ORDER : 1. This is an appeal against judgment dated 18th August, 2005, of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench, in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 422 of 2001. By the said judgment, the High Court, while setting aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code [for short, `I.P.C.'], has maintained the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A I.P.C. as well as the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- for the said offence; in default, to further undergo one month's imprisonment. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we find that the deceased, who was the daughter in-law, of the appellant has given two statements on 13th August, 1996, before her death. In these statements, she has stated that she was preparing tea in the upper portion of the house and flames came up from the stove and caught her clothes she was wearing and when she shouted, her elder sister in-law, mother in-law (appellant herein) and the husband came and took her to hospital immediately. In one of these statements, which was given by her before the Police, the deceased has stated "I had no quarrel with my mother in-law, sister in-law and husband etc. and no body had been harrasing me". It is on the basis of these statements of the deceased that the High Court came to the conclusion that the appellant cannot be held guilty for causing dowry death and acquitted her of the charge under Section 304B I.P.C. 3. We fail to appreciate as to how the High Court, having treated the aforesaid statements as admissible and relevant under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, could have maintained the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A I.P.C. when the deceased herself has stated that the appellant had not been harassing her. The deceased was the daughter in-law of the appellant and she has stated in categoric terms that she has not been harassed by the appellant. Thus there was no scope for the Trial Court and the High Court to have held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 498A. 4. The criminal appeal is, therefore, allowed. The deceased was the daughter in-law of the appellant and she has stated in categoric terms that she has not been harassed by the appellant. Thus there was no scope for the Trial Court and the High Court to have held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 498A. 4. The criminal appeal is, therefore, allowed. The judgments of the Trial Court as also the High Court holding the appellant guilty under Section 498A I.P.C. are set aside and the appellant stands acquitted of the charge under Section 498A I.P.C. The bail bond furnished by the appellant stands discharged. Appeal allowed.