The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and the standard of evidence needed to establish cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry.

( 1 ) THE appeal No. 1691/ 2003 has been filed by accused-appellant suresh Kumar alias Sushil Yadav against the judgment and order dated 22-11-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby while acquitting the accused-appellant of the charge under Section 304-B, ipc, convicted him under Sections 498-A and 306, IPC and sentenced to suffer R. I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo s. I. for one month and R. I. for five years and a fine of Rs. 2,000. 00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S. I. for two months respectively. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against the same judgment by which accused suresh has been acquitted from the charge under Section 304-B, IPC, complainant Ram lal Yadav has filed a Criminal Revision Petition No. 1389/2003. Both the appeal and the revision petition have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 1-11-2000, Ramlal yadav S/o Shri Narayan Yadav, R/o village kishorepura, submitted a written report ex. Pl at P. S. Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur wherein it was, inter alia, stated that his younger sister Raju was married to Suresh Yadav s/o Shri Sohan Lal Yadav, R/o Heerapura, ajmer Road, Jaipur during her childhood and she had been residing at her fathers house since her marriage. Her gona (the ceremony of taking bride to her husbands house for the first time after marriage) took place around 3-4 months prior to the incident and she was sent to her sasural along with her husband Suresh. At the time of gona, Suresh and his mother demanded rs. one lac and hero Honda motor-cycle in dowry but they expressed their inability in this regard. Thereafter and before her death raju had come to her parental house for 1-2 days and at that time she told the family members that her husband Suresh and mother-in-law had again asked her to bring rs. one lac and one motor-cycle from her father. It was further told by her that in connection with this demand, she had been beaten by her husband and mother-in-law. It was further stated in Ex. Pl by Ramlal that her elder sister Lada was married to Ramu who was elder brother of Suresh. Ramu expired and since his death Lada had been living in Heerapura. Lada also told them that suresh and his mother-in-law had been harassing Raju in connection with the demand of Rs. one lac and motor-cycle. It was also stated in Ex. Pl that when Raju came at her house on deepawali she again told them that she had been beaten and threatened to kill by Suresh and his mother in connection with the demand of said dowry. Today they were informed that Raju had been admitted in S. M. S. Hospital whereupon he went to the hospital where he got the information of Rajus death due to administration of poison. It was also stated in the report Ex. Pl that before gonaceremony, suresh had obtained an ex parte decree of divorce against Raju which he got set-aside and thereafter with the intervention of some persons, Raju and Suresh arrived at a compromise and gona ceremony was solemnised and Raju was sent with Suresh. Suspicion of Rajus murder by administration of poison by Suresh and his mother was also expressed by Ramlal in Ex. P1. On the basis of the written report Ex. P1, SHO, P. S vaishali Nagar, Jaipur registered the FIR under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC and investigated the case. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate no. 1, Jaipur City against accused-appellant Suresh Kumar. In due course, the file was received in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City.

( 3 ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC against the accused-appellant who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. To prove these charges, the prosecution examine