JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice G.V.Seethapathy) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.06.2006 in SC No.360 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Khammam, wherein, the appellant-accused was found guilty of the offences under Section 302 IPC and 498-A IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under section 302 IPC and also convicted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-accused and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the records. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The accused married the deceased Lalitha, 6th daughter of the complainant- Kotha Kotaiah (PW.1), about seven years prior to the offence and that at the time of the marriage, the complainant gave dowry to the accused and since few months after the marriage, the accused started demanding the deceased to dispose of the land given to her at the time of the marriage and bring the sale proceeds. The matter was pacified with the intervention of the elders. However, the accused continued the harassment of the deceased suspecting her chastity. Again the matter was placed before the elders to settle the dispute. The accused shifted the residence to Hyderabad and there, he developed illicit intimacy with another woman, and continued harassing the deceased. Again there was a panchayat by elders and the accused was admonished. But the accused did not change his attitude. In the panchayat it was decided to dissolve the marriage by divorce and the accused was asked to pay Rs.70,000/- to the deceased. The accused agreed for the same, but did not pay the amount. The deceased was living at her parents' house. The accused convinced the deceased and the complainant that he would look after the deceased properly and brought her back to his house. He however, continued the harassment and cruelty and again sent her back to her parents' house asking her to get treatment for her ailment. On 08.01.2004 the accused called his wife-deceased on phone and the deceased returned to the house of the accused on the same day. He however, continued the harassment and cruelty and again sent her back to her parents' house asking her to get treatment for her ailment. On 08.01.2004 the accused called his wife-deceased on phone and the deceased returned to the house of the accused on the same day. On that night at about 9.30 p.m. the accused returned home, found the deceased sleeping on a cot and made up his mind to do away with her life and caused her to death by smothering. Later, he went to the house of Puranam Srinivasa Sarma (PW.9) and took away his scooter with intent to disappear from the village. While driving rashly, he dashed against Chevula Veeramallu (PW.6) and caused injuries to him and he also sustained injuries. Muthineni Radhamma (PW.7) and Raghupathi (PW.8) who were coming along with Veeramallu, informed Srinivasa Sharma about the incident. The said Srinivasa Sharma rang up to Mallela Ravichandra (LW.13) and requested him to inform Lalitha, wife of the accused about the incident. The injured Veeramallu and the accused were shifted to hospital, from where the accused absconded. Mallela Ravichandra conveyed the message to M.Koteswara Rao (PW.5), who in turn visited the house of the accused, knocked the door, but did not get any response. Then with the assistance of Chava Sarojini (PW.4) and some other neighbours, he verified and found Lalitha dead. On being informed, the complainant and others came to the scene of offence at Kakarla village. On 09.01.2004 at 1 p.m. the complainant gave a report at Julurpad PS and the police registered a case in Cr.No.4/2004 under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC. During the course of investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the same in the presence of the mediators and gave requisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Julurpad to conduct inquest over the dead body and later sent the dead body for post mortem examination. The accused made an extra judicial confession of the offence in the presence of Chava Satyam (PW.10) and Challagonda Venkateswarlu (PW.12), who in turn produced the accused before the police. The accused was arrested and sent for remand. A team of doctors conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, preserved viscera and sent the same to Forensic Science Laboratory (for short 'FSL') for analysis and report. The accused was arrested and sent for remand. A team of doctors conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, preserved viscera and sent the same to Forensic Science Laboratory (for short 'FSL') for analysis and report. On receipt of the FSL report, the Medical Officers issued post-mortem report opining that the cause of death was due to asphyxia consequent to smothering. After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused. 4. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC in PRC No.165 of 2005 and later committed the accused to the Court of Sessions, Khammam, and the case was numbered as SC No.360 of 2005. 5. The accused denied the offences under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC and pleaded not guilty. In support of their case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 17 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.26. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. Ex.D.1 portion of statement of PW.2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was marked. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Sessions Judge, relying upon the testimonies of PWs.1 to 3, 11, 12 and the medical evidence of PW.17 and the circumstantial evidence on record, held that the accused was harassing the deceased mentally and physically, for some reason or other, and on the fateful night, committed murder of the deceased by smothering. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC and convicted him for the same and imposed sentence as stated supra. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that there is no direct evidence establishing the involvement of the appellant/accused in the alleged offences and the entire prosecution case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, but the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances that invariably point to the guilt of the accused. He would further contend that the medical evidence on record, does not establish the homicidal nature of death. He would further contend that the only circumstance relied upon by the prosecution, namely, the alleged extra judicial confession of the accused could not be established as PW.12 and PW.13 panch witnesses, before whom, the accused is said to have made extra judicial confession have not supported the prosecution case. He would further contend that the only circumstance relied upon by the prosecution, namely, the alleged extra judicial confession of the accused could not be established as PW.12 and PW.13 panch witnesses, before whom, the accused is said to have made extra judicial confession have not supported the prosecution case. Even otherwise, it is a weak piece of evidence that cannot be relied upon without any corroboration. The trial Court erred in shifting the burden on to the accused and coming to a conclusion that the accused failed to show that he was not at the house on the date of the incident. It is also contended that the trial Court erred in placing reliance on the highly interested and discrepant testimony of PWs.1 to 3, who are closely related to the deceased and there is no evidence that would satisfy the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand would contend that notwithstanding the fact that PWs.4 to 10 turned hostile, the circumstantial evidence available on record is sufficient to warrant conviction of the accused for the alleged offences and the conviction recorded by the trial Court is not liable to be interfered with. 10. The point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to sustain conviction of the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge? 11. POINT: The accused is the husband of the deceased Lalitha, their marriage having taken place about seven years prior to the date of occurrence. The deceased is the sixth daughter of PW.1, who is resident of Palvoncha. The accused and the deceased were residing at Kakarla village and they gave birth to a daughter, who was aged six years by the date of occurrence. According to the prosecution, at the time of the marriage, PW.1 gave Rs.70,000/- by way of dowry to the accused and five or six months after the marriage, the accused started ill- treating the deceased demanding additional dowry, having become addicted to vices. It is further alleged that after some time the accused shifted his residence to Hyderabad on account of job and continued to harass the deceased physically and mentally and he also suspected the fidelity of the deceased and was beating her often. It is further alleged that after some time the accused shifted his residence to Hyderabad on account of job and continued to harass the deceased physically and mentally and he also suspected the fidelity of the deceased and was beating her often. According to PW.1, he sent his son PW.3-Nageswara Rao to Hyderabad and the deceased complained that the accused was beating her and when PW.3 questioned the accused, he was also beaten. The deceased was brought to the parents' house at Palvoncha and subsequently with the intervention of elders, she was sent back to the house of the accused, but, however, the harassment was continued by the accused. 12. According to PW.1, about 10 or 15 days prior to the incident, the deceased was sent to his house by the accused for taking treatment, as she was suffering from fever and PW.1 arranged for treatment and the deceased was sent back to her house on 08.01.204 and on the same night at about 1 a.m., they received message about the death of the deceased through one Chava Satyam-PW.10. Thereafter, PW.1 and his wife went to Kakarla village and found the dead body of the deceased. PW.1 alleges that the accused killed the deceased by strangulation. PW.1 deposed that after the arrival of his people, he gave report Ex.P.1 to the police. 13. In Ex.P.1, it is stated that PW.10 informed him on the phone that the accused killed the deceased by strangulation. In the evidence PW.1 stated that he found the bones of the neck were broken, but Ex.P.1 is silent about the same. In Ex.P.1 it is stated that on enquiry, PW.1 came to know that the accused killed the deceased by squeezing the throat and escaped. It is significant to note that either in Ex.P.1 or in the evidence, PW.1 has not stated as to the proximate cause or motive that led to the alleged offence. In Ex.P.1, what all PW.1 stated is that the accused used to harass and ill-treat the deceased regarding dowry and sent her to her parents' house on two or three occasions and after mediation by elders, she was sent back to the accused. In Ex.P.1, what all PW.1 stated is that the accused used to harass and ill-treat the deceased regarding dowry and sent her to her parents' house on two or three occasions and after mediation by elders, she was sent back to the accused. It is further stated in Ex.P.1 that the accused suspecting the fidelity of the deceased was beating the deceased in drunken state and two days prior to the death, the accused sent the deceased to her parents house at Palvoncha for treatment and PW.1 gave some money to the deceased for the purpose of treatment and sent her back to Kakarla on the afternoon of 08.01.2004 and on the same night, he received message at about 1 p.m. about the death of the deceased. The evidence of PW.1 and the complaint Ex.P.1 are therefore silent as to what transpired between the accused and the deceased from the time the deceased reached the house of the accused on the afternoon of 08.01.2004 and till her death in the night. There is absolutely no evidence on record either of the neighbours or others as to whether there was any quarrel or incident between the accused and the deceased during that period of few hours prior to the occurrence. 14. According to PW.1, he received information about the death of the deceased at 1 a.m. and himself and his wife went to Kakarla at 6 a.m. As seen from Ex.P.1, report was given to the police at l p.m. on 09.01.2004. When according to PW.1, he suspected that the accused committed murder of the deceased by squeezing her neck, there is no reason as to why the report was not given to the police immediately after reaching Kakarla and on seeing the dead body of the deceased. As seen from Ex.P.19 FIR, the distance between the place of occurrence in Kakarla village and the police station at Julurpad is only 8 KMs. The evidence of PW.1 that he gave report Ex.P.1 only after arrival of his people indicates that giving of a complaint Ex.P.1 was not spontaneous act on the part of PW.1, but was result of deliberations with his people and in that context, the delay in giving report Ex.P.1 assumes significance. 15. Even according to PW.1, he reached Kakarla only after receiving the information from PW.10. 15. Even according to PW.1, he reached Kakarla only after receiving the information from PW.10. In Ex.P.1, it is further stated that PW.10 informed PW.1 that the deceased was killed by the accused. PW.10-Chava Satyam, however, turned hostile to the prosecution by deposing that he does not even know PW.1 and his wife and he never held any panchayat between the accused and the deceased and to his knowledge, there were no disputes between them and he does not know what happened on the night of 08.01.2004. He further deposed that he did not observe any injuries on the dead body of the deceased and he opined that the death of the deceased was natural. His evidence is silent about giving any information to PW.1 about the death of the deceased or that the accused was responsible for the same. PW.2, who is another daughter of PW.1, deposed that on that night PW.1 telephoned and informed her about the death of the deceased and thereafter she went to the house of the accused and saw the dead body. Similarly, PW.3, who is the son of PW.1, also reached the scene of offence at 10 a.m. on the next day after knowing the death of the deceased from PW.1. PW.4, who is the tenant of the accused since six or seven months prior to the death of the deceased also turned hostile to the prosecution by deposing that the accused and the deceased were living happily and to her knowledge, there were no disputes between them. PW.5, who is a neighbour of the accused at Kakarla, also did not support the prosecution and deposed that to his knowledge, there were no disputes between the deceased and the accused. 16. Thus, apart from the fact that there is no direct evidence of any witnesses as to the occurrence, there is also no evidence as to the circumstances that existed prior to the occurrence and the proximate cause of incident between the accused and the deceased since her arrival in the afternoon, till her death in the night. The evidence on record also does not establish the presence of the accused at the house during the said period. In the absence of any such evidence, the prosecution seeks to rely upon certain circumstances, which are said to have existed subsequent to the death of the deceased. 17. The evidence on record also does not establish the presence of the accused at the house during the said period. In the absence of any such evidence, the prosecution seeks to rely upon certain circumstances, which are said to have existed subsequent to the death of the deceased. 17. According to the prosecution, after the incident the accused went to the house of PW.9 and took his scooter with an intention to disappear from the village and while driving the scooter in a rash and hurried manner, he dashed against PW.6, who was returning to the village along with PWs.7 and 8 and caused injuries to PW.6 and himself. It is further alleged that PWs.7 and 8 went to PW.9 and informed about the accident and PW.9 rang up to Mallela Ravichandra-LW.13 and requested him to inform the deceased about the accident. LW-13 M.Ravichandra conveyed the message to PW.5, who in turn visited the house of the accused, knocked the doors, but did not get any response and with the assistance of PW.4 and neighbours, he opened the door and found the deceased dead. PWs.6, 7,8 and 9 have all turned hostile to the prosecution and did not support the above version. LW-13 Mallela Ravichandra, who is said to have conveyed the message regarding the accident to PW.5 with a request to visit the house of the deceased and inform her about the accident, was not examined, but was given up by the prosecution. PW.5, who is said to have gone to the house of the deceased to convey the information regarding the scooter accident, and found her dead, also turned hostile to the prosecution and deposed that he came to know about the death of the deceased only on the next day morning and he did not find any injuries on the deceased. PW.5, who is said to have gone to the house of the deceased to convey the information regarding the scooter accident, and found her dead, also turned hostile to the prosecution and deposed that he came to know about the death of the deceased only on the next day morning and he did not find any injuries on the deceased. Thus, the chain of circumstances that are said to have taken place immediately after the occurrence on that night, namely, that the accused went to PW.9 and took his scooter and in a bid to escape from the village, drove the same in a rash and hurried manner and caused an accident resulting in injuries to himself and PW.6 and that PWs.7 and 8 witnessed the same and informed PW.9, who in turn conveyed the message to LW-13 Mallela Ravinchandra and LW.13 asked PW.5 to inform the deceased about the accident and PW.5 visited the house of the deceased and found her dead, have not been established at all. Thus the alleged conduct of the accused in trying to disappear from the village on that night itself immediately after the occurrence remains unsubstantiated. 18. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that on 31.01.2004, the accused made an extra judicial confession of the offence before Pws.10 and 12 and they produced the accused before the police, whereupon, he was arrested. According to PW.16, PW.10 and 12 brought the accused before him at 7 a.m. on 31.1.2004 stating that the accused made extra judicial confession before them and PW.16 arrested the accused. Admittedly, there is no panchanama, evidencing the alleged confession by the accused before Pws.10 and 12. PW.10 turned hostile to the prosecution by deposing that the accused never confessed the offence before him and he did not surrender the accused before the police. Similarly, PW.12 also did not support the prosecution case. The alleged confession of the accused before PWs.10 and 12 also remains totally unsubstantiated. Thus the prosecution miserably failed to establish any conduct on the part of the accused either before or after the occurrence that would connect the accused with the death of the deceased. There is again nothing on record to show that the accused was present at the time and place of occurrence. Thus the prosecution miserably failed to establish any conduct on the part of the accused either before or after the occurrence that would connect the accused with the death of the deceased. There is again nothing on record to show that the accused was present at the time and place of occurrence. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused was 'last seen' in the company of the deceased. In the absence of any such evidence, the single circumstance that the death of the deceased occurred at the house of the accused would not by itself be sufficient to base a conviction thereon. 19. In 'C.Chenga Reddy vs. State of A.P.,1', the apex Court held as follows: "In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence." 20. In 'Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of A.P., & others2', the Apex Court laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: 1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; 2. Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; 3. The circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and 4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis that that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence." 21. In 'State of UP vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava3', the apex Court held that 'great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted'. In 'State of UP vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava3', the apex Court held that 'great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted'. It was also held that 'the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilty'. 22. In 'Dasari Siva Prasad Reddy vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,4', this Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment reversing judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court, but the apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the verdict of acquittal given by the trial Court. In the above case also, there was no immediate motive that prompted the accused to kill his wife and the accused set up plea of alibi. The High Court while affirming the finding of the trial Court that the plea of alibi was not well substantiated, however, differed with the findings of the trial Court on the aspect of 'last seen' and adverted to the post-crime conduct of the appellant coupled with the false plea of alibi, and came to the conclusion that the accused must have committed the murder. The testimony of PW.4 in the above case that he saw the accused entering the house at about 8.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence and he also observed some quarrel going on between the husband and wife beyond 10 p.m. and therefore, he saw the accused and the deceased together shortly before the occurrence was found to be unreliable, as admittedly, his house was situate four or five houses away from the house of the accused. 23. In the present case, apart from the fact that no neighbour has testified that he has last seen the accused and the deceased in the house, even the tenant-PW.4 also did not support the prosecution case and in fact in the cross-examination she deposed that on that night, the accused was not in the house and he returned home only on the next morning at 9 or 10 a.m. and on that night the deceased and her daughter alone were in the house. In the above case it was held that 'if the evidence of PW.4 was excluded, there was no evidence to establish the presence of the accused in the house on the crucial night and the fact that the accused could not establish by cogent evidence that on that night he remained at the house of his parents in another village does not necessarily lead an inference that the accused must have remained at his house on that night'. 24. In the present case, the accused has stated during the course of examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. that one day prior to the death of the deceased, he left the village and after receiving telephonic message, he returned on the next day of the death. No doubt, the accused did not lead any evidence in proof of the said plea of alibi. The trial Court has found that the accused has set up a false plea of alibi to get over from the case. The fact that the accused failed to lead any evidence and establish the plea of alibi does not lead to any inference that he was involved in the offence. The burden does not shift on to the accused and still remains on the prosecution to establish the presence and participation of the accused in the offence notwithstanding the fact that the plea of alibi put forward by the accused is found to be false. 25. In the above case, it was also held that "a strong suspicion, no doubt, exists against the accused, but such suspicion cannot be the basis of conviction, going by the standard of proof required in a criminal case. The distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' shall be fully covered by reliable evidence adduced by the prosecution, but that has not been done in the instant case". 26. In the present case also, the fact that the death occurred in the house of the accused may give rise to a suspicion against the accused, which PW.1 expressed in his complaint Ex.P.1, but however strong the suspicion may be, it cannot constitute the basis for conviction. 27. 26. In the present case also, the fact that the death occurred in the house of the accused may give rise to a suspicion against the accused, which PW.1 expressed in his complaint Ex.P.1, but however strong the suspicion may be, it cannot constitute the basis for conviction. 27. In the above case, the Apex Court further found that 'the conduct of the accused contacting PW.3 in the morning and bringing him to his house and the circumstance that in the normal course, the accused is expected to be at his house in the night do not give rise to any irresistible inference that the accused remained in the house on the previous night and the accused alone must have been responsible for the murder'. It was further held that 'at best, it can be said that the view taken by the trial court is not the only possible view, but, that is not enough to reverse the acquittal.' 28. In the present case, there is no evidence even of any post-crime conduct on the part of the accused showing his presence at the scene of offence on that night. The single inferential circumstance that in the normal course, the accused was expected to be at his house in the night does not lead to any conclusion that the accused, in fact remained in the house and he alone must have been responsible for the offence. 29. In a recent decision in 'Ravindra Reddy vs. Shaik Khader Masthan5' the apex Court held as follows: "It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances". 30. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances". 30. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above decisions, any amount of suspicion would not and cannot take the place of proof and the burden squarely lies on the prosecution to establish by positive evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, the presence of the accused at the time and place of occurrence and his participation therein. There being, admittedly, no direct evidence to the occurrence and the circumstantial evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution not coming through in view of the material witnesses pertaining to the same turning hostile and not supporting the prosecution, it must be held that the prosecution failed to establish the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence under Section 302 IPC. 31. Coming to the medical evidence, the prosecution seeks to rely upon the testimony of PW.17 and Exs.P.21 to 26. The post-mortem examination is said to have been conducted by a team of two doctors, comprising PW.17-Dr. Vandhana Ushasri and LW.23 Dr.S.Girija, but the second doctor LW.23 is not examined. PW.17 testified that they preserved liver, kidney, heart and uterus to be sent to FSL and Department of Forensic Medicines and issued Ex.P.26 P.M.E. reserving their opinion as to cause of death. It is in the evidence of PW.16-Circle Inspector of Police that he sent viscera of the deceased to RFSL, Warangal and heart and uterus of the deceased to Siddhartha Medical College, Vijayawada and received Ex.P.21 report from RFSL, Warangal to the effect that no poison was found in viscera. He thereupon sent a questionnaire Ex.P.23 to the doctors, who conducted post mortem examination and the doctors issued Ex.P.24 answers stating that the deceased died due to asphyxia consequent to smothering. PW.17 deposed that basing on Exs.P.21 and 22 and PME observation, herself and Dr.S.Girija issued Ex.P.25 final opinion requesting PW.16 to forward PME report, FSL report, Expert opinion, CD file along with photographs to Forensic Medicine Expert so as to give the opinion regarding probable cause of death of the deceased. PW.17 deposed that basing on Exs.P.21 and 22 and PME observation, herself and Dr.S.Girija issued Ex.P.25 final opinion requesting PW.16 to forward PME report, FSL report, Expert opinion, CD file along with photographs to Forensic Medicine Expert so as to give the opinion regarding probable cause of death of the deceased. She further testified that thereafter, PW.16 sent Ex.P.23 questionnaire and the same was answered under Ex.P.24 stating that the external findings of cyanosis bluish discolouration of face and neck, sub conjuctival hemorrhage, cyanosis of lips and internal findings of congestion of various organs is suggestive of death due to asphyxia. The post-mortem was conducted on 09.01.2004 from 3.30 to 5.30 P.M. by PW.17 and Dr.S.Girija. In Ex.P.26, it is stated that the opinion as to the cause of death was reserved pending report from the Director of FSL, Hyderabad. The opinion in Ex.P.21 regarding the examination of the viscera was issued on 12.05.2004 by the FSL, Hyderabad. The opinion Ex.P.22 regarding the heart and uterus was issued by the Department of Forensic Medicine, Siddartha Medical College, Vijayawada on 31.03.2004. For almost four months, the Investigating Officer did not take any steps to obtain final opinion from PW.17 regarding the cause of death. PW.16 addressed a letter Ex.P.23 on 05.12.2004 to PW.17 serving a questionnaire and seeking answers. On 30.09.2004 PW.17 and Dr. S.Girija appear to have issued final opinion Ex.P.25 stating that they did not find any external or internal evidence of throttling or pressure over neck of throttling, but the post-mortem revealed some signs of asphyxia and they are unable to come to any definite conclusion regarding the method of application of force if any and the exact cause of death. They therefore requested the Investigating Officer to forward post mortem report, FSL report, Expert opinion, and C. D. file along with photographs to Forensic Medicine Expert, so as to give an opinion regarding probable cause of death. The Investigating Officer did not seek opinion of the Forensic Medicine Expert by sending necessary materials as advised by PW.17 and Dr. S.Girija in Ex.P.25. He kept quiet for another 21/2 months and leisurely addressed a letter Ex.P.23 on 05.12.2004 again to PW.17 proposing two questions seeking answers for them. The first question raised in Ex.P.23 is, whether the findings i.e., lacerations along with signs of asphyxia in agreement with the possibility of smothering? S.Girija in Ex.P.25. He kept quiet for another 21/2 months and leisurely addressed a letter Ex.P.23 on 05.12.2004 again to PW.17 proposing two questions seeking answers for them. The first question raised in Ex.P.23 is, whether the findings i.e., lacerations along with signs of asphyxia in agreement with the possibility of smothering? The second question was, whether possibility of smothering was ruled out? In Ex.P.23 the Investigating Officer requested the doctors to give final opinion regarding probable cause of death. In reply to Ex.P.23, PW.17 and Dr.S.Girija sent a reply Ex.P.24 dated 08.12.2004 stating that the probable cause of death would be due to asphyxia consequent to smothering. PW.17 admitted in the cross-examination that by the date of Ex.P.25 dated 30.9.2004, she was having PME observations, inquest panchanama, expert report, but even then, they were unable to come to any definite conclusion regarding the method of application of force if any and the exact cause of death. Regarding the bite marks on the lower lip, PW.17 stated that they are possible with self-infliction. According to PW.17 before giving Ex.P.24 final opinion as to the cause of death, herself and Dr.S.Girija, consulted expert of Forensic Medicine, but the same is not mentioned in Ex.P.24. Though PW.17 denied the suggestion that at the request of the Investigating Officer, she gave Ex.P.24 final opinion to suit his case, the fact remains that the Investigating Officer, for the reasons best known to him, has not chosen to seek opinion of the Forensic Expert, though suggested by PW.17 in Ex.P.25 and more than two months later, PW.17 was made to give a final opinion based on the self same material. Admittedly, PW.17 was not sure of the cause of death on the basis of the said material and therefore, she advised the Investigating Officer to seek opinion of the Forensic Expert by sending those documents. But PW.17 gave final opinion on the basis of the self -same material without there being, any opinion of the Forensic Expert. The irresistible inference is that the final opinion as to the probable cause of death given by PW.17 under Ex.P.24 is a product of doubtful mind, but not a conclusion reached on clear and unambiguous thinking unfettered by any doubt. The irresistible inference is that the final opinion as to the probable cause of death given by PW.17 under Ex.P.24 is a product of doubtful mind, but not a conclusion reached on clear and unambiguous thinking unfettered by any doubt. The said opinion as to the cause of death of the deceased given by PW.17 under Ex.P.24, cannot therefore, be taken as a reliable piece of evidence, establishing the cause of death of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt. 32. PW.16 admitted that he received Ex.P.24 on 08.12.2004 and till then he did not know the cause of death. The accused was arrested on 31.01.2004. By that date, PW.16, admittedly, had no knowledge of cause of death. There is absolutely no reason as to why PW.16 has not chosen to seek the opinion of the Forensic Expert as advised by PW.17 and no explanation is forthcoming in that regard. Though the reports were ready even by 12.05.2004, it took almost another seven months for PW.16 to obtain final opinion from PW.17 based on the self same material, which was available, even by 12.05.2004. The failure of PW.16 in abiding by the advise of PW.17 to obtain the opinion of the Forensic Expert is a serious lapse in the investigation, as the same had an adverse bearing and impact over establishing the cause of death of the deceased. No doubt, the accused during the course of examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that the deceased died of heart problem and the same was found to be false, in view of the report Ex.P.22, which showed the heart was normal. That would not, however, absolve the prosecution of the burden of proving the cause of death of the deceased in their bid to show that the death was homicidal. Thus, there is no conclusive evidence on record establishing that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to smothering. Even otherwise, assuming that the cause of death was asphyxia due to smothering as stated by PW.17 without the aid of any report from the Forensic Expert, still, there is no legally acceptable evidence on record connecting the accused with the death of the deceased. 33. Under those circumstances, on reappraisal of the evidence on record, it must be held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the accused at the time and place of offence and his participation therein. 33. Under those circumstances, on reappraisal of the evidence on record, it must be held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the accused at the time and place of offence and his participation therein. The prosecution having failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction of the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the sentence imposed on him by trial Court for the same, are held to be unsustainable and their they are accordingly set aside. 34. However, insofar as the charge under section 498-A IPC is concerned, the testimony of PW.1-father of the deceased, PW.2-sister of the deceased and PW.3-brother of the deceased would establish that at the time of the marriage Rs.70,000/- was given to the accused by way of dowry and five or six months after the marriage, the accused started harassment and ill-treating the deceased demanding additional dowry, he having got addicted to vices and he was beating the deceased. Their evidence also shows that on two or three occasions, the deceased was sent out by the accused to her parents' house and with the intervention of the elders, she was sent back to the house of the accused. No doubt, PW.10 one of the elders, did not support the prosecution case, but PW.11 the other mediator testified that the accused was subjecting the deceased to cruelty demanding her to bring the amount by selling lands and one year prior to the death of the deceased, a panchayat was held in the presence of himself and others and in the said panchayat, they admonished the accused and six months later, there was another panchayat, as the accused continued to harass the deceased and the accused was again admonished. It is also in his evidence that there was third panchayat three months later at Palvoncha. PW.11 is an independent witness and his testimony regarding the panchayats held by him and others and admonishing the accused for subjecting her to ill treatment and harassment, and demanding additional dowry, is not discredited in any manner. The evidence on record clearly established the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused recorded by the trial court for the said offence and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the trial Court for the said offence, are confirmed. The evidence on record clearly established the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused recorded by the trial court for the said offence and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the trial Court for the said offence, are confirmed. 35. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part setting aside the conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/- imposed by the trial Court for the said offence. But, however, the conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentence for rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the trial Court for the said offence are confirmed. The fine of Rs.100/- paid by the accused as part of the sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC, shall be refunded to him.