that she had not gone to the hospital. She has further stated that deceased might have been burnt to death by the accused/appellants for demand of motorcycle. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that when the deceased was very young, her mother had left father and since then it is she who was taking care of the deceased. She has denied that on account of love and affection the deceased had turned obstinate and that she was well treated by her husband (appellant No.1). Deceased had told this witness that it would be better if her husband got an employment at Raipur. She has denied that at the instance of the deceased, her husband (appellant No.1) was looking for a job at Raipur. This witness has stated that deceased had told her that her husband had gone to Raipur in search of a job. This witness has stated that if the deceased had gone to Raipur along with her husband, the incident could have been averted. According to this witness, on phone the accused/appellants had informed about the serious condition of the deceased but not about her sustaining bum injuries. This witness has stated that at the time recording of her case diary statement Ex. D-2 she had informed the police about the fact that 8-10 days prior to the date of incident the deceased had told her about demand of motorcycle by the accused persons leading to quarrel but if the same is not mentioned therein, she could not tell the reason for the same. On coming to know about the death of the deceased, she felt sad and angry and that after the last rites were over, her husband, son and daughter-in-law returned home and then after consultation a decision was taken in the family to teach a lesson to the accused persons. She however has denied that on account of death of the deceased, the accused/appellants have been falsely implicated in the case and that no demand of vehicle was made by them. She has also stated that just to implicate the accused/appellants she was giving a false statement. She however has denied that on account of death of the deceased, the accused/appellants have been falsely implicated in the case and that no demand of vehicle was made by them. She has also stated that just to implicate the accused/appellants she was giving a false statement. Rajaram (PW-3) has stated in his evidence that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with accused/appellant No.1 about a month Premlal @ Ghasiya Verma Vs. State of C.G. 537 (Diwaker, J.) prior to the date of incident. According to him, he received a telephonic message from one Romnath (DW-1) that deceased was sick. Thereafter, he went to Mekahara hospital at Raipur where the deceased was hospitalised after sustaining bum injuries and she told him that the accused/appellants and her brother-in-law were responsible for the same. In the hospital he came to know that deceased had suffered 97% bum injuries and then he called her father who at that time was somewhere else and that by the time he reached there, deceased was no more. Notice of inquest Ex. P-1 was given to him and then inquest was conducted vide Ex. P-2 which was signed by him. He has stated that the deceased had come to his house, she had informed that the accused/ appellants were harassing her for demand of vehicle. He has stated that he was not aware of the reason for which the deceased was burnt. Then he has stated that she was burnt for dowry. There appears to be some contradictions and omissions in the evidence of this witness if compared to his case diary statement Ex. D-3. At the time of inquest he informed the police and Tehsildar about the fact that the accused/appellants had burnt the deceased but if it is not recorded therein, he could not tell the reason for that. He has admitted that he did not have any enmity with those officers who prepared inquest. He has denied that in the family a decision was taken to implicate the accused persons on account of death of deceased. Pawan Kumar (PW-4) - brother of the deceased - a child witness aged about 10 years at the relevant time has stated that he had gone to the house of the accused/appellants and saw them burning the deceased. He has denied that in the family a decision was taken to implicate the accused persons on account of death of deceased. Pawan Kumar (PW-4) - brother of the deceased - a child witness aged about 10 years at the relevant time has stated that he had gone to the house of the accused/appellants and saw them burning the deceased. He has stated that he saw accused/appellant No.2 pouring kerosene on her and that at that time he was making water available. He has stated that accused/appellant No.2 asked him to get away and thereafter he sat on the platform out of the house. Thereafter, his sister came running from the house and then her mother-in-law poured water on her and thereafter she asked accused/appellant No.1 and one Tikaram to run away from the said place. Accused/appellant No.2 then put the deceased on a cot and then she was taken to the hospital. In paragraph 4 this witness has stated that accused/ appellants used to keep the deceased properly and that it is accused/appellant No.1 who had taken him to his house. In cross-examination he has stated that his sister used to say that she would live at Raipur and once the accused/ appellant No.1 even went to Raipur in search of work. He has slated that as the village where accused/appellants reside is a small village and that the deceased was not feeling comfortable there. In paragraph 8 he has stated that accused/appellant No.2 had extinguished the fire by pouring water. According to him, one Romnath Verma (DW -1) had made an enquiry from his sister and she told him that a mistake was committed. He has stated that accused/appellant No.1 immediately took the deceased to hospital for treatment and then she was referred to Raipur. In paragraph 10 he has stated that at the time of recording his case diary statement he informed the police that after pouring kerosene oil his sister was burnt by accused/appellant No.2 and he was making the water available and the accused/appellant No.2 asked him to run away. In paragraph 11 he has stated that he was tutored as to the manner in which the statement was to be given by him and accordingly he gave the statement. He has denied that his father and grand-father had tutored him as to in what manner the statement was to be given. In paragraph 11 he has stated that he was tutored as to the manner in which the statement was to be given by him and accordingly he gave the statement. He has denied that his father and grand-father had tutored him as to in what manner the statement was to be given. Mongra Bai (PW -5)- the step-mother of the deceased has stated that one month prior to the date of incident the marriage of the deceased had taken place and that she had told her that accused/appellants were harassing her for demand of vehicle and also for bringing less dowry. In cross examination, she has denied that on account of love and affection the deceased had become obstinate. She has admitted that always there is difference in the standard of living in the matrimonial and maternal home and that in the matrimonial home there are several restrictions to the girl. She has admitted that after getting information regarding death of the deceased, family members had become angry but she has denied that after consultation it was decided to lodge the report so that accused/appellants could be arrested. Rekha Bai Banjare (PW -6) - friend of the deceased has stated that she knew the deceased who was married at village Kusmi and that deceased had informed her that for demand of vehicle she was harassed by the accused/appellant No.1. When this fact was disclosed to her, her other friend Chameli was also there. Chameli (PW -7) - another friend of the deceased has stated that when the deceased came to her parents' house she informed that accused/appellants and her brother-in-law were demanding a vehicle and also threatening to beat in case it was not given. This fact was disclosed to her about 8-10 days prior to the date of incident. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that she had gone to the Court along with father of the deceased and that she was taken by him to a lawyer. However, she has denied that she was making the statement in the Court as discussed with the said lawyer. She has admitted that the deceased was open-minded and ambitious. She has admitted that after marriage a girl feels restricted in her matrimonial home and cannot live there freely. However, she has denied that she was making the statement in the Court as discussed with the said lawyer. She has admitted that the deceased was open-minded and ambitious. She has admitted that after marriage a girl feels restricted in her matrimonial home and cannot live there freely. She has further admitted that deceased used to love accused/appellant No.1 but has expressed her ignorance about the wishes of the deceased to live at Raipur with her husband. She has denied that the deceased did not want to live in a joint family. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (PW-8) - the witness to seizure of certain articles made under Ex. P-3 has not stated anything specific. Sant Kumar Verma (PW-9) is the witness to seizure of certain articles made under Ex. P-5. He is also the witness of map Ex. P-4. Though he has admitted his signature on these documents, he has been declared hostile. Dr. Shiv Narayan Manjhi (PW-10) is the witness who performed post mortem examination on the body of the deceased and given his report Ex. P-6 opining the cause of death to be cardio respiratory failure. He has not stated anything about the nature of death. Rikhiram Soni (PW-11) is the Patwari who prepared spot map Ex. P-7. Madan Das (PW-12) is the witness to seizure of kerosene box vide Ex. P-5. He is also the witness of arrest memo of the accused/appellants vide Ex. P-8 and P-9 and supported the case of the prosecution. Dr. Kalpana (PW-13) is the witness who informed the police about the death of deceased vide Ex. P-10. Pranav Singh (PW-14) is the Naib Tehsildar who prepared inquest Ex. P-2 after giving notice Ex. P-l. He has stated that at the time of inquest no complaint was made by the relatives of the deceased and that he did not remember whether relatives of the deceased had informed him that deceased was killed for demand of dowry. He has then stated that if it was informed, it would have been mentioned in Ex. P-2. Shyamlal Kanwar (PW-15) is the investigating officer who has duly supported the case of the prosecution. From the statement of investigating officer it appears that no question was put to him as to why there was delay in recording statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. P-2. Shyamlal Kanwar (PW-15) is the investigating officer who has duly supported the case of the prosecution. From the statement of investigating officer it appears that no question was put to him as to why there was delay in recording statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Romnath (DW-1) has stated that on the date of incident when he was standing near bus stand, he heard shouts of accused/appellant No.2 that that her daughter-in-law got burnt. Thereafter, he along with other persons went there for pouring water. On reaching there he saw accused/appellant No.1 extinguishing fire by pouring water. Deceased was put on a cot and when they enquired from her, she told that a mistake was committed. On further being asked by the villagers whether anyone was harassing her, she replied in negative. Thereafter, she was taken to hospital. In paragraph No. 7 he has stated that police came to the village for enquiry and also seized one suicidal note in his presence and also in the presence of Kotwar and other villagers which was signed by them. 9. Minute examination of the evidence makes it clear that there is substantial delay in recording the case diary statement of the witnesses in particular of Purshottam (PW-1), Parvati Bai (PW-2), Rajaram (PW-3), Pawan Kumar (PW-4), Mongra Bai (PW-5) and Chameli (PW-7). From the statements of all the witnesses it is also apparent that immediately after the death of Kusum Bai, no allegation was made by any of the witnesses regarding cruelty or demand of dowry meted out to the deceased. Purshottam (PW-1) has though made some allegation regarding demand of dowry and cruelty, in paragraphs 18 and 20 he has admitted the fact that at the time of inquest made by Tehsildar he had not informed him that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons nor did he inform that demand of money or motorcycle was made by them. He has further admitted the fact that in his presence all the formalities like inquest and performance of last rites of the deceased were done. He has further admitted that at the time of inquest he had not even informed the police about any demand made by the• accused persons or that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by them. He has further admitted the fact that in his presence all the formalities like inquest and performance of last rites of the deceased were done. He has further admitted that at the time of inquest he had not even informed the police about any demand made by the• accused persons or that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by them. He has admitted that after performance of last I rites of the deceased he had gone back to his house along with other persons. He has also admitted that as his daughter had expired, every body was in anger with the accused persons and that in such a situation getting angry was natural. This witness has stated that he lodged the written report in the police station but no such report is on record. From paragraph 25 of the statement of this witness, there appear to be material omissions in his Court statement and the case diary statement Ex. D-l. Taking the evidence of this witness as it is, allegation made by him becomes doubtful. Similar is the position with Parwati Bai (PW-2) - grand mother of the deceased who in paragraph 12 of her court statement has stated that though about 15 days after marriage deceased had come to her house, she went back to her matrimonial house three days thereafter and then she never met her. Statement of this witness further creates doubt if it is read with the statement of Purshottam (PW-1) because as per paragraph 3 of his statement, 10 days prior to the incident deceased had come to his house and made disclosure before Parwati Bai (PW-2) that she was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons for demand of money and motorcycle. Another important witness is Rajaram (PW-3) who in paragraph 2 of his statement has stated that oral dying declaration was made by the deceased before him in the hospital where she had informed him that she was burnt by the accused/ appellants whereas as per the case diary statement when he reached Raipur, he came to know that deceased had already expired. When this witness was confronted with the case diary statement Ex. D-3, he has stated that he had disclosed all the correct facts to the police and if the same are not recorded, he could not tell the reason. When this witness was confronted with the case diary statement Ex. D-3, he has stated that he had disclosed all the correct facts to the police and if the same are not recorded, he could not tell the reason. Pawan Kumar (PW-4) - a child witness aged about 10 years appears to be tutored witness because in the Court he became an eye witness to the incident and stated that accused/appellant No.2 Shyam Bai poured kerosene on the deceased and he was asked to get away from the place of incident. He has not deposed any such thing in his case diary statement Ex. D-4. Mongra Bai (PW-5)-the step-mother of the deceased though has made allegation regarding demand of dowry including motorcycle, she has admitted the fact that when she was informed by the deceased regarding cruelty meted out to her, no report was lodged to the police nor was any complaint was made to the society. According to her, deceased had informed her about cruelty meted out to her whereas as per her case diary statement Ex. D-5 the deceased had informed about cruelty and demand of dowry to her husband (PW-1) and mother-in-law (PW-2). Thus, statement of this witness also becomes doubtful. According to Chameli (PW-7) - friend of the deceased, when the deceased had come to her maternal house she informed her that she was subjected to cruelty by the accused/appellants for demand of dowry. She has stated that marriage pf the deceased was performed in the month of April and that she came to her village on 23.5.2007. She has again reiterated in paragraph No.4 that on 23.5.2007 itself the deceased had come to her village and that she had disclosed to the police that on 23.5.2007 deceased had come to her maternal house along with her husband. Keeping in mind the fact that on 23.5.2007 the deceased had already expired; statement of this witness that she (deceased) visited her maternal house on 23.5.2007 and informed about the cruelty at the hands of the accused/appellants for demand of dowry becomes doubtful. Pranav Singh (PW-14) Naib Tehsildar who gave notice of inquest Ex.P-1 and prepared inquest vide Ex. Keeping in mind the fact that on 23.5.2007 the deceased had already expired; statement of this witness that she (deceased) visited her maternal house on 23.5.2007 and informed about the cruelty at the hands of the accused/appellants for demand of dowry becomes doubtful. Pranav Singh (PW-14) Naib Tehsildar who gave notice of inquest Ex.P-1 and prepared inquest vide Ex. P-2 has categorically stated that at the time of inquest no complaint was made by any of the relatives of the deceased and in fact this witness confirms the statement of Purshottam who too has categorically stated that at the time of inquest no complaint of cruelty or demand of dowry was made by the deceased. From the statements of all these witnesses of the prosecution, entire case of the prosecution becomes doubtful. Though certain allegations of cruelty for demand of dowry have been made by some of the witnesses, in view of their total evidence, it appears that the witnesses being relatives of the prosecutrix have exaggerated their version. Evidence also reflects that deceased being an educated woman did not like the village life and wanted her husband to get employment at Raipur. Evidence further goes to show that the deceased felt restrictions in matrimonial home and being more educated than her husband and that standard of living in her maternal home being better than that of matrimonial home, she preferred a free and frank atmosphere, which perhaps she was not getting in her matrimonial home. In these circumstances, possibility of un-adjustability in matrimonial home leading to this drastic step of suicide cannot be ruled out. In case of death of a newly wedded girl quite often the report is lodged by the parents of the girl making allegation of dowry and cruelty and considering this rising trend it is necessary to examine the statements of the witnesses minutely so as to pick the grain up from the chaff. 10. Thus in view of the aforesaid factual discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of the same has to go to the accused/appellant. Likewise the Court below has fallen in serious error by basing its findings on the evidence led by the prosecution. Thus in view of the aforesaid factual discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of the same has to go to the accused/appellant. Likewise the Court below has fallen in serious error by basing its findings on the evidence led by the prosecution. That being so, the conviction of the accused/ appellants under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC being bad is liable to be set aside. 11. In the result, the appeal is, allowed. Judgment impugned is set aside. Accused/appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The appellants are in jail. They be set free forthwith if not required in any other case. Appeal Allowed.