JUDGMENT M.F. Saldanha, J.--We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides in this appeal on merits. The record is relatively heavy and we have done a thorough review of it the reason being that the prosecution alleges that this is a dowry death case. Undoubtedly, the deceased Padmavathy has died of burn injuries but the all important question is as to whether this is a homicidal death for which the accused who are basically the in-laws are responsible or whether on the other hand, it is the accused persons who drove the deceased to suicide. There are the usual allegations regarding the demand of dowry and receipt of cash, jewelry and etc. and the consequential charges under Dowry Prohibition Act. These aspects considerably aggravate the gravity of the offences and having regard to the very complexion of the charges we have been required to do a total review of the case because the contention raised on behalf of the prosecution is that the accused have been wrongly acquitted. We need to add here that the husband was out of town when the incident took place since he had gone to Erode and secondly it is his mother, his brother and sister-in-law who are the accused before the Court. The learned trial Judge after a very careful and elaborate analysis of the evidence has acquitted the accused and it is against this order of acquittal that the present appeal has been directed. 2. Once again, as we have done in several of the earlier cases we need to record with a degree of regret that the investigation has been extremely casual and that it does not proceed along the all important lines, viz., the question as to what precisely was the relationship between the husband and wife or the relationship between the wife and the in-laws who are the accused in the present case. Merely making allegations is insufficient in this class of cases because the charges are serious and one requires hard evidence either oral or circumstantial or for that matter documentary from which the Court will be able to hold that the charges have been established. The investigation as we have indicated is very casual and superficial and the prosecution has suffered because of the quality of the investigation. The investigation as we have indicated is very casual and superficial and the prosecution has suffered because of the quality of the investigation. There is no dying declaration in this case and even with regard to the cause of death, though it was due to burn injuries the IO is unable to establish as to whether it is a case of homicide or suicide. 3. In this background, the learned HCGP in support of the Appellant has done his utmost by taking us through the evidence threadbare and he has then contended that this evidence is sufficient to establish the charges. We have examined the evidence with regard to the initial stage viz., the aspect of demand and receipt of dowry amount and the items and we find that in the first instance this allegation has not been made at the earliest point of time. Respondents' learned Counsel is right when he points out that all the evidence put together is nothing more than a series of weak, belated allegations which are not established through any cogent evidence and that consequently, the order of acquittal as far as the charges under the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be disturbed. As far as the main charges are concerned, the facts are peculiar in so far as admittedly, the deceased was found dead near or inside the bathroom and the accused contend that the relationship between her and the accused as also between her and the husband was cordial, and that this is an obvious case of accident. The defence seeks to rely on certain facts viz., that the accused mother-in-law had infact invested substantial amounts in the name of the deceased and that she was continuing to do so and further more that there is documentary and photographic evidence of the fact that the relationship between the parties were good. The only charge which survives is the allegation that the deceased had not brought the dowry which was equivalent to the other daughter-in-laws but even this had hardly been established. 4. In a case of the present type, assuming the prosecution contended that it was due to torture from the accused that the deceased had committed suicide then it is very essential to establish through oral or documentary evidence that this fact was infact true. 4. In a case of the present type, assuming the prosecution contended that it was due to torture from the accused that the deceased had committed suicide then it is very essential to establish through oral or documentary evidence that this fact was infact true. There is nothing of this sort on record and consequently, we are unable to hold that the accused either drove the deceased to suicide because of the harassment or torture or provocation or for that matter that they have abetted suicide. Again, learned GA contends that the clothes of the deceased were found smelling of kerosene and that this goes against the accident theory. The submission is that the accused have doused the clothes of the deceased with kerosene as is often times done and set fire to the same. The circumstances however do not support this theory for a variety of reasons, first of all the physical feasibility and the second aspect is what the reaction of the deceased who was a young adult woman would have been in the event of any such thing having been done. In totality, having examined all the submissions, the law on the point and the record we are of the considered view that the learned trial Judge was justified in having recorded an order of acquittal. 5. This is an appeal against acquittal and Respondents' learned Advocate has reiterated before us the position that in a case where the Judgment of the trial Court indicates that the learned trial Judge has very carefully and meticulously dealt with all the heads of evidence, where he has given cogent and valid reasons and where he has recorded findings which cannot really be found fault with, that there is absolutely no ground on which the High Court should interfere with the Sessions Judge's Judgment. It is unnecessary for us to reproduce the decisions here because the law on the point is well settled but the point made by the learned Counsel is that where an order of acquittal is resulted through a well considered Judgment that the initial presumption of innocence gets doubly reinforced and this is one of the additional reasons why the interference is contraindicated. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid position, there is absolutely no case made out for interference with the order of acquittal which is accordingly confirmed. The appeal fails on merits and stands dismissed. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid position, there is absolutely no case made out for interference with the order of acquittal which is accordingly confirmed. The appeal fails on merits and stands dismissed. The bail bonds of accused if executed to stand cancelled.