very peculiar circumstances. It was stated that the victim's husband had purchased a car by taking a loan from bank and the victim's husband could not repay the loan. Therefore, the car was taken away by the bank. The P.W.1 Sushila does not state about advancing any money to the husband of victim. P.W. 2-Shakuntala states that some amount was advanced by her sister P.W.1 Sushila at the time of purchase of car and that amount was not refunded by the victim's husband and the accused-mother in law used to say if the car was taken away by the authority of the bank from where they should pay the loan borrowed from Sushila. Thus, the probability of victim being frustrated because her husband could not fulfill demands by her sisters for refund of money advanced is greater than the victim's being harassed on demand of money by her mother in law.