P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE accused were arrayed before the Court for the charge of dowry death and were convicted. Hence the present criminal appeals. ( 2 ) CRL. A No. 1276/99 is filed by A-2 as against the judgment in S. C. No. 155/96 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, mahabubnagar and Cri. A. . No. 1444/99 is preferred by A-l as against the self-same judgment and hence both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 3 ) SRI Suresh Reddy, the learned counsel representing the appellant/a-1 in crl. A. No. 1444/99 would contend that the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC had not been satisfied. The learned Counsel also would submit that the mere fact that the deceased was not allowed to attend birthday function of PW-1 s grandson would not amount to harassment or cruelty. The learned Counsel also would submit that demand for cycle or fan also had not been substantiated. The learned Counsel also would submit that even otherwise the testimony available on record is only interested testimony and also the very nature of evidence which had been adduced is not legally acceptable so as to establish the guilt or harassment for the purpose of satisfying the ingredients of the offence and hence acquittal may have to be recorded. ( 4 ) SRI Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel representing the appellant/a-2 would submit that A-2 is the married sister of A-l and she has nothing to do with the family of a-l and there are no independent witnesses at all to speak about the harassment and A-l is a handicapped person and because of frustration the deceased could have committed suicide and there is no independent evidence relating to the alleged demand made by the appellants and hence the ingredients of section 304-B IPC are not satisfied. ( 5 ) PER contra the learned Additional public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of PW-1 to PW-13 had been discussed at length by the learned Judge and conviction had been recorded and in view of the clear findings recorded by the learned judge there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the accused. ( 6 ) HEARD the Counsel. ( 7 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the deceased Praveena Begum was married to A-1 on 18. 2. ( 6 ) HEARD the Counsel. ( 7 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the deceased Praveena Begum was married to A-1 on 18. 2. 1993 who was a resident of mahabubnagar. Jabbar and Maqsooda begum are the parents of the deceased. According to the version of the prosecution jabbar, father of the deceased, gave rs. 5,000/- cash, one tola gold and two masas gold and 11/2 tola silver along with household articles as dowry and he also promised to give cycle and a table fan sometime after the marriage, but due to financial difficulties there was delay in giving those articles. A-2 is the sister of A-l and is living in a portion of the house of A-1 and she started harassing and torturing the deceased for not getting the table fan and cycle from her parents as promised. Noticing this harassment, the father of the deceased promised to send them as early as possible. Even then also A-l and A- 2 did not listen and continued their cruelty against the deceased. On 19. 6. 1993, Jabbar, the father of the deceased, came to mahabubnagar to the house of the first son in connection with the birthday of his grandson. He invited his daughter Praveena begum, the deceased, and his son-in-law/a- 1 to the function. But A-1 deliberately refused to come and did not allow Praveena Begum to function on that night. Sometime thereafter one M. A. Raheem, a neighbour of the house of A-l and A-2 and brother-in-law of LW-3 m. A. Qayyum came and informed that smoke is coining out of the house of A-1. Then the father of the deceased, Jabbar and his sons and his other relations went to the house of a-l and found Praveena Begum with burn injuries and she was lying on the floor and while they were taking her to hospital she died on the way. ( 8 ) THE father of the deceased, Jabbar presented a written complaint to S. H. O-II town Police station and Crl No. 114/93 was registered under Section 304-B IPC. The mandal Revenue Officer conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of panchas. The case was numbered as PRC no. 17/95 on the file of Judicial First Class magistrate, Mahabubnagar and the same was committed to the Court of Session. The mandal Revenue Officer conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of panchas. The case was numbered as PRC no. 17/95 on the file of Judicial First Class magistrate, Mahabubnagar and the same was committed to the Court of Session. ( 9 ) THE learned Judge recorded the evidence of PW-1 to PW13 and Exs. P-1 to p7 and M. Os. 1 to 7 were marked. PW-1, the father of the deceased deposed about the details of marriage and demand of amount of Rs. 5,000/- cash and demand of cycle and fan which he promised to give within five months after marriage. Two months after the marriage his daughter visited his house for bakrid festival and she asked him to give cycle and fan. She stated that the accused were forcing to get them and he requested six months time as he did not discharge the debts contracted at the time of marriage. This witness also further deposed about inviting his daughter and son-in-law to attend the birthday function of his grandson. He was again informed that the accused were demanding fan and cycle and they were harassing. This witnesses also deposed about the birthday function and his son requesting a-l to send his daughter, the deceased. The function was celebrated in the in-laws house of his son at Mahabubnagar and the house of his daughter, the deceased, is at a distance of 25 yards from the in-laws house of his eldest son and they waited till 9. 30 p. m. , for the arrival of the deceased, but A-l did not send her. Sometime thereafter, the brother- in-law of his son went out for calls of nature and noticed some smoke coming out of the house of A-l and they rushed to the house of A-1 and as the door was locked from inside they forcibly opened the door and found his daughter in flames and she was almost completely burnt and she was breathing and while they were taking her on a rickshaw to the Government Hospital, mahabubnagar she died on the way in the hospital compound. PW-1 also deposed that when he visited the house of A-l the deceased was burning in one room and A-l and A-2 and their father were in another room in the same house and he gave complaint Ex. P-1 against A-l and A-2. PW-1 was examined by police. PW-1 also deposed that when he visited the house of A-l the deceased was burning in one room and A-l and A-2 and their father were in another room in the same house and he gave complaint Ex. P-1 against A-l and A-2. PW-1 was examined by police. A-2 was residing in the same house along with her children on the date of the offence. In cross- examination this witnesses deposed that on 23. 10. 1993 A-1 s father gave Rs. 5,000/- to him in the presence of police and he passed a receipt Ex. D-1. At this stage of cross- examination the learned Advocate for the defence showed a letter dated 12. 12. 1993 and put the contents of the letter to PW-1 and he denied his signatures on the paper and said that the signature on the paper is similar to his signature and he admitted his signatures on two papers. Ex. D2 is the paper showing receipt of watch. Ex. D3 is the list of articles received by the witness. Ex. D2 is dated 4. 7. 1993 and Ex. D3 is also dated 4. 7. 1993. This witness deposed that he did not mention in Ex. P1 that his daughter committed suicide and he did not entertain such a doubt at that time. This witness also denied the other suggestions. ( 10 ) PW-2 is the mother of the deceased who had corroborated PW-1 in all material particulars. PW3 is the brother of the deceased who also deposed about the demand of fan and cycle and the other things in detail. PW-4 also belonging to the same, family had supported the version of PW-1 to pw3. PW-5 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon who had conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body. The certificate issued by him is marked as Ex. P2. In cross- examination this witness, PW5, deposed that there is no difference between homicidal death and suicidal death in case of burns and he mentioned that charring was due to burning of body with kerosene and in this case there is scope for suicidal death also. 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.)-F-62 ( 11 ) PW-6 is the Mandal Revenue officer who deposed about the securing of panchas and conducting inquest over the dead body under cover of Ex. P3. 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.)-F-62 ( 11 ) PW-6 is the Mandal Revenue officer who deposed about the securing of panchas and conducting inquest over the dead body under cover of Ex. P3. PW-7 deposed that he is the neighbour of A-l and a-2 and A-l came and informed that his wife was completely burnt. He took A-l to his brother s house and they were just returning at that time and PW-1 and PW-2 and others were bringing the wife of A-l in a rickshaw to go to hospital. PW-7 further deposed that he heard that the wife of A-l died on the way. PW8 deposed that his house is at a distance of 20 feet to that of A-l and A2. A-2 resides in front portion of the house of A-1. The portions of A-l and A-2 are joint and about six years back at about 10. 30 p. m. , he heard cries in front of the house of A-l and at that time he went there and saw the wife of A-l covered with bed sheets and she was taken to the hospital and a-l also followed the rickshaw. PW8 was examined by police. ( 12 ) PW-9 also deposed that he heard cries from the house of A-l and the parents of the deceased were taking her to the government Hospital for burn injuries and she died on the way. In cross-examination this witnesses deposed that A-1 followed the rickshaw to the hospital. ( 13 ) PW-10 was examined in relation to the inquest report Ex. P3. PW-11 was examined in relation to scene of offence panchanama Ex. P4 and Ex. P5 is the signature of MOs. 1 to 7 were recovered under the cover of Ex. P4 at the house of A-l. PW13 is the C. I of Police who worked as si. II Town, Mahabubnagar Police Station at the relevant point of time who had registered Cr. No. 114/93. PW12 is the investigating Officer who had deposed about all the details of investigation and also filing of the charge-sheet. ( 14 ) EX. P-1 given by PW-1 reads as hereunder: "i, M. A. Jabbar, s/o M. A. Razak, age 55 years Retired Attender, r/o Makthal, to state that the I had a daughter by name Praveena begum, aged 19 years, I got her marriage performed on 18. 2. ( 14 ) EX. P-1 given by PW-1 reads as hereunder: "i, M. A. Jabbar, s/o M. A. Razak, age 55 years Retired Attender, r/o Makthal, to state that the I had a daughter by name Praveena begum, aged 19 years, I got her marriage performed on 18. 2. 1993 with Sri Afthab ahmed Khan s/o Bashaarath Ahmed Khan, age 30 years, Lorry driver, s/o Saddalagundu, mahabubnagar. At the time of marriage I have presented a dowry of Rs. 5,000-00, one tula and 2 maasas of gold, 4 tolas of silver and other utensils. I could not give the cycle and a table fan due to financial difficulties and promised to give the same, later on. I sent my daughter to her parents-in-law after the marriage. For some days my son-in-law and his parents and others I have looked after her very well. When my daughter was taken to my house for Bakrid festival (2nd june) my daughter complained that her husband and elder sister-in-law by name Tahara Begum have started to harass her demanding as to why her father is not giving the cycle and fan as agreed. I convinced her saying that I will give said articles later on and sent her to in-law s house. On 12. 6. 1993 my son Qayyum left for Mahabubnagar to attend the marriage of his younger sister-in-law, scheduled on 21. 6. 1993. The in-law s house of my daughter and my son are adjacent to each other. I, along with my family members came to mahabubnagar yesterday ie. , 19. 6. 1993 at about 1 p. m. , for attending the birthday function of my grandson, as my grandson was at the house of the parents-in-law of my son. Myself and my son went to my daughters house and requested my son-in-law to send her to the function of my grandson. But my son-in-law did not send her. My daughter again complained us that her husband and elder sister-in-law are harassing her for the cycle and fan. Myself and my son went to my daughters house and requested my son-in-law to send her to the function of my grandson. But my son-in-law did not send her. My daughter again complained us that her husband and elder sister-in-law are harassing her for the cycle and fan. At about 10 p. m. , the younger brother-in-law of my son, by name Raheem came and informed my son that some smoke is coming out from the house of my daughter and on that myself and my son rushed to her house and found my daughter with complete burn injuries and immediately we shifted her to the hospital, but on the way, at about 11 p. m. , she died. My daughter committed suicide due to the harassment made by her husband Afthab Ahmed Khan and her elder sister-in-law Tahera Begum, for additional dowry and therefore I request you to take necessary action against them". Even as per the evidence of PW-1 to PW4, their evidence relating to the demand made by the accused relating to cycle and fan is hear say in nature. A-2 is the sister of A-1 and merely because she was residing in a portion of the same house, automatically it cannot be said that she was in anyway responsible for the death of the deceased unless there is clear and acceptable evidence in that regard. From the nature of evidence of PW-1, it is doubtful how in fact the incident happened. It is also pertinent to take the conduct of A-l into consideration in this regard. The evidence of PW8 and PW9, the persons of locality, would assume lot of importance since A-l also followed the rickshaw on which the deceased was being taken to the hospital. On an over all appreciation of facts and circumstances, on the mere fact that the deceased was not sent to a particular birthday function it cannot be inferred that due to harassment or cruelty she died. PW12, the Investigating Officer, deposed that the MRO recorded the statements of witnesses and he had taken the copies of the said statement from M. R. O. but he not filed such statements into Court and his investigation revealed that Praveena begum the deceased, committed suicide and died. PW12, the Investigating Officer, deposed that the MRO recorded the statements of witnesses and he had taken the copies of the said statement from M. R. O. but he not filed such statements into Court and his investigation revealed that Praveena begum the deceased, committed suicide and died. In Gananath Pattnaik v. State of orissa, 2002 SCC (Crl) 461, where the prosecution witness deposed that prior to death the deceased woman had stated to the witnesses that she was not treated well by her husband and in-laws for non-fulfillment of balance dowry amount and the said witness further mentioned certain specific acts of such ill-treatment allegedly stated to her by the deceased, it was held that such evidence although admissible in respect of the offence under Section 304-B IPC by virtue of Section 32 (1) of the Evidence act, 1872, it is not admissible for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. On an over all appreciation of the evidence available on record and also taking into consideration the conduct of A-l, this Court is of the considered opinion that when the interested testimony available before the Court appears to be more in the nature of hear-say, on the strength of such evidence it cannot be said that the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is really unfortunate that not only a-1, A-2 the sister of A-1, also had been convicted for the mere reason that she had been staying in the same house in a different portion. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence of the neighbours, the possibility of the episode being accidental also cannot be totally ruled out. Hence on the strength of the interested testimony recording conviction, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned Judge are hereby set aside. ( 15 ) FOR the reasons recorded supra, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judge cannot be sustained and the same are hereby set aside. The criminal appeals are allowed. The bail bonds of the appellants shall stand cancelled.