JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.C.BHANU) Accused No. 1 in S.C.No. 188 of 2003 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC, Ongole, filed the present appeal challenging his conviction under Section 304-B IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the prosecution case may be stated as follows: Originally, the Inspector of Police filed a charge sheet against five accused persons. The marriage of the deceased Alla Venkateswaramma was performed with A1 in the month of August 1998. At the time of marriage the parents of the deceased agreed to pay dowry of Rs. 40,000/- to A1 and accordingly they paid Rs. 30,000/- at the time of marriage. For about four or five months, they lived happily. Thereafter, differences took place between A1 and the deceased as the accused started harassing the deceased to get more dowry. PW-1, who is none other than the brother of the deceased, was also informed by the deceased that the accused were harassing her to bring additional dowry. On the date of incident, the deceased went to the well to fetch water. Then all the accused beat her and killed her. On coming to know about the incident the father of PW- 1 laid Ex.P-9 report. Basing on which, PW-13 registered a case under Section 302 IPC and sent FIRs to all concerned. PW-11 took up investigation and inspected the scene of offence in the presence of witnesses. At the scene of offence, incriminating materials were seized. Thereafter, he gave a requisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer. PW-10 conducted inquest on the dead body and thereafter the body was subjected to Postmortem examination. PW-9 conducted autopsy over the dead body and opined that the deceased died due to acute pressure on neck leading to Asphyxial death. The accused was arrested and after completion of investigation the police filed charge sheet against A1 to A5. A1 is the husband of the deceased. A2 is the mother of A1. A3 is the elder brother, A4 is the wife of A3 and A5 is the son of A3 and A4. The charge leveled against all the accused is that on 15.1.2002 at about 10.00 AM in their home at Madanuru they killed Alla Venkateswaramma, within seven years of her marriage. A2 is the mother of A1. A3 is the elder brother, A4 is the wife of A3 and A5 is the son of A3 and A4. The charge leveled against all the accused is that on 15.1.2002 at about 10.00 AM in their home at Madanuru they killed Alla Venkateswaramma, within seven years of her marriage. Before her death, all the accused subjected her to cruelty or harassing her either in connection with demand of additional dowry or otherwise and that thereby, they committed an offence under Section 304-B IPC. All the charges were read over and explained to them and they pleaded not guilty. On behalf of the prosecution PWs 1 to 13 were examined and Exs. P-1 to P-10 were marked. 3. On behalf of defence, none was examined but marked Exs D1 to D4 besides material objects M.Os. 1 to 7. The learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that A1 had killed the deceased and, in fact, hanged her to a beam of the house giving a colour that the deceased committed suicide and therefore, he is entitled for punishment. While giving benefit of doubt to A2 to A5 and after giving such a finding, A1 was convicted under Section 304-B IPC instead under Section 302 IPC. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant contended that there is absolutely no evidence with regard to the harassment of dowry and all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are very much interested in the success of the case. Therefore, their evidence against all the accused has to be disbelieved and the trial court having given benefit of doubt to A2 to A5 should have extended the same benefit to the appellant A1 also and that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 with regard to payment of dowry before death of the deceased has not been stated before the police. Therefore, if that is taken as an omission or an improvement, the appellant/accused is liable to be acquitted. Hence, prays the acquittal of the accused/appellant. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecution contended that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, was to the effect that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty for payment of dowry and that because PWs 1 to 3 did not pay the remaining amount of Rs. Hence, prays the acquittal of the accused/appellant. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecution contended that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, was to the effect that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty for payment of dowry and that because PWs 1 to 3 did not pay the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/-,which was agreed to be given towards dowry at the time of marriage, therefore, the deceased was subjected to harassment and unable to bear the said harassment the deceased committed suicide and Postmortem report would clearly go to show that it is a case of homicidal death but not suicidal death and hence, he prays dismissal of the appeal. 6. PW-7 is one of the mediator to the observation report of scene of offence. The police seized M.O-1, Wooden Stool, M.O.2, Sickle, M.Os 3 and 4 Coconut Rope and Coconut Rope piece, M.O.5 Cement block. The scene of occurrence is the house of A1 at Mudunur Village. Even the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 would go to show that when A1 called them to his house, they found the dead body of the deceased hanging on the wooden beam of the house of A1. There is no dispute about the scene of occurrence. PW-7 is also one of the inquest mediators, who opined that the deceased died due to strangulation. For asserting true cause of death, the dead body was subjected to for Postmortem examination. PW-9 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found no external injuries on the body of the deceased so also no ligature mark around the neck was visible due to putrefaction of the dead body. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory shows antemortem fracture of rigor cornu of Hyoid bone on left side with diffused contusion on surrounding Tissues of Hyoid bone on both sides. The doctor opined that the deceased died due to acute pressure on neck leading to Asphyxial death about 48 hours prior to postmortem examination. Ex. P-5 is the Postmortem certificate issued by him. Ex. P-6 is the expert opinion received and Ex.P-7 is the report of Forensic Science Laboratory. The evidence of PW-9 remained unchallenged. The doctor opined that the deceased died due to acute pressure on neck leading to Asphyxial death about 48 hours prior to postmortem examination. Ex. P-5 is the Postmortem certificate issued by him. Ex. P-6 is the expert opinion received and Ex.P-7 is the report of Forensic Science Laboratory. The evidence of PW-9 remained unchallenged. From the evidence of PW-9, it can be said that it not a case of suicide but it is a clear case of homicidal death because there was an acute pressure on the neck. 7. In spite of the said opinion of the doctor, police filed charge sheet under Section 304-B IPC and charges were also framed under Section 304-B IPC. The necessary ingredients for the charge under Section 304-B IPC are: (1) Whether the death of a woman is either by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances. (2) The death should have taken place within seven years after her marriage. (3) If it is shown that soon before the death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband or relative of the husband (4) Such harassment or cruelty should be in connection with any demand of dowry. 8. In so far as the first two ingredients are concerned, there is no dispute in view of the fact that the marriage of A1 with deceased Alla Venkateswaramma, took place in August 1998, where as the death had taken place on 15.1.2002 and the death is otherwise than under normal circumstances. Whether it is suicidal or homicidal, it makes no difference. 9. Now, the last two ingredients are concerned, the evidence of PW-1 would go to show that for about 4 or 5 months A1 and deceased lived happily and in the marriage they have agreed to give dowry of Rs. 40,000/- to A1 but actually paid Rs. 30,000/- and the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- has to be paid at a later point of time. His evidence further would go to show that two months after the marriage the accused beat her demanding to get more dowry. Therefore, from the evidence, it is clear that the deceased informed him nearly 3 1/2 years prior to her death. The said statement cannot be taken as a fact because that it was not soon before her death, but the fact remains from his evidence dowry of Rs. Therefore, from the evidence, it is clear that the deceased informed him nearly 3 1/2 years prior to her death. The said statement cannot be taken as a fact because that it was not soon before her death, but the fact remains from his evidence dowry of Rs. 40,000/- is agreed to be given but only Rs. 30,000/- was paid and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- has to be paid, therefore, to that extent only his evidence is taken into consideration. 10. PW-2 is a resident of Ulavapadu Village and that the deceased was the daughter of her younger sister. She also speaks that they agreed to give dowry of Rs. 40,000/- and just before the marriage the father of the deceased gave Rs. 30,000/- to the elder sister of A1 and he also agreed to give the balance of Rs. 10,000/- at the time of marriage or subsequently. When the father of the deceased could not pay the balance of Rs. 10,000/- then the sister of A1 told A1 not to agree for the marriage then she interfered and performed the marriage. She stated that four or five times after the marriage, the deceased and A1 came to his house and the deceased told him that the accused was demanding the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Then she advised the deceased to get the document written by Annapurnamma in respect of 20 cents, in favour of A1 and that thereafter if her parents are not able to provide the balance amount she would pay that amount of Rs. 10,000/-. For about 7 or 8 months thereafter the deceased came to her and asked to give balance amount of Rs. 10,000/-. She also stated that PW-1 and herself took a motor worth Rs. 10,000/- to the house of A1 but the deceased told that the motor does not worth about Rs. 10,000/-. In the cross examination, though it is elicited from the statement of PW-2 that they have agreed to pay Rs. 40,000/- and paid only Rs. 30,000/-to Annapurnamma and that for the balance of Rs. 10,000/- herself and PW-1 gave a motor worth Rs. 10,000/-. She has not stated so before the police when she was examined. 10,000/-. In the cross examination, though it is elicited from the statement of PW-2 that they have agreed to pay Rs. 40,000/- and paid only Rs. 30,000/-to Annapurnamma and that for the balance of Rs. 10,000/- herself and PW-1 gave a motor worth Rs. 10,000/-. She has not stated so before the police when she was examined. Since he is a close relative to the deceased, she could be the proper person to inform about the harassment meted out to the deceased by her husband and the relatives of the husband. The statement of PW-2 that the accused were demanding her to provide the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- and that seven or eight months after the deceased came to her house and asked her to give balance amount of Rs. 10,000/-, would clearly go to show that the deceased was subjected to harassment for the remaining dowry of Rs. 10,000/-. Nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of PW-2. PW-3 is a resident of Madanuru Village. The deceased Venkata Ramanamma was the daughter of her elder sister. She has stated that the deceased used to come to her house for every four or five days and informed that the accused was demanding to get balance amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Then she told her to inform the same to her elder brother. About 10 days thereafter, the deceased again came to her to inform that her brother brought the motor and Pump set and pipes worth Rs. 10,000/-. On the date of the incident the accused beat the deceased for not bringing the balance amount of dowry. Later A1 came to her house and informed her that the deceased died and asked her to inform the same to relatives. An omission is elicited with regard to the fact that the deceased used to come to her house for every four or five days and informed her that the accused was demanding to get the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/-. There is nothing unusual for the deceased to go to the house of PW-3 to inform about her grievances to her, particularly, with regard to the demand of remaining dowry of Rs. 10,000/-. 10,000/-. There is nothing unusual for the deceased to go to the house of PW-3 to inform about her grievances to her, particularly, with regard to the demand of remaining dowry of Rs. 10,000/-. The Investigating Officer admitted that PW-3 did not state before him that the deceased used to come to her house for every four or five days and informed that the accused were demanding her to get the balance dowry amount of Rs. 10,000/-. If that statement has not been stated to the police when she was examined under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C, certainly it is a material omission, which would affect the main fabric of the prosecution case. To know whether such a fact was stated to police or not we have perused the statement of PW-3 recorded by PW-12 under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. As a matter of fact, it is stated by PW-3 before police that the deceased informed her that all the accused were harassing to bring additional dowry of Rs. 10,000/- when such a fact has been stated when she was examined, by police without looking into the record, PW-12 simply stated that PW-3 did not state about that fact to him. We are conscious of the fact that the statements of witnesses recorded by the police during the course of investigation cannot be used for any other purpose except for contradicting the witness as provided for under Section 145 of Evidence Act. Only for the limited purpose of knowing whether it is an omission or not, we have perused the statement of PW-3 recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. It can be done so, by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to get substantial justice to the State and the accused but certainly not for taking the same as a evidence. Therefore, if that omission is not an omission in the strict sense, the evidence of PW-3 can be taken into consideration to that effect that on the date of death of the deceased at about 10 AM she came to know that the accused was beating the deceased for not bringing the amount of dowry and that on several occasions, the deceased went on informing her that the deceased was demanding to get balance amount of Rs. 10,000/-. 10,000/-. Therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of PW-3, who is a close relative of the deceased. No doubt mere relationship by itself is not a ground to reject the testimony of PW-3. The court has to appreciate the evidence of the relatives with care and circumspection; In view of the fact that she is residing in the same village where A1 was residing, there is every reason for the deceased to inform her grievance to PW-3. PW-3 has no grouse or enmity against the accused to speak false or something against them. Therefore, the evidence of PW-3 can be accepted. PWs 4 and 5 were examined by the prosecution to show that the accused in the first instance raised cries as "snake snake" and accused took them forcibly to the house and opened the door, then they found the dead body of the deceased hanging to the wooden beam of the house. Then they both lifted the body to the ground. Therefore, from their evidence it can be inferred that after the death of the deceased and in order to make it appear as suicide, the dead body was hanged. Their evidence is not of much helpful to the case of prosecution but the fact remains, the deceased died in the house of A1. PW-6 is also a resident of Madanuru Village and the deceased was her sister by courtesy. On the date of the death of the deceased, while he was passing on the road, A3 to A5 were raising cries and pushing the deceased at the well. Then he interfered and separated the deceased from A3 to A5. About one week or 10 days prior to the death, the deceased told him that all the accused are harassing her to get the balance dowry amount of Rs. 10,000/-. He admitted that the said fact has not been stated before the police. 11. Therefore, from the above evidence, it is clear that the amount of Rs. 40,000/- was agreed to be given at the time of marriage but only Rs. 30,000/- was given and the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- has to be given after the marriage. The said amount has not been paid by the father of the deceased. 11. Therefore, from the above evidence, it is clear that the amount of Rs. 40,000/- was agreed to be given at the time of marriage but only Rs. 30,000/- was given and the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- has to be given after the marriage. The said amount has not been paid by the father of the deceased. Therefore, from the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, it is clear that the accused were harassing the deceased in connection with demand of remaining balance of dowry of Rs. 10,000/- . The trial court acquitted A2 to A5. Admittedly, A3 to A5 are residing separately from A1. This fact has been admitted by PW-1 who is none other than the brother of the deceased, who stated that A3 to A5 reside separately since 25 years. Therefore, most likely the accused 3 to 5 were not harassing the deceased for dowry in view of the fact that they are residing separately since 25 years from A1. So also, there is no evidence showing that A2 was residing with A1 and that A2 was present in the house on the date of incident. Therefore, basing on the evidence, the trial court rightly acquitted A2 to A5 and the same benefit of doubt should not be extended to A1 appellant. In view of the fact that there is evidence to show that A1 and the deceased were residing together and there is a scope and possibility for A1 alone to harass the deceased for payment of remaining dowry of Rs. 10,000/-. It is settled law that part of statement of witness can be relied upon rejecting the remaining part, if the truth can be separated from the falsehood. Though PWs 1 to 3 implicated all the accused, but the circumstances would go to show that A2 to A5 were not residing with A1 and the deceased. Therefore, the question of harassing the deceased by A2 to A5 for the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- would not arise. Perhaps, this may be the reason why the trial court rightly found A1 guilty of the offence under Section 304-B IPC. Therefore, we have no reason to differ from the finding of the trial court that A1 has killed the deceased and hanged her body to beam in the house on 15.1.2002 by giving colour that the deceased committed suicide. Perhaps, this may be the reason why the trial court rightly found A1 guilty of the offence under Section 304-B IPC. Therefore, we have no reason to differ from the finding of the trial court that A1 has killed the deceased and hanged her body to beam in the house on 15.1.2002 by giving colour that the deceased committed suicide. The evidence of prosecution shows that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of additional dowry of Rs. 10,000/- by her husband. With regard to sentence, the trial court imposed maximum punishment under Section 304-B IPC, in view of the fact that the intention of the accused is so cruel which can be gathered from the circumstances of the case. It is not a case of suicide. To make it appear as a suicide, the dead body was hanged to the ceiling of the house and to give a colour of suicide, A1 also called PWs 4 and 5 to his house and opened the door. When it is not a case of suicide because there was lack of evidence for the offence under Section 302 IPC, considering the nature of the offence, we have no reason to interfere with the sentence also, particularly, in view of the opinion of the doctor that it is homicidal death. But there is no proof as such, to connect the accused with the said offence. Therefore, the finding arrived at by the trial court was confirmed with which the accused was charged with. 12. Before parting with the case, we have to observe that the Investigating Officer without refreshing his memory with regard to the material omission, admitted that PW-3 did not state before him that the deceased used to come to her house for every four or five days and informed her that the accused are demanding to get balance amount of Rs. 10,000/-. To ascertain that omission is correct or not, we have perused the original statement of Battula Seshamma recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police on 28.01 year nil, which shows as follows: 13. So from the above statement, it is clear that all the accused were harassing the deceased for the remaining balance amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Without verifying the statement recorded by him, PW-12 gave evidence that PW-3 did not state before him about that fact. So from the above statement, it is clear that all the accused were harassing the deceased for the remaining balance amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Without verifying the statement recorded by him, PW-12 gave evidence that PW-3 did not state before him about that fact. We have extracted the above paragraph in Telugu to know whether eliciting the omission is correct or not, invoking our jurisdiction conferred under Section 172(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to do substantial justice to the State and the accused. In case of a material omission, it merits consideration. 14. In case omission amounts to contradiction, which will go to the root of the matter, then such a contradiction would be destruction to the prosecution case. The Court, Investigating Officer, Public Prosecutor must ensure the proper and relevant omissions and contradictions if any have to be identified carefully and recorded. 15. Therefore, we are of the view that the Investigation and the Trial conducted by both by the Investigating Officer and the Public Prosecutor respectively are in a perfunctory manner. This type of attitude is coming to our notice quite frequently. In cases of grave offences, when the accused are to be tried, not like the present one, proper and reasonable care is to be taken by both the Public Prosecutor as well as the Investigating Officer. Because of this casual approach, there is every possibility that the accused would get entitlement of benefit of doubt resulting miscarriage of justice. 16. The situation has to be corrected by all concerned by way of taking appropriate steps and to avoid any public outcry. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the trial court.