JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. This Judgment shall dispose of [CASE NUMBER] and [CASE NUMBER] filed by [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] separately aggrieved by the Judgment, dated, 9-6-1992, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge [ENTITY] in [CASE NUMBER]. Whereby the appellants have been convicted for committing the offences under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] and sentencing each of them to 10 years R.I. for committing the offence under [SECTION] and [SECTION] R.I. with a fine of Rs. 200/- each under [SECTION], [ACT] and failing to pay the fine, sentence of one month's S.I. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. The facts leading to this appeal in short are that the police [ENTITY] submitted a charge-sheet before the competent Magistrate against the present appellants under [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT] who committed the case to the court of session. In the sessions court charges under [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT] were framed against the appellants, who abjured guilt. After the trial, the lower court convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. Hence this appeal.
3. According to the prosecution story, the accused [ENTITY] was married to the deceased [ENTITY] on 8-12-1982 according to Hindu rites. At the time of the marriage, a demand of dowry was made and a dowry of Rs. 30,000/- was settled and the marriage was performed. After the marriage for demanding more dowry, the deceased was being harassed and thereupon she on 5/9/1989 consumed poisonous substance due to which she expired. It has also been alleged that on the night of the incident itself the in-laws [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] insulted the deceased and [ENTITY] due to which she committed suicide. The room was closed. It was opened with the help of the tenant. It was found that [ENTITY] was lying unconscious on the bed. She was rushed to the hospital where the doctor declared her dead. A report was sent by the compounder to the Police Station, [ENTITY] on telephone, where upon [CASE NUMBER] was registered. During the investigation, the Police found that the accused-appellants are responsible for committing the offence under [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT] Therefore, they registered the offence and after completion of the investigation submitted the charge-sheet.The learned trial Court found that the circumstances and specially the letter written by the deceased points to this fact that the appellants committed the offence under [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT] Hence he found that the appellants are guilty of the offences with which they are charged.
4. It has not been disputed before me that [ENTITY] was wedded to [ENTITY] in 1982. It has also not been disputed before me that [ENTITY] died on 6-9-1989 at [ENTITY] because she consumed sulphas pills. The appellant [ENTITY] is the father of the appellant [ENTITY] and the appellant [ENTITY] is the mother. However, Shri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the appellants assailed the findings of the lower court on the ground that the lower court has not properly appreciated the evidence but has drawn all the inference against the appellants, whereas the benefit should have been given to the appellants. It is a case wherein the benefit on all the issues in the case have been given in the prosecution and the defects in the prosecution story have been explained by the Judge himself, thus basing the finding only on conjectures and surmises.
5. The first argument of Shri [ENTITY] is that according to the prosecution, the date of marriage of [ENTITY] was 8/12/1982. Whereas the defence story is that the marriage was performed in the summer season of 1982. Actually 8/12/1982 has been stated to bring the case in the purview of [SECTION] of the [ACT] because if the marriage is held to be on 8/12/1982, then the death would be held to be committed within [SECTION] of the marriage but if it is held that the marriage was performed in the summer season, then it will not come within the purview of [SECTION]. Shri [ENTITY] has taken me through the evidence and argues that the evidence is discrepant and unreliable and when a presumption has to be drawn against the accused the evidence should be cogent and reliable.
6. On perusing the evidence, I find that [ENTITY] (P.W. 1) has stated in para 1 that the marriage took place on 8/12/1982 but in para 8 of his statement he has admitted that the marriage cards were printed but still no documentary evidence regarding the date of marriage has been filed in the Court. [ENTITY] (P.W. 2), mother of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] (P.W. 3), maternal uncle of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] (P.W. 12) have not stated that the marriage took place in the month of December. [ENTITY] does not remember the date of [ENTITY] and other important dates. No independent witness has been examined to prove the date of marriage. In this background the statement of [ENTITY] (P.W. 5) who is not related to either of the parties but only a tenant and who had regular correspondence with the deceased becomes very material. He has stated in para 7 that [ENTITY] was married with [ENTITY] in the summer season. It means that the marriage might have been performed some where between March and June of the year 1982 and not in December. The learned lower Court has given two reasons for disbelieving the defence version on this ground. The first is that the suggestion of the defence in cross-examination to the witness was that the marriage was performed in the month of June, whereas in the statement under [SECTION] the accused has said that it was performed in the month of April. I fail to understand the approach of the learned Judge in this respect. It is not the duty of the defence to prove its case. It is for the prosecution to prove its case specially in such circumstances that the prosecution wants the Court to bring the case in purview of [SECTION] of the [ACT], and [SECTION], [ACT]. The provisions contained in aforesaid sections are a departure from the normal rule of evidence and a presumption has to be raised against the accused in those cases where the death has occurred unnaturaly within seven years of marriage. These special provisions have been inserted by the legislature in the [ACT] and [ACT] to place the responsibility on the husband or the in-laws in case of a death of a woman within [SECTION] of the marriage.
7. [SECTION] of the [ACT] reads as under:
"When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation For the purpose of this section 'dowry death' shall have the same meaning as in [SECTION] of [ACT]."
As such [SECTION] of the [ACT] raises a presumption against the accused of committing the dowry death of a woman and, therefore, in view of the explanation to the section where it has been held that dowry death shall have the same meaning as in [SECTION] of the [ACT]. It is necessary for the prosecution to lead such cogent and reliable evidence which may prove conclusively that the death has been caused within [SECTION] of the marriage.
8. [SECTION] of the [ACT] defines a dowry death which says that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within [SECTION] of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry death' and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. In the explanation, it has been provided that for the purposes of this sub-section, 'dowry' shall have the same meaning as in [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Sub-section (2) of [SECTION], [ACT] provides the minimum sentence of [SECTION] rigorous imprisonment for the dowry death and this imprisonment may extend to imprisonment for life.
As such, when the prosecution wants to bring the case within the purview of [SECTION], it is the duty of the prosecution to prove to the hilt that the death was caused within [SECTION] of the marriage. In the instant case, the evidence shown that except for [ENTITY] (P.W. 1) no one has said that the marriage took place on 8/12/1982. The other relatives are silent on this point and there is no reliable and cogent evidence to prove the date of marriage. Even the marriage card has not been produced to prove the exact date of the marriage. This date of the marriage has been challenged by the defence and if a suggestion by the counsel of the defence of a particular date may vary with the statement of the accused is respect of the exact death, it will not be sufficient to raise a presumption against the accused. Please see [PRECEDENT] wherein it has been held that suggestion thrown to a prosecution witness under cross-examination cannot be used as an implied admission.
9. Now before the Court there are two versions one is that of the defence and the other of the prosecution. In this respect the evidence of [ENTITY] (P.W. 5) is very important. [ENTITY] (P.W. 5) has stated that the marriage was performed in the summer. [ENTITY] (P.W. 5) is an independent witness, although the lower Court has condemned him as a hostile witness but the prosecution has not declared him hostile and he has not been cross-examined on this point. There is no discrepancy at all in the statement of [ENTITY] which may make his testimony doubtful. I fail to understand on what ground the Court has rejected the testimony of such an important witness, holding him as an interested witness. In my opinion, the Court has erred in rejecting the testimony of [ENTITY]. In any case the testimony of [ENTITY] along with the defence version and the absence of cogent evidence by the prosecution, it cannot be held proved that the marriage was performed on 8/12/1982. Therefore, it appears highly probable that the marriage was performed in the summer 1982. As such, this case clearly goes out of the purview of [SECTION] of the [ACT] and the presumption under [SECTION] of the [ACT] can also not be drawn. When the presumption has to be drawn against the accused departing from the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence that it is the prosecution which has to prove its case to the hilt, then the prosecution is duty bound to lead cogent and reliable evidence which may prove the circumstances which may be sufficient for raising such a presumption and the prosecution having utterly failed to do so, in the present case, the lower Court has clearly erred in basing its findings on the discrepancy in the version of the accused and the suggestion in the cross-examination for holding that the prosecution has proved the date of marriage.
10. The learned counsel has next argued that the case of the prosecution regarding harassment and demand of dowry based on oral evidence should be scrutinised minutely specially when the testimony comes from the relatives of the deceased who are naturally hostile to the accused and interested witnesses. In this respect in the case of [PRECEDENT] the Supreme Court has observed as under (para 48):
"Before discussing the evidence of the witnesses we might mention a few preliminary remarks against the background of which the oral statements are to be considered. All persons to whom the oral statements are said to have been made by [ENTITY] when she visited [ENTITY] for the last time, are close relatives and friends of the deceased. In view of the close relationship and affection any person in the position of the witness would naturally have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts which may not have been stated to them at all. Not that this is done consciously but even unconsciously the love and affection for the deceased would create a psychological hatred against the supposed murderer and therefore the Court has to examine such evidence with very great care and caution. Even if the witnesses were speaking a part of the truth or perhaps the whole of it, they would be guided by a spirit of revenge or nemesis against the accused person and in this process certain facts which may not or could not have been stated may be imagined to have been stated unconsciously by the witnesses in order to see that the offender is punished. This is human psychology and no one can help it.
It has also been argued that under [SECTION] of the [ACT], the act of dowry is also an offence and so. P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 12 are also offenders and, therefore, they are accomplice as held by the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] and, therefore, without corrobora-tion of their testimony by the independent witness, there can be no conviction.
11. In view of the aforesaid principles let us look the testimony of witnesses. In the instant case [ENTITY] (P.W. 1) has stated that the marriage was performed after paying a dowry of Rs. 30,000/- in cash and goods and he had also given a scooter to his son-in-law. He further states that the demand continued after the marriage and his daughter was not being treated with respect. Some times she was driven away from the house. Four years back a girl was born to her. When she was pregnant he accompanied by Shri [ENTITY] had gone to the house of [ENTITY]. At that time [ENTITY] has abused him and tried to beat him. Then he went to the house of [ENTITY] with the other persons of the community i.e. [ENTITY] electrician. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. At the behest of these persons, [ENTITY] has sent the girl with him. After the delivery [ENTITY] had gone back to her in-laws with her husband [ENTITY]. Thereafter also the in-laws used to taunt the girl that she had not brought anything and if she did not bring any money, they would drive her away or kill her. After the death of [ENTITY] they came to know that the in-laws had beaten his daughter due to which she committed suicide. He also proves Ex. P-2, a letter written by her daughter. In cross-examination, he states that instead of going to the house of the accused persons, he had gone to the house of [ENTITY] because he has intimate relations with him. He denies the suggestion that the younger son of [ENTITY] used to go to the house of the accused persons and the accused did not object of [ENTITY]'s going to the house of [ENTITY]. He also denies the suggestion that in-laws used to object going of [ENTITY] to the house of [ENTITY]. He also denies that the in-laws had complained to him that [ENTITY] goes to the house of [ENTITY] despite their objection to it. As regards the letter Ex. P-1 he says that he did not bring the letter with him but the Police had asked for that letter which he produced before the police after one or two months of this incident. In para 8, he says that the cards of marriage of [ENTITY] were printed but he has not brought any feard with him. The person, who was the mediator in marriage was [ENTITY], who was the tenant of the accused persons. It was only after two or three years of the marriage that [ENTITY] told them that she had been driven out of the home. He also admits that four persons who had gone to the house of the accused with him for conciliation are all alive. In para 14 he denies that letter (Ex. P-1) was with him when he gave the statement to the Police. He denies the statement (Ex. D-1) portion A to A under [SECTION], [ACT]. He also does not remember the date of the purchase of the scooter and the date of [ENTITY]. He also does not remember the dates of giving the money to [ENTITY] on different occasions. He says that he did not give any notice about the mal treatment to [ENTITY] by the accused persons. He does not have any paper written by [ENTITY] except Ex. P-1. In para. 17 he states that he never wrote a letter to any of the accused complaining about the mal-treat-ment. On seeking letter Ex. D-2 in para. 18 he states that despite the mal-treatment of the deceased at the hands of the accused persons he had offered to marry his second daughter with the son of [ENTITY] named [ENTITY]. He admits that letter Ex. D-3 bears the signature of his daughter [ENTITY] but he cannot say whether [ENTITY] has written the letter (Ex. D-3). He admits that although the signatures on Ex. P-1 is of [ENTITY] but she never made similar signatures. On Ex. P-1 the signatures are in English and in short.
12. [ENTITY] (P.W. 2) makes the similar statement about the marriage of [ENTITY] and payment of dowry and the casual demands by the in-laws of [ENTITY]. Contrary to the statement of [ENTITY], she says that she had given goods worth about Rs. 10,000/- to 12,000/- after the delivery of the girl to [ENTITY]. In para. 2 of the cross-examination, she admits that the accused used to complain about the character of [ENTITY]. Her daughter had told her that fact also that her in-laws object her going to the house of [ENTITY] still she goes there. She further says that [ENTITY] had told her that the in-laws object to the visit of the son of [ENTITY] to her. She also admits that accused [ENTITY] used to treat her and her husband as his own mother and father prior to one year of the statement. [ENTITY] also used to say that she will stay with her in-laws and she will stay with the in-laws in whatever way they keep her. She never visited the house of the accused persons. [ENTITY] (P.W. 3) gives the statement about the marriage of [ENTITY] and he states that he had given Rs. 6,000/- to [ENTITY] which she wanted for the marriage of her sister-in-law. The statement of this witness has been recorded two months after the incident by the police. In cross-examination he states about the maltreatment of [ENTITY] that she never made any complaint to the in-laws or to anyone. This witness is the maternal uncle of the deceased.
13. [ENTITY] (P.W. 5) states that [ENTITY] was a girl of hot temperament and always used to fight. She never used to listen to her in-laws. He never heard about any quarrel between her and her inlaws. He had written a letter to [ENTITY] because [ENTITY] asked him about the date of marriage of sister-in-law. Ex. P-4 is a letter which he has written to [ENTITY]. He used to call [ENTITY] as 'Dada' and when [ENTITY] did not listen to him, he used to say that he will not call [ENTITY] and perform a second marriage. In cross-examination this witness states that he was in correspondence with [ENTITY] and he. knows her writing. He says that the writing (Ex. P-1) is not written by [ENTITY] and writing in Ex. P-2 is also not of [ENTITY]. The Court questioned him the basis of his statement, whereupon he says that on the basis of his memory he makes the statement. Then he says that he had received many letters from [ENTITY], therefore, he knows her handwriting. He further states that when the door was forced open, he along with his father, [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] had entered the house and found [ENTITY] lying. They immediately lifted her and put her in a rickshaw and went to the hospital. He was also one of those who had lifted [ENTITY]. At the time of the incident, there was no bleeding from the mouth of [ENTITY] and there was no haematoma (Gumad) on her head. There was no injury on her body. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] had gone to the hospital and [ENTITY] had gone on scooter (Hero Honda), they had left the house open. There was nothing in the house when they lifted [ENTITY] from the matresses and there was no paper around it. When the house was left open [ENTITY] had gone to the house and he was coming and going from the house. [ENTITY] used to visit the house of [ENTITY] despite the objection from her in-laws. [ENTITY]'s son used to come to the house of [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] never complained about the maltreatment by the in-laws.
14. [ENTITY] (P.W. 6) is the Panch witness. In his statement he states that when the [ENTITY] of the dead body was made, there were no injuries on the body of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] used to go to the house of [ENTITY] all alone. [ENTITY] (P.W. 7) is the Panch witness for the seizure of Ex. P. According to this witness, Ex. P-1 was seized at the police station at midnight. The Police told him that the paper was found in the house of the deceased. [ENTITY] (P.W. 8) also said that the seizure memo was made at the Police Station Ex. P-7 spot map was also prepared at the Police Station. [ENTITY] (P.W. 9) states that [ENTITY] used to complain about her in-laws but he never paid any attention. He never asked as to why she was complaining. She never complained about her in-law, directly but she used to complain about her problem in her husband's house. Then he says that she used to complain some trouble in the susral. He also came forward with the letter that one boy had given a letter to him. He states that he never disclosed this fact to anyone that [ENTITY] used to complain.
15. This is the total material evidence on record except the medical evidence. Now from the aforesaid evidence, two plausible reasons are on record for the suicide of [ENTITY] one that she was ill treated by her in-laws and the other that she was visiting the house of [ENTITY] at [ENTITY] and one of his sons used to visit her, which was objected by in-laws but she continued to meet the son of [ENTITY] and go to his house. Although the father of the girl [ENTITY] has denied the suggestion of the defence but [ENTITY] mother of the deceased has admitted in para. 2 that [ENTITY] had told her that the accused persons objected to the going to [ENTITY]'s house and the visit of his son to her house. As regards the demand of [ENTITY] from the statement of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], it is manifest that they never made any complaint of this fact before the death of [ENTITY] to any one. He did not write a letter about this fact to any of the inlaws of [ENTITY]. Even though they have not been able to produce one letter of [ENTITY] but they said about the maltreatment to her. The most significant fact which makes the version of these witnesses highly unreliable is that the father of [ENTITY] had to admit in cross-examination when confronted with the letter written by him (Ex. D-2) that he had offered to get his second daughter married to the second son of [ENTITY]. If actually the treatment of the inlaws of [ENTITY] would have been bad, then knowing fully well that the accused persons are greedy persons and torturing his daughter for [ENTITY], he would not have offered his second daughter in marriage to the younger brother of the accused [ENTITY]. This offer is very significant and makes the testimony of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] highly doubtful. In the light of the aforesaid evidence of the testimony of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], if we see the evidence of [ENTITY], we find that there were cordial relations in the family and no dispute took place because of the dowry. The only dispute was about the visit of [ENTITY] to the house of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]'s son coming to [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] (P.W. 5) is an independent witness. The lower Court has rejected the testimony of [ENTITY] mainly on the ground that all the facts narrated by [ENTITY] were not narrated by him in his Police statement under [SECTION], [ACT]. This approach of the learned lower Court is erroneous and against the law. The Court cannot look into the statement recorded by the Police during investigation of any witness for appreciating his evidence before the Court. If the statement during investigation recorded under [SECTION] have to be looked into, they have to be first confronted with any material statement or material omission and then that has to be proved by the officer who recorded the statement; then only such statement can be made use of by the Court. As such, the learned lower Court has erred in disbelieving the testimony of [ENTITY] on this ground. [ENTITY] is an independent witness and in his statement nothing has been brought out to show that he is telling a lie. On the other hand, the mother and father of the deceased are definitely interested witness. [ENTITY] (P.W. 5) is a person, who was on the spot, who was living in the same house and had regular correspondence with the deceased and he was naturally the person who could depose about the relationship of the deceased and the accused persons. [ENTITY] has not been declared hostile by the prosecution and not cross-examined to show that he has made such statement, which was against his statement under [SECTION], [ACT]. The testimony of [ENTITY] (P.W. 12) about the talk with [ENTITY] in 1984 is also of no consequence. Such a statement not made in the proximity of the incident is not of any use to the prosecution.
16. As regards the letter (Ex. P-2) which is alleged to have been written by [ENTITY] and found in her room. One of the panch witnesses [ENTITY] to the [ENTITY] (Ex. P-6) has been examined, who says that [ENTITY] was prepared at the police station at midnight. The other witness [ENTITY] has not been examined. [ENTITY] in para. 2 of his statement has stated that the Police had told him that the paper has been found in the room of [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] (P.W. 14) admits that when he went to the house there was no one in the house. The doors were open and he seized the letter from there. [ENTITY] (P.W. 5) states that when [ENTITY] was rushed to the hospital, there was no letter in the room but [ENTITY] had come to the house. As such, the recovery of Ex. P-2 is highly doubtful. Now the handwriting expert says that the writing on Exs. P-2 and P-1 are of the same person. To prove the handwriting of [ENTITY], Exs. P-1, P-10 and P-11 have been produced as standard writing. P.W. 15 [ENTITY] admitted that he cannot say definitely that Ex. P-11 is of [ENTITY]. As regards Ex. P-10, [ENTITY] (P.W. 15) states that someone handed Ex. P-10 to him but he does not know the name of that person. This is also very strange circumstance, wherein the Police takes a letter as standard handwriting from someone whom the Police does not know. Now Ex. P-1 is seized by the Police according to the prosecution on 8-9-1989. [ENTITY] has stated that he produced Ex. P-1 after one or two months of the incident. He disowned his police statement (Ex. D-1) A to A in this behalf. As -such, the seizure of Ex. P-1 also becomes doubtful and further more [ENTITY] is not in a position to recognise the handwriting of [ENTITY], whereas he states that Ex. P-1 is in the handwriting of [ENTITY]. These discrepancies have been explained by the lower Court by saying that there could be no doubt that Ex. P-1 having been sent but this does not prove that the letter was written in the handwriting of [ENTITY] and the seizure of Exs. P-1, P-2, P-10 and P-11 being highly suspicious, no reliance can be placed on the seizure of these letters by the police and as such there is no reliable evidence to show that the letter (Ex. P-2) was written by [ENTITY]. On the other hand, [ENTITY] (P.W. 5) who was in regular correspondence with [ENTITY], states that Exs. P-1 and P-2 are not in the handwriting of [ENTITY]. The contents of Ex. P-2 also makes the letter highly doubtful where it has been written that she was beaten and blood was oozing from her nose. Dr. [ENTITY] (P.W. 4) in paras. 2 and 4 of his statement has admitted that there were no injuries on her body. Even in post mortem report there are no external injuries on the body of [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] (P.W. 6) makes a similar statement, who is the Panch witness of the dead body. [ENTITY] (P.W. 15) also does not any that he found any injury on the body of [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] (P.W. 5) also says that there were no injuries on the body of [ENTITY]. The lower Court has relied on the [ENTITY] itself treating it as substantive piece of evidence, whereas it is the statement of the witness which is the substantive piece of evidence and not the [ENTITY], unless the contents of the [ENTITY] are proved in the Court. As such, the contents of Ex. P-2 makes the letter very doubtful. Further more, the recovery itself is very strange. When the house was open, the police should have sealed the house and recovered the letter and other articles in the presence of the Panchas but the police entered the open house without its occupant, without giving their search, without seeking permission of the owner of the house and made the seizure memo, which is not supported by the independent panchas or the independent evidence.
17. To conclude, from the aforesaid discussion, it is manifest that the prosecution has not been able to prove by means of cogent and reliable evidence that the death of [ENTITY] was caused within [SECTION] of her marriage and as such no presumption can be drawn against the accused on that ground. The allegation against the accused about harassment to [ENTITY] and demand of dowry are also not conclusively proved in view of the aforesaid discussion. The letter Ex. P-2 has been seized in the suspicious circumstances and the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove that it was written by [ENTITY] herself. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused persons either abetted or incited [ENTITY] for committing suicide. In the instant case, it may also be pointed that no independent witness except [ENTITY] of the locality has been produced by the prosecution to prove cruel treatment to [ENTITY] as alleged by the parents of the deceased by the inlaws on the deceased. Even those witnesses, who have been named by [ENTITY] have not been examined to prove the allegations of beating and torture.
18. In [PRECEDENT], it was held that though the parents have been examined to bring out the allegations of cruel treatment to deceased on non-fulfilment of demands made by the accused, it failed to examine any witness of the locality in the matter of alleged beating and torture. There were no ante mortem injuries found in the autopesy. The report of death was immediately lodged by the accused. In the aforesaid circumstances, the accused could not be held responsible for abetting or inciting the suicide or the suicide being caused due to cruelty and maltreatment or demand of dowry. In the instant case also the accused persons when found [ENTITY] unconscious, they immediately rushed her to the hospital. No injuries were found on her body by the doctor and the Panchas and no independent witnesses have been examined to prove the cruel treatment. Had there been a guilty mind the accused persons could not have rushed [ENTITY] to the hospital leaving the house open, not caring for anything but rushing her to the hospital.
19. In the result, the appeals of the appellants are allowed. Their conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court for committing offences under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] are set aside. The appellants are in jail. They be released forthwith if not required in any other offence.