K.S. Jhaveri, J. - (1.)Present appeals assail the judgment and order dated 12/09/1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahesana in Sessions Case No. 136 of 1993, whereby, while acquitting the original accused Nos. 2 to 8 for all the charges levelled against them and the accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sec. 304B, 306 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC'), the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sec. 498A and 201 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further imprisonment for three months and for the offence punishable under Sec. 201 of the IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further simple imprisonment for one month.
(2.)Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the deceased and the accused No. 1 got married in the year 1985. The original accused Nos. 5 and 8 were the father -in -law and the mother -in -law, respectively, of the deceased. If was the case of the prosecution that after the marriage, the accused started harassing the deceased for dowry and they used to give her physical and mental torture to her. It was alleged that prior to two months of the incident in question, the accused No. 1 demanded Rs. 50,000/ - from the deceased and for that accused, in the aid and abetment of each other, continued harassment to the deceased. When the same became unbearable, the deceased, on 26/12/1990 in the midnight i.e. within a period of seven years of the marriage, committed suicide by hanging herself with the fan by a saree at her matrimonial home. Further, on the said incident having occurred, the accused, instead of informing the police about the same, allegedly, with a intention to destroy the evidence, performed cremation of the deceased. Thus, the accused committed the alleged offence punishable under Sec. 304B, 306, 498A and 201 r/w. 120B of the IPC and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, for which, a complaint came to be lodged against them.
2.1 Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, charge -sheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Sessions Court at Mahesana. Since the original accused No. 5 - Kalidas Kakubhai Patel had expired, the criminal case was abated qua him.

2.2 The trial Court framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence.

2.3 In order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined following witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence, as under:

2.4 At the end of the trial and after recording the Further Statements of the accused under Sec. 313 of Code and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge concluded as aforesaid by the impugned judgment and order. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant - accused No. 1 as well as the State have preferred the present appeals against conviction and the acquittal, respectively.

(3.)We have heard Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala, learned senior advocate for the appellant - accused No. 1 and Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.
3.1 Mr. Anandjiwala, learned senior advocate for the original accused No. 1, mainly contended that the complaint for the alleged offence, had been lodged after three months and six days of the incident in question and it is a well drafted application, running into almost ten pages and the complainant has admitted that the same was drafted by an advocate. In that view of the matter, he submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in framing the accused in the crime in question. He submitted that, even in the original complaint, names of some of the accused, were not referred. The learned senior advocate for the accused No. 1 also contended that there is no evidence on record to prove the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 304B of the IPC and/or under the Dowry Act and/or to prove that the deceased was being physically and mentally harassed and tortured and thereby, cruelty was perpetrated to the deceased. He took us to the evidence of the complainant and submitted that, on the contrary, it has come on the record that the accused No. 1 had helped the father of the deceased by giving him Rs. 1 lakh, which had been misappropriated by the father of the deceased. He also submitted that the deceased was suffering from depression and the accused No. 1 had tried his level best to support her. Even, the accused No. 1 had shifted his business to Kadi so as to be by the side of the deceased. Making above submissions, he requested that the accused No. 1 is, at least, requires to be given benefit of doubt and may be acquitted of the charges levelled against him.