been duly corroborated by the statement of father of deceased (PW/1). He has also argued that evidence of independent witness Deo Das Vaishnav (PW/6) clearly established the fact that at the request of the deceased, her husband appellant No. 2 left her in her parents' house and that the appellant No. 2 was living separately with the deceased. It has been also argued by learned counsel for the appellants that when health of the deceased was getting deteriorated, she requested A-2 to drop her in her parents' house so that proper care could be taken and this conduct of appellant No.2 does not come within the purview of harassment or cruelty in connection with any demand of dowry. Learned counsel has also stated that the evidence of handwriting expert (PW-12) is not at all sufficient to conclusively prove the fact that the handwriting was of the deceased. It has been also argued that deceased was residing with her parents for last 3 months and from the postmortem report it has been established that the death was due to post complication of delivery of child, who later on died, and the doctor has opined the cause of death to be shock due to Chronic illness and starvation. It is clear from the statement of defense witness that Ratna Bai was suffering from anemia and most probably she died due to shock on account of giving birth who later on died. There is nothing on record to show that the appellants, in any manner, harassed the deceased for demand of dowry and the Article P-1 and P-2 are not reliable documents and creates suspicious. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance on the decisions in the matter of Jitendra Kumar & Ors.
