V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals are filed against the judgment dated 12-7-1996 made in S. C. No. 311 of 1995 by the learned III Additional sessions Judge, Kakinada. Crl. A. No. 650 of 1996 is filed by Accused No. 1 against the order convicting him for the offence under section 304-B IPC and sentencing him to suffer R. I. for eight years and to pay a fine of rs. 3,000/- in default to suffer SI for a period of six moths and also in convicting him for the offence under Section 201 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer Simple imprisonment for three months. ( 2 ) CRL. A. No. 621 of 1996 is filed by accused nos. 2 and 3 against the order of conviction recorded against them under Section 201 ipc and sentencing them to suffer two years ri and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. ( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that A-1 is the husband, A-2 and A-3 are the father-in- law and mother-in-law of the deceased vijayawani. A-1 and the deceased were married on 10-5-1990 at Kakinada and at the time of the marriage, her father gave rs. 35,000/- towards dowry besides giving sovereigns of gold and silver ornaments. Some time after the marriage, A-1 shifted to tuni to set up Cable. T. V. business, but ultimately he returned to Kakinada and started living with his parents. Since then, the accused have been harassing the deceased to bring more money from her father and pressurising her to bring a scooter and on her failure to fulfil their demands, she was ill treated both physically and mentally. A-1 has even thrown away the saree samans given at the time of birth of child and returned them on the ground that the scooter was not given. The father of the deceased, P. W. I gave a silver plate of 75 tulas and tumbler to the accused with the hope that his daughter would be treated well and the accused would not harass her for some days, but later it was resumed. The father of the deceased, P. W. I gave a silver plate of 75 tulas and tumbler to the accused with the hope that his daughter would be treated well and the accused would not harass her for some days, but later it was resumed. P. W. I tried to pacify the accused with the help of mediators Velaga anjaneyulu, P. W. 5 and Adabala Ramana and the accused having not satisfied with the promise of her father made the life of vijayawani miserable and she lost interest in her life. ( 4 ) ON 25-8-1993 on being informed that vijayawani died in her in-laws house, her father P. W. 1, mother P. W. 2 and brother p. W. 3 went to her house where they were informed that the deceased committed suicide by hanging from ceiling in the house. P. W. 1 found the deceased tied with rope connected to the ceiling fan fixed to the roof and suspecting foul play in the death of the deceased, got photographs taken. Thereupon, when P. W. 1 was about to proceed to give a report to the police, all the accused along with their relations did not allow them to proceed to give report to the police and removed the corpse in a hurried manner to burial ground and got it burnt. Later, P. W. 1 and his people managed to escape from the custody of the accused and went to burial ground and learnt that the deceased was burnt. Thereupon, P. W. 1 presented a report to the police which was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police and the Circle Inspector of Police took up investigation. During the course of investigation, on 27-8-1993, A-1 to A-3 were arrested. The ashes and bones of the deceased were seized and the opinion of the Forensic professor was obtained by supplying him photos of the dead body and he was of the opinion that the deceased might have died of suicidal hanging and the chance of homicidal hanging cannot be ruled out. Since the death occurred within 7 years of the marriage, due to demand of dowry, viz. , a scooter, charges were framed against the accused under sections 304-B and 201 IPC. ( 5 ) AS the accused denied the charges, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 16 and marked documents Exs. P-1 to P-21 and also m. O. 1. Since the death occurred within 7 years of the marriage, due to demand of dowry, viz. , a scooter, charges were framed against the accused under sections 304-B and 201 IPC. ( 5 ) AS the accused denied the charges, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 16 and marked documents Exs. P-1 to P-21 and also m. O. 1. On behalf of the defence, D-1 to D-14 were marked. ( 6 ) P. W. 1, the father of the deceased vijayawani gave a written complaint Ex. P-1 on 26-8-1993 stating that aforesaid facts apart from stating that on 28-5-1993 evening at about 5. 00 p. m. when he came to know about his daughters death, he went to the house of the accused and found his daughter dead in the sitting position on her knees and having a thin wire to the ceiling fan. A-2 informed that his daughter committed suicide. According to P. W. 1, it was not found as a suicidal death and when he tried to give complaint to the police suspecting that the accused subjected his daughter to harassment and killed her, they restrained him, his wife and son and in the mean time they removed the dead body of his daughter and cremated. Prior to that, his son got the photographs of the dead body of his daughter by his friend. As the accused threatened them saying that they will kill them if they report the same to the police and kept a guard to them, they could not present the report immediately. After escaping from the guard, the report has been presented to the police. Basing on the said report, Ex. P-1 FIR is registered at 5. 00 p. m. on 26-8-1993 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P. W. 13. ( 7 ) P. W. 1 in his deposition stated that a-3 is his sister and he has given his daughter in marriage to his sister s son i. e. A-1. He reiterated about the facts of giving dowry of rs. 30,000/- and the other articles and also about the demand of scooter and the harassment of the deceased by the accused and stated that he came to know about the death of his daughter at about 5. 00 p. m. on 25-8-1993 and he immediately rushed to the house of the accused and found number of people gathered there including their relations. 00 p. m. on 25-8-1993 and he immediately rushed to the house of the accused and found number of people gathered there including their relations. When he questioned A-2, he informed that his daughter committed suicide by hanging. He went inside and saw his daughter though the accused resisted the same. He found the body of his daughter hanging to the ceiling fan tied with a nylon rope but sitting on her knees and he also found injuries upon her face and also on her hands. He protested that it was not a case of suicide and he wanted to know the reason. But, some of the persons of the accused who were there threatened him not to give any report to the police and if he ventures to do so, he also will be killed. He stated that his wife started beating her head which resulted in bleeding injuries to her and being unable to bear the happenings and the threats of the accused especially his sister- A3 himself and his wife fainted. There was a power failure at that time and after it was restored, they found the body of their daughter missing and they were informed that the body was taken away and it was cremated. They were not allowed to leave the house till 5. 00 a. m. Immediately, they got prepared a report and he went to the police station along with p. W. 5 at about 8. 00 a. m. and gave a report. ( 8 ) IN the cross-examination, he has stated that he gave a report at about 9. 30 a. m. and he was there till 12. 00 noon and the accused were also brought to the police station at about 12. 30 or 1. 00 p. m. on that day and he was examined by the police at about 4. 30 p. m. on the same day by the Inspector of police. He stated that he was not questioned by the Sub-Inspector of Police after receiving the report from him. He further stated that after giving the complaint by him, the police did not examine him immediately. ( 9 ) P. W. 2, the mother of the deceased stated that the police came to their house at about 9. He stated that he was not questioned by the Sub-Inspector of Police after receiving the report from him. He further stated that after giving the complaint by him, the police did not examine him immediately. ( 9 ) P. W. 2, the mother of the deceased stated that the police came to their house at about 9. 00 a. m. on the next day after the death of her daughter and she was examined by them and later she was not examined by the police. ( 10 ) P. W. 3 the brother of the deceased and son of P. Ws. 1 and 2 stated that on the next day of his sister s death, he got the photographs developed and gave them to his father and he also accompanied his father to the police station and his father gave a report to the police. He stayed outside the police station and his father along with p. W. 5 went into the police station on the same day evening, he was examined by the police and the police recorded his statement. ( 11 ) P. W. 4 the elder brother of P. W. 1 stated that he was examined by the police at 10. 00 a. m. on 26-8-1993 and the police recorded his statement. Later the police did not question him. On that day, around 12. 00 noon, the accused were brought to the police station and in the evening at about 5. 00 p. m. they went to the burial ground. ( 12 ) P. W. 5 a friend of P. W. 1 also stated that he went to the police station along with p. W. 1 around 12. 00 noon and the police prepared some statements and asked him to go away and he was examined by the police in the police station itself and later his statement was recorded by the Magistrate also. ( 13 ) P. WS. 6 and 7 are the tenants of A-2. P. W. 8 is the watchman of the burial ground. P. W. 9 is the washer man in the burial ground. P. Ws. 6 to 9 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. ( 14 ) P. W. 10 is the owner of the photo studio where the photographs were developed. He is the friend of P. W. 3. P. W. 9 is the washer man in the burial ground. P. Ws. 6 to 9 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. ( 14 ) P. W. 10 is the owner of the photo studio where the photographs were developed. He is the friend of P. W. 3. He also did not support the case of the prosecution. ( 15 ) MR. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned senior Coursel appearing for the appellants submits that no doubt the prosecution witnesses P. Ws. 1 to 5 stated about the payment of dowry and the further demand for a scooter and the harassment of the deceased by the accused but their depositions are not trustworthy and cannot be relied upon as they themselves have stated that the police recorded their statements during the day and some of them stated in their statement that their statements were recorded at 10. 00 a. m. and 12. 00 noon. Most of the witnesses have stated that their statements were not recorded after the report was given by P. W. 1 and from the said evidence, it is clear that their statements have been recorded before registration of the crime and the said statements have been suppressed and therefore it cannot be said that which of the statements of the prosecution witnesses i. e. , the statements recorded by the police before lodging of Ex. P-1 or the statements recorded after the registering of the FIR are true and therefore the case of the prosecution cannot be believed. He further submits that the accused and the parents of the deceased are closely related residing in the same within a distance of one furlong and therefore the version of the prosecution witnesses that they were prevented from giving a complaint on the same day and they were confined till 5. 00 a. m. of the next day and that some how they have escaped and gave the complaint on the next day evening at 5. 00 p. m. is not believable and do not inspire any confidence and therefore their statements are not trustworthy. ( 16 ) HE also states that A-3 is the own sister of P. Ws. 00 a. m. of the next day and that some how they have escaped and gave the complaint on the next day evening at 5. 00 p. m. is not believable and do not inspire any confidence and therefore their statements are not trustworthy. ( 16 ) HE also states that A-3 is the own sister of P. Ws. 1 and 4 and the accused persons are rich persons as is evident that they have a bungalow and some tenants are also residing in their house and therefore they have demanded some money and as the accused have not given any money, they have developed an idea of giving a report and after 24 hours, gave a report to the police by making an attempt explaining the delay. However the statements said to have been recorded from them have not been supplied to the accused and they have been suppressed and therefore the case of the prosecution cannot be believed. ( 17 ) IN support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Kota Peda Nagesh v. State of A. P. Paras 14 and 15 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder which are as follows;"a Division Bench of this Court in Gaddem jayarami Reddi s case (supra) held that a deliberate destruction of statements of witnesses made during investigation or wholesale refusal to furnish copies of such statements leads to the inference that prejudice was occasioned to the accused. Even otherwise, a slight evidence of a reasonable possibility of prejudice would swing the balance in favour of the accused. In a circumstance, where the prosecution has suppressed documents, it is open to a Court to presume that the statements withheld would become unfavourable to the prosecution if produced. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are in entire agreement with the principle laid down in the above decision. As contended by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, we are of the view that non- furnishing of the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C pertaining to p. Ws. 1 to 4 by P. W. 14 to the accused, has occasioned great prejudice to the appellant/accused. As contended by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, we are of the view that non- furnishing of the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C pertaining to p. Ws. 1 to 4 by P. W. 14 to the accused, has occasioned great prejudice to the appellant/accused. " ( 18 ) IN the instant case also it is stated that it is evident from the depositions of the prosecution witnesses that their statements have been recorded before lodging the complaint and the same have not been furnished to the accused and therefore the aforesaid judgment lends support to the contention of the appellants. ( 19 ) THE learned senior Counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of A. P. v. Punati Ramulu wherein the first Information Report was deliberately failed to be recorded by the police on receipt of information of a cognisable offence and the report was prepared after due deliberations, consultations, discussions and therefore the conclusions were drawn that the investigation is tainted and unsafe to rely upon such tainted investigation. ( 20 ) IN the instant case also, there is evidence adduced by the accused that the deceased Vijayawani was looked after well and there was never a demand of dowry and as the accused persons are rich persons and are closely related to P. Ws. 1 to 3, taking advantage of the death of the deceased, demanded the money and as their demand was not meted out they have foisted a case against them. ( 21 ) HEARD the learned Public Prosecutor also. ( 22 ) THE learned Counsel submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, A-2 died. Accordingly the Crl. A. No. 650 of 1996 shall stand abated against A-2 and is accordingly dismissed against A-2. ( 23 ) THE accused and the parents of the deceased are residing in the same street and in a close proximity in Kakinada town and according to the depositions of P. W. 1, when he received the information about the death of his daughter, he went to the house of the accused and found several of his relations gathered there and therefore it cannot be said that he was prevented from observing the body of the deceased or from making any complaint to the police. He conveniently waited for 24 hours and according to the evidence of P. W. 2 the mother of the deceased, she applied oil to the head of the deceased as per the rituals which goes to show that she participated in the cremation ceremony and all the witnesses P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and other relations were also there and therefore it cannot be said that they were prevented and they were confined and the body was taken without their knowledge and it was burnt. Even according to their depositions, the complaint was given by P. W. 1 at about 8. 00 or 10. 00 p. m. and the accused were also called to the police station and their statements were recorded during the day and after giving the report they were not examined and therefore the version of prosecution witnesses appears to be unnatural and a tainted one and do notinspire any confidence. I therefore do not see any justification in convicting the accused basing on the aforesaid evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 5. Accordingly the accused are acquitted from the charges levelled against them for the offence under Section 304-B and 201 IPC and the judgment under appeal is set aside. ( 24 ) THE appeal is accordingly allowed. The accused shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. The accused are entitled to get refund of fine amount paid by them including the fine amount paid by a-2. The bail bonds executed by the appellants also shall stand discharged.