SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

1. Present Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 1st October, 2003, and order on Sentence dated 13th October, 2003, whereby the Appellant was convicted u/s 304B/498-A IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

2. Janki was married to son of the Appellant on 5th December, 2000. She committed suicide by hanging herself on 1st March, 2001. After her death, her brother Ved Prakash, PW-2 gave a statement to SDM that he had visited Janki's house on 23rd February, 2001 and found her in a sad mood. She told him that her in laws were asking for Rs. 50,000/- and a scooter as they wanted to open a shop and the scooter was required for roaming around. Ved Prakash stated that thereafter he talked to in-laws of her sister and told them that he would respond after thinking over. He asked them to send Janki with him. On this, he was told that they would take her to his house after 2-3 days. After that he received information that Janki had died. He expressed his doubt that his sister had been killed by her husband, parents of her husband and husband's sister Kiran.

3. In the name of investigation, police took photographs of deceased, recorded statement of brothers of Janki, collected postmortem report about the cause of her death, and FSL report of viscera. Even the site plan of the place of suicide and of the house was not prepared. The postmortem report shows that there was no external injury on the body of Janki. The cause of death was given due to asphyxia. Ligature mark present on the neck showed that there was no ligature mark on left side of neck showing that ligature was caused due to hanging. FSL report showed presence of insecticide in the body. No investigation was done by the police on the aspect of purchase of insecticide or administration of insecticide etc. Charges against the accused persons were framed u/s 304B read with Section 498-A IPC read with Section 34 of IPC.

4. Prime witnesses in this case are PW-2 Ved Prakash and PW-7 Jai Prakash, the two brothers of the deceased Janki. Ved Prakash is the one who claimed to have visited Janki on 23rd February, 2001 and stated that Janki was in sad mood and she complained that her in-laws were demanding Rs. 50,000/- and a scooter. PW-7 JaiPrakash stated that Janki had come to his house in the village after about a week of her marriage and had told him that her in laws were demanding scooter and Rs. 50,000/-. He then sent his brother Jaidev @ Ali to the house of his sister Jankiand this demand was repeated to him and Jaidev informed him about the demand.

5. PW-4 Laxman is 3rd brother of Janki. He testified that he had visited his sister at her matrimonial house after about a month of her marriage. He stayed there for few moments and at that time he had no talks with his sister. Thus, as per his testimony, no complaint was made to him by his sister about demand of Rs. 50,000/- and a scooter.

6. These three witnesses were practically not cross examined on the charges framed against the accused persons. The only cross examination done by the defence counsel was putting to the witnesses statement recorded u/s 161 Cr. P.C. and giving suggestion regarding denial of the demand.

7. On the basis of the testimony of two brothers i.e. PW-2 and PW-7, the Appellant and other two accused persons were convicted u/s 304B/498-A/34 IPC.

8. It is apparent that the allegations were very vague in nature. Who demanded Rs. 50,000/- and scooter, whether it was the demand of husband or of mother-in-law or of father-in-law, when was it made-answers to all these questions are absent. Even if it is presumed that demand was made, the ingredients of Section 304B IPC were totally absent in this case as there was no evidence on record to show that cruelty of any kind was perpetuated on Janki for this demand. Section 304B IPC reads as under:

(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns