( 1 ) THE appellants are questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, eluru in S. C. No. 399 of 1995. ( 2 ) THERE are 8 appellants and they are a-1 to A-7 and A-9 before the Sessions court. ( 3 ) SRI C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that during the pendency of the appeal A-3 and A-7 died and their case is to be abated. ( 4 ) THUS, in this appeal we have A-1, a-2, A-4 to A-6 and A-9. ( 5 ) THE charge against the appellants is for the offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 IPC. ( 6 ) THE learned trial Judge convicted the appellants for all the three charges and sentenced them to undergo R. I. to 7 years each for the offence under Section 304-B ipc and sentenced to undergo R. I. for two years for the offence under Section 498-A ipc apart from imposing payment of fine of rs. 500/- each, in default imprisonment for three months and sentenced to undergo R-1 for two years and a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default S. I. for one month each forthe offence under Section 201 IPC. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently. ( 7 ) THE facts to the extent necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows: the deceased, Padmasri is the eldest daughter of P. W. 1. At the age of 17 years she fell in love with A-1 who is residing opposite to her house. She married him at Palvancha with the blessings of other accused, who are the family members of A-1. The marriage was performed on 23-11-1993. This fact is not known to P. W. 1, the mother of the deceased or their other relatives. 15 days after the marriage the deceased along with a-1 returned back to the village and started living in the house of the accused. All the accused are residing in the same house. P. W. 1, P. W. 2, the sisterand P. W. 5 the uncle of the deceased learnt about the marriage but became helpless and maintained silence as they intend to see the happy marital life of the deceased. All the accused are residing in the same house. P. W. 1, P. W. 2, the sisterand P. W. 5 the uncle of the deceased learnt about the marriage but became helpless and maintained silence as they intend to see the happy marital life of the deceased. While so, the deceased used to visit the house of P. W. 1 and informing that the accused are insisting for obtaining signatures of P. W. 1 on blank paper so that the landed property of P. W. 1 will be taken by her in- laws. Finally P. W. 1 gave blank signed paper to the deceased so that the marital life of the deceased will be cordial and comfortable. While so, on the date of the incident viz. , 22-3-1994 during night time P. Ws. 1 and 2 heard the weeping of the deceased. They found the deceased was weeping while sitting on the pial of the house of the accused. They enquired the deceased but she did not reply. Thereafter during the midnight they heard commotion from the house of the accused and as it is midnight they did not intervene and on the next morning they learnt that whereabouts of the deceased are not known. During the search in the village, they found the dead body of the deceased in the well of P. W. 5. Immediately a report was lodged before the police who commenced investigation, conducted the inquest and post mortem etc. The autopsy doctor found as many as 7 ante-mortem injuries on the dead body and the cause of death is due to asphyxia. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants attacked the judgment by pointing out that there are no direct witnesses to the incident and the entire case is resting on the circumstantial evidence and it is not established. While highlighting certain portions of the impugned judgment, it is stated that P. W. 1, the maker of the first information report, specifically admitted that she is not aware of the contents of the report, therefore the contents of Ex. P-1 are not useful. It is further stated that P. W. 1 did not support the case of the prosecution about any ill-treatment of the decease by any accused. P-1 are not useful. It is further stated that P. W. 1 did not support the case of the prosecution about any ill-treatment of the decease by any accused. It is further contended that the motive for the incident as per the case of prosecution is for transfer of immovable property of the deceased family and the fact is that there is no property in the name of P. W. 1 and as per evidence P. W. 5 is in possession of the entire property. Thus the question of pressurizing the deceased to obtain the signature of P. W. 1 on blank paper is absurd because the accused would not get any property. It is also stated that when the blank signatures are obtained there is no need to commit any offence. The other grievance ventilated by the appellants is that there is no evidence about the participation of the accused in the crime and merely because the deceased died in unnatural circumstances with injuries could not lead to any conclusion that the accused are responsible or the death. Hence all the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. ( 9 ) THE learned Additional Public prosecutor resisted the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and contended that the evidence of P. Ws. 1,2,5 and others clearly establish that the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment and the deceased having married A-1 with love and affection received maltreatment and finally the accused committed the gruesome act of murder by using force on her body and the post mortem report clearly established that it is not a case of drowning and therefore the death is due to illegal acts of the accused and there is no need for interference with the judgment of the trial Court. ( 10 ) THE point for determination is whether the accused harassed the deceased for more dowry and whether it is a case of dowry death and whether there is any ill-treatment of the deceased in the house of the accused by any of the accused. (1) Ex. P-1 was lodged by P. W. 1 on 23-3-1994. The incident occurred on the midnight of 21-3-1994 and on 22-3-1994 they found the dead body of the deceased in the well. In Ex. P-1, P. W. 1 has stated thatfour days prior to the lodging of Ex. (1) Ex. P-1 was lodged by P. W. 1 on 23-3-1994. The incident occurred on the midnight of 21-3-1994 and on 22-3-1994 they found the dead body of the deceased in the well. In Ex. P-1, P. W. 1 has stated thatfour days prior to the lodging of Ex. P-1 (if so it is on 19-3-1994), the deceased came to her house and informed that her husband i. e. , a-1 directed her to obtain the signature of p. W. 1 on white paper and returned back the same day and due to fear and in order to see fair marital life of her daughter she signed on that blank white paper and send the deceased to her house. (2) Perused the evidence of P. W. 1. She has clearly stated that the deceased came and informed about the illegal demand and she signed on blank paper for the happy marital life of the deceased. The object of the first information report is to set the criminal law in motion and minute details could not be mentioned in the first information report. Therefore, I do not see any discrepancy in the evidence of P. W. 1. P. W. 1 further stated that in Ex. P-1 that on the night of the incident at about 10. 00 p. m. , when herself and P. W. 2 are in the house they heard the weeping of the deceased from the house of the accused and immediately she went there and found the deceased weeping and on enquiry the deceased told that her husband beat her. Then she summoned p. W. 6 and others. In the evidence P. W. 1 narrated what all happened on the night of the incident and she testified that about 15 days after the deceased obtaining her signature on blank paper she heard an altercation and the deceased was crying in the house of the accused and she went there and found the deceased crying and when she questioned the deceased did not give reply. So the discrepancy is with regard to the reply from the deceased But the fact is that when the deceased is weeping P. W. 1 had proceeded to the house of accused and found the deceased weeping and it is confirmed. P. W. 1 further narrated in her evidence at about 1. So the discrepancy is with regard to the reply from the deceased But the fact is that when the deceased is weeping P. W. 1 had proceeded to the house of accused and found the deceased weeping and it is confirmed. P. W. 1 further narrated in her evidence at about 1. 00 a. m. , she heard cries from the house of the accused and the same fact is mentioned in Ex. P-1 also. This evidence of P. W. 1 is fully corroborated with the report given soon after the incident through Ex. P-1 and there is no reason to doubt about the veracity of the witness and the contents of Ex. P-1. The evidence of P. W. 1 and the contents of ex. P-1 are fully established the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that except A-1 and A-3, P. W. 1 did not reveal or attribute any overt act to other accused. If the evidence of other witnesses is also silent on this fact, thus accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, it is necessary to verify the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 5 and 6. P. W. 2, sister of the deceased, deposed that A-1 and A-1 alone used to beat the deceased and the deceased informed her that A-1 is beating her twice and she also questioned A-1. The evidence of P. W. 2 is silent with regard to the participation of any of the accused either with regard to physical or mental violence. P. W. 5 deposed in the chief examination that the deceased informed that A-1, A-4, a-5 and A-8 are demanding that she should obtain the signature of P. W. 1 on blank paper in respect of the extent of Ac. 3. 50 cents, which was the share of the deceased. P. W. 5 was not present at the time of the incident. P. W. 6 is the co-sister of P. W. 1. She deposed that there are some civil disputes between P. W. 5 and P. W. 1. P. W. 6 categorically stated that she learnt about the accused beating the deceased and she went to their house and found the deceased weeping by sitting on the pile of the house of a-1. At that time A-1 and other accused were also present. P. W. 6 categorically stated that she learnt about the accused beating the deceased and she went to their house and found the deceased weeping by sitting on the pile of the house of a-1. At that time A-1 and other accused were also present. She did not specifically state who are the other accused. It is an omnibus statement. Furthe no evidence on record is put forth by the prosecution about the inmates in the house of A-1. Naturally A-2 and A-3 being the parents of A-1 also will be there. But whether the other accused are residing or staying in the same house is not mentioned because there is no evidence. Only omnibus statements are made. P. W. 6 further deposes that on seeing the deceased weeping she went and questioned the accused and the accused stated that it is none of her business. Thus there was an altercation on the night of the incident and on the next day morning the dead body of the deceased was found in the well and the medical evidence is corroborating the murder. Ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased. It is clear case of homicide and the persons who are responsible to the homicide are the accused and accused alone, more so A-1 being the husband of the deceased is responsible. At the time of the inquest also the cause of the death is clearly mentioned and injuries found on the dead body of the deceased were also mentioned. Thus the contents of inquest report ex. P-5 and the autopsy report Ex. P-8 are strengthening the case of the prosecution that the deceased was subjected to ill- treatment in the house of A-1 and ultimately she was killed by using force on her. All the circumstances are pointing out towards A-1 and A-1 cannot escape the liability and it is clear case of dowry death and a-1 and A-1 alone is responsible for the death of the deceased. Since there is no specific evidence about the part played by the other accused and except making bald allegations that they are also demanding for dowry in the shape of landed property, there is nothing on record. Therefore, they are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, A-2, A-4 to A-6 and A-9 are entitled for benefit of doubt. Since there is no specific evidence about the part played by the other accused and except making bald allegations that they are also demanding for dowry in the shape of landed property, there is nothing on record. Therefore, they are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, A-2, A-4 to A-6 and A-9 are entitled for benefit of doubt. With regard to charge under Section 201 ipc, the prosecution tried to establish the case through P. Ws. 3 and 4. But they did not support the case of the prosecution. But the fact is that the deceased is inmate in the house of A-1 and after the incident occurred in the house of A-1, one should expect the dead body could be lying on the house of a-1, but the dead body was taken to the well of P. W. 5. Therefore, criminal intention of a-1 is established to cause disappearance of the dead body. Therefore, A-1 is also liable for punishment under Section 201 IPC. In the result, the sentence and conviction imposed on A-1 for the offence under sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 IPC is confirmed. The convictions and sentence imposed against A-2, A-4 to A-6 and A-9 are set aside. Their bail bonds are ordered to be cancelled and if any fine amount is paid by them, the same is directed to be refunded to them. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.