Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 615 (GUJ)

Maheshbhai Bhanubhai Vachhani v. State Of Gujarat

2020-07-21

A.P.THAKER

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. The original accused No.1, 3 to 5 have preferred the present appeal under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 01.10.2005 rendered by the learned Presiding Officer, 7th Fast Track Court, Rajkot (hereinafter be referred to as “the Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.38 of 2001. 1.1. The Presiding Officer, 7th Fast Track Court, Rajkot has convicted accused No.1 – Maheshbhai Bhanubhai Vachhani, accused No.4 – Pragnaben Bhanubhai Vachhani and accused No.5 – Dipakbhai Bhabubhai Vachhani for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306, 504 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter be referred to as “the IPC”) and convicted accused No.3 – Vijayaben Bhanubhai Vachhani for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306, 304(B) and 114 of the IPC. Whereas, accused No.2 – Bhanubhai Bhagwanjibhai Vachhani has been acquitted from all the charges level against him. 1.2. The Trial Court has convicted and sentenced accused No.1 – Maheshbhai Bhanubhai Vachhani to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the IPC; accused No.4 – Pragnaben Bhanubhai Vachhani and accused No.5 – Dipakbhai Bhanubhai Vachhani to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the IPC and accused No.3 – Vijayaben Bhanubhai Vachhani to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 498(A), 306, 304(B) and 114 of the IPC. The Trial Court has given benefit of set off to the accused No.3. It appears from the record that all the accused have paid the fine. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the first informant Valjibhai Gordhanbhai, who happened to be the father of deceased Dipaben, has alleged that the marriage of his daughter took place with Maheshbhai Bhanubhai Vachhani on 25.01.1998 and since then, his daughter was staying at Village: Paneli along with other family members in joint family. It is also alleged that she stayed for about 6 to 8 months and, thereafter, the appellants No.1, 3 and 4 and deceased started staying at Rajkot. It is also alleged that she stayed for about 6 to 8 months and, thereafter, the appellants No.1, 3 and 4 and deceased started staying at Rajkot. Whereas, the accused No.2 was staying at Village : Moti Paneli with her husband. It also reveals from the FIR that since last three months, prior to the death of the deceased, the harassment was started with regard to the household work. It is alleged that the present accused were harassing the deceased and, therefore, on 22.01.2000 at about 10.00 p.m., she contacted her father Valjibhai on phone and stated that the appellants were threatening her to kill. It is alleged that Valjibhai told her to come at parental home, whereupon on the following day, in the morning, deceased left her matrimonial home and went to her parental home and since then, she was staying at her parental home till 27.02.2000 i.e. the date of incident. 2.1. It is alleged that on 27.02.2000, at about 11.30 a.m., deceased Dipaben told her father that she has consumed some pills used for preserving wheat. It is alleged that immediately, Valjibhai contacted Haribhai, son of his brother and Dipaben was taken to the hospital on motorcycle and Dipaben became unconscious and she died in the evening at about 5.30 p.m. and she remained unconscious till she breathed her last. 2.2. On the basis of the allegations, FIR came to be registered as C.R.No.I-149/2000 before Rajkot Taluka Police Station at 6.00 p.m. against all the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498(A), 506(2) an 114 of the IPC. 2.3. On the basis of FIR, necessary investigation was carried out by the police. During the investigation, the offence of demand of dowry was revealed and police made report for adding Section 304(B) of the IPC and the accused were arrested and the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of various witnesses and prepared necessary panchnama thereof and got documentary evidence. 2.4. After completion of investigation, the police has filed charge-sheet before the concerned Judicial Magistrate for the alleged offences. Thereafter, as the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial 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.38 of 2001. 3. Thereafter, as the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial 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.38 of 2001. 3. The charge against all the accused came to be framed by the Trial Court, vide Exhibit 1 for the aforesaid offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial. 4. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:- P.W.1 Valjibhai Gordhanbhai Complainant Exh.10 P.W.2 Bharatbhai Pranshankar Doctor Exh.71 P.W.3 Chunibhai Nathabhai Witness Exh.41 P.W.4 Vallabhbhai Bhadabhai Witness Exh.52 P.W.5 Nileshbhai Valjibhai Witness Exh.63 P.W.6 Nitinbhai Rambhai Dhana Panch Exh.69 P.W.7 Chandrikaben Vallabhbhai Panch Exh.80 P.W.8 Kamalbhai C. Parikh Doctor Exh.84 P.W.9 Madarsing Halubha Jhala I.O. Exh.90 P.W.10 Mahendrabhai M. Makwana I.O. Exh.95 5. The prosecution has also produced the following documentary evidence:- Sr.No. Particulars Exhibit 1 Letter written by the deceased 15, 16 2 Complaint 17 3 Medical papers of the deceased of Godhiya Hospital 85 4 Inquest Panchnama 65 5 Panchnama of the scene of offence 70 6 P.M. Note 72 7 Yadi for preparing P.M. 73 8 Cause of death Certificate 74 9 Report along with P.M.Yadi 75 10 Viscera Form 76 11 FSL Report 77 12 Medical papers of the deceased of Godhiya Hospital 85 13 Arrest Panchnama 89 14 Forwarding letter 96 15 Letter written to FSL regarding analysis of muddamal 97 16 Receipt of FSL 98 6. After closure of the evidence, the incriminating evidence found during the course of recording of the evidence of the prosecution, further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 came to be recorded, wherein also, the accused have denied of having committed any offence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. 7. After hearing both the sides and considering the evidence on record, ultimately, the Trial Court has convicted the accused No.1, 3, 4 and 5 for the charges leveled against them for the offences as stated hereinabove and acquitted accused No.2 for the charges leveled against him and passed the judgment and order of sentence as referred to hereinabove. 8. 7. After hearing both the sides and considering the evidence on record, ultimately, the Trial Court has convicted the accused No.1, 3, 4 and 5 for the charges leveled against them for the offences as stated hereinabove and acquitted accused No.2 for the charges leveled against him and passed the judgment and order of sentence as referred to hereinabove. 8. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that no appeal has been preferred by the State against the accused namely Bhanubhai Bhagwanjibhai Vachhani, who has been acquitted by the Trial Court. At the same time, no appeal for enhancement of the sentence has been filed by the State against the appellants. Thus, the order of acquittal is accepted by the State. 9. Heard Mr.K.B. Anandjiwala, learned senior advocate for the appellants and Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent – State at length. Perused the materials placed on record and the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court and the decisions relied upon by the learned APP. 10. Learned senior advocate for the appellants has submitted that at the time of death of the deceased, she was staying in her parental home at Rajkot and there was no proximity with the alleged harassment. While referring to the depositions of various witnesses and materials placed on record, learned senior advocate for the appellants has submitted that there is nothing found in the medical evidence regarding poisonous substance and the FSL report shows that no poisonous substance was found. He has submitted that two letters were produced by Valjibhai, which were not part of the investigation and it was produced during his deposition. According to him, these letters cannot be considered as those are gotup and fabricated. He has also referred to the deposition of the complainant and has stated that the so-called letters were not addressed to this witness, but it was addressed to one Popatbhai and Harilal and those letters were not produced before the Investigating Officer and the same were produced during his deposition and they should not be considered as evidence against the accused. 10.1 While referring to the oral evidence, learned senior advocate for the appellants has submitted that the witnesses are near relatives of the deceased and they have made improvement in their evidence which has been brought on record during the deposition of the Investigating Officer. 10.1 While referring to the oral evidence, learned senior advocate for the appellants has submitted that the witnesses are near relatives of the deceased and they have made improvement in their evidence which has been brought on record during the deposition of the Investigating Officer. He has submitted that there is no direct evidence of involvement of the present accused and the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses are based on hearsay evidence which cannot be admissible in evidence. He has submitted that there is no evidence regarding Sections 306, 304(b) and 498(A) of the IPC. 10.2. Learned senior advocate for the appellants has submitted that considering the medical evidence on record, the death of the deceased may be a natural one. He has submitted that original complaint was not containing any ingredients of demand of dowry by any of the accused. He has submitted that the mother-in-law is the teacher in the school and she resides elsewhere and she never stayed with the deceased more than two days in marital life. He has submitted that the so-called allegations regarding dowry in the form of demand of amount or golden ring at the time of the birth of the son and that fact cannot be treated as dowry. He has submitted that from the evidence, it is clearly found that general wear and tear in the marital life of the deceased, that too, relating to household work. He has submitted that the narration of the two witnesses cannot be treated as dying declaration. He has submitted that the deceased was throughout unconscious and no poison was found as per the FSL report and the death of the deceased may be considered as natural death. He has submitted that out of vengeance, Sections 304(b) and 306 of IPC have been added by the father of the deceased, who has accepted in his evidence that he wanted to punish the accused at any cost. He has prayed to allow the present appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction. 11. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State has submitted that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and has reached right conclusion regarding guilt of the accused and no error of facts and law is committed by the Trial Court in convicting and sentencing the appellants. 11. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State has submitted that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and has reached right conclusion regarding guilt of the accused and no error of facts and law is committed by the Trial Court in convicting and sentencing the appellants. She has submitted that the letters in question were of 07.02.2000 only and, thereafter, on 27.02.2000, she has died and, therefore, these letters have much importance for connecting the accused with the crime. While referring to the deposition of the father and other relatives of the deceased, learned APP has submitted that the factum of demand of dowry as well as cruelty are clearly established. She has submitted that as per the postmortem report, the deceased died unnatural and the cause of death is shown to be a cardiac respiratory failure, due to poisonous substance. She has submitted that since the deceased vomited, it might be possible that FSL might not found any symptoms of poison in viscera. She has submitted that looking to the evidence on record, the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and whatever contradiction has come on record during the deposition of the various witnesses, such contradictions or omissions are minor in nature and, therefore, those contradictions and improvement and omissions can be ignored. She has prayed to dismiss the present appeal and confirm the judgment and order of the Trial Court. 11.1 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following decisions:- 1. Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC477; 2. Jatinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2019 SCC Online SC 1628; 3. Anant Chintaman Lagu Vs. The State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500 ; 12. It is settled principles of law that in view of the provision contains in Section 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in an appeal from a conviction, the Appellate Court can (i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial; (ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence or (iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same. 13. 13. It is well settled that it is the duty of the Appellate Court to look into the evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not and even it can be relied upon then whether the prosecution can be said to have proved the case beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence. The credibility of a witness has to be adjudged by the Appellate Court in drawing inference from proved admitted facts. 14. It is also well settled that the law clearly expects the Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal on merits not merely by perusing the reasoning of the Trial Court in the judgment, but by cross-checking the reasoning with the evidence on record with a view to satisfying itself that the reasoning and findings recorded by the Trial Court are consistent with the materials on record. 15. In the case of Rajinder Singh (supra), the Apex Court has held and observed in paras 22, 23 and 25 as under:- “22. This Court in Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana, (2014) 4 SCC 129 , had this to say: (SCC pp.137-39, paras 17-18) "17. Thus, the words "soon before" appear in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 and also in Section 304-B IPC. For the presumptions contemplated under these sections to spring into action, it is necessary to show that the cruelty or harassment was caused soon before the death. The interpretation of the words "soon before" is, therefore, important. The question is how "soon before"? This would obviously depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. It relates to the mindset of people which varies from person to person. Cruelty can be mental or it can be physical. Mental cruelty is also of different shades. It can be verbal or emotional like insulting or ridiculing or humiliating a woman. It can be giving threats of injury to her or her near and dear ones. It can be depriving her of economic resources or essential amenities of life. It can be putting restraints on her movements. It can be not allowing her to talk to the outside world. The list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Physical cruelty could be actual beating or causing pain and harm to the person of a woman. It can be depriving her of economic resources or essential amenities of life. It can be putting restraints on her movements. It can be not allowing her to talk to the outside world. The list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Physical cruelty could be actual beating or causing pain and harm to the person of a woman. Every such instance of cruelty and related harassment has a different impact on the mind of a woman. Some instances may be so grave as to have a lasting impact on a woman. Some instances which degrade her dignity may remain etched in her memory for a long time. Therefore, "soon before" is a relative term. In matters of emotions we cannot have fixed formulae. The time-lag may differ from case to case. This must be kept in mind while examining each case of dowry death. 18. In this connection we may refer to the judgment of this Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab [ (2000) 5 SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 935] where this Court considered the term "soon before". The relevant observations are as under: (SCC pp. 222-23, para 15) "15. ... 'Soon before' is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit. This expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. The term 'soon before' is not synonymous with the term 'immediately before' and is opposite of the expression 'soon after' as used and understood in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. These words would imply that the interval should not be too long between the time of making the statement and the death. It contemplates the reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be 'soon before death' if any other intervening circumstance showing the nonexistence of such treatment is not brought on record, before such alleged treatment and the date of death. It does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period. Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough." Thus, there must be a nexus between the demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment, based upon such demand and the date of death. The test of proximity will have to be applied. But, it is not a rigid test. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and calls for a pragmatic and sensitive approach of the court within the confines of law." 23. In another recent judgment in Sher Singh v. State of Haryana, 2015 (1) SCALE 250 , this Court said: (SCC p. 739, para-16) "16......... We are aware that the word 'soon' finds place in Section 304B; but we would prefer to interpret its use not in terms of days or months or years, but as necessarily indicating that the demand for dowry should not be stale or an aberration of the past, but should be the continuing cause for the death under Section 304B or the suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. Once the presence of these concomitants are established or shown or proved by the prosecution, even by preponderance of possibility, the initial presumption of innocence is replaced by an assumption of guilt of the accused, thereupon transferring the heavy burden of proof upon him and requiring him to produce evidence dislodging his guilt, beyond reasonable doubt." (at page 262) 24. Once the presence of these concomitants are established or shown or proved by the prosecution, even by preponderance of possibility, the initial presumption of innocence is replaced by an assumption of guilt of the accused, thereupon transferring the heavy burden of proof upon him and requiring him to produce evidence dislodging his guilt, beyond reasonable doubt." (at page 262) 24. At this stage, it is important to notice a recent judgment of this Court in Dinesh v. State of Haryana, 2014 (5) SCALE 641 in which the law was stated thus: (SCC p.537, para 15) "15. The expression "soon before" is a relative term as held by this Court, which is required to be considered under the specific circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time of allotment. It can be said that the term "soon before" is synonyms with the term "immediately before". The determination of the period which can come within term "soon before" is left to be determined by courts depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case." We hasten to add that this is not a correct reflection of the law. "Soon before" is not synonymous with "immediately before". 16. In the case of Anant Chintaman Lagu (supra), while dealing with the case of administration of poison which is administered almost in a secrecy and circumstantial evidence thereof, the Apex Court has referred to the Books of Writer Mr. Lambert titled “Medico-Legal Post-Mortem in India” wherein it is stated that – “the pathologist's part in the diagnosis of poisoning is secondary, and has further observed that several poisons particularly of the synthetic hypnotics and vegetable alkaloids groups do not leave any characteristic signs which can be noticed on post-mortem examination. See Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 13th Edition, pages 450-451 and Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence Volume II, page 229. The same is stated by Otto Saphir in his book “Autopsy” at pp.71 and 72. In Dreisbach's Handbook of Poisons, 1955, it is stated that pathological findings in deaths from narcotic analgesics are not characteristic. He goes further and says that even the laboratory findings are non-contributory. The same is stated by Otto Saphir in his book “Autopsy” at pp.71 and 72. In Dreisbach's Handbook of Poisons, 1955, it is stated that pathological findings in deaths from narcotic analgesics are not characteristic. He goes further and says that even the laboratory findings are non-contributory. The position of the pathologist who conducts a post-mortem examination has been summed up by Modi in Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 13th Edn., p.447 as follow: “In order to make a probable guess of the poison and to look for its characteristic post-mortem appearances, it is advisable that a medical officer, before commencing a postmortem examination on the body of a suspected case of poisoning, should read the police report and endeavour to get as much information as possible from the relatives of the deceased regarding the quality and quantity of the poison administered, the character of the symptoms with reference to their onset and the time that elapsed between the taking of the poison and the development of the first symptoms, the duration of the illness, nature of the treatment adopted, and the time of death. He will find that in most cases the account supplied by the police and the relatives is very meager, or incorrect and misleading. His task is, therefore, very difficult, especially when many of the poisons except corrosives and irritants do not show any characteristic post-mortem signs and when bodies are in an advanced state of decomposition...........” Similarly, Gonzales in Legal Medicine and Toxicology states at p.629 : “The question of whether or not a negative toxicologic examination is consistent with death by poison can be answered affirmatively, as many persons overcome by carbon monoxide die after twenty-four hours, at which time the gas cannot be determined in the blood by chemical tests. Likewise, the organs of individuals who have been poisoned by phosphorus may not contain the toxic substance responsible for death if they have managed to survive its effects for several days.” Many conditions seriously interfere with the toxicologic examination, such as post-mortem decomposition.......” 67. We need not multiply authorities, because every book on toxicology begins with a statement of such a fact. Of course, there is a chemical test for almost every poison, but it is impossible to expect a search for every poison. Even in chemical analysis, the chemical analyser may be unsuccessful for various reasons. We need not multiply authorities, because every book on toxicology begins with a statement of such a fact. Of course, there is a chemical test for almost every poison, but it is impossible to expect a search for every poison. Even in chemical analysis, the chemical analyser may be unsuccessful for various reasons. Taylor in his Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence. (Vol.II, p.228 gives three possible explanations for negative findings, viz. (1) the case may have been of disease only; (2) the poison may have been eliminated by vomitting or other means or neutralised or metabolised; and (3) the analysis may have been faultily performed. Svenson Wendel in Crime Deterction has stated at p. 281 that : “Hypnotics are decomposed and disappear very quickly – some even in the time which elapses between the administration and the occurrence of death.” 68. Circumstantial evidence in this context means a combination of facts creating a net-work through which there is no escape for the accused, because the facts taken as a whole do not admit of any inference but of his guilt. To rely upon the findings of the medical man who conducted the post-mortem and of the chemical analyser as decisive of the matter is to render the other evidence entirely fruitless. While the circumstances often speak with unerring certainty, the autopsy and the chemical analysis taken by themselves may be most misleading. No doubt, due weight must be given to the negative findings at such examinations. But, bearing in mind the difficult task which the man of medicine performs and the limitations under which he works, his failure should not be taken as the end of the case, for on good and probative circumstances, an irresistible inference of guilt can be drawn.” 17. On perusal of the evidence of Valjibhai Gordhanbhai, P.W.1 at Exhibit 10, who happened to be father of the deceased, it appears that he has narrated the relationship between his daughter and the present accused and has stated that after marriage of his daughter, she came to her parental home after 6 to 8 months and she told him that whenever she was sleeping, her mother-in-law and father-in-law used to come and asked her to prepare tea or to give meal and therefore the quarrel took place for not preparing food. He has stated that when his daughter was staying at her parental home, her husband or relatives of the husband have never visited his house. He has stated that thereafter, when mother-in-law came to bring Dipaben at matrimonial home, he has insisted that his daughter Dipaben would reside with her husband and accordingly, Dipaben went to the house of her husband at Rajkot and inlaws of Dipaben resided at Moti Paneli. While narrating story of birth of child, he has stated that Dipaben has told him that they were not demanding any ornaments or amount and has also demanded Rs.20,000/- for furniture. It is also the version of this witness that at that time, Dipaben has also told him that her mother-in-law has told her that she has not brought furniture. He has stated that on 22.01.2000, he received a telephone call from his daughter at 10.00 pm and, at that time, his daughter has told him that she has apprehension that her brother-in-law and sister-in-law would kill her and, therefore, she has requested him to take her at parental home. According to him, thereafter, on the next day, she has told him that the husband of the deceased has dropped her at parental home and, thereafter, on the next day in the morning, she came at her parental home and since then, she was residing with him. He has stated that they have tried to settle the dispute between the parties and only the husband of the deceased was taking part in such negotiation and not in-laws of the deceased were taking part in such meeting. 17.1 He has narrated the fact that after the incident, there was after death ritual (besana) and at that time, his younger brothers Popatbhai Gordhanbhai resident of Village: Kalana and Harilal Gordhanbhai resident of Village : Chorwad came there and Popatbhai came with a letter, which was purported to be written by Dipaben and Dipaben has also written such letter to Harilal and this witness has produced both the letters during his examination. 17.2 According to him, the incident has happened on 27.02.2000 and he was at his home and he himself and his wife both were at home at about 11.30 pm and his daughter Dipaben was also at his home He has stated that Dipaben told him that she has consumed poisonous tablet used to preserve wheat and, therefore, they brought her to Gondhiya hospital for medical treatment and, at that time, his son-in-law came to the hospital within five minutes. According to his version, at that time, he has informed the husband of the deceased to put his signature on medical papers, but he has refused to sign and left the place and at about 5.35 pm, Dipaben has died. He has stated that on the same day, Dipaben died and, thereafter, he has lodged the complaint at 17.05 hours in the hospital, but during that period, Dipaben died and, therefore, he immediately told the police that he would file the complaint afterwards. He has stated that the postmortem of deadbody of the deceased was carried out and, thereafter, they went to their residence and when the police came to record his and his wife's statement, he was unconscious. 17.3 During his cross-examination on behalf of the accused, it is found that he has admitted that it is his desire that the accused should be kept in custody and at any cost, accused should be punished. He has admitted that he was ready to do anything to punish the accused. He has stated that it is his desire to say anything and to go to any extent for the purpose of proving the fact of cruelty to Dipaben. He has admitted that Dipaben came to her parental home on 23.01.2000 and till her death, she was residing at her parental home and at the time of happening of the incident, she was alone. He has stated that Dipaben was studied upto B.Com and having courage to do anything. He has stated that he has read the letters at Exhibit 15 and 16. 17.4 He has admitted that the police has recorded his statement on 10.03.2000 and the police has informed him that he has filed the complaint earlier and has also stated that the police has recorded his statement on 28.02.2000. He has stated that he has read the letters at Exhibit 15 and 16. 17.4 He has admitted that the police has recorded his statement on 10.03.2000 and the police has informed him that he has filed the complaint earlier and has also stated that the police has recorded his statement on 28.02.2000. He has admitted that no any statement regarding two letters at Exhibit 15 and 16 has been recorded before 10.03.2000 and he has not handed over these letters to the police. He has admitted that he has brought both letters at the time of his deposition in the Court. He has admitted that his brothers Popatbhai and Harilal have not produced those letters before the police. He has admitted that after having knowledge about both the letters, he has not handed over the said letters to the police. He has admitted that he had no knowledge regarding both the letters before besana. He has admitted that he has not utilized both these letters while opposing the anticipatory bail application of the accused. He has also admitted that he had knowledge that if both the letters were with the police, the police could have opposed the application. 17.5 While attention was drawn to one postcard dated 30.08.1998 to him, he has accepted that the letter was written in his name and handwriting of the letters at Exhibits 15 and 16 are similar. He has denied the suggestion that the postcard has written by him. He has denied the suggestion that as he was in government job, he has written the letters at Exhibits 15 and 16. He has denied the suggestion that the postcard has written by him and the letters at Exhibits 15 and 16 both have been written by him after the death of his daughter. He has admitted that even at the time of besana, his brothers have not informed him regarding the letters alleged to be written by Dipaben. 17.6 He has admitted the fact that his daughter has declined to reside with her mother-in-law at Village: Paneli and, therefore, at her instance, she was residing at Rajkot where her husband was residing. On drawing attention of the fact which has narrated in the chief-examination, he has stated that the said fact has not been stated before the police. 17.6 He has admitted the fact that his daughter has declined to reside with her mother-in-law at Village: Paneli and, therefore, at her instance, she was residing at Rajkot where her husband was residing. On drawing attention of the fact which has narrated in the chief-examination, he has stated that the said fact has not been stated before the police. He has admitted that when the deceased came to her parental home, the relatives of both the sides were trying to resolve the dispute amicably. He has denied the suggestion that he was insisting that his son-in-law should reside separately from his parents. He has denied the suggestion that he has created pressure on his son-in-law and he used to bring back his daughter Dipaben at her parental home. He has admitted that on 22.01.2000, when he received one phone call from his daughter, she came at his home and till then, he himself or along with the police, has not gone to bring his daughter. He has admitted that on 09.02.2000, the family members have returned back all the ornaments and all belonging to the deceased from the matrimonial home of the deceased in presence of the husband of the deceased. He has admitted that he has handed over the custody of “Samit” to his son-in-law i.e. husband of the deceased. He has admitted that his daughter was not ready to take divorce from her husband. However, he has denied the suggestion that he was insisting that his daughter should take divorce from her husband and due to that, the quarrel took place in previous day and deceased has died. 18. On perusal of the evidence of Chunibhai Nathabhai Jani, P.W. 2 at Exhibit 41, it appears that he has stated that on the day of incident, he was residing at Yogeshwar Park, Flat No.B/3/18 along with his family and he was on his duty at Village: Kagdadi and for that purpose, he was doing up-down from Rajkot to Kagdadi. He has stated that on 27.02.2000, Sunday, when he was at his residence, Valjibhai Gordhanbhai came to his residence and told him that Dipaben has consumed poisonous tablet which was used to be kept in wheat. He has stated that he along with his wife brought Dipaben to the hospital at Gondhiya on his motorcycle and during treatment she died. He has stated that on 27.02.2000, Sunday, when he was at his residence, Valjibhai Gordhanbhai came to his residence and told him that Dipaben has consumed poisonous tablet which was used to be kept in wheat. He has stated that he along with his wife brought Dipaben to the hospital at Gondhiya on his motorcycle and during treatment she died. He has stated that Dipaben was residing at her parental home from 23.01.2000. He has stated that Dipaben was used to come to his residence and at that time, she was telling the facts of incidents happened at her matrimonial home which consists of demand of dowry and physical and mental torture. He has stated that her in-laws of the deceased were demanding sofa-set etc. and at the time of naming of the child of sister-in-law, they have also demanded Rs.2,000/- or the gold ring. He has stated that Rs.5,000/- was also demanded by her in-laws and, if she would not bring the same, they would harass her. According to him, the deceased died due to mental and physical torture at the hands of the her husband and in-laws. 18.1. During his cross-examination, he has stated that the police has interrogated him on the same day and the police has recorded his statement. He has stated that whatever he has stated in his chief-examination was narrated before the police. He has denied the suggestion that he had no knowledge of the fact that prior to one day of the incident, there was quarrel between the deceased and her father as her father was insisting her to get divorce from her husband. He has admitted that the fact which he has narrated in the chief-examination was not recorded by the police in his statement. 19. On perusal of the evidence of Vallabhbhai Bhadabhai Kumbhani, P.W.3 at Exhibit 52, it appears that he has stated that he was residing in Yogeshwar Society and was serving as clerk in the High School at Village : Kheradi and he was doing up-down from Rajkot to Kheradi and his duty hour was 7.30 am to 12.30 pm. While narrating situation of the fact regarding sixteen flats, he has stated that there were four units in each floor. He has stated that he knew complainant – Valjibhai, who was not residing in their building. While narrating situation of the fact regarding sixteen flats, he has stated that there were four units in each floor. He has stated that he knew complainant – Valjibhai, who was not residing in their building. He has stated that before 4 to 5 years, the daughter of Valjibhai has committed suicide and at that time, he was in his residence and there was a Sunday and it was a holiday. He has stated that on the day of incident, he himself and his wife both were present. According to him, the incident happened between 11.00 am to 11.30 am. He has stated that Valjibhai's daughter Dipaben has consumed poison. He has stated that as he has heard noise, he rushed to the residence of Valjibhai and he told him that Dipaben has consumed poison and, thereafter, his wife brought Dipaben to Gondhiya Hospital where she died and when he was asked as to what was narrated by Dipaben regarding torture, he has stated that no any talk about the harassment has taken place between him and Dipaben. But he has stated that his wife has told him that there was physical and mental harassment to the deceased Dipaben in her matrimonial home. When he was asked as to what type of cruelty was given, he has stated that there was cruelty for bringing dowry in the shape of Rs.20,000/- for sofa-set and Rs.2,000/- or the gold ring by her sister-in-law for naming the child of the deceased. 19.1. During his cross-examination, he has stated that he has no occasion to visit the matrimonial home of the deceased. He has admitted that at the time of deposition, the complainant met him. He has admitted that whatever facts he has narrated in the chief-examination were not stated by Dipaben directly and he has no personal knowledge about the same. While attention was drawn to the police statement to the effect that he has not narrated the facts of demand of dowry of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.2,000/-, he has stated that he has no personal knowledge that what fact he has narrated before the police. 20. On perusal of the evidence of Nileshbhai Valjibhai Janjukiya, P.W.4 at Exhibit 63, it appears that he was residing at Street No.7, Ankurnagar, Rajkot and earlier he was residing at Yogeshwar Park Society, Flat No.B/3/20. 20. On perusal of the evidence of Nileshbhai Valjibhai Janjukiya, P.W.4 at Exhibit 63, it appears that he was residing at Street No.7, Ankurnagar, Rajkot and earlier he was residing at Yogeshwar Park Society, Flat No.B/3/20. He has stated that at that time, his parents were also residing with him and his sister Dipaben was married with Maheshbhai Bhanubhai Vasani on 25.01.1998. It is his version that after marriage, his sister was residing at Paneli in her matrimonial home. He has further stated that after three months of the marriage, her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law were giving mental and physical torture to his sister for dowry. He has stated that after her marriage, on the religious occasion of satam – aatham, she came to her parental home and at that time, she has told him that her in-laws were demanded Rs.20,000/- for sofa-set and Rs.2,000/- or gold ring for naming the child of her by her sister-in-law. He has stated that thereafter, his sister was residing with her husband, brother-in-law, sister-in-law at Rajkot in Jamna Park Society. He has stated that on the occasion of shrimant, they got his sister at her parental home and she delivered a child. 20.1. He has deposed that thereafter, the father-in-law and mother-in-law have brought his sister at Paneli and they have started giving mental torture to his sister for dowry. He has stated that on 22.01.2000, his sister has telephonically stated to his father that she may be brought back immediately and at that time, his father has told her that she should come on the next day and, therefore, his sister came on the next day at her parental home. He has stated that his sister has told him that as her husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law were giving physical and mental torture, she did not want to reside with them and it was better to die. He has stated that on 27.02.2000, his sister has consumed poison and, thereafter, she died in hospital. He has stated that at the time of incident, he was in his shop and, thereafter, his father has telephonically informed him regarding the incident and when he reached in the hospital, his sister was in unconscious condition and ultimately, she died at 5.30 pm and the police has recorded his statement. 20.2. He has stated that at the time of incident, he was in his shop and, thereafter, his father has telephonically informed him regarding the incident and when he reached in the hospital, his sister was in unconscious condition and ultimately, she died at 5.30 pm and the police has recorded his statement. 20.2. During his cross-examination, he has stated that the police has recorded his statement on the same day at 6.00 pm and it was read over to him and it was in accordance with his version. He has admitted that he has narrated the fact before the police that when his sister came in her parental home on the occasion of satam – aatham, she has told that for the household work, her mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law and her husband were giving mental torture. He has stated that from 23.01.2000, Dipaben was staying with her parental home and she died on 27.02.2000. He has admitted that he himself or his father has not lodged any complaint from 22.01.2000 to 27.02.2000. He has stated that prior to the incident before eight months, his sister has delivered a child. He has admitted that mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased were the teachers and they were residing at Moti Paneli. He has stated that at the time of incident, the brother-in-law and husband of the deceased were doing left repairing work. He has admitted that when his sister and her husband came to reside at Rajkot, the witness and his family were residing at Vanthali. He has denied the suggestion that his father was intended that the deceased should take the divorce from her husband and due to that, there was quarrel between the deceased and father. He has denied the suggestion that Dipaben was insisting to go to her matrimonial home and his father was not willing to permit her and due to that the incident has happened. 21. On perusal of the evidence of panch witness - Nitinbhai Rambhai Dhana, P.W.5 at Exhibit 69, it appears that he has stated that on 27.02.2000 at about 7.15 pm, the Rajkot Taluka Police Station has called him at Yogeshwar Society, Block No.B/3/20 and he was informed about the panchnama of the scene of offence. He has stated that at the time of drawing panchnama, he himself and one Jaykishan Shantilal Kothari were present and they both have signed the panchnama. He has stated that at the time of drawing panchnama, he himself and one Jaykishan Shantilal Kothari were present and they both have signed the panchnama. 22. On perusal of the evidence of Dr.Bharatbhai Pranshankar Dholadiya, P.W.6 at Exhibit 71, it appears that he has stated that on 27.02.2000, he was serving as medical officer in Civil Hospital at Rajkot and at that time, the deadbody of Dipaben was brought before him by Rajkot Taluka Police Station with yadi. He has stated that the postmortem of the body of the deceased was carried out and it was started at about 9.15 am and completed at about 10.15 am. He has stated that P.M. lividity was on the back side of the deadbody and no internal injury in the private part was found and all the organs were congested and the stomach was empty. He has stated that part of stomach, liver etc. was taken for chemical analysis. As per the opinion of this witness, the deceased died due to cardio respiratory failure due to poison. 22.1. During the cross-examination, he has stated that he has given the probable cause of the death and he has sent the viscera for examination to the FSL and accordingly, the report of viscera of the FSL came with note of nil. He has admitted that there were many reasons for natural death. He has admitted that as per natural reason, the natural death is possible. 23. On perusal of the evidence of Chandrikaben Vallabhbhai Kumbhani, P.W.7 at Exhibit 80, it appears that she has stated that she was residing with her family in Yogeshwar Park Society and her husband Vallabhbhai was serving in the High School and his timing was 7.30 am to 12.30 pm. She has stated that Chunibhai was her neighbour and no any incident occurred earlier. She has stated that Valjibhai was her neighbour and she knew him and his daughter, who has died due to consumption of poisonous substance. She has stated that she has no knowledge as to why the deceased has consumed poison. She has stated that she has not gone to the hospital and she did not get any information why the deceased has consumed the poison. She has stated that she has no knowledge as to why the deceased has consumed poison. She has stated that she has not gone to the hospital and she did not get any information why the deceased has consumed the poison. She has stated that the deceased was used to come to her house and at that time, she was telling her that there was physical and mental torture from her inlaws' side and except that she did not know anything. She has stated that the deceased has told her that her in-laws were demanded Rs.2,000/- for naming the child and Rs.5,000/- which they have given. 23.1. During her cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion that whatever information has given to her was given by the mother of the deceased Dipaben. She has admitted that whatever fact stated by Dipaben regarding harassment was relating to the domestic work. 24. On perusal of the evidence of Dr.Kamalbhai Chimanbhai Parikh, P.W.8 at Exhibit 84, it appears that he has stated that on the fateful day i.e. on 27.02.2000, he was serving as physician in Navalben Virani Hospital and he was on duty in the noon and at that time, patient Dipaben was brought to him. He has stated that during the examination of the patient, she was unconscious and not in a position to give history and the history was given by her mother. He has stated that according to that history, deceased has consumed poisonous tablet before 30 to 45 minutes before bringing her to the hospital. He has stated that on examination of the patient, the blood pressure of the patient was very low and, therefore, they have given the treatment to the patient and on the same day, patient died. He has stated that the cause of death was poisonous substance. He has stated that the treatment was given to the patient for normal blood pressure. He has stated that initially, he has examined the patient and, thereafter, examined at 3.00 pm and during the entire treatment, the patient was not in conscious condition. 24.1. During the cross-examination, he has admitted that for knowing the cause of death, the deadbody was sent for postmortem. He has admitted that during the entire treatment, the patient was not conscious and the history was given by her mother. He has stated that there are many reasons for low blood pressure. 25. 24.1. During the cross-examination, he has admitted that for knowing the cause of death, the deadbody was sent for postmortem. He has admitted that during the entire treatment, the patient was not conscious and the history was given by her mother. He has stated that there are many reasons for low blood pressure. 25. On perusal of the evidence of Madarsinh Halubha Jhala, P.W.9 at Exhibit 90, it appears that on 08.12.2000, he was serving as Incharge Police Sub Inspector at Rajkot Taluka Police Station and at about 9.00 am, five accused were arrested by him for C.R.No.149/2000 for the offence under Sections 306, 498(A), 506(2), 304 and 114 of the IPC and they all have get anticipatory bail and they were released on anticipatory bail. He has stated that after collecting evidence, he has filed the charge-sheet. 25.1. During his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that the panchnama of arrest i.e. Exhibit 89 was not prepared and though there was no evidence against the accused, he has filed false charge-sheet against them. He has denied the suggestion that he has read the case papers and filed false charge-sheet. 26. On perusal of the evidence of Mahendrabhai Muljibhai Makwana, P.W.10 at Exhibit, it appears that on 27.02.2000, he was serving as Police Sub Inspector in Rajkot Taluka Police Station and on that day, PSO Kesubha Jadeja has handed over the investigation of the case and after perusing the complaint, he has carried out the investigation and prepared the panchnama of the scene of offence. He has stated that the witness Valjibhai has narrated the fact that the accused were demanded Rs.20,000/- for sofa-set and Rs.2,000/- or gold ring for naming the child of deceased by sister-in-law of the deceased. According to him, he has added Section 304(B) of the IPC. He has stated that the medical officer has taken viscera at the time of postmortem of the deadbody of the deceased and as per the opinion of the doctor, the viscera was sent to the FSL. 26.1. According to him, on 02.07.2000, the accused have filed anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court and, thereafter also, he has filed affidavit in anticipatory bail application. He has stated that he has recorded the statement of Prafulbhai. 26.1. According to him, on 02.07.2000, the accused have filed anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court and, thereafter also, he has filed affidavit in anticipatory bail application. He has stated that he has recorded the statement of Prafulbhai. According to him, he has taken over the letters written by the deceased to her uncles regarding the harassment and he has placed the copy thereof. He has stated that the complainant has sent xerox copy of letters written by the deceased to her uncles. He has stated that thereafter, as he was transferred, further investigation was carried out by one M. H. Jhala, PSI. 26.2. During the cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that he has recorded the statements of various witnesses including the complainant and during the entire investigation, no fact of demand of dowry was come on record. He has admitted that in the complaint, there was allegation pertaining to the dispute as to the household work and no other fact was narrated. He has admitted that earlier the investigation was carried out by Surubhai and investigation of janvajog entry was carried out by Mahipatsinh. He has denied the suggestion that the statements of Surubhai, Mahipatsinh and the complainant were recorded relating to the death of the deceased, but the same were not helpful to the prosecution. Therefore, those statements and evidence have been concealed. He has admitted that while drawing the panchnama of the scene of offence, nothing was recovered at the scene of offence. He has denied the suggestion that at the time of recording the the FIR, the complainant was conscious and, therefore, the fact of recording of the FIR was doubtful. He has admitted that the complaint was recorded at Gondhiya Hospital and it was written down as per the version of the complainant and it was not left half written. He has admitted the fact that he has not obtained handwriting of the deceased and has not get any opinion of handwriting expert. He has admitted that on 22/01/2000, the deceased came to reside to her parental home and the deceased was resided till her death i.e. on 27/02/2000 and he has not collected any evidence during this period. He has admitted that all these statements of the parental home were to the effect that the deceased has voluntarily come to her parental home. He has admitted that all these statements of the parental home were to the effect that the deceased has voluntarily come to her parental home. He has admitted that the witnesses have not stated before him that the deceased was subjected to harassment for dowry and he has narrated the facts regarding cruelty in his police statement. 26.3. The contradiction in the evidence of Chunibhai has been brought on record. During his cross-examination, the contradiction in the evidence of Vallabhbhai and Nileshbhai and other witnesses have been brought on record which pertains to the dowry demand of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively. He has also admitted the fact that witnesses have not stated before him the factum of demand of dowry of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5,000/- and there is overwriting in the letters at Exhibit 15 and 16. 27. On consideration of the entire evidence on record, it is pertinent to note that there is no dispute regarding the following facts:- (1) The deceased got married with Maheshbhai Bhanubhai Vachhani on 25.01.1998. (2) Earlier, the deceased Dipaben was residing in her in-laws' house at Moti Paneli. (3) Thereafter, the husband and wife and sister-inlaw and brother-in-law shifted to Rajkot. (4) The father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased are teachers and residing at Moti Paneli. (5) The deceased has delivered the child at her parental home. (6) The deceased left matrimonial home on 22.01.2000. (7) Till her death on 27.02.2000, she was residing in her parental home. (8) No poisonous substance is found by the FSL in viscera. 28. Now, on perusal of the complaint, it clearly appears that initially, there was no allegation of demand of dowry and the allegation was that the deceased's in-laws were harassing her for household work. It appears that the factum of demand of dowry has been added afterwards. Now, so far as the dowry death under Section 304(B) of the IPC is concerned, the provisions of Section 304(B) of the IPC reads as under: “304(B). It appears that the factum of demand of dowry has been added afterwards. Now, so far as the dowry death under Section 304(B) of the IPC is concerned, the provisions of Section 304(B) of the IPC reads as under: “304(B). (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life..” 29. It is well settled that for the purpose of convicting the persons under Section 304(B) of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove that death of a woman is caused by any burns or any bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage. Secondly, it is to be shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband and thirdly, such harassment or cruelty was in connection with any demand of dowry. When such death can be called as dowry death. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the marriage life of the deceased was not more than seven years and her death, as alleged by the prosecution, is due to consuming poisonous substance. Of course, in FSL report, no poisonous substance in the viscera of the deceased has been found. But, at the same time, there is evidence that before her death, deceased has vomited and, therefore, it might be possible that due to such vomiting, the symptoms and substance of poison might not be visible in viscera report. Of course, in FSL report, no poisonous substance in the viscera of the deceased has been found. But, at the same time, there is evidence that before her death, deceased has vomited and, therefore, it might be possible that due to such vomiting, the symptoms and substance of poison might not be visible in viscera report. However, it is on record that the deceased was, firstly, examined by the doctor at Gondhiya hospital and her condition was deteriorated and her blood pressure was very much law and history of poison taken by the deceased was given by her mother to the doctor. This fact suggests that the death of the deceased was an unnatural. But, the question remains as to the ground that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband in connection with any demand of dowry. Therefore, the basic question as to whether there is any evidence regarding demand of dowry is to be ascertained. 30. On perusal of the entire evidence on record in the context of the letters at Exhibits 15 and 16, which are only relied upon by the prosecution, it is found that though both the letters were not produced during the investigation and the same were produced, for the first time, by the complainant during his evidence, the fact emerges from the contents of the letters that there is no averment of demand of dowry. Of course, the question of reliance on such letters is the question which will be decided hereinabove. But, one fact emerges from the letters that there is no version regarding the demand of any amount. The only contention is regarding compromise proceedings wherein only the husband of the deceased was remaining present and the father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-inlaw were not remaining present in the said proceedings. 31. Therefore, considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly transpires that the prosecution has not able to prove the factum of dowry death by leading cogent and reliable evidence. It is pertinent to note that the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses is based on the hearsay evidence as the mother of the deceased has informed them. But the mother of the deceased has not examined in this case for the reasons best known to the prosecution. 32. It is pertinent to note that the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses is based on the hearsay evidence as the mother of the deceased has informed them. But the mother of the deceased has not examined in this case for the reasons best known to the prosecution. 32. It is pertinent to note that the panchnama of the scene of offence was drawn in presence of panchas is proved by the prosecution. But, neither the tablet of drug nor the bottle of drug was found from the house. Now, the deceased has consumed so-called poisonous substance and some materials might have been found at the place of occurrence. But, no substance has been seized or found during the course of drawing the panchnama of the scene of offence. 33. Now, so far as essential ingredients of the abetment under Section 107 of the IPC are required to be fulfilled. Section 107 of the IPC provides that a person abets the doing of a thing who instigates any person to do that thing; or engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, or the persons should have intentionally aided any act or illegal omission. Now, on considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears that the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased were not residing with the deceased and both of them were teachers and they were residing at Moti Paneli. It is also an admitted fact that prior to her death, the deceased was not residing with her husband and she was residing in her parental home since last more than one month i.e. between 22.01.2000 to 27.02.2000. Therefore, the ingredients of abetment of suicide is lacking in the present case. Of course, soon before her death not to be counted in movement, hours or days. It is well settled law that the ingredients of abetment of suicide is to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. Now, considering overall evidence on record, it clearly transpires from the record that there is absence of proof of abetment under Section 107 of the IPC. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 of the IPC. 34. Now, considering overall evidence on record, it clearly transpires from the record that there is absence of proof of abetment under Section 107 of the IPC. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 of the IPC. 34. On perusal of the entire evidence, it transpires that the prosecution has heavily relied on the two letters at Exhibits 15 and 16 wherein, as alleged by the prosecution that the deceased has written these letters to her uncles regarding harassment caused to her by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law. At this juncture, it is required to be noted that these letters were not produced during the course of the investigation and as deposed by the complainant himself, he was not aware of these letters even at the time of besna of the deceased, wherein, her both uncles were present. It is also admitted by the Investigating Officer that he has not cared to get opinion of the handwriting export regarding the handwriting of both these letters. Further, it also reveals from the evidence of the complainant that he has admitted that the postcard has been written in his name. Now, on perusal of the copies of the letters at Exhibits 15 and 16 and postcard at Exhibit 34, it appears that all these three letters seem to be written in the same handwriting and it reflects that the said letters are written by one and same person. In view of these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, when the prosecution has, suddenly, during the course of the evidence of the complainant has produced such letters and the fact that the conduct of the complainant to involve all the near relatives of the husband though they were residing at another place, creates doubt regarding so-called letters. There is no evidence on record as to why the deceased has written letters to her uncles and she has not written any letter to her parents regarding socalled harassment and cruelty. At the same time, it is also on record that these letters are of 07.02.2000, whereas, she has died on 27.02.2000. Thus, at the time of her death, both these two letters were naturally available with her uncles, if really so-called letters written by the deceased. At the same time, it is also on record that these letters are of 07.02.2000, whereas, she has died on 27.02.2000. Thus, at the time of her death, both these two letters were naturally available with her uncles, if really so-called letters written by the deceased. But, these letters were not be produced during the course of the investigation and it was for the first time produced in the evidence of the complainant. All these facts create doubt as to the genuineness of the letters. 35. It is pertinent to note that the conduct of the complainant is also not trustworthy as according to him when he and his wife, at his home, at about 11.30 am on the fateful day, the deceased has informed that she has consumed poisonous tablet and at that time, instead of taking the daughter immediately to the hospital, the complainant went to the house of one Chunibhai and ultimately he himself reached at the hospital at 2.30 pm in the same city of Rajkot. The conduct of the complainant is not normal. Normally, when somebody has taken the poison, the first reaction of the father and the mother would be to bring the person immediately to the hospital. But, in the present case, the complainant has not taken his daughter to the hospital immediately instead he himself has reached to the hospital at 2.30 pm. It is found during the course of recording of the evidence that the complainant has created story that while complaint was being dictated, he became unconscious and the complaint was started on the next date. Against this version, the Investigating Officer has clearly stated that the complaint was given at one sitting and as per the evidence on record, the complainant was not unconscious. At the same time, during his evidence, the complainant has gone upon to extent that the entire complaint is false and not reliable. The version of the father of the deceased i.e. complainant has been denied by the police witness. The police witness has clearly stated that the complaint has been recorded as per the version of the complainant. It is also an admitted fact that in the FIR, there is no allegation of demand of dowry or any other allegation of cruelty or treatment. The ground of harassment is stated to be for the household work. The police witness has clearly stated that the complaint has been recorded as per the version of the complainant. It is also an admitted fact that in the FIR, there is no allegation of demand of dowry or any other allegation of cruelty or treatment. The ground of harassment is stated to be for the household work. Thus, initially, the allegation was regarding harassment due to household work. Therefore, if the husband or his near relatives have given guidance/instructions for household work then that cannot be treated as harassment in a family life, especially, when a lady is coming from other family who has no practical knowledge as to day to day work of the matrimonial home, then, naturally the lady member of the husband's family can give some guidance/instructions to newly wedded woman to do household work. 36. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, it clearly transpires that there is no cogent, trustworthy and reliable evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged crime. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court, it appears that the Trial Court has not bothered to read the version of the cross-examinations of the witnesses and the Trial Court has merely relied upon the facts narrated in the chief-examination. The Trial Court has lost the site of the principles of law regarding appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence. It is well settled principles of law that while considering the oral evidence of any witnesses, the factum narrated in the chief-examination, crossexamination and re-examination are to be appreciated thread by thread and the contents appeared in the crossexamination and re-examination are also required to be considered. However, the Trial Court has not followed the basic principles of law. While appreciation of the oral evidence, the Trial Court has merely relied on the factum narrated in the chief-examination. Thus, the Trial Court has materially erred in facts and law in convicting and sentencing the present appellants – accused for the alleged crime. The impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same deserves to be interfered with. 37. In view of the above, the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same deserves to be interfered with. 37. In view of the above, the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 01.10.2005 rendered by the learned Presiding Officer, 7th Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Sessions Case No.38 of 2001 for the offence under Sections 498(A), 306, 304(B) and 114 of the IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Fine, if any, paid be refunded to the accused. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.