1. Leave granted.
2. Three persons were convicted under Sections 304B, 201 read with Sections 34 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The present appellants were sentenced to RI for seven years each for the first count and RI for two years on the second count while no separate sentence was awarded for the third court. As for the remaining convicted person the sentence awarded on the first count was RI for nine years (Ram Pukar). All the convicted persons appealed before the High Court and the conviction as well as sentence were confirmed. The present appellants are A1-Mungeshwar Prasad and A3-Devanti Devi. Their son Ram Pukar is the remaining convicted person who has not challenged the verdict of the High Court. So we are dealing with this appeal only in respect of the present appellants before us.
3. Sudama Devi was married to the son of the appellants-Ram Pukar sometime during 1992. She died of unnatural circumstances on 24-1-95. The convicted persons are alleged to have subjected her to harassments with the demand for dowry and after her death she was hurriedly cremated. The trial Court convicted the three accused in the aforesaid background.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that A1-Mungeshwar Prasad and his wife A3-Devanti Devi are very old people having crossed 80 years of age even at the time of death of Sudama Devi. The plea made on that score was to have the sentence reduced. But when we perused the evidence of prosecution we have noticed that the prosecution did not succeed in showing that the present appellants did anything for subjecting Sudama Devi to harassment with the demand for dowry "soon before her death". PW 1 to PW 4 were the witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove that Sudama Devi was subjected to harassment with the demand for dowry. All of them said in one accord that husband of Sudama Devi demanded dowry a few months prior to her death. Even if the said period can be treated as falling within the proximity range of "soon before death", the said acts can be attributed only to Rain Pukar -- the husband of the deceased Sudama Devi. None of the witnesses said either directly or indirectly that the present appellants did anything during the said period as against Sudama Devi. Of course some of the witnesses said that soon after marriage these appellants asked for more dowry. But that demand was made at a time which was beyond the range of "soon before death" of the deceased.
5. In the above circumstances it is difficult to sustain the conviction under Sections 304(B) and 498(A) of the IPC so far as the appellants are concerned. As Section 201 of the IPC cannot be separated from the substantive offence we think it is an idle exercise to consider whether conviction under Section 201, IPC can independently be fastened with the appellants. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellants. They are acquitted.
6. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.