The evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon if found trustworthy and credible, and minor discrepancies in the evidence should not affect its core credibility.

JUDGMENT :

Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 20/11/1999 passed by 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial no. 177/1995, whereby the appellants have been convicted under sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code ( in short ”IPC”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 500/- each with default stipulation.

2. Necessary facts for disposal of present appeal in short are that appellant no. 1 Khema is the husband of deceased Bhagubai and appellant no. 2 Beenubai @ Kamlabai is the mother-in-law of the deceased. Marriage of the deceased was taken place with appellant no. 1 Khema three years prior to the incident. It is alleged that immediately, after the marriage, present appellants as well as co-accused Radho, who is brother-in-law of the deceased started treating the deceased with cruelty and harassing her for demand of dowry. As a result of which, parents of the deceased took back the deceased to their home. Four months before the incident, appellant no. 1 Khema alongwith same community persons went to the house of father of the deceased and after reconciliation, appellant Khema brought the deceased to her matrimonial home, but despite his assurance, the appellants continued to harass and pressurize the deceased for bringing money from her father. The deceased narrated the entire incident to her parents at the occasion of Rakshabandhan festival. On 12/09/1994. on account of cruelty and harassment by the appellants, the deceased committed suicide in her matrimonial place by drowning herself in a pond. Accordingly, merg no. 32/1994 was registered and Sub-Inspector R.N. Gurjar stated merg inquiry. He prepared dead body panchanam vide Ex.-P/5 and spot-map vide Ex.-P/7 as also, made an application for conducting postmortem of the deceased vide Ex.-P/6. After recording the statements of the witnesses, the police came to the conclusion that offence under section304-B and 498-A of IPC had been committed. Accordingly, FIR was registered against the appellants and co-accused Radho. They were arrested. The deceased's thigh bone and visara were sent for analysis to FSL. After receiving FSL report, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellants and co-accused Radho.

3. The trial Court framed the charges under section 304-B and 498-A of IPC against the appellants and co-accused Radho. The appellants and the co-accused abjured their guilt and took a plea that they have been falsely implicated in the present case.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Kalabai (PW-1), Asharam (PW-2), Dr. Rajkumar Singh (PW-3), constable Shyam (PW-4) Kamlabai (PW-5), Tukaram (PW-6) and Sub-Inspector R.N. Gurjar(PW-7). The appellants did not examine any witness in their defence.

5. The trial Court after due consideration of the evidence available on record, convicted the appellants under section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-each with default stipulation, however, co-accused Radho had been acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. Both the appellants were acquitted from the charge under section 304-B of IPC. Acquittal of the co-accused and acquittal of the appellant from the charge under section 304-B of IPC have not been challenged either by the prosecution or by the complainant, therefore, any reference to the acquitted co-accused person would be coincidental and would be for the purpose of consideration of allegation made against the appellants only.

6. In this case, it is an admitted fact that appellant no. 1 Khema is the husband of deceased Bhagubai and their marriage was solemnized three years prior to the incident. Appellant no. 2 Beenubai is the mother-in-law of the deceased. It is also an admitted fact that deceased Bhagubai had died on 12/09/1994 and her cause of death was the drowning in water.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the prosecution witnesse