“…The evidence of the parents of the deceased PWs 1 and 2 was only relatable to dowry.
The High Court held that there was no question of demand of dowry, and in fact, appellant was financing the father of the deceased PW1.
There being no other material to show as to how the deceased was being harassed or subjected to cruelty, the conclusion of the High Court that because the deceased committed suicide there must be some harassment and cruelty is insupportable and indefensible.
There was no material to substantiate this conclusion. Merely on surmises and conjectures the conviction could not have recorded.
There is a vast difference between “could have been”, “must have been” and “has been”. In the absence of any material, the case falls to the first category. In such a case conviction is impermissible…..