JUDGMENT : V.M. DESHPANDE, J. 1. These two appeals are taken up simultaneously since those arise out of judgment and order of conviction dated 3.7.2004 passed by learned 3rd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No.2/2004. 2. Criminal Appeal No.438/2004, is filed by original accused No.2 Namdeo Ganpat Solanke and original accused No.3 Sau.Vimal Namdeo Solanke. Whereas, Criminal Appeal No.474/2004, is filed by original accused No.1 Sandeep Namdeo Solanke who is son of original accused No.1 Namdeo Solanke and original accused No.2 Sau.Vimal Solanke. 3. Before adverting to discussion of these two appeals on its merits or demerits, this Court is required to observe that during hearing of these appeals learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri M.K.Pathan for the respondent/State placed on record death certificate of original accused No.2 Namdeo Ganpat Solanke. The said is taken on record and marked as “Exhibit X” for the purposes of identification. The said “Exhibit X” shows that Namdeo, resident of Shirpur Jain, Taluka Malegaon, District Washim, expired on 24.9.2012 and after intimation of the death was given, the Block Development Officer, Grampanchayat Shirpur Jain, issued the “Exhibit X” by noting in the official record on 28.9.2012. 4. In view of death of original accused No.2 Namdeo Solanke, appellant No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.438/2004, the appeal filed by Namdeo (since deceased) is disposed of as abated insofar as Namdeo is concerned. 5. By the impugned judgment and order of conviction, learned Judge of the Court below convicted the appellants (hereinafter they will be referred to as, “the accused” as per their position as mentioned in charge) in Criminal Appeal Nos.438/2004 and 474/2004 for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they are directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and for 71/2 years respectively. 6. Prosecution case can conveniently be stated as under: (A) On 27.11.2003, Police Station Officer Nandkishor Madhaorao Shelke (PW7) was attached to Shirpur Police Station. On the said day, one Chandrashekhar Wankhede, Police Patil of Shirpur, gave his written intimation informing that Sau.Vanita, the wife of accused No.1 Sandip, has died in her house and when he went to house of Sandip, he noticed Vanita lying dead in supine condition. He also noticed that blackish contusion mark around her neck was visible and, therefore, to make an inquiry in the death, he lodged the written report. He also noticed that blackish contusion mark around her neck was visible and, therefore, to make an inquiry in the death, he lodged the written report. Obviously, in discharge of his duties as Police Patil, the said intimation was given. The intimation was registered as A.D.No.27/2003 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is available on record at Exhibit 63. (B) In inquiry to the said death, Nandkishor Shelke visited the spot and prepared spot panchnama (Exhibit 57) in presence of panchas. Inquest was also drawn over the dead body in presence of panchas. The inquest panchnama is at Exhibit 58. Thereafter, he sent the dead body to hospital for conducting autopsy over it under requisition (Exhibit 64). While preparing the spot panchnama, he noticed a rope which he seized in presence of panchas. The said was sent to doctor along with query. Exhibit 66 is seizure panchnama showing seizure of the rope, two sealed viscera bottles, and clothes of the deceased. The seizure panchanama is dated 28.11.2003. (C) On next day i.e. 29.11.2003, Atmaram Tukaram Pawar, father of the deceased, lodged his written report. The said written report is at Exhibit 43. On the basis of the said, Nandkishor Shelke (PW7) registered a crime against Sandip, accused No.1; Namdeo, accused No.2; Vimal, accused No.3, and Gajanan, accused No.4 vide Crime No.123/2003 for offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A, and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Printed First Information Report is at Exhibit 44. Thereafter, Investigating Officer Nandkishor Shelke recorded statements of witnesses. He arrested accused No.1 Sandip on 1.12.2003. On 2.12.2003, the Investigating Officer received a report from doctor on his query. In the said report, it was reported that the death was by hanging. The said report is at Exhibit 53. On the same day, he received postmortem report (Exhibit 51). On 15.12.2003, he sent viscera to Chemical Analyzer under requisition (Exhibit 66). After due completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer was of opinion that sufficient evidence is collected during the course of the investigation for sending the accused persons for trail and, therefore, he filed final report before learned jurisdictional Magistrate. (D) Learned jurisdictional Magistrate found that as the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, he committed the case to the Court of Sessions. After its committal, the case was registered as Sessions Trial No.2/2004. (D) Learned jurisdictional Magistrate found that as the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, he committed the case to the Court of Sessions. After its committal, the case was registered as Sessions Trial No.2/2004. (E) On 27.2.2004, learned 3rd Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Washim framed charge below Exhibit 28 against 4 accused persons for offences under Section 306 read with Section 34 and under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. (F) All the accused persons abjured their guilt and claimed for their Trial. (G) In order to substantiate its case and prove the guilt of the accused persons who were charged, the prosecution examined in all 7 witnesses and also relied upon various documents duly proved during the course of the Trial. (H) Learned Judge of the Court below, by the impugned judgment, acquitted original accused No.4 Gajanan Solanke of all the charges, however convicted original accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment as observed in the earlier paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the this appeal. 7. I have heard learned senior counsel Shri Anil S.Mardikar for the appellants in both these appeals and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri M.K.Pathan for the respondent/State. 8. Main plank of submissions of learned senior counsel for the accused is that there is delay in lodging the First Information Report. He submitted that though an attempt is made on behalf of the prosecution to offer explanation for lodging the report belatedly, in view of circumstances which are brought on record by the prosecution itself, it is clear that the explanation as sought to be offered by the first informant, the father of the deceased, cannot be said to be plausible one and entire foundation of the prosecution case, therefore, comes under mist of doubt. In order to substantiate his submission that delay in lodging the report will be primary consideration for appreciating truthfulness of the prosecution case, he relies on following decisions in cases of : (i) Ramaiah @ Rama vs. State of Karnataka, reported at, (2014) 3 Crimes(SC) 187 (SC); (ii) Khemraj Hiralal Agrawal vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at, (1995) CriLJ 2271, and (iii) Shivaji Keraba Metkari and ors vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported at, (2015) AllMR(Cri) 1847. It is also his submission that if the First Information Report and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, who are parents and maternal uncle of the deceased, are perused, then insofar as accused No.2 Namdeo, (deceased) and accused No.3 Vimal are most general in nature. He also submitted that though the rope was seized, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the said was not sent to Chemical Analyzer for its examination. He, therefore, submitted that the appeals be allowed. 9. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri M.K.Pathan for the respondent State, submitted that though there is a delay in lodging the First Information Report, the first informant not only offered his explanation while lodging the report itself but also from the witness box he stated as to why there occurred delay in lodging the First Information Report. He relies on following decisions in cases of: (i) Munshi Prasad and others vs. State of Bihar, reported at, AIR 2001 SC 3031 , and (ii) Satish Shetty vs. State of Karnataka, reported at, (2016) 12 SCC 759 . He submitted that it is crystal clear from evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased was subjected to harassment at the hands of accused No.1 Sandip. He submitted that though allegations against accused No.2 Namdeo and accused No.3 Vimal are general in nature, their role was of instigation and, therefore, they can be convicted with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, he submitted that the appeals be dismissed. 10. First Information Report (Exhibit 43) is dated 29.11.2003. Perusal of the First Information Report would show that it is a typed Marathi document in the nature of complaint addressed to Shirpur Police Station. In the said, Atmaram Pawar, resident of Chandas, Post Nandhana, Taluka Risod, District Washim, is shown as applicant. Whereas, original all 4 accused are shown as non-applicants. Though the entire document is typed in vernacular (Marathi), date 29.11.2003 is written in “INK.” Similarly, opposite “xxx” (signature) it is written as xxx. On the basis of the said particular document, the Investigating Officer registered the offence. 11. First Information Report (Exhibit 43) reads as under: “I hereby lodged a report as under:- My daughter named Vanita was married to Sandeep Namdeo Solanke in March 2003 at Chandas. The respondents took Rs. 50,000/- from me as a dowry amount. On the basis of the said particular document, the Investigating Officer registered the offence. 11. First Information Report (Exhibit 43) reads as under: “I hereby lodged a report as under:- My daughter named Vanita was married to Sandeep Namdeo Solanke in March 2003 at Chandas. The respondents took Rs. 50,000/- from me as a dowry amount. After marriage, when my daughter went to reside in her in-laws house it consisted of the members, such as husband Sandeep, father-in-law Namdeo Ganpat Solanke, mother-in-law Vimlabai Namdeo Solanke similarly brother-in-law Gajanan Namdeo Solanke and sister-in-law Ku.Jyoti Namdeo Solanke and Datta Guru Namdeo Solanke. All were residing jointly. When I brought my daughter to Chandas on the even of first Akhadi festival, at that time she cried and told me and my family members that her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband were repeatedly asking her from the last one month to bring Rs. 25,000/- from her father for purchasing a plot in the name of her husband. She further told that when she told them that as he father incurred lot of expenditure during marriage she could not bring money from her father, her husband beat her. Mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law were instigating her husband to beat her. In this way, her husband and mother-in-law beat her three to four times during the said period. Thereafter, giving her understanding she was sent to her inlaws house. Then also her husband was beating her for not bringing Rs. 25,000/-. Her mother-in-law and father-in-law were instigating her husband [when I had gone to meet her before diwali she had disclosed me the aforesaid fact of harassment and beating to her. So I brought her to Chandas before diwali]. After coming to Chandas she disclosed to myself and my family members about the harassment for aforesaid amount. After diwali she was given understanding and she was reached to Shirpur along with my wife. My wife requested all the respondents not to beat and harass and she returned to village. About five to six days back Vanita's maternal uncle Fakira Chavan had gone to Shirpur for the work of weight and measurement and so he went to Vanita's house to me her. At that time she told him that her husband beat her on the previous day with a thick rope and also showed him the contusion marks on her body. She stated that there were demanding money. At that time she told him that her husband beat her on the previous day with a thick rope and also showed him the contusion marks on her body. She stated that there were demanding money. At that time her maternal uncle again requested all the respondents not to beat her. On the same day in the evening her maternal uncle came to Chandas. He disclosed to us about the facts of beating narrated to him by Vanita. He told us not to keep out daughter there. Otherwise she may die on some day. However, I told him that I would bring her within 10-12 days after completion of agricultural works. But on 27.11.2003 on Thursday, Ramesh Solanke and Dnyaneshwar Pawar came to Chandas in the morning and told us that Vanita was serious and asked me to accompany them immediately at Shirpur. Therefore myself along with other relatives went to Shirpur. Vanita was seen dead in her house. Ligature mark was seen around her neck. Her death has occurred under suspicious condition she was harassed severally by all the respondents over the issue of money. I lodged this complaint so that proper action be taken against the respondents. As I was mentally disturbed because of her death, I am lodging the complaint on this day.” The said Exhibit 43 shows that as he was mentally disturbed because of death of his daughter, he lodged the complaint on 29.11.2003. The same is his version from the witness when he was examined as prosecution witness No.1. 12. By now, the law about delay in lodging First Information Report is well settled. In my opinion it is always open for the prosecution to explain delay if it is caused and the delay can be explained at 3 stages:- (i) during the course of enquiry; (ii) during the course of investigation, and (iii) during the Trial. If at any point of these stages the explanation for delay is offered, it is duty of the Court to examine the said issue in the light of evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also other circumstances as appearing in the prosecution case to record its finding as to whether the prosecution has satisfactorily explained the delay. If at any point of these stages the explanation for delay is offered, it is duty of the Court to examine the said issue in the light of evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also other circumstances as appearing in the prosecution case to record its finding as to whether the prosecution has satisfactorily explained the delay. The Court is also required to embark an enquiry in that behalf as to record a finding that the explanation offered by the prosecution is plausible and ultimately should reach to conclusion that the delay should be accepted or not. 13. There is no straight jacket formula by which the Court should decide this issue. The issue of explanation of delay has to be decided by the Court in the light of each case that is brought before the Court in the given set of facts and evidence. 14. The Honourable Apex Court in the case of Munshi Prasad and others vs. State of Bihar cited supra, in paragraph No.8, which is relied by Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, observed as under: “It is thus strictly speaking of no consequence in the event the FIR has been delayed with a plausible explanation though on the factual score it is not even so. Let us, therefore, refer to the factual score briefly at this juncture.” Keeping the aforesaid principle in mind, let us examine the issue as to whether the delay in lodging the First Information Report is properly explained and/or the reason of sorrow as put forth by the first informant can be accepted as a plausible explanation. 15. Death intimation (Exhibit 63) shows that death of Vanita occurred on 27.11.2003. The written report (Exhibit 43) is dated 29.11.2003. Printed First Information Report (Exhibit 44) shows that the said was received by Shirpur Police Station on 29.11.2003 at 19:30 hours. Thus, there is 2 days' delay. According to Atmaram Pawar (PW1) and recital of Exhibits 43, Atmaram was mentally disturbed because of death of his daughter and, therefore, the delay occurred. 16. In the present case, before registration of the crime, inquiry about the death, as mentioned in A.D.No.27/2003, was conducted by none other than the Police Sub Inspector Nandkishor Madhaorao Shelke (PW7), who subsequently investigated the crime after his registration. 17. Learned senior counsel invited my attention to document Exhibit 46. The said document is a summons served upon panchas. 16. In the present case, before registration of the crime, inquiry about the death, as mentioned in A.D.No.27/2003, was conducted by none other than the Police Sub Inspector Nandkishor Madhaorao Shelke (PW7), who subsequently investigated the crime after his registration. 17. Learned senior counsel invited my attention to document Exhibit 46. The said document is a summons served upon panchas. The said document is dated 27.11.2003. Summonses were issued to 3 panchas to act as panchas and for executing inquest panchnama proceeding. Pancha No.2 is one Haribhau Sonaji Kurhade. He is examined by the prosecution as PW5 and inquest was performed in his presence along with other two panchas out of which one was a lady. Learned senior counsel also invited my attention to summons served on the relatives of the deceased. The said is at Exhibit 47. The said summons is also dated 27.11.2003 i.e. the date on which the death occurred. The summons were issued to Atmaram Tukaram Pawar (PW1), the father of the deceased, Fakira Namdeo Chavan (PW4), the maternal uncle of the deceased, and Sau.Latabai Fakira Chavan, the maternal aunt of the deceased and wife of Fakira Chavan. Perusal of the said summons shows that these 3 persons were also asked to remain present as relatives of the deceased while executing proceedings of the inquest panchnama. 18. There is no dispute that in pursuance to the summons (Exhibit 47) issued, these 3 relatives attended the inquest panchnama. Though initially during cross-examination Atmaram Pawar (PW1) tried to deny receipt of document Exhibit 47, when the said document was confronted to him, he admitted that the said document bore Fakira's signature. He also admitted that the said summons was given to him at the time of panchnama as it could be seen from his cross-examination. 19. Thus, there cannot be any doubt in any one's mind that at the time of execution of the inquest panchnama, Atmaram Pawar (PW1) and Fakira Chavan (PW4) were present along with Haribhau Sonaji Kurhade(PW5) a resident of Chandas, the place at which Atmaram resides. 20. Exhibit 51 is postmortem report of Vanita, the deceased. Column No.3 of the said shows that the body of the deceased was identified by Atmaram, the father of the deceased and the postmortem was conducted on 28.11.2003. Atmaram (PW1) in his cross- examination deposed herein under: “It is true that her dead body was brought to Washim. 20. Exhibit 51 is postmortem report of Vanita, the deceased. Column No.3 of the said shows that the body of the deceased was identified by Atmaram, the father of the deceased and the postmortem was conducted on 28.11.2003. Atmaram (PW1) in his cross- examination deposed herein under: “It is true that her dead body was brought to Washim. We were with dead body. We halted at Washim on that night at the house of Fakira. On next day, at 1:30 p.m. her dead body after P.M. was brought to Shirpur. Her funeral was done at Shirpur. By 5:00 p.m. her funeral ended. Thereafter, we came back to our village on 28.11.2003. At the time of her funeral, our relatives of different places were present. They were about 100 in numbers.” From the aforesaid it is very clear that from Shirpur the dead body of Vanita was brought to Washim for postmortem and if the aforesaid version is minutely examined, Atmaram used phraseology “We”. That connotes that only Atmaram was not with the dead body but he was along with his other relatives. It is also version of Atmaram that they all stayed in the house of Fakira (PW4). Not only that, it is also his admission that funeral was performed at Shirpur and he along with his relatives from different places, the number of which he gave as 100, was present at the time of funeral. One has to keep in mind that the postmortem was conducted at Washim and the funeral was performed at the matrimonial place of deceased Vanita and since Atmaram along with his 100 relatives attended the funeral, it is crystal clear that some of them must have accompanied the dead body from Washim to Shirpur. In cross-examination, Atmaram very candidly stated that at the time of conducting the postmortem and at the time of autopsy the police were present. He himself admitted and fixed his presence at the place where the inquest was conducted i.e. at Shirpur and, thereafter, the dead body at the request of the Investigating Officer was sent to Washim for postmortem. There also the police were present. The aforesaid piece of circumstance as appearing in the prosecution case that from the date and time of the death till at least conducting of the postmortem report, Atmaram was in company of the police. There also the police were present. The aforesaid piece of circumstance as appearing in the prosecution case that from the date and time of the death till at least conducting of the postmortem report, Atmaram was in company of the police. He was not alone but also he was accompanied by his various relatives including Fakira Chavan (PW4) who is resident of Washim and though Fakira denied that Atmaram resided at his house at Washim during the period till the postmortem was conducted, it is crystal clear that this witness at least to that extent is not a witness to the truth since Atmaram who is resident of Chandas specifically stated that he along with his relatives stayed in the house of Fakira. 21. In above context, what is important to note is to read evidence of Indubai (PW3), the wife of Atmaram Pawar (PW1). She stated in her evidence that at the time of the postmortem they felt that there should be an action against the accused. However, First Information Report was not lodged. 22. Learned senior counsel relied upon in the case of Ramaiah @ Rama vs. State of Karnataka, cited supra in which the Honourable Apex Court found that in spite of the fact that the deceased in the said case was cremated in their presence, report was not promptly lodged but it was lodged after 3 days and in that behalf the Honourable Apex Court in paragraph Nos.25 and 26 observed as under: 25. In this backdrop, we revert back to the conduct of the mother of Laxmi, as well as her maternal uncle and his wife (i.e. PW-1 and PW2), which becomes very crucial. As per our discussion above, it is clear that they had reached the place of death, after receiving the information, much before Laxmi was cremated. Once that is accepted, as it is established from record and particularly Mahazar drawn by PW-8, further events happen thereafter are to be analysed keeping in mind this fundamental aspect. In fact, the entire time of thinking of the High Court proceeds on the premise that Laxmi was cremated even before her parents and uncle/aunt reached the appellant's village. Entire edifice based on thereupon crumbles once this finding is found to be erroneous. In fact, the entire time of thinking of the High Court proceeds on the premise that Laxmi was cremated even before her parents and uncle/aunt reached the appellant's village. Entire edifice based on thereupon crumbles once this finding is found to be erroneous. As we are of the opinion that the finding of the trial court is correct that they had reached the village well in time and body was cremated in their presence, further sequence of events has to seen in that hue. It was told by the accused persons that Laxmi had died accidentally falling into the well with the active or passive consent of PW-1 to PW-3, Laxmi was cremated. Her last rites were performed in which these persons participated. They accepted the version of the accused persons, at that time. It is only after a period of 3 days that the complaint is filed with the allegations of demand of dowry by the accused persons; harassment of Laxmi on account of alleged non-payment of the balance dowry; and her unnatural death. We state at the cost of the repetition that once it is established that the body of Laxmi was cremated in the presence of these persons, it lends credence to the defence version that there was an acceptance by them at that time that Laxmi had died due to accidental slip in the well and all of them decided to cremate Laxmi and not to report the matter to the Police. Otherwise it would baffle any right minded person as to why they did not inform the Police or did not put up any resistance. 26. Let us test the veracity of the version of these persons from another angle. If there was harassment and cruel treatment given to Laxmi by her in-laws, on reaching the place of the accused persons after receiving the unnatural demise of Laxmi, they would have perceived the same to have happen in mysterious circumstances. In such a situation, they would not have kept quite and inform the Police immediately. They would have also insisted on the postmortem of the body of Laxmi to find out the cause of death. In such a situation, they would not have kept quite and inform the Police immediately. They would have also insisted on the postmortem of the body of Laxmi to find out the cause of death. That would be the natural reaction of any such persons who believe that their daughter had faced harassment on account of non-fulfillment of the dowry demand and it would be fresh in their mind, if their version is to be believed that just 5 days before the death, Laxmi had complained of the cruel behaviour of her in-laws. No such thing happened, on the contrary, body of Laxmi was cremated in their presence and after performing the last rites, they turned back to their home quietly. It is 4 days thereafter that they thought of lodging the complaint to the Police.” The observations of the Honourable Apex Court show that if there was harassment and cruel treatment and when opportunity is available to the prosecution witnesses and still the said is not reported, it cannot be said that explanation offered is plausible and should be accepted by the Court. 23. In Khemraj Hiralal Agrawal vs. State of Maharashtra cited supra, this Court found that even a one day delay could be fatal for the prosecution when there was an occasion for the first informant to report the matter prior to funeral and still opportunity was not availed of by the first informant. On similar line is observation of this Court in the case of Shivaji Keraba Metkari and ors vs. The State of Maharashtra cited supra. 24. Merely because the witnesses are coming and deposing before the Courts, their testimony should not be accepted as gospel truth. Their testimony has to be scrutinized and evaluated in the light of other material and circumstances brought on record. 25. In the present case, as observed above, for 2 days' Atmaram Pawar (PW1) was in company of the police and not only he was alone but also he was accompanied by his various relatives and if really there was harassment to such an extent that it leads Vanita to take extreme step of her life to commit suicide, it is really unbelievable that the father will keep mum for two days in spite of the fact that accused persons were also present with him. 26. 26. At this stage, it would be useful to point out that the reliance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the case of Satish Shetty vs. State of Karnataka cited supra is not helpful to him since the facts of the said case show that the delay occurred was well explained. 27. As noted, First Information Report, the written report (Exhibit 43) is a typed Marathi document. According to Atmaram (PW1), the said document was typed on computer at Shirpur. Suggestions given in the cross-examination to the witness can never take the place of evidence or can never be treated as evidence. However, the said suggestions will have to be evaluated in given circumstances of the case. In this case, though it is denied by Atmaram that Fakira (PW4) treats Advocate Shri Undal as his son-in-law and with his help the report was typed, in the cross-examination he used phraseology that “We Prepared the Report.” Normally, if he alone was the author of the said report, phraseology, he would have mentioned as “I.” Though the said is not a conclusive indicator, however in the light of fact that though having an opportunity, Atmaram failed to report to the police, it has to be given due weightage. 28. On evaluating the aforesaid circumstances, it is my opinion that though the explanation is offered by Atmaram, not only in his report but also during the course of the Trial, his cross-examination allows me to record a finding that the explanation is not plausible or possible and there is a delay of 2 days in lodging the First Information Report. 29. Prompt lodgment of the First Information Report always rules out false implication. However, the delay as observed by this court in this judgment always gives room to the Court to infer that after a due deliberation was done to falsely implicate the accused persons. 30. Apart from that, in the cross-examination he admitted that there is no custom of giving dowry in his caste. After the said answer elicited by learned cross examiner, Atmaram volunteers that if there are chances of breakages of marriage, then dowry has to be paid. However, there is no iota of evidence available in the present case that at any point of time after fixation of the marriage till its performance there was any chance of non performance of the marriage because of the dowry. However, there is no iota of evidence available in the present case that at any point of time after fixation of the marriage till its performance there was any chance of non performance of the marriage because of the dowry. He admitted that he has a bank account. Further, he admitted that he has not withdrawn Rs. 50,000/- from that bank account. However, he gave an explanation that he obtained hand loan from some other. It is to be mentioned that “who were those others” are not appearing in the prosecution case nor any one is examined to show the financial help to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- was extended to Atmaram in order to pay the said amount by way of dowry to the family of accused No.1 Sandip. 31. Though the crime was registered vide Crime No.123/2003 for offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A, and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and chargesheet was also filed for the said offences, charge was not framed by learned Judge of the Court below for offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. In spite of the said fact, the said order of learned Judge of the Court below in not framing the charge for offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code was not challenged before this Court. 32. On 29.3.2003, marriage of Vanita, the deceased, was performed with Sandip, accused No.1. She committed suicide on 27.11.2003. Thus, she met with unnatural death within a span of 7 years of her marriage. There is a statutory presumption in favour of the prosecution if suicide is committed within a span of 7 years of marriage, as envisaged under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. However, merely because the suicide is committed within a span of 7 years of marriage, ipso facto the said statutory presumption is not available to the prosecution to press into service. For applying the statutory presumption, it is an incumbent firstly upon the prosecution to prove the deceased was subjected to cruelty and if that charge is proved, the presumption can be pressed into service by the prosecution. 33. The evidence of Atmaram, the first informant (PW1) shows that from the date of marriage of Vanita till her death, on 4 occasions he had a talk with his daughter Vanita. 33. The evidence of Atmaram, the first informant (PW1) shows that from the date of marriage of Vanita till her death, on 4 occasions he had a talk with his daughter Vanita. His evidence further shows that after her marriage on 3rd day Vanita visited her parental place on account of “Mandaw Paratni.” That time, she halted for one day. The evidence of Atmaram and Indubai (PW3) who is wife of Atmaram is silent that on the said day it was stated to them that there was any type of demand from the side of accused persons. 34. Next occasion when Atmaram could talk to Vania was on telephone. The evidence of Atmaram reveals that after 15 days of marriage, which would obviously fall after “Mandav Paratni Event”, he had a telephone talk to Vanita. His evidence shows that at that time he made enquiry with his daughter. However, his evidence is silent that upon the enquiry, anything unnatural was reported to him by his daughter. 35. The 3rd occasion, as per Atmaram, is, he went to her matrimonial place to bring her parental house for festival “Akhadi.” When he brought her to his place, as per his evidence which is also corroborated by Indubai (PW3), that time she disclosed that her husband asked her to bring Rs. 25,000/- from her father for purchasing a plot. According to his evidence, accused Nos.2 to 4 were insisting him to ask her to bring Rs. 25,000/- and on this ground all the accused were harassing. According to his evidence, accused Nos.2 to 4 were insisting her husband to assault on this ground. On that occasion, she stayed for about 3-4 days. 36. Another occasion, as per Atmaram, is, visit at her matrimonial place 7-8 days prior to Diwali. According to Atmaram, he had gone to see her at Shirpur and at that time Vanita disclosed that accused Nos.1 and 2 were assaulting her and accused Nos.2 to 4 were insisting her husband. It appears that he gave understanding to her and brought her at his place for “Diwali”. I find that bringing a newly married daughter to house of her father is not unnatural. The custom that prevails in this part of the country is that first Diwali is always celebrated by newly married woman at her parental house. 37. It appears that he gave understanding to her and brought her at his place for “Diwali”. I find that bringing a newly married daughter to house of her father is not unnatural. The custom that prevails in this part of the country is that first Diwali is always celebrated by newly married woman at her parental house. 37. Another incident that is coming on record through Atmaram (PW1) is that after 7-8 days of Diwali, her matrimonial uncle Fakira (PW4) went to Shirpur for his work and at that time he visited Vanita's place. That time, she disclosed about assault by the accused and she showed signs of assault on her body. Fakira thereafter returned on the same day and informed the said to him. Insofar as part of the evidence is concerned, obviously it is a hearsay evidence since the incident was narrated to Fakira and Fakira narrated, as per claim of Atmaram, to him. 38. In this behalf, at this stage, it would be useful to peruse evidence of Fakira (PW4). He is a matrimonial uncle of Vanita, the deceased. His evidence shows that for his work he went to Shirpur and at that time he visited the house of Vanita who resided at Shirpur along with her in-laws. I do not see any unnatural act on the part of this witness to visit the house of Vanita, he being a maternal uncle. As per his version, it was disclosed to him by Vanita that the accused persons are demanding Rs. 25,000/- and for that she was beaten by rope by her husband one day prior to his visit. She showed marks of beating to him. Therefore, he went to Chandas and informed the said harassment. In my view, for this incident as stated by Fakira cannot be believed for following reasons: (i) His evidence shows that he stayed at Vanita's house for 30-45 minutes and in presence of all the accused persons she showed beatings' marks to this prosecution witness in presence of her inlaws. It is really unbelievable that a newly married woman who was subjected to cruelty will have a courage to show at her matrimonial place itself the beatings' marks to her matrimonial uncle, that too in their presence. It is really unbelievable that a newly married woman who was subjected to cruelty will have a courage to show at her matrimonial place itself the beatings' marks to her matrimonial uncle, that too in their presence. (ii) Assumes that the above was shown to him, what would be natural reaction of the matrimonial uncle of Vanita, who is subjected to cruelty to the extent of beatings by rope having marks on her body. His evidence shows that in spite of the said he did not take any step nor even asked to accompany with him so that he could reach her to her parental house. In my view, natural reaction of the matrimonial uncle would have been to take immediately his niece to her parental house or report the matter immediately to police. (iii) The matrimonial place of Vanita situates is having police station. It was open for this man to go to the police station and report the incident of the beatings to the police. However, he neither fetched Vanita with him nor lodged a report to the police station. But, he silently went to Washim and, thereafter, according to this witness, which is corroborated by Atmaram (PW1), he came to Chandas and informed the fact of the beatings. (iv) When the fact of beatings was disclosed to Atmaram by Fakira, that too by means of rope coupled with the evidence of Atmaram that Fakira told him that immediate step has to be taken otherwise she will lose her life. (v) That in spite of conveying the fact of beatings by Fakira to Atmaram, he did not take any immediate step. On the contrary, he states from witness box that “I informed him that after field work after 10-12 days, I will go and bring her.” The said conduct on the part of the father is most unnatural. A father who is informed about the gravest ill-treatment at the hands of the accused persons to his daughter states that he informed his brother-in-law that he will fetch his daughter after 10-12 days. This, in my view, casts serious doubt about truthfulness of the prosecution case. 39. A father who is informed about the gravest ill-treatment at the hands of the accused persons to his daughter states that he informed his brother-in-law that he will fetch his daughter after 10-12 days. This, in my view, casts serious doubt about truthfulness of the prosecution case. 39. To make the record straight, I would like to mention in this judgment, which is brought on record that family of the accused persons owns a saw mill and the said was burst completely and in that behalf an offence was registered against Atmaram and in that offence he obtained anticipatory bail. 40. The conspectus of the above discussion and reappreciation of the entire prosecution case, leads me to express that the prosecution utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons. Hence, I pass following order: ORDER : (i) The criminal appeals are allowed. (ii) Judgment and order of conviction dated 3.7.2004 passed by learned 3rd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No.2/2004 is hereby set aside. (iii) Accused No.1 Sandip and accused No.3 Sau.Vimal are acquitted of offences under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) Accused No.1 Sandip and accused No.3 Sau.Vimal are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.