YETHLRAJULU, J. ( 1 ) A-1 to A-3 in S. C. No. 3i20 of 2003 on the file of the v Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, preferred the present appeal challenging the convictions and sentences imposed on them by the said Court under Sections 498-A and 304-B of i. P. C. , through its Judgment, dated 04-10-2004. The accused were charged for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I. P. C. for subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment leading her to commit suicide at 11-00 AM on 15-02-2003 at their house. The accused denied the charge and claimed for trial. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution leading to the conviction of the appellants is, briefly, as follows: a-1 is the husband and A-2 and A-3 are the parents in law of the deceased Pathan Haseen Begum. The marriage of the deceased was performed with A-1 on 23-06-2002 at Guntur. At the time of marriage, PWs. 1 and 4 promised to pay a dowry of Rs. 25,000/- to A-1 besides other formalities, but they could pay only Rs. 15,000/- at the time of marriage and promised to pay the balance amount in October, 2002. The marriage was performed, but PW-1 could not keep up the promise due to financial constraints, therefore, the accused forced the deceased to bring the balance dowry amount from her parents, but it could not be paid, therefore, all the accused harassed the deceased and subjected her to cruelty by refusing to send her to the house of PWs. 1 and 4. The deceased was telling PWs. 1, 4 and others about the harassment caused by the accused. The deceased, being unable to bear with the harassment caused by the accused, committed suicide at 11-00 AM on 15-02-2003 by hanging herself in the house within eight months from the date of marriage. On a report given by PW-1, a crime was registered and after investigation, the police laid the charge sheet. ( 3 ) THE prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PWs. 1 to 11 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-22 and m. O. 1, Saree of the deceased. On defence side, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. ( 3 ) THE prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PWs. 1 to 11 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-22 and m. O. 1, Saree of the deceased. On defence side, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. The lower Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, came to a conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyondl reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted all the accused for the offence under section 498-A of I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous. imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of rs. 1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for nine months. They were also convicted for the offence under section 304-B of I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused, being aggrieved by the Judgment of the lower court, dated 04-10-2004, preferred the present Appeal challenging its validity and legality. ( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the accused caused harassment to the deceased by demanding to bring balance dowry amount. The accused continued the harassment when the parents of the deceased failed to pay the balance dowry amount within the stipulated time. The deceased, being unable to bear with the harassment caused by the accused, committed suicide in the house of the accused. ( 5 ) THE accused took a defence that from the date of the marriage, the deceased was insisting A-1 to put up a separate residence for them and when he failed to concede to her request, the deceased committed suicide. The accused further pleaded that they never demanded any dowry amount and they were falsely implicated. ( 6 ) IN the light of the rival contentions, the point for consideration is: "whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether all or any of the accused are liable to be acquitted by setting aside the judgment of the lower Court. " ( 7 ) PW-1 is the father of the deceased. He gave Ex. P-1 complaint to the police. In Ex. P-1, he mentioned that at the time of marriage, he promised the accused to pay Rs. 25,000/-towards dowry, but paid only Rs15,000/- and promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs. " ( 7 ) PW-1 is the father of the deceased. He gave Ex. P-1 complaint to the police. In Ex. P-1, he mentioned that at the time of marriage, he promised the accused to pay Rs. 25,000/-towards dowry, but paid only Rs15,000/- and promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- at a later date as settled by the mediators. For the amount due to the accused, the deceased was harassed by all the accused. PW-4 and himself requested the accused to bear with them for sometime till they pay the amount within a short period as they have not received the amount from others. Despite the said request, there was no change in the attitude of the accused. Being unable to bear with the harassment, the deceased committed suicide. ( 8 ) THE death of the deceased by committing suicide is not in dispute. The opinion of the Doctor, who was examined as pw-10, is also indicating that the deceased committed suicide by hanging, therefore, it has to be examined whether the deceased committed suicide being unable to bear with the harassment caused by the accused and whether there is sufficient material to make out a case under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I. P. C. ( 9 ) PW-1, in his evidence, stated that the marriage of the deceased was performed on 23-06-2002 with A-1. At the time of marriage, he accepted to give Rs. 25,000/- towards dowry to the accused and he paid Rs. 15,000/- only and promised to pay the balance amount after the marriage. A-1 treated the deceased in a proper manner for two months. He presented a gold chain worth Rs. 6,000/- to A-1 and also presented one gold ring and one wrist watch worth Rs. 1,000/-and one double cot bed worth Rs. 3,1300/- and an iron sofa worth rs. 2,500/ -. After the marriage, he called A-l to his house along with the deceased for which A-1 told that A-2 demanded a fan and he gave his ceiling fan which was used by him in his house. A-1 demanded another new fan, as A-2 is not accepting the old one. Then, he presented a new ceiling fan worth Rs. 650/- by purchasing it on installment basis. On the eve of Ramzan, he invited A-1 and the deceased. A-2 demanded to provide rs. A-1 demanded another new fan, as A-2 is not accepting the old one. Then, he presented a new ceiling fan worth Rs. 650/- by purchasing it on installment basis. On the eve of Ramzan, he invited A-1 and the deceased. A-2 demanded to provide rs. 1,000/- to A-l and to present one gold ring to the deceased. When he offered to pay Rs. 500/-to A-1, he refused to take the amount and beat the deceased in his presence and went away. Subsequently, A-l came to his house and took the deceased to his house on the ground that she toas to cook the food for him as his sister was delivered. Subsequently A-2 demanded to bring the balance dowry amount and he promised to pay the amount on or before 25-02-2002. After the Ramzan festival, he went to the house of A-1 to see the deceased and the deceased informed that A-1 to A-3 were harassing her like anything by beating and abusing her for not bringing the dowry. . mount. The deceased also informed them two or three times about the harassment and beating by A-1 to A-3. On 15-02-2003, one boy came and informed that the deceased died due to hanging. He presented ex. P-1 complaint and the police investigated the case. In the cross-examination, he mentioned that there is no documentary proof that he has given sarisamanulu as stated by him. There is no proof that he has given a fan to A-l and he denied a suggestion that he did not state before the police that a-1 to A-3 beat the deceased. He also denied a suggestion that a-1 to A-3 did not harass the deceased for want of additional dowry and they did not beat or abuse her at any time. He also denied a suggestion that the deceased used to force A-1 to put up a separate family and when A-1 refused the said demand, the deceased committed suicide by hanging. ( 10 ) PW-2, a tenant of the accused, deposed that at the beginning of the marital life, the accused and the deceased were in happy terms. Afterwards, she used to hear some quarrel between A-1 to A-3 and the deceased. She cannot say when the quarrel between A-1 and the deceased stopped. On the date of offence, she saw the deceased hanging in the house. Afterwards, she used to hear some quarrel between A-1 to A-3 and the deceased. She cannot say when the quarrel between A-1 and the deceased stopped. On the date of offence, she saw the deceased hanging in the house. In the cross-examination, she stated that by the time of the death of the deceased, there are no disputes between A-1 to A-3 and the deceased. ( 11 ) PW-2 gave evidence halfheartedly and did not fully support the prosecution version that the accused harassed the deceased, but she supported the prosecution to the extent that there were quarrels between A-l to A-3 and the deceased. ( 12 ) PW-3, the maternal aunt of the deceased, deposed that at the time of marriage, PW-1 agreed to give an amount of rs. 25,000/- as dowry and gave Rs. 15,,000/- and promised to pay the balance of Rs. 10,000/- subsequently. After the marriage, a-1 and the deceased lived happily for two or three months. Later, A-1 to A-3 were harassing the deceased for getting additional dowry and some other articles. The deceased used to reveal the same to them. She used to visit the house of the deceased now and then. She was also informed by the accused about the harassment of A-1 to A-3 for want of additional dowry and some articles and she tried to convince her. She went to the house of the accused along with PW-4 and the deceased revealed about the harassment. PW-4 and herself went to the house of the accused and requested them not to harass the deceased for additional dowry and assured to provide the amount at an early date. After coming to know about the death of the deceased, PWs. 1 and 4 and some others went to the house of the accused and found the deceased lying hanged. She denied a suggestion that the deceased used to force A-1 to put up a separate family and when A-1 refused the said demand, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. ( 13 ) PW-4, the mother of the deceased, corroborated with the evidence of PW-1 in all respects,, ( 14 ) PW-5, a Tailor by profession and an independent witness, deposed that at the time of giving dowry to the accused, he was present. PW-1 iagreed to pay an amount of rs. 25,000/- in his presence, but paid Rs. ( 13 ) PW-4, the mother of the deceased, corroborated with the evidence of PW-1 in all respects,, ( 14 ) PW-5, a Tailor by profession and an independent witness, deposed that at the time of giving dowry to the accused, he was present. PW-1 iagreed to pay an amount of rs. 25,000/- in his presence, but paid Rs. 15,000/- only to A-2 and promised that he will pay the balance amount of rs. 10,000/- within few months and he failed to provide the said amount. A-1 to A-3 harassed the deceased as PW-1 failed to pay the dowry amount. In the cross-examination, he stated that he attended the marriage of the deceased and A-1. He denied a suggestion that the accused did not harass the deceased with regard to the additional dowry. ( 15 ) PW-6 is a photographer. ( 16 ) PW-7 is a panch for the observation of the scene of offence and inquest held over the dead body of the deceased. ( 17 ) PW-8, the Sub-Inspector of Police, deposed that on pw-1 giving a complaint, he registered the crime against the accused and discharged the FIR to all the concerned. ( 18 ) PW-9, the then Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer, deposed that on 15-02-2003, he received a requisition regarding the death of the deceased and requested to be present at the time of conducting the inquest. Accordingly, he attended the inquest and conducted the proceedings. ( 19 ) PW-11, the then Dy. S. P. of Guntur, deposed about the investigation done by him. ( 20 ) THE learned senior counsel, Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, appearing for the appellants submitted that no positive evidence has been adduced by the prosecution about the demand of dowry and no independent witnesses were examined. He further submitted that PW-2 did not say about the dowry harassment and as the deceased used to prevail on A-1 to put up a separate family and as, A-1 failed to comply the said demand, the deceased resorted to commit suicide. He further submitted that PW-2 did not say about the dowry harassment and as the deceased used to prevail on A-1 to put up a separate family and as, A-1 failed to comply the said demand, the deceased resorted to commit suicide. ( 21 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants relied on a judgment reported in PAIDIMARRI SHANKER AND OTHERS v. STATE OF A. P. ,2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 538 (AP) wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that when the evidence of demand of dowry appears to have been invented by the prosecution witnesses after the death of the deceased and when there is no mention about the demand of dowry in the earliest report, there is a doubt whether the plea of demand of dowry has been invented subsequently and if that is eschewed from consideration, there is no other material to convict the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I. P. C. ( 22 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no material to show that the demand was made soon before the death, therefore, there is any amount of doubt in the contention of the prosecution. ( 23 ) THE expression "soon before the death" is explained in the decision reported in HIRA LAL v. STATE (GOVERNEMENT OF nct), DELHI ,2003 AIR SCW 3570 wherein the Supreme Court held as follows: "the determination of the period which can come within the term soon before1 is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression. soon before would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. " ( 24 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor submitted that PW-1 stated that there was demand of the balance of dowry amount soon before the death, therefore, there is no scope to comment that no harassment was made demanding the dowry. ( 25 ) THE evidence of PWs. " ( 24 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor submitted that PW-1 stated that there was demand of the balance of dowry amount soon before the death, therefore, there is no scope to comment that no harassment was made demanding the dowry. ( 25 ) THE evidence of PWs. 1 and 3 to 5 indicated that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was due to the accused towards part payment of the dowry amount. When PW-1 failed to pay the amount within the stipulated time, the accused started bringing pressure and harassing the deceased to bring the balance dowry amount. The evidence of PWs. l and 3 to 5 clearly indicates that pw-1 agreed to pay Rs. 25,000/- and paid Rs. 15,000/- only and he could not pay the balance dowry amount on the ground that the amount payable to him could not be collected. Their, evidence is also indicating that there was harassment by the. . accused on the ground that PW-1 failed to pay the balance amount within the stipulated time. It is also the evidence that despite the request of PW-1 to bear with sometime for payment of the amount, the accused could not stop harassing the deceased. The version of the above witnesses is also establishing that the deceased, being unable to bear with the harassment caused by the accused, committed suicide by hanging. ( 26 ) NOW, it has to be tested whether the above harassment alleged to be caused by the accused is sufficient to attract the ingredients of Sections; 498-A and 304-B of I. P. C. Section 498-A of I. P. C. reads as follows: "498-A. 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. Explanation. 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. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physicaly) of the woman - or (b) harassment of the womanwhere such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. " ( 27 ) SECTION 304-B of I. P. C. reads as follows: "304-B. Dowry death. (1 ). Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns 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 off her husband for, or in connection with, any demand or dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation. For the purpose of this sub-section "dowry" shall have-the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961 ). 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. " ( 28 ) WHEN there is proof of harassment irrespective of the fact, whether the harassment was in connection with the dowry is immaterial. As there is sufficient: evidence to show that the accused harassed the deceased, the ingredients of Section 498-A of I. P. C. are attracted, therefore, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond-reasonable doubt under Section 498-A of I. P. C. ( 29 ) SO far as the offence under Section 304-B of I. P. C. is concerned, it is the specific version of the witnesses that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- remained clue from out of the dowry amount promised by PW-1. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is to the effect that the accused used to harass the deceased for not bringing the balance amount. As the death occurred within the period of seven years from the date of marriage, the ingredients of Section 304-B of I. P. C. are squarely attracted, therefore, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. ( 30 ) THE lower Court, by placing reliance on the decision reported in PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, A. P. HIGH COURT v. T. BASAVA PUNNAIAH,1989 Cr. LJ. 2330 (AP) observed that in this case, where the death of the married woman occurred on account of asphyxia due to hanging within three years of her marriage, and is otherwise than under normal circumstances, it would still be a death coming within the scope of Section 304-B, when cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand for dowry, is proved. ( 31 ) THE lower Court also placed reliance on SUNIL BAJAJ v. STATE OF M. P. 2002 SCC (Crl.) 608 this decision is also lending support to the finding of the lower Court that there was harassment to the deceased on account of demand of dowry. ( 32 ) THOUGH there is evidence of the prosecution witnesses that A-1 and A-2 caused harassment to the deceased for not bring the dowry amount, the role played by A-3 has not been specifically mentioned, therefore, we are inclined to give benefit of doubt to A-3 finding him not guilty of the offences for which he was charged. ( 33 ) THE lower Court, after taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, came to a conclusion that all the accused are liable to be convicted for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I. P. C. After going through the entire evidence and the judgment of the lower Court, we concur with the view of the lower Court only in respect of A-1 and A-2. As there was no specific evidence regarding the demand of dowry made by A-3 and in joining the hands with A-l and A-2, we fire inclined to give benefit of doubt to A-3 finding him not guilty for both the offices. As there was no specific evidence regarding the demand of dowry made by A-3 and in joining the hands with A-l and A-2, we fire inclined to give benefit of doubt to A-3 finding him not guilty for both the offices. ( 34 ) IN the result, the Appeal is allowed in part. The convictions of A-1 and A-2 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I. P. C. and the sentences imposed thereon are confirmed. The conviction of A3 for the offences under sections 498-A and 304-B of I. P. C. and the sentences imposed thereon are set aside and he is acquitted. A-3 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other crime.