We find that Ext.
At the trial, amongst other witnesses, Munnakumar was examined as PW3 and he proved number only his companyplaint Ext.
25 but also the letter dated 16 02 2004 Ext.
49 said to have been written by the deceased to him from Ahmedabad.
The companyplaint was registered as FIR and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellants under Sections 304B, 498A and 306 read with Section 114, IPC.
The further case of the appellants in defence was that the deceased was a minor when she got married to the appellant No.
The facts very briefly are that Anitha Rinkudevi got married to the appellant No.
49 alleging demand of dowry and ill treatment by the appellants towards her.
PW 3 has number stated in his evidence specifically that on 16 02 2004 the deceased was at Ahmedabad.
2 and he has also stated that the handwritings and signature in the letter marked as Ext.
44 and the defence of the appellants was that the deceased was in Chaksiriya village with her brothers family in Bihar and was number at Ahmedabad on 16 02 2004 from where the letter Ext.
44 were his.
After hearing Mr. Haresh Raichura, learned companynsel for the appellants, and Ms. Pinky Behara, learned companynsel for the State, at length, we find that besides Ext.
On the other hand, DW 1 has stated in his evidence that on 15 02 2004, his wife and he had gone to Chaksiriya village which was the home of his wife and they stayed at Chaksiriya up to 21 02 2004 and everyday they used to meet Munnakumar PW 3 and the deceased and PW 3 wanted to send the deceased to Ahmedabad but the deceased was number willing to go to Ahmedabad and she used to say that if she is sent to Ahmedabad, she will companymit suicide.
1 and she companymitted suicide because she wanted to remain with her parents in Chaksiriya village and did number want to live with the appellants at Ahmedabad.
49, there is numberother evidence of a prosecution witness to establish that the appellants had, in any way, subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment.
31 written by PW 3 to the deceased.
44 to appellant No.
DW 1 has further stated in his evidence that he had written an inland letter dated 23 02 2004 Ext.
31 is dated 25 04 2004 and is admitted by PW 3 to have been written by him from Chaksiria in Bihar to the deceased at Ahmedabad.
But unfortunately, I have number received even a single letter.
31 are extracted hereinbelow The main reason for writing this letter is that since when you have gone sic I have been waiting for your letter.
49 is said to have been written by her to PW 3.
The appellants challenged the findings of the Trial Court in the High Court in the Criminal Appeal, but the High Court maintained companyviction of the appellants.
2 and 3 are the father and mother respectively of appellant No.
The Trial Court disbelieved the defence evidence and companyvicted the appellants under Sections 304B, 498A and 306, IPC on the basis of the evidence of PW 3 and Ext.
Her brother Munnakumar lodged a companyplaint on 21 05 2004 before the Assistant Police Commissioner, J Division, Ahmedabad City in which he alleged that Rinkudevi had written to him that the appellants were harassing her since two years after the marriage for number bringing dowry such as table, chair, sofa set, bed, scooter, companyour T.V. and along with the companyplaint he produced xerox companyy of a letter dated 16 02 2004 said to have been written by Rinkudevi.
49 was actually written by the deceased or number, companyviction of the appellants only on the basis of the said letter Ext.
The appellants led defence evidence through DW 1 who is said to have written a letter dated 23 02 2004 Ext.
The said letter dated 16 02 2004 is alleged to have been written by the deceased from Ahmedabad.
In other words, the letter dated 16 02 2004 alleged to have been written by the deceased Ext.
But after talking to you on telephone, I am satisfied that this time you are living happily and number being misbehaved.
49 written by the deceased to PW 3 and Ext.
On 18 05 2004, Rinkudevi poured kerosene over her body and died out of burns.
Coming number to Ext.31, we find that the letter Ext.
49 was at all written by the deceased to PW 3 for various reasons.
Relevant portions from this letter Ext.
1 in the year 2002.
Appellant Nos.
But, we have grave doubts as to whether the said letter dated 16 02 2004 Ext.
49 for the offences under Sections 304B, 498A and 306, IPC is unsafe.
Since there are grave doubts as to whether the letter Ext.
49 to PW 3 is the only evidence produced by the prosecution to prove that the appellants had subjected the deceased to harassment and cruelty in companynection with demand for dowry.
1822 of 2006.
K. PATNAIK, J. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 04 12 2006 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
