D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment of the II Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in sc No. 167 of 1993 dated 5-7-1994 convicting the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 herein, under Section 304-B and sentencing them for a period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- respectively. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution briefly is as follows: the deceased Padma @ Pitchamma married to accused No. 1 Sreenivasulu on 21-5-1989. At the time of marriage, PW1- father of the deceased gave Rs, 10,000/- in cash, five tolas of gold, other household articles worth Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 1200/- towards clothes to accused No. 1. Accused no. 1 was employed as sub-staff of Karnataka bank, Secunderabad. Accused No. 2 is the mother of accused No. 1 and she used to visit accused No. 1 in the city and did not allow the deceased to fulfil conjugal obligations. At the instigation of accused no. 2, accused No. 1 had demanded Rs. 5,000/- more from the parents of the deceased to purchase a scooter as additional dowry. PW1-father of the deceased paid the said amount to accused No. l. Inspite of the same, both the accused made repeated demands for additional dowry upon the deceased. On one occasion, a sum of rs. 1,000/- and on another occasion a sum of rs. 2,000/- was paid by PW1 to the accused. But the accused persons did not stop ill- treatment and harassment towards the deceased. After some time, when the deceased and her parents came to know that accused No. 2 was performing another marriage to accused No. 1, immediately they went to the house of the accused but accused No. 1 refused to take the deceased into the house. Accused No. 2 ill-treated the deceased and both the accused asked the deceased to go back to her parents house. Accused No. 1 threatened to immolate the deceased and accused No. 2 threatened to poison the deceased and insisted to stay in the house of in-laws. Therefore, the deceased was taking shelter in the house of her parents and about 2 months prior to the incident, on the assurance given by both the accused before the elders, the deceased joined accused Nos. 1 and 2 to fulfil conjugal obligations. Therefore, the deceased was taking shelter in the house of her parents and about 2 months prior to the incident, on the assurance given by both the accused before the elders, the deceased joined accused Nos. 1 and 2 to fulfil conjugal obligations. Inspite of the same, the accused continued ill-treatment and harassment against the deceased for more dowry. Because of the persistent ill-treatment and cruelty meted out by the deceased towards the deceased, on 17-9-1992 at about 9. 30 a. m. , the deceased set herself ablaze and died with 100% burn injuries in Gandhi Hospital while undergoing treatment. ( 3 ) IN support of its case, the prosecution has examined in all 11 witnesses, got marked Exs. Pl to P16 and MOs. 1 and 2. For defence, Ex. Dl and Ex. D2 were marked. PW1 and PW2 are father and mother of the deceased respectively. PW3 is the relative of PWs. 1 and 2. PW4 is the elder brother of the deceased. PW5 is the sister of the deceased. PW6 is the caste elder. PW7 is a panch witness. PW8 is the inquest panch- PW9 is the Mandal Revenue officer who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. PW10 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and PW11 is the investigating Officer. ( 4 ) PW1, father of the deceased deposed that at the time of marriage of the deceased with accused No. 1, a sum of rs. 10,000/-, three tolas of gold in addition to the household articles, Rs. 1200/- for the purchase of clothes and clothes worth rs. 1,000/- were given to the accused. The marriage was performed on 21-5-1989. For two years after the marriage, they lived together happily. Thereafter, accused No. 1 shifted his residence to Kawadiguda, secunderabad, Even after that, the deceased and accused No. 1 were living happily. Later on accused No. 2 came to the house of accused No. 1 and the deceased and started residing with them. Thereafter, accused no. 1 started demanding Rs. 5,000/- as additional dowry for purchasing a scooter from the parents of the deceased. To make the deceased happy, the said amount was paid by PW1 on 26-6-1991. Even after the payment of the additional amount of rs. 5,000/-, A1 did not care the deceased. He even stopped to come to Gundala Village. Thereafter, accused no. 1 started demanding Rs. 5,000/- as additional dowry for purchasing a scooter from the parents of the deceased. To make the deceased happy, the said amount was paid by PW1 on 26-6-1991. Even after the payment of the additional amount of rs. 5,000/-, A1 did not care the deceased. He even stopped to come to Gundala Village. After some time, the deceased went to the residence of Al and lived for 12 days with him. Subsequently on 17-9-1992, he received a telephone call that the deceased died with burn injuries. PW1 along with pw2 and others came to Hyderabad and found the deceased dead with burn injuries. He further stated that on one occasion accused No. 1 expressed that if the deceased was allowed to stay with him, he will pore kerosene and burn her to death. Upon that the deceased expressed that she would prefer to die at the place of her husband and was not willing to leave her husband. Some how he persuaded the deceased and took her to his house. ( 5 ) EXS. P2 to P7 are the letters addressed by the deceased to her parents. In the cross-examination he admitted execution of Ex. Dl letter addressed by him to the president, Gangaputra Sangam, Gundala village. The contents of the said letter are that PW1 had received an amount of rs. 12,000/- from the father of accused No. 1 and it was further agreed by the father of accused No. l before the elders, to give the balance of articles on 1-1-1993 i. e. , (1) Rs. 5,000/- which was given at the time of marriage towards clothes and (2) 50 grams of gold. It was further mentioned in the said letter that if those articles are given on 1-1-1993 as agreed, he would withdraw the case. Further it appears from the said letter that the father of A1 would pay rs. 5,000/- towards the marriage expenditure. Ex. D2 another letter discloses that some articles including cash, gold, etc. , were given back to PW1. PW1 also stated that on a letter addressed by the accused to bring his daughter to Gundala, PW1 and PW2 took their daughter to Gundala. From gundala she was taken to Hyderabad by the accused. For two months she stayed with the accused at Hyderabad. PW2 went and brought the deceased for a festival to their village. PW1 also stated that on a letter addressed by the accused to bring his daughter to Gundala, PW1 and PW2 took their daughter to Gundala. From gundala she was taken to Hyderabad by the accused. For two months she stayed with the accused at Hyderabad. PW2 went and brought the deceased for a festival to their village. Thereafter his eldest daughter and the deceased daughter went to Hyderabad. Thereafter his deceased daughter did not return. ( 6 ) THE evidence of PW2-mother of the deceased is also on the same lines. It was categorically stated by her that they received an amount of Rs. 37,000/- which was given on different occasions. ( 7 ) PW3 who is the brother of PW1 deposed that he gave Rs. 5,000/- to A1 which was given to him by PW1. He further states that the said amount was given to accused No. 1 for the purpose of purchasing a scooter. From the cross- examination of any of these witnesses nothing could be elicited to describe their trust-worthiness. ( 8 ) PW4 who is the brother of the deceased also speaks about giving of rs. 10,000/- cash, five tolas of gold, amount for suit and household articles. He admits the signature of his father i. e. , PW1 on ex. D1. ( 9 ) PW5, the sister of the deceased also speaks about payment of Rs. 5,000/- to accused No. 1. ( 10 ) PW6 who is a caste elder deposed that in the Panchayat held on 1-1-1992 with regard to the deceased, the accused agreed to take the deceased to his house and accordingly the deceased was sent to the house of the accused and on that occasion an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was given to the accused as demanded by him. It was elicited in the cross-examination that his daughter was married to the brother of the deceased. ( 11 ) IT is evident from the above evidence on record that the deceased was subjected to harassment frequently and in that process there was a specific demand of Rs. 5,000/- and the same was paid by the parents of the deceased. It is further admitted that the marriage of the deceased was performed on 21-5-1989. The deceased died on 17-9-1992. 5,000/- and the same was paid by the parents of the deceased. It is further admitted that the marriage of the deceased was performed on 21-5-1989. The deceased died on 17-9-1992. Therefore, it is evident that the death of the deceased has taken place within a period of 7 years from the date of the marriage. ( 12 ) NOW it is the specific case of the prosecution that after the marriage of the deceased with accused No. 1 there was persistent demand for additional dowry and she was not even allowed to live with him. An additional dowry amount of Rs. 5,000/- was paid 26-6-1991 from that date, till her death she lived only for 12 days with accused no. 1. In the cross-examination, persistent harassment could not be successfully refuted. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 discloses that while the deceased was taken to the house of accused No. l, the deceased was not allowed to live with him. But ultimately only at the interference of the mediators it was agreed by the accused to take the deceased that too only after payment of rs. 5,000/ -. It is also the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that on couple of occasions an additional amount of Rs. loooa and rs. 2000/- was also paid to the accused. Even assuming that the accused had been making demand for additional dowry of rs. 5000/- to purchase a scooter, it is to be examined whether the said act amounts to harassment or there was any harassment in any other manner. The answer to this is available in Exs. P2 to P7. Of course, there is some controversy with regard to Ex. P7. Exs. P6 and P5 were written by the father of accused No. 1. Therefore, Exs. P5 and P6 may not be really relevant to establish the cruelty or harassment on the part of the accused. The next question is what is the effect of Exs. P2, P3 and P4 even if the other exhibits i. e. , P5, P6 and P7 are eschewed from consideration. Exs. P2, P3 and P4 are the letters addressed by the deceased on different dates to her parents. The contents of the letters are to the effect that by 1st the deceased wanted money urgently from her parents, that both the deceased and accused No. 1 would come to their house. Exs. P2, P3 and P4 are the letters addressed by the deceased on different dates to her parents. The contents of the letters are to the effect that by 1st the deceased wanted money urgently from her parents, that both the deceased and accused No. 1 would come to their house. If pw1 does not pay the amount she does not know what will happen to her, that she had become sandwich between her parents and her in-laws. It was also further categorically stated that A1 was raising dispute for money and ultimately she demands her father that if at all he has love and affection towards her, he would give the amount. From the date of her marriage, she was subjected to so many troubles and she further described Al as demon. She further preferred to have a marriage with some "madiga" person rather to marry Al. She makes a request to PW1 that he should not come to her house nor she would go to his house as she was sandwich between these two families. In Ex. P4 also she expresses deep sense of anguish of her marriage with Al. The contents need not be extracted because the trial Court has extracted verbatim in its judgment. I have gone through the said judgment. The contents of Exs. P2 to P4 also discloses that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and mental agony and she was suffering from deep sense of insecurity between these two families particularly in the hands of A1 and A2 and she was never happy. In other words, Exs. P2 to P4 speak about the conduct and behaviour of Al. ( 13 ) THE trial Court had further discussed about Ex. P7. It was noticed at page 3 of Ex. P7 which was also a letter addressed by the deceased that the first accused declared that he was going to have a 2nd marriage by divorcing the deceased. However, mere was a dispute raised by the defence with regard to Ex. P7. A categorical finding was given by the trial Court upon the contents of Ex. P7 as well as the handwriting, that the allegation made in Ex. P7 cannot be ruled out as created for the purpose of this case. However, mere was a dispute raised by the defence with regard to Ex. P7. A categorical finding was given by the trial Court upon the contents of Ex. P7 as well as the handwriting, that the allegation made in Ex. P7 cannot be ruled out as created for the purpose of this case. It was further observed by the trial Court that the said allegation has got a sequence from the letters written by the deceased on earlier occasions. Therefore, it was found that it cannot be concluded that ex. P7 was a concocted letter written for the purpose of this case that inasmuch as the said letter was found to be not signed by the deceased. I am not inclined to attach much significance to this document. ( 14 ) NONETHELESS as already found by me that Exs. P2, P3 and P4 and their contents would speak about the amount of harassment and mental agony suffered by the deceased in the hands of Al and A2. A significant fact to be noted is that it is not the case of the defence at any point of time that Exs. P2, P3 and P4 are not written by the deceased at all. In such a case there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the contents of those letters addressed by the deceased to PW1 and further the contents of the said letters are totally in corroboration with the evidence of prosecution witnesses particularly PW1 and PW2. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the accused are responsible for the death of the deceased in as much as the death of the deceased was caused due to the cruelty, harassment and mental agony suffered in the hands of the accused. Therefore, for the above reasons, I am convinced that the trial court has rightly discussed all these aspects before convicting Al for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-B of IPC. ( 15 ) NOW, it is to be examined whether accused No. 2 is also responsible or not. The evidence on record reveals that there is no specific statement made by any of the prosecution witnesses viz. , PWs. 1 to 6 against A2 nor it is the case of PW1 and pw2 who are the parents of the deceased that A2 had played an active role provoking a1 or forcing PWs. The evidence on record reveals that there is no specific statement made by any of the prosecution witnesses viz. , PWs. 1 to 6 against A2 nor it is the case of PW1 and pw2 who are the parents of the deceased that A2 had played an active role provoking a1 or forcing PWs. 1 and 2 to give more money nor there is any allegation that A2 subjected the deceased to any cruelty, except a blanket allegation that the deceased was also subjected to cruelty at the hands of A2 also. Nevertheless Exs. P2, p3 and P4 do reveal that A2 was also involved. I already discussed about the quality of Exs. P2, P3 and P4. Only in Ex. P3 letter addressed by the deceased there was a mention of A2. From that solitary expression in one letter it is very difficult to gauge the quantity and quality of harassment meted out to the deceased in the hands of A2. In the normal parlance any member of either of the two families would be referred to in plurality. ( 16 ) THEREFORE, just because mere is a reference of mother-in-law it cannot be safely be inferred that A2 also had an active and vital role in the alleged cruelty towards the deceased. ( 17 ) THEREFORE, in these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution could not successfully prove the case against A2 and as such A2 is entitled to benefit of doubt. ( 18 ) AS pointed out by the Supreme Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, air 2000 SC 2324 , that "for the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making the efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused". ( 19 ) THEREFORE, in view of the above observations and also in view of the evidence on record against A2 she cannot be held responsible for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A also. At this stage the learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently submits that exs. P2 to P7 are not seized by the police during the course of investigation and on the contrary, only during the course of trial those documents were brought on record. However, he fairly admits that there is no legal embargo prohibiting admission of such letters in cases like the one on hand. Further he places heavy reliance on Ex. P7 letter which was not signed. In this regard i already discussed about the document ex. P7 letter and its veracity. The trial court also had considered elaborately as regards Ex. P7 letter. However, I also did not rely on the Exs. P5 to P7 inspite of reliance placed by the trial Court. I am of the considered view even after eschewing exs. P5, P6 and P7 from consideration exs. P2, P3 and P4 are sufficient documentary evidence which corroborates the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses particularly PW1 and PW2. Further there is not even a suggestion by the defence during entire cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 with regard to veracity of exs. P2, P3 and P4. The only cross- examination is with regard to the veracity ofex. P7. Ex. P7 and its veracity was eliminated from consideration. Therefore, i do not find any force in the above submission. Further there is not even a suggestion by the defence during entire cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 with regard to veracity of exs. P2, P3 and P4. The only cross- examination is with regard to the veracity ofex. P7. Ex. P7 and its veracity was eliminated from consideration. Therefore, i do not find any force in the above submission. Accordingly I find that the judgment of the trial Court is well reasoned insofar as A1 is concerned and insofar as a2 is concerned benefit of doubt shall be extended in view of the material available on record and also in the light of the judgment referred to supra. Therefore, she is entitled to acquittal for the offences under Section 304-B and 498-A. ( 20 ) COMING to the quantum of punishment awarded against A1 that is imprisonment for ten years under sections 304-B and 498-A is concerned i have examined the relevant record and found that the accused was an young man aged about 29 years when the offence was committed. He was an employee at that time. Whether he is in service or not is not known. In all probability, he might have lost his job also. Having regard to the circumstances, I hold that the punishment imposed against A1 is slightly on higher side. Accordingly I reduce the punishment of rigorous imprisonment from 10 years to 7 years. ( 21 ) IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the judgment of the trial Court is modified as below. ( 22 ) THE conviction and sentence recorded against A2 on all counts is set aside and her bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Al is convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC. But the sentence is reduced from 10 years rigorous imprisonment to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- is imposed in addition to the amount already imposed and in default he shall undergo 6 months simple imprisonment.