JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. By judgment dated 7.3.2014 passed in Sessions Case No. 11/2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, the appellants stand convicted and sentenced as below:- Offence u/s. Sentence Fine Fine Default Sentence Appellant No. 1 Shiv Kumar @ Shiva 304B I.P.C. Life Imprisonment 498A I.P.C. 3 years R.I. Rs. 10,000/- 6 months R.I. Appellants Nos. 2 & 3 Gopi Ram and Maina Devi 304B I.P.C. 10 Years R.I. 498A I.P.C. 2 Years R.I. Rs. 10,000/- 6 months R.I. Facts in brief: 2. The first informant Ramswaroop PW-3 submitted a written report Ex.P5 to Shri Nisarkhan Sub Inspector Police Station Kotwali, Churu at the mortuary of the Govt. Bharatiya Hospital, Churu on 9.3.2010 at about 1.40 PM alleging inter-alia that his daughter Smt. Kanta (Sonu) had been married to Shiv Kumar @ Shiva son of Gopi Ram, resident of Churu on 23.11.2009. Soon after the marriage, Shiv Kumar, Gopi Ram and Smt.Maina Devi started demanding more dowry from his daughter. The first informant assured the accused that their demands would be met. However, on numerous occasions, they extended threats that demands be met or else the girl would either be deserted or killed. Two Panchayat were held in Nohar. On 27.2.2010, the complainant sent his daughter to the matrimonial home. On 8.3.2010, she called and complained that her matrimonial relatives were harassing her on account of demand of dowry. On 9.3.2010, the complainant's brother Sushil received a call that his daughter had expired and her dead body was lying in the Bharatiya Hospital. It was alleged that the husband Shiv Kumar, the father in law Gopi Ram and the mother in law had killed Smt. Kanta as their demands for dowry were not met. On the basis of this report, an F.I.R. No. 71/2010 was registered at the Police Station Kotwali, Churu for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. and investigation commenced. The site inspection plan etc. of the place of occurrence was prepared. Two pieces of ropes with human hair attached to it were seized. The Panchnama Lash was prepared. Few samples of hair of the deceased were collected from the doctors who conducted post mortem. As per the post mortem report, the cause of death of Smt.Kanta was opined to be ante mortem hanging. of the place of occurrence was prepared. Two pieces of ropes with human hair attached to it were seized. The Panchnama Lash was prepared. Few samples of hair of the deceased were collected from the doctors who conducted post mortem. As per the post mortem report, the cause of death of Smt.Kanta was opined to be ante mortem hanging. The accused appellant Shiv Kumar @ Shiva was arrested and final charge-sheet was filed against him for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. Since Gopi Ram and Maina Devi could not be apprehended, charge-sheet against them was filed under Section 299 Cr.P.C. Later on, these two accused were also arrested and a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against them. The offences being exclusively triable by court of Sessions, both the chargesheets were committed to the concerned Sessions Judge, who consolidated both the cases together. Charges were framed against all the three accused for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B and 302 I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 17 documents. Upon being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to have been falsely implicated. The accused Shiv Kumar categorically stated that since Smt. Kanta did not get into periods, he pressed upon her to undergo medical examination and on the very same day, she ended her life by hanging herself. The dead body was taken to the hospital and he went to the Police Station to report the matter but his report was not taken and he was arrested. He also stated that only when post mortem was conducted, it came to light that Smt. Kanta was carrying a foetus in her womb. He categorically stated that the deceased was having illicit relations with her brother in law and that the child might have been conceived through him. He further stated that there was no occasion for demanding any dowry from the complainant because they had known from before that the complainant's financial position was very weak and that is why even the expenses of marriage had also been borne by the accused side. The deceased felt embarrassed by having conceived from her brother in law and fearing that her guilt would be exposed, she committed suicide. The deceased felt embarrassed by having conceived from her brother in law and fearing that her guilt would be exposed, she committed suicide. Four witnesses including the appellant No. 1 Shiv Kumar @ Shiva were examined in defence and 9 documents were exhibited. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge proceeded to acquit the accused from the charge under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced them as above. Hence, this appeal. 3. Shri Vineet Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently and fervently urged that the case set up by the complainant in the F.I.R. regarding the accused having demanded dowry and having harassed the deceased on this count is totally false and fabricated. No details of the alleged articles demanded by way of dowry have been set out in the F.I.R. The theory regarding the two panchayat is as set out in the F.I.R. is totally false and fabricated. None of the close family members of the deceased including the father Ramswaroop PW-3, the brother in law Sushil Kumar PW-4 and the sister Smt.Sunita PW-9 stated that they were aware regarding the deceased carrying a child in her womb despite the fact that the lady was living in her matrimonial home from middle of December 2009 till end of February 2010. He urged that had the deceased conceived from the appellant No. 1 Shiv Kumar @ Shiva, there was no occasion for her to hide her pregnancy from her mother and her sister because it would have been a cause for celebration. The silence of the deceased in this regard was clearly indicative of her guilty mental state and that is why, when the appellant persisted with Smt. Kanta that she should undertake a medical examination, she became apprehensive of her illicit relationship being exposed and she committed suicide by hanging herself in the matrimonial home. He further urged that the theory putforth by the prosecution regarding the appellants having harassed and humiliated the deceased on account of demand of dowry is totally false and fabricated because the accused were aware of the dire financial straits of the father of the deceased well in advance and that is why, the marriage was solemnized at Churu where the accused reside. The expenses of marriage were borne by the accused Gopi Ram which fact was proved and established by the defence witness. The expenses of marriage were borne by the accused Gopi Ram which fact was proved and established by the defence witness. DW who exhibited the documents viz. bills of Dharamshala (Agrasen Bhawan) in which, the accused made arrangements for the complainant party to stay. He further urged that the defence proved by leading cogent evidence that the expenses of marriage were borne by the accused Gopi Ram and thus, the allegation set up by the prosecution regarding the accused persons having demanded dowry from the deceased is totally false and fabricated. Apart from the bald allegation of demand of motorcycle and one lac rupees which also is an improved version vis-a-vis the investigational statements of the witnesses, there is no other allegation against the accused of ever having harassed or humiliated the deceased on any count whatsoever and thus, ex-facie, the prosecution case that the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide by tormenting and maltreating her for demand of dowry is unsubstantiated. He further urged that there is an omnibus allegation of the prosecution witnesses against the accused appellants Gopi Ram and Maina Devi, that they were also involved in the alleged harassment meted out to the deceased on account of demand of dowry whereas, Maina Devi and Gopi Ram hardly had the occasion to interact with the deceased who was living in the paternal home from middle of December 2009. On these grounds, he implored the Court to accept the appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellants. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor Shri C.S. Ojha and Shri Mahalana learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. They urged that the deceased was married to the appellant-Shiv Kumar just four months before the incident. She was harassed and humiliated in the matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry. The maltreatment meted out to the deceased was of such magnitude that the young girl was left with no option but to end her life by hanging herself in the matrimonial home within a short span of four months from her marriage. She was harassed and humiliated in the matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry. The maltreatment meted out to the deceased was of such magnitude that the young girl was left with no option but to end her life by hanging herself in the matrimonial home within a short span of four months from her marriage. They contended that testimony of the material prosecution witnesses being the father, brother and sister of the deceased is clinching and convincing on the aspect that the appellant-Shiv Kumar was primarily responsible for the demands being made from the deceased and thus, the presumption of Section 113B of the Evidence Act undoubtedly operates against him. They thus craved dismissal of the appeal. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have threadbare gone through the material available on record and have appreciated and sifted the evidence available on record. 6. The fact regarding the appellant Shiv Kumar having been married to the deceased Smt. Kanta about 4 months before her unfortunate suicidal death in the matrimonial home is an admitted position. The marriage took place on 23.11.2010 and the deceased committed suicide on 9.3.2010 at the matrimonial home. Thus, the short compass within which the case travels is as to whether the prosecution has been able to establish by cogent evidence that the deceased was harassed and humiliated in the matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry and whether the defence theory regarding the deceased having conceived outside the marriage and ending her life because of the ignominy she felt, is plausible or not. The thrust of the prosecution allegations as set out in the F.I.R. (Ex.P5) is that right after the marriage, Shiv Kumar, Gopi Ram and Gopi Ram's wife used to demand more dowry from the deceased even though substantial items had been given to her in the marriage. The girl was often threatened with dire consequences of being killed or being deserted and twice Panchayat is were held at Nohar so that the matrimonial strife could be mended. The girl was living at her father's house and she was sent to the matrimonial home with her husband on 27.2.2010. The girl allegedly called the father on 8.3.2010 and complained that her matrimonials were harassing her on account of demand of dowry. The girl was living at her father's house and she was sent to the matrimonial home with her husband on 27.2.2010. The girl allegedly called the father on 8.3.2010 and complained that her matrimonials were harassing her on account of demand of dowry. However, what precisely was the nature of demand being made by the accused from the deceased during this period of four months is not set out in the F.I.R. In the sworn testimony, the material prosecution witnesses narrowed down their case to an allegation that a motorcycle and a sum of Rs. 1 lac was being demanded from the deceased. Manifestly, omission of such allegations in the F.I.R. do assume significance. There is not even a whisper of allegation in the written report Ex.P-5 lodged by PW-3 Ram Swaroop, father of the deceased, that his daughter was being harassed or humiliated by any of the accused appellants on account of demand of a motorcycle or a sum of Rs. 1 lac. Significantly enough, there is not a whisper in the F.I.R. that any dowry was actually given by the first informant at the time of the marriage or that the accused expressed dissatisfaction with the same at the time of the marriage. This omission assumes significance in backdrop of the defence theory wherein, a specific stance is taken that the first informant did not have the financial means and prowess to marry off his daughter and thus, the marriage was solemnized at Churu and the entire expenditure was borne by the accused party. Thus, we are of the view that the omission of these two significant facts in the F.I.R. is very material and would have a strong bearing on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 7. We now proceed to discuss the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses. 8. PW-1 Kamal Kumar being the uncle of the deceased Kanta alleged in his statement that he came to know that the girl was being harassed in the matrimonial home on account of demand of money as well as a motor cycle. He stated that in February 2010, when Shiv Kumar came to Nohar, he was counselled not to harass Kanta but he persisted with his demand for money and a motor cycle. The complainant party assured him that demand would be met when they had the means to do so. He stated that in February 2010, when Shiv Kumar came to Nohar, he was counselled not to harass Kanta but he persisted with his demand for money and a motor cycle. The complainant party assured him that demand would be met when they had the means to do so. Shiv Kumar stayed at Nohar for 2-3 days and then took Kanta with him back to Churu. In cross examination, the witness admitted that the marriage was solemnized in an absolute congenial atmosphere. He did not give the statement to the police for about 14-15 days of the incident. The witness was confronted the omission with his police statement Ex.D-1, wherein there was no allegation that Shiv Kumar demanded a motor cycle or Rs.1 lac from the family members of the deceased. He was further confronted with this very statement regarding the material improvements in his examination-in-chief. The most significant fact which emerges from the statement of the witness is that he did not allege that two Panchayat is were held for counselling the accused. The witness gave contradictory version in his examination in chief alleging that when the girl came to the father's house in December 2009, she alleged that she was being harassed owing to the demand of a motorcycle. In the same breath, the witness stated that when Shiv Kumar came, then he came to know that money was also being demanded. PW-2 Rajendra Kumar is another uncle of the deceased Kanta. He too gave statement on same lines as that of Kamal Kumar PW-1. The witness admitted that his statement was recorded by the Police on 09.03.2010. He was confronted with various portions of his examination-in-chief vis-a-vis the police statement and numerous improvements and contradictions were elicited from him. 9. PW-3 Ramswaroop is the father of the deceased and the first informant and most important witness of prosecution. In his examination-in-chief, the witness alleged that Smt. Kanta was married to Shiv Kumar on 23.11.2009. Numerous articles were given to the girl at the time of marriage. The matrimonial relatives of Smt. Kanta were not satisfied with the articles given in dowry. They demanded a sum of Rs. 1 lac and a motorcycle. The allegation of demand was attributed to all the three accused i.e. Shiv Kumar, Gopi Ram and Maina Devi. The witness assured that this demand would be met. The matrimonial relatives of Smt. Kanta were not satisfied with the articles given in dowry. They demanded a sum of Rs. 1 lac and a motorcycle. The allegation of demand was attributed to all the three accused i.e. Shiv Kumar, Gopi Ram and Maina Devi. The witness assured that this demand would be met. However, he alleged that since he could not keep the promise, the girl was killed. He alleged that two Panchayat is were held for counselling the accused at Nohar. On both the occasions Rajendra Kumar, Kishan Kumar etc. were present from his side whereas, only Shiv Kumar came from the accused side. He further alleged that on 8.3.2010, Kanta called her sister Sunita but did not tell her anything. On the same night, Kanta again called Sunita and expressed an apprehension that either she should be taken back home or the demand of the accused should be met or else, she would be killed. On 9.3.2010, an information was received that Kanta was no more. The witness alleged that Kanta had been done to death because the dowry demand being made by Shiv Kumar, Gopi Ram and Maina Devi was not satisfied. What is noticable from the examination in chief of this witness is that he never alleged that Kanta made a complaint upon returning back from the matrimonial home that she had been harassed or humiliated by the accused-appellants owing to demand of dowry. Manifestly, only this witness and his wife were the paternal relatives in whom, Kanta could have confided about the treatment meted out to her in the matrimonial home when she returned in the middle of December 2009. The mother was not examined in evidence. Since Ram Swaroop never alleged in his examination in chief that the girl told him upon coming back that she had been harassed and humiliated by the accused-persons owing to demand of dowry, manifestly the said allegation comes under a serious clout of doubt. In cross-examination, the witness was confronted with the significant omissions appearing in his written report Ex.P5. The witness admitted that Kanta's marriage was solemnized at the Agrasen Bhawan, Churu. He denied the suggestion that the expenditure of marriage was borne by Gopi Ram (accused's father). He further admitted that the marriage ceremonies were performed in a happy congenial atmosphere. In cross-examination, the witness was confronted with the significant omissions appearing in his written report Ex.P5. The witness admitted that Kanta's marriage was solemnized at the Agrasen Bhawan, Churu. He denied the suggestion that the expenditure of marriage was borne by Gopi Ram (accused's father). He further admitted that the marriage ceremonies were performed in a happy congenial atmosphere. He did not mention in the written report Ex.P5 or in the police statement Ex.D3 that the matrimonial family members were not satisfied with the articles given in dowry. He also did not mention that the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 1 lac or a motor cycle from the deceased either in the FIR or in his police statement Ex.D3. He also admitted that it was not mentioned in the report Ex.P5 and the statement Ex.D3 that Smt. Kanta was done to death because the demand being made by the accused could not be satisfied. The witness admitted that the persons who were allegedly present in the Panchayati at Nohar were all his relatives. In the report Ex.P5, no such allegation was made that Kanta called Sunita and expressed apprehension that she would be killed if the demand of accused was not met. Similar improvement viz-a-viz the Police statement Ex.D3 was elicited in cross-examination. The various improvements/contradictions elicited from this witness in cross-examination with reference to the FIR Ex.P-5 and his investigational statement Ex.D3 are reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference:- ^^'kknh dk [kpkZ xksihjke us fd;k gks ;g fcYdqy xyr gSA ;g lgh gS fd vxzlsu Hkou ds fdjk;k o [kpkZ dk fcy esjs ikl ugha gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd [kpkZ xksihjke us ogu fd;k blfy;s esjs ikl nks fcy u gksaA pw: esa 'kknh dkUrk o f'ko dqekj dh jkth&[kq'kh djds ge x;s FksaA eSaus Án'kZ ih&5 esa o Án'kZ Mh&3 esa bl lkeku esa dkUrk dk llqjky i{k uk[kq'k gq;s] de ngst nsus ls ukjkt gq;s ;g rF; ugha fy[kk;kA eSaus Án'kZ ih&5 o Án'kZ Mh&3 esa ,d yk[k :i;s udn ,d eksVjlkbZfdy dh ekax f'ko dqekj] xksihjke eSuknsoh us dh] ;g rF; ugha fy[kok;k FkkA Án'kZ ih&5 o Án'kZ Mh&3 esa ^^vk'oklu esa nsjh gksus o ekax iwjh u gksus ls yM+dh dks [kRe dj fn;k** ;g rF; Hkh eSaus ugha fy[kok;kA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSus ;g ckrs dkuwuh jkW; ds ckn c<+k p<+kdj fy[kk;k gksA** 10. The witness was given a specific suggestion that Kanta was pregnant at the time of her marriage and that since this fact came to light, she committed suicide out of shame. PW-4 Sushil Kumar is the brother-in-law of the deceased. In his statement, he also adopted the line of the other prosecution witnesses. He stated about the Panchayati held at Nohar when Shiv Kumar came to fetch Kanta. He further alleged that Kanta was sent from Nohar to Churu with Shiv Kumar on 27.2.2010. On 8.3.2010 Kanta gave him a missed call, thereafter, the witness's wife Sunita called Kanta on her mobile. She was crying. Sunita allegedly heard sounds of scolding in the background. In the night at about 10 O'clock, Sunita again called Kanta and she allegedly expressed an apprehension that she might be done to death if the demands made by the accused were not satisfied. Upon this, Sunita called her Peehar and apprised her paternal relatives about the complaint made by Kanta. On the next morning, information was received that Kanta was no more. In cross examination, the witness admitted that no Panchayati was held before 24- 25.2.2010 because they were not aware that the accused were demanding a sum of Rs.1 lac and a motorcycle by way of dowry. This admission made by the witness is reproduced herein below in verna cular for the sake ready reference:- ^^24] 25 Qjojh 2010 ls igys dksbZ iapk;r ugha gq;h D;ksafd eqyfteku }kjk ,d yk[k :i;s ekaxus o eksVjlkbZfdy dh ekax dk gesa igys irk gh ugha FkkA** 11. A specific suggestion was given to the witness regarding the defence theory that Kanta was having illicit affair with him and that she had conceived because of such relation and that she committed suicide fearing that her illicit pregnancy would be exposed. PW-5 Pawan Kumar and PW-6 Kanihaya Lal are uncles of the deceased. They gave statements similar those given by PW-1 and PW-2. PW-7 Dr. Mainpal Singh conducted the post mortem upon the body of the deceased and found a foetus of 10- 12 weeks in her womb. Similar statement was given by PW-8 Dr. Renu Agarwal. The witness Dr. Renu Agarwal in her cross examination admitted that the embryo had developed impressions of eyes, ears etc. PW-9 Smt. Sunita is the sister of the deceased. Similar statement was given by PW-8 Dr. Renu Agarwal. The witness Dr. Renu Agarwal in her cross examination admitted that the embryo had developed impressions of eyes, ears etc. PW-9 Smt. Sunita is the sister of the deceased. In her evidence, she alleged that numerous articles were given at the time of the marriage of Kanta with the accused appellant Shiv Kumar. Kanta came back to her Peehar about 15-20 days after staying at her matrimonial home. On returning, she made a complaint regarding being tortured in the matrimonial home for demand of dowry. As per the witness, a Panchayati was held wherein the maternal relatives and Shiv Kumar was present. Shiv Kumar was counselled that his demand would be met when they had the financial capacity to do so. On 27.2.2010 Kanta was sent back to her matrimonial home. She alleged that the father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband were not satisfied with the dowry and Kanta was maltreated by the accused for demand of dowry. She received a missed call from Kanta in the morning of 8.3.2010 thereafter, she immediately called her back and heard the sounds of scolding by the husband in the backdrop. She disconnected the call after five minutes. She called Kanta at 10.03 P.M. in the night, on which, Kanta allegedly complained that she was being harassed and humiliated for demand of a motorcycle and cash and that she had not been given anything to eat for last two days. She called her mother and told her of these events. On the next morning, they received information that Kanta was no more. In cross examination the witness feigned ignorance as to the duration after which her statement was recorded by the police. She claimed to be present in the Panchayati held at Nohar and stated that when meeting was convened, Shiv Kumar was asked to come down to Nohar. She feigned ignorance as to the fact whether mobile phone on which the conversation was held between her and Smt. Kanta was of Shiv Kumar. She also admitted that an amicable settlement was arrived at in the Panhayati and Kanta was sent back with Shiv Kumar. She was given a suggestion that the theory put forth by her regarding the calls exchanged between her and Smt. Kanta was false. PW-12 Naresh Kumar, Dy. S.P. Churu was the officer who investigated the matter. She also admitted that an amicable settlement was arrived at in the Panhayati and Kanta was sent back with Shiv Kumar. She was given a suggestion that the theory put forth by her regarding the calls exchanged between her and Smt. Kanta was false. PW-12 Naresh Kumar, Dy. S.P. Churu was the officer who investigated the matter. His statement is formal in nature. In cross examination, the witness was suggested that he did not seek any opinion from the medical board regarding the age of the foetus being carried by Smt. Kanta. The witness admitted that the prosecution witnesses did not specify the date or time or nature of articles allegedly demanded by the accused from the deceased by way of dowry. 12. The accused-Shiv Kumar, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. took a specific plea that Kanta did not get into periods, on which, he insisted that they should consult a doctor. She received a call at about 10 O'clock, the night before the incident on which, she suddenly became pensive and attempted to commit suicide by hanging herself. He immediately took her down from the noose and took her to the hospital. The doctor asked him to report the matter. He went to the police station, but rather than taking his report, the police authorities detained him. He specifically alleged that foetus being carried in the womb of Kanta was that of her brother-in-law and fearing exposure upon medical examination, she committed suicide. Four witnesses including the accused-Shiv Kumar were examined in defence. The witness DW-3 Jagdish Prasad categorically stated that he was the Secretary of the Agrasen Bhawan, Churu, where the marriage of Shiv Kumar was solemnized. The payment for the hall was made by Gopi Ram. The girl's family came to Churu for solemnizing the marriage and stayed in the Dharamshala for two days. The boarding and lodging charges of the girl's family were borne by Gopi Ram. He proved the receipts Ex.D8 and Ex.D9. Shiv Kumar examined himself as a defence witness and took a specific plea that Kanta contracted the pregnancy from her brother-in-law Sushil Kumar. She missed her periods upon which, he insisted that she should get herself medically examined but Kanta refused. On 08.03.2010, he offered to call the doctor at home. On that very evening, Kanta received a call from Sushil Kumar and she talked to him in privacy. She missed her periods upon which, he insisted that she should get herself medically examined but Kanta refused. On 08.03.2010, he offered to call the doctor at home. On that very evening, Kanta received a call from Sushil Kumar and she talked to him in privacy. One more call was received by Kanta at about 10 O'clock whereafter, she became sad. When he woke up in the morning at about 6 o'clock, he did not see Kanta in the room. He made a search and saw that Kanta was hanging from a noose in another room. He alleged that Kanta was having a foetus of about four months in her womb, whereas their marriage was solemnized about three and a half months ago. He suspected that Kanta was having illicit relations with her brother-in-law and that is why she was hesitating in getting herself medically checked up. Kanta was instigated by Sushil Kumar to terminate her pregnancy. She came under pressure because of these circumstances and committed suicide fearing repraisal. A specific plea was taken by Shiv Kumar that neither he nor his parents ever harassed or humiliated the deceased on account of demand of dowry. In cross examination conducted from Shiv Kumar, not even a vague suggestion was given to him by prosecution that the deceased was ever harassed or humiliated on account of demand of a motor cycle or a sum of Rs. 1 lac by the accused persons in the matrimonial home. Rather, the suggestion which was given to the accused by the Public Prosecutor in cross examination was that he (appellant herein), his mother and father killed Kanta by hanging her owing to demand of dowry. Another suggestion was given that she was throttled to death. 13. From a threadbare sifting of the evidence of the prosecution as well as the defence evidence summarized hereinabove, the following conclusions emerge:- (1) That the financial condition of the paternal relatives of Kanta was not very sound. The marriage was solemnized at Churu i.e. the town of the accused and the expenses of the marriage were borne by the accused Gopi Ram. (2) That Smt. Kanta went back to her father's house after 15 days of her marriage with the accused-appellant Shiv Kumar and returned back only on 27.02.2010. The marriage was solemnized at Churu i.e. the town of the accused and the expenses of the marriage were borne by the accused Gopi Ram. (2) That Smt. Kanta went back to her father's house after 15 days of her marriage with the accused-appellant Shiv Kumar and returned back only on 27.02.2010. The theory put forth by the prosecution witnesses regarding two Panchayat is held for counselling the accused Shiv Ram is totally false because there are serious contradictions in the statement of material witnesses in this regard. On the other hand, not even the faintest of suggestion was given to Shiv Kumar when he stepped into the witness box as D.W.4 that he or his parents harassed the deceased owing to demand of a motorcycle and cash amount of rupees 1 lac. (3) The deceased was carrying a foetus of about 3 months in her womb when her dead body was subjected to post mortem. Considering the fact that Smt.Kanta was at her father's house from about 15 days after the marriage, manifestly the accused Shiv Kumar had no access to his wife span a period of about 2 months and therefore, a suspicion could be generated in his mind owing to her not getting into mensuration. (4) The allegation regarding the deceased having been harassed and humiliated by the accused on account of demand of a motorcycle and a sum of Rs. 1 lac is totally missing from the written report Ex.P5 and the investigational statements of the material prosecution witnesses. Such allegation has been set up by way of a sheer improvement when the witnesses stepped into the witness box for giving their evidence. (5) Other than the improved allegation of demand of the motorcycle and sum of Rs. 1 lac there is no aspersion of the prosecution witnesses that anything else was ever demanded by the accused from the deceased or that she was harassed or humiliated for such demands. 14. In backdrop of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the allegations set out in the statements of the material prosecution witnesses that the deceased was harassed and humiliated by the accused on account of demand of a sum of Rs. 14. In backdrop of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the allegations set out in the statements of the material prosecution witnesses that the deceased was harassed and humiliated by the accused on account of demand of a sum of Rs. 1 lac and a motorcycle has not been proved satisfactorily and beyond all manner of doubt by cogent convincing evidence and as a consequence, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was harassed and humiliated in the matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry any time soon before her death. The conclusions drawn by the trial Court to this effect in the impugned judgment are not based on an appropriate appreciation of the evidence and thus cannot be sustained. 15. We feel that from the tenor of the prosecution evidence as well as the defence evidence it is quite likely that the accused appellant Shiv Kumar was carrying a niggling suspicion in his mind regarding the deceased having conceived outside the wedlock and thus, he was pressurizing her to undergo medical tests. We feel that the hype so created by the accused Shiv Kumar against Smt. Kanta was not substantiated by any positive material and merely appears to be the conjectural creation of the suspicious state of the accused. It seems that owing to this suspicion, the accused was pestering Smt. Kanta to undergo a medical treatment and being under this persistent pressure of the accused, Smt. Kanta appears to have been instigated to end her life by hanging herself in the matrimonial home. The suspicious attitude of the accused Shiv Kumar which resulted into undue pressure being exerted and aspersions being cast on the deceased, amounted to cruelty which led to the deceased ending her life in the matrimonial home within a period of seven years from her marriage. Thus, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act definitely operates against the accused Shiv Kumar. 16. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we find that so far as the appellants Gopi Ram and Smt. Maina Devi are concerned, the prosecution could not prove the charges beyond them by leading cogent and convincing evidence beyond all manner of doubt. 16. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we find that so far as the appellants Gopi Ram and Smt. Maina Devi are concerned, the prosecution could not prove the charges beyond them by leading cogent and convincing evidence beyond all manner of doubt. We are also of the opinion that the prosecution could not bring home the charge on dowry death punishable under Section 304B I.P.C. against the appellant Shiv Kumar and rather he is liable to be held guilty for the offence under section 306 I.P.C. for instigating Smt. Kanta to commit suicide. 17. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by Gopi Ram and Smt. Maina Devi deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Both these accused are acquitted of the charges. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. 18. The conviction of the appellant Shiv Kumar for the offence under Section 304B I.P.C. is set aside and instead, he is convicted for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. However, his conviction for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. is upheld. 19. Considering the overall facts and circumstances as available on record, we deem it proper to sentence the appellant Shiv Kumar for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo three months imprisonment. However, the sentence awarded by the trial court to Shiv Kumar for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. is maintained. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The accused appellant Shiv Kumar is in custody for the last more than 8 years and 10 months. He shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case, upon depositing the amount of fine. 20. While allowing the appeal partly, the impugned judgment dated 7.3.2014 is modified in the above terms.