P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri E. Ella Reddy, the Counsel representing appellant-A1 and the learned additional Public Prosecutor. ( 2 ) THE appellant-A1 preferred this criminal appeal as against the judgment dated 14. 10 1998, in Sessions Case No. 576 of 1995 on the file of the I Additional sessions Judge, Guntur. A-1 is the son, A-2 and A-3 are the parents of A-1 and A-2 and a-3 were charged with Section 304-B and Section 498-A IPC, and the learned i Additional Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 14, Exs. P. 1 to p. 12. and Exs : D-1 and D-2, came to the conclusion that A2 and A3 are not guilty of any of the charges charged with and A-1 was found not guilty for an offence under section 304-B IPC, but however, A-1 was found guilty for an offence under section 498-A IPC, and the learned I additional Sessions Judge convicted A-1 and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default, to undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of one month Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred. ( 3 ) SRI E. Ella Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellant-accused in all fairness would submit that the evidence on record at the best would go to show that this unfortunate son-in-law of P. W. 1 was under some financial strain because of business problems and except that, nothing more was established by the prosecution. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the learned i Additional District Judge and would contend that the learned Judge, having disbelieved the very prosecution version that a-2 and A-3 had also participated in the incident on the fateful day, definitely had erred in believing the other portion of the version and convicting A-1. The learned counsel would submit that as far as the acquittal recorded under Section 304-B IPC is concerned, the same had attained finality. The learned Counsel had also pointed out the findings recorded by the learned Judge in relation to Ex. P. 2 and would submit that the learned Judge, having observed that the prosecution failed to establish Ex. The learned counsel would submit that as far as the acquittal recorded under Section 304-B IPC is concerned, the same had attained finality. The learned Counsel had also pointed out the findings recorded by the learned Judge in relation to Ex. P. 2 and would submit that the learned Judge, having observed that the prosecution failed to establish Ex. P 2 to be in the hand writing of the deceased, definitely erred in convicting the appellant-accused under Section 498-A IPC only on the ground that some demand for money was made and some demand for getting a settlement in the name of the deceased had been made by him. Even otherwise the evidence available on record, is more in the nature of hear-say in this regard and especially, in the light of the findings recorded by the learned Judge, disbelieving the prosecution version relating to participation of A-2 and A-3, and also disbelieving Ex. P. 2 on the other scant evidence available, convicting A1 under section 498-A IPC definitely cannot be sustained. ( 4 ) ON the contrary, the learned Additional public Prosecutor had explained the scope and ambit of Section 498-A IPC and also would contend that inasmuch as demand for money or demand for the valuable security at least by getting settlement deed had been insisted, there is some evidence on record relating to the demand, and P. . W1 also specifically deposed about the same. This evidence is sufficient to establish harassment within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. The learned Additional Public prosecutor also would submit that it is no doubt true that the learned Judge observed that Ex. P. 2 was not established by the prosecution, but however, there is other material available on record to sustain the conviction and hence, the findings are to bo confirmed. ( 5 ) PERUSED the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the findings recorded learned I Additional District judge, Guntur. ( 6 ) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is that A-1 is the husband of the deceased, and a-2 and A-3 are the parents-in-law of the deceased and that all the accused treated the deceased cruelly and caused dowry death of the deceased on 13-03-1993 at the house of A-1 in Kummari Bazaar, vinukonda, Guntur District, and thus A-1 to a-3 committed offences punishable under section 304-B and Section 498-A IPC. ( 7 ) P. W. 1 is the father of the deceased and P. W. 2 is the wife of P. W. 1. P. W. 7 is the another daughter of P. Ws 1 and 2 and younger sister of the deceased. P. W. 3 is a neighbour of P. Ws 1, 2 and 7. The version of the prosecution is that the deceased used to work in Mallik Convent at Vinukonda during her life time, and P. W. 9 was running Mallik convent by March, 1993 at Vinukonda. P. W. 10 is the Secretary, Andhra Pradesh manila Sangham of Vinukonda Division. P. W. 5 is the erstwhile colleague of the deceased working in the same school. P. W. 4 is the family friend of the deceased. On 06-6-1991, P. W1 gave the deceased in marriage to A-1 and it is also in evidence that p. W. 1 presented dowry of Rs. 6,000/- in cash, a gold ring, weighing 3/4th sovereign and a wrist watch to A-1 at the time of the marriage. Subsequent thereto, A-1 and-the deceased shifted to Vinukonda and started living in a portion of the house of P. W. 1, and the other portion had been under the occupation of P. W. 1. It is also the case of the prosecution that A-1 started manufacturing phenol and that for improvement of the said business, A-1 demanded P. W. 1 for a sum of rs. 10,000/-, and by mortgaging the house, p. W. 1 raised Rs. 5,000/- and he also raised another Rs. 5,000/- by pledging the gold ornaments and handed over the amount to a-1, and thus, the payment was fulfilled. A-1 made further demand of Rs. 40,000/- in order to purchase machinery for his business and he suggested to P. W. 1 to mortgage the house of P. W. 1 and raise the money. As P. W. 1 refused the suggestion, a-1 started giving pressure upon the deceased to obtain settlement deed in her favour in respect of the house, for which she did not agree. A-2 and A-3 used to instigate a-1 to demand P. W. 1 and the deceased to obtain settlement deed in favour of the deceased in respect of the house belonging to P. W. 1. It is also the case of the prosecution that A-2 and A-3 reside at markapur, and they visited the house of A-1 at about 10. A-2 and A-3 used to instigate a-1 to demand P. W. 1 and the deceased to obtain settlement deed in favour of the deceased in respect of the house belonging to P. W. 1. It is also the case of the prosecution that A-2 and A-3 reside at markapur, and they visited the house of A-1 at about 10. 00 p. m. on 11 -03-1993 and they instigated A-1 once again to demand the deceased to obtain settlement deed, and thereafter, A-1 beat the deceased as she refused to ask her father for execution of the settlement deed, and A-1 had thrown out the belongings of the deceased from the house and necked out the deceased from the house and closed the doors of his portion. The deceased slept in the varandah of the house on the night of 12-03-1993 along with her personal belongings inasmuch as A-1 did not allow her to go into the house. Subsequent thereto, on 13-03-1993, the deceased went to P. W. 1 weeping and informed him that she was necked out by a-1 and P. W. 1 thought of A-1 can be satisfied by paying Rs. 10,000/- and he promised to procure Rs. 10,000/- and went away to Vellaturu village. P. W. 1 contacted p. W. 6 at Vellaturu and requested for a loan of Rs. 10,000/- and P. W. 6 promised to fulfill the request in about four days. P. W. 7 heard a-1 administering blows to the deceased on the morning of 13-03-1993. P. W. 7 called p. W. 2 to pacify A-1, and when P. W. 2 went to the portion under the occupation of A-1 and requested A-1 to stop beating the deceased, a-1 questioned the propriety of P. W. 2 in interfering in the matter. P. W. 2 was turned and went to the bus stand either to send word to P. W. 1 who had been to Vellatur or to receive P. W. 1 at the bus stand. P. W. 2 was turned and went to the bus stand either to send word to P. W. 1 who had been to Vellatur or to receive P. W. 1 at the bus stand. P. W. 7 went away to her college and returned home at about 12 noon and P. W. 7 saw A-1 near the forest Range Office and on seeing P. W. 7, a-1 escaped exhibiting signs of guilt and p. W. 7 wanted to make sure that the deceased had gone to school on duty and however, P. W. 7 found the door of the house occupied by A-1 and the deceased bolted from inside. Despite the alarm of P. W. 7, the deceased did not open the door. By then p. W. 2 returned to the house and then P. W. 2 and P. W. 7 unlatched the bolt of the door of the portion of the deceased and entered the portion under the occupation of A- 1 and the deceased, and they found the deceased hanging from a nylon rope from the beam of the house. Upon the alarm of P. W. 2, and p. W. 7, the neighbour of the house came there. The rope was cut and the deceased was immediately taken to the dispensary of one Dr. Babu (L. W. 7)-R. M. P. Doctor and the doctor examined the deceased and pronounced that she was dead. P. W. 2 and p. W. 7 brought back the dead body of the deceased and kept it in the house. At about 3. 00 p. m. on 13-03-1993, P. W. 1 returned home and found a mob at his house and the mob informed P. W. 1 that A-1 throttled the deceased to death and hanged the dead body of the deceased to the beam to show as if the deceased committed suicide. At about 8. 00 p. m. P. W. 1 went to Vinukonda police Station, got Ex. P. 1 drafted. P. W. 12- the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Vinukonda police station registered Ex. P. 1 as First information Report under Ex. P. 9 and visited the scene of offence at about 11. 00 p. m. , on 13-03-1993 and submitted a requisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer to hold inquest. The Mandal Revenue Officer held inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 14-03-1993 at about 10. P. 1 as First information Report under Ex. P. 9 and visited the scene of offence at about 11. 00 p. m. , on 13-03-1993 and submitted a requisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer to hold inquest. The Mandal Revenue Officer held inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 14-03-1993 at about 10. 00 a. m. , in the presence of P W. 8-Revenue Inspector, vinukonda and others. Ex. P. 4 is the inquest report to the effect that A-1 and A-2 were harassing the deceased and caused the death of the deceased. On 15-03-1993, p. W. 12 visited Mallik Public School at vinukonda and seized Ex. P. 2 note book as well as Ex. P. 5 time table. At the time of inquest, P. W. 7 searched the belongings of the deceased at the suggestion of P. W. 10 and others and found Ex. P. 2 note book. P. W. 7 handed over the note book to P. W. 10 who read a few passages and handed over the same to the Mandal Revenue Officer who was holding the inquest. Ex. P. 3- chemistry Record of P. W. 7 was also traced in the suitcase of the deceased at the time of the inquest. P. W. 13- the Investigating Officer found prima facie from Ex. P. 2 that a case under section 304-B IPC was made out and hence, he filed a memo before the Court for altering the FIR. P. W. 11 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 14-03-1993 and he preserved the skull bones, hyoid bone, stomach etc. , for chemical analysis and issued Ex. P. 6-post- mortem certificate wherein he did not express any opinion. After seeing report of the Forensic Science Laboratory under ex. P. 7 and the report of the Assistant professor, Forensic Medicine, Guntur, under ex. P. 8, P. W. 11 opined that the death was due to asphyxia due to ante mortem strangulation. P. W. 14-hand-writing expert subsequently opined that the hand writings found in Ex. P. 2 were the hand-writings of the same person who wrote S - 1 to S. 25. P. 8, P. W. 11 opined that the death was due to asphyxia due to ante mortem strangulation. P. W. 14-hand-writing expert subsequently opined that the hand writings found in Ex. P. 2 were the hand-writings of the same person who wrote S - 1 to S. 25. ( 8 ) INASMUCH as the accused had denied the charges leveled against them, the prosecution had proceeded with trial, the evidence as aforesaid been recorded and a-1 to A-3 were acquitted of under section 304-B IPC, and A-2 and A-3 were acquitted of the other charge under Section 498-A IPC also, but however, A-1 alone was convicted under Section 498-A IPC. ( 9 ) IT is needless to say that on appreciation of evidence, the learned sessions Judge had recorded a finding that the participation of A-2 and A-3 in the alleged incident on the fateful day, cannot be believed and that part of the story of the prosecution had been disbelieved. Strong reliance was placed by the learned additional Public Prosecutor to sustain the findings recorded by the learned Judge on the ground that there is clear evidence of pws 1, 2 and 7 in relation to harassment to the effect that A-1 was demanding the amount and he insisted for getting a settlement deed in the name of the deceased. ( 10 ) THE evidence available on record is that of P. Ws 1, 2 and 7. P. W. 1 no doubt deposed that A-1 demanded Rs. 10,000/- for his business venture and he gave the same by raising Rs. 5,000/- by selling gold ornaments and raising another Rs. 5,000/- by mortgaging the house. PW. 1 further deposed that A-1 also demanded rs. 40,000/- in order to purchase machinery and demanded him to mortgage his house with bank and raise the demanded amount and he did not concede the demand of A-1, and then, his daughter was pressurized to obtain settlement deed in her favour in respect of the said house. This witness in detail had narrated the events and except this evidence of certain demands made by accused for the purpose of his business, the rest of the evidence of P. W. 1 would relate to the other sequences of events as to how the incident had happened and how he came to know and other details. This witness in detail had narrated the events and except this evidence of certain demands made by accused for the purpose of his business, the rest of the evidence of P. W. 1 would relate to the other sequences of events as to how the incident had happened and how he came to know and other details. ( 11 ) P. W. 2 also had repeated the version of P. W. 1. P. W. 7 the younger sister of the deceased also had deposed about the same narrating the events in corroboration with the evidence of P. Ws 1 and 2. As far as the visit of A-2 and A-3 on the fateful day, though they were on examination duty, had been specifically disbelieved. ( 12 ) THE learned Judge while discussing about the admissibility and veracity of Ex. P. 2 commencing from paragraphs 14 to 17, had arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish Ex. P 2 and that Ex. P. 2 contained the hand writing of the deceased. The prosecution, no doubt, had examined p. W. 14. P. w. 14 compared the alleged hand writings of the deceased and marked the hand writings as S-1 to S-25 and he marked the hand writings in Ex. P2 as Q-1 to Q-7 and opined that Q-1 to Q-7 were written by the same person who wrote S-1 to S-25. In ex. P. 10, P. W. 14 elaborated the reasons as to why he concluded that they were written by the same person. But however, the learned Judge was not inclined to rely on ex. P. 2 for the reason that the prosecution failed to prove the, source from which Ex. P. 2 was seized and several other infirmities had been pointed out by the learned Judge. No doubt the learned Additional Public prosecutor would contend that this Court as appellate Court can record different findings in this regard and rely upon Ex. P. 2 and sustain the "conviction. When reasons in detail had been recorded by the learned judge and when the learned Judge was not inclined to rely upon Ex. P. 2, this Court as appellate Court is not inclined to take a different opinion relating to Ex. P 2. ( 13 ) THE only evidence which is available on record is that of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 7 and also p. W. 6. P. 2, this Court as appellate Court is not inclined to take a different opinion relating to Ex. P 2. ( 13 ) THE only evidence which is available on record is that of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 7 and also p. W. 6. The evidence of P. W. 6 is that an attempt was made by P. W. 1 to secure some loan nothing beyond. P. Ws 1, 2 and 7 are the blood relatives of the deceased and most of the evidence is in the nature of hear-say. No doubt, there is some evidence to show that certain demands were made by A-1 for the purpose of his business. The learned judge had arrived at a conclusion that inasmuch as there is some material on record to show that the demand for amount and also the demand for securing a settlement deed in relation to property had been made out, the harassment within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC had been established. For this purpose, the learned judge also had relied upon the evidence of p. W. 6. ( 14 ) ON a careful scrutiny of this evidence, as already referred to supra, at the best it can be said that the prosecution was able to establish that A1 was in a financial distress and was insisting for some financial help for the purpose of his business and nothing more and nothing beyond. It is pertinent to note that the version of the prosecution that a-1 to A-3 participated in the incident on the fateful day, had been disbelieved and acquittal had been recorded so far as section 304-B IPC is concerned as against all the accused and so far as Section 498-A ipc is concerned, as against A-2 and A-3. The other evidence available i. e. , Ex. P-2 alleged to be in the hand writing of the deceased also had not been relied upon. Hence, on the rest of the evidence of p. Ws 1, 2 and 7 and P. W. 6 up to some extent, the question arises is whether the conviction and sentence imposed as against a-1 is sustained or liable to be set aside. P-2 alleged to be in the hand writing of the deceased also had not been relied upon. Hence, on the rest of the evidence of p. Ws 1, 2 and 7 and P. W. 6 up to some extent, the question arises is whether the conviction and sentence imposed as against a-1 is sustained or liable to be set aside. ( 15 ) IT is not doubt true that in a case of this nature under Section 498-A IPC it may not be possible always to secure direct evidence, but at the same time, this Court is bound by the fundamental principles of the criminal Law and on the strength of this scant evidence of only interested witnesses, who speak about the harassment of the deceased and also on the strength of the evidence of P. W. 6 that P. W. 1 approached for securing some loan and inasmuch as all the other aspects are more or less in the form of hear-say, this Court is of the considered opinion that conviction under section 498-A IPC cannot be sustained. It is pertinent to note that almost all the findings recorded by the learned Judge appear to be in favour of the defence version. But however, ultimately, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that appellant A-1 is liable to be convicted under Section 498-A IPC. While appreciating evidence in a criminal case in accordance with the fundamental well established principles, this approach may not be in accordance with law. In view of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant-accused no1 under Section 498-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. ( 16 ) HENCE, the acquittal is recorded and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, against the appellant-accused No. 1 in sessions case No. 576 of 1995 on 14-10-1998 for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC are hereby set aside. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed. The bail bonds of the appellant- accused shall stand cancelled. It is needless to say that the appellant-accused is entitled for refund of fine amount paid by him.