1. Both these appeals are against the Judgment/order dated 27th October, 1999 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in Sessions Trial No. 217 of 1994 whereby appellant Narayan Dewangan of Cr.A.No.2976 of 1999 was convicted u/s 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I., for 5 years and appellant Prameela Dewangan of Cr.A. No. 2977/1999 was convicted u/s 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I., for 3 years. Further both the appellants were directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I., for six months.

2. As per the case of prosecution, on 03.05.1993, deceased Saroj Bai was married to appellant Narayan Dewangan. During her stay in her matrimonial home, she was treated with cruelty as the demands of Colour TV, Gas Cylinder, Fridge and land were not fulfilled. Consequently she died on 06.01.1994 by burn injuries. After her death, the merg intimation was given and the police started investigation and initially after investigation, the charge sheet was filed u/s 306, 498-A, 304-B & 109 of IPC. The prosecution on their behalf primarily relied on statements of P.W.10 Tikendra Kumar who is brother of deceased, P.W.11 Jhallu Ram, the father of deceased and the handwriting expert P.W.13 R.P. Pathak. The trial Court after evaluating the evidence convicted and sentenced the accused u/s 306 IPC, as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the conviction in this case u/s 306 IPC cannot be sustained. It is contended that there has been material omissions and irregularities which exist as though the conviction is made by holding the fact that the deceased had written letter vide Ex.P.5 and for this, the statement of P.W.11 was relied on but the prosecution has not been able to prove Ex.P-5 which was written by the deceased. It is further contended that the carrier of the letter namely Yugal Kishore has not been examined. It is also contended that the comparison of handwriting by another alleged writing of the deceased has not been proved that the other writing was that of deceased. It is further submitted that the statement of witnesses would show that the deceased was not able to adjust in her matrimonial home as she was not accustomed to perform the household jobs which she was required to do, therefore, she committed suicide of her own. It is further submitted that neither there is any abetment which was existing in this case nor there is any presumption which can be drawn since the basic ingredients to draw presumption u/s 113-A of the evidence Act was missing as the demand of dowry itself was not proved. She placed reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in Mangat Ram Vs State of Haryana (2014) 12 SCC 595 and Assoo Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 14 SCC 448 and would submit that under the circumstances the mens-rea and the abetment having been absent, the conviction cannot be sustained. She further referred to the statement of Mahendranath Dewangan who is relative of the deceased and submits that he has not supported the case of prosecution instead he has supported the contentions of the defence, thereby the actual cause of death has been explained and the presence of the said witness has also been referred by the prosecution witnesses.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the order of the trial Court is well merited which does not require any interference by this court. He went through the statements of P.W.10 Tikendra Kumar and P.W.11 Jhallu Ram, as also the contents of the document Ex.P-5 and would submit that the statement of these witnesses would categorically demonstrate that there has been demand of dowry, consequently she died unnatural death. Therefore, the conviction u/s 306 IPC is well merited which do not call for any interference.

5. Perused the records of the court below. The date of marriage in this case is 03.05.1993 and the death took place on 06.01.1994. The trial Court has not con