( 1 ) A-1 in S. C. No. 332-97 on the file of sessions Judge, Adilabad preferred the present Criminal Appeal as against the judgment dated 6-7-1999 wherein A1 was found guilty under Section 304-B IPC, but however A-2 was found not guilty for the said offence. ( 2 ) CHARGE-SHEET was fiied against A-1 and A-2 for an offence under Section 304-B ipc in Cr. No. 38/96 of Tanur Police Station. The case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 28/29-10-2996 at Tanur village, the victim Kalavathi @ Deepika died due to dowry harassment by A-1/husband and A-2/mother-in-law within six months after her marriage at the house of her in-laws. It is also the version of the prosecution that on 29-10-1996 at about 10 a. m. P. W. 1, the father of the deceased Kalavathi, lodged ex. P-1 complaint stating that the deceased kalavathi married A-1 on 20-5-1996. Rs. 51,000/- cash, two tolas of gold, one chetak scooter along with other household articles were given towards dowry to the accused persons as per their demand. The deceased joined the company of A-1 and subsequently on 26-10-1996 A-1 and the deceased Kalavathi came to their house at nizamabad. At the instance of A-1 the deceased asked for payment of additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/- as her husband wants to purchase jeep and the defacto complainant expressed inability to meet the demand. On the next day A-1 and the deceased returned to their house at Tanur. On 29-10-1996 the defacto complainant received information through P. W. 4 that his daughter died on the intervening night of 28/29-10-1996 and therefore suspected some foul play for the death of Kalavathi. The complaint was registered in the first instance under section 174 Cr. P. C. in Cr. No. 38/96. During the course of investigation, inquest was conducted over the deadbody of the deceased by P. W. 6 Mandal Revenue Officer and prepared Ex. P-3 in which an opinion was given by the panchayatdars and the death is due to harassment for additional dowry. The Medical Officer P. W. 7 conducted autopsy over the deadbody of the deceased and gave Ex. P-5 post-mortem report in which an opinion was given that the death is due to administering poison. P-3 in which an opinion was given by the panchayatdars and the death is due to harassment for additional dowry. The Medical Officer P. W. 7 conducted autopsy over the deadbody of the deceased and gave Ex. P-5 post-mortem report in which an opinion was given that the death is due to administering poison. P. W. 8 the concerned Sub-Inspector of Police partly examined some of the witnesses and subsequently P. W. 9, the Inspector of Police, verified the investigation, examined the witnesses and filed the charge-sheet against the accused under oection 304-B IPC after altering the section of law. ( 3 ) JUDICIAL Magistrate of First Class, bhainsa had registered the crime as p. R. C. No. 17/97 and the same was committed to the Court of Session and the learned Sessions Judge recorded the evidence of P. W. 1 to P. W. 9, marked exs. P-1 to P-7 and ultimately recorded acquittal of A-2 and convicted A-1. Hence, the present Criminal Appeal. ( 4 ) SRI Praveen Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the appellant/a-1 would contend that having recorded an acquittal as against a-2 in the absence of acceptable evidence convicting A-1 cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also would submit that the prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses to show that the deceased died due to harassment for additional dowry. The learned Counsel also would contend that the facts deposed before the Court by P. W. 1 to p. W. 3 are improved versions not found in the earlier statements. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence available on record and would contend that on such insufficient evidence recording conviction as against A-1 for dowry death definitely cannot be sustained. Reliance had been placed on Yudhishtir : Rajkumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh\ Vimal Suresh kamble v. Chaluverapinake Apal S. P. and om Prakash Raja v. State of Uttaranchal. ( 5 ) PERCONTRA, the learned Additional Public prosecutor would submit that the evidence on record is clear and categorical and the ingredients of Section 304-BIPC are satisfied and when the death is within 7 years of marriage and inasmuch has prosecution was able to establish the harassment by husband and the relatives it would fall under dowry death. ( 5 ) PERCONTRA, the learned Additional Public prosecutor would submit that the evidence on record is clear and categorical and the ingredients of Section 304-BIPC are satisfied and when the death is within 7 years of marriage and inasmuch has prosecution was able to establish the harassment by husband and the relatives it would fall under dowry death. The mere fact that the witnesses are interested witnesses would not alter the situation in any way and hence the conviction may have to be sustained. ( 6 ) HEARD both the Counsel. ( 7 ) P. W. 1, the father of the deceased, deposed that the deceased Kalavathi @ deepika is his third daughter and she was given in marriage to A-1 on 20-5-1996. A-2 is the mother of A-1 and mother-in-law of the deceased. He further deposed that at the time of marriage, Rs. 51,000/- cash, gold worth Rs. 11,000/- and clothes worth rs. 6,000/-, one chetak scooter and household utensils were given to A-1. This witness also deposed that the deceased informed that the accused were not treating her properly and harassing her for providing additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/ -. This witness/ p. W. 1, his son and his wife went to the maternal uncle of A-1 by name Ramdas and informed that the deceased was being harassed by the accused. Then the mother of Ramdas took the deceased after convincing her to the house of the accused and later on 26-10-1996. the sister of A-1 and the deceased were in his house while he returned to the house at 9 p. m. and he did not notice A-1. It was further deposed that the deceased wept again before P. W. 1 and stated that A-1 is in need of Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing a jeep and she asked him to pay the amount and he told that he will look after the same and asked her not to make any nuisance. On the next day morning A-1 came to the house and took the deceased to their house in his absence. On 29-10-1996 the maternal uncle of A-1 ramdas and brother-in-law of A -. On the next day morning A-1 came to the house and took the deceased to their house in his absence. On 29-10-1996 the maternal uncle of A-1 ramdas and brother-in-law of A -. 1 Sudhakar came to P. W. 1 s house and informed that the deceased was affected with brain disease and then they rushed out of the house to go to Tanur where the accused were staying and at that time some body informed that deepika died while she was in the house of accused at Tanur. P. W. 1 and his wife rushed to Tanu rand went to the house of the accused and found the deadbody of the deceased at the house of the accused and the deceased was emitting froth from her nostrils and mouth with smell of a pesticide. P. W. 1 gave complaint Ex. P-1 to police at Tanur suspecting some foul play for the death of the deceased. Police conducted inquest over the deadbody and this witness also deposed that he suspected that the accused administered poison and were responsible for the death of the deceased as dowry was not paid as demanded by the accused. This witness P. W. 1 was cross-examined at length. ( 8 ) IT would be appropriate to have a look at Ex. P-1 at this juncture. Ex. P-1 reads as hereunder: "i submit that my third daughter Deepika (Kalavathi), 19 years was given in marriage to one Pedakari Kishan Rao s/o. Gurudass of Tanur village. Their marriage was solemnized on 20-5-1996. In marriage Rs. 51,000/- cash, two tolas gold and one chetak scooter were given. After marriage she was sent for her in-laws house at Tanur to lead happy married life. On 26-10-1996 my daughter and son-in-law came to our house at nizamabad and asked Rs. 50,000/- for the purpose of job. We informed them that we cannot afford so much. Then on 27-10-1996 they returned to Tanur. Today i. e. , on 29-10-1996 at 8. 30 hours maternal uncle of my son-in-law namely ramdass came and informed that my daughter expired. I suspect that this death is not a normal death. I request you to take action according to law. " it is pertinent to note that in Ex. P-1 it is mentioned that on 26-10-1996 his daughter and son-in-law asked for Rs. 50,000/- for the purpose of job. I suspect that this death is not a normal death. I request you to take action according to law. " it is pertinent to note that in Ex. P-1 it is mentioned that on 26-10-1996 his daughter and son-in-law asked for Rs. 50,000/- for the purpose of job. P. W. 2 had supported the version of P. W. 1. P. W. 2 deposed that they gave cash and other items at the time of marriage to A-1 voluntarily and she did not state before Police at the time of examination that three days after the marriage herdaughter returned to the house and informed that the accused were abusing her as she was stout and uneducated and that he will get more dowry in case he marries another girl. She also deposed that she did not depose before the Police that she found bleeding injuries on the thighs of the deceased. Police did not examine her in this case, but he gave a statement before M. R. O. (witness adds) and she denied certain suggestions. ( 9 ) P. W. 3 is the brother of the deceased. No doubt P. W. 3 after deposing all other particulars also specifically deposed that a-1 asked him to provide Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing jeep. He requested thatthey could not pay the amount as the marriage was celebrated just before five months and the demand will be considered later on. In all other particulars P. W. 3 had deposed on the same lines as P. W. 1. ( 10 ) P. W. 4 Ramdas was declared hostile and in cross-examination this witness deposed that it is not correct to suggest that he gave statement before Police that P. W. 1 came to his house and complained that A-1 was demanding Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing a jeep as additional dowry and for that reason the deceased was being harassed. The relevant contradiction was marked as ex. P-2. P. W. 5 was examined in relation to ex. P-3 inquest report. P. W. 6 is the M. R. O. who deposed about that the conducting of inquest in the presence of mediators and recording the statements of P. W. 1, P. W. 2, p. W. 3, L. W. 6 and L W. 4 at the time of inquest. P-2. P. W. 5 was examined in relation to ex. P-3 inquest report. P. W. 6 is the M. R. O. who deposed about that the conducting of inquest in the presence of mediators and recording the statements of P. W. 1, P. W. 2, p. W. 3, L. W. 6 and L W. 4 at the time of inquest. This witness also deposed that they observed the deadbody of the deceased and found foam emanating from the nostrils and also mouth and he had not noticed any injuries on the body of the deceased. The panchayatdars opined that the accused ill-treated and harassed for additional dowry and hence she died. He drafted inquest report marked as Ex. P-3. In Cross-examination this witness deposed that Ex. P-3 report is silent whether the death is due to suicide or homicide. P. W. 7 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy. The report received from Forensic science Laboratory, Hyderabad is Ex. P-4. Ex. P-4 reveals that there was orgono phosphorous insecticide poison in vicera and basing on the F. S. L. report he gave final opinion in the post-mortem certificate that the cause of death was due to cardio-respiratory arrest due to orgono phosphate poisonous substance. The post-mortem certificate issued by him is ex. P-5. ( 11 ) P. W. 8 is the S. I. of Police. P. W. 9 is the C. I. of Police. P. W. 8 deposed about the details of investigation and P. W. 9 also deposed about other details of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet. ( 12 ) ON the strength of this evidence, findings at length had been recorded and acquittal had been recorded as against A-2 and A-1 was convicted. Except the evidence of P. W. 3 relating to the demand of rs. 50,000/- by A-1, all the other evidence available on record appears to be more in the nature of hear-say. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the version of P. W. 1 is something different from what had been stated in ex. P-1. P. W. 4 was declared hostile. There is no other independent evidence forthcoming relating to the alleged harassment in relation to the demand of additional dowry. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the version of P. W. 1 is something different from what had been stated in ex. P-1. P. W. 4 was declared hostile. There is no other independent evidence forthcoming relating to the alleged harassment in relation to the demand of additional dowry. In the absence of any other evidence, on the strength of the interested testimony of p. W. 1 to P. W. 3, especially when most part of the evidence appears to be more in the nature of hear-say, the conviction recorded as against A-1 under Section 304-B IPC, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be sustained. Hence the findings recorded by the learned Judge in relation to A-1 are hereby set-aside and accordingly acquittal is hereby recorded. ( 13 ) THE Criminal Appeal is allowed. The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand cancelled.