JUDGMENT : NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.03.2003, passed by the Learned Third Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Mungeli, District Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 148 of 1997, whereby and whereunder the Learned Third Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced him to undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that about 4 to 5 years prior to the date of incident, marriage of accused Shiv Prasad and deceased Geeta Bai was solemnized. It is alleged that while residing in the matrimonial home, deceased Geeta Bai was subjected to torture by the accused. It is also alleged that accused Shiv Prasad had illicit relationship with his sister-in-law and it was the reason that the deceased was tortured mentally and physically and dowry was also demanded from her. On the date of incident i.e. 14.8.1996, it was Holi festival and at about 7:00 p.m. the deceased was in the kitchen and her husband Shiv Prasad had been away from home and at that time rest of the accused persons poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire, due to which she got 80% burns. After the incident, Shiv Prashad returned to the place of incident. Deceased-Geeta Bai was admitted in District Hospital on 15.8.1996. One information was sent to P.S. Kotwali, Bilaspur vide Ex.P/5. Statement of the deceased was recorded on 16.8.1996 vide Ex.P/3. During the course of treatment, one dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, D.R. Khunte (DW-2). Later on, final dying declaration Ex.P/24 was again recorded by the Executive Magistrate, R.P. Tiwari (PW-20) on 21.8.1996 in which deceased-Geeta Bai stated that all the accused persons were actively engaged in pouring kerosene on her body and setting her on fire. Deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by her on 30.8.1996. 3. Merg intimation Ex.P/6 was recorded by P.S. Pandariya, District Bilaspur. Inquest on the dead body of the deceased was conducted vide Ex.P/2 and postmortem vide Ex.P/8 was conducted by Dr. Nilima Sharma (PW-13) alongwith Dr. K.K. Sharma in which it was opined that deceased-Geeta Bai died as a result of complications from burn injuries. 3. Merg intimation Ex.P/6 was recorded by P.S. Pandariya, District Bilaspur. Inquest on the dead body of the deceased was conducted vide Ex.P/2 and postmortem vide Ex.P/8 was conducted by Dr. Nilima Sharma (PW-13) alongwith Dr. K.K. Sharma in which it was opined that deceased-Geeta Bai died as a result of complications from burn injuries. On the basis of merg enquiry, First Information Report Ex.P/6-A was lodged on 3.10.1996 against the accused persons namely Krishna Bai, Sanat, Hirau, Kailashi Bai, Vaishkanya Bai, Parwati Bai, Sanat Satnami, Lakhuram and Hariram for the offence under Section 306/34. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’). After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted along with other co-accused. During pendency of the appeal, accused Hirau and Hariram expired. Except present appellant all the accused were charged under Section 302/149 IPC alternatively they were charged for commission of offence 304 B IPC. Appellant Shiv Prasad was charged under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC. The appellant denied the charges levelled against him. The prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses and the defence examined three witnesses. On being examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. denying all the incriminating evidence against him, the appellant pleaded innocence and false implication. It was submitted that the death of deceased-Geeta Bai was accidental. After giving opportunity of hearing and leading evidence to the prosecution and the defence, the impugned judgment has been passed in which accused-Shiv Prasad was convicted under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Hence, this appeal. 4. The ground taken by the appellant in this appeal is that the trial Court has erroneously passed the impugned judgment of conviction against the appellant. Statements of the prosecution witnesses were unreliable being full of contradictions and omissions on material particulars. The trial Court has erroneously relied on the last dying declaration dated 21.8.1996 ignoring the fact that in the earlier dying declaration, the deceased made a different statement that the incident was accidental. Hence, the multiple dying declarations were contrary to each other which could not have been relied upon to convict the accused. Hence, for these reasons, the appellant is entitled for acquittal and it is prayed that the impugned judgment may be set aside. 5. Hence, the multiple dying declarations were contrary to each other which could not have been relied upon to convict the accused. Hence, for these reasons, the appellant is entitled for acquittal and it is prayed that the impugned judgment may be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that Kamla Bai (PW-1) in paragraph-5 of her statement before the trial court has stated that her daughter told her that the appellant has not assaulted her. He would further submit that the trial Court erred in giving too much reliance on the dying declaration of the deceased. He would further submit that the trial Court was too harsh in the matter of punishment particularity when the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC only. He would further submit that the finding recorded by the trial Court for convicting the appellant under Section 498-A IPC without any evidence is illegal, even the allegation made against the appellant does not fall within the ambit of cruelty as defined under Section 498-A IPC. He would further submit that the prosecution has not brought any material on record to prove that the present appellant has caused mental torture to her on account of illicit relation of the appellant. He would further submit that the allegation levelled against the appellant will not fall any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman, even the allegation which made against the petitioner does not fall within the definition of cruelty. He would further submit that the proved that the appellant has illicit relation with his sister-in-law as such conviction is based upon no evidence. The appellant has placed reliance on the judgments rendered in Avinash Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand decided on 23.07.2021 and would pray for setting aside of judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the prosecution has proved the charge levelled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and would submit that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. 7. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the prosecution has proved the charge levelled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and would submit that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. 7. Considering the material on record and the arguments submitted from both the sides, the question in this appeal is, whether the conviction against the appellant is supported by evidence of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt? 8. Kamla Bai (PW-5), mother of deceased has stated in her examination in chief about the torture given to her daughter by accused Shiv Prasad also (husband of the deceased). But in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she has stated that if this facts are not written she cannot give any reason. She has stated that appellant Shiv Prasad has love affair with his sister-in-law Kakrabai. Another important witness is Jhumuk (PW-5), father of the deceased who has given similar statement about the torture given to his daughter for demand of dowry. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he did not inform the police about burn of deceased by appellant still the police has recorded it which he does not know. The witness in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that appellant Shiv Prasad was having good behaviour with Geeta Bai, subsequently to favour his sister-in-law, he started assaulting and misbehaving with the deceased. In the report Ex.D-2, deceased father has nowhere stated about alleged torture by Shiv Prasad/appellant. The statement recorded on 31.08.1996 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was exhibited as Ex.D-3 wherein she has not stated anything about alleged torture by the appellant. Bhagwat (PW-8) is cousin of the deceased. He has neither given any statement with regard to torture or ill-treatment of the deceased and nor has stated about the circumstances at the time of incident. Mithelal (PW-11) is another witness related to the deceased who has not given any statement in support of the prosecution. He has stated that Bhagwat is his nephew and Geetabai was his sister. Bhagwat has never informed him that Geeta bai was tortured in her matrimonial house. No other witness has been examined by the prosecution who could have stated about the circumstances before or at the time of incident. 9. He has stated that Bhagwat is his nephew and Geetabai was his sister. Bhagwat has never informed him that Geeta bai was tortured in her matrimonial house. No other witness has been examined by the prosecution who could have stated about the circumstances before or at the time of incident. 9. In the dying declaration statement dated 18.08.1996, the deceased has stated that she has not disputed with the in-laws and they have not deliberately burnt her. The said dying declaration was exhibited as Ex.D.-4. Apart from the evidence discussed above, the only evidence found against the appellant directly implicating him is the statement of Executive Magistrate, R.P. Tiwari (PW-20), who has stated that he recorded the dying declaration of Geeta Bai on 21.8.1996 at 6:00 pm in the District Hospital, Bilaspur. In this statement, Geeta Bai stated that Parvati, Krishna, Kalash and mother-in-law at first quarreled with her on the date and time of incident and then they set her body ablaze. She further stated that due to illicit relashipship her husband was quarrling with her but subsequently everything was settled which has caused jealous to them. 10. R.S. Baghel (PW-21) has stated that in Ex.D-1 statement the mother of Geetabai has not informed that Geetabai was tortured by Kalash, Krishna Bai, Parwati Bai, father-in-law, Hariram and her husband. He has stated that he has written all the statements as per version given by the witnesses. He has also stated that Kamla Bai has not informed him that wife of younger and elder brothers have killed Geeta Bai and her petticoat was burnt by kerosene oil. He has also stated that Geeta and Shiv Prasad were residing in separate house and rest of the elder brothers were residing in other house. 11. It is not disputed that deceased Geeta Bai suffered burn injuries on the date of incident i.e. on 14.8.1996. The witnesses of the investigative procedures Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-2) and Purushottam (PW-7) were also present in the inquest procedure. Head-Constable, R.M. Tripathi (PW-3). Constable-Devendra Tiwari (PW-4) helped in the investigative procedures. Spot map Ex.P/7 was prepared in presence of Khagdev (PW-9) and Dhanauprasad (PW-10). ASI, S.S. Rajput (PW-14) recorded the merg intimation Ex.P/6. Patwari, Prem Sai Keskar (PW-15) has prepared the spot map Ex.P/9. P. Nagendra Pratap Singh, SDO (PW-18) is the person who conducted some part of investigation. Head-Constable, R.M. Tripathi (PW-3). Constable-Devendra Tiwari (PW-4) helped in the investigative procedures. Spot map Ex.P/7 was prepared in presence of Khagdev (PW-9) and Dhanauprasad (PW-10). ASI, S.S. Rajput (PW-14) recorded the merg intimation Ex.P/6. Patwari, Prem Sai Keskar (PW-15) has prepared the spot map Ex.P/9. P. Nagendra Pratap Singh, SDO (PW-18) is the person who conducted some part of investigation. ASI, S.L. Sharma (PW-19) has conducted the merg enquiry procedure and the remaining investigation was conducted by Inspector, R.S. Baghel (PW-21). 12. Dr. S.G. Pandey (PW-16) examined deceased Geeta Bai on 19.8.1996 vide Ex.P/11 and reported that she had 80% burns on her body and she was referred to surgical specialist. Dr. Vinay Kumar Gupta (PW-17) has stated that Geeta Bai was admitted for treatment in District Hospital, Bilaspur on 15.8.1996. He sent the information to the police station that Geeta Bai expired on 19.6.1996 (Ex.P/12). Dr. Nilima Sharma (PW-13) has conducted the postmortem vide Ex.P/8 and reported that death of Geeta Bai was as a result of shock and septicemia because of excessive burn injuries, it is not under challenge. In cross-examination, she has stated that no opinion can be given whether the death of the deceased was homicidal or suicidal or accidental. 13. Head-Constable, R.M. Tripathi (PW-3) recorded the statement of injured Geeta Bai on 16.8.1996 vide Ex.P/3. In cross-examination, he stated that he recorded the statement as narrated by the deceased. The dying declaration could not be recorded on that day because the Executive Magistrate was not available Ex.P/3 is not signed or no thumb impression of the deceased was affixed on it, even then the statement of the Head-Constable, R.M. Tripathi (PW-3) stands as it is relied upon by the prosecution itself. This statement of the prosecution itself (Ex.P/3) can be read as the statement of the deceased and as a dying declaration describing the circumstances before the incident took place and the manner in which the incident took place. In Ex.P/3 there is no statement implicating the accused persons. It is alleged by counsel for the appellant that the prosecution suppressed the evidence of second dying declaration which was recorded on 18.8.1996 by the Executive Magistrate. On application of defence and by orders of the Court, Ex.D/4 dying declaration dated 18.8.1996 was produced before the Court. D.R. Khunte (DW-2) has stated that he was posted as Nayab Tehsildar in Bilaspur on 18.8.1996. On application of defence and by orders of the Court, Ex.D/4 dying declaration dated 18.8.1996 was produced before the Court. D.R. Khunte (DW-2) has stated that he was posted as Nayab Tehsildar in Bilaspur on 18.8.1996. On receiving the information for recording of dying declaration, he visited Burn Unit, District Hospital, Bilaspur on 18.8.1996 at 12:00 a.m. He recorded the statement of Geeta Bai, wife of Shiv Prasad who was in a fit state and the statement was certified by Nagendra Pratap Singh and the statement of Geeta Bai recorded vide Ex.D/4 on which he affixed his own signature and also got affixed the thumb impression of Geeta Bai. Other defence witnesses Jagmohan (DW-1) and Gautam (DW-3) have stated that deceased Geeta Bai accidentally caught fire and it was not a case that she was burnt by anybody. 14. This is a case where there are two dying declarations recorded by the Executive Magistrate contradicting each other on the contents of the statement given by the same person i.e. the deceased. Even if it is taken into consideration that the first statement Ex.P/3 was recorded on 16.8.1996 by the police officer, it is difficult to arrive at any conclusion as to which of the dying declaration Ex.P/24 or Ex.D/4 is worth reliance and reject the contents and the statement of the other dying declaration. The statement recorded by the Executive Magistrate has a sanctity. The certification of fitness of Geeta Bai is shown in both the dying declarations. The first dying declaration i.e. on 18.8.1996 Ex.D/4 is in conformity with statement given by the deceased in Ex.P/3, whereas the second dying declaration Ex.P/24 dated 21.8.1996 is a statement in total contradiction wherein the incident was converted from accidental to a criminal act of the appellant. It is not a case where some addition or alteration has been made to the previous statement of dying declaration made by the deceased, but here the subsequent statement has been recorded rejecting the previous statement dated 18.8.1996 and no explanation was sought by Executive Magistrate, R.K. Tiwari (PW-20) from the maker of the statement, the deceased as to why she has given a different statement than the earlier statement given by her. Hence, for this reason, there is nothing in Ex.P/24 or in the statement of R.P. Tiwari to suggest or explain that the earlier dying declaration Ex.D/4 was incorrectly recorded or recorded under some kind of pressure or the maker of the statement Geeta Bai was influenced or she was not in a fit state to give the statement. After giving due consideration to the merits of both the dying declarations Ex.P/24 and Ex.D/4, it is absolutely clear that the dying declaration Ex.P/24 does not rule out or rejects the earlier dying declaration Ex.D/4 in any respect. Hence, it was not possible for the Court to place reliance only on Ex.P/24 to record conviction against the appellant. Ex.P/24 does not inspire confidence in any manner. 15. Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2003 decided on arising of the same offence has acquitted the co-accused under Section 302/149 IPC, however, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Section 498-A IPC is upheld and co-accused have undergone the period of custody more than the sentence awarded for this offence. 16. The appellant was not party to the said appeal, therefore, this Court has to examine the evidence, material on record and with regard to involvement of the present appellant for commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC. 17. Considering the evidence of Kamla Bai (PW-5), Jhumuk (PW-5), Bhagwat (PW-8) and Mithelal (PW-11) respectively, they have nowhere stated about the involvement of the appellant for commission of offence. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution are the hearsay witnesses who were informed about the incident by the relative of the deceased and they have also not stated about ill-treatment or torture made by the appellant. Learned trial Court while recording the conviction of the appellant for commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC has recorded its finding at paragraph 29 of the judgment that in the dying declaration of Geetabai Ex.P-24 she has stated that they are quarreling with her and her husband has illicit relationship with her sister-in-law, therefore, he was quarreling with her subsequently everything was settled which has caused jealous to them, no other material was available with the learned trial Court to convict the appellant under Section 498-A IPC still it has convicted the appellant. 18. 18. The credibility of dying declaration Ex.P-24 has already been dislodged by the Hon’ble Division Bench in CRA No. 413 of 2003 wherein Hon’ble Division Bench has held as under “After giving due consideration to the merits of both the dying declarations Ex.P/24 and Ex.D/4, it is absolutely clear that the dying declaration Ex.P/24 does not rule out or rejects the earlier dying declaration Ex.D/4 in any respect. Hence, it was not possible for the Court to place reliance only on Ex.P/24 to record conviction against the appellant. Ex.P/24 does not inspire confidence in any manner.” 19. Now whether alleged illicit relationship of a husband with other woman will fall within the ambit of cruelty or not has to be examined by this Court. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant to substantiate his submission would submit that the illicit relationship cannot fall within the definition of cruelty as defined under Section 498-A IPC as such conviction of the appellant is bad in law. 21. It is well settled legal position of law that illicit relationship may be against the morality but it cannot be said that it is cruelty as defined under Section 498-A IPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.V. Prakash Babu vs. State of Karnataka, (2017) 11 SCC 176 has held in paragraph 12 to 14 as under: “12. The aforesaid analysis of the provision clearly spells how coercive harassment can have the attributes of cruelty that would meet the criterion as conceived of under Section 498-A of the IPC. Thus, the emphasis is on any willful conduct which is of such a nature that is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The mental cruelty which is engraved in the first limb of Section 498-A of the IPC has nothing to do with the demand of dowry. It is associated with mental cruelty that can drive a woman to commit suicide and dependent upon the conduct of the person concerned. 13. In this regard, Mr. Singh has drawn our attention to the authority in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat, (2013) 7 SCC 108 . It is associated with mental cruelty that can drive a woman to commit suicide and dependent upon the conduct of the person concerned. 13. In this regard, Mr. Singh has drawn our attention to the authority in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat, (2013) 7 SCC 108 . In the said case, the Court was dealing with as to whether relationship between the appellant and the second accused therein was extra-marital leading to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC and whether that would amount to abetment leading to the act of suicide within the meaning of Sections 306 IPC. Dealing with the extra-marital relationship, the Court has opined that marital relationship means the legally protected marital interest of one spouse to another which include marital obligation to another like companionship, living under the same roof, sexual relation and the exclusive enjoyment of them, to have children, their up-bringing, services in the home, support, affection, love, liking and so on, but extra-marital relationship as such is not defined in the IPC. The Court analyzing further in the context of Section 498A observed that the mere fact that the husband has developed some intimacy with another woman, during the subsistence of marriage and failed to discharge his marital obligations, as such would not amount to “cruelty” but it must be of such a nature as is likely to drive the spouse to commit suicide to fall within the explanation to Section 498A IPC. The Court further elucidated that harassment need not be in the form of physical assault and even mental harassment also would come within the purview of Section 498A IPC. Mental cruelty, of course, varies from person to person, depending upon the intensity and the degree of endurance, some may meet with courage and some others suffer in silence, to some it may be unbearable and a weak person may think of ending one’s life. The Court ruled that in the facts of the said case the alleged extra-marital relationship was not of such a nature as to drive the wife to commit suicide. The two-Judge Bench further opined that: “27. Section 306 IPC refers to abetment of suicide which says that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. The two-Judge Bench further opined that: “27. Section 306 IPC refers to abetment of suicide which says that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. The action for committing suicide is also on account of mental disturbance caused by mental and physical cruelty. To constitute an offence under Section 306, the prosecution has to establish that a person has committed suicide and the suicide was abetted by the accused. The Prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission of suicide. But for the alleged extra marital relationship, which if proved, could be illegal and immoral, nothing has been brought out by the prosecution to show that the accused had provoked, incited or induced the wife of commit suicide. 14. Slightly recently in Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya vs. State of Gujarat, (2015) 11 SCC 753 , the Court perusing the material on record opined that even if the illicit relationship is proven, unless some other acceptable evidence is brought on record to establish such high degree of mental cruelty the explanation (a) to Section 498-A of the IPC which includes cruelty to drive the woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted. The relevant passage from the said authority is reproduced below (SCC pp 759-760 Para 21) “21.........True it is, there is some evidence about the illicit relationship and even if the same is proven, we are of the considered opinion that cruelty, as envisaged under the first limb of Section 498-A IPC would not get attracted. It would be difficult to hold that the mental cruelty was of such a degree that it would drive the wife to commit suicide. Mere extra-marital relationship, even if proved, would be illegal and immoral, as has been said in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal (supra), but it would take a different character if the prosecution brings some evidence on record to show that the accused had conducted in such a manner to drive the wife to commit suicide. In the instant case, the accused may have been involved in an illicit relationship with the appellant no. In the instant case, the accused may have been involved in an illicit relationship with the appellant no. 4, but in the absence of some other acceptable evidence on record that can establish such high degree of mental cruelty, the Explanation to Section 498A which includes cruelty to drive a woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted.” 22. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Wasim vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 7 SCC 435 has held in paragraph 11 to 14: 11. Cruelty is dealt with in the Explanation to Section 498-A as follows: 498A. 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. Explanation: For the purpose of this section “cruelty” means: (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 12. Conviction under Section 498A IPC is for subjecting a woman to cruelty. Cruelty is explained as any wilful conduct which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. Harassment of a woman by unlawful demand of dowry also partakes the character of “Cruelty.” It is clear from a plain reading of Section 498A that conviction for an offence under Section 498A IPC can be for wilful conduct which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide OR for dowry demand. Having held that there is no evidence of dowry demand, the Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 498A IPC for his wilful conduct which drove the deceased to commit suicide. The Appellant was also convicted under Section 306 IPC as the Trial Court found him to have abetted the suicide by the deceased. 13. Having held that there is no evidence of dowry demand, the Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 498A IPC for his wilful conduct which drove the deceased to commit suicide. The Appellant was also convicted under Section 306 IPC as the Trial Court found him to have abetted the suicide by the deceased. 13. Section 306 IPC provides for punishment with imprisonment that may extend to ten years. There should be clear mens rea to commit the offence for conviction under Section 306 IPC. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide-See M. Mohan vs. State1. To attract the ingredients of abetment, the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide is necessary [See: Pallem Deniel Victoralions Victor Manter vs. State of Andhra Pradesh]. Whereas, any wilful conduct which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide is sufficient for conviction under Section 498A IPC. In this case, the High Court recorded a categorical finding that neither mental nor physical cruelty on the part of the Appellant was proved. Therefore, the conviction under Section 498A IPC is not for wilful conduct that drove the deceased to commit suicide. The High Court held that though there was no demand of dowry soon before the death, the prosecution proved dowry demand by the Appellant immediately after the marriage. 14. The High Court ought not to have convicted the Appellant under Section 498A for demand of dowry without a detailed discussion of the evidence on record, especially when the Trial Court found that there is no material on record to show that there was any demand of dowry. High Court did not refer to such findings of the Trial Court and record reasons for its disapproval. 23. Thus considering the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution particularly, from the evidence of Kamla Bai (PW-5), Jhumuk (PW-5), Bhagwat (PW-8) and Mithelal (PW-11), it is quite vivid, that they have nowhere stated about the involvement of the appellant for commission of offence. if their complete statements are taken into consideration, it creates a doubt that the deceased died because of being subjected to cruelty by the accused/appellant. if their complete statements are taken into consideration, it creates a doubt that the deceased died because of being subjected to cruelty by the accused/appellant. Even the dying declaration of deceased Geeta Bai, has lost its relevancy in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench passed in CRA No. 413 of 2003 arising out of the same incident and also considering the above stated law the alleged illicit relationship does not fall within the ambit of cruelty, as such the finding recorded by learned Court does not suffer from perversity, illegality and on the basis of this perverse finding, judgment of conviction passed by trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 498A/34 of the IPC deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. The appellant is acquitted form the charge levelled against him. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.