1. The present appeal is directed against the persons who have been acquitted i.e. Hakam Singh, Kamal Singh and Majhli Bahu alias Bai. One Kamlabai, the wife of respondent-accused No.1 Hakam Singh, committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil on herself. All the respondents were prosecuted under sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C.

2. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, in Sessions Trial No. 10/85 after considering the evidence on the record, by judgment and order dated 16.9.1985 acquitted all the accused persons.

3. Heard the learned Government Advocate and learned counsel for the respondent-accused. Learned Govt. Advocate submitted that the Sessions Court has erred in law in acquitting the accused-respondents as there was material on the record warranting their conviction. He read over the statements of the prosecution witnesses and after going through the evidence, it was accepted by the learned Govt. Advocate that no charge under section 306 I.P.C., on the basis of the evidence is made out. So far as the acquittal under section 306 I.P.C. is concerned, it is not disputed, but he vehemently criticised the acquittal with regard to the liability of the respondent under section 498-A I.P.C. as cruelty was meted to the lady, who had committed suicide. In this regard he placed before the Court the evidence on record, more particularly the relevant extract of the statement of the father of the girl Prahlad Singh (P.W. 1) and the statement of the mother of girl Bhagwati (P.W. 2). So far as the statement of father is concerned, it has come in the evidence that the lady, who has committed suicide, never stated or wrote anything to his father. It is not unnatural phenomena that the girls do not tell everything to their father but they tell the things to their mother. Learned Government Advocate stated that in the statement of the father there is nothing but cruelty is made out. So far as this submission is concerned, as stated above, in the society the girls generally do not say everything to their fathers but they say the thing to their mothers. So, on the question, the evidence of the mother is relevant and that has to be scrutinized. Bhagwati (P. W. 2) in her statement has stated that a dowry was settled and she has mentioned about the dowry. She has stated for giving the watch, radio, cycle and Rs. 6,000/-. However, according to her some delay took place. At the time of marriage Rs. 4,000/- were given and Rs. 2,000/- were to be given. She has stated that except watch nothing was given. At the time of second marriage (Gona) the girl came to her parents house and she told them that for not giving the dowry items her in-laws are not treating her properly. She has stated that she and her husband had told her (Kamla Bai) that they will give everything. Thereafter the girl went to her in-laws house. Komal Singh, who is the elder brother of the husband, came to the house of the girl arid asked for dowry whereupon the parents of the girl assured him that they will give the remaining dowry in the month of' 'Baisakh", whereat Komal Singh told them that if the remaining dowry is not given then it would not be a good thing. Komal Singh stated that if the dowry does not come then the girl will be burnt by pouring Kerosene oil. In the cross-examination the mother Bhagwati (P. W. 2) has stated that she did not disclose anything about the demand of the dowry to any of his relations as she did not want to make it a controvertial issue.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused submitted that there is discrepancy in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and the evidence of Bhagwati (P.W. 2). Learned counsel further stated that the aforesaid facts were not stated in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., therefore the statement of Bhagwati (P.W. 2) is not worth credence.

5. The statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. is not a substantial piece of evidence supporting the prosecution-in-chief examination. The submission as advanced above is that the