somersault, the complainant has stated that the report was lodged by her father. First in the examination-in-chief she has stated that the incident of beating was not witnessed by anyone but in the cross examination she has denied the same and stated that her neighbours had seen the accused/applicants beating her. Even in the cross examination, she has reiterated that report Ex. P-1 was made by her father. If the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4 is seen, it is apparent that the report Ex. P-1 was lodged by the complainant herself. This contradiction as to the lodgment of report creates doubt in the mind of this Courts. The other important thing is that had there been any incident of beating to the complainant, at least the neighbours are expected to have seen the same but no independent witness has come forward to make such allegation against the accused/applicants. The evidence of others witnesses also does not give any specific clue as to the demand of dowry and harassment of the complainant at the hand of the accused/applicants. According to the complainant, the cruelty started about a month or two after the marriage but yet she did not take any step for taking the matter to the police rather she spent considerable long time in the house of her parents and one month or so after the delivery of female child the report was lodged. This also shows that it is entirely a cooked up idea to implicate the accused/applicants in the dowry related case of cruelty. The record also shows that once the complainant had jumped into the well and it is for that the accused/applicants sent her to her maternal home to avoid any untoward happening in their house. It was not the consequence of any cruel treatment where they were not interest in keeping her in their house. Thus, the conviction of the accused/applicants under Section 498-A IPC does not appear to be in conformity with
