( 1 ) A-1 in S. C. No. 179/88 on the file of Principle Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam filed this Criminal Appeal as against the Judgment of the learned Judge convicting him under Section 498-A IPC and imposing Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one week. However, A-1 was found not guilt on charges under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC and A-2 was acquitted of all the charges. ( 2 ) A-1 and A-2 were originally charged with the offence under Section 302 IPC and in alternative under Section 304-B IPC but however an additional charge was framed under Section 498-A IPC as against A-1 and A-2. The case of the prosecution is that A-1 is the husband of one Pentakota Nookaratnam, hereinafter referred to as deceased for the purpose of convenience and A-2 is the mother of A-1. PW-1 and PW-2 are the parents of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased had taken place with A-1 at Munagapaka village in the month of June 1997. It is also the version of the prosecution that at the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased gave Rs. 40,000/- cash to the bridegroom as dowry and also 10 tolas of gold ornaments. The dowry amount of Rs. 40,000/- demanded by the accused was deposited by PW-1 and PW-2 in S. B. I. Munagapaka branch in the name of the deceased. It is also the version of the prosecution that they gave sare articles worth Rs. 50,000/- at the time of marriage and the deceased was looked after well by the accused and subsequent thereto PW-1 and PW-2 began harassing for dowry amount on the ground that what was already given was not sufficient. It is also the version of the prosecution that the accused suspected fidelity of the deceased and attributed unchastity and illicit intimacy with others. It is also the version of the prosecution that the deceased informed the same to PW-1 and PW-2 and they raised a dispute relating to the harassment made by A-1 and the parents informed that they would set right the things. It is also the version of the prosecution that the deceased informed her brother PW-4 that A-1 was harassing for colour T. V. and for purchasing a scooter. It is also the version of the prosecution that the deceased informed her brother PW-4 that A-1 was harassing for colour T. V. and for purchasing a scooter. In spite of the invitation extended by PW-1 and PW-2, A-1 did not attend for Sankranthi festival and he also did not allow the deceased to attend the Sankranthi festival. While so on 6-2-1998 PW-1s younger brothers daughters marriage was performed at Gavarla Anakapalle and in that connection A-1 and the deceased attended the marriage function and A-1 did not visit the house of PW-1 and in that connection the deceased informed that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and harassment by A-1 and it is unbearable and also informed that she would not go to the house of the accused. PW-1 and PW-2 asked her to adjust herself to the situation and go along with her husband. PW-1 informed that the deceased was beaten by A-1 on their way to Munagapaka. On 10-2-1998 at about 1 p. m. PW-1 received information from PW-8 about the death of the deceased at Munagapaka. Immediately PW-1, PW-4 and others rushed to the house of the accused and found the dead body of the deceased in front of their house and they also found some abrasions on the neck of the deceased. When PW-1 enquired how the deceased died, the accused informed that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. PW-1 did not believe the version of the accused regarding the death and suspected the killing of the deceased due to not meeting the demand of dowry and suspecting fidelity of the deceased by the accused and gave report to the police. ( 3 ) ORIGINALLY the charge sheet was filed under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC and the said charges were framed and an additional charge under Section 302 IPC was framed and subsequent thereto another charge under Section 498-A IPC also was framed. The prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-15 and Exs. P-1 to P-20 and M. Os. 1 to 5 were marked Ex. D-1 to D-9 also had been marked and ultimately as referred to supra A-1 alone was convicted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and hence the present Criminal Appeal. The prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-15 and Exs. P-1 to P-20 and M. Os. 1 to 5 were marked Ex. D-1 to D-9 also had been marked and ultimately as referred to supra A-1 alone was convicted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and hence the present Criminal Appeal. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel representing the appellant/a-1 would point out that on appreciation of evidence the learned Judge having arrived at a conclusion that the offences under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC had not been established, definitely erred in recording conviction under Section 498-A IPC as against A-1. The learned Counsel would submit that there is variation between the earlier version and what was deposed by PW-1 and PW-2 before the Court. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to Ex. D-3 in this regard. The learned Counsel also would submit that the Investigating Officer PW-15 also admitted in his cross-examination that PW-1 stated before him as in Ex. D-3. The learned Counsel also pointed out that PW-3 did not state about the complaints made to her by the deceased to police, but PW-3 deposed about the same before the Court for the first time and hence the evidence of PW-3 should have been viewed with suspicion. The Counsel also pointed out the inconsistent versions of PW-3 and PW-4. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence of PW-5 and PW-7 and would conclude that at any rate there is no acceptable independent evidence and the evidence available on record is more in the nature of hear say and the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC are not satisfied and hence recording of conviction on the basic of such evidence cannot be said to be in accordance with law. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the contradictions and omissions and the inconsistent versions relating to the alleged incidents as per the episode of the prosecution. Reliance was placed on Gananath pattnaik Vs. State of Orissa (2002 SCC (Crl) 461) and Inderpal Vs. State of M. P. (2003 SCC (Crl) 1049 ). Per contra the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence on record is sufficient to satisfy the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC. Reliance was placed on Gananath pattnaik Vs. State of Orissa (2002 SCC (Crl) 461) and Inderpal Vs. State of M. P. (2003 SCC (Crl) 1049 ). Per contra the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence on record is sufficient to satisfy the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also would submit that the mere fact that acquittal had been recorded under Sections 302 or 304-B IPC, by itself it cannot be contended that automatically A-1 is entitled for acquittal for the charge under Section 498-A IPC also. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also would contend that on a careful reading of the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 and also the other evidence available on record reading to the incident which happened prior thereto, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the learned Judge is well justified in convicting A-1 under Section 498-A IPC having recorded findings in detail in this regard and hence the said findings are to be confirmed and consequently the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judge also are to be confirmed. ( 5 ) HEARD both the Counsel at length and also perused the evidence of PW-1 to PW-15, Exs. P-1 to P-20 and Exs. D-1 to D-9. PW-1 deposed that the marriage took place between A-1 and the deceased about 1 years back. It is the version of PW-1 that he had agreed to give cash of Rs. 40,000/- in cash, 10 tolas of gold and sare samans worth about Rs. 50,000/- by the time of the marriage. 10 tolas of gold was presented in the form of jewellery and articles to the deceased. An amount of Rs. 40,000/- cash was paid to A-2 and the marriage was performed at the house of A-1 as per the caste custom prevailing in Gavarla community. It was further deposed that the deceased joined A-1 after the marriage and sare samans were presented and they both lived happily for about 2 or 3 months and were visiting his house. Venkasanna Appa Rao, eldest son of PW-1, is employed in Visakhapatnam and he is married. The second son of PW-1 was unmarried and was staying with him. It was also further deposed that himself (PW-1) and his youngest son and his wife were residing in his house and his eldest daughter-in-law is also a native of their village. Venkasanna Appa Rao, eldest son of PW-1, is employed in Visakhapatnam and he is married. The second son of PW-1 was unmarried and was staying with him. It was also further deposed that himself (PW-1) and his youngest son and his wife were residing in his house and his eldest daughter-in-law is also a native of their village. PW-1 further deposed that his son-in-law (A-1) did not send the deceased when he was invited for Ammathalli festival and again PW-1 invited A-1 and the deceased to join them during Sankranthi festival. A-1 sent the deceased but he did not come. The eldest son of PW-1 and his wife joined them during Sankranthi festival days. PW-1 further deposed that three days after the Sankranthi festival, A-1s mother came to take back the deceased. When PW-1 questioned her, she stated that A-1 had got some work and due to that reason he did not come. PW-1 deposed that the deceased informed that her husband (A-1) felt insufficiency of dowry and sare samans furnished by them and due to that reason he did not visit for Sankranthi festival days and the same thing was told during Sankranthi days. PW-1 further deposed that the deceased went along with A-2 to stay along with A-1 and on the invitation extended to A-1 and the deceased, they came to attend the marriage function in the house of his younger brothers house and three days after the marriage, the deceased died. When PW-1 invited A-1 and the deceased to come to his house after the marriage, they represented that they would come later and on the next day morning the deceased visited the house of PW-1 and informed that A-1 would not visit his house and would not take tea. PW-1 further deposed that when a boy came and informed about the death of the deceased, himself and his wife along with the person who brought the news of death went to the house of A-1 at Munagapaka. The body of the deceased was lying on a country mat spread out on the floor which was kept outside the house. PW-1 further deposed that A-1 informed him that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. PW-1 entertained suspicion of murdering the deceased on seeing the injuries on the back side of the neck portion, on the forehead and on the chest. PW-1 further deposed that A-1 informed him that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. PW-1 entertained suspicion of murdering the deceased on seeing the injuries on the back side of the neck portion, on the forehead and on the chest. PW-1 deposed that the roof portion of the house is at a height of 14 ft. from the ground. PW-1 got the complaint drafted by Malla Appalanaidu and he put his thumb mark on the said complaint and got it written at Munagapaka which was presented to the S. I. of Police, Munagapaka. ( 6 ) PW-2 also deposed about the marriage between A-1 and the deceased and presenting Rs. 40,000/- cash and tolas of gold towards dowry and giving sare samans worth about Rs. 50,000/- at the marriage that took place at the house of the accused. PW-2 also deposed that the deceased joined her husband after the marriage and lived happily for three months and the deceased used to inform her that A-1 used to beat her. She also further deposed that the deceased told her that A-1 was suspecting her and he was beating suddenly and later treating well and he was also expressing about the insufficiency of sare samans. PW-2 further deposed that during Sankranthi festival after the marriage PW-1 went and brought the deceased to their house. A-1 did not come to their house for festival. By the date of the death of the deceased she was pregnant and running her fourth month and the deceased died 15 days prior to the marriage that took place in the house of her husbands brother. It was also further deposed that the marriage of Paradesinaidus son took place during the month of February after Sankranthi and A-1 and the deceased attended the said marriage and some witnesses informed PW-2 that the accused took away the deceased by beating all-through. PW-2 further deposed that on the date of marriage the deceased did not inform her anything and she only informed to her brother and sister-in-law and on the fifth day after the marriage that took place in her husbands brothers house, she died and they received information about the death of the deceased at about 1 p. m. Ramana Sanni Appa Rao is the eldest son of PW-2 and Apparao is the second son. PW-2 further deposed that the dead body of the deceased was kept on the hay in front of the house of A-1 and she went and saw the same. PW-2, PW-1 and her co-sister went in the first instance and they found some injuries on the neck portion, forehead and on the sides of the body of the deceased and thereupon PW-1 gave report. PW-2 identified the body of the deceased as that of her daughter from Exs. P-2 to P-4 which are the positive photographs. PW-2 also deposed that MO-1 blouse, MO-2 upper cloth, MO-3 petty coat and MO-4 langa belonged to the deceased. PW-2 further deposed that only sacred thread around the neck, ear studs and two rings were found on the body of the deceased and she further deposed that the deceased used to tell her about the accused harassing her about the insufficiently of the sare samans and dowry given to her. ( 7 ) PW-3 deposed about the marriage that took place during June 1997 with A-1 at Munagapaka and PW-3 also deposed that one tolas of gold also was presented to A-1 and the remaining 9 tolas were presented by way of jewellery to the deceased and the dowry amount of Rs. 40,000/- was handed over to A-2 at the time of marriage and in the beginning the amount was deposited in the name of the deceased and A-1 and later it was transferred in such a way that any one of them can withdraw. The furniture and other articles worth Rs. 50,000/- were also given to the deceased. PW-3 and her husband had been residing at Visakhapatnam since six years. PW-3 further deposed that during Sankranthi festival days she met the deceased at her parents-in-laws house and the deceased attended the marriage of Paradesinaidus son on 6th February 1998 and the deceased died on 10-2-1998. PW-3 also deposed that the deceased was complaining of harassment by A-1 stating that they could have presented more articles since her eldest brother was employed and she told the police that she attended the marriage of the junior paternal uncles son of the deceased. The deceased informed PW-3 during the marriage shedding tears that the accused was demanding more amount and asking her to demand more and he was beating her and she was unwilling to join him. The deceased informed PW-3 during the marriage shedding tears that the accused was demanding more amount and asking her to demand more and he was beating her and she was unwilling to join him. PW-3 further deposed that she learnt about the death of the deceased while they were at Visakhapatnam and herself and her husband rushed to Munagapaka. A-2 informed them that the deceased was found in sofa and were as A-1 informed them that she hanged herself and died. PW-3 further deposed that nobody informed her that she died due to hanging except A-1 and A-2. PW-3 also further deposed that the chest was found swollen when she saw the deceased and there were finger impressions around the neck and she saw injuries on the head and forehead. PW-1 to PW-3 categorically stated that the M. R. O. came and conducted inquest and they gave statements to M. R. O. and the Investigating Officer as well. ( 8 ) PW-4, the brother of the deceased also deposed about the marriage and also a sum of Rs. 40,000/- being given towards dowry and 10 tolas of gold presented at the time of marriage to the deceased. PW-4 also deposed that sare samans presented were about Rs. 50,000/- and the marriage took place in the house of A-1 and A-1 and the deceased lived happily for three months after the marriage. A-1 and A-2 started ill-treating the deceased stating that the dowry was not sufficient and he (PW-4) used to visit the house of A-1 at Munagapaka now and then and the deceased told him that A-1 was suspecting her character and was beating her and PW-4 informed the same to his father/pw-1. PW-4 and PW-1 went and questioned A-1s conduct. A-2 and the father of A-1 told them that they were young and the things would get set right after some time. The deceased used to tell him (PW-4) that they were demanding a colour T. V. and a scooter and he informed A-1and A-2 about their inability to meet the said demand. PW-4 also deposed about the non-attending to Sankranthi festival by A-1 when his father/pw. 1 went and invited A-1 and the deceased. The deceased used to tell him (PW-4) that they were demanding a colour T. V. and a scooter and he informed A-1and A-2 about their inability to meet the said demand. PW-4 also deposed about the non-attending to Sankranthi festival by A-1 when his father/pw. 1 went and invited A-1 and the deceased. He also deposed about the deceased attending to the marriage during February 1998 in his junior paternal uncles house and A-1 not permitting the deceased to talk to anybody and beating the deceased when she desired to visit her parents house. PW-4 learnt about the beating of the deceased by A-1 through somebody who saw it and he deposed that PW-1 to PW-3 attended the marriage and they met A-1 and the deceased at the marriage function. PW-4 deposed about coming to know about the death of the deceased and they going and visiting the house of A-1 and finding the corpse placed on a country mat in front of the door way and finding injuries on the neck portion of the deceased. PW-4 also found the chest of the deceased being swollen. PW-4 further deposed that when he saw on 6th he felt and A-1 and his wife were not having cordial relations. ( 9 ) PW-5 belonging to Gavarla Anakapalle deposed about A-1 giving a slap to the deceased while going on the road and when he intervened A-1 chastised him stating that he should not intervene in the quarrel in between wife and husband. PW-6 also deposed about the incident that had taken place on 6-2-1998 at about 8. 30 p. m. when he was proceeding towards his shop. At that time he saw the deceased and A-1 going together and the deceased was going behind the back of A-1 and A-1 questioned the deceased as to why she was walking behind him and the deceased said that she was following him and he beat her with his hand on the back side. PW-7 deposed that when she was returning after supplying milk at the junction, the deceased was shedding tears and A-1 beat the deceased on her back after boarding the rickshaw. PW-8 deposed about receiving telephone call on 10-2-1998 in between 12-30 p. m. and 1 p. m. that the deceased died and he passed on the information to the parents of the deceased. PW-8 deposed about receiving telephone call on 10-2-1998 in between 12-30 p. m. and 1 p. m. that the deceased died and he passed on the information to the parents of the deceased. PW-9, the Branch Manager of S. B. I. Munagapaka deposed about deposit of Rs. 39,000/- in their branch by A-1 and the deceased as a Special terms deposit. PW-10 deposed about the conduct of inquest and also taking of photographs. PW-11 deposed about Ex. P-10 inquest report and conduct of inquest. PW-12 deposed about taking of the photographs of the scene of offence. The positive photographs are Exs. P-2 to P-8. PW-13, Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine deposed about conducting of post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and this witness further deposed that he found the body was built, nutrition was moderate, height was 156 cms. , scalp hair was 45 cms. and black in colour, eyes were closed and both the corneas were hazy, conjunctiva was congested, mouth was partly opened, blood stains and white frothy liquid was coming out from the nose and mouth and stained on the face. PW-13 observed that the finger nails were blue in colour and the upper part of the chest, neck, both shoulders were livid. Rigor mortis was present in lower limbs and he also observed that the post mortem staining was on the back. He further deposed that the abdomen was slightly bleated and the body was kept in cold storage. PW-13 found the following observations and external injuries. While glistering, dried salivary stains were present on the green colour voni and PW-13 further noticed the following external injuries. 1. A reddish brown coloured ligature mark of 18 cms. , in length with a varying width of 1-2 cms. present on the front of neck, going upwards obliquely upto left part of the neck on left side upto a point of 4 cms. below the angle of lower jaw and going upwards obliquely upto hair line on the back on the right side of neck 4 cms. below and behind the right mastoid process. There is echymosis. There is no ligature mark on the back of neck to a length of 115 cms. The total circumference of the neck is 33 cms. No clear pattern. No knot mark. 2. below and behind the right mastoid process. There is echymosis. There is no ligature mark on the back of neck to a length of 115 cms. The total circumference of the neck is 33 cms. No clear pattern. No knot mark. 2. An abrasion of 3 x 2 x 2 cms, reddish brown in colour present on right upper part of neck near the mid line extending towards on right side of neck present immediately above the ligature mark. Echymosis is present. 3. Abrasion of 4 x 2 cms. reddish brown in colour present on the middle of neck and left upper part of neck 1 cms. above the ligature mark. Echymosis is present. 4. A contusion of 6 x 4 cms. on right temporal region of scalp. 5. A contusion of 3 x 2 cms. on front upper part of chest at upper sternal regions. 6. Contusion of 2 x cms. on front of right shoulder. 7. Contusion of 3 x 2 cms. on front of left shoulder region. All the injuries are fresh and red. ( 10 ) ON cut opening of the body, he found the following: there was no bony injury in the skull. The brain is 1200 gms. And congested. Orbitral, nasal and aural cavities are normal. Mouth, tongue and pharynx are normal. Hyoid bone is intact. Thyroid cartilage, cricoid and trachea rings are normal. Chest wall injury found. Ribs are intact. Diaphragm, mediastunum, oesophagus are normal. Trachea, bronchi contained blood stained froth. Pleural cavities are normal. Right lung is 450 gms. Left lung is 410 gms. They are congested and oedematous. Heart is 230 gms. and is normal. Large blood vessels of the body are normal. Abdominal wall, peritoneal cavity are normal. Stomach contained 50 mls. Of liquid food material. Pieces of digested rice particles were found. There was no specific smell. No signs of poisoning. It was found that small and large intestines are bleated with post mortem gases. They are in normal condition. Liver is 1280 gms. Spleen is 160 gms. Right kidney is 130 gms. Left kidney is 135 gms. They are congested. Pancreas and adrenal are normal. Pelvic wall is normal. External genitalia are normal. Urinary bladder is empty. Uterus is 620 gms. in weight, enlarged, pregnant and contained a male foetus of 4 months, intra uterine age. The length of the foetus is 16 cms. Spine is intact. Right kidney is 130 gms. Left kidney is 135 gms. They are congested. Pancreas and adrenal are normal. Pelvic wall is normal. External genitalia are normal. Urinary bladder is empty. Uterus is 620 gms. in weight, enlarged, pregnant and contained a male foetus of 4 months, intra uterine age. The length of the foetus is 16 cms. Spine is intact. ( 11 ) PW-13 deposed that himself and the other doctor concluded the examination at 3-00 p. m. on 11-2-1998. The injuries are ante-mortem in nature. He opined that the cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging associated with injuries. He further deposed that there is likelihood of abrasion being caused to the neck portion due to wearing of ornaments around the neck and the injuries 4 to 7 can be caused by a fall or coming into contact with blunt object or blunt force. He issued Ex. P-18 post mortem certificate. He also deposed about death of foetus and opined that this is a case of suicide. ( 12 ) PW-14 is the S. I. of Police, Munagapaka who registered F. I. R. Ex. P-1 as Cr. No. 5/98 under Section 304-B IPC. PW-15 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anakapalli who received telephonic message from PW-14 and registration of the case and taking up the case and examination of the witnesses and preparing the scene of observation report, seizure of properties and getting the scene of offence photographed. He also deposed about examination of witnesses and filing of the charge sheet after receipt in inquest report. This is the evidence available on record. Ex. P-1 reads as hereunder: the marriage of my second daughter Nookaratnam was performed with Pentakota Sreenivasa Rao @ Sreenu, s/o Paradesinaidu of Munagapaka village in June 1997. Rs. 40,000/- was paid as dowry to the bride at the time of marriage and 10 tulas of gold to the bride-groom. The dowry amount was deposited in a Bank at Munagapaka, as agreed. Rs. 40,000/- worth sare samans were given as per custom. ( 13 ) THE parents-in-law and husband treated well upto three months after the marriage. Subsequently they used to demand our daughter to bring more dowry as the previous dowry was not sufficient and used to ill-treat her. Further her husband used to ill-treat her stating that she had illicit intimacy with another person. ( 13 ) THE parents-in-law and husband treated well upto three months after the marriage. Subsequently they used to demand our daughter to bring more dowry as the previous dowry was not sufficient and used to ill-treat her. Further her husband used to ill-treat her stating that she had illicit intimacy with another person. When our daughter told us about the above ill-treatment, we asked our son-in-law and his parents, but they replied that their son was an idiot and they will pacify the matter. On 6-2-98 the marriage of the son of my brother Paradesinaidu was performed. On that day my daughter Nookaratnam and my son-in-law. Sreenu came to our village for the marriage. Then my daughter told me by weeping that my son-in-law was ill-treating her every day, and beating her. She also told me that she will not go to him. Then my self, wife and neighbours chastised her and sent her to her house on 7-2-98, Saturday along with her husband. ( 14 ) ON 10-2-98 at about 1-00 P. M. a phone call was received at house of Dadi Atchiyya stating that my daughter was dead and inform the same to me. Immediately we went there along with my family members and saw the dead body on the verandah. When asked as to how my daughter died, the persons there said that the dead body was found in the sofa set. When asked as to how she died in a sofa-set since she had no diseases, nothing was replied by any one. Therefore, the death was not a natural death except murder and the death might be caused by her husband and parents-in-law, keeping in view the previous ill-treatment. Hence necessary action may be taken and do justice. PW-1 in cross-examination deposed that statements were recorded by M. R. O. during inquest and he did not state to M. R. O. and in Ex. D-1. Ex. D-1 reads as hereunder: my son-in-law on that day did not send my daughter to my brother-in-laws sons marriage. PW-1 further deposed that he did not complain against father of A-1 and brother of A-1 in his first report and he did not state as in Ex. D-2 in Section 161 Cr. P. C. statement marked for the purpose of contradiction Ex. PW-1 further deposed that he did not complain against father of A-1 and brother of A-1 in his first report and he did not state as in Ex. D-2 in Section 161 Cr. P. C. statement marked for the purpose of contradiction Ex. D-2 reads as hereunder: in hurry our relative Malla Appalanaidu drafted the report on Sreenivasa Raos brother and father but Sreenivasaraos father and brother are good persons. ( 15 ) PW-1 deposed that he did not state as in Ex. D-3 in Section 161 Cr. P. C. statement, marked for the purpose of contradiction. Ex. D-3 reads as hereunder: on the eve of Sankranthi festival I went to Munagapaka and called my son-in-law and daughter but my son-in-law did not come and also did not send my daughter to the festival. PW-1 also deposed that he does not know the contents of Ex. P-1 and he did not tell police about he inviting A-1 and the deceased to his house for Ammathalli festival. This witness further deposed that he did not state as in Ex. D-4, the portion marked in the complaint Ex. P-1 which reads: when asked as to how my daughter died, the persons there said that the dead body was found in the sofa-set likewise, Ex. D-5 was marked through PW-3 as a contradiction and Ex. D-6 through PW-4 as a contradiction, Ex. D-7 through PW-4 and Ex. D-8 through PW-5 and Ex. D-9 through PW-6 and the said contradictions marked through these witnesses reads as hereunder: ex. D-5: on 6-2-98 my husbands uncle Paradesinaidus daughters marriage. . Ex. D-6: ( 16 ) ON the eve of Sankranthi festival, my father went to Munagapaka and invite to my sister and brother-in-law for pongal. My brother-in-law did not come for festival and prevented my sister to attend festival. Ex. D-7: on 6-2-98 my uncle Paradesinaidus daughters marriage performed in our village ex. D-8:. In our village on 6-2-98 my uncle daughters marriage was performed ex. D-9:. On 6-2-98 in our village, Nookaratnam uncles daughters marriage was performed these contradictions were duly proved through the Investigation Officer. The learned Judge recorded the finding of cruelty and harassment mainly on the ground that on facts it had been established that there was willful conduct of giving beatings in public by the husband i. e. , A-1 to the deceased/wife. The learned Judge recorded the finding of cruelty and harassment mainly on the ground that on facts it had been established that there was willful conduct of giving beatings in public by the husband i. e. , A-1 to the deceased/wife. No doubt the prosecution had let in some evidence relating to the incident, the quarrel between the deceased and A-1 and the beatings given by A-1 in public. As far as the other evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 is concerned, it is more in the nature of hear-say and what had been stated by the deceased to these witnesses. Apart from this there are several contradictory versions which had been referred to supra. In Inderpal Vs. State of M. P. (2003 S. C. (Crl) 4049) it was held: unless the statement of a dead person would fall within the purview of Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act there is no other provision under which the same can be admitted in evidence. In order to make the statement of a dead person admissible in law (written or verbal) the statement must be as to the cause of her death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death. ( 17 ) THE High Court while dealing with the appeal found that the offence under Section 306 IPC was not make out as it could not be held that death of the deceased was due to commission of suicide. Nonetheless, the High Court proceeded to consider whether any other offence has been made out and ultimately found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 498-A IPC. By no stretch of imagination can the statement of the deceased contained in letters, where reference had been made by her regarding her life in the house of her in-laws, and the statements quoted by the witnesses, who had not spoken of anything which they had seen directly, be connected with any circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death. Even that apart, the matter herein is concerned with an offence under Section 498-A IPC disjuncted from the offence under Section 306 IPC the question of her death is not an issue for consideration and on that premise also Section 32 (1) of the Evidence Act will stand at bay so far as there materials are concerned. ( 18 ) IN Gananath Pattnaik Vs. ( 18 ) IN Gananath Pattnaik Vs. State of Orissa (2002 SCC (Crl) 461) the appellant therein was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC for allegedly subjecting his wife to cruelty and causing dowry death. The trial Court acquitted him of the charge under Section 304-B for want of acceptable evidence but convicted him under Section 498-A IPC. The Court had, on evidence, found that the appellant-accused had taken away the child from the deceased, had disallowed her to sit on his scooter, remained frequently absent from the house and had illicit relationship with his son-in-law. His acquittal of the charge under Section 304-B IPC was not further challenged but his convicted under Section 498-A IPC was, on being challenged, confirmed by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the said circumstances did not constitute cruelty for the purposes of Section 498-A IPC. He further contended that the findings of the trial Court were not based on legal evidence. This contention involved the question whether the deposition of the deceaseds sister before the trial Court that the deceased had been telling her about (i) ill-treatment given to her by her husband and in-laws for non-fulfillment of balance dowry, (ii) assaults by her husband, and (iii) taking away of the child from her, etc. , was admissible in evidence. Rejecting the first contention of the appellant but allowing the appeal on the second point, the Supreme Court held: ( 19 ) THE concept of cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual, also depending upon the social and economic status to which such person belongs. Cruelty for the purposes of constituting the offence under the said section need not be physical. Even mental torture or abnormal behavior may amount to cruelty and harassment in a given case. The statement of the deceaseds sister was taken on record with the aid of Section 32 of the Evidence Act at a time when the appellant was being tried for the offence under Section 304-B and such statement was admissible under Section 32 (1) as it related to the cause of death of the deceased and the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death. Such a statement is not admissible in evidence for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and has to be termed as only a hearsay evidence. Such a statement is not admissible in evidence for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and has to be termed as only a hearsay evidence. Section 32 is an exception to the hearsay rule and deals with the statements or declarations by a person, since dead, relating to the cause of his or her death or the circumstances leading to such death. If a statement which otherwise is covered by the hearsay rule does not fall within the exceptions of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, the same cannot be relied upon for finding the guilt of the accused. ( 20 ) THUS, there was no legal evidence for returning a finding with respect to the alleged cruelty of the accused with the deceased. Therefore, it has to be held that the prosecution has failed to prove, beyond doubt, that the appellant had committed the offence under Section 498-A IPC. It is further held that the present case is a fit one where he is entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. Section 498-A IPV reads as hereunder: husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:- whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subject such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. For the purpose of this section, cruelty means- (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive, the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security is on account or failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. ( 21 ) IN Heralal Vs. State (2003 AIR SCW 3570= air 2003 SC 2865 ), the Apex Court while dealing with cruelty, the common essential to both Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC held that the question is whether a case under Section 498-A IPC has been made out even if accusation under Section 304-B IPC fails. ( 21 ) IN Heralal Vs. State (2003 AIR SCW 3570= air 2003 SC 2865 ), the Apex Court while dealing with cruelty, the common essential to both Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC held that the question is whether a case under Section 498-A IPC has been made out even if accusation under Section 304-B IPC fails. It is to be noticed that Section 304-B IPC and Section 498-A IPC cannot be held to be mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is true that cruelty is a common essential to both the offences and that has to be proved. Explanation to Section 498-A IPC gives meaning of cruelty. In Section 304-B IPC there is no such explanation about the meaning of cruelty but having regard to the common background of these offences it is to be taken that the meaning of cruelty or harassment is the same as prescribed in the Explanation to Section 498-A IPC under which cruelty by itself amounts to an offence. Under Section 304-B IPC it is dowry death that is punishable and such death should have occurred within 7 years of marriage and no such period is mentioned in Section 498-A IPC and a person charged and acquitted under Section 304-B IPC can be convicted under Section 498-A IPC without that charge being there if such a case is made out. If the case is established there can be conviction under both the Sections and on the facts of the case even though it is difficult to sustain the conviction under Section 304-B IPC there are sufficient materials to convict the accused-appellants in terms of Section 306 IPC along with Section 498-A IPC. ( 22 ) IN State Vs. Balappa (1999 (2) ALT (Crl) 39 (DB) (Karn)) a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court held that even if a case under Section 304-B IPC is not made out the offence under Section 498-A IPC does not fail automatically and failure of case under Section 304-B IPC does not exclude the conviction under Section 498-A IPC if cruelty is proved. In ch. In ch. Narender Reddy vs. State of A. P. (2000 (2) ALT (Crl) 409 (A. P.)) while dealing with Explanation and meaning of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC it was held: the finding of the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad that the allegations raised by the revision petitioner seeking divorce when ultimately turned to be baseless resulting in dismissal of the divorce petition, ultimately amount to cruelty cannot for a moment be accepted. The main allegation made by the revision petitioner while seeking divorce is that PW-1 was suffering from virulent disease like cancer. It is unheard of in legal parlance that such a ground raised by the husband seeking divorce against the wife amounts to legal cruelty. She was suspected of throat trouble and she was operated upon. Except the perceptional difference, it cannot be said that it is baseless. We can understand that if an allegation of unchastity is attributed to the wife, it might amount to cruelty. About all, that can be a best ground for seeking maintenance, but it cannot be considered that it is that cruelty as is envisaged to be proved under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It has been held by this Court in C. Veerudu vs. State of A. P. (1998 (2) ALT 171) that even in respect of the offence under Section 498-A IPC, the necessary mens rea is required, and it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the ground mentioned in the divorce petition that the wife was suffering from Cancer, if ultimately considered to be a cruelty for a moment, the necessary mens rea is lacking, which is necessary ingredient, so as go bring home the offence under Section 498-A IPC. This approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is totally wrong and has been given oblivious of the very provisions of Section 498-A IPC and the explanation appended to the said section, the word cruelty has been sought to be illustrated and thus may be extracted hereunder for brevity and better understanding of the matter and also for appreciation of the points germane for consideration: section 498-A IPC: explanation: For the purpose of this Section Cruelty means:- (a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. ( 23 ) IT is obvious from the perusal of the explanation given under Section 498-A IPC that cruelty means a willful conduct of such nature and of such a magnitude so as to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life or limb or health of the woman. Seeking divorce on the ground that she was suffering from virulent disease like cancer, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that it would lead to such a situation where PW-1 which prepare to commit suicide. The explanation further says that the harassment of woman shall be within a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. This has to be considered with reference to the legal principles enunciated by this Court in the judgment referred to (1 supra-1998 (1) ALT 171) of this Court that the element of mens rea shall be there. After having considered the explanation appended to Section 498-A IPC, it is manifest that the finding of the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge that the grounds mentioned by the revision petitioner in seeking divorce which turned out to be baseless by themselves amounts to cruelty are not well founded and cannot be countenanced. After having considered the explanation appended to Section 498-A IPC, it is manifest that the finding of the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge that the grounds mentioned by the revision petitioner in seeking divorce which turned out to be baseless by themselves amounts to cruelty are not well founded and cannot be countenanced. ( 24 ) ON a careful reading of the Explanation to Section 498-A IPC, to attract Explanation (a) there should be willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause coercion, injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical of the woman, and to fall under Explanation (b) of the said provision, harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of valuable property or unlawful security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet any such demand. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record relating to demand made, except the interested testimony of PW-1 and his family members there is no other independent evidence available and even the statements which had been deposed by these witnesses appear to be more of hear say in nature and hence on the strength of such evidence it cannot be said that Explanation (b) of Section 498-A IPC would be attracted. ( 25 ) RELATING to the chastity or beating in the public place some evidence is available on record, but at any rate this conduct of the husband/a-1 even if to be accepted may not attract the expression willful. There may be varied reasons and varied quarrels which may be either petty or serious and as far as the domestic quarrels are concerned, especially in between the couple inter se such conduct of A-1 as such may not fall within the expression wilful. In Judging whether quarrels between couples would fall under the expression wilful or not, the nature of quarrels, the gravity of quarrels and the facts and circumstances of a given case also may have to be carefully considered and it is needless to say that every quarrel automatically may not fall under the expression wilful. In Judging whether quarrels between couples would fall under the expression wilful or not, the nature of quarrels, the gravity of quarrels and the facts and circumstances of a given case also may have to be carefully considered and it is needless to say that every quarrel automatically may not fall under the expression wilful. Hence on the strength of such evidence to convict the appellant/a-1 under Section 498-A IPC may not be just and proper especially having recorded an acquittal after recording reasons in detail in relation to the main charges under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC. Hence, viewed from any angle, the conviction and sentence imposed as against the appellant/a-1 under Section 498-A IPC cannot be sustained and hence the said conviction and sentence are hereby set aside. ( 26 ) THE Criminal Appeal is allowed. The bail bonds of the appellant/a-1 shall stand cancelled. The appellant is entitled to refund of fine amount, if any paid by him.