( 1 ) ACCUSED No. 1, Bangi Naga Raju, aggrieved by the Judgment made in S. C. No. 568/96 dated 11-12-1998 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar had preferred the present Criminal Appeal. ( 2 ) THE accused 1 and 2 were charged with an offence under Sections 304- and 306 IPC and the learned Judge found A-1 guilty of the offence under Section 304-B IPC only but however found A-2 not guilty for the offences under Sections 304-B and 306 IPC and accordingly acquitted A-2 and sentenced A-1 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years. ( 3 ) BANGI Srilatha, the wife of the appellant herein/a-1, hereinafter referred to as deceased for the purpose of convenience, was aged about 19 years and her father (PW-1) lodged a complaint on 17-2-1996 at 10 a. m. in Kesavapatnam Police Station, which was registered as Cr. No. 7/96 under Section 304-B IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was stated that the defacto complainant got the deceased Srilatha married to A-1 of Molangur village three years prior to the incident and during the marriage Rs. 25,000/- cash and other articles and Rs. 5000/- for purchase of cots was given as dowry. It was further stated that six months after the marriage A-1 and his mother Nandamma (A-2) started harassing the deceased to get additional dowry of Rs. 10,000/- and they threatened to kill her by burning. The deceased informed her parents about the constant torture and requested them to settle the problems before elders. The parents of the deceased could not meet the demand of dowry made by A-1 and fourteen days prior to the giving report by PW-1, A-1 took the deceased to his house. On 16-2-1996 PW-1 received a message about the death of the deceased at 10 p. m. Then he went along with his wife to Molangur village and found the deceased dead due to burn injuries. It was further stated that A-1 and his mother (A-2) might have killed the deceased by pouring kerosene. On receipt of the above complaint a case was registered and investigated into by the S. I. of Police, Keshavapatnam. The S. I. of Police visited the scene of offence and sent a requisition to M. R. O. Keshavapatnam to hold inquest. It was further stated that A-1 and his mother (A-2) might have killed the deceased by pouring kerosene. On receipt of the above complaint a case was registered and investigated into by the S. I. of Police, Keshavapatnam. The S. I. of Police visited the scene of offence and sent a requisition to M. R. O. Keshavapatnam to hold inquest. After inquest the dead body of the deceased was sent to Government Hospital, Huzurabad for autopsy. The Medical Officer conducted autopsy and opined that the cause of death was due to shock due to extensive burns. The S. I. of Police examined PW. 1, PW-2, PW-3 and one Gondyala Gangadhar. It is also the case of the prosecution that the investigation revealed that the deceased was given in marriage to A-1 three years prior to the incident as per the caste custom and during her marriage her parents gave her Rs. 30,000/- cash and other articles of dowry and sent her to the house of A-1 and six months thereafter A-1 started harassing the deceased to bring additional dowry and he was demanding additional dowry on the instigation of his mother (A-2 ). A-1 used to torture the deceased mentally and physically and she informed the same to her parents by way of letters and also on their personal visits. The parents of the deceased, PW-1 and PW-2, expressed their inability to comply with the demand made by the accused and with the help of Kailasam, Venkataiah and others they sent her to her in-laws house to lead the marital life. Due to constant harassment of the accused and as the accused had sent legal notice stating that he would marry another girl at last the deceased was sent to her parents house in the month of January 1996 for not getting additional dowry amount. Fourteen days thereafter A-1 went to the deceased and demanded the amount and took away the deceased to his village giving a warning to the brother of the deceased. On 16-2-1996 the deceased was alone at home and the accused were away from the village and her father-in-law was in the village. As the deceased could not tolerate the constant harassment and torture she poured kerosene on her body and set fire to herself and she died subsequently. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer took up the investigation. On 16-2-1996 the deceased was alone at home and the accused were away from the village and her father-in-law was in the village. As the deceased could not tolerate the constant harassment and torture she poured kerosene on her body and set fire to herself and she died subsequently. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer took up the investigation. ( 4 ) DURING trial, PW-1 to PW-11 were examined, Exs. P-1 to P-6 and M. Os. 1 and 2 were marked. Sri. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant would submit that in the absence of legally acceptable evidence, the learned Judge totally erred in convicting the appellant. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and also PW-3 and would pointed out that the letter referred to by PW-3 had not been produced and the panchayatdars were not examined. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the contents of Ex. D-1 and would contend that the contents of Ex. D-1 would definitely show that the prosecution is not coming with true version. The learned Counsel pointed out to the relevant portions of the evidence of PW-1 and would comment that in the light of the evidence of PW-1 and Ex. D-1, the father of the deceased thought of implicating the appellant with some ulterior motive. ( 5 ) ON the contrary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had drawn the attention of this Court that Ex. D-1 would show that there was a dispute. The learned Counsel also explained the ingredients of dowry death and also Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and would contend that in the light of the clear evidence available on record the findings which had been recorded by the learned Judge may have to be confirmed. Heard both the Counsel. ( 6 ) PW-1 is the father of the deceased who deposed that he celebrated the marriage of the deceased on 12-2-1993 with A-1 and he gave cash of Rs. 25,000/- towards dowry and valuable articles worth about Rs. 5000/- and she went to lead marital life with A-1 and for three months she lived happily with A-1 and after about five months after the marriage, A-1 and A-2 started ill-treating the deceased to get additional dowry of Rs. 25,000/- towards dowry and valuable articles worth about Rs. 5000/- and she went to lead marital life with A-1 and for three months she lived happily with A-1 and after about five months after the marriage, A-1 and A-2 started ill-treating the deceased to get additional dowry of Rs. 10,000/- and she was beaten and abused in filthy language by A-1 and A-2 and they were threatening her to kill by pouring kerosene. A panchayat was held in that connection at Chigurumamidi and one Bhadraiah (LW-5) and Kailasam (LW-6) were the elders to mediate with the accused and they advised A-1 and A-2 not to ill-treat the deceased and to keep her happy. Thereafter PW-1 sent the deceased to the house of the accused and after about ten days he brought the deceased to his house and the deceased stayed at his house for a period of ten days. PW-1 further deposed that A-1 came to their village and went to different houses in the village instead of coming to their house and abused them in most filthy language before the villagers and as he was demanding for taking away the deceased PW-1 sent the deceased with A-1. PW-1 also deposed that A-1 again continued to ill-treat the deceased by burning her private parts of breasts and thighs with cigarette butts and he necked out the deceased from his house and the deceased came to their house. PW-1 further deposed that the deceased told him all about the harassment and cruelty shown to her by A-1 and A-2. After about ten days A-1 came to their house in his absence and forcibly took away the deceased and on his return to the house his wife told him and requested him to get the deceased back and he had sent his son Shiva Prasad (PW-3) to the house of the accused to get the deceased but the accused opposed and necked him out. A-1 had also challenged his son Shiva Prasad (PW-3) that they have to send Rs. 10,000/- cash in 14 to 20 days or else he will pour kerosene and set the deceased on fire. The accused also abused PW-3 that he would see that his betrothal for the marriage is cancelled. A-1 had also challenged his son Shiva Prasad (PW-3) that they have to send Rs. 10,000/- cash in 14 to 20 days or else he will pour kerosene and set the deceased on fire. The accused also abused PW-3 that he would see that his betrothal for the marriage is cancelled. On 16-2-1996 after receiving information that the deceased died at the house of the accused PW-1 and his family members went to the house of the accused and saw the dead body of the deceased with burn injuries and she was lying in front of the house of the accused. On 17. 2. 1996 at 10 a. m. PW-1 gave a complaint at P. S. Shankarapatnam. Ex. P-1 is the complaint given by him to the police and it bears his signature. PW-1 further deposed that at the time of inquest over the dead body his statement was recorded by the police and A-1 and A-2 harassed and challenged that they would kill the deceased and they must have poured kerosene and burnt her alive. This witness was cross-examined at length. Several details relating to the property and other aspects had been cross-examined. This witness also deposed that there was only one panchayat regarding demand of dowry made by the accused and the said panchayat was held in their village and the panchayat was held one year after the marriage. One of the elders by name Bhadraiah is a resident of Mogilipalem village. A-1 informed Bhadraiah that PW-1 was not sending the deceased to his house and therefore Bhadraiah acted as a mediator and Badraiah and Kailasam belong to Balija caste and they are known to PW-2 and he used to perform poojas in their house and they are his disciples. PW-1 further deposed that in three years he went to the house of A-1 for about 20 times. PW-1 also deposed that A-1 beat him once when he asked about the ill-treatment of the deceased and he also deposed about the nature of behaviour of A-1. This witness also deposed that it is true that A-1 got treated the deceased at Rohini hospital at Hanmakonda for her ill-ness and it is not true to suggest that the deceased used to vomit blood while brushing teeth in the morning. This witness also deposed that it is true that A-1 got treated the deceased at Rohini hospital at Hanmakonda for her ill-ness and it is not true to suggest that the deceased used to vomit blood while brushing teeth in the morning. PW-1 denied the suggestion that the deceased was having suspicion that she got ailment of cancer disease and as such she used to tell that she would not live for a long period. PW-1 admitted that after the death of the deceased he executed a receipt after receiving Rs. 32,000/- from the accused and it is marked as Ex. D-1 and it contains his signature and the signature of his son PW-3 also. Ex. D-1 was read over to him and he signed it. PW-1 did not lodge any complaint before the police stating about the ill-treatment meted out by A-1 to the deceased. P. W. 1 further deposed that after 14-2-1996 he sent his son to bring the deceased to his house and at that time A-1 told that he would kill the deceased by pouring kerosene if he does not get the amount demanded by him and PW-1 did not contemplate that he would kill the deceased even though he warned in the presence of his son. PW-1 further deposed that he did not make any attempt to hold panchayat in the village of the accused regarding the threats given by A-1 to the deceased and he did not state to the police that the accused used to beat and scold the deceased in filthy language and he stated to the police that Bhadraiah and Kailasam acted as elders in the panchayat held at Chigurumamidi village and he stated to the police that the elders advised A-1 to look after the deceased well. A-1 used to reside in the house of Kailasam and Ch. Veeramallaiah whenever he used to come to his house and in their houses he used to scold them. PW-1 further deposed that he does not know whether A-1 was in the habit of smoking cigarettes and PW-1 got some ointment when the deceased received burn injuries by the accused with cigarette butts and PW-1 did not ask A-1 even after the incident of inflicting burn injuries to the deceased. PW-1 further deposed that he does not know whether A-1 was in the habit of smoking cigarettes and PW-1 got some ointment when the deceased received burn injuries by the accused with cigarette butts and PW-1 did not ask A-1 even after the incident of inflicting burn injuries to the deceased. PW-1 stated to the police that the deceased was necked out from the house and he stated to the police that A-1 came to his house and forcibly took away the deceased. He further stated that A-1 threatened that he would get the marriage of his son cancelled if PW-1 does not send Rs. 10,000/- and this witness no doubt denied the suggestions relating to the demand of dowry and other aspects. ( 7 ) PW-2 is the wife of PW-1 who no doubt had substantially deposed in support of the version given by PW-1. PW-3 is the son of PW-1 and PW-2 and the brother of the deceased. This witness deposed that the deceased was married to A-1 on 12-2-1993 and at the time of marriage they paid cash of Rs. 25,000/- towards dowry and Rs. 5000/- towards purchase of articles. For about three months she lived happily with A-1 and after about six months after marriage the accused started ill-treating the deceased to extract additional dowry of Rs. 10,000/ -. He went to the house of the accused for about four or five times to see his sister. During that period A-1 threatened him that he will kill his sister by pouring kerosene if additional dowry of Rs. 10,000/- was not paid to him and on 16-2-1996 they received information that his sister (the deceased) died and all of them went to the house of the accused and saw the dead body of the deceased with burn injuries. PW-3 further deposed that the deceased used to inform their parents about the cruelty shown to her by A-1 and A-2. PW-3 in cross-examination deposed that he did not state to police that he went to the house of A-1 for about four or five times and his father obtained a loan of Rs. 25,000/- and paid towards dowry to the accused and he was present when the dowry amount was paid. PW-3 in cross-examination deposed that he did not state to police that he went to the house of A-1 for about four or five times and his father obtained a loan of Rs. 25,000/- and paid towards dowry to the accused and he was present when the dowry amount was paid. PW-3 also deposed that he does not remember how much amount was paid prior to the marriage and after the marriage and the deceased studied upto Xth class and she used to write letters to them after marriage about the dowry harassment by the accused and also about the second marriage proposal of A-1. PW-3 handed over one letter to police. PW-3 also deposed that three panchayats were held regarding the disputes between A-1 and the deceased about dowry harassment and ill-treatment and the first panchayat was held at Molangur, the second panchayat was held at Keshavapatnam and the third panchayat was held at Chigurumamidi. PW-3 further deposed that he did not lodge any complaint before the police about the harassment made by A-1 to the deceased and he denied the suggestion that the deceased was having suspicion that she had cancer disease. PW-3 attended two panchayats and he had denied certain other suggestions also. ( 8 ) PW-4 was examined who deposed about the disputes between the deceased and A-1 regarding dowry and PW-4 and Kailasam were the elders to settle the disputes between the deceased and A-1 and they advised A-1 and A-2 to take the deceased to their house since her parents were not in a position to pay additional dowry and the accused took the deceased to their house and on 16-2-1996 they came to know that the deceased was killed by A-1 and A-2 as told by PW-1. This witness also deposed that PW-1 informed them that the deceased was killed by the accused by pouring kerosene at their house. PW-5 deposed that his house is about 100 yards from the house of the accused and he knows the deceased and the deceased was not having any disputes or quarrels with the accused and he does not know anything about the disputes of the accused with the deceased and he does not know how the deceased died. This witness was no doubt declared hostile. PW-6 was examined in relation to Ex. P-3 panchanama. PW-7, the M. R. O. was examined in relation to Ex. This witness was no doubt declared hostile. PW-6 was examined in relation to Ex. P-3 panchanama. PW-7, the M. R. O. was examined in relation to Ex. P-3 inquest panchanama which was conducted by him in the presence of panchas. At the time of inquest he recovered one match box MO-1 and ash collected in a brass vessel MO-2. In cross-examination this witness deposed that he did not record the statement of parents and relatives of the deceased and denied the suggestion that he recorded the statements of relatives of the deceased and they did not state to him anything about the harassment for additional dowry and due to that reason the deceased committed suicide and as the statements go against the case of the prosecution he did not file the same into Court. He drafted inquest panchanama Ex. P-3. PW-8 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following ante mortem injuries: about 80 or 90% burns superficial to deep noted on both upper limbs, face, neck, front of chest, front of abdomen, back of chest, both legs, blebs, third reaction limbs of demarcation noted. ( 9 ) PW-8 opined that to the best of his knowledge the cause of death was shock due to extensive burns. This witness deposed about Ex. P-4 post mortem report issued by him and another Doctor. PW-9 deposed that he received report from PW-1 and registered the crime and sent express F. I. Rs. to all the concerned. Ex. P-5 is the F. I. R. sent to Court and he sent requisition to the M. R. O. for conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased and he visited the scene of offence and examined PW-1 to PW-3 and handed over the further investigation. In cross-examination this witness deposed that PW-1 did not state to him that Bhadraiah and Kailasam acted as elders in the panchayat held at Chigirumamidi village and PW-1 did not state before him that the elders advised A-1 and A-2 to look after his daughter well. PW-1 stated before him that A-1 came to his house and took away the deceased, but he did not state to him that A-1 had taken the deceased forcibly. PW-1 stated before him that A-1 came to his house and took away the deceased, but he did not state to him that A-1 had taken the deceased forcibly. PW-1 did not state before him that A-1 threatened him that he would get the marriage of his son cancelled if he does not send Rs. 10,000/ -. PW-9 further deposed that PW-2 did not state before him that the accused used to beat the deceased and he volunteered that physical torture means beating. PW-9 further deposed that PW-2 did not state to him that the accused demanded Rs. 10,000/- when her son went to see her daughter, the deceased and PW-2 did not state before him that A-1 came and forcibly took away the deceased. PW-9 deposed that he did not examine the neighbours of the complainant and the accused. This witness also referred to the letters and deposed that M. R. O. conducted inquest in his presence and he does not know whether M. R. O. recorded the statements of any witnesses. PW-10 is the Inspector of Police who had deposed about further investigation. The rough sketch of scene of offence prepared by S. I. of Police was marked as Ex. P-6. This witness deposed that he had visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses Bhadraiah, Kailasam, Venkataiah and Sammi Reddy and recorded their statements and this witness also deposed about the arrest. In cross-examination this witness deposed that PW-4 did not state to him that PW-1 informed him that A-1 and A-2 set fire to the deceased by pouring kerosene as the demand of dowry request was not fulfilled. Omissions in Section 161 Cr. P. C. statement of PW-4 also had been elicited. This witness also deposed that it is revealed in the investigation that the deceased addressed letters to her parents informing the dowry harassment of the accused and the S. I. of Police might have seized those letters. He deposed that he had mentioned about the letters in his remand report after verification of investigation done by the S. I. and he asked the S. I. about the letters but he did not show any letters. No doubt this witness denied the other suggestions. ( 10 ) PW-11 verified the investigation done by PW-9 and PW-10 and filed charge sheet. No doubt this witness denied the other suggestions. ( 10 ) PW-11 verified the investigation done by PW-9 and PW-10 and filed charge sheet. In cross-examination this witness deposed that he had not seen the letters alleged to have written by the deceased to her parents about the harassment made by the accused on her and certain suggestions were denied by this witness. DW-1, a practicing Advocate was examined who deposed that A-1 approached him asking him to issue notice to the deceased stating that she left to her parents house and was not coming to his house in spite of repeated requests made by him and then he got issued a notice to the deceased and father-in-law of A-1 i. e. , PW-1. Ex. D-2 is the notice. The notices were refused by the deceased and PW-1 and the returned notices are Exs. D-1 and D-4. A-1 again went to DW-1 and informed him that the deceased came to his house after receipt of notice and resided with him for some time and left for her parents house without intimating him and therefore he again sent a second notice to the deceased and PW-1. Ex. D-5 is a Xerox copy of the notice issued by him. In cross-examination this witness denied the suggestion that Ex. D-5 was issued only with the intention to take divorce from the deceased which was not acceptable to her. ( 11 ) ON the strength of this evidence, findings in detail had been recorded by the learned Judge. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 would go to show that PW-1 had given certain exaggerated versions and apart form this aspect of the matter, there is a clear admission on the part of PW-1 to the effect that after the death of the deceased he executed a receipt after receiving Rs. 32,000/- from the accused which is marked as Ex. D-1. Ex. D-1 contains his signature and the signature of his son also. Ex. D-1 was read over to him and he signed it and he did not lodge any complaint before the police stating about the ill-treatment of the deceased by A-1. Certain acts of sadism which had been deposed by this witness appear to be exaggerated versions. PW-3 specifically deposed that the deceased was writing certain letters and one such letter had been delivered to police also. Certain acts of sadism which had been deposed by this witness appear to be exaggerated versions. PW-3 specifically deposed that the deceased was writing certain letters and one such letter had been delivered to police also. The Investigating Officers also had deposed about these letters but however none of those letters had been produced before the Court. PW-3 also deposed about three panchayats alleged to have been held. Except the vague evidence of PW-4 there is no other evidence available on record in this regard. The learned Judge recorded certain reasons in relation to Ex. D-1 and had made a comment that in the light of certain interpolations or the difference in ink and the writings, the same is suspicious. It is pertinent to note that in the evidence of PW-1 nothing had been elicited in this regard. Merely because it had been stated in Ex. D-1 that the deceased committed suicide due to unforeseen reasons which is clearly suggestive of the fact that the appellant/a-1 was not responsible relating to the same especially in the absence of any explanation in this regard elicited by the prosecution to clarify the situation, the learned Judge is not justified in viewing Ex. D-1 with suspicion. Apart from this aspect of the matter, though three panchayats were said to have been held, none had been examined except PW-4 and the evidence of PW-4 is just general in nature. In the light of the clear admission relating to Ex. D-1 made by PW-1, the version of the prosecution relating to dowry death becomes highly doubtful especially in the light of the conduct of the appellant/a-1 towards the deceased in getting her treated and also the evidence of DW-1 who clearly deposed that serious attempts were made by the appellant/a-1 to get the deceased back to his house by issuing notices. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW-1 to PW-11, DW-1 and also Exs. P-1 to P-6 and Exs. D-1 to D-5, the following facts clearly emerge: ( 12 ) IT is stated by PW-3 that several letters were addressed by the deceased, but none of the letters were produced before the Court. PW-3 also deposed about delivering one such letters to the police. The Investigating Officers also had confirmed about the writing of letters. None of the neighbours had been examined and one such neighbour had been declared hostile. PW-3 also deposed about delivering one such letters to the police. The Investigating Officers also had confirmed about the writing of letters. None of the neighbours had been examined and one such neighbour had been declared hostile. Except PW-4, none of the panchayatdars also had been examined though it is said that three panchayats had been held. It is also pertinent to note that no statement of any other relatives had been recorded at the time of inquest. Apart from all these, Exs. D-2 to D-5 and the evidence of DW-1 will clearly go to show that there was attempt on the part of the appellant/a-1 to get his wife i. e. , the deceased, back. ( 13 ) THE reasons given by the learned Judge viewing Ex. D-1 with suspicion cannot be sustained in the absence of any explanation in this regard in the evidence of PW-1. Hence, the findings recorded by the learned Judge in any view of the matter cannot be sustained. This Court is of the considered opinion that on suspicion conviction had been recorded and the accused had been sentenced and hence the conviction and sentence imposed on appellant/a-1 for the offence under Section 304-B IPC also definitely cannot be sustained and the same are set aside and acquittal is hereby recorded. ( 14 ) THE Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed. The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand cancelled.