Therefore, the security deed Exh.19 was executed. He then
handed over the said document to Manik father of the
deceased. Thereafter, deceased went for cohabitation. He
claims that thereafter, once he met deceased when she had
been to her parents house and at that time she had told
him that still there was harassment to her in connection
with demand of dowry. As referred earlier PW-4 had told
that father and brother of the deceased had told him
about demand of accused and as such his evidence is
hearsay in nature about alleged demand of accused. Pws.
1,5,6,7,8 and 11 have also more or less stated about the
execution of the security deed by accused No.1 in favour
of the father of the deceased on 23.08.1997 whereby
accused No.1 had agreed that he would not harass the
deceased in future. Exh.19 also shows that the accused
No.1 had agreed as above. This document is dated
23.08.1997. Nothing is mentioned in this document
regarding alleged demand of gold ring, cycle, TV and
Rs.10,000/- by the accused from the deceased. In fact,
when this document was executed on 23.08.1997 after four
years of marriage of the deceased with accused No.1, in
May 1993, the demand of above said articles by the
accused should have been mentioned in this document if at
all the accused would have started harassing the deceased
after two years of her marriage for fulfillment of their
demands of above said articles. Therefore, non mentioning
