P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Prasad Babu representing sri Konda Reddy, Counsel representing the appellants-accused and the learned additional Public Prosecutor. ( 2 ) THE appellants preferred the present appeal as against thejudgment of the learned district and Sessions Judge, made in s. CNo. 12 of 1994. ( 3 ) SRI Prasad Babu, learned counsel representing the appellants would submit even as per the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 though some demand was made at a particular point of time, subsequently, the said issue was not seriously pursued and it is suggestive of the fact that there was no harassment and just on some suspicion, the complaint was given as against appellants- accused and they were charged with sections 302 and 304-B of the Indian Penal code (herein after for short referred to as ipc for the sake Of convenience ). The learned counsel also would submit that only on the ground of suspicion and inferring that it would have been a dowry death because of some injuries alleged to have been present on the dead body and also on the strength of the presumption, the accused were convicted under Section 304-B IPC, which cannot be sustained. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Public prosecutor, on the contrary, submitted that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 is available and apart from it, the death is suspicious and in the light of the other medical evidence available on record, it can be taken that the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC had been proved. ( 5 ) HEARD both the counsel. ( 6 ) THE facts in nutshell are as here under: one Yadamma was married to bikshapathy-A-1 about one year ago and at the time of marriage he was given a dowry of rs. 12,000/- including cash of Rs. 4,000/- and other valuables and after the marriage, the said Yadamma was being harassed by her husband, in-laws and brother-in-law demanding additional dowry of Rs. 12,000/- including cash of Rs. 4,000/- and other valuables and after the marriage, the said Yadamma was being harassed by her husband, in-laws and brother-in-law demanding additional dowry of Rs. 5,000/- and de facto-complainant, who is father of yadamma could not comply with the demand and convinced his daughter and sent her to the house of her in-laws and when his daughter was in his house, his son-in-law came to his house on 26-03-1993 and was there for two days and took away his daughter on 28-03-1993 to their house and on 30-03-1993, a person came to his house and informed that his daughter died. Then himself and his wife had gone to ananthasagar iilage and found the dead body of his daughter at the varandah of the house of the accused and there were injuries on the neck back and around the waist and one upper tooth and one lower tooth were also found broken and as his daughter did not take additional dowry amount, her husband, parents-in-law and brother-in-law had killed his daughter on 29-03-1993. ( 7 ) THE prosecution examined P. Ws. l to 8 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-6. Ex. P-1 given by p. W. I reads as hereunder:"i performed the marriage of my daughter Smt. Yadamma, aged 19 years, with Chowdam Bikahapathy, son of bhumayya, resident of Ananthasagar village, by giving Rs. 2,000/- as dowry, as agreed. Since one year the husband bikshapathy, father-in-law Bhoomaiah, mother-in-law Nagamma, brother-in- law Siddaiah, harassing my daughter, demanding Rs. 5000/- as additional dowry. Since we have no amount, we are sending our daughter for marital life. When my daughter was at my house, my son-in-law Bikshapathi came to my village Indupriyal on 26-03-1993, and took my daughter to Ananthsagar along with him on 28-03-1993. Today morning when I was at my house at Indupriya, one person came and informed that my daughter died, myself and my wife and others went to Ananthsagar village to my son-in-law s house and found the dead body of my daughter Yadamma in the Varanda. On physical verification the body is having injuries on throat, back waist and lost one upper and lower teeth. On physical verification the body is having injuries on throat, back waist and lost one upper and lower teeth. For not bringing the additional dowry, my son-in-law, his father and mother and brother-in-law Siddaiahbeat my daughter on the night of 29-03-1993 and killed, when we reached to the house of the accused none of the inmates were present in the house. I am having suspicion against them. Investigate into the matter and take action against them. " ( 8 ) THE evidence of P. W. I is that the deceased died about four years back while staying in the house of her husband-A1 and one year prior to the death of the deceased, the marriage of A-1 with the deceased had taken place at Indupriyal village and at the time of marriage, he had given Rs. 4,000/- in cash and 1 tulas gold ornaments, a cycle, wrist watch and other utencils and after marriage, all the accused demanded rs. 4,000/- additional dowry and as she was unable to give Rs. 4,000/- as demanded by the accused, accused started harassing the deceased. On Ugadi day, prior to the incident, the deceased Yadamma came to his house. Two days prior to the death of the deceased, a-l came to his house and took Yadamma to his village. Next day, after the incident, he came to know about the death of the deceased. PW-1 and his relatives went to the house of the accused and found the dead body of the deceased laying on the varandah of the house of the accused and he found the injuries on the neck, chest and back of the deceased. He also found some tooth of the deceased missing. All the accused were not present in the house when they went there. Thereafter, he gave report to police in Ex. P-1. ( 9 ) IN cross-examination, this witness deposed that at about 8 A. M. , he reached the village of the accused at about 2 or 3 P. M. he gave a written complaint to the police and he went to the police station from Ananthsagar by walk. The distance between Ananthsagar and police station is about 1 mile and he was cross-examined at length, relating to the topographical features also. This witness also deposed that he voluntarily gave cash and other articles at the time of marriage of the deceased to A-1. The distance between Ananthsagar and police station is about 1 mile and he was cross-examined at length, relating to the topographical features also. This witness also deposed that he voluntarily gave cash and other articles at the time of marriage of the deceased to A-1. At the time of marriage of the deceased and A-1, out of love and affection, he presented gold ornaments. Six months thereafter, his daughter informed him about the accused demanding for additional dowry and thereafter, he went to the village of accused and expressed his inability to pay the additional dowry, for which the accused accepted and thereafter, the accused did not demand for additional dowry and no doubt this witness denied that it is not true to suggest that accused did not demand additional dowry of Rs. 4,000/ -. ( 10 ) P. W. 2 is the wife of P. W. I and mother of the deceased and no doubt in chief examination who deposed about the demand of additional dowry of Rs. 4,000/- but in cross-examination, she had deposed that an additional dowry of Rs. 5,000/- had been demanded. ( 11 ) P. W. 3 simply deposed that she had seen the dead body of the deceased and she found certain injuries and Ex. P-2 Inquest report was drafted and this witness and the other mediators signed on Ex. P-2 and the cause of death is incorporated in Ex. P-2 as the death was due to homicidal. ( 12 ) P. W. 4 deposed about Ex. P-3 the observation Report, drafted at the house of the accused and this witness deposed that the details of the observation of the house of the accused were incorporated in ex. P-3. ( 13 ) P. W. 5 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, who had deposed that he had conducted autopsy over the dead body and found the following injuries:"1. A echomosis of below the chin and front of the neck and back near the right ear. 2. A echomosis of upper chest right and left breasts. 3. Canine upper and lower are broken. 4. Echomosis of right part of varina. 5. Left knee postrior echomosis present. " he further deposed that the cause of death was due to shock intrathorisic heamorrhage following trauma to neck and chest and all the above injuries are anti mortem in nature. Ex. P-4 is the Post Mortem Examination report. Ex. 3. Canine upper and lower are broken. 4. Echomosis of right part of varina. 5. Left knee postrior echomosis present. " he further deposed that the cause of death was due to shock intrathorisic heamorrhage following trauma to neck and chest and all the above injuries are anti mortem in nature. Ex. P-4 is the Post Mortem Examination report. Ex. P-5 is the short opinion to the cause of death. ( 14 ) P. W. 6 is the Mandal Revenue Officer who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Chpwdam Yadamma. P. W. 7 is the Sub Inspector of Police who deposed that on 30-03-1993, W. 1 came to the police station and gave Ex. P-1 complaint and on the basis of Ex. P-1, he registered a case in crimeno. 37 of 1993 under Section 304-BIPC and sent the Express First Information Report to all concerned. Ex. P-6 is the original First information Report sent to Judicial First Class magistrate, Medak and he examined P. W. I and recorded his statement and thereafter proceeded to Ananthsagar village and handed over the case diary to the Sub- divisional Police Officer, Toopran and arrested the accused 1 to 4 on 25-04-1993 and handed over to S. D. P. O. , Toopran. ( 15 ) P. W. 8 the then Deputy Superintendent of Police of Toopran, deposed that on 30-03-1993, he received express First Information report in Crime No. 37 of 1993 and on the same day, he visited the scene of offence and recorded the statements of P. W. 2, Gajwel mallaiah, Mekala Mallaiah, Thota Muthyalu, shivanoori Satyanarayana and Tota Bagaiah and he also deposed about effecting the arrest of the accused sending to remand and receiving Post Mortem Examination Report and also filing charge sheet. ( 16 ) IT is pertinent to note that the investigating Officer did not examine any witnesses whose houses are located nearby the houses of the deceased and the witnesses examined by him are all related to the deceased and they are from different villages and P. W. 8 also deposed that it is not true to suggest that A-1 and A-4 were not in the house on the date of offence and filed a false case against them. ( 17 ) FROM the findings recorded by the learned Judge, it appears that in view of certain injuries on the body of the deceased and also the presumption available, the dowry death was inferred. The ingredients to be satisfied to attract Section 304-B IPC, need not be restated again. ( 18 ) THE evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 on this aspect is as vague as the vagueness can be. None belonging to the village or the neighbours had been examined. Apart from this aspect of the matter, not only that the evidence is vague but also there is a material contradiction in the case of demand of additionaldowry of Rs. 4,000/-or Rs. 5/000/- as deposed by P. Ws. 1 and 2. ( 19 ) IT is also pertinent to note that P. W. 1 himself in cross-examination deposed though demand was made, when he went to the village of the accused and expressed his inability to pay the additional dowry, for which his son-in-law accepted and dropped the issue and never insisted on it subsequent thereto. PW-2 also had deposed to the said fact. On the material available on record, it appears that only on grave suspicion, the ex. P-1 was given. On the strength of which, the action was initiated and unnecessarily the other family members also had been implicated. ( 20 ) IN the light of the vague evidence of p. Ws. 1 and 2, it cannot be believed that the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC had been satisfied even taking the version of the prosecution into serious consideration. Just grave suspicion cannot be a substitute for proof in a criminal case. Hence, viewed from any angle, the conviction and sentence imposed as against appellants-accused cannot be sustained and accordingly they are hereby set aside and accused are hereby acquitted and accordingly, the appeal is a llowed. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.