The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, and in cases involving allegations of demand for dowry, the evidence must support such claims.

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J. - This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on the appellant for the offence under Sections 306 and 498-A Indian Penal Code

2. According to the case of the prosecution, the deceased Baldev Kaur married the appellant about 8 years prior to her death. They had a son aged about 5 years. The appellant is a Truck Driver. He wanted to purchase taxi car to run by himself. He asked his wife Baldev Kaur to get an amount of Rs. 30,000/- from her brothers for that purpose. As she could not arrange money, she was being harassed and ill-treated by the appellant. On 22nd July 1986 the dead-body of Baldev Kaur was found floating in Bhakhra Main Bank Canal within the jurisdiction of Roona; P.S. Mullepur. On the basis of the complaint given by the brother of the deceased, a case was registered and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and his father for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A, Indian Penal Code After committal of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused.

3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. In defence, the accused examined one witness Baldev Singh who was working as D.S.P. at the time of the incident.

4. PW-1 conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased. The post- mortem report shows that the deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of drowning and no injury was found on the person of the dead body. In order to prove that there was demand for money, the brothers of the deceased were examined, but their evidence does not inspire any confidence. Admittedly, Baldev Kaur had not written any letter to her brothers. Thus there was no occasion either for the brothers of the deceased or for the other witnesses namely Baldev Singh and Waryam Singh to see the accused demanding money and harassing his wife.

5. Admittedly, the marriage took place more than 8 years prior to the death of the deceased. Therefore, no presumption can be drawn under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. Therefore, it is for the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that there was a demand for dowry. Even assuming for a moment that the appellant asked his wife to get some money from her brothers so as to enable him to purchase a car for running it as a taxi, it does not amount to demand for dowry. There is no independent evidence to show that the deceased was treated cruelly by the accused-appellant. When it is not proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, there cannot be any presumption and no conviction can be based.

6. After going through the record and the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, I do not find any material on record on the basis of which the conviction can be sustained. Further, there is no reason for disbelieving the evidence of DW-1 who was Deputy Superintendent of Police at the time. His evidence clearly shows that the deceased went to the canal. May be, the deceased while taking bath drowned herself and died. There cannot be any doubt that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

7. Accordingly, I allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand cancelled.

Appeal allowed.