JUDGMENT : Leave granted. 2. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 1.2.2016, passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No.652 of 2008, whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and order dated 31.7.2007 of acquittal, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.60/2007, and convicted the appellants-accused for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'IPC') and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The appellants were sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment for the offences punishable under section 304B and 306 read with Section 114 of the I.P.C. with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo further 6 months' rigorous imprisonment, 1 year 2 rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment, and 3 years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, with fine of Rs.15,000/- each and in default, to undergo further three months' simple imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. According to the prosecution, the complainant's daughter Jalpaben was married with appellant no.1 and after marriage, she was staying with the appellants-accused. It is also the case of the prosecution that the deceased Jalpaben informed her father that the appellants were causing mental and physical harassment to her on petty household work and were demanding money from her. On 12.6.2006 at 11 a.m., the father of the deceased received a telephone call from someone from Ahmedabad, stating that condition of her daughter Jalpaben was very serious because of electric shock. Upon receiving such message, the complainant - father of the deceased rushed to the place of incident and found the dead body of Jalpaben with ligature mark on the neck. 4. The complainant lodged the First Information Report (FIR) alleging that the appellants induced the deceased Jalpaben to commit suicide by demanding dowry and subjecting her to cruelty by causing mental and physical harassment. 4. The complainant lodged the First Information Report (FIR) alleging that the appellants induced the deceased Jalpaben to commit suicide by demanding dowry and subjecting her to cruelty by causing mental and physical harassment. After usual investigation by the police, the 3 charge-sheet was filed against the appellants-accused for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 306, 304B read with Section 114 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court. The trial court framed the charges against the appellants. They pleaded not guilty and came to be tried by the trial court for the aforesaid offences. The trial court acquitted all the appellants-accused. Being aggrieved, the respondent-State filed an appeal before the High Court against the acquittal of the appellants. The High Court, while appreciating the evidence available on record of the case, allowed the said appeal and convicted the appellants on various counts mentioned above. Hence, the appellants preferred this appeal by special leave. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the matter and are of the view that the case against the appellant no.2 (father-in-law), appellant no.3 (brother-in-law), and appellant no.4 (mother-in-law) is doubtful, and does not merit conviction. The State has not established that the aforesaid three appellants-accused played any active role in causing the death of the deceased. The only allegation that appeared to have weighed against these accused is that 4 there was cruelty in the form of demand for some dowry. In the circumstances, the conviction of these three appellants for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 306, 304B read with Section 114 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is not sustainable, and is liable to be set aside. 7. In the result, we allow the appeal qua appellant nos.2, 3, and 4 and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court. Presently, these three appellants viz., appellant no.2 (Bhagvanbhai Vitthalbhai Prajapati), appellant no.3 (Ashokbhai Bhagvanbhai Prajapati), and appellant no.4 (Madhuben Bhagvanbhai Prajapati), are in jail. They are directed to be released forthwith from their custody, if not required in any other case. 8. Presently, these three appellants viz., appellant no.2 (Bhagvanbhai Vitthalbhai Prajapati), appellant no.3 (Ashokbhai Bhagvanbhai Prajapati), and appellant no.4 (Madhuben Bhagvanbhai Prajapati), are in jail. They are directed to be released forthwith from their custody, if not required in any other case. 8. However, insofar as appellant no.1 is concerned, we see no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court against him on the various counts as mentioned above. Accordingly, the appeal qua appellant no.1 is dismissed.