P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THESE two criminal appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, nizamabad, passed in Sessions Case No. 30 of 1996 dated 14. 7. 1997. ( 2 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 682 of 1997 is preferred by A3 and Criminal Appeal no. 864 of 1997 is preferred by Al and A2. ( 3 ) A4 was acquitted of the charge under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the State had not preferred any appeal as against the said acquittal. ( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution in brief is hereunder: the deceased Padma (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ) is the daughter of one Mr. Jalgarn Rajaiah, P. W. 1, de-facto complainant, resident of Kannapuram village. The marriage of the deceased was celebrated with A1 at Kamareddy on 1. 3. 1991, and at the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased had paid dowry of rs. 36,000/- and gave household articles worth about Rs. 40,000/ -. After the marriage, a1 took the deceased to Nizamabad and settled down there. A2, the brother of A1, was also residing along with Al in the same house at Nizamabad. It is also the case of the prosecution that A1 was now and then demanding money and the same was being fulfilled by P. W. 1. In the year 1992, out of the wedlock, a male child was born to the deceased and at the time of cradle ceremony, p. W. I gave Rs. 1,000/- of cash, one tola of gold and new clothes to A1. Subsequent thereto, the deceased and A1 lived peacefully for about six months and later A1 started harassing the deceased for bringing additional dowry from her parents and in that process, A1 sent the deceased to her parents house in the month of August, 1993 instructing her to bring additional dowry of rs. 5,000/ -. As P. W. 1 was not in a position to fulfil the said demand, the deceased stayed in her parents house and subsequent thereto, a1 went to the house of P. W. 1 and demanded an amount of Rs. 5,000/-, for which, P. W. 1 promised to pay the same within a week. Thereafter, A1 came back to nizamabad along with the deceased. 5,000/-, for which, P. W. 1 promised to pay the same within a week. Thereafter, A1 came back to nizamabad along with the deceased. But, however, he was continuing to harass the deceased, since her father did not pay the amount as demanded and on the night of 7. 9. 1993, Al and A2 killed the deceased by throttling her neck and after the deceased died, they shifted the dead body to their native place Yadaram. On 8. 9. 1993, a2 informed the sister of the deceased by name Saroja, P. W. 5, that the deceased was suffering from severe stomach-ache and was shifted to Yadaram Village. P. W. 5 sent a message to her parents and immediately they went to Yadaram Village, and noticed that Padma died. As the dead body was not in a normal condition, they suspected some foul play and wanted to inform the same to the police. But, the accused did not allow and threatened them with dire consequences. Subsequent thereto, the accused and other villagers burnt the dead body of the deceased. Later, PW1 gave a complaint to the police at Nizamabad, on the strength of which, Crime No. 61 of 1993 on the file of II Town Police Station, nizamabad, was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, the police visited the place where the body of the deceased was burnt and seized the charred bones of the deceased under a cover of panchanama and forwarded the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. Subsequently, A1 and A2 2004 (2) (Crl.) F-45 surrendered before the Court and later they were taken into police custody. It is also the case of the prosecution that on interrogation, A1 and A2 made confession to the effect that they killed the deceased and shifted the dead body to Yadaram village and with the assistance of A3 and a4, the dead body of the deceased was burnt. The Investigation Officer visited scene of offence and seized saree pieces, cotton banian and a sickle under a cover of panchanama and during the course of investigation on 14. 2. 1993, A3 and A4 were also arrested at Nizamabad. After the completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid. A1 to A4 were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 201 IPC. 2. 1993, A3 and A4 were also arrested at Nizamabad. After the completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid. A1 to A4 were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 201 IPC. Further, Al and A2 were charged with the offence punishable under section 302 IPC, in the alternative with the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. ( 5 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty. ( 6 ) TO substantiate its version, the prosecution had examined P. Ws. 1 to 13 and marked Exs. Pl to P9 and MOs. 1 to 4. On behalf of defence, DW1 to DW3 were examined, and certain contradictions, Exs. D1 to D3 were marked. ( 7 ) THE learned Judge on appreciation of the evidence available on record, recorded his findings and found Al and A2 guilty for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. A1 and A2 were also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and also pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Further, A1 to A3 were found guilty for the offence under Section 201 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. The substantive sentences of A1 and A2 were directed to run concurrently. But, however, A4 was not found guilty for the offence punishable under section 201 IPC, and was acquitted of the said charge. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are preferred. ( 8 ) SRI Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel representing the appellants A1 to a3, would submit that the very cause of death of the deceased had not been established. A2 is the younger brother of a1 and A3 is their brother-in-law. The learned Counsel pointed out that there is material available on record to show that at the earliest point of time, a report was given by P. W. 1 to Bibipet Police. P. Ws. 1 and 2 had admitted about the same but for the reasons best known, this earliest report was not brought on record by the prosecution and hence, Ex. P1 may have to be viewed with suspicion. P. Ws. 1 and 2 had admitted about the same but for the reasons best known, this earliest report was not brought on record by the prosecution and hence, Ex. P1 may have to be viewed with suspicion. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence available on record and had explained the inherent improbabilities in the version of the prosecution witnesses and also the conduct of P. W. 1 which would definitely point out that the implication of accused is only an after thought. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the evidence of P. W. 10 to the effect that everybody was present at the time of cremation and there was no quarrel at all and the accused have also attended and therefore, contended that these aspects definitely would go to show that death of the deceased probably would have been due to stomach-ache and definitely it is not a case of dowry death, as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, Section 304-B IPC is not attracted at all. The learned Counsel also, while elaborating his submissions, pointed out that P. Ws. 6 to 9 were not treated as hostile and the versions of P. Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are not consistent. Though the incident had taken place on 7. 9. 1993, the complaint Ex. P1 was given on 12. 9. 1993. Even the evidence of PW6-landlord only shows that there were some quarrels between the deceased and A2 and nothing more than that. The learned Counsel also would further contend that the learned Judge had committed a grave mistake in construing exs. P6 and P7 as extra judicial confessions and as per the material available on record, these confessions were made in the presence of police, which are clearly inadmissible. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the definition of dowry under the Dowry prohibition Act, and contended that the demand of additional amount, if any, unconnected with the marriage or agreed to be paid in relation to marriage, would not fall under the definition of dowry and hence, the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are not attracted. ( 9 ) AS far as Section 201 IPC is concerned, the learned Counsel would submit that well on the same facts stated, since A4 had been acquitted, Al to A3, who stand on the same footing, are also entitled for acquittal for the offence under Section 201 ipc. While concluding, the Counsel would submit that even on the aspect of harassment and ill-treatment, Section 498-A IPC also is not attracted since the evidence is not clear and most of the evidence is more in the nature of hearsay and on such evidence, conviction cannot be sustained. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in sevi and another, K. Koodkkal Karian and others v. State of Tamilnadu and another, air 1981 SC 1230 , Mohan Lal and others v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2000 SC 3441 , satvir Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 99 (SC) = 2001 Crl. LJ 4625, Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa, 2002 SCC (Crl.) 461, and vadde Rama Rao v. Slate of Andlra Pradesh, 1989 (3) ALT 529. ( 10 ) THE learned Additional Public prosecutor, Sri Niranjan Reddy, had drawn the attention of this Court to the ingredients of dowry death and the presumption available under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence act, 1872. The learned Counsel had pointed out to the evidence of P. Ws. l and 2 and also would submit that there is clear evidence of not only P. Ws. l, 2, 3, 4, and 5, but also of P. Ws. 6 and 9 which points out to the harassment meted out to the deceased. The learned Counsel, in all fairness, submitted that the Trial Court had proceeded as though Exs. P6 and P7 are extra-judicial confessions, which definitely is not the proper approach and as they are confessions made before the police, reliance cannot be placed on the said material. The learned Counsel while concluding, would submit that by the clear evidence available on record, definitely Section 498-A IPC is attracted against the accused though not sections 304-B and 201 IPC. The learned counsel placed reliance on Sakatar Singh and others v. State of Haryana, 2004 (2) ald (Crl.) 36 (SC), in this regard. ( 11 ) HEARD both learned Counsel and perused the evidence available on record. The learned counsel placed reliance on Sakatar Singh and others v. State of Haryana, 2004 (2) ald (Crl.) 36 (SC), in this regard. ( 11 ) HEARD both learned Counsel and perused the evidence available on record. ( 12 ) THIS is a case of alleged dowry death, harassment and causing disappearance of evidence in relation to an offence. ( 13 ) P. W. 1 is the father of the deceased. He deposed about the relationship and stated that nearly about five years back, his daughter (the deceased) was given in marriage to A1, a native of Yadaram Village and at the time of marriage, he gave rs. 36,000/- towards dowry and in addition to that he also gave articles worth Rs. 40,000/- inclusive of utensils, cot, beds, almirah etc. , and after marriage, A1 was residing at nizamabad along with his younger brother a2. Until the son was bom, his daughter was happy and at the time of cradle ceremony, he also gave one tola of gold, rs. 1,000/- cash and new clothes to A1. PW1 also deposed that now and then when A1 was harassing his daughter, he paid cash of rs. 1,000/- at one time and Rs. 1,500/- at another time and 15 days prior to the death of his daughter, Al demanded Rs. 5,000/- from him and his daughter was sent to his house for bringing Rs. 5,000/- with a direction that unless that amount was brought, she should not come to A1. At that time he was not in a position to pay the said amount and thereby, expressed his inability and his daughter stayed at his house. PW1 further deposed that eight days after the arrival of his daughter, A1 came to his house and asked him about Rs. 5,000/- and then he requested A1 that he had no money and would pay the same within 10 or 15 days by borrowing the same from somebody. A1 was not prepared to hear and had taken his daughter along with him. PW1 also deposed that his daughter again came to his house requesting to pay Rs. 5,000/- as demanded by A1 and she narrated that A1 and A2 were harassing her and ill-treating her, and if the amount is not paid and in the event of her going to Nizamabad, she would be more harassed and ill-treated. PW1 also deposed that his daughter again came to his house requesting to pay Rs. 5,000/- as demanded by A1 and she narrated that A1 and A2 were harassing her and ill-treating her, and if the amount is not paid and in the event of her going to Nizamabad, she would be more harassed and ill-treated. Ten days thereafter, his daughter had been to Nizamabad. A2 who is the junior brother-in-law of the deceased, came to Kamareddy and informed his another daughter Saroja, P. W. 5, that the deceased was suffering from severe stomach-ache and she was being taken to yadaram. Immediately, P. W. 5 sent a message to them and then along with his family members, he went to the house of Saroja at kamareddy and from there, they went to yadaram. By the time they went to the house of the accused at Yadaram, they saw their daughter lying dead. P. W. 1 also deposed that they noticed that the deceased s colour changed into bluish whereas she was of white complexion, froth was also coming from her mouth, blood is oozing from her nose and ants are eating the body. Then they suspected some foul play by the accused and obstructed lifting of the dead body as they suspected the cause of death. Even though they made best efforts not to remove the body, the accused and some of the villagers threatened them with dire consequences and by force, the accused had taken out the body and set fire. From there, they came to Nizamabad in a tractor and on enquiry, they came to know that their daughter was killed by the accused for not bringing additional dowry. Hence, a complaint was given to the police, which is ex. P1. This witness was cross-examined at length. PW1 speaks about certain details relating to his family in the cross-examination and also admitted that there is a dowry death case pending against him and his younger son Ramesh in connection with the death of Bhaktamala, his daughter-in-law. He stated that generally in their community, at the time of marriage just before marriage, a parti will be prepared with regard to the articles given and payment of money to the bridegroom. In the course of his cross-examination, certain contradictions Exs. D1 to D3 were also marked. Several suggestions were denied. He stated that generally in their community, at the time of marriage just before marriage, a parti will be prepared with regard to the articles given and payment of money to the bridegroom. In the course of his cross-examination, certain contradictions Exs. D1 to D3 were also marked. Several suggestions were denied. PW1 also made certain admissions that Bibipet Police Station is one kilometre away from Yadaram crossroad, and the distance in between Yadaram village and Bibipet Police Station is 3 kilo metres. There is another admission that a complaint at Bibipet Police Station was made three days after cremation and prior to that he had given a complaint at Nizamabad II town Police Station. He specifically deposed that he had not stated before the police as in ex. D3. ( 14 ) PW2 is the maternal uncle of the deceased and his evidence is more or less general in nature and he deposed that pw1 informed him that he had paid rs. 36,000/- towards dowry and certain articles to A1 at the time of marriage. No doubt, he also deposed that he along with his younger brother, had gone to Yadaram village and the parents of the deceased also came there. On seeing the dead body, they suspected some foul play and he had specifically denied the suggestion that the deceased died due to stomach-ache and not killed by the accused or that the death was not due to harassment of the accused. ( 15 ) PW3 is a tailor and a tenant in the house of the other daughter of PW1 (Saroja) at Kamareddy. He deposed that about three years back when he was at his house, at 6. 30 or 7. 00 a. m. , Saroja came and informed him that A2 came and informed her that the deceased was suffering with severe stomach-ache and she was taken to yadaram Village and requested him to inform the same to her parents at Kannapur village. ( 16 ) THE deceased is the elder brother s daughter of PW4. The evidence of PW4 also is just general in nature. But, however, pw4 deposed that the body of the deceased was bluish in colour, though the deceased was white in complexion and froth was coming from her mouth and blood was also oozing from her nose. ( 16 ) THE deceased is the elder brother s daughter of PW4. The evidence of PW4 also is just general in nature. But, however, pw4 deposed that the body of the deceased was bluish in colour, though the deceased was white in complexion and froth was coming from her mouth and blood was also oozing from her nose. When she was weeping and ascertaining the reasons for the death of the deceased, the villagers beat her. No doubt, she had not stated about the said beating by the villagers, to the police. ( 17 ) PW5 is the sister of the deceased and she deposed about the information received by her, communicating the same to the parents and then proceeding to the spot. ( 18 ) PW6 is the landlord of the house where A1, A2 and the deceased were living. He had deposed about certain aspects known to him and his evidence is relied upon by the prosecution to show that one or two times, the deceased and A2 had altercations and there were some quarrels. From this, it is urged by the prosecution that the harassment had been established. ( 19 ) PW7 is one of the tenants of PW6. Her evidence is general in nature. ( 20 ) PW8 also is one of the tenants of pw6. ( 21 ) PW9 is another tenant of PW6 and her evidence also was strongly relied upon by the prosecution since PW9 deposed that now and then there used to be some altercations between the deceased and A2, just like in other families. ( 22 ) PW10 is the Village Administrative officer (V. A. O.) of Yadaram, who had deposed that about three years back the deceased died at Yadaram Village. Six days after the death of the deceased, police came to Yadaram Village and called him to the burial ground. The police seized ashes and bones of the deceased from the cremation ground under a cover of mahazar . A panchanama was drafted. Ex. P2 is the panchanama and the said witness is a signatory to the said panchanama. The police also had drafted a rough sketch of the scene of offence in Ex. P3. The police seized ashes and bones of the deceased from the cremation ground under a cover of mahazar . A panchanama was drafted. Ex. P2 is the panchanama and the said witness is a signatory to the said panchanama. The police also had drafted a rough sketch of the scene of offence in Ex. P3. In the cross-examination, P. W. 10 admitted that the parents of the deceased also were present near the dead body and he had not noticed any blood oozing from the mouth or nose of the deceased. The dead body was taken to the cremation ground in between 6. 00 and 7. 00 p. m. , and at the time of funeral, no altercations took place and the parents of the deceased also came to the cremation ground. ( 23 ) PW11 deposed that the police seized certain articles in his presence under a cover of panchanama and also had drawn rough sketch at the scene of offence. Ex. P4 is the scene of offence and seizure panchanama and Ex. P5 is the sketch showing the scene of offence. MOs. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also had been identified and this witness also speaks about A1 and A2 being in the custody of the police and deposed that he made enquiries with Al and A2, who narrated what had happened and their statements were recorded. According to him, Ex. P6 and ex. P7 are the confessional panchanamas of al and A2. ( 24 ) PW12 is the Sub-Inspector of police, who had received the complaint from PW1 and registered the same as Crime no. 61 of 1993 under Section 304-B IPC and issued FIR, Ex. P8. He sent the original FIR to the concerned Court and copies to all concerned and recorded the statements of p. Ws. 1 and 2 and stated that further investigation was taken up by the Circle inspector of Police. In the cross-examination p. W. 12 deposed that PW1 had stated before him as in Exs. Dl to D3. ( 25 ) PW13-S. D. P. O. had deposed that on 12. 9. 1993, he had taken over investigation from P. W. 12 and examined P. Ws. In the cross-examination p. W. 12 deposed that PW1 had stated before him as in Exs. Dl to D3. ( 25 ) PW13-S. D. P. O. had deposed that on 12. 9. 1993, he had taken over investigation from P. W. 12 and examined P. Ws. 1 and 2 and proceeded to Yadaram Village and conducted scene of offence panchanama at the burial ground in the presence of panchayatdars PW10 and one Chandraiah and had drawn the rough sketch of scene of offence and seizure panchanama-Ex. P4 and on the same day, he had examined p. Ws. 4 and 5, one Ramesh and PW3 at kamareddy. After that, he visited the scene of offence at Nizamabad at the residence of the accused and examined PWs. 7 and 8, anasuya, Ramesh and PW9. On 15. 10. 1993, the accused A1 to A3 were taken into custody and their confessional statements were recorded in the presence of PW11 and one Shameem. After recording the confessions, he along with the accused went to the house of the accused and broke open the lock of the house and conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized mos. 1 to 4 in the presence of P. W. 11 and one Shameem and recorded observation panchanama-Ex. P9. On 5. 2. 1994, he arrested a3 and A4 and produced before the Court for judicial remand. This witness was also cross-examined and in the re-examination, it was specifically denied that PW1 stated before him as in Exs. Dl and D2. He was also further cross-examined. ( 26 ) AS against this evidence of the prosecution, on behalf of the defence also, dws. 1 to 3 were examined who, no doubt, spoke about the harmonious living of A1 and the deceased and also the deceased suffering from stomach-ache. ( 27 ) THE material available on record, definitely, is insufficient for the purpose of establishing the cause of death. ( 28 ) SECTION 304-B IPC reads as hereunder:"dowiy death. 1 to 3 were examined who, no doubt, spoke about the harmonious living of A1 and the deceased and also the deceased suffering from stomach-ache. ( 27 ) THE material available on record, definitely, is insufficient for the purpose of establishing the cause of death. ( 28 ) SECTION 304-B IPC reads as hereunder:"dowiy death. (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any bums or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. " ( 29 ) IT is needless to say that the presumption under Section 113-B of the indian Evidence Act, 1872 would be attracted only if the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B IPC are made out and not otherwise. In the present case, even if the evidence of PW1 is carefully scrutinized, his evidence is to the effect that his son-in-law (A1) was demanding for certain amounts and certain amounts were being paid and inasmuch as the amount of Rs. 5,000/- demanded was not available with him, he was unable to pay the same. This demand of amount definitely is not in relation to the agreed amount concerned with the marriage as such and definitely every monetary demand made by the son-in-law to the father-in-law may not fall under the definition of dowry, unless the ingredients of the same are satisfied. ( 30 ) IN Satvir Singh s case (supra), the apex Court held as follows: prosecution, in a case of offence under section 304b, IPC cannot escape from the burden of proof that the harassment or cruelty was related to the demand for dowry and also that such cruelty or harassment was caused "soon before her death". The word "dowry" in Section 304b has to be understood as it is defined in Section 2 of the Dowry prohibition Act, 1961. The word "dowry" in Section 304b has to be understood as it is defined in Section 2 of the Dowry prohibition Act, 1961. That definition reads thus:"in this Act, dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly (a) by one party to marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. "thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is "at any time" after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the said parties". This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of "dowry". Hence, the dowry mentioned in section 304-B should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage. " (Paras 20 and 21) ( 31 ) EVEN otherwise the evidence available on record is highly insufficient since the Trial Court had placed reliance on exs. P6 and P7 confessional statements made in the presence of the police, which are clearly inadmissible, especially observing that they are extra judicial confessions. The said finding recorded by the Trial Court, cannot be definitely sustained. P6 and P7 confessional statements made in the presence of the police, which are clearly inadmissible, especially observing that they are extra judicial confessions. The said finding recorded by the Trial Court, cannot be definitely sustained. ( 32 ) RELIANCE was also placed on gananath Pattnaik s case (supra), wherein it was held that the statement of the deceased s 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 304b 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. 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. ( 33 ) RELIANCE was also placed on Vadde rama Rao s case (supra), wherein this Court held: a reading of the two provisions together makes it clear that law authorizes a presumption that the husband has caused the death of a woman if she happens to die in circumstances not normal and that there was evidence to show that she was treated with cruelty or harassed before her death in connection with any demand for dowry. It therefore follows, as submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, that the husband or the relative as the case may be need not be the actual or direct participant in the commission of the offence of death. For those that are direct participants in the commission of the offence of death there are already provisions, Sections 300, 302 and 304, in the Indian Penal Code. For those that are direct participants in the commission of the offence of death there are already provisions, Sections 300, 302 and 304, in the Indian Penal Code. Further sections 304-B and 113-B were incorporated on the anvil of the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984 the main object of which is to curb the evil of dowry in the society and to make it severely punitive in nature and not to extricate husbands from the clutches of Section 302 IPC if they directly cause death of their wives. As already noted the provisions Sections 304-B and 113-B owe their origin to the Dowry prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984 and earlier to that no doubt there were provisions, sections 306 and 498-A IPC, but neither of them provides a minimum sentence so as to view dowry deaths with justifiable rigour, and hence followed Section 304-B prescribing a minimum sentence of seven years for such dowry deaths, and Section 113b of the Evidence Act permitting a legal presumption that it was a dowry death if it is shown that soon before the death such a woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry. When the legislation brought-in is to curb the social evil, viz. , demand for dowry, the interpretation of the provisions must be in consonance with the modern needs. In dyke v. Elliot, (1872) IR 4 PC 184 at 191, lord Justice James speaking for the Privy council stated:"no doubt all penal statues are to be construed strictly, that is to say, the Court must see that the thing charged as an offence is within the plain meaning of the words used, and must not strain words on any notion that there has been a slip that there has been a casus omissus; that the thing is so clearly within the mischief that it must have been included if thought of. On the other hand, the person charged has a right to say that the thing charged although within the words, is no within the spirit of the enactment. On the other hand, the person charged has a right to say that the thing charged although within the words, is no within the spirit of the enactment. But where the thing is brought within the words, and within the spirit, there a penal enactment is to be construed like any other instrument, according to fair common sense meaning of the language used, and the Court is not to find or make any doubt or ambiguity in the language of a penal statute, where such doubt or ambiguity would clearly not be found or made in the same language in any other enactment. "this formulation has been approved by the supreme Court in M. Narayan Nambiar v. State of Kerala (1963 SC 1116 ). Referring to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, his Lordship Subbarao, J. observed: "the act was brought into purify public administration. When the Legislature used comprehensive terminology to achieve the said purpose - it would be appropriate not to limit the content by construction when particularly the spirit of the statute is in accord with the words used therein. " So much so, in the instant case the Dowry prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984 was brought-in to curb the social evil and to view the evil with more rigour and therefore Section 304-B cannot be given an interpretation so as to limit its content and scope to such of the offences where the husband or the relative, as the case may be, is a direct participant in the actual commission of the offence of death. Accordingly, I find no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel that Section 304-B IPC gets attracted only when the accused-husband is a direct participant in the actual commission of the offence of death. " ( 34 ) HENCE in a case of this nature presumption available under Section 113-B cannot be invoked. ( 35 ) IN Sakatar Singh s case (supra), the Apex Court held that the testimony of witnesses about harassment based on what deceased told them but not based on their personal knowledge cannot be relied upon. ( 36 ) APART from this aspect of the matter, the conduct of the parties also may have to be taken into consideration. ( 35 ) IN Sakatar Singh s case (supra), the Apex Court held that the testimony of witnesses about harassment based on what deceased told them but not based on their personal knowledge cannot be relied upon. ( 36 ) APART from this aspect of the matter, the conduct of the parties also may have to be taken into consideration. Though an attempt was made by P. W. 1 to state that there was some obstruction for cremating the dead body, PW10, who is an independent witness, says that nothing of that sort had happened and the very conduct of PW1 in keeping quiet for a couple of days andj making up his mind to initiate the present action definitely may have to be viewed; with suspicion. Though there is some controversy as regards the filing of two complaints and as to which report is the first one, the same is not brought on record. Ex. P1 may have to be looked with suspicion. In the light of the same, strong reliance was placed on the case of Sevi and another s case (supra) and Mohan Lal s case (supra ). ( 37 ) HENCE for the forgoing reasons, this court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Trial Court in relation to the charge under Section 304-B ipc against A1 and A2 definitely cannot be sustained. The other offences with which A1 and A2 were charged are Section 201 IPC and also Section 498-A IPC, and A3. under section 201 IPC. It is needless to say that an order of acquittal had already been made in relation A4, who was charged with the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC which had attained finality. ( 38 ) SECTION 201 IPC reads as hereunder: "causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender. Whoever knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, cause any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, if a capital offence. Whoever knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, cause any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, if a capital offence. shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. if punishable with imprisonment for life. and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years imprisonment. and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both. ( 39 ) A2 is the brother of A1, and A3 is the brother-in-law of Al and A2, and A4 is the father of A1 and A2. Since A4 had already been acquitted, this Court is of the considered opinion that the charge under section 201 IPC is not established against the other accused and hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal relating to this charge. ( 40 ) THE most crucial question which had been argued elaborately by the learned additional Public Prosecutor is in relation to the charge under Section 498-A IPC. Attention was drawn to the evidence of p. Ws. 1, 2 and 4 and submissions at length were made that the whole evidence cannot be set aside as hearsay evidence and no doubt certain statements are in the nature of hearsay. But definitely there is the evidence of PW1 in relation to certain demands made by Al. This evidence is clear and categorical and the other circumstances and conduct of the parties, if taken into consideration, the ingredients of Section 498-A ipc definitely are attracted. But definitely there is the evidence of PW1 in relation to certain demands made by Al. This evidence is clear and categorical and the other circumstances and conduct of the parties, if taken into consideration, the ingredients of Section 498-A ipc definitely are attracted. Section 498-A IPC 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, subjects 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. ( 41 ) AT this stage, the learned defence counsel also urged that when the same set of evidence available on record has been disbelieved in relation to the offence under section 304-B IPC, the same cannot be relied upon to sustain the conviction under section 498-A IPC. ( 42 ) I am afraid that such a broad proposition cannot be laid down and each matter has to be judged depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. However, on a careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW1, it is seen that PW1 had only stated that his son-in-law (A1) made certain demands and he had complied with those demands at least twice and subsequent thereto, as regards the demand relating to rs. 5,000/-, he was unable to comply with. Except this, nothing more had been stated. But the other evidence available on record is more or less general in nature. A2 is the brother of A1 and as usual, there might have been some altercations or some quarrels between the deceased and A2 and all these domestic quarrels always need not be taken as harassment, unless some clear proof in that regard is available. The nature of evidence let in by the prosecution is definitely not clear and it is vague. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the conduct of PW1 also shall have to be taken into consideration. It is in evidence that there was a case relating to dowry and harassment as against PW1 and his son. In the light of the same also, this Court is of the considered opinion that the testimony of PW1 cannot be believed and hence this Court is thoroughly satisfied that in view of the delay in lodging Ex. It is in evidence that there was a case relating to dowry and harassment as against PW1 and his son. In the light of the same also, this Court is of the considered opinion that the testimony of PW1 cannot be believed and hence this Court is thoroughly satisfied that in view of the delay in lodging Ex. P1, the same may have to be looked with suspicion. ( 43 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, this court is of the considered opinion that the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial Court against the appellants (A1 to a3) cannot be sustained and accordingly the same are hereby set aside. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. ( 44 ) IN the result, the criminal appeals are allowed.