C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) LEARNED counsel representing the appellants/a. 1 and A. 3 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. It is brought to the notice of this Court that A. 2 died and hence, the case stood abated as against A. 2. ( 2 ) A. 1 and A. 3 preferred the present appeal as against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada in S. C. No. 60 of 1994, dated 14-07-1998. Crime No. 111 of 1993 on the file of L and O, Patamata Police Station was registered under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B I. P. C. against the accused. ( 3 ) THE version of the prosecution is that A. 1 married the deceased Padmavathi during the year 1991 and they were blessed with a daughter aged about 1 year as on 09-06-1993 and that the second and third accused are the parents of the first accused and that the parents of Padmavathi promised the first accused during the marriage that they would give gold chain to the deceased and later failed to fulfill the said promise and thereupon, accused 1 to 3 started treating the deceased Padmavathi cruelly and were harassing her for getting the said gold chain, which ultimately had driven her to commit suicide on 08-06-1993 at about 5 p. m. and that she informed her mother about her decision to end her life as she was unable to bear the cruel treatment of the accused and that on 09-06-1993 at about 9 p. m. , she swallowed three bandicoot poison tablets and committed suicide and the Second Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada had registered the case as P. R. C. No. 9 of 1994 and committed to the Court of Session and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada had transferred the matter on the point of jurisdiction to the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, who had recorded the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 5 and also D. W. 1 and got marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 10 and Exs. D. 1 to D. 9 and also Ex. C. 1 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused under Sections 498-A and 304-B I. P. C. and convicted and sentenced the accused. As against the same, the present appeal is preferred. P. 1 to P. 10 and Exs. D. 1 to D. 9 and also Ex. C. 1 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused under Sections 498-A and 304-B I. P. C. and convicted and sentenced the accused. As against the same, the present appeal is preferred. ( 4 ) SRI C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing the appellants would submit that the evidence available on record is highly insufficient and that except the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 6, which is vague evidence, there is no other evidence available on record relating to the harassment and hence, it cannot be said that the ingredients of dowry death or the ingredients of harassment within the meaning of Section 498-A I. P. C. had been established. The learned Counsel also had pointed out the unnatural conduct of the deceased and would contend that the possibility of committing suicide because of other reasons cannot be ruled out and unfortunately this case had been thought of as against the appellants. Learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on Paidimarri Shanker and others v. State of A. P. (2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 538 (AP) ). ( 5 ) PER contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor had taken this Court through the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 6 and also would submit that the evidence of P. W. 1 is only to the limited extent informing what had transpired and this evidence is sufficient to show that but for the harassment, the deceased would not have committed suicide. The learned Counsel also would contend that normally the evidence of parents and other near relatives alone would be available in matters of this nature and independent evidence always may not be possible. Heard both the Counsel. ( 6 ) A. 1 is the husband and A. 3 is the mother-in-law of the deceased Padmavathi. The second accused, father-in-law, no doubt, is no more. P. W. 2 is the mother of the deceased and P. W. 6 is her father. P. W. 1 is the sister of P. W. 3, a resident of Krishnalanka who had acquaintance with P. W. 2. P. W. 4 is the neighbour and P. W. 5 is the landlady of P. W. 2. It is not in controversy that the marriage of A. 1 was celebrated with the deceased on 03-07-1991. P. W. 1 is the sister of P. W. 3, a resident of Krishnalanka who had acquaintance with P. W. 2. P. W. 4 is the neighbour and P. W. 5 is the landlady of P. W. 2. It is not in controversy that the marriage of A. 1 was celebrated with the deceased on 03-07-1991. The version of the prosecution is that the parents of the deceased i. e. , P. Ws. 2 and 6, at the time of marriage presented Rs. 15,000/- cash towards dowry and promised to present a gold chain weighing two tulas within two months from the date of marriage, but due to financial difficulties, they could not present the said ornament. In view of the said failure, A. 1 to A. 3 began to harass the deceased and when the deceased came to her parents house for delivery, she had disclosed that she was being abused and was treated cruelly by her in-laws and her husband. P. W. 2, no doubt, deposed that whenever she visited her daughter at her in-laws house, she was not allowed even to talk with the deceased and that she also deposed that the deceased disclosed to her that A. 1 was suffering from Epilepsy and that when the deceased was weeping due to that, she was being abused stating that she was weeping waiting for somebody and that the deceased further told that the accused used to beat her, abuse her and harass her while she was carrying also on the ground that she was not mentally sound and that she was kept in a locked room, and even she was not allowed to come out even to attend to the calls of nature. She also deposed that now and then she used to go and visit the deceased Padmavathi and further deposed that they failed to give a gold chain, pustletadu, to her. Since they could not present the ornament, the deceased was being harassed and she had explained certain circumstances under which herself and P. W. 6 were unable to keep up the promise. In cross-examination, she had deposed that it is true that in the year 1986, the deceased got treated by Dr. Since they could not present the ornament, the deceased was being harassed and she had explained certain circumstances under which herself and P. W. 6 were unable to keep up the promise. In cross-examination, she had deposed that it is true that in the year 1986, the deceased got treated by Dr. Indla Rama Subba Reddy, a Phsycriatist at Vijayawada, but this witness adds that the deceased was mentally sound and that she was not suffering from any mental illness and that she also deposed that she had not stated to police as in Ex. D. 3 and also as in Ex. D. 4. ( 7 ) EXS. D. 3 and D. 4 read as under: ex. D. 3, 161 Cr. P. C. Statement of P. W. 2 Reason for this is they felt that they would have got more doing has they preferred some other alliance. Ex. D. 4, 161 Cr. P. C. Statement of P. W. 2 we told to our son-in-law Nagendra Kumar that we would give a gold chain when our economic situation is good. ( 8 ) P. W. 6 is the father of the deceased, who had deposed about all the details and this witness also had repeated what had been deposed by his wife-P. W. 2, and also deposed that when he was informed about the ill-treatment of the deceased by her in-laws, he advised the deceased to adjust at her in-laws house and on 09-06-1993, when he was giving Harikatha programme at Kandukur, he received a telegram informing that the deceased died and he came on the next day of the incident and enquired his wife, who had informed what had happened. This witness in his cross-examination deposed that Ex. D. 8 is the telegram issued by him to the accused and he had addressed a letter to A. 2 on 11-10-1991 from Kareemnagar and it is true that in that letter he had stated that the deceased was in the habit of hissing like a snake through her nose and will be giving irritable answers and irrelevant answers and it is true that he further stated that if such symptoms were manifested, the accused should not get her treated and that they have to leave his daughter with his elder daughter, who could get her treated. He also admitted to have stated in the said letter that the accused should not get his daughter treated by performing pujas and should get her treated medically and he had deposed about several other aspects in relation to the said letter. This witness also deposed that he addressed a letter from Khammam to the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada regarding the case and Ex. C. 1 is the letter and this witness also deposed that he believed that the accused had murdered the deceased and hence, addressed the same. This witness further deposed that he had not stated before the police as in Ex. D. 9 and this witness denied several suggestions. ( 9 ) APART from this evidence, the evidence of P. W. 1 is to the effect that when P. W. 1s husband and her sister were returning from the hospital to the house, P. W. 1 told them that the deceased Padmavathi was unwell and that she was taken to Government hospital and asked them to inform the same to her parents. She further deposed that at the Government Hospital, the doctor pronounced Padmavathi as dead and police recorded her statement and took her signature in Ex. P. 1 and Ex. P. 1 was marked subject to objection and Ex. P. 1 reads as follows: we hailed originally from Mangalagirri, Guntur District. In view of death of my mother, my father Vempati Venkatappaiah has occupied a place on Navulur Road and living there; duly constructing there itself a hut. I am the second daughter to my parents. I have elder brother and sister, one each and an younger brother. All are married. My sister by name Yeleswarapu Kanakadurga was married to Yeleswarapu Radhakrishna Murthy, in 1972. Radhakrishna Murthy, who is the husband of my sister had married me, on the consent of my sister in view of her health was not good then. My Sister and brother-in-law are staying at Nehrunagar in Krishnalanka. Now and then, I will be coming and going to them. Likewise today i. e. , on 9-6-1993 evening at about 6. 30 P. M. when I came from Mangalagiri and arrived night at about 8. My Sister and brother-in-law are staying at Nehrunagar in Krishnalanka. Now and then, I will be coming and going to them. Likewise today i. e. , on 9-6-1993 evening at about 6. 30 P. M. when I came from Mangalagiri and arrived night at about 8. 00 P. M. at Nehrunagar/krishnalanka to my sisters house, then I was told that the residents of the backside portion of my house have brought one lady in rickshaw and are leaving that place duty dropping her there, then I saw observed whom they are dropping there. On observation, I recognized her as Panyam Padmavathi daughter of Panyam Satyavathi. When I moved her, she appeared too weak. Then she told that she swallowed three bandicoot tablets. Then we i. e. , I and my sister have took her for treatment to our known Janatha Hospital. I told my sister to inform the said incident to Satyavathi Garu. Then the Doctor (at Janatha Hospital) told that there is no possibility, take her to Government Hospital we took her to Government Hospital in the same rickshaw and when shown her to Government Doctor, then the Doctor saw her and told that she already died. Then on enquiry by the Doctor, I told everything to the doctor, then I hurriedly left home since I am afraid of. After that on your coming, I am informing you what I know the fact. Read over to me. Whatever I told is written and found correct. Sd/- yeleswarapu Lalitha 09. 06. 1993. ( 10 ) P. W. 3 is the sister of P. W. 1, who just, no doubt, deposed about the aspect that the deceased was taken to Government General Hospital and when she went there along with others, they were informed that she was dead. ( 11 ) NO doubt, P. W. 4 deposed about the family affairs of A. 1 and the deceased and that she had deposed that about one day prior to the date of incident, which took place about 5 years ago, the deceased expressed to her mother that on the ground that the gold chain was not presented, she was being harassed and then she went away. Most probably, this witness was examined in support o the version of P. Ws. 2 and 6. Most probably, this witness was examined in support o the version of P. Ws. 2 and 6. ( 12 ) P. W. 5 deposed that in her presence the deceased told to P. W. 2 that her husband and father-in-law were harassing her and pressurizing her for ornament. P. W. 7 had drafted the inquest report. Ex. P. 2 is the said report and he participated in the inquest conducted over the dead body of the deceased. P. W. 8 is the medical practitioner, who deposed that P. Ws. 1 and 3 brought the deceased to his hospital and informed that the deceased consumed pesticide or insecticide and that since he is a private medical practitioner, usually such cases will not be taken up by him and therefore, advised to take the deceased to the Government Hospital. P. W. 9 was declared as hostile witness. ( 13 ) P. W. 10 is the Head Constable, who received the death intimation regarding the deceased and Ex. P. 4 is the death intimation. He sent Ex. P. 4 along with a memo to the Station House Officer, Patamata P. S. and Ex. P. 5 is the said memo. P. W. 11 is the Constable, who deposed that on 10-06-1993, as per the instructions of the Sub-Inspector of Police, he got conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased, and handed over the same to her mother. P. W. 12 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Gannavaram P. S. who had registered a case in Crime No. 111 of 1993 under Section 174 Cr. P. C. Ex. P. 6 is the original F. I. R. and the Sub-Inspector of Police had taken up further investigation. P. W. 13 is the Deputy Civil Surgeon, who deposed about bringing the dead body of the deceased to the causality ward and that he was informed that the deceased consumed bandicoot poison. ( 14 ) P. W. 14 conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and Ex. P. 7 is the postmortem certificate issued by this witness. This witness also deposed that the chemical analysis report is Ex. P. 8, and basing on Ex. P. 8, this witness gave final opinion regarding the cause of the death of the deceased that it was due to consumption of Aluminium Phosphate. Ex. P. 9 is the final opinion. P. 7 is the postmortem certificate issued by this witness. This witness also deposed that the chemical analysis report is Ex. P. 8, and basing on Ex. P. 8, this witness gave final opinion regarding the cause of the death of the deceased that it was due to consumption of Aluminium Phosphate. Ex. P. 9 is the final opinion. P. W. 15 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who deposed about the details of investigation and about his arresting A. 1 and A. 2, A. 3 getting anticipatory bail and also filing charge sheet against them. This witness was cross-examined at length and the contradictions Exs. D. 1 to D. 7 had been put to this witness. D. W. 1 is the tenant of the house of the accused for the last ten years and to the knowledge of D. W. 1, A. 1 and his wife, the deceased, never quarreled with each other and never heard any cries and shouts from the portion of the house of the deceased. ( 15 ) ON the strength of this evidence, the learned Judge recorded the findings and ultimately convicted the appellants under Sections 498-A and 304 B I. P. C. As can be seen from the nature of evidence, the presentation of the gold ornament as deposed by P. Ws. 2 and 6, appears to be a traditional ornament, which would be presented to a daughter. Be that as it may, the evidence available on record definitely is highly insufficient to sustain the conviction and sentence for the reason that P. W. 6 admitted that some treatment was given to the deceased. 2 and 6, appears to be a traditional ornament, which would be presented to a daughter. Be that as it may, the evidence available on record definitely is highly insufficient to sustain the conviction and sentence for the reason that P. W. 6 admitted that some treatment was given to the deceased. Apart from this aspect of the matter, P. W. 6 made several admissions which he had disclosed in the letter and this would clearly go to show that all was not well with the deceased and hence, in such circumstances on the strength of this nature of evidence, definitely, it cannot be said that prosecution had proved beyond all reasonable doubt the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B I. P. C. Apart from this aspect of the matter, admissions of P. W. 6 also would go to show that certain peculiar characteristics were there in the deceased, hence, definitely, it cannot be said that the alleged harassment relating to demanding of gold ornament had proved the way to the deceased to commit suicide by taking the poison on the fateful day. For want of legally acceptable evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Judge cannot be said to be in accordance with law. Accordingly, the said findings are hereby set aside and an acquittal to be recorded relating to the charges with which they had been charged with an convicted by the learned Judge. Accordingly, the appellants are hereby acquitted of the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B I. P. C. and the criminal appeal stands allowed. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled.