JUDGMENT : Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 20/11/1999 passed by 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial no. 177/1995, whereby the appellants have been convicted under sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code ( in short ”IPC”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 500/- each with default stipulation. 2. Necessary facts for disposal of present appeal in short are that appellant no. 1 Khema is the husband of deceased Bhagubai and appellant no. 2 Beenubai @ Kamlabai is the mother-in-law of the deceased. Marriage of the deceased was taken place with appellant no. 1 Khema three years prior to the incident. It is alleged that immediately, after the marriage, present appellants as well as co-accused Radho, who is brother-in-law of the deceased started treating the deceased with cruelty and harassing her for demand of dowry. As a result of which, parents of the deceased took back the deceased to their home. Four months before the incident, appellant no. 1 Khema alongwith same community persons went to the house of father of the deceased and after reconciliation, appellant Khema brought the deceased to her matrimonial home, but despite his assurance, the appellants continued to harass and pressurize the deceased for bringing money from her father. The deceased narrated the entire incident to her parents at the occasion of Rakshabandhan festival. On 12/09/1994. on account of cruelty and harassment by the appellants, the deceased committed suicide in her matrimonial place by drowning herself in a pond. Accordingly, merg no. 32/1994 was registered and Sub-Inspector R.N. Gurjar stated merg inquiry. He prepared dead body panchanam vide Ex.-P/5 and spot-map vide Ex.-P/7 as also, made an application for conducting postmortem of the deceased vide Ex.-P/6. After recording the statements of the witnesses, the police came to the conclusion that offence under section304-B and 498-A of IPC had been committed. Accordingly, FIR was registered against the appellants and co-accused Radho. They were arrested. The deceased's thigh bone and visara were sent for analysis to FSL. After receiving FSL report, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellants and co-accused Radho. 3. The trial Court framed the charges under section 304-B and 498-A of IPC against the appellants and co-accused Radho. The appellants and the co-accused abjured their guilt and took a plea that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. After receiving FSL report, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellants and co-accused Radho. 3. The trial Court framed the charges under section 304-B and 498-A of IPC against the appellants and co-accused Radho. The appellants and the co-accused abjured their guilt and took a plea that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Kalabai (PW-1), Asharam (PW-2), Dr. Rajkumar Singh (PW-3), constable Shyam (PW-4) Kamlabai (PW-5), Tukaram (PW-6) and Sub-Inspector R.N. Gurjar(PW-7). The appellants did not examine any witness in their defence. 5. The trial Court after due consideration of the evidence available on record, convicted the appellants under section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-each with default stipulation, however, co-accused Radho had been acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. Both the appellants were acquitted from the charge under section 304-B of IPC. Acquittal of the co-accused and acquittal of the appellant from the charge under section 304-B of IPC have not been challenged either by the prosecution or by the complainant, therefore, any reference to the acquitted co-accused person would be coincidental and would be for the purpose of consideration of allegation made against the appellants only. 6. In this case, it is an admitted fact that appellant no. 1 Khema is the husband of deceased Bhagubai and their marriage was solemnized three years prior to the incident. Appellant no. 2 Beenubai is the mother-in-law of the deceased. It is also an admitted fact that deceased Bhagubai had died on 12/09/1994 and her cause of death was the drowning in water. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the prosecution witnesses has stated the only fact in their statement that money was being demanded by the appellants and the deceased was beaten by the appellants, but there is no evidence available on record to the effect that in which manner marpeet (beating) was taken place; when marpeetwas taken place; on which date and in which manner, the dowry was demanded. As per the statement of the Doctor, it has been established that the deceased was not subjected to beating and no injuries were found over her body. The prosecution did not examined the Investigating Officer and seizure witnesses. There is no eye witness to the incident. As per the statement of the Doctor, it has been established that the deceased was not subjected to beating and no injuries were found over her body. The prosecution did not examined the Investigating Officer and seizure witnesses. There is no eye witness to the incident. All the witnesses are only hearsay witnesses. There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was even harassed for demand of dowry. Under these circumstances, present appellants deserve for grant of acquittal from the offences. 8. Per-contra, learned PL for the respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and prays for dismissal of present appeal by submitting that the trial Court, after appreciating the evidence available on record in detail, came to the conclusion that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellants for demand of dowry; the appellants used to maltreat the deceased, even after the assurance given by the appellants to the parents of the deceased; behavour of the appellants did not improve and they continuously treated the deceased with cruelty. Learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in holding that the appellants are guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC, therefore, present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for both the prates and perused the record of the trial Court with due care. 10. It is not disputed that deceased Bhagubai was found dead in unnatural condition in her matrimonial place within seven years of her marriage. Prosecution witness Kalabai, mother of the deceased has deposed in her statement that whenever the deceased used to visit her maternal home, she told that the appellants demanded Rs. 10,000-20,000/-and told her that she would not live life. The deceased also narrated that her mother-in-law and husband also used to beat her. 11. Prosecution witness Asharam, father of the deceased has deposed in his statement that when the deceased used to come at his home, she told him that her husband Khema used to demand money, therefore, he had given Rs. 5000/-for first time and Rs. 10,000/-in second time to appellant Khema before one year of the incident, even though appellant Khema used to beat her after consuming liquor. Due to which, he had not sent the deceased to her matrimonial home. 5000/-for first time and Rs. 10,000/-in second time to appellant Khema before one year of the incident, even though appellant Khema used to beat her after consuming liquor. Due to which, he had not sent the deceased to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, on the advice by the relatives of both the parties, he had sent the deceased to her matrimonial home, but after 2-3 months, dead body of deceased Bhagubai was recovered from the pond. Kamlabai (PW-5) also deposed in her statement that whenever deceased Bhagubai came to her home, she told that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and mother-in-law and they were also demanding Rs. 10,000/-. After sometime, she came to know that Bhagubai died. Tukaram (PW-6), uncle of the deceased also stated in his statement that Bhagubai told him that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband, brother-in-law and mother-in-law. Husband Khema used to beat her in cruel manner. She was being pressurized for bringing Rs. 5000/-from her father for business purpose, then Asharam gave Rs. 5000/-to appellant Khema. After sometime, appellant Khema again demanded for money, then Asharam retained the deceased in his home and not sent to her matrimonial home. After the advice by the relatives, he sent the deceased to the matrimonial home, but appellant Khema again used to beat the deceased, due to which, she committed suicide. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that there are so many contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, they cannot be relied upon. Though some contradictions and omissions have been brought on record regarding amount of money given by father of the deceased to the appellant Khema, duration of stay of the deceased at her parental home and compromise proceedings, but these contradictions and omissions are not so material to the effect of their credibility in this regard. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the prosecution witnesses are the close relatives of the deceased and no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution, but it is well established principal of law that the evidence of the witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he/she is relative or interested witness. 14. The Supreme Court in the case of Mahavir Singh vs. State of M.P. reported in (2016) 10 SCC 220 has held as under:- "18. 14. The Supreme Court in the case of Mahavir Singh vs. State of M.P. reported in (2016) 10 SCC 220 has held as under:- "18. The High Court has attached a lot of weight to the evidence of the said Madho Singh (PW 9) as he is an independent witness. On perusal of the record, it appears that the said person already had deposed for the victim family on a number of previous occasions, that too against the same accused. This being the fact, it is important to analyse the jurisprudence on interested witness. It is a settled principle that the evidence of interested witness needs to be scrutinised with utmost care. It can only be relied upon if the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy. Here we may refer to chance witness also. It is to be seen that although the evidence of a chance witness is acceptable in India, yet the chance witness has to reasonably explain the presence at that particular point more so when his deposition is being assailed as being tainted. 19. A contradicted testimony of an interested witness cannot be usually treated as conclusive." The Supreme Court in the case of Harbeer Singh vs. Sheeshpal reported in (2016) 16 SCC 418 has held as under: "18. Further, the High Court has also concluded that these witnesses were interested witnesses and their testimony was not corroborated by independent witnesses. We are fully in agreement with the reasons recorded by the High Court in coming to this conclusion. In Darya Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 1965 AIR 328 : 1964 SCR (7) 397, Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that a related or interested witness may not be hostile to the assailant, but if he is, then his evidence must be examined very carefully and all the infirmities must be taken into account. This is what this Court said: (AIR p. 331, para 6) "6. There can be no doubt that in a murder case when evidence is given by near relatives of the victim and the murder is alleged to have been committed by the enemy of the family, criminal courts must examine the evidence of the interested witnesses, like the relatives of the victim, very carefully. ... There can be no doubt that in a murder case when evidence is given by near relatives of the victim and the murder is alleged to have been committed by the enemy of the family, criminal courts must examine the evidence of the interested witnesses, like the relatives of the victim, very carefully. ... But where the witness is a close relation of the victim and is shown to share the victim's hostility to his assailant, that naturally makes it necessary for the criminal courts to examine the evidence given by such witness very carefully and scrutinise all the infirmities in that evidence before deciding to act upon it. In dealing with such evidence, courts naturally begin with the enquiry as to whether the said witnesses were chance witnesses or whether they were really present on the scene of the offence. ... If the criminal court is satisfied that the witness who is related to the victim was not a chance witness, then his evidence has to be examined from the point of view of probabilities and the account given by him as to the assault has to be carefully scrutinised." However, I do not wish to emphasise that the corroboration by independent witnesses is an indispensable rule in cases where the prosecution is primarily based on the evidence of seemingly interested witnesses. 15. The principles that have been stated in number of cases are to the effect that evidence of an interested witness can be relied upon if it is found to be trustworthy and credible. Needless to say, a testimony, if after careful scrutiny is found as unreliable and improbable or suspicious it ought to be rejected. That apart, when a witness has a motive or makes false implication, the court before relying upon his testimony should seek corroboration in regard to material particular, but in the present case, Kalabai (PW-1) and Asharam (PW-2) are the parents of the deceased and Tukaram (PW-6) is the uncle of the deceased as well as Kamlabai (PW-5) is the neighbour of mother of the deceased. It is quite natural that married woman does not disclose anything against her husband and his parents before unknown person. In our society, such married woman narrates such incident only before her parents and very close relatives to save her future marital life. It is quite natural that married woman does not disclose anything against her husband and his parents before unknown person. In our society, such married woman narrates such incident only before her parents and very close relatives to save her future marital life. Therefore, in view of the above, all these witnesses are the independent witnesses; they cannot be treated as interested witnesses. 16. So far as the non-examination of the independent witnesses is concerned, the prosecution story cannot be thrown only on the ground that the independent witnesses have not come forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. It is being observed that now a days, the independent witnesses are showing their indifferent attitude towards the offence and they always try to stay away as neither they are interested in taking any pains for deposing before the Court nor they want to spoil their relationship with the accused persons. Under these circumstances, merely because the neighbourer are not examined by the prosecution to prove the harassment or cruelty by the appellant, it would not ipso facto mean that the evidence of Kalabai (PW-1), Asharam(PW-2), Kamlabai (PW-5) and Tukaram (PW6) is not worth reliance. 17. So far as the minor omissions in the evidence is concerned, it is well established principle of law that every omission cannot take shape of a contradiction and unless and until it is pointed out that the omission or improvement goes to the root of the case, the same cannot be treated as contradiction. The Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Singh vs. Mahabeer Singh & Ors. reported in (2017) 11 SCC 195 has held as under:- "29. It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission. (See Rammi Vs. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 649 ; Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525 ; Bihari Nath Goswami Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh., (2004) 9 SCC 186 ; Vijay Vs. State of M. 18 It is also contended on behalf of the appellants that the deceased or her parents did not lodge any report at police station against the appellants regarding cruelty and demand of dowry prior to the death of the deceased. In our society, family members of married woman always make attempt to settle the matter amicably to save marital life of their daughter or sister. It is a case of the year 1994 i.e. about 26 years ago. In rural background, generally family members of the married lady do not go to the police, unless situation become so harsh; that they have no option to make complaint to police or move before Court, because it is common perception that once matter goes to police, then possibility of reconciliation becomes so weak. 19 In the present case, close relatives of the deceased and some responsible member of the society were trying for reconciliation between the deceased and her husband and due to such reconciliation/settlement, the deceased again went to her matrimonial home. Under these circumstances, even no complaint was made to the police regarding demand of dowry or torture being made by the accused, it does not made any difference or it could not be said fatal for the prosecution. Under these circumstances, even no complaint was made to the police regarding demand of dowry or torture being made by the accused, it does not made any difference or it could not be said fatal for the prosecution. 20 Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Heera Lal and another Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2017 SC 2425 to substantiate his arguments. 21 In this regard, statements of the prosecution witnesses have already been referred, wherein they have categorically stated that demand of dowry was made by the appellants and cruelty was practiced on the deceased. All the prosecution witnesses are reliable and trustworthy. Their statement is well supported by other circumstances proved by the prosecution. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment delivered in Heeralal (supra) has no application in the present case. 22. After appreciation and marshaling of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, this Court is of the considered opinion that the deceased was being pressurized by the present appellants for demand of dowry and the deceased used to intimate her parents and other close relatives about the same, therefore, offence punishable under section 498-A of the IPC has been successfully and beyond reasonable doubt, has been established by the prosecution, therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment regarding conviction of the appellants passed by the Court below. 23. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the trial court has sentenced the appellants for two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-each under section 498-A of IPC. If the facts of the case are considered, then it would be clear that initially the deceased was harassed and mal-treated by the appellants and due to which, she was retained by her parents in maternal home, thereafter, appellant Khema took the deceased back to matrimonial home, but she was again tortured and harassed by the appellants for demand of dowry. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sentence imposed upon the appellants by the trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 24. Resultantly, the conviction and sentence passed 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial no. 177/1995 vide judgment dated 20/11/1999 is hereby affirmed. 25. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sentence imposed upon the appellants by the trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 24. Resultantly, the conviction and sentence passed 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial no. 177/1995 vide judgment dated 20/11/1999 is hereby affirmed. 25. The appellants are on bail; their bail bonds are cancelled. They are directed to surrender immediately before the trial Court to undergo their remaining jail sentence. 26. Present Criminal Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Certified copy, as per Rules.