JUDGMENT : 1. The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 48 of 1998 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, is the appellant herein and he prefers this appeal, questioning the conviction and sentence of Eight years Rigorous Imprisonment and also fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand), imposed by the learned Sessions Judge for an offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:— P.W. 1 is the father, P.W. 2 is the mother, P.W. 3 is the grandmother, P.W. 4 is the uncle and P.W. 6 is the sister of the deceased. The marriage of deceased was performed with the accused/appellant on 5th of March, 1995 at Tirupathi and at the time of marriage, P.W. 1 agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards dowry in the month of July, after realizing the prize amount due from a Chit. The accused agreed for it and married the deceased. It is alleged that P.W. 1 was ready to pay the amount, but the deceased asked him not to pay the said amount to the accused/appellant, as he was addicted to gambling and was quarrelling with her. After consulting the accused and also the deceased, P.W. 1 put the said amount of Rs. 20,000/- in their joint account in Andhra Bank, Krishnalanka branch. It is the further case of prosecution that inspite of the said deposit, the accused was quarreling with the deceased and she left the house of the accused within three months after the marriage. The accused, along with his family members, came for mediation and the elders, after admonishing the accused, asked him to look after the deceased well. P.W. 1 also advised the deceased that such problems would be there in early marital life. P.W. 7, the mediator, also advised the accused to stay in the house of P.W. 1 for four days and then the deceased would be sent with him. The accused and deceased remained in the house of P.W. 1 on 26-5-1996 and 27-5-1996. On the night of 27-5-1996, both of them went to a movie. On the morning of 28-5-1996, P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to Seethanagaram to attend a marriage. While they were at the marriage, P.W. 5 came and informed about the deceased hanging herself after quarrelling with the accused. On the night of 27-5-1996, both of them went to a movie. On the morning of 28-5-1996, P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to Seethanagaram to attend a marriage. While they were at the marriage, P.W. 5 came and informed about the deceased hanging herself after quarrelling with the accused. P.W. 1 came back to his house and found the body of the deceased hanging. He grieved for her and then went to the Police Station and lodged a report with P.W. 11 the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered a case in. Crime No. 202 of 1996 for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. The said report is marked as Ex. P-14. Later, he proceeded to the scene of offence and posted a guard there. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, who was examined as P.W. 12, took up further investigation. He also proceeded to the scene of offence, examined P.Ws. 1 to 7 and recorded their statements. On the next day i.e. on 29-5-1996, he inspected the scene of offence, prepared Ex. P-10 scene of offence observation report and also prepared Ex. P-18 rough sketch of the scene. After completing the inquest and preparation of inquest report marked as Ex. P-9, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. P.W. 8 conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued Ex. P-8 postmortem report. According to the Doctor, the cause of death, was Asphyxia due to hanging. 3. According to P.W. 1, on 28-5-1996, when Police visited the scene of offence, they seized Exs.P-2 to P-61 letters written by accused to the father of the deceased and also to the deceased, and also Ex. P-7 death note of the deceased: After completion of investigation, P.W. 13 filed the charge sheet. 4. According to the learned counsel for appellant Sri C. Praveen Kumar, there is absolutely no evidence to connect the accused with a crime punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. Simply because a young girl, within seven years of her marriage committed suicide, the Police filed the charge sheet as if the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C., and the Court below drawing at presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act, found the accused guilty of the said offence. 5. 5. It is his further contention that the evidence of prosecution witnesses does not establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. and he has drawn my attention to the letters addressed by the accused to P.W. 1 and the suicide note, marked as Exs.P-2 to P-7. According to him, from the contents of the said letters, coupled with the suicide note, it cannot be inferred that the said suicide was solely on account of harassment for dowry. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 clearly establishes that there is harassment for dowry on account of which only, the deceased committed suicide on 28-5-1996. According to him, even the contents of letters marked as Exs.P-2 to P-6 clearly establish that there was mention about the alleged dowry on account of which only, the deceased committed suicide and the Court below has taken all these things into consideration in holding that the accused is responsible for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. 7. In the light of the said submissions made by both the Counsel, this Court looked into the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. From the said evidence, no doubt, it appears there was an agreement for payment of dowry of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid four months after the marriage and the said amount was deposited in a Bank as per the advise of the deceased and the said deposit was not to the liking of the accused. But, those witnesses are all none other than the close relatives of the deceased such as father, mother, grandmother, uncle and sister of the deceased. Of course, on that score their evidence cannot be brushed aside, but it should be seen as to whether the said evidence is trustworthy or not. In the normal circumstances, I would have accepted the said evidence in coming to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C., but the prosecution got exhibited the letters in Exs.P-2 to P-6 and from a perusal of the said letters, this Court is of the view that the said death was not on account of dowry harassment meted out at the instance of the accused. In fact, Section 304-B of I.P.C. can be pressed into service:— (1) Where the death of a woman is otherwise than under normal circumstances; (2) Within seven years of her marriage; and (3) If she is subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry. 8. No doubt, in the instant case, the first two requirements are satisfied, but from a perusal of the letters, this Court is of the view that the said un-natural death of the deceased, though it is within seven years of the marriage, is not for or in connection with demand for dowry. From the contents of the said letters, this Court is of the view that no doubt the appellant was beating the deceased, but the said beating was not for the purpose of bringing additional dowry, but as the deceased was not co-operating with him for leading sexual life. In fact, from the said letters, it can definitely be inferred that the appellant has not married the deceased for the purpose of dowry and he even stated in one letter that he was not bothered about the dowry amount, which she brings. 9. No doubt, there is harassment, but the said harassment cannot be said to be for getting dowry. Even in the suicide note marked as Ex. P-7, the deceased has not stated anything about the alleged dowry harassment. No doubt, there are no cordial terms between the couple and on account of frustration, the deceased committed suicide, but it cannot be said that the said suicide was on account of the harassment for dowry. Hence, this Court is of the view that the judgment of the Court below, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. is liable to be set aside. 10. Appeal is accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the said charge. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Appellant is entitled for refund of fine amount, if any, paid.