P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE Criminal Appeal is filed by the State as against the order of an acquittal recorded in Sessions Case No. 565 of 1996 on the file of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, guntur. ( 2 ) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out to the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and also pointed out that the evidence of p. Ws. 1 and 2 had not been appreciated by the learned Judge in detail. The learned additional Public Prosecutor had also drawn the attention of this Court to Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Having taken through the complete evidence available on record learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that even if the investigation is not upto the expectation, in the light of the natural evidence available on record, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, the learned Judge should have convicted the respondent/ accused. ( 3 ) PER contra, Sri Y. V. Srinivasan, the counsel representing Sri K. Chidamabaran, learned counsel for the respondent/accused would contend that in the light of the reasons recorded by the learned Judge, it cannot be said that acquittal recorded is unjustified and hence, the same need not be disturbed by this Court as appellate Court. ( 4 ) HEARD both the counsel. ( 5 ) THE case of the prosecution is as follows: the deceased Venkayamma was the wife of the accused. (Hereinafter she may be referred to as the deceased ). The parents of the deceased g. Sayamma (defacto-complainant) and g. Lakshmaiah married the deceased to the accused about nine months prior to her demise. The accused was married with a girl of Dhulipala earlier. But he suppressed that first marriage and married the deceased for the second time. During the time of the marriage of the deceased, the parents as above gave away Rs. 2,000/- in cash as dowry and a wrist watch to the accused. Soon after the marriage, the deceased joined the company of the accused in order to lead marital life. They put up house first at Mangaladasnagar, Guntur. When sadhu Siva Sankara Rao started constructing a Kalyanamantam in sangadigunta area, the accused and the deceased were allowed to live in one of the rooms of that complex and the accused was working as a watchman for that complex. They put up house first at Mangaladasnagar, Guntur. When sadhu Siva Sankara Rao started constructing a Kalyanamantam in sangadigunta area, the accused and the deceased were allowed to live in one of the rooms of that complex and the accused was working as a watchman for that complex. The deceased and her mother Sayamma were working as servant maids in the surrounding houses. Till recently, the accused started harassing the deceased to get rs. 10,000/- from her parents and he subjected her to cruelty both mentally and physically and he also sent the deceased to her parents house with that demand. In that regard, some elders intervened and sent the deceased to the accused. While that was so, about ten days prior to the demise of the deceased, the accused went to dhulipala in connection with the settlement of the marriage of his cousin sister and he came to know that his first wife who has been living in that village became rich and earned Rs. 1,00,000/- and in that regard, the villagers have expressed that had he lived with her, he might have got that money and, however, the accused ignored it and returned to his home. He also mentioned the same to be deceased and after hearing the same, the deceased developed some fear in her mind that the accused might leave her and the deceased also conveyed this complex entertained by her to her mother, sayamma, consoled her and advised her not to entertain that fear. During that time, the deceased was carrying seventh month of pregnancy. On 8-2-1996 morning, Sayamma wished to take her daughter to her house for delivery, but she refused to leave her matrimonial home. At about 3 pm on the even date, the deceased consumed rat poison with a view to end her life unable to bear the harassment meted out to her from the hands of the accused. Immediately, the accused took the deceased to private hospital of Dr. Hari prasad around 2. 30 pm. One Danamma who was working as nurse in that hospital attended on the deceased in the absence of the doctor and she consulted doctor over phone and the doctoradvised nurse Danammatosend the patient to Government General hospital, Guntur. In the meanwhile, sayamma came to know of the same. By the time, the deceased reached government Hospital, Guntur, she died on the way. In the meanwhile, sayamma came to know of the same. By the time, the deceased reached government Hospital, Guntur, she died on the way. The mother Sayamma brought the body of the deceased to the house of the deceased. Lakshmaiah, the father of the deceased came to the house of the deceased accompanied by some elders. On the same day, around 7 pm Sayamma went to Lalapet (L and O. P. S.) and gave a report to S. I. of police, who registered the same in cr. No. 18/96 under Section 174 of cr. P. C. The Mandal Executive magistrate receiving requisition held inquest over the body of the deceased in front of the house of the deceased between 9. 30 a. m. to 12. 30 p. m. on 9-2-1996 before panchas M. Venkata krishna and K. Raju and the Executive magistrate recorded the statements of Sayamma, Lakshmaiah, g. Yedukondalu, the brother of the deceased and said S. Sivasankararao. After that, the Executive Magistrate sent the body to Government General hospital for post mortem examination. The investigation was taken over by S. I. of Police and he visited the scene of offence and prepared the rough sketch of the scene and secured the presence of the above witnesses and Dr. A. Hari prasadarao and B. Danamma and recorded their statements and after close of formalities, he filed charge-sheet. ( 6 ) THE IV additional Munsif Magistrate, guntur had committed the case to the Court of Session and the same was made over to the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, guntur, who had recorded the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 9 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-5 and also Ex. D-1, the portion of 161 Cr. P. C. statement of P. W. 2 and recorded an acquittal. ( 7 ) P. W. 1 is the mother and P. W. 2 is the father of the deceased. P. W. 1 specifically deposed that about two years back, herself and late Venkayamma attended the work in the house and they returned to their respective houses and she had asked P. W. 1 to come at 3 p. m. on that day and she went to the work spot at 3 p. m. on the even date. She was attending to her work in the house. The accused went to her work spot at 4. She was attending to her work in the house. The accused went to her work spot at 4. 30 p. m. and informed that his wife was sick and was admitted into hospital. The same was conveyed to her and on that she left to hospital and found her daughter lying on the table with injuries on her cheeks. She removed her daughter to Government General hospital. This witness also deposed about the prior marriage of the accused and suppression there of and she also deposed about the quarrels prior to her demise. She further deposed about giving report to police, which is marked as Ex. P-1. ( 8 ) P. W. 2 also had corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1 in his cross examination, he stated that he did not state to the police as marked in Ex. D-1. P. W. 3 is the brother of the deceased and this witness also deposed about that happened on the fateful day and how he was informed. He also deposed that he did not go to his sister and P. Ws. 1 and 2 brought his sister to his house. By then, she was dead and they reported the matter to the police. ( 9 ) P. W. 4 deposed that he knows the accused and his late wife, Venkayamma. Accused and his late wife were residing under the staircase in the premises of Kalyana mandapam. In the year 1996, Venkayamma died. While he was present in his shop, the persons residing near Kalyana Mandapam came and reported him that the wife of the accused died by consuming poison. In the evening, he went to kalyana Mandapam and saw -the deceased lying in Kalyana mandapam. ( 10 ) P. W. 5, the doctor, deposed that at 3. 30 or 4 p. m. one Venkayamma was brought to his clinic in his absence and on his enquiry, the patient revealed that she consumed rat poison and was in her pregnancy of 7th month. He advised them to take the patient to government General Hospital, Guntur for treatment, as there was lack of necessary equipment to administer the patient. P. W. 6 is the nurse under P. W. 5 who deposed about certain details. P. W. 7 deposed about inquest, ex. P-2. Ex. P-3 is the post-mortem certificate. Ex. P-4 is the final opinion. He advised them to take the patient to government General Hospital, Guntur for treatment, as there was lack of necessary equipment to administer the patient. P. W. 6 is the nurse under P. W. 5 who deposed about certain details. P. W. 7 deposed about inquest, ex. P-2. Ex. P-3 is the post-mortem certificate. Ex. P-4 is the final opinion. ( 11 ) P. W. 9 is the investigating Officer who deposed about the details of investigation. In cross-examination, P. W. 9 deposed that p. W. 1 has not stated in Ex. P-1 or her statement under 161 Cr. P. C. , that during the time of her marriage, they gave away rs. 2,000/- and a wrist watch towards dowry. Similarly, the other witnesses also had not stated to him during the course of investigation. P. W. 2, the father of the deceased had not stated before him that accused and his parents killed the deceased. P. W. 2 had not stated before him that accused himself informed him that he slapped over the cheek of the deceased on that date. P. W. 3 had not stated to him that the accused, his parents and his sister killed the deceased venkayamma. P. Ws. 1 to 3 had not stated to him even at the beginning that the accused slapped over cheeks of the deceased venkayamma on that date. P. Ws. 1 to 3 had not stated to him even in the first instance that on account of the marriage with the deceased, Venkayamma, the first wife of the accused left Dhulipala and became rich and earned Rs. 1,00,000/- and on that the accused started harassing the deceased. P. Ws. 1 to 3 had stated to him that they have not offered any dowry to the accused at the time of marriage. This witness also denied certain suggestions and Ex. D-1 was proved. ( 12 ) ON the strength of this evidence and on appreciation of the material available on record, an acquittal had been recorded. It is needless to say that accused was charged with offences under Sections 498-A and 306 ipc. On a careful scrutiny on the evidence available on record, it is highly doubtful whether the ingredients of either of the offences had been satisfied by the prosecution especially in the light of the evidence of the Investigating Officer. It is needless to say that accused was charged with offences under Sections 498-A and 306 ipc. On a careful scrutiny on the evidence available on record, it is highly doubtful whether the ingredients of either of the offences had been satisfied by the prosecution especially in the light of the evidence of the Investigating Officer. The serious omissions and contradictions, which had been deposed by the Investigating Officer and the nature of evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 definitely would create any amount of doubt over the version of the prosecution and hence, the acquittal recorded by the learned Judge is well justified and the same is hereby confirmed. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed.