(1.) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal no. 501/96 and Criminal Appeal No. 504/96 arising out of the same judgment dated 9. 3. 96 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S. T. No. 25/91.

(2.) APPELLANTS Vijay Bahadur, Hansavati and Rajeshwari Devi have been convicted under Section 498-A, 304-B and Section 201 of IPC and each of them sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years, seven years and three years with fine of Rs. 200/- for the respective offences, while appellant Jaibharat has been convicted only under section 201 of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 200/- by the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, appellants vijay Bahadur, Hansavati and Rajeshwari Devi preferred Criminal Appeal no. 501/96, whereas appellant Jaibharat preferred Criminal Appeal No. 504/96.

(3.) ACCORDING to prosecution, deceased Sheela Devi was married to one Prabhakar Singh of Village Bahera-Dabar, Mauganj, district Rewa in the year 1988. Deceased Sheela Devi (hereinafter referred to as deceased) died on 6. 10. 90, i. e. , within seven years of her marriage. Prabhakar Singh, the husband of the deceased was in service at Sidhi and used to live there. Appellants Vijay Bahadur, Hansavati and rajeshwari, who are respectively brother, mother and sister of the husband of deceased, used to harass her and subjected her to beating and torture for dowry complaining that her father had not given enough dowry. Deceased used to make oral complaints to her parents that the appellants were harassing her for more dowry. Dharmraj Singh, the father of the deceased, therefore, brought her to his place. However, in august 1990, appellants Vijay Bahadur and Jaibharat came and took the deceased with them to her matrimonial home for participating in the death anniversary of the wife of appellant Vijay Bahadur assuring that she would not have any problem; but on 6. 10. 90 she was done to death by the appellants and without informing the parents or the Police, her dead body was cremated. When Dharmaraj Singh came to know of her death from one Tilakdhari on 15. 10. 90, he made a written complaint to the Police on 16. 10. 90, on the basis of which an offence was registered against the appellants and was investigated. After due investigation, appellants were prosecuted under Section 498-A, 304-B, 201 of IPC and were put to trial.

(4.) APPELLANTS Vijay Bahadur, Hansavati and Rajeshwari Devi were charged under Section 498-A, 304-B and Section 201 of IPC, whereas appellant Jaibharat was charged only under Section 201 of IPC for causing disappearance of the evidence of commission of the offence of dowry death. Appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.

(5.) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, found the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them as mentioned hereinabove by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal.

(6.) ARGUMENTS of both the sides were heard. Record of the lower court is perused.

(7.) IT was no longer disputed that deceased Sheela died in her matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage with prabhakar Singh of village Bahera-Dabar, Mauganj, District Rewa. It was also not disputed that appellants Vijay Bahadur, Hansawati and rajeshwari are the relatives of the husband of the deceased, being the brother, mother and sister of her husband. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants, however, submitted that the trial court erroneously convicted them under Section 498-A, 304-B and 201 of IPC without there being any cogent and reliable evidence against them. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence properly and failed to consider that deceased Sheela met a natural death due to illness and as such there was no question of informing Police about her death and causing disappearance of evidence of the commission of offence of dowry death. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that appellant jaibharat was also erroneously convicted without there being any evidence against him.

(8.) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction and sentence of the appellants.

(9.) EVIDENCE on record is perused. The prosecution has examined as many as fourteen witnesses to establish the guilt of the appellants. However, Raghuraj Singh (P. W-1), Raghupat Singh (P. W-2), bihari Singh (P. W-3), Jaymanti (P. W-4) as well as Surajdeen (P. W-6), mahesh Pratap Singh (P. W-7), Rajendra Singh (P. W-13) and Kanti Singh (P. W-14) have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile to prosecution. According to these witnesses (P. W-1 to p. W-4, P. W-6 and P. W-7), deceased Sheela died of short illness and her cremation was done as per prevailing customs. The conviction of the appellants is based on the testimony of related witnesses, namely, dharmraj Singh (P. W-9), Shanti Devi (P. W-11), Jamadar Singh (P. W-12)and Thanedar Singh (P. W-10). Dharmraj Singh (P. W-9) and Shanti Devi (P. W-11) are the parents of the deceased, while Jamadar Singh (P. W-12)and Thanedar Singh (P. W-10) are her brothers. The written report (Ex. P-9) of the incident was lodged by Dharmraj Singh (P. W-9), the father of the deceased.

(10.) DHARMRAJ Singh (P. W-9) deposed in his evidence that when his daughter Sheela came back to his place two months after her marriage, she complained to her mother that her in-laws were harassing and humiliating her for dowry. According to P. W-9 Dharmraj Singh, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand) was settled as dowry and he had paid Rs. 8000/- (rupees eight thousand) in cash and articles worth rs. 2000/- (rupees two thousand), but he failed to pay remaining five thousand rupees due to his poor financial position. He had also complained to appellant Vijay Bahadur Singh about the harassment meted out to the deceased, but appellant Vijay Bahadur assured him that Sheela would not have any trouble in future, therefore, she was sent with him for matrimonial home. However, when his daughter sheela came back again, she was not willing to go to her in-laws place as they harassed her and she apprehended that they would kill her. Thereafter when appellants Vijay Bahadur and Jaibharat came back to take his daughter to her in-laws place, he declined to send her with them, but on their assurance she was sent to her matrimonial home, and two-three months thereafter, she died. According to Dharmraj Singh (P. W-9), the in-laws of her daughter did not inform him about her death and he came to know it through one Tilakdhari, who returned from appellants village. Thereafter, he left for their village and lodged a written report (Ex. P-9) at the Police Station.

(11.) SHANTI Devi (P. W-11), the mother of the deceased also deposed in her evidence that amount of Rs. 15000/- was settled to be given in the marriage of her daughter Sheela, out of which Rs. 8,000/-and articles worth Rs. 2000/- were given to her in-laws and a sum of rs. 5000/- remained to be paid; when her daughter came back after two months of her marriage, she disclosed that her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law were beating her complaining non-payment of money by her father. Deceased Sheela also used to tell her that remaining amount of dowry should be paid to her in-laws, otherwise she would be killed.

(12.) ACCORDING to Shanti Devi (P. W-11), Sheela was taken back to her in-laws place because of death of the wife of appellant vijay Bahadur and when Thanedhar Singh (P. W-10) went to meet her, the appellants complained to him that Dharmraj Singh had not given remaining amount of dowry so they would kill his daughter, they also gave beating to the deceased before him. Deceased was then called back to her parents and she declined to go to her in-laws place apprehending her death, but she was again taken back by appellants vijay Bahadur and Jaibharat for participating in death anniversary of the wife of appellant Vijay Bahadur on the assurance given by appellant jaibharat, but Sheela died thereafter. According to Shanti Devi (P. W-11), appellants never informed her of the death of her daughter sheela and she came to know of the same from one Tilakdhari when he came from their village.

(13.) THANEDAR Singh (P. W-10), the cousin brother of the deceased, also deposed that he had gone to village Bahera-Dabar seven months prior to the death of deceased Sheela and happened to meet her at her place, where appellant Vijay Bahadur, his sister and mother (two other appellants) were also present. Appellant Jaibharat also came there. According to Thanedar Singh (P. W-10), appellants Vijay Bahadur and Jaibharat told him that Dharamraj Singh had not given the remaining amount of dowry of Rs. 5000/-, therefore, Sheela would be killed anytime and she would also meet the same fate as the wife of appellant Vijay Bahadur had met. Her mother-in-law and sister-in-law also began abusing and beating her in his presence.

(14.) ACCORDING to Jamadar Singh (P. W-12), the real brother of the deceased, appellants used to trouble and harass the deceased for remaining amount of dowry and when he had gone to take his sister two months after her marriage, her mother-in-law had asked him to make the payment, else Sheela would be killed. According to this witness, appellant Vijay Bahadur had also asked for money, thereafter he had brought back his sister; again when appellant Vijay Bahadur came to escort the deceased to her in-laws place, it was agreed that when the crop would be ready, the money would be arranged and paid.

(15.) JAMADAR Singh (P. W-12) further deposed that when thanedar Singh (P. W-10) came back from the appellants village and informed that Sheela was given beating for dowry in his presence, he brought back his sister Sheela, but she was again sent to her matrimonial home at the instance of appellants Vijay Bahadur and jaibharat for participating in the death anniversary of appellant vijay Bahadurs wife upon the assurance given by them, though his sister sheela was weeping and not willing to go to appellants place and thereafter she died; the intimation of her death was not given to them. P. W-12 Jamadar Singh also deposed that when he had gone to take back her sister for the second time, her mother-in-law had given her beating and told him that "rqe yksx pksj gks] vksj islk ugh ns jgs gks".

(16.) THE aforesaid related witnesses were cross-examined at length. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that their evidence is not cogent and reliable and the theory of demand of dowry and cruelty to the deceased has been invented later on. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that there were no allegations of cruelty against appellants in the written report (Ex. P-9)and even in their evidence there were no specific allegation of cruelty against each of the appellants and these witnesses have tried to make a generalized statement against them. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the evidence of mother of the deceased, namely, Shanti devi (P. W-11) suffered from material omissions and contradictions from her previous Police statement (Ex. D-2) regarding allegations of marpeet and demand of Rs. 5000/- by the appellants made before Thanedhar (P. W-10). Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the brother of the deceased, namely, Jamadar Singh (P. W-12) had given a totally new theory in para 2 and 3 of his deposition, which was never narrated by her mother Shanti Devi (P. W-11) and father Dharmraj Singh (P. W-9). Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously urged that virtually there was no such cogent and reliable evidence that deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death or she met an unnatural death. Reliance was placed in this behalf on decision rendered by this court in the case of Dinesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of M. P. Reported in 2006 (3)MPLJ page 82 and the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Hira lal and Ors. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi reported in AIR 2003 supreme Court page 2865 and State of Karnataka Vs. M. V. Manjunathegowda and another reported in 2003 (2) Supreme court Cases page 188 and it was submitted that the presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act is a rebuttable presumption and it can operate only when the ingredients of offence under Section 304-B are proved.

(17.) NO doubt, in order to establish the guilt under Section 304-B of IPC the essential ingredients of the offence have to be proved by the prosecution. As also held and reiterated by the Apex Court from time to time in catena of decisions reported in AIR 2003 Supreme court page 2865 (Hira Lal and Ors. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi (Supra), AIR 2005 Supreme Court page 785 (Kamesh Panjiyar @ kamlesh Panjiyar Vs. State of Bihar) 2008 AIR SCW 8241 (Baldev Sing Singh Vs. State of Punjab) and 2009 AIR SCW page 536 (Prem Kanwar Vs. Sate of Rajasthan) in order to attract Section 304-B of IPC the following essential ingredients are to be satisfied:-

(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances. (ii) Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage. (iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and (iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry. (v) Such cruelty or harassment should be meted out to the woman soon before her death.

(18.) IN the instant case, as said earlier, it was not disputed that deceased Sheela died at her matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage. Learned senior counsel for the appellants, however, submitted that it was a natural death, as evident from the testimony of the number of prosecution witnesses, who have deposed that deceased sheela died due to illness and fever. It is pertinent to mention that the witnesses (P. W-1 to 4 and P. W-6 and 7), who have deposed about the illness of the deceased prior to her death, are hostile witnesses and they have also been confronted with their Police Statement in this regard, where they have given a different version against the appellants. A perusal of the evidence of these witnesses, namely, Raghuraj Singh (P. W-1), Raghupat Singh (P. W-2), Bihari Singh (P. W-3), Jaymanti (P. W-4), Surajdeen (P. W-6) and Mahesh Pratap Singh (P. W-7) indicates that they are out to help the appellants and their evidence is not found to be dependable and acceptable. Some of the witnesses like bihari Singh (P. W-3) and Jaymanti (P. W-4) have said that deceased sheela was ailing and suffering from fever for last three-four days and was being given treatment of some Doctor of Mauganj, while the other witnesses like Raghuraj Singh (P. W-1), Raghupat Singh (P. W-2) have said that Sheela could not be taken to the Hospital, as no conveyance for mauganj was available in the village; Surajdeen (P. W-6), on the other hand, said that when some efforts were made to take the deceased to mauganj Hospital, she expired. There was also no medical prescription or any other document putforth on record to show that Sheela was taken to the Hospital or was treated by some doctor. Had she been suffering from fever or some ailment like chest pain etc. , she must have been shown to some doctor in the village or nearby Hospital. Thus, the plea that Sheela was ailing and suffering from fever from last three-four days is not found to be acceptable in absence of any medical evidence on record.

(19.) IT also transpires from the evidence of Dharmraj Singh (P. W-9), Shanti Devi (P. W-11) and Jamadar Singh (P. W-12), who are the parents and brother of the deceased, that they were not informed of the death of Sheela. The statement of mother, father and brother of the deceased to the effect that they were not informed of the death of deceased Sheela Bai by the appellants, has virtually remained uncontroverted during their cross-examination. Although a faint plea was taken by appellants Vijay Bahadur and Hansavati that the information was sent to the parents of the deceased through one suresh Singh, but said Suresh Singh has not been examined. Thus, it appears to be an after thought. It is also abundantly clear from the evidence on record that the parents of the deceased or any member of the family of deceased from her parental side did not participate in the funeral or cremation of the deceased, which evidently took place next day noon and the deceased had died in the night. Had parents of the deceased been informed, someone from their family could have come to the village on the news of death of the deceased. Therefore, in view of these facts, the statement of the parents of deceased that appellants never informed them of the death of their daughter and they came to know of her death after few days through one Tilakdhari, cannot be disbelieved. The conduct of the appellants in not informing death of the deceased is quite suspicious. In view of the aforesaid facts that the death of the deceased Sheela was not informed to her parents and her cremation was done without informing and waiting for her parents and there was no medical evidence that deceased Sheela died of illness, the inevitable conclusion would be that deceased Sheela died under suspicious circumstance a and her death occurred otherwise than in normal circumstance. The Apex Court in the case of Smt. Shanti and another Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1991)1 Supreme court Cases 371 [LQ/SC/1973/400] in the similar facts and circumstances, where the parents of the deceased were not informed soon about her death and appellants hurriedly cremated the dead body with the result that no postmortem of the body could be conducted, held that it was an unnatural death.

(20.) SIMILAR view was taken by the Apex Court in the case of yashoda and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 1411 where the dead body of deceased was cremated hurriedly and her parents were informed later, it was held that death in such circumstance could not be considered to be normal. The citation referred to by learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants as reported in (2006)3 MPLJ page 82 (Dinesh Kumar and others Vs. State of M. P. Supra) is distinguishable on facts.

(21.) NOW the next crucial point to be considered is whether deceased Sheela was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death by the three appellants, namely, appellants Vijay Bahadur, Hansavati and Rajeshwari

(22.) UPON close examination of the entire evidence on record, it is revealed that deceased Sheela never complained about cruelty or harassment meted out to her in connection with demand of dowry by her in-laws to her father Dharmraj Singh (P. W-9) in person, as admitted by him in para 4 of his deposition. As per evidence of her mother shanti Devi (P. W-11), her daughter Sheela had complained to her two months after her marriage that her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law used to beat her on the ground that her father had not made payment, while the death of her daughter Sheela took place nearly two years and four months after her marriage. She was also confronted with her Police statement (Ex. D-2) with regard to omission of her statement that Thanedar Singh (P. W-10) informed her that appellants had threatened to kill the deceased, if the remaining amount of dowry was not paid. Even Dharmraj Singh (P. W-9), the father of deceased did not make such a statement that Thanedar Singh (P. W-10)had informed that appellants had threatened to kill the deceased, if the remaining amount of dowry was not paid. Thus, it is obvious that p. W-11 Shanti Devi made exaggerated version in this behalf.

(23.) THE statement of Thanedar Singh (P. W-10) that appellants vijay Bahadur and Jaibharat Singh had told him that Dharmraj Singh had not paid remaining amount of dowry of Rs. 5000/-, therefore, Sheela would be killed, also does not appear to be natural and reliable that such an eloquent threat for dowry to kill the deceased would be given. On the other hand, it transpires from the evidence of Dharmraj Singh (P. W-9) and Shanti Devi (P. W-11) that appellant Vijay Bahadur came to their place to take the deceased for her in-laws place twice or thrice, but no demand for remaining amount of dowry of Rs. 5000/- was ever made. This fact was clearly admitted by Dharmraj Singh (P. W-9) in para 16 of his deposition and by Shanti Devi (P. W-11) in para 10 of her deposition. Apposite to point out that even if in the written report (Ex. P-9) lodged by father of the deceased Dharmraj Singh (P. W-9), no allegations of harassment of the deceased for dowry by appellants Vijay Bahadur, jaibharat or Rajeshwari were made. Allegation of harassment of the deceased for dowry was made only against her mother-in-law, i. e. appellant Hansavati in the written report (Ex. P-9). The evidence of thanedar (P. W-10) also does not clearly depict that the sister-in-law of the deceased, i. e. appellant Rajeshwari was beating her before him for dowry or she made any comments for non-payment of dowry by her parents.

(24.) MOREOVER, whatever incident was narrated by thanedar Singh (P. W-10) was allegedly witnessed by him seven months prior to the death of the deceased, as he clearly deposed that he had gone to the place of Sheela seven months prior to her death.

(25.) LIKEWISE, Jamadar Singh (P. W-12), brother of the deceased also gave a generalized and omni-bus statement that the mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased harassed and treated her cruelly, but did not give any concrete example of any incident of harassment or ill-treatment to the deceased soon before her death, and particularly nothing against appellants Vijay Bahadur and Rajeshwari in this behalf. His statement that the mother-in-law of the deceased had asked him to give money relates to the period when he had gone to take her sister for first bida two months after her marriage and admittedly sheela was married in June 1988 and died in Oct. 1990. Thus, it was an old and stale incident and not "soon before" her death.

(26.) AS per statement of Jamadar Singh (P. W-12), when he went for bida of his sister Sheela for the second time, her mother-in-law, i. e. appellant Hansavati had beaten his sister before him and complained to him for non-payment of dowry. As is evident from his testimony, he had gone to Sheelas place for the second time after he came to know from Thanedar Singh (P. W-10) that deceased was ill-treated by her in-laws and as mentioned earlier Thanedar Singh (P. W-10) had gone to place of deceased seven months prior to her death. Thus, this second incident of beating of the deceased by her mother-in-law before Jamadar Singh (P. W-12) also took place nearly seven months prior to her death and thereafter she was taken back to her parental home by his brother, as deposed by him.

(27.) NEEDLESS to emphasize that in cases of offence of dowry death the evidence of the related witnesses has to be carefully scrutinized. It would be profitable to quote the following observation made by the Apex Court in this connection in the case of Sunil Bajaj vs. State of M. P. reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court page 3020:-

"normally, in a criminal case accused can be punished for an offence on establishment of commission of that offence on the basis of evidence, may be direct or circumstantial or both. But in case of an offence under Section 304-B IPC an exception is made by deeming provision as to nature of death as "dowry death" and that the husband or his relative, as the case may be, is deemed to have caused such death, even in the absence of evidence to prove these aspects but on proving the existence of the ingredients of the said offence by convincing evidence. Hence, there is need for greater care and caution, that too having regard to the gravity of the punishment prescribed for the said offence, in scrutinizing the evidence and in arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the above mentioned ingredients of the offence are proved by the prosecution. "

(28.) THUS upon close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, as aforesaid, it is found that the evidence against appellants vijay Bahadur and Rajeshwari Devi regarding cruelty or harassment meted out to the deceased in connection with the demand of dowry is not dependable and acceptable. There is some evidence in this behalf against appellant Hansavati, the mother-in-law of the deceased, but as stated earlier, whatever evidence of cruelty and harassment, or demand of dowry made by her is of the time much prior to the death of the deceased, i. e. firstly at the time when Jamadar Singh (P. W-12) went to her place for first bida two months after her marriage and for the second time when he went for second bida nearly seven months prior to her death. As per evidence given by mother of deceased Shanti Devi (P. W-11), deceased had complained to her of the harassment and cruelty meted out to her when she came to her parental home two months after her marriage. Needless to repeat that the marriage of the deceased took place in June 1988 and she died in Oct. 1990.

(29.) IT is abundantly clear from the evidence of Dharmraj Singh (P. W-9) that after Sheela was sent to her in-laws place alongwith appellants Vijay Bahadur and Jaibharat, she died two-three months thereafter and there is no such evidence on record that in between this period deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry or any such demand was sent to the parents of the deceased by the appellants. On the other hand, it transpires from the evidence on record that when Sheela was finally taken to her in-laws place by appellants Vijay Bahadur and Jaibharat, it was assured by them that she would be taken care of. The evidence of cruelty or harassment of the deceased for demand of dowry against appellant Hansavati, the mother-in-law of the deceased, is also of the period of seven months prior to her death. Any harassment of the deceased for dowry, seven months before her death can hardly be termed as "soon before" her death. Needless t to repeat that there is no evidence against any of the appellants that deceased was again subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry thereafter, as she remained with her parents in the meantime, and died two-three months after she finally left for her in-laws place.

(30.) THE Apex Court in the case of Hira Lal and others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi (supra) reported in AIR 2003 supreme Court 2865 has held that the expression "soon before" is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B of IPC are pressed into service. Prosecution is obliged to show that "soon before" the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates, the evidence in that regard has to be led by the prosecution.

(31.) THE Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment and later on in the number of other judgments reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court page 1731 (Kunhiabdulla and another Vs. State of Kerala), 2009 air SCW page 536 (Prem Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan), 2009 air SCW 3598 (Raman Kumar Vs. State of Punjab) has explained the expression soon before as under:-

". . . . . . . . . . . . . the expression soon before would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live-link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. "

(32.) IN the instant case, as discussed above, there is no dependable evidence against appellants Vijay Bahadur and Rajeshwari that they subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. There is no evidence against any of the appellants that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand for dowry during the period of two-three months when she finally stayed in her matrimonial home before her death. Whatever evidence of cruelty or harassment or demand for money is available against appellant Hansavati, the mother-in-law of the deceased also relates to the period much before about seven months prior to her death. As already said, harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased seven months prior to her death, in my opinion, in the facts and circumstance of the instant case can hardly be termed as "soon before" her death. Thus, in aforesaid facts, neither any presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act can be drawn, nor the offence of causing dowry death under Section 304-B of IPC can be said to have been proved either against appellant Hansavati or the remaining two appellants, namely, Vijay Bahadur and Rajeshwari.

(33.) IN the wake of aforesaid, the conviction of the three appellants for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC cannot be sustained. Consequently, the conviction of these three appellants under section 201 of IPC for causing disappearance of the evidence of dowry death also cannot be sustained. The conviction of appellants vijay Bahadur, Hansavati and Raheshwari for the offences under Section 304-B, 201 of IPC thus deserves to be set aside.

(34.) AS regards the conviction of these three appellants under section 498-A of IPC is concerned, as discussed above, there is no cogent and dependable evidence against appellants Vijay Bahadur and rajeshwari Devi that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry by them. So the conviction of the appellants Vijay Bahadur and rajeshwari Devi under Section 498- A also deserves to be set aside.

(35.) HOWEVER, there is positive evidence against the mother-in-law of the deceased, namely, appellant Hansavati that she subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment for dowry and thereby committed an offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

(36.) AS regards the conviction of the appellant Jaibharat under section 201 of IPC is concerned, there is nothing in entire evidence on record to hold him guilty for the aforesaid offence. Appellant Jaibharat admittedly is not the real uncle of husband of the deceased. The mere fact, that he came to escort the deceased alongwith other appellant to her in-laws place and that he participated in the cremation of the deceased like other villagers, is not sufficient to establish his guilt under section 201 of IPC in absence of any material evidence against him. The conviction of appellant Jaibharat under Section 201 of IPC also cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.

(37.) CONSEQUENTLY, the conviction of appellants Vijay Bahadur, hansavati, Rajeshwari and sentence passed on them under Section 304-B, 201 of IPC as well as the conviction of appellant Jaibharat and sentence passed on him under Section 201 of IPC are set aside and they are acquitted of the aforesaid charges. The conviction of appellants vijay Bahadur and Rajeshwari and sentence passed on them under section 498-A of IPC are also set aside. However, the conviction of appellant Hansavati under Section 498-A of IPC is maintained.

(38.) AS regards the sentence to appellant Hansavati under section 498-A of IPC, as submitted, appellant Hansavati presently being a woman of more than 65 years of age, and considering the fact that incident of the case occurred way back in the year 1990 and that appellant Hansavati has already suffered imprisonment for nearly five months, interest of justice would be subserved, if the impugned sentence awarded to her under Section 498-A of IPC is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by her with an additional amount of fine of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand only). Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to appellant Hansavati under Section 498-A of IPC is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by her. However, she shall be liable to pay an additional amount of fine of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand only) within a period of three months from today, failing which she shall suffer simple imprisonment for five months. Both the appeals stand allowed to the extent indicated above.