JUDGMENT : A.B. Chaudhari, J. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 16th December, 2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Akola, in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 2013 convicting the appellant-accused No. 1, Santosh Prakash Sonone, of offences punishable under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months, and Section 306, Indian Penal Code [Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months], the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution was that deceased Pallavi, who was aged about twenty years, was married with the appellant, Santosh, in March, 2011, and in marriage her father had given a golden ring of five grams and Rs. 25,000/- by way of dowry. After Pallavi went to reside with her husband at the matrimonial house, she was being harassed for bringing Rs. 50,000/- from her father for purchase of a motorcycle. When appellant, Santosh, had visited the house of parents of deceased, Pallavi, on the occasion of Diwali, her father had gifted him a mobile phone handset worth Rs. 5,000/-. Thereafter, on 5th December, 2011, in the afternoon, Pallavi set herself on fire and neighbourers saw smoke coming out of her house and they threw water and put off the fire. Police was informed. She was burnt and dead. Her landlord intimated her father. Police registered an Accidental Death case and thereafter made investigations. Pallavi had hundred per cent burn injuries. Thereafter investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed. Trial Court heard the evidence and convicted the appellant alone, since there were other accused persons, namely father, mother along with him, who obviously were acquitted. Hence this appeal. 3. In support of the appeal, Mr. Kashid, the learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the learned Trial Judge committed an error in convicting the appellant of offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code, when there was no iota of evidence against the appellant. According to him, the Trial Judge acquitted the other accused persons of the self-same charges, but on the same evidence, recorded conviction of the appellant, which was wholly wrong and illegal. According to him, the Trial Judge acquitted the other accused persons of the self-same charges, but on the same evidence, recorded conviction of the appellant, which was wholly wrong and illegal. He then submitted that the Trial Judge was much impressed with the fact of marriage having taken place before nine months before the date of death. But then, there is no concrete presumption and the same is rebutable. In the instant case, according to Mr. Kashid, the prosecution failed to prove its case and discharge the initial burden of proof. According to him, the cross-examinations of the witnesses themselves show that deceased Pallavi had made no complaint about the alleged ill-treatment or her mental condition to commit suicide and, therefore, it was wrong to convict the appellant of the said offences. He, therefore, prayed for allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra, learned APP for the respondent-State supported the impugned Judgment and Order, and submitted that the incident took place only within nine months of marriage and, therefore, the Trial Judge rightly drew presumption under Section 138-A of the Evidence Act. He then submitted that there is ample evidence to infer commission of offence under Section 306, Indian Penal Code, so also under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. Finally, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. I have gone through the Judgment and reasons recorded by the Trial Judge for convicting the appellant out of the total three accused persons. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties at length and I have gone through the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution. 6. The first question is about the proof of offence under Section 306, Indian Penal Code. It is a trite law that for a proof of offence under Section 306, Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must establish a live link in the matter of commission of suicide by the deceased. In this connection, the evidence is only of father of deceased, Bhagwan Shenu Avachare [PW 1], and deceased Pallavi's uncle, Suresh Tukaram Pawar [PW 2]. There is no other evidence throwing light on the charge under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that Bhagwan [PW 1] stated that his daughter came to Thane after Diwali following marriage, while Suresh [PW 2] stated that she had come for Diwali along with her father. There is no other evidence throwing light on the charge under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that Bhagwan [PW 1] stated that his daughter came to Thane after Diwali following marriage, while Suresh [PW 2] stated that she had come for Diwali along with her father. I do not think that this could be called an inconsistency affecting the prosecution case. The reason is that the festival of Diwali is not a festival of eight days and, therefore, no much importance can be given to the said inconsistency. It is then seen that Bhagwan [PW 1] and Suresh [PW 2] have been consistently saying in their evidence that the accused were asking for bringing Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing a motorcycle, for which she was being harassed. This evidence has not been shaken in the cross-examination. The prosecution case is that thereafter, i.e., after about one month, on 5th December, 2011, she committed suicide by burning. Then there was a gap of about one month and few days and the prosecution did not bring on record any evidence to show that there was a live link or any such act on the part of the appellant, accused, which would compel her to commit suicide. It is, therefore, clear that demand of Rs. 50,000/- a month back during Diwali cannot be necessarily linked with the proposition that because of the said demand of Rs. 50,000/- before Diwali and harassment there for, Pallavi committed suicide. After all, the evidence that is required must be to the satisfaction of the Court for establishing a live link. That burden is squarely on the prosecution. But, in the instant case, the prosecution did not have that evidence. In the absence of such an evidence, it would be very difficult to convict the appellant of the offence under Section 306, Indian Penal Code. I, therefore, hold that the prosecution failed to prove by evidence that an offence under Section 306, Indian Penal Code, was committed by the appellant and consequently he must be acquitted of the said charge. 7. The next question is about the availability of the evidence about charge under Sections 304 and 498-A, Indian Penal Code. I, therefore, hold that the prosecution failed to prove by evidence that an offence under Section 306, Indian Penal Code, was committed by the appellant and consequently he must be acquitted of the said charge. 7. The next question is about the availability of the evidence about charge under Sections 304 and 498-A, Indian Penal Code. Having gone through the evidence of Bhagwan [PW 1] and Suresh [PW 2] and the FIR and having looked at the reasons given by the Trial Judge, I find that the factum about cruelty has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt and as I have already stated earlier, the evidence about the demand of Rs. 50,000/- by the appellant has not been shaken in the cross-examination. There is, thus, consistent evidence against the appellant about the demand of Rs. 50,000/- and harassment and cruelty to her for the satisfaction of the said demand. Instead of repeating the reasons, it would be appropriate for me to quote paragraphs 27, 28 and 29 from the Judgment of the Trial Judge which I do hereunder :- "27. As stated above, in their cross examinations PW Bhagwan and PW Suresh have stated that Pallavi had not made complaints of ill-treatment. If that is accepted statements of these witnesses in chief examinations that Pallavi had told them that the accused were harassing her for money shall have to be totally ignored. In fact in light of their statements in the cross-examination, these witnesses were not confronted with their earlier statements in the chief examination. If they were confronted and if they had testified that their earlier statements were false, that would have been conclusive and no further discussion to find out their evidential weight was necessary. It is also important to mention here that the witnesses did not contradict their statements u/s 162 about the narration by Pallavi to them about ill treatment and demands of money by the accused. of course, the admissions in the cross-examination would be relevant and must be taken into account. What is tried to be made clear is that with these admissions it is not that the evidence in the chief examination becomes totally inadmissible. 28. The learned advocate for the accused pointed out that PW 2 Suresh has also stated that Pallavi had not made any complaint of ill-treatment. What is tried to be made clear is that with these admissions it is not that the evidence in the chief examination becomes totally inadmissible. 28. The learned advocate for the accused pointed out that PW 2 Suresh has also stated that Pallavi had not made any complaint of ill-treatment. He has also stated that during her visit during Akhadi and Rakshabandhan she had not stated about the ill treatment. Therefore, his evidence also tends to show that the demand of ill treatment was not as regular as the witness narrated in the first breath. 29. The learned advocate for the accused read out the said part of the evidence and argued that the prosecution has failed in proving the cruelty. On a minute scrutiny of the evidence of these two witnesses, it becomes clear that during visits on some occasions, the deceased Pallavi had not made any complaint of ill treatment to her parents etc. Those occasions as admitted by PW 1 Bhagwan during cross-examination are specific. The first one was about 2 to 3 months after the marriage of niece of the accused No. 2. At that time, PW 1 Bhagwan had taken Pallavi from village Bhadgani and taken her to Ulhasnagar. The second occasion was when his son had taken Pallavi from village Bhadgani to Ulhasnagar for the festival of Akhadi which comes in the month of June. At the time of third occasion, mother of PW1 Bhagwan had come to Akola and stayed with Pallavi and the accused for Rakshabhandhan. The last occasion was when PW 1 Bhagwan had come to Akola for Bhaubij and then taken Pallavi with him to Ulhasnagar after Diwali. On these four occasions, Pallavi had not made any complaint of ill-treatment against the accused. Even then statements of these two witnesses in the chief-examination that it was during her visit after Diwali that Pallavi had stated that the accused were ill-treating her for Rs. 50,000/- for motorcycle, has remained unchallenged. There is absolutely no cross-examination about this." 8. I concur with the above finding of fact on evidence recorded by the learned Trial Judge about the cruelty and consequently agreeing with the Trial Court, I hold that the appellant did commit the offence under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code. 9. 50,000/- for motorcycle, has remained unchallenged. There is absolutely no cross-examination about this." 8. I concur with the above finding of fact on evidence recorded by the learned Trial Judge about the cruelty and consequently agreeing with the Trial Court, I hold that the appellant did commit the offence under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code. 9. As to the sentence for offence under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, I find that the Trial Court awarded the sentence to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. Looking to the fact that the deceased was a young girl of only twenty years and within a short time, the appellant had practised cruelty on her for his ill motive to extract Rs. 50,000/-, I think the sentence of three years awarded by the Trial Judge cannot be said to be on a higher side. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order awarding sentence of three years and fine. In the result, the appeal will have to be partly allowed. Hence I make the following order:- ORDER [i] Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2015 is partly allowed. [ii] The Judgment and Order dated 16th December, 2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Akola, in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 2013 recording conviction of the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. [iii] Judgment and Order dated 16th December, 2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Akola, in Sessions Trial No. 3/2013 recording conviction of the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- is confirmed. The appeal qua Section 498-A of the IPC is dismissed.