JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal by appellants Pawan Goyal, Kedarmal Gupta & Anar Bai seeks to challenge the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 15/10/2005 whereby they were convicted for offence u/S.498A IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of three years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default whereof, were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months. Appellants were also convicted for offence u/S.304B IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment with a rider that they shall not be released till their last breath. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Preliminary Facts:- 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that a written report was submitted by Brahmdutt (PW1) to Mahila Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur on 3/3/2000 inter-alia alleging that his grand-daughter Smt.Asha @Kanta D/o Shri Murarilal was married with Pawan Goyal S/o Kedarmal on 11/3/1996. Since her father Murarilal was deaf & dumb, entire arrangements of marriage were made by him. At the time of marriage, parents of Pawan Goyal said that they did not want any dowry but marriage should be solemnized in a good way. Yet, they sent a list of dowry articles consisting of furniture and other goods to Vishwesharlal, the mediator on whose persuasion the parties agreed for this marriage. They wanted that minimum Rs. 4 lacs should be spent in the marriage, out of which, Rs. 1.5 lacs should be given in cash and that dowry articles should be sent in advance. The informant gave Rs. 88,000/- in advance to them for purchase of Hero Honda motorcycle, colour television, fridge, dining set etc., which they purchased. Apart from that, a sum of Rs. 2.25 lacs was spent in engagement ceremony. Informant stated that they spent more than their means. Even then after marriage, accused continued to demand amount of Rs. 50,000/-. When Asha went to her in-laws place, her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law used to taunt her for not paying demanded Rs. 50,000/-. They used to subject her to cruelty and also at times beat her. Whenever she met the complainant-informant and other relatives, she would complain about the same. Asha gave birth to a male child in 1997; at that time, family of the informant gave them customary gifts but their demand of Rs. 50,000/- still persisted. In December, 1999 however they started demanding Rs. 1 lac harassing Asha on such demand. Whenever she met the complainant-informant and other relatives, she would complain about the same. Asha gave birth to a male child in 1997; at that time, family of the informant gave them customary gifts but their demand of Rs. 50,000/- still persisted. In December, 1999 however they started demanding Rs. 1 lac harassing Asha on such demand. Asha made a phone call on 26/2/2000 from her in-laws place to her aunt Smt.Aruna Gupta at Ajmer and requested her that she should arrange for Rs. 1 lac to be paid to her in-laws. Smt.Aruna Gupta even told that she was crying and complaining against the accused-appellants for harassing her and said that if demand was not satisfied, they would kill her. Thereafter, her uncle Ramgopal Gupta talked to Kedarmal at 7.45 p.m. on 29/2/2000 and requested that Asha should not be harassed and that soon their demand would be satisfied. Informant received the news of death of Asha in the evening of 29/2/2000, from his other relatives. He thereafter attended the 3rd day condolence on 2/3/2000 at Jaipur. Asha told this to her aunt (bua) Smt.Meera Goyal, who visited her husband's house only one day before the death that her in-laws used to misbehave and beat her for not fulfilling their demand of Rs. 1 lac. Informant alleged that another uncle (phupha) Sitaram along with other relatives went to the house of in-laws of Asha in the morning of the day of incident but her in-laws did not allow Asha to meet them. In-laws of Asha had murdered Asha by giving poison because of non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 1 lac. Therefore action be taken against them. 3. The police on the basis of the aforesaid written report registered a regular first information report for offence u/Ss.498A & 304B IPC. Three different investigation officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Additional Superintendent of Police investigated into the matter. Finally, S.H.O. Mahila Police Station on 21/11/2000 filed charge-sheet against all three accused-appellants for offence u/Ss.498A & 304B IPC. Case was committed to the court of sessions on 1/8/2001 from which, it was made over to the court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The said court framed charges against the aforesaid accused-appellants on 23/11/2001, which they denied and claimed trial. Case was committed to the court of sessions on 1/8/2001 from which, it was made over to the court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The said court framed charges against the aforesaid accused-appellants on 23/11/2001, which they denied and claimed trial. Prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 35 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents. Defence produced 8 witnesses and exhibited 98 documents. Learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur after completion of trial, convicted the accused-appellants for offence u/Ss.498A & 304B IPC and awarded sentence to them in the manner as indicated above. Aggrieved thereof, they are up in appeal before this Court.Arguments of Defence:- Shri N.C. Choudhary, learned counsel for the accused-appellants has argued that though it is true that deceased-Asha accidentally or intentionally consumed poison in the morning of 29/2/2000 but immediately when she disclosed this fact to younger brother of her husband, Dr.Vikas Goyal that she has accidentally consumed celphos, he immediately called Dr.Vandana Garg and Dr.Suman Choudhary, who were their neighbours. All of them rushed Asha to hospital, despite her insistence that nothing would happen to her. He has stated that he along with Asha and neighbour Dr.Suman Choudhary went to S.M.S. in auto rickshaw and his mother followed. She was taken to emergency and was then admitted to 3A ward of the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. Information was given not only to Madanlal Gupta (PW24) but also the appellants-husband & father-in-law. Dr.Kailash Gupta reached hospital. Madanlal Gupta also talked to Asha and was satisfied. Suddenly, at 12.30, she died. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the police statements of Dr.Vandana Garg (Exh.D/62) and Dr.S.P. Gupta (Exh.D/63), who accompanied the deceased in auto rickshaw upto hospital. Learned counsel also referred to the admit card of the deceased in the hospital vide Exh.D-48 and argued that Brahmdutt (PW1) has rather stated that he came to attend 3rd day condolence at Jaipur, then he learnt that Asha has been murdered. Learned counsel while referring to Exh.D-48 admit card of deceased in the hospital, argued that deceased at the relevant time did not make any complain that she has been maltreated or harassed or subjected to cruelty for, or in connection with demand of dowry. Learned counsel while referring to Exh.D-48 admit card of deceased in the hospital, argued that deceased at the relevant time did not make any complain that she has been maltreated or harassed or subjected to cruelty for, or in connection with demand of dowry. All that is mentioned in the admission card by the doctor is that patient stated that she took two-three tablets of celphos one hour back followed by nausea and vomiting. Inquest report was prepared by the police in the presence of Madanlal Gupta (PW24), nephew of informant Brahmdutt (PW1), who was then Sub Divisional Magistrate and close relative of the deceased. He did not complain regarding harassment and maltreatment for, or in connection with demand of dowry at that time against the accused. He even consented to handover the dead-body of Asha to the appellants. Funeral took place at the instance of in-laws. All the family members of Asha were present on 29/2/2000 itself. Her uncle Ramgopal Gupta (PW4) was also informed. He attended the funeral and even performed the 'chunri ceremony', which is done when a 'suhagin' (a woman who dies while her husband is still alive). No F.I.R. either on 29/2/2000 or 1/3/2000 was lodged. Informant and other relatives of deceased-Asha attended 3rd day condolence on 2/3/2000. It is only thereafter when they assembled in the house of Madanlal Gupta on 2/3/2000 at Jaipur that they decided to concoct a false story to lodge the F.I.R. on that basis. Shri N.C. Choudhary, learned counsel for appellants submitted that Madanlal Gupta (PW24), who was member of Rajasthan Administrative Service and later became member of Indian Administrative Service, exerting his influence got the investigation changed on three occasions. When earlier investigation officer proposed to submit negative final report, the investigation was entrusted to second investigation officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police namely - Hetram Vishnoi and third time to investigation officer of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police namely-Shri Sampat Raj Vyas (PW31). Last investigation officer did not conduct fair investigation and did not record statements of the neighbours properly. There is total lack of evidence as to how and in what manner, deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for, or in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. Last investigation officer did not conduct fair investigation and did not record statements of the neighbours properly. There is total lack of evidence as to how and in what manner, deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for, or in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. It is argued that informant Brahmdutt (PW1) in his statement has made number of improvements, which is full of contradictions and omissions. This witness has supported documents the letter dated 8/2/1996 (Exh.P.3), list of dowry articles (Exh.P.4) & letter dated 4/2/1996 (Exh.P.10), which are not genuine documents. These documents were prepared by Suresh Kumar S/o Vishwesharlal, who lived in Jaipur. Brahmdutt (PW1) in his statement has even admitted that after marriage of Asha, he neither talked to Asha on phone nor did he even talk to husband-Pawan for last four years. Brahmdutt (PW1) in his statement has even stated that there was no intention to lodge first information report upto fourth day. Shri N.C. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the statement of Janki Bai (PW2), wife of Madanlal Gupta and argued that even her statement is full of contradictions, omissions and improvements. She was also present at the time when deceased-Asha was hospitalized, and never made any such allegation then. Aruna Gupta (PW3) in her statement admitted that Ramgopal, uncle of deceased specially came from Ajmer to attend the cremation and returned back. Her statement u/S.161 Cr.P.C. dated 8/7/2000 Exh.D.4 was recorded five months after the alleged incident. There is no explanation why she did not persuade her husband to immediately lodge first information report if at all she knew about the demand of dowry and alleged cruelty. This witness has stated that on 26/2/2000, she received a telephonic call from Asha, who complained against maltreatment by the appellants with her but there is no explanation why she did not immediately inform her husband Ramgopal about such maltreatment and why for three days no steps were taken to file F.I.R. In cross-examination, even this witness has stated that Asha did not make any complaint against behaviour of her husband. She for the first time before the court made allegation against mother-in-law/appellant No. 3-Anar Bai of beating Asha but no such allegation was made in her statement u/S.161 Cr.P.C. This witness has admitted her signatures on Exh.D-6 to Exh.D-7 and also signatures of Pawan on Exh.D-8 to Exh.D-9, Exh.D.10 & Exh.D.14 handwriting of his children, Exh.11, Exh.12 & Exh.13 handwriting of Manoj Gupta, younger brother of Asha. All these letters and greeting cards exchanged between two families showed their cordial relationship. Not a single letter was produced on record complaining about demand of dowry and ill-treatment meted out to deceased-Asha. Learned counsel also referred to number of photographs of the deceased with the appellants and different family members showing that deceased extensively traveled with her husband to different parts of the country and lived happily with him. Shri N.C. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants referred to the statement of Ramgopal (PW4), uncle of deceased-Asha, who stated that when Dr.Anil Goyal, younger brother of appellant No. 1 got married, his wife Dr.Shephali brought lot of dowry. Asha used to complain that thereafter appellants started subjecting her to cruelty. This witness also stated that Asha and her two brothers Manoj & Pradeep stayed with him at Ajmer and he arranged for their studies. His statement does not prove the allegation of harassment or cruelty for, or in connection with demand of dowry. Krishna Gupta (PW5) daughter-in-law of Vishwesharlal, who was mediator of marriage, has merely stated that there were differences between deceased-Asha and her mother-in-law and when Asha told this fact to her husband-Pawan Goyal appellant No. 1, he stated that he would try to persuade his mother and that she (this witness) should make the deceased understand the intricacies of relationships. Such differences between mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law are common and cannot prove allegation of cruelty soon before her death for, or in connection with demand of dowry. This witness has also stated that Asha told his wife that she was unhappy with her mother-in-law due to house hold works. Nirmal (PW7), sister-in-law (bhabhi of deceased) and daughter-in-law of Madanlal Gupta admitted that deceased used to stay with her husband out of Jaipur for last three years and she used to taunt her for not bringing sufficient dowry but she did not tell any such thing to her father-in-law Madanlal Gupta though she told her husband about the same. Nirmal (PW7), sister-in-law (bhabhi of deceased) and daughter-in-law of Madanlal Gupta admitted that deceased used to stay with her husband out of Jaipur for last three years and she used to taunt her for not bringing sufficient dowry but she did not tell any such thing to her father-in-law Madanlal Gupta though she told her husband about the same. Shyam Sunder Gupta (PW8), Gyarsi Devi (PW9) mother of the deceased, Pradeep (PW10) brother of deceased and Ugam Singh (PW11) have also not given any definite evidence of harassment and cruelty to the deceased by the appellants for, or in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. Smt.Raj Gupta (PW12) wife of Dr.Kailash (PW14), younger brother of Madanlal Gupta, has also made a general statement with regard to demand of Rs. 50,000/- by the in-laws but does not give any definite evidence as to cruelty or harassment by them for, or in connection with such demand of dowry. Shri N.C. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants has heavily placed reliance upon the statement of Guneshwari Devi (PW13) domestic servant in the house of the appellants. She has stated that deceased-Asha got up early in the morning and prepared tea for everyone in the family. Sitaram her phupha (uncle) and father came there at about 8.30 a.m. and left after taking tea. This witness stayed in the house till 9.00 a.m. This witness has stated that when Kedarmal Gupta-appellant No. 2 asked to call Asha so that she could meet phupha and father, uncle (phupha) told that they had met Asha the previous day and on that day, they came back to meet Kedarmal. Asha at that time was in bath room. Dr.Kailash (PW14), Rajendra Kumar (PW15) & Manju Devi (PW16) have also made general and sweeping statements on the allegation of demand of dowry. Manju Devi (PW16) has stated that she was not aware as to what amount was agreed to be given to the in-laws of Asha at the time of marriage. Manoj Gupta (PW17) has also admitted that prior to her death, Asha did not write any letter complaining about demand of dowry. In fact, this witness has admitted that Asha had completed post-graduation after marriage while staying with the in-laws. This clearly indicates that she was comfortable in her in-laws house. Manoj Gupta (PW17) has also admitted that prior to her death, Asha did not write any letter complaining about demand of dowry. In fact, this witness has admitted that Asha had completed post-graduation after marriage while staying with the in-laws. This clearly indicates that she was comfortable in her in-laws house. Meera Goyal (PW18) has completely changed her statement before the court because in her statement before the police u/S.161 Cr.P.C. Exh.D-46, she did not allege a single word regarding demand of Rs. 1 lac. Sitaram (PW19) has merely stated that he went to the house of the appellants in the morning of 29/2/2000 but did not stay for long. He has alleged that he was accompanied by Murarilal, father of the deceased and two younger brothers. When they asked for Asha, Kedarmal told him that Asha was in the bath room and her husband-Pawan was in pooja. This kind of allegation does not make out any case for subjecting deceased to cruelty for, or in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. Shri N.C. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants has cited the statement of Madanlal Gupta (PW24) and has stated that this man was instrumental in foisting a false case upon the appellants, whereas he was the first man, who was informed by the appellants about consumption of celphos by Asha, a fact admitted by his daughter-in-law Nirmal (PW7). He and his wife immediately came to the hospital and at that time, he did not make any complaint to the police and joined the cremation of the deceased with Ramgopal (PW4). The then S.D.M., Jaipur II - Shri S.N. Tiwadi (PW29), who came there to make enquiry u/S.174 Cr.P.C. also corroborated the fact that no such complaint was received by him. Aruna Gupta (PW3) aunt of the deceased, Sitaram (W19) uncle of deceased, Gyarsi Devi (PW9) mother of the deceased, Manoj (PW10) brother of the deceased and Dr.Kailash Gupta (PW14) her cousin have admitted that Asha used to write letters but in those letters she never complained about ill-treatment or misbehavior by her in-laws regarding demand of dowry. Learned trial court has erred in relying on the letter Exh.P.10, which is alleged to have been written by Kedarmal Gupta-appellant No. 2 to Madanlal Gupta complaining that Brahmdutt (PW1), grand-father of deceased has not kept the promise of giving Rs. Learned trial court has erred in relying on the letter Exh.P.10, which is alleged to have been written by Kedarmal Gupta-appellant No. 2 to Madanlal Gupta complaining that Brahmdutt (PW1), grand-father of deceased has not kept the promise of giving Rs. 1.5 lacs at the time of marriage and also enclosed purported list of demanded articles of dowry, whereas said letter has not been proved to be in the handwriting of Kedarmal as per expert report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, of which no reference whatsoever was made by the learned trial court in its judgment. Another letter dated 8/2/1996 (Exh.P.3) relied on by the learned trial court was also purported to be in the handwriting of Vishwesharlal addressed to Madanlal Gupta, was also fabricated by his son Suresh Kumar. Vishwesharlal had already died. The appellants in their defence have produced handwriting expert report dated 15/11/2004 (Exh.D-98), which has been proved by handwriting expert-Renu Kumari (DW7), who in her statement clearly proved that when compared with admitted handwriting of deceased Vishwesharlal, that letter was not written by him. Letter dated 8/2/1996 (Exh.P.3), list of dowry articles (Exh.P.4) & letter dated 4/2/1996 (Exh.P.10) could not have been believed by the trial court because Hetram Vishnoi (PW35) investigation officer categorically stated that those documents were not produced during investigation before him, whereas subsequently investigation officer Sunderlal (PW33) has stated that these documents were produced before him by Brahmdutt (PW1) belatedly on 9/7/2000 and there was no explanation as to why these documents were got laminated. These letters were fabricated by Madanlal Gupta, is evident from the statement of Ugam Singh (PW11), who has stated that they were given to him by Madanlal asking him to produce them before the police. It is further argued that statements of most of the prosecution witnesses were recorded by the investigation officers with the delay of two-three months. Even the F.I.R. was lodged on 3/3/2000. Statement of appellant No. 2 himself came to be recorded belatedly on 9/7/2000, as admitted by the investigation officer-Shri Sunderlal (PW33). It is further argued that statements of most of the prosecution witnesses were recorded by the investigation officers with the delay of two-three months. Even the F.I.R. was lodged on 3/3/2000. Statement of appellant No. 2 himself came to be recorded belatedly on 9/7/2000, as admitted by the investigation officer-Shri Sunderlal (PW33). Shri N.C. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants in support of his arguments, has placed reliance upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Shaikh Masood v. State of Maharashtra : (2009) 6 SCC 583 , Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2011) 12 SCC 408 , Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat : AIR 1953 SC 468 , Raman Kumar v. State of Punjab : (2009) 16 SCC 35 , Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of UP : (2011) 11 SCC 24 , Durga Prasad & Anr. v. State of UP : (2010) 9 SCC 73 , Suresh Kumar Singh v. State of UP : (2009) 17 SCC 243 , APPA Saheb & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra : 2007 Cr.P.C. (SC) 252 , Biswajit Haldar @ Babu Halder & Ors. v. State of West Bengal : (2008) 1 SCC 202 , Surinder Kaur & Anr. v. State of Haryana : (2004) 12 SCC 109 , Sunil Bajaj v. State of MP : AIR 2001 SC 3020 , Thulia Kali v. State of Tamilnadu : AIR 1973 SC 501 , T.Arunt Perrinjothi v. State through SHO Pondicherry : 2006 Cr.L.R. (SC) 422 & Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab : AIR 2006 SC 680 . Learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance on the judgments of other High Courts in Shatrughan & Anr. v. State of MP : 1993 Cr.L.J. (MP) 120 , Khuman Chand v. State of Rajasthan : 1998(2) WLC (Raj.) 238 , Bhakhar Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan : 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 58 , Durga Devi v. State of Rajasthan : 1992 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 782 & State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Vijay Singh & Ors. : 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 70 . Arguments of Prosecution:- Shri Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal and argued that incident in the present case took place on 29/2/2000 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 3/3/2000 therefore delay of two days in between, cannot be fatal to the prosecution case. v. Vijay Singh & Ors. : 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 70 . Arguments of Prosecution:- Shri Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal and argued that incident in the present case took place on 29/2/2000 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 3/3/2000 therefore delay of two days in between, cannot be fatal to the prosecution case. Mere delay of two days does not create any suspicion about story of the prosecution. It has been clearly proved by Brahmdutt (PW1), grand-father of deceased that all the relatives assembled on 3rd day condolence and it was on that day, that different facts leading to the death of deceased came to be talked about. Brahmdutt (PW1) has also stated that when he inquired from father-in-law of deceased, appellant No. 2, he could not give any satisfactory explanation why deceased consumed celphos. It was therefore quite natural on their part to make further enquiry, which revealed that she was compelled to commit suicide because of continuous torture, harassment and cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and therefore Brahmdutt (PW1) lodged the report on 3/3/2000. 4. It is argued that mere delay in recording statement cannot bely the prosecution story. Statement of Brahmdutt (PW1) was recorded on the same day but statements of other witnesses were recorded subsequently but all of such statements fully corroborates version in the FIR. Merely because most of the witnesses are related to the deceased cannot be a reason to discard their testimony. Relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in Shahabuddin & Anr. v. State of Assam : Criminal Appeal No. 629/2010 decided on 13/12/2012 , the learned Public Prosecutor argued that merely because most of the witnesses are related to the deceased, would not by itself cause any prejudice to the case of the prosecution. Reliance has also been placed on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Gajoo v. State of Uttarakhand JT 2012 (9) SC 10 & State of A.P. v. S.Rayappa and others (2006) 4 SCC 512 to argue that testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on the ground that he being a relation of the deceased is an interested witness. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses in the present case is consistent and they have remained un-shakened in their cross-examination. Minor variation cannot be a reason to discard the testimony. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses in the present case is consistent and they have remained un-shakened in their cross-examination. Minor variation cannot be a reason to discard the testimony. It is denied that allegation of demand of dowry was made as an afterthought. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that both, the deceased and the appellants belong to a community where high expenditure in marriages is considered as mark of status in the society. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly shows that prior to marriage, it was agreed between the parties that a total sum of Rs. 4-4.50 lacs would be spent in the marriage out of which, Rs. 1.5 lacs was to be given by the complainant party to the appellants in cash. Brahmdutt (PW1), grand-father of the deceased could however pay only a sum of Rs. 1 lac and thus Rs. 50,000/- remained unpaid. Appellant No. 2-Kedarmal Gupta considered this amount as due amount. It is therefore all family members used to taunt the deceased and subject her to cruelty and harassment for failure to bring dowry. Kedarmal Gupta personally demanded this money from Brahmdutt (PW1) and sometimes husband-Pawan through deceased-Asha. Same demand was conveyed by appellant No. 3-Anar Bai through deceased-Asha. Brahmdutt (PW1) has also stated that appellant No. 2-Kedarmal used to demand this money. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that except this, relations between the parties were normal but appellant No. 1-Pawan Goyal also used to support the demand as is evident from the testimony of Dr. Kailash Gupta (PW14), younger brother of Madanlal Gupta and Manoj Gupta (PW17) younger brother of the deceased. This demand continued even during the period when Asha left the matrimonial house and started living separately with her husband. Till 1999, demand of remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- persisted but after marriage of younger brother of appellant No. 1, Dr. Anil Goyal, whose wife Dr.Shephali brought more dowry in the marriage, this demand of Rs. 50,000/- was enhanced to Rs. 1 lac. Therefore incident that took place on 29/2/2000 attracts offence u/S.304B IPC because soon before death of Asha, demand of dowry persisted. Mere non-production of the documentary evidence by the prosecution in regard to alleged demand of dowry does not make the prosecution case weak because oral testimony of prosecution witnesses is truthful. 50,000/- was enhanced to Rs. 1 lac. Therefore incident that took place on 29/2/2000 attracts offence u/S.304B IPC because soon before death of Asha, demand of dowry persisted. Mere non-production of the documentary evidence by the prosecution in regard to alleged demand of dowry does not make the prosecution case weak because oral testimony of prosecution witnesses is truthful. Learned Public Prosecutor referred to the phone call made by deceased-Asha to her uncle Ramgopal (PW4) at his residence at Ajmer and talks with her aunt Aruna Gupta (PW3) when she complained to her in regard to harassment by the appellants for, or in connection with demand of dowry of Rs. 1 lac. This fact has also been verified by her uncle Ramgopal (PW4). On 28/2/2000 also, sister of deceased's father Smt.Meera Goyal (PW18) and her husband Sitaram (PW19) personally met her in her in-laws house. Even Smt.Meera Goyal (PW18) has stated that deceased broke down in her presence complaining about demand of Rs. 1 lac and harassment by her in-laws. This clearly proves that deceased-Asha was very much anxious and disturbed and the cause of anxiety was demand of dowry. Even on 29/2/2000, a telephonic call was made by Ramgopal (PW4) but her in-laws did not allow her to talk to him. At about 8.30 a.m. on 29/2/2000, Sitaram (PW19) along with father of deceased, Murarilal visited the matrimonial house of deceased-Asha but despite their request, they were not allowed to meet deceased-Asha on the pretext that she was taking bath. It cannot be believed that for all this time for one hour or so, they stayed at her house, she would be in bath room. Sitaram (PW19) specifically stated that when he asked appellant No. 2-Kedarmal to call for Asha, she was stated to be in bath room. Guneshwari Devi (PW13) domestic servant has also corroborated this fact. Such a suspicious conduct on the part of the appellants certainly proves cruelty and also harassment to her for, or in connection with demand of dowry. Conduct of the appellants assumes significance because within one hour of their leaving the in-laws house of Asha, she consumed poison. Presumption with the aid of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was therefore drawn by the trial court. Conduct of the appellants assumes significance because within one hour of their leaving the in-laws house of Asha, she consumed poison. Presumption with the aid of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was therefore drawn by the trial court. Reliance in this connection has been placed upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram : AIR 2008 SC 982 . 6. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that inference under Section 106 of the Evidence Act and presumption u/S.113B of the said Act also places heavy burden on the accused to explain how and in what circumstances, deceased-Asha, whose marriage was solemnized with appellant No. 1-Pawan Goyal about four years ago committed suicide in their house? Merely because her in-laws took the deceased to hospital, does not absolve them of their criminal liability on allegation of offence u/Ss.498A & 304B IPC. Suggestion that deceased was neglected by her relatives is denied. It was not so because there were frequent communications between them through phone and letters etc. and not only she visited her parents and other relatives from parents' side but vise-versa also they visited her. She used to participate in family functions from both the sides. It was asserted that non-lodgment of the FIR on the day when deceased died cannot be a reason to doubt the allegation because cloud of suspicion started gathering only thereafter when the complainant-party made thorough inquiries. They did not raise any hue and cry at the time of cremation because they wanted her funeral to take place in a congenial atmosphere and besides that the cremation was held in a hurried manner. Learned Public Prosecutor has also placed reliance upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Trimukh Maroti Kiran v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 & Ram Badan Sharma v. State of Bihar, AIR 2006 SC 2855 . 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. All the three accused-appellants have been convicted for offence u/Ss.498A & 304B IPC. Section 498A IPC provides punishment of three years to the husband or relative of husband of a woman, who subjects woman to cruelty. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. All the three accused-appellants have been convicted for offence u/Ss.498A & 304B IPC. Section 498A IPC provides punishment of three years to the husband or relative of husband of a woman, who subjects woman to cruelty. Section 304B IPC however provides that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. In such matters, court raises a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act that such a person has caused dowry death. However, this presumption is rebuttable. 9. The evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution has to be therefore scrutinised to find out whether it makes out a case for both or any of the above referred to offences against the appellants, with particular emphasis on the fact whether deceased-Asha was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellants for, or in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death?Analysis of Evidence:- 10. Prosecution witnesses, who have been relied upon by the trial court for convicting the appellants have consistently alleged that at the time of marriage, Brahmdutt (PW1) promised that he would spend Rs. 4 lacs in the marriage out of which, Rs. 1.5 lacs was agreed to be given in cash and remaining in kind. However, complaint of the accused was that only Rs. 1 lac was given as against the agreed amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs and, therefore, initial demand ever since marriage of deceased-Asha with accused-appellant No. 1-Pawan Goyal till the marriage of his younger brother Dr.Anil Goyal was of Rs. 50,000/-. Thereafter, this demand was raised to Rs. 1 lac. Witnesses have made statement that accused-appellants used to taunt deceased for inability of Brahmdutt (PW1) in not keeping that promise and in this connection they used to pressurise her to ask Brahmdutt (PW1) to keep his word. 11. Brhamdutt (PW1) has also in his statement confirmed that it was amount of Rs. 1 lac. Witnesses have made statement that accused-appellants used to taunt deceased for inability of Brahmdutt (PW1) in not keeping that promise and in this connection they used to pressurise her to ask Brahmdutt (PW1) to keep his word. 11. Brhamdutt (PW1) has also in his statement confirmed that it was amount of Rs. 50,000/- with regard to which accused used to complain and deceased-Asha also used to remind him about the same. He has also made a general statement that when deceased-Asha gave birth to a male child, he had spent Rs. 1 lac. When once he brought Asha back to the house of the accused, he assured them of the payment of outstanding amount. It is in this sequence that he has narrated that he received information about sudden death of deceased-Asha. This witness proved list of dowry articles (Exh.P.4) alleged to have been given by accused-appellant No. 2 Kedarmal Gupta to one Vishwesharlal and the letter dated 8/2/1996 (Exh.P.3) and claimed that these two documents were given to him by Vishwesharlal ji. In his cross-examination however, he has admitted that accused-appellant Kedarmal did not himself ask him to pay Rs. 1.5 lacs in cash but when he met Kedarmal in presence of Vishwesharlal ji, Kedarmal told that marriage has to be somemnized as per discussions with Vishwesharlal ji. This witness has even stated that appellant-Kedarmal never pressurised him for giving dowry articles. All dowry articles he gave in the marriage were out of his own free will as per consensus between them to spend Rs. 4-4.50 lacs in the marriage. This witness has admitted that Madanlal Gupta and Ramgopal attended the funeral of deceased-Asha and that he and other relatives of deceased-Asha also attended the 3rd day condolence. Accused-Kedarmal at that time could not give any satisfactory explanation why deceased consumed celphos. Therefore, sensing a conspiracy, he lodged first information report. If this statement is read in its entirety, it shows that out of total agreed amount of Rs. 4-4.50 lacs to be spent in marriage, amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs was agreed to be paid at the time of marriage in cash but only Rs. 1 lac was given and appellants used to demand remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- and deceased was also pressurised to remind this witness about the same. 4-4.50 lacs to be spent in marriage, amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs was agreed to be paid at the time of marriage in cash but only Rs. 1 lac was given and appellants used to demand remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- and deceased was also pressurised to remind this witness about the same. Janki Devi (PW2), wife of Madanlal Gupta has also narrated the same story of non-payment of Rs. 50,000/- and has further stated that when Dr.Anil Goyal, brother-in-law of deceased-Asha got married, and his wife brought substantial dowry in marriage, appellants started demanding Rs. 1 lac. In cross-examination however, she has stated that the deceased made complaint about misbehaviour especially by the mother-in-law to her daughter-in-law Nirmal (PW7) whereupon, she (Nirmal) asked accused-appellant-Pawan that he should persuade his mother not to maltreat Asha. This witness has however in her cross-examiantion stated that she disclosed about alleged maltreatment by mother-in-law of deceased only after deceased-Asha died and prior to that she did not utter this fact to anyone. 12. Aruna Gupta (PW3-aunt of deceased) has also corroborated the same demand of Rs. 50,000/- and has also stated that demand was enhanced to Rs. 1 lac when brother-in-law of deceased-Asha, Dr.Anil Goyal got married, whose wife brought substantial dowry. When she told this fact to her husband Ramgopal, he called Kedarmal on telephone in the morning of 29/2/2000 at 7.30 a.m., who was not behaving normally and was speaking in a very heavy voice. Sitaram (PW19) has stated that when they went to the house of the appellants in the morning of 29/2/2000 at 8.30 a.m., everything was normal in the house hold. Guneshwari Devi (PW13) has stated that deceased got up early in the morning and served tea to every one in the family. Sitaram (PW19) stated that on his enquiry, he was informed that deceased was in bath room and taking bath. Ramgopal (PW4) uncle of the deceased has also similarly stated that Rs. 4-4.50 lacs was agreed to be spent in marriage and appellants used to taunt deceased for non-payment of Rs. 50,000/-. Demand was enhanced to Rs. 1 lac when marriage of her brother-in-law Dr.Anil Goyal took place, whose wife Dr.Shephali brought substantial dowry in the marriage. This witness (Ramgopal-PW4) has also stated that on 26/2/2000, she received a phone call from deceased-Asha about demand of Rs. 50,000/-. Demand was enhanced to Rs. 1 lac when marriage of her brother-in-law Dr.Anil Goyal took place, whose wife Dr.Shephali brought substantial dowry in the marriage. This witness (Ramgopal-PW4) has also stated that on 26/2/2000, she received a phone call from deceased-Asha about demand of Rs. 1 lac and alleged that appellants used to maltreat her for this reason. He then talked to appellant No. 2-Kedarmal in the morning of 29/2/2000 and could make out from his voice that Kedarmal was quite apprehensive and when he asked to call Asha on phone, he did not call her. This witness has stated that on receiving information about the death of Asha through his wife, he left Ajmer for Jaipur by bus at 3.00 p.m. and therefrom he reached the cremation ground. This witness has sought to give a suggestion by stating that pyre had already been lit before he arrived at the cremation ground and when he enquired from Madanlal Gupta (PW24) why they did not wait for him, he (Madanlal Gupta) stated that he requested but the accused did not agree. In cross-examination however, he stated that he reached Jaipur at about 6.00 p.m. and then from bus stand, he arrived at the house of the appellants at about 7.30 p.m., where he came to learn that dead-body has already been taken to the cremation ground. Then he reached the cremation ground at about 8.15 p.m. and funeral took place at 9.00 p.m. This witness has admitted that he (Ramgopal-PW4) and Madanlal Gupta as per hindu rites, performed the 'chunri' (peela lungada) ceremony performed on the death of a 'suhagin'. Obviously, this witness in the examination-in-chief has tried to make exeggeration. 13. Krishna Gupta (PW5-sister of deceased's father) has stated that appellant No. 2-Kedarmal happens to be nephew of her father-in-law. Kedarmal after engagement of deceased-Asha with appellant No. 1-Pawan Goyal wrote a letter to her father-in-law giving him details of the dowry articles and cash, which they demanded in the marriage. Her father-in-law Vishweshar Lal got a letter written from her husband-Suresh (PW6) to Brahmdutt (PW1) and then it was signed by Vishwesharlal. This witness has also supported the story of Rs. 50,000/- being paid less out of Rs. 1.5 lacs that was agreed to be paid in cash at the time of marriage. Her father-in-law Vishweshar Lal got a letter written from her husband-Suresh (PW6) to Brahmdutt (PW1) and then it was signed by Vishwesharlal. This witness has also supported the story of Rs. 50,000/- being paid less out of Rs. 1.5 lacs that was agreed to be paid in cash at the time of marriage. This letter dated 8/2/1996 (Exh.P.3) was not sent to the forensic science laboratory by the prosecution, which fact has been admitted by Investigation Officer-Sunderlal (PW33), whereas defence has produced Handwriting Expert report (Exh.D.98). The Handwriting Expert-Renu Kumari (DW7) has proved from her report that disputed signature did not match with admitted signature of late Vishwesharlal. Learned trial court has however discarded the statement of this witness in examination-in-chief and merely relied on her cross-examination to hold that letter was signed by Vishwesharlal. Suresh (PW6) author of the letter dated 8/2/1996 (Exh.P.3) has apart from supporting story of initial demand of Rs. 50,000/-, has stated that Exh.P.10 was the letter written by Kedarmalji to his father and list of demanded dowry articles as Exh.P.4. Letter dated 8/2/1996 (Exh.P.3) was written by him because his father Vishweshar Lal at that time was not keeping well. Letter dated 4/2/1996 (Exh.P.10) alleged to have been written by Kedarmal to Madanlal Gupta was even sent to the forensic science laboratory for opinion of the handwriting expert and report dated 6/2/2002 is on record, according to which, it was not possible to express any opinion for want of more existing genuine writings and signatures preferably of contemporary period of person concerned. This was opined by Dr. D.C. Sethi, Deputy Director, State F.S.L. Rajasthan, Jaipur. Though this report is not exhibited but the report of the F.S.L. is on record and the learned trial court has not at all referred to the said report and rather proceeded to assume role of handwriting expert by itself by observing that handwriting expert has not given any opinion as to the specimen signatures from S1 to S11 with regard to letters "G" & "L", which are found simialr to one used in the disputed signature. Learned trial court resorted to Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and has found letter dated 4/2/1996 (Exh.P.10) proved by comparing the same with admitted signatures and handwriting of appellant-Kedarmal. Learned trial court resorted to Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and has found letter dated 4/2/1996 (Exh.P.10) proved by comparing the same with admitted signatures and handwriting of appellant-Kedarmal. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal (DW6), colleague of appellant No. 2-Kedarmal Gupta in the Accountant General Office has stated that the list of dowry articles (Exh.P.4) & the letter dated 4/2/1996 (Exh.P.10) are not in the handwriting of Kedarmal. He can recognise handwriting of Kedarmal. 14. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it would be thus highly unsafe to rely on these documents to sustain the conviction of the appellants. What these documents i.e. letter dated 8/2/1996 (Exh.P.3), list of dowry articles (Exh.P.4) & letter dated 4/2/1996 (Exh.P.10) at the maximum prove is that at the time of engagement and before solemnization of marriage, Brahmdutt (PW1) on the one hand and Madanlal Gupta (PW24) on the other hand, agreed for marriage on the condition that a sum of Rs. 4-4.5 lacs would be spent in the marriage out of which, Rs. 1.5 lacs would be given in cash but that was when the marriage was solemnized on 11/3/1996. Thus, evidence of these documents even otherwise cannot be relied to bring the matter within the purview of Section 304B IPC. 15. Nirmal (PW7) daughter-in-law of Madanlal Gupta, Shyam Agrawal (PW8) cousin of Murarilal (father of deceased) and Gyarsi Devi (PW9-mother of the deceased) have also made only a general statement as to initial demand of Rs. 50,000/-, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 1 lac. Gyarsi Devi (PW9-mother of the deceased) has rather stated that Rs. 1.5 lacs was given in cash but when deceased-Asha came to their native place Bawai, she told that Rs. 50,000/- was demanded by the appellants. When a male child was born to her, about Rs. 50,000/- was spent by them. In her cross-examination however she stated that Brahmdutt (PW1) paid Rs. 50,000/- less than what was agreed to be given in cash. Some of the prosecution witnesses i.e. Pradeep (PW10-brother of the deceased), Raj Gupta (PW12), Dr. Kailash Chand (PW14), Rajendra Kumar (PW15-cousin of the deceased), Manju Devi (PW16), Manoj Gupta (PW17-brother of the deceased), Meera Goyal (PW18-aunt of the deceased) and Sitaram (PW19-husband of Meera Goyal-PW18), have similarly proved the general allegation that at the time of engagement, a sum of Rs. Kailash Chand (PW14), Rajendra Kumar (PW15-cousin of the deceased), Manju Devi (PW16), Manoj Gupta (PW17-brother of the deceased), Meera Goyal (PW18-aunt of the deceased) and Sitaram (PW19-husband of Meera Goyal-PW18), have similarly proved the general allegation that at the time of engagement, a sum of Rs. 4-4.50 lacs was agreed to be spent in marriage, out of which, Rs. 1.5 lacs was agreed to be given in cash but only Rs. 1 lac was given and appellants used to taunt the deceased for non-payment of Rs. 50,000/- by her grand-father Shri Brahmdutt (PW1) and this demand was later increased to Rs. 1 lac when younger brother of appellant No. 1-Pawan Goyal, got more dowry in marriage. 16. Madanlal Gupta (PW24) has also made a similar allegation though he has in support of his allegation heavily relied on the documents - letter dated 8/2/1996 (Exh.P.3), list of dowry articles (Exh.P.4) & letter dated 4/2/1996 (Exh.P.10) referred to supra. This witness has also mentioned dowry articles that were given at the time of marriage on 11/3/1996. This witness has stated that marriage of deceased-Asha was arranged by this witness from his own house at Jaipur, though entire expenditure was borne by Brahmdutt (PW1). All these statements thus clearly show that there is no specific evidence to prove that deceased was subjected to cruelty and mental harassment for, or in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. All these witnesses are thus making sweeping and general allegations based on the unpaid amount of Rs. 50,000/- (later raised to Rs. 1 lac), which the family of the deceased agreed to pay at the time of marriage and which demand persisted. There is no allegation of the witnesses whether deceased was ever subjected to physical cruelty by any one of the appellants. There is no evidence that deceased, who used to write number of letters and exchange greeting cards with her family members on parents side, ever wrote any such letter alleging demand of dowry by the appellants. Accused-appellant Kedarmal in examination u/S.313 Cr.P.C. has taken a defence that neither he wrote a letter to Vishwesharlal nor Vishwesharlal sent any letter to him. These three documents i.e. the letter dated 8/2/1996 (Exh.P.3), list of dowry articles (Exh.P.4) & letter dated 4/2/1996 (Exh.P.10) have been fabricated by Madanlal Gupta and Suresh, son of Vishwesharlal. Accused-appellant Kedarmal in examination u/S.313 Cr.P.C. has taken a defence that neither he wrote a letter to Vishwesharlal nor Vishwesharlal sent any letter to him. These three documents i.e. the letter dated 8/2/1996 (Exh.P.3), list of dowry articles (Exh.P.4) & letter dated 4/2/1996 (Exh.P.10) have been fabricated by Madanlal Gupta and Suresh, son of Vishwesharlal. He has also stated that he being Senior Audit Officer in the Accountant General Office, used to remain out of Jaipur and his wife also used to go with him. They never subjected deceased-Asha to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with demand of dowry. Asha was frustrated especially after marriage of her younger brother-in-law Dr.Anil Goyal, whose in-laws frequently visited him, whereas no one from the side of parents of deceased-Asha would visit her. Pawan and deceased-Asha most of the times stayed away from the family at Dudu and Shahpura. 17. Evidence of some of the witnesses show different reason for which deceased was unhappy, especially of Janki Devi (PW2), wife of Madanlal Gupta, who has stated that at the time of Deepawali when deceased-Asha and appellant No. 1-Pawan Goyal came to their house, deceased expressed her feelings to Nirmal Agrawal (PW7) and wept. She complained about misbehavior of the mother-in-law whereupon, this witness scolded Pawan Goyal as to why he does not ask his mother not to tease the deceased. Nirmal Agrawal (PW7) also stated about such complaint of deceased-Asha that her mother-in-law was treating her (the deceased) like a servant after Dr. Anil Goyal younger brother of appellant No. 1-Pawan Goyal got married, whose wife Dr. Shephali brought more dowry in marriage including Car. Krishna Gupta (PW5), daughter-in-law of Vishweshar Lal has also stated that there were differences between deceased-Asha and her mother-in-law and this witness told this fact to her husband-Pawan Goyal appellant No. 1, whereupon he stated that he would try to persuade his mother and that she (this witness) should make the deceased understand intricacies of relationships. Evidence thus proves differences of general nature between mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law, which are common and cannot prove allegation of cruelty soon before her death for, or in connection with demand of dowry. 18. Dr. Evidence thus proves differences of general nature between mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law, which are common and cannot prove allegation of cruelty soon before her death for, or in connection with demand of dowry. 18. Dr. Suman Choudhary (DW8) neighbour of the appellants has stated that deceased-Asha used to stay with her husband-Pawan, where they were posted, whereas her mother-in-law appellant No. 3-Anar Bai used to accompany her husband-appellant No. 2-Kedarmal Gupta whenever he would go out for inspection purposes. Asha used to share her worries with this witness. Asha at times used to have fits of depression for the reason that no one from her parents side would come to meet her, whereas parents of Dr.Shephali, wife of her younger brother-in-law Dr. Anil Goyal frequently visited her. 19. Guneshwari Devi (PW13) domestic servant in the house hold of the appellants has stated that she came on the day of incident at 7.00 in the morning. She stated that deceased-Asha got up early in the morning and prepared tea for everyone in the family. Sitaram her phupha (uncle) and father came there at about 8.30 a.m. When her uncle enquired about Asha, she was stated to be in bath room. They left the house within half an hour after taking tea. This witness stated that she stayed in the house till 9.00 a.m. In cross-examination, she stated that her uncle (phupha) came on the previous day also. When Kedarmal asked her to call Asha and she stated that Asha was in the bath room, this uncle told that they had already met Asha on the previous day and they had come on that day to meet only Kedarmal. 20. Statement of Meera Goyal (PW18) aunt of deceased-Asha also shows that on their invitation, Asha and her husband-Pawan Goyal both came to attend the marriage of son of her sister-in-law (this witness) and they stayed till 11.30 in the late night in the marriage party. Sitaram (PW19), husband of Meera Goyal (PW18) has also proved this fact.Conduct of The Parties Soon After Incident:- 21. Conduct of accused-appellants soon after the incident in the facts of the present case assumes significance. Evidence that has been adduced both, by the prosecution and the defence in the present case has shown that deceased-Asha immediately on her consuming two tablets of celphos divulged this fact to her brother-in-law Dr.Vikas Goyal. Conduct of accused-appellants soon after the incident in the facts of the present case assumes significance. Evidence that has been adduced both, by the prosecution and the defence in the present case has shown that deceased-Asha immediately on her consuming two tablets of celphos divulged this fact to her brother-in-law Dr.Vikas Goyal. Dr.Vikas Goyal (DW2) has stated that on the day of incident i.e. on 29/2/2000, uncle Sitaram and father of deceased Murarilal had come to their house to meet his father Kedarmal. They left around 9.00 a.m. Thereafter, deceased-Asha served food to accused-appellant Pawan Goyal and his father accused-appellant No. 2-Kedarmal Gupta. While Pawan Goyal left for his office at 9.30 a.m., his father left the house behind him after some time. At about 10.30 a.m., deceased-Asha told this witness that she has accidently consumed something but there was no cause of worry. This witness even then called Dr.Vandana Garg and Dr.Suman Choudhary, their neighbours. They all insisted to take Asha to hospital but she declined but ultimately this witness got Asha and Dr.Suman Choudhary in an auto rickshaw to hospital and his mother followed them in another auto rickshaw. She was taken to emergency ward and at that time, she was quite alright. They immediately informed Madanlal Gupta and on their information, Madanlal, his son Dr.Mahendra, his own father Kedarmal, brother Pawan Goyal and Dr.Kailash reached hospital. Madanlal after after staying for some time, went to his house. Entire hospital expenditure was borne by their family. But unfortunately she died. This witness stated that soon thereafter Madanlal Gupta came to S.M.S. He stated that deceased was frustrated and therefore consumed celphos. Inquest report was prepared in his presence. Dead-body was handed over to appellants No. 1 & 2 with the consent of Madanlal Gupta, who stated that funeral should take place in the evening of that day because it was not appropriate to keep the dead-body in the house for the whole night. He also stated that Madanlal Gupta told that he has given information to Brahmdutt (PW1) and uncle of the deceased Ramgopal (PW4) at Ajmer, who were about to reach. 'Chunri' (peela lungda) ceremony was performed by uncle of the deceased Ramgopal (PW4) and Madanlal Gupta filled in the death registration form to be submitted to Nagar Nigam. 22. Dr. He also stated that Madanlal Gupta told that he has given information to Brahmdutt (PW1) and uncle of the deceased Ramgopal (PW4) at Ajmer, who were about to reach. 'Chunri' (peela lungda) ceremony was performed by uncle of the deceased Ramgopal (PW4) and Madanlal Gupta filled in the death registration form to be submitted to Nagar Nigam. 22. Dr. Suman Choudhary (DW8) neighbour of the appellants has stated that at 10.30 a.m. in the morning of 29/2/2000, Vikas came to her house and asked her that she should come immediately stating that his bhabhi Asha has consumed something. When she reached the house of in-laws of Asha, Asha was sitting on bed. When she enquired from Asha, she stated that she does not know what she has consumed. This witness asked Vikas to immediately get the auto rickshaw so that she can be taken to hospital. They reached hospital within fifteen minutes and her treatment was started but Asha unfortunately died at 12.30 p.m. Doctors told that she consumed something poisonous. This witness stated that not only Dr. Vikas but also she (Dr.Suman Choudhary) and Dr.Vandana Garg accompanied her to the hospital. When the duty doctor in the emergency enquired about the case history, as is evident from Exh.P.48, Asha informed him that she has consumed two-three tablets of celphos one hour back followed by nausea and vomiting. Exh.D-62 is the statement of Dr. Vandana Garg recorded by the police u/S.161 Cr.P.C. This witness has also narrated the same story. Similarly, Dr.S.P. Gupta father-in-law of Dr. Vandana Garg narrated similar story in his police statement recorded u/S.161 Cr.P.C. vide Exh.D/63. Both the witnesses have corroborated what has been narrated by Dr. Suman Choudhary (DW8) when their statements were recorded by the police u/S.161 Cr.P.C. They have not been produced as witnesses. The prosecution has withheld these witnesses, therefore, this court can safely presume that if produced, they would have stood by their police statement. 23. Madanlal Gupta (PW24) when confronted by the defence with his earlier version (Exh.D-42) recorded on 29/2/2000 itself in the presence of Executive Magistrate in the proceedings u/S.174 Cr.P.C., he could not deny the same. This witness in his statement u/S.174 Cr.P.C. has stated that whether or not deceased was happy in her in-laws place, was something on which, her parents can comment and that deceased told him in S.M.S. that she consumed celphos. This witness in his statement u/S.174 Cr.P.C. has stated that whether or not deceased was happy in her in-laws place, was something on which, her parents can comment and that deceased told him in S.M.S. that she consumed celphos. In court statement, he rather stated in cross-examination that he did not object to the dead-body of Asha being handed over to the appellants' family for cremation. This witness further stated that when he reached the house at 11.00, his daughter-in-law Nirmal (PW7) was found waiting outside the house at the gate and told about the information given by Dr. Vikas Goyal that Asha has consumed poison. He reached the hospital along with his wife and son Dr. Mahendra. He found Asha there, who was unconscious and was struggling to survive. Doctor informed that condition of Asha was quite critical. He does not deny that he attended 3rd day condolence. Janki Devi (PW2) in her statement has stated that she along with her husband attended the 3rd day condolence. Pradeep (PW10), brother of deceased Asha also admitted the fact that he as well as Madanlal Gupta (PW24) attended the 3rd day condolence. Ramgopal (PW4) not only attended the funeral but also attended the 3rd day condolence. Suresh Kumar (PW6) also admits to have attended the 3rd day condolence of the deceased. Similarly, Gyarsi Devi (PW9) mother of the deceased has also attended the 3rd day condolence. 24. Evidently, most of the witnesses related to the deceased attended the condolence on 3rd day. They also admitted that after the 3rd day condolence, they assembled in the house of Madanlal Gupta and there they decided to lodge the first information report. When explanation was asked about this delay in lodgment of F.I.R., Brahmdutt (PW1) has stated that after 3rd day condolence when he enquired from Kedarmal why the deceased consumed celphos, he could not give any satisfactory reply and then this witness came to know about conspiracy and therefore lodged the report on 3/3/2000. What is significant to note is that statements of most of the witnesses were recorded by the police four or five months after the date of incident, mostly in the month of July, 2000. Statement of informant-Brahmdutt (PW1) himself was recorded on 9/7/2000 as admitted by Investigation Officer-Sunderlal (PW33). What is significant to note is that statements of most of the witnesses were recorded by the police four or five months after the date of incident, mostly in the month of July, 2000. Statement of informant-Brahmdutt (PW1) himself was recorded on 9/7/2000 as admitted by Investigation Officer-Sunderlal (PW33). Pradeep (PW10) has also admitted that his statement was recorded by the police five months after the death of Asha in July. There is also no explanation by Sunderlal (PW33) as to why statement of Madanlal Gupta was recorded on 9/7/2000. Rajendra Kumar (PW15) has also stated that his statement was recorded five months after the alleged incident at the residence of Madanlal Gupta. Manoj Gupta (PW17) has also similarly stated that his statement was recorded by the police on 8/7/2000. There is no explanation why so much delay took place in recording statements of the prosecution witnesses.Our Conclusion:- 25. Conduct of the accused-appellants as well as complainant-party clearly shows that while the accused-appellants immediately took the deceased to hospital after she consumed celphos, members of complainant-party also attended all the ceremonies. Immediately after giving information about the death of Asha to Madanlal Gupta through his daughter-in-law Nirmal (PW7), he passed on this information to others. Ramgopal (PW4), real uncle of the deceased attended the funeral. Madanlal Gupta (PW24) and Ramgopal (PW4) even performed the 'chunri' ceremony. Inquest report of deceased-Asha was prepared in the presence of Madanlal Gupta (PW24), who consented for giving dead-body of deceased to appellants for cremation. This shows the conduct of the appellants immediately after incident, and also that complainant-party during first three days, who apparently did not have any doubt about the role of the accused-appellants in deceased consuming celphos. It is only on 4th day i.e. on 3/3/2000 that F.I.R. was lodged by Brahmdutt (PW1). 26. On the one hand, there are on record large number of greeting cards and letters i.e. Diwali Greeting Card (Exh.D.3), birthday greeting card (Exh.D.7), inland letter card (Exh.D.8), inland letter card (Exh.D.9), birthday greeting card to Sunny (Exh.D.10), birthday greeting card (Exh.D.11), letter (Exh.D.12), inland letter card (Exh.D.13), birthday greeting card (Exh.D.14), birthday greeting card (Exh.D.15) & birthday greeting card to Anil (Exh.D.16), written/sent by deceased-Asha to her family members as well as members of her in-laws. There are several photographs i.e. from Exh.D.19 to Exh.D.39 & Exh.D.41 of the deceased with the appellants and different family members showing that deceased extensively traveled with her husband to different parts of the country and lived happily with him. All the letters and greeting cards exchanged between two families show their cordial relationship. On the other hand, not a single letter ever written by deceased-Asha to any of her relatives has been produced by the prosecution alleging that she was ever subjected to mental torture, cruelty or harassment by any one of the appellants for, or in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. Demand of Rs. 50,000/-, which persisted from the day of her marriage, as part of Rs. 1.5 lacs, which Brahmdutt (PW1) grand-father agreed to give to the accused in remote past, can possibly be not termed as such demand to link the same with the cruelty or harassment envisaged in Section 304B IPC. Evidence that has been adduced in the present case falls short of required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt not only for offence u/S.304B IPC but also for minor offence u/S.498A IPC, none of which offences are made out.Study of Case Law:- 27. We may first of all, refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 155 in which case also, Supreme Court held that one of the essential ingredients for making out an offence u/S.304B IPC is that a "woman" must have been "soon before her death" subjected to cruelty or harassment "for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry". In that case, alleged harassment meted out to deceased was said to be on three counts: (1) insufficient dowry; (2) inability to bear a child; and (3) insistence by her parents that every time appellant husband must go to her parents' house for bringing her back. First of two, were mentioned in the F.I.R. It was held that High Court erred in convicting appellant under Section 304B IPC since no evidence was brought on record to show that the cruelty or harassment was meted out to her for bringing insufficient dowry. It was further held that presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act on the facts of the case could not be raised. 28. In Gurdeep Singh supra, demand of Rs. It was further held that presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act on the facts of the case could not be raised. 28. In Gurdeep Singh supra, demand of Rs. 25,000/- was made one year prior to the incident. It was held by the Supreme Court that even if one of the ingredients is not made out, presumption under Section 113B would not be available to prosecution and onus would not shift to defence. 29. The Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Gupta supra while acquitting the accused convicted for offence u/Ss. 304B, 498A & 306 IPC observed that the High Court very conveniently ignored the exchange of letters between the deceased and her mother, which disclosed cordial relations between the two families. Similarly, the High Court, on a very peculiar reasoning ignored the relevant piece of evidence that it is the appellant, who took the victim to the hospital on his scooter to save her life. This disprove the allegation of the complainant that neighbours informed him that victim came out of her house running and shouting that she has been administered poison. Supreme Court held that even statements of the prosecution witnesses are full of improvements and unbelievable. 30. In Durga Prasad supra, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused holding that proof of subjecting victim to cruelty and harassment prior to her death, was not sufficient. It must be proved that she committed suicide on account of such cruelty and harassment, which are the ingredients of evidence required to be led for the presumption u/S.113B of the Evidence Act. Moreover, it has also to be shown that such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Except bald statements of victim's mother and brother alleging that victim had been subjected to cruelty and harassment prior to her death, no other evidence adduced to prove that she committed suicide on account of the same. Supreme Court acquitted the accused for offence u/Ss.304B, 498A & 306 IPC. 31. In Biswajit Halder @Babu Halder supra, it was held by the Supreme Court that merely because deceased committed suicide by consuming poison, presumption u/S.113B of the Evidence Act cannot be raised unless, there is evidence of cruelty and harassment for, or in connection with demand of dowry. 32. 31. In Biswajit Halder @Babu Halder supra, it was held by the Supreme Court that merely because deceased committed suicide by consuming poison, presumption u/S.113B of the Evidence Act cannot be raised unless, there is evidence of cruelty and harassment for, or in connection with demand of dowry. 32. In Sunil Bajaj supra, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused because it found that for proving the offence under Section 304B IPC, there was no evidence of demand of dowry or subjecting deceased to cruelty for, or in connection with demand of dowry. It was held that only on the basis of vague and inconsistent statements of interested witnesses, being parents and brother of deceased, without there being any evidence of any relative or neighbour of parties about cruelty to deceased by accused in relation to demand of dowry and that there was no mention of demand of dowry in her letter by deceased to her parents written soon before her death, offence u/S.304B IPC cannot be made out. 33. In Harjit Singh supra, deceased-wife died due to poisoning within seven years of marriage. There was however no evidence that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband or any of the relative for, or in connection with any demand of dowry. It was held that presumption under Section 304B IPC or Section 113B of the Evidence Act could not be raised against accused-appellant in absence of any evidence. It was also held that in absence of any evidence showing that deceased was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC, appellant could not be convicted for offence u/S.306 IPC merely because he was not found guilty of offence u/S.304B IPC. 34. In Thulia Kali supra, Supreme Court held that failure to examine an important witness by the prosecution would make the Court draw an inference against the prosecution. 35. Judgments cited by Shri Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor in the case of Jaggu Ram supra is distinguishable. In that case, no satisfactory explanation was given by the accused for head injuries of deceased-wife and deceased was cremated without informing her parents or police. It was held by the Supreme Court therein that conduct of accused clearly establish that accused had done so with the sole object of concealing the real cause of death. In that case, no satisfactory explanation was given by the accused for head injuries of deceased-wife and deceased was cremated without informing her parents or police. It was held by the Supreme Court therein that conduct of accused clearly establish that accused had done so with the sole object of concealing the real cause of death. The facts of the aforesaid case are not similar to the facts of the present case. 36. In Trimukh Maroti Kiran supra on which reliance has also been placed by the learned Public Prosecutor, was a case in which deceased-wife died in a mysterious circumstance. As many as nine injuries were found on her body and in the opinion of the medical officer, the cause of death was strangulation of neck. Allegation was that she was put to death on account of dowry, which demand could not be satisfied. In those facts, the Supreme Court held that raising of presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act was justified because the facts, which were especially within the knowledge of accused, burden of proving those facts was upon him. Such are not the facts of the present case. 37. In Ram Badan Sharma supra, deceased-wife died by administering poison to her by the accused. Accused neither took the wife to the doctor nor any kind of treatment was given to her. She was cremated without any intimation to the parents of the deceased, who were only few miles away from that place. In those facts, conviction of the appellant was upheld. Facts in the present case are otherwise.Result:- 38. In view of above discussion, it is evident that though there are number of witnesses and all of them alleged with regard to demand of dowry but all of them have made sweeping and general allegations with regard to demand of dowry, a demand arising from the time of marriage when Brahmdutt (PW1) grand-father agreed to spend a total sum of Rs. 4-4.50 lacs in marriage, out of which Rs. 1.5 lacs was agreed to be given to the accused-appellants in cash, however, only a sum of Rs. 1 lac was given and there remained Rs. 50,000/- outstanding to be given, which demand was later on allegedly increased to Rs. 1 lac, when younger brother of appellant No. 1-Pawan Goyal, Dr.Anil Goyal got married, whose wife Dr. 1.5 lacs was agreed to be given to the accused-appellants in cash, however, only a sum of Rs. 1 lac was given and there remained Rs. 50,000/- outstanding to be given, which demand was later on allegedly increased to Rs. 1 lac, when younger brother of appellant No. 1-Pawan Goyal, Dr.Anil Goyal got married, whose wife Dr. Shephali D/o Shri Shyamlal Gupta (DW5) brought substantial dowry in the marriage. Such demand in view of evidence discussed above, does not bring the matter within the purview of Section 304B or Section 498A IPC. 39. In totality of the circumstances, it cannot be believed that deceased was subjected to any kind of cruelty, torture or harassment for, or in connection with demand of dowry, which led her to commit suicide. It was unfortunate death but the evidence has also come on record that she was having differences with her mother-in-law and she was frustrated because no one from her parents' side would come to meet her, whereas parents of Dr.Shephali wife of her younger brother-in-law Dr.Anil Goyal frequently visited her. Evidence shows that deceased could not cope up with the family situation and was not happy therefore, she took the extreme step of consuming celphos. For unfortunate death of a young woman, conviction of the appellants can be sustained only if there is legal evidence to support such conviction attracting ingredients of Section 304B IPC. Presumption u/S.113B of the Evidence Act cannot be raised unless all the ingredients of the said offence are satisfied namely; (1) accused must be tried for offence u/S.304B IPC, (2) the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives; (3) such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry and (4) such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death. Not all the aforesaid ingredients are available in the present case, therefore, accused-appellants cannot be convicted for offence u/S.304B IPC. They cannot be convicted for offence under section 498A IPC either, only because they cannot be convicted for offence u/S.304B IPC. Even otherwise, prosecution has not been able to independently prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. 40. In view of above, the present appeal deserves to succeed and is hereby allowed. Even otherwise, prosecution has not been able to independently prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. 40. In view of above, the present appeal deserves to succeed and is hereby allowed. The judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 15/10/2005 is set-aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charges for offences u/Ss. 498A & 304B IPC. Appellants No. 2 & 3-Kedar Mal Gupta & Anar Devi, who are on bail, need not surrender. Their bail bonds and surety are accordingly discharged. Appellant No. 1-Pawan Goyal is confined in Central Jail, Jaipur for last over nine years. He is ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other criminal case. 41. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, each of the appellants is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with a surety bond in the like amount, before Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, accused-appellants Pawan Goyal, Kedar Mal Gupta and Anar Devi, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.Appeal allowed. *******