pointed out, there is no appeal, challenging aquittal of the accused under Section 304(b). The evidence on record indicates that on two occasions, delivery expenses have been borne out by the parents of the deceased, even though it is customary to bear the expenses only once. When they are able to bear delivery expenses two times, the contention that they were not able to pay Rs.10,000/- is unbelievable. Therefore, it is clear that the dispute was not on account of demand for dowry, but it was on account of some other maladjustment. Immediately prior to the occurrence, the dispute has been with reference to the deceased Kavitha visiting her parents frequently. There was an express instruction that she should not visit her parents' house, and only then, she can be in the matrimonial home. The condition imposed that she should not visit her parents' house, but she would go only at the time of deliveries, would have certainly caused mental cruelty to the deceased. Coupled with this evidence, and the other part of evidence of parents of the deceased, even though do not establish dowry death, would establish the offence of cruelty, and thus, the deceased having been driven to the extent of committing suicide, the accused 1 to 3 are responsible for the offence under Section 498A IPC.
