| the main witnesses regarding the alleged demand of money and also harassment and beating to bhimabai are her father and mother. they said that whenever his daughter came to her parental home she used to complain that she was being subjected to harassment by the appellants on account of some domestic reasons and further that her husband had told her that while coming back from her parental home she should bring rs 1000 1200 for expenses and for manure as he had no sufficient money. it is important to note that in her statement under section 161 cr p c which was recorded on the very next day of the death of bhimabai this witness did not state that the cause for ill treatment was a demand for money and a consequent beating. the evidence on record does not indicate that the police had any reason to favour the accused and deliberately omitted to mention about the alleged demand of money while recording the statement of pw 5 sumanbai under section 161 cr. the evidence shows that the accused come from very humble background and they could not have exerted any kind of influence financial or otherwise upon the police so as to manage a statement favourable to them when in the course of investigation the statements of witnesses were being recorded under section 161 cr. in view of the aforesaid definition of the word dowry any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. therefore the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. since an essential ingredient of section 304 b ipc viz demand for dowry is not established the conviction of the appellants can not be sustained. the appellants were also charged under sections 498 a and 306 read with section 34 ipc but were acquitted of the said charges by the learned sessions judge which order has attained finality for the reason that the state did not prefer appeal against the same. the appeal before the high court and also in this court has been preferred by the appellants challenging their conviction under section 304 b read with section 34 ipc. therefore this court refrained from expressing any opinion as to whether the appellants could be held guilty of having committed the offence under section 498 a or 306 ipc on the basis of evidence available on record as their acquittal under the aforesaid charges has attained finality and can not be reversed in the appeal filed by the appellants challenging their conviction under section 304 b ipc. |