within seven years of her marriage, though, prima-facie, have been proved but the prosecution has failed to prove that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused in connection with any demand of dowry. According to the learned counsel, the statements of the three witnesses, which have been examined by the prosecution in order to prove the said ingredients, do not prove at all that any of the accused made any demand of dowry or Rs.50,000/- cash, as alleged, either from the deceased or her parents and harassed the deceased on that account. According to the learned counsel, the allegation of demand of Rs.50,000/fifteen/twenty days prior to the occurrence, is a concocted version as no such demand was ever made by the husband. Learned counsel further argued that the alleged demand further does not lead to cruelty as there is no allegation that when the father (Madan Lal) refused to fulfill the demand, the accused caused any cruelty or harassment to the deceased. Learned counsel further argued that DW1-Rajan, who was the mediator of the marriage, had stated that neither at the time of the marriage nor subsequently any demand was made, and father of the deceased never approached him complaining about the demand of Rs.50,000/- by the husband for doing business. According to the learned counsel, in this case the deceased had not died by consuming poison due to any harassment caused to her on account of dowry, but she had committed suicide as she was under depression on account of the fact that her husband was physically and economically weak and she wanted to get rid of the marriage by seeking divorce. After knowing that she was pregnant, she became more depressed and committed suicide. None of the accused was responsible for her suicide.
