JUDGMENT 1. Heard on I.A. No. 9208/13, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. 2. The application is allowed. Delay in filing this M.Cr.C. is hereby condoned. 3. The State of M.P., through Police Station Morar, District Gwalior, has filed this application for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 22.03.2013 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior by which the respondents have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them under Sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC read with Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 4. It is not disputed that Sayongita was married to Vikas Saxena on 22.11.2008 and she died by hanging. 5. It would be pertinent to mention here that the learned Trial Court convicted accused No. 6/Vikas Saxena (husband of the deceased) and accused No. 4 Smt. Nirmala Saxena (mother-in-law of the deceased) for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced them rigorous imprisonment for seven years and for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC imposed rigorous imprisonment for three years and imposed fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in lieu of fine, they are to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. They are also convicted for the offence under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default of payment of fine they are to undergo imprisonment for 15 days each. 6. Brief facts of the case before the learned I Additional Sessions Judge is that Sayongita married to accused No. 6 Vikas on 22nd November, 2008. Due to cruelty and demand of dowry within seven years of her marriage, she died under suspicious circumstances which amounts to "dowry death". On the basis of F.I.R., offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered and charge-sheet has been filed. After the charges framed and explained, the accused persons pleaded not guilty. They took the plea that they have been falsely implicated. No F.I.R. was lodged on the date of the death. No objection was raised while making the Naksha Panchnama. The deceased was under great depression on account of losing her job after her marriage. Because of which she committed suicide. 7. They took the plea that they have been falsely implicated. No F.I.R. was lodged on the date of the death. No objection was raised while making the Naksha Panchnama. The deceased was under great depression on account of losing her job after her marriage. Because of which she committed suicide. 7. The learned Trial Court after adducing the evidence found the respondent/accused No. 1 Naveen Saxena, (brother-in-law of the deceased), accused No. 2/Neeti Saxena (sister-in-law of the deceased), accused No. 3/P.C. Saxena (brother-in-law of the deceased) and accused No. 5 Preeti Saxena (sister-in-law of the deceased) not guilty and are acquitted. However, accused No. 4 Nirmala Saxena, mother-in-law of the deceased, and accused No. 6 Vikas Saxena, husband of the deceased have been held guilty and are sentenced as mentioned above. 8. Police Station, Morar, assailed the impugned judgment on several grounds. It is claimed that the impugned judgment suffers from many illegalities. The "suicide note" collected during the course of trial and the statements of prosecution witnesses have not been considered properly by the learned Trial Court. Sayongita died due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. She was subjected to cruelty just before her death. Therefore, the Trial Court committed grave error in not holding the four respondents' guilty. During her life time, Sayongita informed her parents including PW-5 that she has been subjected to cruelty. Therefore, provisions of Section 304-B of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act are normally attracted against the respondents. It is requested to set-aside the impugned judgment. 9. We perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. Subhash Chandra Saxena, PW-1, Sharad Chand Saxena, PW-4, Rachna, PW-8, the father, uncle and sister of the deceased respectively, have stated that the deceased Sayongita was married to accused Vikas. At the time of marriage, two lac rupees cash and other household goods and 50,000/- rupees cash for purchase of a motor bike was given separately. When Sayongita came to her maternal home after seven days of her marriage, she told the family members that the accused persons are harassing her and are demanding fridge, sofa, washing machine, television etc. Her parents and younger brother went to her in-laws house and told her in law's that they could give what they had given at the time of marriage. Now, they cannot offer to give anything more. The situation did not improve. Her parents and younger brother went to her in-laws house and told her in law's that they could give what they had given at the time of marriage. Now, they cannot offer to give anything more. The situation did not improve. The in-laws of Sayongita continued to harass her. Whenever she visited her parental home, she narrated her woes. 11. Shubhash Chand Saxena, PW-1 also deposed that in his presence at the in-laws place of her daughter, accused Vikas caught hold hair of Sayongita and pushed her inside the room and did not allow her father to meet Sayongita. 12. On 17.04.2009, on the pretext of going to coaching class, for the last time, she had come to her parental home and told them that they should fulfill the demands of her in-laws. Otherwise, her in-laws would kill her. Shubhash, PW-1 rang to accused No. 6 Vikas and tried to settle the dispute but it was in vain. Accused No. 6/Vikas told him that if the demands are not met, he would not be able to see his daughter. He further states that on 27.04.2009, unknown persons rang him and informed that her in laws tried to kill his daughter. She is admitted in ICU. He tried to contact Sayongita by her cell phone which was found switched-off. He alongwith other members of the family reached the hospital. He saw the dead body of her daughter. Accused persons were also standing there. On asking them, how she died, the accused persons did not reply. On querying from the Doctor, he found that Sayongita was brought dead by her in-laws to the hospital. There was a ligature mark on the neck and legs were branded. Safina form Exhibit P-1 and Suprudiginama of the dead body Exhibit P-3 bears his signatures. A 'suicidal note' was found inside the blouse of the deceased. This letter has been marked as Exhibit P-15. 13. Dr. Sweata Shirshokar, 'PW-15' conducted the postmortem alongwith other panel of doctors. She has stated that there was burn and multiple blisters injuries on the upper arm her body. The team of doctors opined that death was caused due to asphyxia which may be due to hanging. Dr. Narayan Shivhare, PW-16 has stated that a letter was found in the bra of the deceased which was handed over to Police. She has stated that there was burn and multiple blisters injuries on the upper arm her body. The team of doctors opined that death was caused due to asphyxia which may be due to hanging. Dr. Narayan Shivhare, PW-16 has stated that a letter was found in the bra of the deceased which was handed over to Police. He has clearly stated that on the upper arm 1.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. side multiple blisters were found. Ligature mark was also found on her neck. The cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging. 14. The suicidal letter Exhibit P-15 is a paper torn out from a note-book and written in both the sides. This letter was examined by handwriting expert Rithuraj Gupta, PW-13 alongwith the standard signatures of deceased Sayongita from her admission form, Exhibit P-8, copy of mark-sheet Exhibit P-18 and tallied with the signature of the "suicide note", found that the said signatures were of the same person, which is found in the questioned "suicide note." The learned Trial Court, therefore, found that the deceased has committed suicide because of the harassment and cruelty committed by her in-laws. 15. In the letter, she has specially written that her mother-in-law and her husband were harassing her mentally and physically and her mother-in-law has been making her life miserable. Family members knew this but nobody could oppose. Her father-in-law agrees with the mother-in-law. They harassed her so much that she could not bear it and is taking this extreme step. 16. The learned Trial Court observed that these crimes are committed in complete secrecy and it becomes difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence. Neighbour are reluctant to depose in the Court. The Trial Court fortified this view by citing a judgment reported in Trimukh Das Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2006 SCW 5300 . 17. The learned Trial Court relied on Jadavji Deshi Vs. State of Gujarat, : 2010 Cri. L.J. 686, in which it has been held that it is common recognized tendency to implicate all the family members in the case of cruelty caused to the married woman and dowry death, when not only the parents-in-law of the woman concerned are implicated but younger or elder brothers of the husband, either living apart or as young as aged 19 years, as in the present case, are implicated and exposed to trial, conviction and punishment. The Court has to be more circumspect lest one injustice results into another injustice for an innocent person in the prime of his youth and at the threshold of his career. 18. In the "suicidal note," there is general allegations against the members of the family and overt-act has been attributed only to the husband and mother-in-law, therefore, the learned Trial Court, by way of abundant caution found them guilty against whom there is direct overt act attributed in the suicidal note. In these circumstances, when there is no direct and overt act attributed against the respondents, the learned Trial Court would be justified in not holding them guilty. 19. From the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the contentions of the appellant/State and, therefore, we do not find it a fit case for grant leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. 20. Consequently, we dismissed the application for leave to appeal.