1. - This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.08.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara, whereby, he convicted accused appellants Ganpat Singh and Smt. Sunder Kanwar for offence under Secs. 498A, 201, 304B, 302 read with Section 120B and 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them as under :Under Sec. 498A I.P.C.Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.Under Sec. 201 I.P.C.Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.Under Sec. 304B I.P.C.Rigorous imprisonment for seven year and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six month's simple imprisonment.Under Sec. 320B r/w Sections 120B and 34 I.P.C.Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's simple imprisonment.

2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nathdwara acquitted accused Smt. Nihal Kanwar and Smt. Saria Kanwar by the same judgment.

3. Facts leading to this appeal are that one Bhopal Singh PW-1 filed a written report Ex.P.l before SHO, Khamnor on 25.10.2001 to the effect that about 4-5 days back, one Lal Singh died and family of the neighbours were at his residence then at about 9 A.M., he heard- cry of ladies at the residence of his younger brother Daulat Singh. He and Mahendra Singh went there and saw that Mangu Kanwar wife of accused appellant Ganpat Singh committed suicide by strangulation, who was married two to three years back. It was staled in the FIR that he does not know that how Mangu Kanwar died. Upon this report, enquiry was made by the Magistrate under Sec. 176 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, a case was registered vide FIR No. 166/2001 under Sec. 304B IPC. After usual investigation, accused Ganpat Singh, Smt. Sunder Kanwar, Smt. Nihla Kanwar and Smt. Sariya Kanwar were charge sheeted under Secs. 302, 304B, 498A, 201, 120B read with Section 34 IPC and also under Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where charges were framed against above four accused under Secs. 498 A, 304B, 302 read with Section 34, 120B and 201 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 30 witnesses. Statements of accused were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. They produced one Gamhhir Singh DW 1 in defence After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as above.

4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the accused appellants that firstly, the learned trial Judge has wrongly convicted the accused appellants both under Secs. 302 and 304B I.P.C. According to him when a person is convicted under Sec. 302 IPC, there is no need to record the conviction under Sec. 304B IPC. He has submitted that the only conclusion which can be drawn from the prosecution story is that it is a case of suicidan death and not of homicidal death. Learned counsel has further submitted that accused appellant Ganpat Singh took loan from various persons including his in-laws for doing business and he went at his in-laws house to bring his wife at his home. I here was no demand of dowry either by accused appellant Ganpat Singh himself or his mother accused appellant Smt. Sunder Kanwar. There is a positive medical evidence that it was the deceased who took some aluminum phosphate substance herself and thereafter committed suicide. In such a situation, the presumption under Sec. 120B IPC cannot be drawn. According to him, there is neither any evidence of conspiracy, common intention or of destroying the evidence of offence.

5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court.

6. We have re-appreciated the evidence on record and are of the view that it is not a case of homicidal de