same fails to make out any case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In order to substantiate the same, learned advocate argued that none of the elements of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code has been satisfied by the prosecution by way of evidence so that a circumstance is created for convicting the appellant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It was additionally argued that so far the elements of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, no case of cruelty has been made out and the same are afterthought as no independent witness has been examined or relied upon by the prosecution who could have supported the issue relating to the subject matter of dowry which was given at the time of marriage and the further demand of dowry which was claimed after the birth of the female child. According to the learned advocate, the factum of dowry, demand of dowry, physical and mental torture were an afterthought which would be evident from the fact that a salish was held before the panchayat in the area where the complainant used to reside. In order to substantiate his contention on issues relating to the foundation of applicability of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, learned advocate relied upon Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618, Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2020)15 SCC 359, State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73, Sabitri Barman v. State of West Bengal, (2011) SCC Online Cal 903 . For substantiating the contention relating to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, learned advocate relied upon Neelu Chopra and Anr v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184.
