JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment and order dated 18.1.2005 passed by learned Second Extra Assistant Judge, Veraval, in Sessions Case No.19 of 2004, whereby the appellants-accused were convicted for the offence under Sections 498 (A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as “IPC” for short). By the impugned judgment, for offence under Section 498 (A), the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and ordered to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of five months was imposed. For offence under Section 306, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and ordered to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of five months was imposed. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that accused no.1 is the husband of deceased Kiran @ Hansaben and accused nos.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. Accused no.1 had married the deceased on 22.11.2003 and it is the case of the prosecution that the accused were having doubt over the character of the deceased. It is also alleged that they used to taunt her and were saying that you did not bring anything in dowry. Accordingly, the accused were causing physical and mental harassment to the deceased. It is alleged by the prosecution that she consumed acid and by pouring kerosene over her body, committed suicide. With these allegations, complaint was lodged by the complainant before Talala Police and on the basis of such complaint, police started investigation. The case was registered as I-C.R.No.62/2003 and as there was sufficient evidence against the accused, the accused were arrested and charge sheet came to be filed against the accused in the Court of learned Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. As the case was sessions triable, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As the case was sessions triable, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.1 In order to bring home the charges against the accused, prosecution has produced following oral and documentary evidence. Oral evidence S. No. Name Exhibit 1. Dr. Atulkumar Chandulal Kubavat. 14 2. Complainant-Bachubhai Devjibhai. 17 3. Kankuben w/o. Bachubhai. 19 4. Mansukh Jivanbhai. 20 5. Jitubhai Bachubhai Vaja. 21 6. Karshanbhai Madhabhai Val. 22 7. Shashikant Bhagvanjibhai. 26 8. Laxmikant Girdharbhai. 28 9. Subhash Fogabhai Vadher. 29 Documentary evidence:- S. No. Name Exhibit 1. Postmortem Note. 15 2. Cause of Death certificate. 16 3. Complaint. 18 4. Extract of station diary. 23 5. Extract of FIR. 24 6. Letter written to 'B' Division from hospital duty. 25 7. Arrest panchnama. 27 8. Outward for registering the offence. 30 9. D.O.Letter. 31 10. Extract of station diary. 32 11. Extract of station diary entry no.13. 33 12. Letter written to Junagadh Medical Officer. 34 13. Second letter written to 'B' Division from hospital duty. 35 14. Letter written for postmortem. 36 15. Postmortem form. 37 16. Letter written to Executive Magistrate for inquest. 38 17. Inquest panchnama. 39 18. Letter written by Talala Medical Officer to police. 40 19. Letter written to Executive Magistrate, Talala for recording dying declaration. 41 20. Panchnama of the place. 42 21. Panchnama drawn in presence of FSL officer. 43 22. Report of the articles seized by FSL officer. 44 23. P.M. Note. 45 24. MLC of Talala Hospital. 46 25. Receipt of muddamal received by FSL. 47 26. Letter for sending muddamal for examination. 48 27. Dispatch note. 49 28. PM Note. 50 29. Receipt of muddamal received by FSL. 51 30. Letter written by Medical Officer, Junagadh to Police. 52 31. Letter for examination of viscera. 53 32. Dispatch note. 54 34. Letter written to doctor for final cause of death. 55 35. Letter to FSL for examination of the muddamal. 56 36. Report. 57 37. Report of analysis of muddamal. 58 38. Report. 59 2.2 Thereafter, further statement of the accused were also recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code wherein they have denied the incriminating evidence led by the prosecution. 55 35. Letter to FSL for examination of the muddamal. 56 36. Report. 57 37. Report of analysis of muddamal. 58 38. Report. 59 2.2 Thereafter, further statement of the accused were also recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code wherein they have denied the incriminating evidence led by the prosecution. After completion of trial, learned Judge convicted the accused for the offence, as aforesaid. 2.3 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order, present appeal is preferred by the appellant-accused. 3. Mr. S.B. Tolia for Mr. Mayank Chavda, learned advocate for the appellants vehemently submitted that as per the prosecution case, the deceased died due to consumption of acid but no such substance is found in FSL report. Learned counsel has also submitted that marriage life of the deceased is ten years and whatever dispute has arisen is after eight years of marriage life and till then there was no dispute. While inviting the attention of the Court to oral evidence of various witnesses, he has stated that oral evidence of relatives of the deceased is not trustworthy. According to him, the evidence of the near relatives is not direct evidence but it is hearsay evidence. He has also submitted that even Jitubhai has not made any allegations regarding illicit relationship. Learned counsel, Shri Tolia has also submitted that those letters were not seized during investigation and it was produced for the first time during recording of evidence. 4. While dealing with the oral evidence, he has also contended that prosecution witnesses have made improvements in their evidence and even according to Investigation Officer, statements of neighbours, which are independent witnesses were recorded but they have not been examined by the prosecution. While referring to Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, learned counsel submitted that the evidence must be direct evidence, whereas in this case, entire evidence is based on hearsay evidence and, therefore, such evidence cannot be looked into. He has also contended that there is no evidence as to the instigation caused by the accused soon before commission of suicide by the deceased. He has also contended that the material evidence has been suppressed by the prosecution by not examining the independent witnesses. He has also contended that general allegations are made. He has also contended that there is no evidence as to the instigation caused by the accused soon before commission of suicide by the deceased. He has also contended that the material evidence has been suppressed by the prosecution by not examining the independent witnesses. He has also contended that general allegations are made. He has also contended that no presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act can be drawn against the accused. He has also contended that there is no evidence against father-in-law and mother-in-law for the act of suicide committed by the deceased. He has prayed to allow present appeal and has relied upon following decisions. (i) M. Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa reported in 2002 (0) AIJEL-SC 9200. (ii) Inderpal v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2000 (0) AIJEL-SC 11645. (iii) State of Gujarat v. Bharatbhai Babulal Lad and Others reported in 2006 (1) GLH 718 . (iv) Subhashbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in 2006 (3) GLH 724 . 5. Per contra, Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently stated that while appreciating the evidence the conduct of the accused is required to be considered. She has stated that the plea taken by the accused is regarding blast of primus but the place of occurrence is not kitchen, but, it is in lavatory and, thus, the accused have taken false plea. While referring to the evidence of each witness, she has stated that there is sufficient proof regarding cruelty being meted out to the deceased by the present accused. She has also stated that demand of dowry is also proved and the reasoning of the trial Court is proper and no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment of conviction. She has prayed to dismiss the appeal. She has further submitted that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and has not committed any error of facts and law. According to her submission, the impugned judgment of conviction is sustainable in the eyes of law. While relying upon the decision in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Santoshkumar and Others reported in (2009) 9 SCC 626 , she has prayed to dismiss present appeal. Regarding decisions relied on by the appellants-accused, she has submitted that the facts of those decisions are different from the present case. While relying upon the decision in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Santoshkumar and Others reported in (2009) 9 SCC 626 , she has prayed to dismiss present appeal. Regarding decisions relied on by the appellants-accused, she has submitted that the facts of those decisions are different from the present case. Therefore, decision would not be applicable in the present case. 6. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties, perused the material available on record and considered the judgments cited by both the sides. (i) In M. Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa (supra), regarding inadmissibility of statement of deceased under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, it has been observed as under:- “7. The concept of cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual also depending upon the social and economic status to which such person belongs. "Cruelty" for the purposes of constituting the offence under the aforesaid section need not be physical. Even mental torture or abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty and harassment in a given case. 10. …..Such a statement is not admissible in evidence for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and has to be termed as being only a hearsay evidence. Section 32 is an exception to the Hearsay Rule and deals with the statements or declarations by a person, since dead, relating to the cause of his or her death or the circumstances leading to such death. If a statement which otherwise is covered by the Hearsay Rule does not fall within the exceptions of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, the same cannot be relied upon for finding the guilt of the accused. 11. Another finding for recording the guilt of the accused is that once the deceased was not allowed to sit on the scooter by the accused and that he was frequently staying absent from his house. Learned counsel, appearing for the respondent, fairly conceded that no witness has stated to that effect and we feel that such a finding is not based upon any legal evidence. 12. The alleged relationship of the appellant with his sister-in-law is stated to be another circumstance which led the deceased to commit the suicide. Learned counsel, appearing for the respondent, fairly conceded that no witness has stated to that effect and we feel that such a finding is not based upon any legal evidence. 12. The alleged relationship of the appellant with his sister-in-law is stated to be another circumstance which led the deceased to commit the suicide. Again there is no evidence on the record to hold that the deceased had conceived the apprehension of the appellant having illicit relations with his sister-in-law which led her to end the life. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through letters Exhibit A to F, stated to have been written by the deceased as admitted by PW4. In one of the letters the deceased is shown to have written to her mother stating: "Please inform me when the result of Tutu shall be declared and also send the new address of Bada Bhai in the letter have told you have occasion not to spread bad rumour against the sister-in-law (wife of Kailash Patnaik) and not to discuss about her with anybody; can these discussions will at all lead to a better understanding, rather it will create more misunderstanding and aggravating the situation and which is already in vogue. I came to know that you are telling to others that she is not providing me proper food, allowing me to wear good cloth and giving ill-treatment. I want to know who has given you these false information about her and as I remember, have never discuss about this to you; it is wrong to presume that she is misbehaving me; but you have been getting wrong information about her from others. When it comes her knowledge that that you have made discussion against her it creates rift and misunderstanding in our family; further I would like to bring your notice this is to report to her by those you discuss about her. Further why are you discussing with others regarding my stay; whether it is at village-home or at Bhubaneshwar. I have made number of fervent appeals to you not to make any bad discussion against her but you are not heeding to my advise and continuing same against her. By doing this, you are isolating me from rest of the family members." Considering the factual aspects, in paragraph 14, the Apex Court has observed as under:- “14. …................ I have made number of fervent appeals to you not to make any bad discussion against her but you are not heeding to my advise and continuing same against her. By doing this, you are isolating me from rest of the family members." Considering the factual aspects, in paragraph 14, the Apex Court has observed as under:- “14. …................ there was no legal evidence tendered in the case which could be made the basis for returning a finding with respect to the alleged cruelty of the accused with the deceased. In the absence of any legal evidence produced in the case, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove, beyond doubt, that the appellant had committed the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and find that it is a fit case where he is entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.” (ii) Inderpal v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2000 (0) AIJEL-SC 11645. “7. Unless the statement of a dead person would fall within the purview of Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act there is no other provision under which the same can be admitted in evidence. In order to make the statement of a dead person admissible in law (written or verbal) the statement must be as to the cause of her death or as to any of the circumstance of the transactions which resulted in her death, in cases in which the cause of death comes into question..................” (iii) In the case of State of Gujarat v. Bharatbhai Babulal Lad and Others reported in 2006 (1) GLH 718 , this Court has observed as under:- “12. It is settled principles of law so far as Section 498-A IPC is concerned that to constitute an offence of cruelty as explained under Section 498-A of IPC, willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit the suicide should be cogently established to hold the accused persons guilty of the said offence. In the instant case, there was no demand for dowry nor abetment of suicide nor cruelty to the deceased is established. Some unhappy note / incident during the short married life between the husband and the wife cannot be the circumstance to constitute an offence of cruelty or harassment within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. 13. In the instant case, there was no demand for dowry nor abetment of suicide nor cruelty to the deceased is established. Some unhappy note / incident during the short married life between the husband and the wife cannot be the circumstance to constitute an offence of cruelty or harassment within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. 13. The law so far as Section 498-A IPC is concerned needs to be examined considering the following two decisions of the Supreme Court :- (i) Gananath Patnayak v. State of Orissa 2002 SCC (Criminal) 461. (ii) Inderpal v. State of M.P. 2002 Cri.L.J. 926. 14. The ratio of both the decisions is to the effect that all the statements made by the deceased to her family members regarding the alleged harassment and cruelty meted towards her would fall within the purview of hearsay evidence. It is an admitted fact that none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have said that they have with their eyes seen the accused persons assaulting the deceased or treating her with cruelty. All the witnesses have deposed on the strength of the information which the deceased used to provide when she used to come at her parental home. Such a statement is not admissible in evidence for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and has to be termed as being only a hearsay evidence. 15. Section 32 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the hearsay rule and deals with the statements or declarations by a person, since dead, relating to the cause of his or her death or the circumstances leading to such death. If a statement which otherwise is covered by the hearsay rule does not fall within the exceptions of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, the same cannot be relied upon for finding the guilt of the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.” (iv) Decision in the case of Subhashchandra Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (supra) is on the same line as the above decision. (v) In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Santosh Kumar and Others, the Supreme Court observed as under:- “30. (v) In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Santosh Kumar and Others, the Supreme Court observed as under:- “30. Section 498-B IPC reads as follows: "498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine." The following are the essential ingredients of Section 498-A IPC: "Essentials (i) That there was a married woman; (ii) that such woman was subjected to cruelty; (iii) that such cruelty consisted of any willful conduct of such nature as was likely to drive such woman - to commit suicide, or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical; harassment of such woman where such harassment was - with a view to coercing such woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, or on account of failure by such woman, or any person related to her to meet the unlawful demand in able and the woman was subjected to such cruelty by – the husband of that woman; or any relative of the husband of that woman." 32. Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC are both distinct and separate offences. The 'cruelty' is a common essential ingredient of both the offences. Under section 304-B, it is the 'dowry death' that is punishable and such death should have occurred within seven years of the marriage. In the statute, no such period is mentioned in section 498-A IPC. The husband or his relative would be liable for subjecting the woman to 'cruelty' any time after the marriage. The legal position is absolutely clear that a person charged and acquitted under section 304-B can be convicted under section 498-A IPC. This court in Smt. Shanti & Another v. State of Haryana (1991) 1 SCC 371 has taken the same view. 33. The demand of dowry is an essential ingredient to attract section 304-B IPC, whereas under section 498-A IPC the demand of dowry is not the basic ingredient of the offence. Therefore, even if there is acquittal under section 304-B IPC, still conviction under section 498A can be recorded under the law.” 7. 33. The demand of dowry is an essential ingredient to attract section 304-B IPC, whereas under section 498-A IPC the demand of dowry is not the basic ingredient of the offence. Therefore, even if there is acquittal under section 304-B IPC, still conviction under section 498A can be recorded under the law.” 7. On perusal of the evidence on record, it transpires that PW-1, Dr.Atulkumar Chandulal Kubavat, Exh.14 has stated in his evidence that he was serving in Junagadh Civil Hospital since last three to four years and he has performed postmortem of the body of the deceased. He has stated that there were burn injuries on the body of the deceased. Her both the hands were having burns and such injuries were anti-mortem. The cause of death stated by him is cardio-respiratory failure due to shock and extensive burns. 8. The complainant - Babubhai Devajibhai Vaja, PW-2, Exh.17, has stated in his evidence that his youngest daughter Kiran @ Hansa has married nine to ten years prior to the incident and she was having two children. He has also stated that the incident had happened on 22.11.2003 and his son-in-law, i.e. accused no.1, had informed telephonically that the deceased had sustained burn injuries due to blast of primus and he also inquired as to when would he reach. Thereafter, they came to know that she was taken to the hospital for treatment. On the next day, when they reached Junagadh, his daughter had died. He has also stated that after death rituals of his daughter were performed at Talala and he attended it along with his wife and son. On the next day, he lodged the complaint wherein it was alleged that their daughter used to tell that her father-in-law and mother-in-law were taunting her that she was a beggar's daughter and you have not brought anything in dowry and they were also raising doubts over her character by saying that she was having illicit relationship with her brother-in-law. He has stated that due to such harassment, his daughter have committed suicide. He has also stated that on the last Diwali, when his daughter had come along with son-in-law, son-in-law has shown some love letters to Jitu, brother of the deceased, and said that even if your sister would die, you will not be able to do anything to me. He has also stated that on the last Diwali, when his daughter had come along with son-in-law, son-in-law has shown some love letters to Jitu, brother of the deceased, and said that even if your sister would die, you will not be able to do anything to me. In his cross-examination, he has stated that after death rituals of the deceased were performed at her in-laws house and he attended it. He admitted that there was no dispute in the marriage life of his daughter for seven years of her marriage. He has also admitted that, earlier he has not given any complaint regarding harassment caused to his daughter either before police or to his community. He has also stated that when his daughter and son-in-law had come to his home on Diwali, there was no quarrel with the accused and they stayed happily. 10. Kankuben, wife of Babubhai, PW-3, in her deposition at Exh.19, while referring to the relationship between the parties and mentioning of facts of marriage of her daughter with the accused no.1, has stated that from 17.11.2003, they have gone to Surat for residing and on 22.11.2003 at 8 p.m. they have received the telephone call from her son in-law i.e. the accused no.1 to the effect that Kiran-deceased has got burn injuries. She has also stated that said message was conveyed to her by accused no.1. Thereafter, she along with her son and her husband made telephone to the matrimonial home of her daughter and from there they came to know that the deceased is shifted to Junagadh Hospital and, thereafter, they reached at Junagadh Civil Hospital. According to her version, when they have reached Junagadh it was found that her daughter was dead and, thereafter dead body was given to them and her after death rituals were at Talala. She has also stated that police has recorded her statement wherein she has narrated that whenever her daughter came to their house, she was telling her that she was being taunted to the effect that she has not brought sufficient dowry and there was cruelty to her. She has also stated that the deceased Kiran was also telling her that her husband i.e. the accused no.1 also doubting her chastity. 10.1 In cross-examination, she has admitted that she does not know what facts are narrated in her statement by the police. She has also stated that the deceased Kiran was also telling her that her husband i.e. the accused no.1 also doubting her chastity. 10.1 In cross-examination, she has admitted that she does not know what facts are narrated in her statement by the police. She has also admitted that at the instance of her husband, elder son Jitu and she came in the Court and as per the instructions of her husband and son she has deposed that before the death, deceased-Kiran had visited parental home on the occasion of Bhai Bij and her husband i.e. the accused no.1 had got written some letters by force from deceased daughter. She has stated that she cannot say as to when the papers were got written by the present accused from the deceased. She has also stated that after marriage four to five years cruelty was meted out by the accused and cruelty has increased in the last two years. She has admitted that after Diwali, she has no occasion to meet her daughter. She has also stated that she cannot say anything as to why her daughter has been burn. 11. PW-4, Mansukh Jivanbhai, Exh.20 has stated in his evidence that on the date of the incident, he had received telephone call from his brother-in-law Haresh Bachubhai and, therefore, they went at Junagadh Civil Hospital. He has stated that his cousin Masukhbhai Kanabhai Gohil told him that deceased has died, but, he was not informed as to how she has died. He has stated that he did not go to the hospital, where the dead body of the deceased was lying. He has also stated that marriage life of the deceased was of seven years and out of wedlock two sons were born to the deceased. According to this witness, his wife has told him once that there is harassment to the deceased in her matrimonial house. He has also stated that the deceased was instructed not to talk with him. He has also stated that his wife has also informed him that the husband of the deceased did not like the deceased having any conversation with anybody. He has also stated that except above facts, no other facts were narrated by the deceased to his wife. He has also stated that he did not come to know as to why the deceased committed suicide. He has also stated that except above facts, no other facts were narrated by the deceased to his wife. He has also stated that he did not come to know as to why the deceased committed suicide. 11.1 It appears from the evidence that he has not supported the version of the prosecution in chief-examination. Therefore, he is declared hostile by the prosecution and he has been thoroughly cross-examined regarding the facts narrated by him in his police statement. However, in such cross-examination also, nothing helpful to the prosecution has come out. He has admitted that police has arrived for interrogation on 23.11.2003 but he was not interrogated and his parent in-laws were interrogated. At the next moment, he has stated that no interrogation of his mother-in-law was carried out. He has also stated that when statements were being recorded, he was not present and when he went to the room at upstairs, he found that police was recording the statement of his brother-in-law, his parents in-law and, at that time, some other persons were also present and at that time, his brother-in-law has not narrated anything before police. According to him, the police has asked his name and address only and nothing was asked to him regarding the incident. He has admitted that till the date of deposition, he was not interrogated by police. Certain contradictions came on record, in chief-examination, have been proved. He has also admitted that when the deceased was alive, she has never told her that the accused Mahesh is doubting her character as she is talking with him being brother-in-law. 12. Jitubhai Bachubhai Vaja, PW-5, Exh.21, who is brother of the deceased, has categorically stated the same facts, which are narrated by his father and mother. He has stated that accused no.1 Mahesh has told him that his sister has got burn injury and she has been brought to the government hospital at Talala and, thereafter, he has also received second call to the effect that she has been shifted to Junagadh Civil Hospital and, therefore, they reached to Civil Hospital. He has stated that on inquiry from accused no.1, he came to know that deceased died due to blast of primus. He has stated that on inquiry from accused no.1, he came to know that deceased died due to blast of primus. He has also stated that when accused no.1 came to his house at Una Sugar Factory on the occasion of Diwali, the accused had informed him that even if he kills his sister, nobody can touch him and has also shown some papers telling that same have been got written from his sister by the accused. He has also stated that while his sister as well as husband of his sister i.e. accused no.1 were leaving his house, his sister told that there was some harassment to her by the accused. He has stated that as the marriage life is more than seven years old, they did not file any complaint. 12.1 During his cross-examination, improvements made in his deposition have been brought on record, which includes the version of showing of papers and threats being given by accused no.1. 13. PW-6, Karsanbhai Madhabhai Vala, Exh.22, who at the relevant time was working as PSO in Talala Police Station, had received accidental death entry no.83/2003 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., has recorded the same and, thereafter, papers from PSI Shri Vadher, he has collected the same and as the offence was of visitation by the higher officer, he informed the concerned police authorities and has recorded the complaint of the complainant. He has also stated that he got necessary report from FSL and the incident had happened in lavatory and he has also recorded statement of witnesses and has also seized the clothes. Thereafter, he handed over investigation to PI Shri Vadher. 13.1 During his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has recorded the statements of neighbours, however, those statements are not produced with charge sheet. He has also admitted that those statements are not referred to in the charge sheet as none of the witnesses has supported the case of the prosecution that the deceased has died due to cruelty and harassment by the accused. He has also stated that the facts revealed from those statements were pointing towards the fact that the accused were treating the deceased properly. He has admitted that yadi was sent from the hospital duty constable ASI for recording dying declaration. He has also stated that the facts revealed from those statements were pointing towards the fact that the accused were treating the deceased properly. He has admitted that yadi was sent from the hospital duty constable ASI for recording dying declaration. He has stated that he has not obtained any OPD papers from Talala Hospital nor obtained history from doctor and he has not mentioned the name of doctor of Talal Hospital as a witness. 13.2 He has also admitted that on 23.11.2003, he has not recorded the statement of witness Kankuben, Jitendra and Mansukhbhai on that day but he has recorded the statement of Bachubhai. 14. In view of above deposition of the police witness and on perusal of Exh.25, which is a yadi sent to Junagadh “B” Division Police Station by ASI from Civil Hospital Police Chawky, it reveals that the concerned person has reported that the deceased has been brought in a burnt condition and she was unconscious and, therefore, statement of her husband has been taken. 15. Shashikant Bhagwanjibhai, PW-7, Exh.26, has stated that on 25.11.2003 at about 10 a.m. he was called by the Talala Police and at that time, one Shri Laxmidas was also with him and police has got signature of both on paper and, at that time, no other except police were present. He has identified his signature on Exh.27 panchnama. According to him, they have stayed there for five to six minutes only. Thus, the factum of preparation of panchnama at Exh.27 is not proved the witness. However, he has not been declared as hostile. He has stated that when they were in the police station, three accused were present in police station. 16. PW-8, Laxmidas Girdharbhai, Exh.28, is the second panch of panchnama at Exh.27. He has supported the version of the prosecution. During his cross-examination, he has admitted that when he reached the police station, all the three accused were in the police station but he has no knowledge as to from where they were brought. 17. PW-9, Subhashbhai Fogabhai Vadher, Exh.29, police witness has stated in his deposition regarding the action taken by him during the course of investigation. He has stated that as there was sufficient material, charge sheet was filed by PSI, Taraiya. Nothing adverse has come out from his cross-examination by the defence. 18. 17. PW-9, Subhashbhai Fogabhai Vadher, Exh.29, police witness has stated in his deposition regarding the action taken by him during the course of investigation. He has stated that as there was sufficient material, charge sheet was filed by PSI, Taraiya. Nothing adverse has come out from his cross-examination by the defence. 18. On consideration of entire evidence on record, it transpires that initial treatment was given to the deceased at Talala Government Hospital, however, the doctor who has treated her, has not been examined by the prosecution. In view of the police yadi sent by ASI, Junagadh Civil Hospital police chawki, Junagadh, it is clear that the deceased was brought in burnt condition and she was unconscious. 19. On perusal of entire evidence on record, it transpires that the prosecution case is solely based on the complaint and the allegation that accused no.1, i.e. husband of the deceased, was doubting her chastity and the demand of dowry. It appears from the evidence on record that marriage life of the deceased with accused no.1 is ten years and from that wedlock they have two sons. It also reveals from the evidence that prior to the incident on Diwali occasion, deceased went to her parental home and she left parental home in joyous mood. It has also come on record that the deceased has died due to burn injuries caused to her body. It is also revealed that the deceased has committed suicide in a lavatory. Now one of the allegation of the prosecution is that when one of the relative got telephonic message from accused no.1, accused no.1 told them that the deceased has got burn injuries due to blast of primus. In this regard, if we peruse further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused no.1 has specifically stated that he has never told that the deceased has got injuries due to blast of primus. 20. On conjoint reading of the evidence of father, mother, brother, it reveals that all near relatives of the deceased have made improvements and additions in the narration of the facts during their depositions. The allegation of the prosecution is that accused no.1 has shown some papers to the brother of the deceased and stated that he has got it written down from his sister forcibly. The allegation of the prosecution is that accused no.1 has shown some papers to the brother of the deceased and stated that he has got it written down from his sister forcibly. But no such letters or papers have been recovered during investigation nor such papers have been produced by the prosecution. It is worthwhile to note that the police officer, who has recorded the statements of various witnesses includes the statements of neighbours, who have, according to police witness, not supported prosecution story and those statements were revealing that the deceased was being taken care of by the accused herein. It also reveals from the evidence that so far as demand of dowry is concerned, only vague allegations are made. Even regarding the allegation of doubting the chastity of the deceased by accused no.1 is also vague allegation. So far as evidence of brother-in-law of the deceased, who is husband of elder sister of the deceased, is concerned, it has come out that whatever he has stated is hearsay evidence. Therefore, the basic version of brother-in-law is based on hearsay evidence as whatever he has stated regarding doubting the chastity by accused no.1 is based on the facts narrated by his wife to him. Thus, the evidence of brother-in-law is in the nature of hearsay evidence. It is pertinent to note that the primary and best evidence is that of the elder sister of the deceased. She could have been examined by the prosecution to substantiate said allegations. But for whatever reasons this primary evidence is not laid by the prosecution. The entire case of the prosecution is based on hearsay evidence. 21. On scrutiny of entire evidence on record, it clearly transpires that there is no cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence regarding demand of dowry as well as cruelty to the deceased by the accused. The evidence on record is not cogent and reliable and, therefore, on the evidence available on record, no conviction could be made either under Section 498-(A) or under Section 306 of IPC. 22. On perusal of the impugned judgment of learned trial Court, it appears that learned Trial Court based it’s finding on assumption, presumption and conjectures. The evidence on record is not cogent and reliable and, therefore, on the evidence available on record, no conviction could be made either under Section 498-(A) or under Section 306 of IPC. 22. On perusal of the impugned judgment of learned trial Court, it appears that learned Trial Court based it’s finding on assumption, presumption and conjectures. It appears from the judgment that learned trial Court has not considered the evidence in proper perspective as nothing is disclosed in further statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, regarding the letters as well as allegations regarding doubting chastity of the deceased. On perusal of the further statement of three accused, it clearly transpires that they have specifically stated in their further statement that no letters or papers were got prepared forcibly by the accused nor accused no.1 has doubted the chastity of his wife. It appears that learned trial Judge has not read entire further statement of the accused. Of course, learned trial Judge has made observations philosophically regarding demand of dowry and cruelty but it is of paramount importance for the prosecution to lead evidence on the touchstone to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. There must be legal and valid evidence on record to convict the accused. Now, in this case, as observed herein above, the witnesses examined by the prosecution are not reliable and trustworthy. Under these circumstances, the impugned judgment of the trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 23. For the foregoing reasons, present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 18.1.2005 passed by learned Second Extra Assistant Judge, Veraval, in Sessions Case No.19 of 2004, convicting the appellants for the offences under Sections 498 (A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside so far as present appellants are concerned. The appellants-accused are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Fine, if paid, be refunded to them. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.