JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — The order passed by the Second Addl.Sessions Judge, Berhampur in S.C. No.57 of 1995 (S.C. No.345 of 1995-GCD) convicting the appellants under Section 498-A/34 I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act and sentencing both the appellants to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 15 days each for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and further sentencing appellant No.1-Sarala Moharana to undergo R.I. for three moths and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 15 days for the offence under Section 4 D.P. Act, is impugned in this appeal. 2. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the short facts necessary for appreciating the case, are stated herein below : An F.I.R. (Ext-14) was filed by P.W.5 alleging that during the marriage of Sankar Prasad Maharana (D.W.4), the younger son of appellant No.1 and Susanti Maharana (deceased), the daughter of Debendranath Maharana (P.W.10), the appellants demanded a Colour T.V. and a Scooter as dowry apart from other articles. It was further alleged that in lieu of colour T.V., a cash of Rs. 15,000/- was paid at the time of marriage in addition to other articles such as Gold ornaments, etc. After the marriage the appellants demanded a Scooter and Susanti was subjected to cruel¬ty and harassment as the scooter, as demanded, was not given. It was further alleged that as Susanti was subjected to cruelty and harassment, she committed suicide by hanging herself on 26.1.1994. On the basis of the said F.I.R., Baidyanathpur P.S. Case No.20 of 1994 was initiated. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellants for commission of offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B/34 I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. The said P.S. Case was converted to G.R. Case No.72 of 1994 in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and after commitment of the case to the Court of Session, the same was tried by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur. 3. The plea of the defence was complete denial. It was rather alleged that the informant-P.W.5, the brother of Susanti, had borrowed Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- from appellant No.1- Sarala as loan. He had also requested the said appellant to lend him further loan of Rs. 5,000/- for his furniture business. Sessions Judge, Berhampur. 3. The plea of the defence was complete denial. It was rather alleged that the informant-P.W.5, the brother of Susanti, had borrowed Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- from appellant No.1- Sarala as loan. He had also requested the said appellant to lend him further loan of Rs. 5,000/- for his furniture business. As the amount borrowed was not returned by the parents of the bride, out of shame the deceased committed suicide. It is also submitted that in order to evade repayment of the loans, the informant had made false and frivolous allegations against the appellants. The allegation of demand of dowry was forcefully denied by the appel¬lants and it was stated that they were affluent persons and had no occasion to demand any amount towards dowry. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses, out of whom, P.W.1 was the doctor who conducted post mortem, P.W.2 was the hand-writing expert, P.W.3 was the A.S.I. of police and a seizure witness, P.W.4 was the constable who proved dead-body challan, P.W.6 was the Investigat¬ing Officer, P.W.5 was the brother of the deceased and the infor¬mant, P.W.7 was the Addl.Tahasildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, P.W.8 was the Inspector of Human Rights Protection Cell, P.W.9 was the S.I. of Police, P.W.10 was the father of the deceased and P.W.11 was the another brother of the deceased. The prosecution also exhibited twenty-six documents. 5. At the other hand, the defence examined as many as 4 witnesses out of whom, D.Ws 1 to 3 were three doctors and D.W.4 was the husband of the deceased. It exhibited sixteen documents which were mostly letters written inter se between the parties. 6. The trial Court, after discussing the evidence both, oral and documentary, came to categorical conclusion that there was no evidence on record to reveal that soon before the death of the deceased, she was either tortured or subjected to cruelty or harassment on demand of dowry. 6. The trial Court, after discussing the evidence both, oral and documentary, came to categorical conclusion that there was no evidence on record to reveal that soon before the death of the deceased, she was either tortured or subjected to cruelty or harassment on demand of dowry. On the basis of such observation, the Court below held that the prosecution had totally failed to prove the charge under Section 304-B I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubts, and acquitted both the appellants of the charge under Section 304-B I.P.C. But then, relying upon the evidence of P.Ws 5, 10 and 11 and Exts.9 and 10, the Court below came to the conclusion that the appellants tortured the deceased and demanded a Scooter as dowry which affected her tender sentiments. Arriving at such a conclusion, the Court below found the appellants guilty under Section 498-A I.P.C. and also further found appellant No.1 guilty under Section 4 of the D.P. Act, but acquitted appellant No.2 of the said charge. 7. The appellants, in this appeal, have challenged the portion of the order convicting them under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. It is pertinent to mention here that no appeal has been preferred by the State challenging the order of the Court below acquitting the appellants of the charge under Section 304-B I.P.C. and such finding has become final and binding. 8. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the appellants, relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sakhi Manda¬lani Vrs. State of Bihar and others, (2000) 18 OCR 663 (S.C.) forcefully submitted that after acquitting the accused persons of the charge under Section 304-B I.P.C., their conviction under Section 4 of the D.P. Act was not just and proper. Challenging the conviction under Section 498-A I.P.C., Mr. Nayak submitted that as there is absolutely no evidence to the effect that at any point of time appellant No.2- Manjushree Maharana, sister-in-law of the deceased had demanded any dowry or subjected the deceased to any torture or harassment, the Court below erred in law in convicting her under Section 498-A I.P.C., According to Mr. Nayak submitted that as there is absolutely no evidence to the effect that at any point of time appellant No.2- Manjushree Maharana, sister-in-law of the deceased had demanded any dowry or subjected the deceased to any torture or harassment, the Court below erred in law in convicting her under Section 498-A I.P.C., According to Mr. Nayak, none of the ingredients of Section 498-A, I.P.C. was established by the prosecution vis-a-vis appellant No.1 and as such, conviction of the appellant was based on no material and it was not only based on surmises and conjectures, but also was contrary to the evidence on record and therefore, cannot be sustained. 9. Though Mr. Pradhan, learned Addl.Standing Counsel submitted that the order of the Court below convicting appellant No.2 is just and proper, after scrutinising the evidence of P.Ws. 5,10 and 11 and all the materials available on record, I find that there is absolutely no iota of evidence implicating appel¬lant No.2 in the commission of any offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. Therefore, I have no hesitation to agree with the submis¬sions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and set aside the order of conviction under Section 498-A I.P.C. so far as appellant No.2 is concerned. 10. To countenance the submissions made by Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the appellants, with regard to non-availability of any evidence for convicting appellant No.1-Sarala, the mother-in-law of the deceased under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D. P. Act, learned Counsel for the State took pains to place the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 10 and 11. P.W. 5 happened to be the brother of the deceased. In his deposition, he clearly admitted that he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from appellant No. 1-Sarala to meet the financial crisis of the family. He also admitted that he had requested the in-laws of his sister for lending money time and again. On 23.1.1993, P.W.5 had visited the house of appellant No.1 and had requested for a further loan of Rs. 15,000/-. In view of the fact that the earlier amount borrowed by him was not repaid, there was some altercation between P.W.5 and his sister, the deceased. The trial Court did not lay much stress on the evidence of P.W.5. On 23.1.1993, P.W.5 had visited the house of appellant No.1 and had requested for a further loan of Rs. 15,000/-. In view of the fact that the earlier amount borrowed by him was not repaid, there was some altercation between P.W.5 and his sister, the deceased. The trial Court did not lay much stress on the evidence of P.W.5. After going through the evidence of P.W.5, I am also satisfied that he was an interested witness inasmuch as he had borrowed huge amount from the in-laws of his sister there¬by creating discontentment and subjecting a newly married bride to embarrassment. The evidence of P.W.5 also does not inspire confidence and is in no way helpful to the prosecution. Apart from the evidence of P.W.5, the other two witnesses whose evi¬dence was relied upon by the prosecution are P.Ws. 10 and 11. P.W.10 happened to be the father of the deceased. He has admitted the fact that his son had borrowed huge amount from the in-laws of his daughter. Though he stated about demand of the Scooter by appellant No.1, surprisingly, the fact regarding demand of scoo¬ter was not stated by the said witness before the Investigating Officer (P.W.6) in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 11. P.W.11 happened to be another brother of the deceased. In his examination-in-chief, he has made a bald assertion that Sarala- appellant No.1 told him that his father had agreed to give a Scooter, but the said statement was not made by him before the I.O. (p.w.6). Non-mentioning anything with regard to demand of scooter as dowry by Sarala at the very initial stage i.e. in the statements made before the I.O., gives an impression that the said statement made in Court was after-thought. The only other evidence basing upon which the Court below has convicted the appellants is Ext-9. Ext.-9 is a letter said to have been written by the deceased. Perusal of the said letter does not reveal that there was any demand for dowry though the deceased had made certain allegation that her mother-in-law used to pass taunting remarks and sometimes, it became difficult for her to bear such remarks. Ext.-9 is a letter said to have been written by the deceased. Perusal of the said letter does not reveal that there was any demand for dowry though the deceased had made certain allegation that her mother-in-law used to pass taunting remarks and sometimes, it became difficult for her to bear such remarks. But then, the Court below after scrutinising the entire evidence has arrived at the conclusion that no ill-treatment or harassment was meted out to the deceased in connec¬tion with demand of dowry and acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 304-B I.P.C.. The said finding, as stated earlier, has not been challenged by the State in appeal and has, therefore, become final. If the Court below has not accepted the evidence with regard to subjecting the deceased to any ill-treatment or harassment in connection with demand of dowry for the charge under Section 304-B I.P.C., the same set of evidence, I am of the view, cannot be utilised for convicting the appel¬lants under Section 498-A I.P.C. Even otherwise, reading of the entire evidence does not reveal that the deceased was subjected to any ill-treatment or harassment on account of non-payment of dowry. Ext-9 ipso facto does not throw any light with regard to demand of dowry and it is of no help to the prosecution. At the other hand, the entire episode reveals that the brother of the deceased had borrowed huge amount from the appellants and he was not in a position to re-pay the same. Being humiliated by the said fact, his sister committed suicide. The belated attempt made by the prosecution to rope in the appellants for commission of offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 D.P. Act appears to be an after-thought, and with an avowed oblique motive to wriggle out of re-payment of the amount borrowed. 12. To bring home the charge under Section 498-A I.P.C., some cogent evidence with regard to demand of dowry vis-a-vis subjecting the bride to cruelty and harassment is required, without which the charge cannot be maintained. In the present case, I find there is no such evidence available on record. 13. After scrutinising the entire evidence both, oral and documentary and after going through the materials, I have no hesitation to set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants. 14. The Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. In the present case, I find there is no such evidence available on record. 13. After scrutinising the entire evidence both, oral and documentary and after going through the materials, I have no hesitation to set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants. 14. The Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellants of the respective charges in S.C. No. 57 of 1995 (S. C. No. 345 of 1995-GDC) is set aside. The appellants are acquit¬ted of the respective charges. Their bail bond be discharged. Appeal allowed.