Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 505 (GUJ)

Kailashchandra Bansilal Joshi v. State of Gujarat

2020-06-02

A.P.THAKER

body2020
JUDGMENT : A.P. THAKER, J. 1. The appellant-original accused has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 20.08.2002 passed by the learned City Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ahmedabad (hereinafter be referred to as “the Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 267 of 2000, whereby, he has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter be referred to as “the IPC”) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and one year respectively for each offence and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- for the said offence respectively, in default, to undergo sentence for further rigorous imprisonment for three months and one month respectively. Both the sentences ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under. 2.1 It is alleged that Mamtaben Kailashchandra Joshi D/o Bhanvariben Ramkishan (deceased) and the present accused - Kailashchandra Bansilal Joshi had married on 07.03.1988. Accused No. 2 - Jagdishchandra Nandlal Vyas happened to be uncle-in-law of deceased Mamtaben. Accused No. 3 - Sundarben is the mother-in-law and accused No. 4 - Bansilal Gokulchandji Joshi is father-in-law respectively of deceased Mamtaben. Accused No. 5 - Indiraben and accused No. 8 - Manjuben Omprakash Shambhulal Upadhyaya are the sisters-in-law of deceased Mamtaben. Accused No. 6 - Omprakash Bansilal and accused No. 7 - Omprakash Shambhulal are brothers-in-law of deceased Mamtaben. It is the case of the prosecution that the present accused - Kailashchandra (husband of deceased) and accused No. 5 - Indiraben Omprakash had illicit relationship. Therefore, the accused were harassing deceased Mamtaben. The accused were making demand of dowry from the deceased. It is also alleged by the prosecution that the accused killed Mamtaben at 3.00 am on 25.10.1998 in her house at Block No. 98/466, Gujarat Housing Board, Hatkeshvar, Ahmedabad. In the alternative, there is also a charge against the accused that the deceased committed suicide because of the harassment caused by the accused. 2.2 It is the case of the prosecution that one complaint was filed by Devilal Ramkishan Oza (Sharma), who is a brother of deceased-Mamtaben on 27.10.1998 at about 22.00 hours before P.S.O. Amraiwadi Police Station, which was registered as C.R. No. I-698/1998. 2.2 It is the case of the prosecution that one complaint was filed by Devilal Ramkishan Oza (Sharma), who is a brother of deceased-Mamtaben on 27.10.1998 at about 22.00 hours before P.S.O. Amraiwadi Police Station, which was registered as C.R. No. I-698/1998. 2.3 Initially, on the aforesaid allegations, the complainant-brother of the deceased filed complaint and same was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 120B and 34 of the IPC against the accused. 2.4 On registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer has started investigation. During the investigation, all the accused were arrested and the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of various witnesses and prepared necessary panchnama thereof and got necessary documentary evidence. 2.5 After completion of investigation, the police has filed charge-sheet before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate for the alleged offences. Thereafter, as one of the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions wherein it was registered as Sessions Case No. 267 of 2000. 2.6 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the Trial Court, vide Exhibit 3 for the aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial. 3. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:- 1. Bhanvriben Ramkishan Mother Exh.23 2. Naranlal Kisturchand Tiwari Witness Exh.24 3. Hiralal Laluram Witness Exh.25 4. Devilal Ramkishan Sharma Brother Exh.31 5. Radheshyam Gopilal Pande Panch Witness Exh.43 6. Sureshkumar Madanlal Nagla Witness Exh.46 7. Balganesh Balkrushna Mashetav Photograph Exh.51 8. Laxminarayan Mohanlal Witness Exh.56 9. Harishankar Bhuralalji Oza Witness Exh.63 10. Mushtakahmed Gulamrasul Shaikh Doctor Exh.70 11. Jaswantji Kachraji Chavda A.P.C. Exh.95 4. The prosecution has also produced the following documentary evidence:- S. No. Particulars Exhibit 1. Inquest Panchnama of dead-body of deceased Mamtaben 14 2. Panchnama regarding height of deceased Mamtaben 15 3. Panchnama of recovery of clothes of the deceased 16 4. Despatch letter 17 5. F.S.L. Report 18 6. F.S.L. Report 19 7. Copy of FIR 32 8. Undertaking given by accused No. 2 33 9. Undertaking given by accused No. 1 34 10. Notice by accused No. 1 to deceased Mamtaben 35 11. Reply by Mamtaben to notice of accused No. 1 36 12. Complaint of Devilal 37 13. Panchnama of scene of offence 44 14. F.S.L. Report 19 7. Copy of FIR 32 8. Undertaking given by accused No. 2 33 9. Undertaking given by accused No. 1 34 10. Notice by accused No. 1 to deceased Mamtaben 35 11. Reply by Mamtaben to notice of accused No. 1 36 12. Complaint of Devilal 37 13. Panchnama of scene of offence 44 14. Letter by witness Sureshkumar from Surat after visit to Ahmedabad 47 15. Photographs of deceased 52-54 16. Photographs of house of accused No. 1-Kailashchandra 55-57 17. Decision taken by panchas of Village: Khoriyakheda, Taluka: Raipur, District: Bhilwada, Rajasthan 60 18. Notice issued by Kailashchandra Bansilal to (1) Lakshminarayan Joshi, Secretary of the Society and (2) Kajodimal Midhamchand Patwariji, Chairman of the Society, through Advocate Shri Bharat Dosani, dated 08.07.1998 61 19. Reply given by Shri Lakshminarayan Joshi and Shri Kajodimal to the notice of Kailashchandra 62 20. Decision taken on 06.09.1998 to send Mamtaben at the house of accused for cohabitation 64 21. P.M. Report 71 22. Certified copy of FIR filed by deceased Mamtaben in Raipur Police Station at C.R. No. I-153/94 under Sections 366, 498A of IPC 107 23. Investigation Report by police regarding complaint of Mamtaben 108 5. After closure of the evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 came to be recorded, wherein also, the accused has denied of having committed any offence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. 6. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the defence side has examined the following witnesses:- 1. Ratanlal Laluram Sharma Exh.99 2. Sushilaben Jagdishchandra Exh.102 3. Jagdishchandra Hiralal Sharma Exh.103 7. After hearing both the sides and considering the evidence on record, ultimately, the Trial Court has convicted the present accused from the charges leveled against him for the offence under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and, ultimately, the Trial Court passed the judgment and order of sentence as referred to hereinabove. However, rest of the accused came to be acquitted by the Trial Court. 8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction, the appellant-accused, who is husband of the deceased, has preferred the present appeal on various grounds as narrated in the memo of appeal. It appears that the State has not challenged acquittal of other co-accused. 9. Heard Mr. 8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction, the appellant-accused, who is husband of the deceased, has preferred the present appeal on various grounds as narrated in the memo of appeal. It appears that the State has not challenged acquittal of other co-accused. 9. Heard Mr. Y.M. Motiramani, learned advocate for the appellant and Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State at length. Perused the materials placed on record including the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court as well as decisions cited at the Bar. 10. Mr. Motiramani, learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the entire prosecution case is based on the allegation of the deceased that there was illicit relationship of accused No. 1 with accused No. 5. He has submitted that the other allegation is regarding demand of dowry on certain occasions. He has submitted that initially, the offence was registered under Sections 302, 498A and 34 of the IPC and alternatively, the charge was also framed under Section 306 of the IPC. He has submitted that the marriage life of the deceased with accused No. 1 is almost ten years. While referring to the evidence of various witnesses, which are in the nature of near relatives of the deceased, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that there was insistence from the complainant side to have separate resident and accordingly, the husband and wife were residing separately from the joint family. While relying upon the evidence of witness Hiralal Laluram, he has submitted that nothing has been narrated against the accused. He has submitted that the complainant, who is brother of the deceased, has, initially, deposed against the accused, but on perusal of his entire evidence in toto, it appears that the offence against the present accused is not established. While referring to the letter at Exhibit 83 produced by the prosecution, he has submitted that the letter at Exhibit 83 was not produced along with the charge-sheet and it was not the part of the investigation, it has been produced for the first time during recording of the evidence and, therefore, the contents of the letter cannot be considered. While referring to the letter at Exhibit 83 produced by the prosecution, he has submitted that the letter at Exhibit 83 was not produced along with the charge-sheet and it was not the part of the investigation, it has been produced for the first time during recording of the evidence and, therefore, the contents of the letter cannot be considered. He has submitted that there is no cogent and reliable evidence regarding the demand of dowry and the entire case of the prosecution is based on conjunction and assumption and the Trial Court has committed an error in accepting the evidence. 10.1 While referring to the agreement at page nos. 603 and 607, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the signature therein is not of the accused and there is dispute as to such signature. He has referred to the notice – correspondence exchanged between the husband and wife and referred to the letter exchanged between them. According to him, the material witness i.e. father of the deceased has not been examined by the prosecution. He has submitted that according to the prosecution case, the amount of Rs. 15000/- and Rs. 10000/- and Rs. 7000/- were paid by the father of the deceased, but this fact has not been proved as the father of the deceased is not examined. He has invited attention of the Court to the evidence and has submitted that the witnesses, who have deposed regarding the payment of such amount, have narrated the facts on the basis of hearsay in nature. Therefore, when there is primary evidence available, then, it was the duty of the prosecution to examine such witnesses. He has also submitted that even if the payment of aforesaid amount is believed to have been made, then, this amount was paid as customary on different social occasions like born of child etc. While referring to Para-38, Page No. 525, he has submitted that there is no mention of all demand at the Rajasthan at least before 1994. 10.2 Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that prior to the present complaint, the deceased has filed the complaint in Rajasthan which has been filed by the concerned Police Station after the order of the Trial Court, wherein also, no such point of payment of money has been raised and the said complaint/case came to be filed. 10.2 Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that prior to the present complaint, the deceased has filed the complaint in Rajasthan which has been filed by the concerned Police Station after the order of the Trial Court, wherein also, no such point of payment of money has been raised and the said complaint/case came to be filed. He has submitted that the prosecution has produced certain letters during the course of the trial but those letters were never produced with the charge-sheet. He has submitted that there is no iota of evidence regarding belief of the deceased that there was illicit relationship between present accused and accused No. 5. He has submitted that as per the evidence of the prosecution itself, the amount of demand, even if, it is believed to have been paid, then, it was for carrying out the business and if the husband requests the parents of the wife for financial help for starting business, then, it cannot be treated as demand of dowry. 10.3 According to him, the Trial Court has not considered the evidence of the defence witnesses and has merely relied on the so-called letters and has committed serious error of facts and law in convicting the present accused. Of course, he has endorsed the view of the Trial Court as to the facts of acquittal of other accused. 10.4 While relying upon the following decisions, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the present appeal may be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence: 1. Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat, (2013) 10 SCC 48 2. Devender Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 16 SCC 396 3. K.V. Prakash Babu vs. State of Karnataka, (2017) 11 SCC 176 4. State of Gujarat vs. Bharatbhai Balubhai Lad and Others, 2006 (1) GLR 515 5. Indrasing M. Raol vs. State of Gujarat, 1999 (3) GLR 2536 6. Sharadbhai Jivanlal Vaniya vs. State of Gujarat, (2011) 14 SCC 377 11. Per contra, Ms. Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State has, while referring to the entire evidence on record, vehemently submitted that there is evidence on record to suggest that there was illicit relationship between present accused and accused No. 5. Sharadbhai Jivanlal Vaniya vs. State of Gujarat, (2011) 14 SCC 377 11. Per contra, Ms. Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State has, while referring to the entire evidence on record, vehemently submitted that there is evidence on record to suggest that there was illicit relationship between present accused and accused No. 5. She has submitted that the prosecution has able to prove that the deceased was subjected to physical and mental torture by all the accused and the Trial Court has not committed any error of facts and law in convicting the present accused. While referring to the evidence of brother of the deceased, she has submitted that there is no cross-examination on the aspect of the signature on the agreement (Acararnama). She has submitted that in the present case, the prosecution has examined the independent witnesses, who are the members of the community-society and the meeting of both the parties was held for amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties. According to her submission, during that meeting, the so-called agreement (Acararnama) was exchanged between the parties. She has submitted that there is notice-correspondence exchanged between the parties, which suggest, that there was dispute between the deceased and her in-laws. She has submitted that there is evidence on record in the shape of oral evidence regarding illicit relationship between the present accused and accused No. 5. She has submitted that the prosecution has able to prove the factum of demand of dowry by the present accused from the parents of the deceased and as there was illicit relationship between the present accused and accused No. 5, the deceased was being physically and mentally tortured. While reading the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court, she has submitted that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the entire evidence on record and the reasoning thereof cannot be termed as perverse one. She has submitted that when the alleged offence against the present accused is proved, even if the father of the deceased is not examined, is not a vital to the prosecution case. 11.1 Learned APP has also, while referring to the evidence of one Sureshkumar Madanlal Nagla, has submitted that the witness has clearly stated regarding illicit relationship between the present accused and accused No. 5 and the factum of suspicion regarding the child to the deceased. 11.1 Learned APP has also, while referring to the evidence of one Sureshkumar Madanlal Nagla, has submitted that the witness has clearly stated regarding illicit relationship between the present accused and accused No. 5 and the factum of suspicion regarding the child to the deceased. She has submitted that from his evidence, it is clearly found that Rs. 2,00,000/- has been demanded by the accused. According to her version, the witness, who is an important witness, has visited the deceased prior to the incident and he has also written letter to the parents of the deceased regarding demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- made by the present accused. According to her submission, the factum of demand of dowry on various occasions, is proved as well as factum of illicit relationship is also proved and, therefore, on appreciation of the evidence by the Trial Court in this regard is proved, so far as the present accused is concerned. On inquiring from the counsel, she has conceded that no acquittal or enhancement appeal has been filed by the State in this case. 11.2 While relying upon the following decisions, Ms. Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the present appeal may be dismissed by confirming the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court. Jatinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana, (2019) SCC Online SC 1628. 11.3 Regarding the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that all those decisions are based on the peculiar facts of those particular cases and, therefore, the observations made therein cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case where the facts of the present case are different. 12. In rejoinder, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the letters produced by the prosecution are got up and, therefore, the letters ought to have been discarded by the Trial Court. He has submitted that the Trial Court has acquitted all other accused except the present accused and that order has not been challenged by the prosecution and no cross-appeal has been filed by the prosecution for enhancement of the sentence imposed upon the present accused. He has submitted that considering overall facts and circumstances of the case and re-appreciation thereof, the case of the prosecution is not to be believed and the present accused is also required to be acquitted from the charges leveled against him. He has submitted that considering overall facts and circumstances of the case and re-appreciation thereof, the case of the prosecution is not to be believed and the present accused is also required to be acquitted from the charges leveled against him. Regarding decisions relied upon by the learned APP, he has submitted that the factual aspects thereof are different than the present one. 13. It is well settled by catena of decisions that an Appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, firmed and strengthened by the trial Court. 14. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Further, while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. 15. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the Appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether the accused is connected with the commission of the crime with which he is charged. 16. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether the accused is connected with the commission of the crime with which he is charged. 16. In the case of Indrasing (supra) this Court, while relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Ashok Chotelal Shukla, (1997) 11 SCC 26 , has observed in Para-16 as under:- “16......the prosecution has to establish that the accused committed acts of harassment or cruelty as contemplated by Sec. 498-A and such harassment or cruelty must be the cause forcing the wife to commit the suicide. What can be deduced from these authorities is that a solitary incident cannot be interpreted to be the sufficient evidence of cruelty or harassment attracting Sec. 498-A because in that case, incessant, persistent and sufficiently grave cruelty as is likely to drive the woman to a point of desperation leaving her with no option except to think about suicide will be absent. In other words, a single incident will not incite a woman to commit suicide the improvident act, believing that life is now not worth living. Even if in some case it incites, the same will not attract Sec. 498-A as persistency or incessancy will be lacking. The section when envisages that cruelty or harassment must be unabated, continuous or recurring and unbearable, one or two incidents casually taking place, may therefore, attract another penal provisions of Indian Penal Code, but will not attract Sec. 498-A of Indian Penal Code.” 16.1 In the aforesaid decision, this Court has observed in Para-17 as under:- 17. A woman would prefer to end her life, if continuous, or recurring unabated harassment or cruelty grave in nature, is intolerable or unendurable. Highly sensitive impulsive, reckless, or touchy woman may on one incident end her life, but that exception to the rule is not envisaged by the Section. It should also be stated that after marriage sometimes emotional disorder is created, and that results into frustration and pessimism. A woman sometime becomes psychotic and develops tendency to end her life. Highly sensitive impulsive, reckless, or touchy woman may on one incident end her life, but that exception to the rule is not envisaged by the Section. It should also be stated that after marriage sometimes emotional disorder is created, and that results into frustration and pessimism. A woman sometime becomes psychotic and develops tendency to end her life. A woman being highly sensitive and sentimental, or reckless, or if tired of her life either because her dreamt expectations are not satisfied or found to be the mirage, or for any other reason may become dejected and desperate and may develop suicidal tendency and end her life. The duty of the Court is also to make necessary endeavour to ascertain why the husband or his relatives had as alleged turned up their nose at the victim and resorted to coarse cruelty, divorcing civility, delicacy and refinement. Having regard to the facts and circumstances on record, if Court finds that the misdeed or wrong on the part of the accused is the compelling reaction of the real or unjust or fancied provocative act of the victim, i.e. abetted counteraction or wrong, the same even if in civil or barbaric will not fall within the ambits of cruelty envisaged by Sec. 498-A, for required intention would be lacking although the same may attract any other Penal provision. In short, therefore, intention to drive the woman to commit suicide being the essential ingredient, the endeavour of the court must be to find out having regard to the facts & circumstances on record, what the intention of the accused was? 17. In the case of State of Gujarat (supra), the Division Bench of this Court, while referring various decisions of the Apex Court, has observed in Paras-7 and 8 as under:- “7. So far as the abatement made by the accused to the deceased to commit suicide is concerned, according to us, there is no evidence. It is a settled legal provision of law that for bringing home the charge under Sec. 306 of I.P.C. there must be some evidence adduced on record showing that soon before the incident there was some harassment and torture to the deceased at the hands of the accused. It is a settled legal provision of law that for bringing home the charge under Sec. 306 of I.P.C. there must be some evidence adduced on record showing that soon before the incident there was some harassment and torture to the deceased at the hands of the accused. Sec. 107 of I.P.C. is with regard to the abetment and as per the provisions of this Section, there must be some evidence that soon before the incident there must be some incident due to which she was prompted, instigated or abetted to commit suicide. 8. xxx xxx xxx 9. The principle of law which has been explained in each of the above-referred judgments of the Supreme Court is that before a person can be held guilty for abetting the commission of suicide, the proposition must establish by cogent, convincing and overwhelming evidence that the accused intended the consequences of the act namely suicide and abetted the suicide within the meaning of Sec. 107 of I.P.C. Mere harassment or cruelty which drags the woman to commit suicide is not sufficient to constitute the offence under Sec. 306 of I.P.C.” 18. In the case of Jatinder Kumar (supra), the Apex Court has held and observed in Paras-7 and 8 as under:- “7. But the view of the Court reflected in that judgment that seeking financial assistance would not per se constitute demand for dowry has been rejected by a later judgment of a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477 . Upon considering the case of Appasaheb (supra) and certain other authorities, it was held in the case of Rajinder Singh (supra):- “20. Given that the statute with which we are dealing must be given a fair, pragmatic, and commonsense interpretation so as to fulfil the object sought to be achieved by Parliament, we feel that the judgment in Appasaheb case followed by the judgment of Vipin Jaiswal do not state the law correctly. Given that the statute with which we are dealing must be given a fair, pragmatic, and commonsense interpretation so as to fulfil the object sought to be achieved by Parliament, we feel that the judgment in Appasaheb case followed by the judgment of Vipin Jaiswal do not state the law correctly. We, therefore, declare that any money or property or valuable security demanded by any of the persons mentioned in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, at or before or at any time after the marriage which is reasonably connected to the death of a married woman, would necessarily be in connection with or in relation to the marriage unless, the facts of a given case clearly and unequivocally point otherwise.” 8. In was also held in the Rajinder Sing (supra) that the expression “son” is not to be construed as synonymous with “immediate.” The observation of the three Judge Bench of this point is:- “23. We endorse what has been said by these two decisions. Days or months are not what is to be seen. What must be borne in mind is that the word “soon” does not mean “immediate”. A fair and pragmatic construction keeping in mind the great social evil that has led to the enactment of section 304B would make it clear that the expression is a relative expression. Time lags may differ from case to case. All that is necessary is that the demand for dowry should not be stale but should be the continuing cause for the death of the married woman under section 304B.” 19. The other decisions relied upon by learned advocate are same for the appellant on legal aspects as to when the accused can be convicted under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC, as such, all are not discussed in detailed. 20. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decisions, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has to establish that the cruelty or harassment was unabated, incessant and persistent and being grave in nature unbearable and the same was with the intention to force the woman to commit suicide or to fulfill illegal demand or dowry of the husband or her in-laws. It is also well settled that in every case of harassment and/or cruelty would not attract to Section 498A. It is also well settled that in every case of harassment and/or cruelty would not attract to Section 498A. A mens-rea on the part of the husband, in-laws must be with a view to force her i.e. victim or wife to commit the suicide or fulfill illegal demand. It is also well settled that for bringing home the charge under Section 306 of I.P.C. there must be some evidence adduced on record showing that soon before the incident there was some harassment and torture to the deceased at the hands of the accused. However, regarding the period “soon” before, it cannot be considered on arithmetic basis. But, further, the word “soon” does not mean “immediate.” Time lags may differ from case to case. All that is necessary is that the demand for dowry should not be stale but should be the continuing cause for the death of the married woman. 21. On perusal of the evidence of Bhavariben Ramkishan, PW-1 at Exhibit 23, it appears that she has categorically stated in his deposition that the marriage of deceased Mamtaben was performed before 15 years of age with the present accused and it was held at the age of 15 years and when she reached at the age of 18 years, she was sent to her matrimonial home. She has stated that after three months, she was brought back to the parental home. She has stated that when she came back from her matrimonial home, she told her that she was being physically beaten by the accused. She has stated that thereafter, in-laws of the deceased came to bring back her and at that time, they were informed them to have separate residence for the deceased. She has stated that thereafter, her husband paid Rs. 15,000/- to the present accused. She has stated that at that time, the accused was residing at Village: Taal and her son-in-law brought back deceased Mamtaben to Village: Taal and thereafter, the deceased came to reside at Ahmedabad. She has stated that during that period, deceased became pregnant and in-laws were beating her and forced her to abolish the pregnancy on the ground that her husband was residing at Ahmedabad and how the deceased became pregnant and thus, they have doubted about her chastity. She has stated that during that period, deceased became pregnant and in-laws were beating her and forced her to abolish the pregnancy on the ground that her husband was residing at Ahmedabad and how the deceased became pregnant and thus, they have doubted about her chastity. She has stated that thereafter, inlaws brought the deceased to the hospital for abortion, but the doctor did not carry out the abortion. She has stated that one Hiralal resident of Village: Umari, Rajasthan told her everything. She has stated that thereafter, Rs. 10000/- paid by the father of the deceased to the accused for medical treatment. She has stated that thereafter, the deceased gave birth to female child. She has stated that the information regarding birth of female child was given to the accused and, thereafter, their son-in-law i.e. present accused came to the parental home of the deceased and at that time, he has demanded scooter and at that time, Rs. 7,000/- was given to accused No. 1 i.e. present appellant and, thereafter, he returned back. She has stated that as per the custom, they have also paid Rs. 12000/-. She has stated that thereafter, the deceased has filed the complaint before the concerned Police Station, Rajasthan and there was settlement arrived at in the community meeting. Thereafter, the deceased came back to her matrimonial home. 21.1 According to her version, though they have informed the accused side to bring back the deceased, but nobody came. Thereafter, Devilal and Narayanlal came to bring back the deceased. She has stated that thereafter, the accused has poured kerosene over the body of the deceased and due to that, she returned back to her parental home. She has stated that thereafter, the complaint was made to the community leaders and though, the accused were called to remain present, however, they did not remain present in the community meeting and, therefore, they were rusticated from the community. She has stated that thereafter, the deceased Mamtaben remained stayed in her parental home for more than three years. She has stated that thereafter, the community meeting was held in the temple of Jagdish in Rajasthan and in that community meeting, the accused have agreed that they will not harass the deceased and, thereafter, her sister-in-law's son went to Dhuliya namely Sureshkumar and came at Ahmedabad and at that time, the present accused and his maternal uncle demanded Rs. She has stated that thereafter, the community meeting was held in the temple of Jagdish in Rajasthan and in that community meeting, the accused have agreed that they will not harass the deceased and, thereafter, her sister-in-law's son went to Dhuliya namely Sureshkumar and came at Ahmedabad and at that time, the present accused and his maternal uncle demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- from Sureshkumar, which fact was told them by Sureshkumar on telephone and has also written a letter that the accused were demanding Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is her version that the accused side has killed the deceased. 21.2. During her cross-examination, she has stated that at the time of marriage of the deceased, she was of the age of 15 years only and the marriage was performed in Rajasthan. She has accepted the relationship between the witnesses and has stated that after passing of three years of marriage, the deceased was sent to her matrimonial home. She has stated that the marriage was performed in the year 1988 and after sending her in matrimonial home, she remained just for two days. She has stated that there is no custom of the dowry. However, she has stated that after sending the deceased to her matrimonial home, she has remained for three months only when she was first time sent to her matrimonial home. She has shown her ignorance as to how much time deceased remained at her parental home. She has admitted that certain facts, which she has narrated in the chief-examination, are not narrated before the police. She has stated that her husband has informed her that he has paid Rs. 15000/- as well as Rs. 10000/- to the present accused. According to her version, during her marital life, the deceased has remained for total period of two years in her in-laws' house. She has stated that deceased has never written a letter nor has called her. 22. On perusal of the evidence of Naranlal Kisturchand Tiwari, PW-2 at Exhibit 24, it appears that while narrating the relationship between the parties, he has stated in his deposition that before 5-6 years, the deceased came to his house and at that time, she was coming from Village: Dhuliya. He has stated that once, he has brought back the deceased from parental home and before four years, the deceased has poured kerosene on herself. He has stated that once, he has brought back the deceased from parental home and before four years, the deceased has poured kerosene on herself. According to this witness, the deceased has told him that her husband has poured kerosene on her, but no allegation was made against other accused. It is stated by the witness that at that time, he has asked Kailashchandra as to why he has poured kerosene on the deceased, to which, the accused has denied of having poured kerosene upon her. According to him, as he has doubt that whether Mamta was telling truth or lie, he has sent his brother-in-law to the matrimonial home of the deceased at Ahmedabad and on asking, the deceased herself has told him that she herself has poured kerosene. He has stated that at that time, deceased was reluctant to stay in the matrimonial home and wanted to reside in parental home. He has stated that thereafter, the deceased was residing with her father and mother and she has not made complaint before him. According to him, the deceased has not stated anything regarding cruelty or harassment by the accused. 22.1 Thus, the witness has not supported the basic version of the prosecution and, therefore, he has been declared hostile by the prosecution and he has, thoroughly, been cross-examined. But, nothing helpful to the prosecution has been come out from such cross-examination. 23. On perusal of the evidence of Hiralal Laluram, PW-3 at Exhibit 25, it appears that the father of the deceased namely Ramkishan Sharma is his brother-in-law. He has stated that nobody has told him regarding harassment to the deceased by her in-laws. Though, this witness, in chief-examination, himself has not supported the case of prosecution, he has not been declared hostile. Therefore, the version of this witness that he does not know nothing and nobody has told him regarding harassment to the deceased in her matrimonial home, is accepted by the prosecution. Not only that but in cross-examination on behalf of the defence, he has stated that nobody has told him regarding illicit relationship between the present accused and accused No. 5. 24. Not only that but in cross-examination on behalf of the defence, he has stated that nobody has told him regarding illicit relationship between the present accused and accused No. 5. 24. On perusal of the evidence of Devilal Ramkishan Sharma, PW-4 at Exhibit 31, who is brother of the deceased, it appears that he has narrated the factum of marriage of the deceased with the present accused at the age of 15 years and, thereafter, sending her to matrimonial home after three years. Regarding the incident, he has stated that the deceased came to parental home after three years and narrated that all the accused were demanded furniture from the deceased and they were beating her. He has stated that in the meanwhile, the deceased and her husband were separated from the joint family and, thereafter, there was demand of Rs. 15000/- and Rs. 10000/- and his father has paid that much amount to Bansilal and, thereafter, the deceased sent to her matrimonial home. He has stated that the present accused was residing at Village: Taal and he used to come at Ahmedabad where his deceased sister was residing. He has narrated the facts of deceased being pregnant and allegation of suspicious of pregnancy of the deceased and accused have tried to abolish the pregnancy etc. He has stated that his sister has delivered female child. He has produced one letter alleged to be written by the deceased Mamtaben. However, he has stated that he cannot identify handwriting of the letter. According to him, this letter is written by Fatehsinh Baniya. According to him, Fatehsinh Baniya told him that he has written this letter. According to his version, the accused side has demanded Rs. 10000/- on the ground that he has incurred expenses towards delivery of the deceased and accordingly, his father has paid Rs. 10000/- to the father-in-law of the deceased. According to him, the accused have agreed that they will not beat the deceased. According to him, the present accused has demanded scooter in “aana.” But his father has told that he has no such capacity and at that time Rs. 7000/- was given to accused-Kailashchandra. He has stated that thereafter, deceased was sent back to her matrimonial home and as per the caste custom Rs. 12000/- was put in dish. According to him, the present accused has demanded scooter in “aana.” But his father has told that he has no such capacity and at that time Rs. 7000/- was given to accused-Kailashchandra. He has stated that thereafter, deceased was sent back to her matrimonial home and as per the caste custom Rs. 12000/- was put in dish. According to him, at that time, the deceased was beaten by her in-laws in presence of the leaders of the community and she was driven out from the matrimonial home. 24.1 He has stated that on 22.10.1994, the deceased has filed criminal complaint in Raipur Police Station, Rajasthan against the present accused and, thereafter, there was agreement arrived at between the parties, which are produced at Exhibit 33 and 34. According to him, even after such agreement, the accused were meted out harassment to the deceased. According to him, thereafter, all in-laws of the deceased were residing at Ahmedabad with the deceased. He has stated that in Ahmedabad, deceased was beaten by the accused and kerosene was poured upon the body of the deceased by the accused and, thereafter, she went to her parental home at Dhuliya. He has stated that the present accused has also informed that he has not beaten the deceased nor poured kerosene on the body of the deceased and, therefore, they have brought the deceased at Ahmedabad and, thereafter, at the relevant time, the deceased was residing in her parental home for 4-5 months. While narrating the fact of non-attending the community meeting, he has stated that deceased had been meted out cruelty. He has stated that the deceased has remained three years at her parental home. He has stated that the present accused has told Sureshkumar that as he has to start his own new business, he was in need of Rs. 2,00,000/- and, therefore, he may persuade Ramkishan i.e. father of the witness to help him. According to this witness, he has told Sureshkumar that he has instructed to come back and assured him that he will pay the amount afterwards. He has stated that one Jagdish has told him that the deceased has been strangulated by the accused and, therefore, he has filed the complaint against the present accused. According to this witness, he has told Sureshkumar that he has instructed to come back and assured him that he will pay the amount afterwards. He has stated that one Jagdish has told him that the deceased has been strangulated by the accused and, therefore, he has filed the complaint against the present accused. 24.2 During his cross-examination, he has stated that his sister was writing in Hindi language and she has written 5 to 6 letters, when she was in her matrimonial home. He has stated that when he has lodged the complaint, he was not in possession of any letters written by the deceased Mamtaben to him. He has stated that during the settlement, all these letters were handed over to the accused and the same are not produced along with the complaint and the factum of such letters has not been narrated in the complaint. He has stated that after marriage, when deceased went to her parental home, she remained just 15 days at the relevant time. He has stated that the deceased has filed the complaint before Rajasthan police which is produced at Exhibit 32 and he does not know whether police has filed any complaint in writing or not. He has stated that he was present at the time of settlement arrived at between the parties and has stated that the agreements at Exhibit 33 and 34 were executed in his presence. He has stated that he has not referred to other letters in the FIR nor before the police. He has stated that he has not narrated the fact that Sureshkumar has written a letter to him in his police statement. He has admitted that when he has lodged the complaint, the alleged letter of Sureshkumar was with him and yet he has not narrated the facts before the police. He has stated that when his father has given Rs. 15000/- to the present accused, he was not present and the said fact has not been narrated before community meeting. While accepting the fact that important factor which has been narrated in the chief-examination regarding payment of money and demand of money by the accused, has not been narrated in his police statement. 25. 15000/- to the present accused, he was not present and the said fact has not been narrated before community meeting. While accepting the fact that important factor which has been narrated in the chief-examination regarding payment of money and demand of money by the accused, has not been narrated in his police statement. 25. On perusal of the evidence of Radheshyam Gopilal Pande, PW-5 at Exhibit 43, who is panch witness, it appears that he has stated that in his presence, the panchnama of scene of offence was carried out and necessary muddamal articles were recovered. He has accepted in his cross-examination on behalf of the accused side that the door was opened by forced from outside and that fact has been narrated in the panchnama itself. 26. On perusal of the evidence of Sureshkumar Madanlal Nagla, PW-6 at Exhibit 46, who is nephew of father of the deceased, it appears that he has narrated the facts of marriage of the deceased with the present accused and illicit relationship between present accused and accused No. 5. He has also narrated the facts that his matrimonial uncle Ramkishan has paid Rs. 15000/- to the in-laws of the deceased and he was presence in the meeting of community leaders. He has stated that in the said community meeting, the father-in-law of the deceased did not present and, thereafter, due to telephonic message, as his matrimonial uncle was not able to come at Ahmedabad, he himself has come to Ahmedabad on 23.09.1988 and at that time, the present accused has told him that he wanted to start his own business and, therefore, he was in need of money and, therefore, sent Rs. 2,00,000/- after persuading his matrimonial uncle and this amount was not paid then they will not keep his sister. According to him, thereafter, he met deceased wherein she has told him that the accused side has demanded amount and if it was not paid, then, she would be beaten. According to him, therefore, he has telephonically sent a message to one Devilal and also written a letter to him which is produced at Exhibit 47. According to him, all the accused have strangulated the deceased and killed her. 26.1 In his cross-examination, he has stated that before telephonic message sent to Devilal, he has never gone to the residence of the deceased. According to him, all the accused have strangulated the deceased and killed her. 26.1 In his cross-examination, he has stated that before telephonic message sent to Devilal, he has never gone to the residence of the deceased. He has stated that Devilal has given residential address of the deceased. He has stated that when, he talked with him, the wife of one Jagdishchandra was not present and she left the place after showing the house of deceased Mamtaben. According to him, the letter at Exhibit 47 was written by him in presence of Babulal and posted it on the same day. He has admitted the fact that he has not narrated the facts that Rs. 15000/- was paid in his presence to Kailashchandra. He has also admitted that he has not narrated the factum of his presence in other occasion also. 27. On perusal of the evidence of Balganesh Balkrushna Mashetav, PW-7 at Exhibit 51, it appears that he has deposed in his deposition that he is serving in Telephone Department and he knows the work of photography. He has stated that he was called by police and he had taken photographs of the scene of offence. The said photographs are produced at Exhibit 52 to 57. Their negatives are also produced at Exhibit 58. He has stated that the photographs of Mamtaben hanging in the house of the present accused-appellant herein are produced at Exhibit 55, 56 and 57. These photographs also lend support to the case of suicide committed by the deceased. 27.1 In his cross-examination, he has stated that when he came to the house of the appellant, the door of the house was opened. This supports the fact that the deceased was found hanging in the house of the appellant-accused. 28. The prosecution has also examined Lakshminarayan Mohanlal, PW-8 at Exhibit 59 and Harishankar Bhuralalji, PW-9 at Exhibit 63. Mr. Laxminarayan was aged 53 years and he was residing at Lasani Village in Rajasthan. In 1997, he was Secretary of the community of the accused. He also supports the case of prosecution and has deposed that on 10.03.1997, a meeting of their community was called. About 125 persons had remained present in the said meeting. The minutes of the meeting were recorded in his own handwriting as he was Secretary of the said community. In 1997, he was Secretary of the community of the accused. He also supports the case of prosecution and has deposed that on 10.03.1997, a meeting of their community was called. About 125 persons had remained present in the said meeting. The minutes of the meeting were recorded in his own handwriting as he was Secretary of the said community. He has further stated that the said meeting was held in Thoriakheda Village wherein representatives of different villages had remained present. The names of the said villages are also written in the minute book. He has also stated that he had talked with present accused on telephone. The present accused-appellant herein told that his father was sick and he was unable to come to attend the meeting. The representatives of 28 Villages passed a resolution against the accused in the said meeting. The President, Vice-President, Secretary, father of Mamta, etc. were present and one Gopilal, uncle of the accused-appellant herein was also present. The said resolution is produced at Exhibit 60 on the record of this case. 28.1 In the cross-examination, these witnesses have stated that both were at Ahmedabad, when the meeting was held. They have also stated that Gopilalji, uncle of Bansilal, was also present in the meeting. Gopilal was also residing at Taal Village. Gopilal had stated in the meeting that the next meeting will be called at the cost of Bansilal. The notice at Exhibit 61 is produced on behalf of accused and reply given to the said notice is produced at Exhibit 62. 29. On perusal of the evidence of Dr. Mushtakahmed Gulamrasul Shaikh, PW-10 at Exhibit 70, it appears that he has deposed that he was on duty in Civil Hospital on 25.10.1998. The dead-body of Mamta was sent by P.I. Amraiwadi Police Station. He has stated that the name of the deceased was Mamtakumari Kailashchandra Joshi, who was aged about 20 to 22 years. He has performed the postmortem of the body of the deceased wherein he has found the external injuries. He has stated that the injuries were ante-mortem. He has further stated that brain, both lungs, trachea, etc were also congested. He has also stated that the cause of death was due to asphyxia due to hanging. He has stated that the postmortem note was prepared by himself and Dr. J.V. Satapara. The postmortem note is produced at Exhibit 71. He has stated that the injuries were ante-mortem. He has further stated that brain, both lungs, trachea, etc were also congested. He has also stated that the cause of death was due to asphyxia due to hanging. He has stated that the postmortem note was prepared by himself and Dr. J.V. Satapara. The postmortem note is produced at Exhibit 71. 29.1 In his cross-examination, he has stated that it appears from the cause of death that it was a case of suicidal death. The complaint was filed by Devilal Ramkishan Sharma, which is produced at Exhibit 37. It is stated by Devilal Sharma in his complaint that it was suspected of murder of Mamta. 30. On the perusal of the evidence of Jaswantji Kachraji Chavda, PW-11 at Exhibit 95, it appears that he has deposed that when he was on duty as Assistant Police Commissioner, I Division, Ahmedabad, he was informed by Second P.I. Amraiwadi Police Station regarding the incident and he had gone to the place of incident. He has stated that he had seen the place of incident as well as dead-body of the deceased. He has stated that the Executive Magistrate was called by P.I. Mr. Rathod and inquest panchnama was also prepared. The panchnama of the height of the deceased was also prepared by police. He has stated that the photographs of the scene of offence were taken. He has admitted that the panchnama at Exhibit 44 and clothes on the dead-body of the deceased were produced by police constable Jayendrasing Roopsing after postmortem. He has stated that he has prepared panchnama, which is produced at Exhibit 16. The witness has further stated that the information was given to the parents of the deceased. The evidence also shows that Ramkishan Oza, father of deceased Mamta came on 26.10.1998, but he was mentally unfit. Therefore, the complaint was filed by Devilal Ramkishan, brother of the deceased on 27.10.1998. The complaint is produced at Exhibit 37. He has stated that the statements of the witnesses were recorded and the appellant was also arrested by the police. He has stated that the present appellant was produced before the Court on 29.10.1998 and some other accused were also arrested thereafter. 30.1 In his cross-examination, he has stated that the inquest panchnama was started at about 8.15 hours. He has stated that the statements of the witnesses were recorded and the appellant was also arrested by the police. He has stated that the present appellant was produced before the Court on 29.10.1998 and some other accused were also arrested thereafter. 30.1 In his cross-examination, he has stated that the inquest panchnama was started at about 8.15 hours. He has stated that Mamta might have remained hanging for more than five hours. He has further stated that he had not gone to Village: Taal and he had not recorded any statement regarding illicit relations between the present accused and accused No. 5. But he has stated that the information was given by Sureshkumar to Devilal. 31. On perusal of the evidence of Ratanlal Laluram Sharma, DW-1 at Exhibit 99, it appears that in his deposition he has stated that he has been serving as a Sub-Inspector at Udaipur and in 1994, he had investigated one complaint filed by Mamtaben for the offence under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC. He has stated that it was stated by Ratanlal that Mamta had not filed any complaint regarding dowry and for demand of money. He has submitted that he has submitted the report on 30.11.1994 before the Court and the same was accepted by the Court. 31.1 In his cross-examination, he has stated that the investigation was started by him on 22.10.1994 and recorded statement after five days. He has stated that he did not remember the exact date. He has stated that it is not true that there was some compromise between the parties regarding Mamta. He has admitted that the original report and original documents are produced by him before the Court and he has not brought them herein the Court. 32. On perusal of the evidence of Sushilaben Jagdishchandra, DW-2 at Exhibit 102, it appears that she has deposed that the appellant-accused is her real brother. She has stated that she was residing at Ahmedabad with her husband since last 22 to 23 years. She has further stated that Sureshkumar is a cousin brother of her husband. She has admitted that Sureshkumar came to Ahmedabad before one month of the death of Mamta. She has stated that she had gone to the house of Mamta with Sureshkumar. She has stated that there were talks between Sureshkumar and Mamta at that time. She has further stated that Sureshkumar is a cousin brother of her husband. She has admitted that Sureshkumar came to Ahmedabad before one month of the death of Mamta. She has stated that she had gone to the house of Mamta with Sureshkumar. She has stated that there were talks between Sureshkumar and Mamta at that time. She has further stated that at that time, Mamta had told her that she was all right. She has stated that Sureshkumar had stayed at her house on that night after talking with Mamta. 32.1 In her cross-examination, she has stated that she had not gone to the house of Mamta after hearing the news of the death of Mamta. She has further admitted that after one month, Mamta had died and she was informed about the death of Mamta at 3.00 am. But she had not gone to the house of Mamta. She has further admitted that the house of Mamta is situated at 10 kilo meters away from her house. 33. On perusal of the evidence of Jagdishchandra Hiralal Sharma, DW-3 at Exhibit 103, it appears that he has deposed that he is the husband of Sushilaben, DW-2. He has stated that Mamta happened to be his cousin sister. He has stated that before one month, Sureshkumar had come to his house. He has submitted that his wife Sushilaben and Sureshkumar had gone to the house of Mamta. He has stated that Sureshkumar was residing at Village: Dhulia. 33.1 In his cross-examination, he denied that Sureshkumar was residing at Dhulia. He has stated that on 24.10.1998, Mamta had died. Kailashchandra came to his house at about 12.00 or 12.30 at night and told this witness to go with him as Mamta had pain in her stomach. Thereafter, he and accused-appellant had gone to the house of accused-appellant at 1.00 am. He has admitted that he had seen Mamta hanging in the room at that time. He has further admitted that he and Kailashchandra had broken up the door of the room and had seen Mamta. He has further admitted that he had not gone to the police station, but he had come back to his house. He has admitted that at about 6.00 a.m. father of Mamta was informed by him on phone about the incident to Narayan Tiwari was also informed by phone that Mamta had died by hanging. 34. He has further admitted that he had not gone to the police station, but he had come back to his house. He has admitted that at about 6.00 a.m. father of Mamta was informed by him on phone about the incident to Narayan Tiwari was also informed by phone that Mamta had died by hanging. 34. Now, considering the aforesaid legal provisions, if this Court is perused the material evidence on record, it appears that as per the evidence of Dr. Mushtakahmed Gulamrasul Shaikh, PW-10 at Exhibit 70, who has performed the postmortem of the body of the deceased wherein he has found the following injuries:- “Ligative mark over neck above thyroid cartilage on both side of neck. On Rt. Side - 13 cm from midline of neck going laterally, backwards, upwards ends behind ear at nape of neck. Widest 3 cm on it. Side 12 cm from midline and tapering gradually. It ends at mastoid process. Widest 1.5 cm ligature is more deep on Rt. Side than on Lt. Side. Groove is pouchment like Red-purple in colour. Base of ligature mark pale, hand, leathery and pouchment like margins are read and congested. Kuot may be on Lt. Side head litted to Rt. Side.” 34.1 According to the doctor, all the injuries were ante-mortem and cause of the death was due to asphyxia due to hanging. He has admitted in his cross-examination that it appears from the cause of death that it was a case of suicidal death. In view of this fact, it is an admitted fact that the deceased has committed suicide and there is no case of commission of murder by the accused. 35. Before dwelling with the evidence in detail, it is pertinent to note that the Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence on record, has observed in para-19 of the impugned judgment and order that there is no evidence regarding illicit relationship between the present accused and accused No. 5. However, in the same paragraph, the Trial Court has made presumption that the deceased might have committed suicide as she was remaining, continuously, unhappy on account of illicit relationship between her husband and sister-in-law i.e. accused No. 5. It is pertinent to note that all other accused, except the present accused, have been acquitted by the Trial Court which includes accused No. 5. It is pertinent to note that all other accused, except the present accused, have been acquitted by the Trial Court which includes accused No. 5. The acquittal of all other accused has not been challenged by the State. Thus, the prosecution has also accepted the fact that the prosecution is not able to prove illicit relationship of present accused with accused No. 5. 36. Now, in this case, the prosecution has heavily relied upon the evidence of Bhanvriben Ramkishan, PW-1 at Exhibit 23, Naranlal Kisturchand Tiwari, PW-2 at Exhibit 24, Devilal Ramkishan Sharma, PW-4 at Exhibit 31, Sureshkumar Madanlal Nagla, PW-6 at Exhibit 46, Laxminarayan Mohanlal, PW-8 at Exhibit 56, Harishankar Bhuralalji Oza, PW-9 at Exhibit 63 for the allegations that the present accused was demanding dowry and was constant harassing the deceased. Therefore, the versions of these witnesses are required to be considered as to whether the allegations are proved or not. At the same time, the defence has also relied upon the evidence of Ratanlal Laluram Sharma, DW-1 at Exhibit 99, Sushilaben Jagdishchandra, PW-2 at Exhibit 102 and Jagdishchandra Hiralal Sharma, PW-3 at Exhibit 103. 37. It also reveals from the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court that the Trial Court has framed point as to whether the prosecution has proved reasonable doubt that there was any harassment or cruelty by the accused to the deceased or not. The answer to this point is specifically decided as negative by the Trial Court. Thus, the factum of demand of dowry is answered in negative by the Trial Court. This reasoning of the Trial Court has also not been challenged by the prosecution by filing any appeal against this observation. Now, the moot question is regarding as to whether the present accused has caused any harassment or cruelty to the deceased during her marriage life and driven the deceased to commit suicide. To this point, on perusal of the evidence on record, it transpires that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the death of the deceased is homicidal death. It is also not in dispute that the deceased has committed suicide. As stated hereinabove, the only question is regarding the conduct of the present accused in driving the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, the scope of the present appeal is limited upto the evidence produced by the prosecution in relation to the present accused. It is also not in dispute that the deceased has committed suicide. As stated hereinabove, the only question is regarding the conduct of the present accused in driving the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, the scope of the present appeal is limited upto the evidence produced by the prosecution in relation to the present accused. It is also not in dispute that the complaint was led by Devilal which is at Exhibit 17. 38. Now, considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly transpires that though the span of marriage life of the deceased with the accused is 10 years but the actual marriage life is just to two to three years as at the time of marriage the age of deceased was just 15 years. It also appears from the record that earlier criminal complaint was lodged in Rajasthan and the Rajasthan police has filed closure report in the concerned Court. It is also appears from the record that the payment of certain amounts by the father of the deceased to the family of the accused is stated by the witnesses like brother and mother. But, the person who has made payment i.e. father of the deceased is not examined by the prosecution. It also reveals from the record that the so-called payment of money to the family of the accused is on social occasions. Therefore, even if such amount is paid to the accused and in-laws of the deceased on social occasions is believed, even in that case, such payment cannot be treated as dowry. 39. Now, so far as the last demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- by the accused is concerned, it is found from the evidence that it was not an dowry demand but it was request for financial help for establishing business. Such demand may not be treated as a demand of dowry. However, in a given case if there are other evidence available on record regarding cruelty for not making payment of amount for starting business of any profession may be a ground for establishing factum of cruelty. But in the present case, as per the evidence discussed above, in the present case, no presumption can be raised as to meting out cruelty to the deceased for not payment of such amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. But in the present case, as per the evidence discussed above, in the present case, no presumption can be raised as to meting out cruelty to the deceased for not payment of such amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that witness Sureshkumar Madanlal Nagla has sent letter regarding demand made by the present accused. However, such letter was not even produced at the time of investigation and was not a part of a charge-sheet. It was produced suddenly during the course of evidence. As such no much reliance could be placed on such letter. 40. It is also appeared from the record that the community meeting was held to resolve the dispute between the parties an agreement was executed. As per this settlement, the present accused and deceased i.e. husband and wife were residing separately. Thus, the terms of the settlement has been executed between the parties. Now, to connect the present accused with the crime, the prosecution has to prove that the accused has created such a situation that the wife has been driven to commit suicide. Now, in this case, as discussed earlier, the entire evidence is based upon hearsay evidence and the evidence on record is not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. It appears that the learned Trial Court has not considered the evidence on record in proper perspective and has committed error of facts and law. The impugned judgment of the Trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the same is required to be set aside. 41. In view of the above, the present appeal is liable to the allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 20.08.2002 passed by the learned City Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 267 of 2000 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant-accused is hereby acquitted from the charges leveled against him. Bail bonds stands cancelled. Fine if any paid be refunded to the accused. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the Trial Court forthwith.