JUDGMENT Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28-1-1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No. 144/1994 conviction the appellants under Section 304-B of I.P.C. and thereby sentencing them to suffer 10 years R. I. and further convicting this appellants under Section 498-A of I.P.C. but without passing separate jail sentence the appellants have knocked the door of this court by filing this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this apeal since they have been mentioned elaborately in the impugned judgment. For ready reference, it would be germane to mention that the appellants were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and in the alternative they were further charged under Section 306 of IPC. The appellants/accused persons denied the charges. First appellant Rajendra Kumar Gupta is the husband, while second appellant Prakash Chand Gupta is Jeth (husband's elder brother) and third appellant Smt. Uma Gupta is the Jethani (sister-in-law) of the deceased namely Sadhana (hereinafter called as deceased). The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the first appellant on 5-2-1991 and she died on 30-8-1993 by hanging herself in her nuptial house. As per the case of prosecution, the appellants/accused persons were making demand of Rs. 50,000/- and a Hero Honda motor cycle. However, when the demand was not fulfilled by the parents of the deceased, the deceased was ill-treated in connection with demand of dowry and ultimately she put to an end of her life by hanging in nuptial house on 30-8-1993. 3. A merg case was registered and during the enquiry it was found by the investigating agency that the deceased put to end her life by hanging on account of demand of dowry by the appellants, because it was not fulfilled by her parents. Eventually, a case was registered by the concerning police station under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. 4. After the investigation was over a charge-sheet was submitted before the committal Court who committed the case and the accused persons were tried. Eventually, a case was registered by the concerning police station under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. 4. After the investigation was over a charge-sheet was submitted before the committal Court who committed the case and the accused persons were tried. The learned trial Court looking to the material available in the charge sheet framed the charges punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A of I.P.C. and in the alternative also framed charge under Section 306 of IPC which accused persons denied and requested for the trial. 5. The defence of the appellants is that the relation between the deceased and the appellants were quite cordial and sweet. But, on account of suspecting of malignancy in the uterus, it was advised to her not to conceive. On the date of incident also, the deceased was examined by lady Dr. Smt. B. Saxena (D.W.-7) and she was found pregnant and therefore under the fear the deceased hanged herself. In support of their evidence, accused persons proved several letters of the deceased which demonstrates the cordial, love and sweet relations of the deceased with her husband. The appellant also proved several letters written by Maniram (father of the deceased) to his son-in-law, first appellant Rajendra Kumar Gupta. The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence placed on record came to hold that charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C. have been proved and thus sentenced appellants to 10 years R. I. for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. but no separate sentence has been awarded for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. 6. In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence. 7. It has been put forth by Shri Jain learned counsel appearing for the appellants that although it has been stated by Maniram (P.W.-2), Kamla Gupta (P.W.-3), Kusum Gupta (P.W.-4) and Shakuntala (P.W.-5), who are father, mother and buas (paternal aunts) respectively of deceased that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty for demand of motor cycle and cash Rs. 50,000/-. But, on bare perusal the testimony of these witnesses and the several documents it would be crystal clear that the story of making the demand of dowry by the appellants has been cooked upon. 50,000/-. But, on bare perusal the testimony of these witnesses and the several documents it would be crystal clear that the story of making the demand of dowry by the appellants has been cooked upon. Learned counsel submits that the evidence of the defence witnesses stands is at par with that of prosecution witnesses and their evidence should not be ignored or disbelieved merely because they have been examined by the defence. In this context learned counsel has placed heavily reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, AIR 2002 SC 620 : ( (2002) 2 SCC 426 ). Thus on these premised submissions, it has been put forth by learned counsel that by allowing this appeal, the judgment of conviction and the impugned order of sentence be dismissed. 8. On the other hand, Shri Mishra, learned Public Prosecutor argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned trial Court while convicting the appellants under Sections 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C. and no interference is called for and, therefore, this appeal be dismissed. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 10. In the present case, Maniram (P.W.-2), Kamla Gupta (P.W.-3), Kusum Gupta (P.W.-4) and Shakuntala (P.W.-5) are the father, mother and buas (paternal aunts) of the deceased. True they have deposed that soon before the death of the deceased, appellants were making demand of dowry in the shape of motor cycle and cash Rs. 50,000/-, but it transpires from the testimony of these witnesses that before and even after more than one year and six months of her marriage, no demand of dowry was ever made by of the appellants. That apart, umpteen letters (Ex. D-16 to 24) were written by the deceased on different dates to her husband and from these letters it transpires that not only they were loving to each other up to the last end and were in love and affection up to the great extent but, it does not transpire or even whisper from these letters that any demand of dowry either of motor cycle or cash amount was ever made by any of the appellants. 11. That apart there are several letters (Exs. 11. That apart there are several letters (Exs. D-1 to D-11) which are written by father of the deceased namely Maniram (P.W.-2) to his son-in-law, i.e. first appellant Rajendra Kumar Gupta. These letters were confronted in the evidence of Maniram and he admitted that he wrote all the letters to his son-in-law. On bare perusal of these letters, it becomes crystal clear that the father-in-law was happy with the sweet relations of his son-in-law, first appellant with his daughter. These letters do not indicate that any demand of dowry, motor cycle or cash was ever made by any of the appellants. Thus, if the oral testimony is tested on the touchstone and anvil of the material documents, which are the aforesaid letters, it becomes luminously clear that any demand of dowry was ever made by the appellants is not proved. On the contrary, it can be inferred that no demand of dowry was ever made by the appellants. 12. At this juncture, it would be condign to scan the defence which the appellants have taken. Their evidence is that the deceased was medically advised not to conceive because malignancy (cancer) was suspected in the uterus. In this regard, the very material documents which are on record are Ex. D-116-A and Ex. D-117. These documents are the prescriptions of the deceased and the date 8-3-1993 and 5-5-1993 respectively are mentioned on these documents. From these documents, it is clear that the deceased was examined on these dates by Dr. S.M. Agrawal (D.W.-5). On bare perusal of the document (Ex. D-117) it is gathered that the deceased was advised to avoid pregnancy. In very specific words Dr. Agrawal has deposed that he was suspecting cancer in the uterus of the deceased and he further advised to get the deceased treated at Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital at Bombay. This fact is also mentioned in Ex. D-117. The document (Ex. D-118) dated 5-5-1993 is another very important document. By this document the deceased was referred to Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital, Bombay. All these documents have also been proved by the doctors. 13. That apart lady doctor Smt. B. Saxena (D.W.-7) has also deposed that she examined the deceased on 30-8-1993 (the date of death of the deceased) and she sound pregnancy of 15 days. In this regard, very material document (Ex. P-17) is on record, which this lady doctor has proved. All these documents have also been proved by the doctors. 13. That apart lady doctor Smt. B. Saxena (D.W.-7) has also deposed that she examined the deceased on 30-8-1993 (the date of death of the deceased) and she sound pregnancy of 15 days. In this regard, very material document (Ex. P-17) is on record, which this lady doctor has proved. Since the deceased was already advised by Dr. Agrawal vide Exs. D-116 and D-117 dated 8-3-1993 and 5-5-1993 respectively not to conceive, one can infer that because later on she conceived, therefore, she was under impression that she would become a liability for the appellants and she may suffer unbearable pains in the treatment of cancer and her life would put to danger. Hence, she took a decision to put her life to an end and eventually she hanged herself. 14. It is well settled law that defence is not required to prove the defence with the same standard of strict proof, which is applicable and is required to be proved by the prosecution. It would be sufficient if the probable defence has been taken and it has been proved by placing cogent evidence on record. Since the overwhelming material documents are on record and looking to the evidence of the doctors, the probable defence which has been taken by the defence is found to be proved. 15. It is well settled law that the defence witnesses are at par with that of prosecution witnesses and their testimony should not be disbelieved merely because they have been examined by the defence side. In this context I may profitably place reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court State of Haryana (supra) and also some other decisions, they are S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942 , Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Punjab (2009) 16 SCC 487 , Munshi Prasad and others v. State of Bihar (2002) 1 SCC 351 ( AIR 2001 SC 3031 ) and State of U. P. v. Baburam AIR 2000 SC 1735 . 16. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC are not proved against the appellants. Eventually their conviction cannot be sustained. Ab Judicatio this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. 16. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC are not proved against the appellants. Eventually their conviction cannot be sustained. Ab Judicatio this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. They are acquitted from all the charges. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged. The amount of fine if deposited be refunded. Appeal allowed.