witness from the locality, neighborhood, or community confirming cruelty or harassment. It is settled in law that omnibus, general, and vague allegations are insufficient for conviction. Learned counsel further submits that payments by mother (PW-1) do not prove dowry demand as it was given for medical treatment of deceased when she met with an accident. The mother’s payments of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.7,000/- have no documentary proof linking him to any unlawful demand by the appellant. No complaint was lodged at the time of any payment and it is common in marriages for parents to assist newly weds financially, and such assistance cannot automatically be treated as dowry or extortion without specific evidence of forced demand. Learned counsel also submits that demand of dowry, if real, would reasonably have triggered a complaint, mediation, or intervention but nothing such happened in this case. Learned counsel also submits that father Krishna Giri Goswami (PW-4) has specifically stated in para 7 of his evidence that whenever he used to go to the matrimonial home of her daughter, the family members of her in-laws was positive and they never demanded any dowry from him nor alleged about substandard dowry articles. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider that the chain of circumstantial evidence as
