Judgment :- V. Periya Karuppiah, J. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC to undergo life imprisonment, in S.C.No.67 of 2004, dated 28. 2005 by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kallakurichi. 2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that the deceased Dhanakodi was the wife of the appellant/accused; at the time of their marriage, a TVS-50 motor cycle was not gifted to him as already agreed before the conclusion of the marriage; the said Dhanakodi was suspected to have illegal intimacy with some other person; the said Dhanakodi had given a complaint against the accused and his family regarding dowry harassment; enraged upon all these activities of the said Dhanakodi, the accused, with an intention to cause the death of his wife, on 16. 2003 at about 10 p.m., mixed pesticide in the cool drink and administered the same to his wife, compelling her to drink the same, and thereby caused her death, and therefore, the accused is charged under Section 302 IPC. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case, as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, are as under: (a) According to the prosecution, Vadamalai, the appellant/accused, having got enraged over the activities of the deceased, wanted to do away her and accordingly, on 16. 2003 at about 10 p.m., he mixed pesticide (poison) with the cool drink and administered the same to the deceased Dhanakodi compulsorily. (b) It is seen that the deceased earlier gave a complaint to All Women Police Station regarding the dowry harassment of the appellant/accused under the guise of not gifting TVS-50 two-wheeler as agreed by the parents of the deceased earlier to their marriage. The case was compromised and they were pacified only previous week to the date of occurrence. (b) It is seen that the deceased earlier gave a complaint to All Women Police Station regarding the dowry harassment of the appellant/accused under the guise of not gifting TVS-50 two-wheeler as agreed by the parents of the deceased earlier to their marriage. The case was compromised and they were pacified only previous week to the date of occurrence. (c) P.W.1 is the father of the deceased, who adduced evidence to the effect that he gave in marriage his daughter, the deceased, with the accused, two and half years prior to the date of occurrence, with all "sreedhanas"; for a period of three months, they were running the family and subsequently, with difference of opinion, the accused tortured his daughter (deceased) which was complained by her to P.W.1; the Panchayatdars pacified both of them; when his daughter came for a Temple festival, he pacified and sent her to matrimonial home along with the wife of P.W.1, the mother of the deceased, who was examined as P.W.2. After three days, when the wife of P.W.1 was asked by the accused to sleep in some other house, the accused mixed pesticide with cool-drink and administered the same to her, and he murdered my daughter accordingly, which was known to him only next day to the date of occurrence, and subsequently, he rushed to the house of the accused along with relatives and complained the same to the Police Station, which is Ex.P-1. Earlier, on 6. 2003, on the basis of the complaint given by the deceased to the All Women Police Station, Kallakurichi, an enquiry was conducted, in which P.W.1 and P.W.2 endorsed the signature, which is Ex.P-3 (P.W.2s sign). P.W.1 saw a 7-Up cool drink bottle and a pesticide bottle in the place of occurrence. He did not notice actually the members who were present in the place of occurrence when P.W.1 went there. He stated that the accused was a Coolie by occupation. He did not know actually what had been stated in the complaint given by the deceased in the All Women Police Station. He admitted that a Panchayat was held. After the Panchayat, based on the fact that the accused wanted to divorce his daughter, a complaint was made in the All Women Police Station. He did not know actually what had been stated in the complaint given by the deceased in the All Women Police Station. He admitted that a Panchayat was held. After the Panchayat, based on the fact that the accused wanted to divorce his daughter, a complaint was made in the All Women Police Station. P.W.1 stated that it is not correct to state that the activity of the accused in the enquiry conducted at the All Women Police Station, was not good and he did not talk about divorce. Rather he admitted that he will not torture the daughter for getting TVS-50 vehicle. The accused was very much available in the place of occurrence when the occurrence took place and he was in station only. About ten people belong to P.W.1s place caught hold of the accused on the next day of the occurrence and he was only subsequently handed over to the Police Station. P.W.1 denied the fact that the deceased committed suicide. (d) The evidence of P.W.2, the mother of the deceased, is almost similar to the evidence of P.W.1. (e) P.W.3 is the paternal grandmother of the accused and the deceased is the maternal grand-daughter. On knowing the murder of the deceased, she fell down. P.W.3 stated that she does not know about the case. She denies the fact that because the deceased was her grand-son, she supports him. (f) P.W.4 is the maternal grandfather of the deceased and the accused is his grandson. He also adduced that he did not know about the case. His evidence is similar to the evidence of P.W.3. (g) P.Ws.5, 6 and 7 are the relatives of P.W.1. Their evidence is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 to a large extent. P.Ws.6 and 7 spoke about the enquiry conducted at the All Women Police Station, as also the Panchayat. They also spoke about the manner in which the deceased was done to death. (h) P.W.8 who is a Coolie, adduced evidence to the effect that he knows the accused and the deceased. He also corroborated the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses about the complaint/enquiry in the All Women Police Station. He informed about the incident of murder to the parents of the deceased and the accused. (i) P.W.9 is the Village Administrative Officer of Vadadorasanoor Village, where the occurrence took place. He also corroborated the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses about the complaint/enquiry in the All Women Police Station. He informed about the incident of murder to the parents of the deceased and the accused. (i) P.W.9 is the Village Administrative Officer of Vadadorasanoor Village, where the occurrence took place. He took all the required steps after the murder took place and reported the matter to the local Police Station. He also corroborated the manner in which the accused murdered the deceased. He further spoke about the Police enquiry and the confession statement of the accused and also the concealment of the articles by the accused in a place, namely bottles of pesticide and the cool drink, which were recovered through mahazar. He adduced that himself and his Assistant were signatories to the admitted portion of the confession of the accused when he was arrested. He spoke in detail about the manner in which he co-operated with the investigating officer in the case. (j) P.W.10 is one the residents of the village in which the accused and the deceased were residing. He was owning a petty-shop. He spoke about the purchase of cool drink by the deceased Dhanakodi. She did not return the bottle and subsequently he came to know that she was murdered. He adduced that the Police enquired him about the bottle recovered from the accused as to whether the bottle was given by him, for which, P.W.10 answered in the affirmative. He was treated as an hostile witness. (k) P.W.11 is the Doctor in Kallakurichi Government Hospital. He conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and issued Ex.P-8 post-mortem report. He detailed about the nature of the organs that were exposed during the death of the deceased. He opined that no weapon would have been used at the time of occurrence. He stated that a reddish-fluid emanating from the nose and the mouth. He stated in his final opinion after getting the chemical analyst report that a chemical substance was found in the internal organs of the deceased. He also opined that the deceased would have died of poisonous substance. (l) P.W.12 was the Grade-I Constable of the Police Station who assisted the investigating officer while conducting investigation of the murder case, namely Crime No.210 of 2003 and acted upon the instructions of the investigating officer. He prepared all the routine formalities for the murder case. He also opined that the deceased would have died of poisonous substance. (l) P.W.12 was the Grade-I Constable of the Police Station who assisted the investigating officer while conducting investigation of the murder case, namely Crime No.210 of 2003 and acted upon the instructions of the investigating officer. He prepared all the routine formalities for the murder case. He spoke about the procedure of conducting post-mortem by sending the requisition to the Doctor. He recovered the dress materials of the deceased under the mahazar, namely Exs.P-12 and the material objects, namely M.Os.3,4 and 5. The Inspector of Police recorded his confession. (m) P.W.13 is the pesticide shop owner owning shop on the Kallakurichi- Salem Main Road. He admitted that the accused bought pesticide from his shop. He also admitted that he has not given any receipt for the purchase of pesticide. (n) P.W.14 is the photographer, who took photographs of the place of occurrence and gave statement to the Police Officer. (o) P.W.15 is the Inspector of Police of All Women Police Station, Kallakurichi. She spoke about the enquiry that was conducted in the All Women Police Station, prior to the occurrence; the accused and the deceased were compromised about their misgivings; the confession of the accused in the All Women Police Station was marked as Ex.P-2; Ex.P-14 is the confession of the deceased in the All Women Police Station. P.W.15 stated that the deceased did not specify anything about the demand of TVS-50 motor vehicle by the accused in the said confession and this fact was spoken to by the deceased only at the time of Panchayat. P.W.15 stated that the accused scolded P.W.1, the father of the deceased, in the Panchayat that he shall give in marriage her daughter to somebody and he shall not live with his daughter without TVS-50 vehicle being gifted to him. P.W.15 clarified that the complaint Ex.P-2 was only the signature of P.W.1 made in the complaint and that the complaint given in the All Women Police Station given by the deceased was marked as Ex.P-27. (p) P.W.16 is the Head Clerk in the Kallakurichi Judicial Magistrate Court. He sent the material organs of the deceased to the Government Hospital upon the requisition under the orders of the learned Magistrate. He also sent other material objects like pesticide bottle, and the pesticide for chemical analysis upon requisition/orders. (p) P.W.16 is the Head Clerk in the Kallakurichi Judicial Magistrate Court. He sent the material organs of the deceased to the Government Hospital upon the requisition under the orders of the learned Magistrate. He also sent other material objects like pesticide bottle, and the pesticide for chemical analysis upon requisition/orders. (q) P.W.17 is the Inspector of Police of Thiagadhurugam Police Station at the time of the occurrence. He recorded the complaint of P.W.1 Kandan. He prepared Ex.P-21 FIR. On receipt of the message, he observed all the formalities; he prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and prepared the inquest report Ex.P-23. He also examined the prosecution witnesses. He took up investigation and recovered the material objects. He obtained confession of the accused and after completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 4. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-27 were filed and M.Os.1 to 7 were marked. 5. The case of the accused when he was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was one of total denial. 6. The trial Court, after analyzing the evidence available on record, concluded that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court ultimately convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment, as the aforesaid offence was made out through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. This is under challenge in this appeal filed by the appellant/accused. 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State (Police). 8(i). Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that the trial Court had wrongly come to the conclusion to convict the accused under Section 302 IPC, to which, the prosecution had not proved the ingredients of the charge under Section 302 IPC, but had come to a conclusion of punishing the accused for murdering the deceased, whereas, the deceased, the wife of the appellant/accused had only committed suicide. (ii) He would further submit that the prosecution had examined the interested witnesses in support its case, namely the father of the deceased as P.W.1, the mother of the deceased as P.W.2, the grandmother of the deceased as P.W.3 and the grandfather of the deceased as P.W.4 and among them, P.Ws.3 and 4 turned hostile and there was no neighbour or independent witness to speak about the alleged harassment meted out to the deceased at the hands of the accused and about the commission of murder by the accused on his wife. (iii) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused also stated that the pesticide seller was examined as P.W.13, and that he sold the pesticide without any receipt to the accused, to which, his evidence cannot be relied upon. (iv) Similarly, the deceased-wife only bought the cool drink and therefore, there may not be any intention for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased, which could be inferred from the evidence adduced by the prosecution as P.W.10 who was a petty-shop owner, selling cool drink. (v) Moreover, learned counsel would submit that the evidence of the Panchayatdar as P.W.7 would not in any way improve the case of the prosecution, as there was no element of criminality cast upon the accused to commit the murder of his wife. (vi) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would further state that when the evidence of interested relative witnesses are not relied upon by the lower Court, it ought to have acquitted the accused, since there was no independent witness produced by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the relative witnesses. (vii) Learned counsel argued that when there is no proof regarding the nexus of the accused in mixing the pesticide with the cool drink and administering the same to the victim-deceased compulsorily, it cannot be considered that the prosecution has proved its case. He strenuously contended that there is absolutely no such evidence produced by the prosecution and the lower Court ought to have acquitted the accused from the charge framed against him under Section 302 IPC. (viii) Learned counsel for the appellant/accused contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 had not roped in the accused in the commission of the murder of his wife, even though they could speak about the strained relationship between the accused and his wife, the deceased. (viii) Learned counsel for the appellant/accused contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 had not roped in the accused in the commission of the murder of his wife, even though they could speak about the strained relationship between the accused and his wife, the deceased. (ix) Therefore, learned counsel contended that "benefit of doubt" should be given to the accused and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence have to be set aside and the appeal has got to be allowed, acquitting the accused. 9(i). Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-Police argued that the prosecution witnesses produced as P.Ws.1 to 4 are the competent and relative witnesses to speak about the disputes between the husband (the accused) and the wife (the deceased) and no other third person could speak about the disputes between them, and therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 (the father) and P.W.2 (the mother), is sufficient to speak about the strained relationship between the accused and the deceased, and also to speak about the intention of the accused to commit the murder of his wife due to the previous enragement caused to him. (ii) Learned Addl.P.P. further contended that the case of the defence is that the deceased wife had committed suicide on her own volition and the said commission of suicide cannot be converted into the commission of murder by the accused, as the charge framed against the accused is only under Section 302 IPC and since the ingredients of the charge framed under Section 302 IPC were not proved by the prosecution through its evidence, the case of the prosecution is not sustainable, which defence cannot be accepted. (iii) Learned Addl.P.P. had also drawn the attention of the Court that the marriage between the accused and the deceased took place two and a half year ago, and a son was born out of their wedlock and the death of Dhanakodi, the deceased wife, had taken place within seven years of their marriage and therefore, even the commission of suicide by the deceased Dhanakodi could be treated as "dowry death", as the accused was demanding a TVS-50 motor cycle and was quarrelling with the deceased wife for not gifting the same as agreed during their marriage and in this case, even though the charge framed under Section 302 IPC as contended by the defence, is not established, the lesser offence of commission of "dowry death" would come into operation and the accused will be fastened with the offence for commission of dowry death. Learned Addl.P.P. further contended that the harassment caused by the accused against the deceased-wife Dhanakodi by demanding TVS-50 motor cycle, was spoken to by the Panchayatdar, who was examined as P.W.7, as also by the relative witnesses, namely P.Ws.1 and 2, and the cause for the commission of the murder/death, or in the alternative, for the commission of dowry death, is clearly proved by such evidence and therefore, the accused cannot be relieved from the conviction under Section 302 IPC. (iv) Learned Addl.P.P. further stated that the murder of the deceased-wife Dhanakodi had taken place on 16. 2003 at about 10 p.m. by the accused by administering pesticide in cool drink compulsorily and thereby, she consumed the same and succumbed to the poisoned cool drink on that day itself, which was found out only on the next day morning at about 5 a.m. by the mother of the deceased, and therefore, learned Addl.P.P. submitted that the accused and the deceased were found together on the night of 16. 2003 and till the early morning of 20.6.2003, and it is for the accused to explain as to the cause of the death of his wife Dhanakodi, and till such time, the presumption in existence will be that the deceased Dhanakodi was murdered by her husband, the accused. 2003 and till the early morning of 20.6.2003, and it is for the accused to explain as to the cause of the death of his wife Dhanakodi, and till such time, the presumption in existence will be that the deceased Dhanakodi was murdered by her husband, the accused. (v) In support of his contentions, learned Addl.P.P. relied on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 1992 Crl.L.J. 563 (Vemuri Venkateswara Rao vs. State of A.P) for the proposition that when the accused has been charged under Section 302 IPC and if the said offence is not made out, and if the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B IPC have been already found in the charge framed against the accused, the conviction and sentence can be imposed on the lesser offence, namely under Section 304-B IPC, in the event the murder of the deceased under Section 302 IPC is not established. (vi) Learned Addl.P.P. also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2003 (8) SCC 80 (Hira Lal vs. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi) for the principle that in the event of the death caused to a woman within a period of seven years of her marriage, and if there was evidence that soon before her death that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband, the said circumstance would squarely attract an offence under Section 304-B IPC and the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act would also be attracted and the accused is liable to disprove or remove the presumption by adducing proper evidence. Therefore, learned Addl.P.P. argued that the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution and the circumstantial evidence produced would all go a long way to show that the commission of murder by the accused on his wife, the deceased Dhanakodi, was proved to the hilt and therefore, the appeal has to be dismissed, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused by the lower Court; in the alternative, if for any reason, this Court is coming to the conclusion that the offence committed by the accused is only under Section 304-B IPC and not under Section 302 IPC, then the accused may be punished and the conviction may accordingly be modified to that effect on the basis of the judgment of the A.P. High Court and the decision of the Supreme Court as indicated above and for that purpose, the appeal need not be allowed. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned judgment and the records. 11. The case of the prosecution in simpliciter is that the accused being the husband, married the deceased Dhanakodi Ammal (@ Dhanakodi), about 2-1/2 years prior to the date of occurrence, and with an intention to cause the death of his wife, mixed the pesticide with cool drink and compulsorily administered the said poisoned cool drink to his wife Dhanakodi, and thereby, the said Dhanakodi was affected by the poisonous drink, and she succumbed to the same, and thus, the accused is guilty of committing the murder of his wife. The prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased-wife Dhanakodi and P.Ws.3 and 4 are the grandparents of the deceased Dhanakodi. 12. On a careful perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, it is seen that they are the grandparents of the deceased Dhanakodi Ammal and their daughter P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased and the accused was their nephew (kUkfd;) and thus, both the deceased and the accused are close relatives to P.Ws.1 and 2 and P.Ws.3 and 4 had not spoken about the incident, and they were treated as hostile witnesses. 13. 13. However, the witnesses examined by the prosecution through the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 would go a long way to show that during the time of the marriage of the accused and the deceased, the accused had demanded TVS-50 motor cycle and he had also quarrelled with the deceased on such demand and a complaint was also given by the deceased to the All Women Police Station for demand of dowry and the same was subsequently compromised in the All Women Police Station itself; in the meanwhile, the said Dhanakodi died and it was only due to non-compliance of the demand of TVS-50 by the accused. P.W.5 would also speak to the fact that he had seen a broken cool drink bottle, a drug bottle, a radio, etc., in the house of the deceased Dhanakodi. 14. The evidence of P.W.6, who is also a distant relative to P.W.1, would also go a long way to show the compromise reached between the accused and the deceased in respect of purchase of TVS-50 motor cycle as demanded by the accused and in the meanwhile, the death of Dhanakodi occurred. 15. Apart from the evidence of the above witnesses, P.W.7, the grandfather of both the accused and the deceased, would depose that the demand of TVS-50 motor cycle by the accused from Dhanakodi was also true and a Panchayat was also convened by him and after obtaining a compromise from the accused that he would not beat and on agreeing upon the same, the accused and the deceased were united together in the Panchayat and the matter was over on that day itself. He had also spoken in his evidence that subsequently, a complaint was given to the All Women Police Station by the deceased on the basis of the demand of TVS-50 motor cycle made by the accused. 16. Therefore, we can come to the conclusion that the accused married the deceased Dhanakodi and they were already close relatives to each other and the motor cycle (TVS-50) was agreed to have been purchased by the parents of the deceased Dhanakodi at the time of their marriage and to hand over the same to him, and there ensued quarrel between them in respect of the purchase of TVS-50 and the Panchayat was also held on that score, and the matter had been pacified by the Panchayatdars. However, on the fateful day, the said Dhanakodi died by consuming cool drink said to have administered by the accused with pesticide and she was also found dead in her bed. 17. There is no dispute in the fact that the accused was present along with the deceased on the date of occurrence and at the time of the death of the deceased Dhanakodi by consuming poisonous cool drink. Whether the death of the deceased Dhanakodi occurred by consuming poison on her own volition or due to the compulsory administration of the poison (pesticide) in the cool drink, has to be ascertained through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, both oral and documentary. 18. It is also seen that the accused was arrested and a confession was obtained, which led to the recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 19. The evidence of P.W.9 Village Administrative Officer would show that the admissible portion of the confession given by the accused was produced as Ex.P-5 and the seizure of the pesticide bottle in pursuance of the confession was recovered through a mahazar Ex.P-6 and the mahazar prepared for recovery of the cool drink bottle was produced as Ex.P-7. The said pesticide bottle and the cool drink bottle were produced as M.Os.1 and 2. Therefore, we could see that the evidence of P.W.9--V.A.O would show that the cool drink and the poison (pesticide) were used for the commission of the death of the deceased Dhanakodi. 20. Prior to the arrest and the confession obtained from the accused, the Inspector of Police P.W.17 had inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-4 and drew rough sketch Ex.P-22. 21. P.W.11 Doctor who conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased, would speak to the effect that the death of the deceased Dhanakodi would have been due to the poison, namely organo-phospherous and the post-mortem certificate produced as Ex.P-8 would also confirm the same. 22. Therefore, the irresistible and conclusive proof that could be arrived through the prosecution witnesses would be that the death of the deceased Dhanakodi had taken place only at the house of the accused on the fateful day, and due to the consumption of poisoned (pesticide) cool drink only. 22. Therefore, the irresistible and conclusive proof that could be arrived through the prosecution witnesses would be that the death of the deceased Dhanakodi had taken place only at the house of the accused on the fateful day, and due to the consumption of poisoned (pesticide) cool drink only. Whether the said death was caused due to compulsory administration of poisoned cool drink by the accused or the deceased herself consumed the poisoned cool drink on her own accord for committing suicide, has to be ascertained. It is to be noted that there is no direct evidence to show that the accused had administered the poisoned cool drink compulsorily to the deceased-victim Dhanakodi for the purpose of causing her death. It is also to be noticed that the presumption drawn by the Court is that the accused should have caused the death of the deceased Dhanakodi, since the previous instance of demanding dowry (demand of TVS-50 motor cycle) and giving complaint to the All Women Police Station by the deceased against the accused, should have enraged the accused to do so. However, the circumstances shown by the evidence adduced by the prosecution, have also to be considered, as to whether the presumption could be drawn as the proof of the commission of murder by the appellant/accused. It is a clear evidence of the prosecution that the deceased Dhanakodi had bought cool drink. Similarly, the appellant/accused had bought the pesticide for the purpose of committing the crime. The case of the prosecution was that the pesticide was mixed with the cool drink and it was compulsorily administered to the deceased Dhanakodi and thereby, she was affected by the poison and succumbed to the effect of the poison. If it is so, the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem, would have mentioned about the injury in and around the mouth of the deceased Dhanakodi, which might have happened at the time of compulsory administration of poisoned cool drink. But no such injury has been seen in the post-mortem certificate nor from the evidence of the Doctor who conducted the postmortem. The broken cool drink bottle and the drug bottle were found at the house of the deceased Dhanakodi. But no such injury has been seen in the post-mortem certificate nor from the evidence of the Doctor who conducted the postmortem. The broken cool drink bottle and the drug bottle were found at the house of the deceased Dhanakodi. If really the drug is used by the appellant/accused from the drug bottle, he could have mixed it with the cool drink to some extent and would have administered the same to the deceased Dhanakodi and the seized drug bottle would have contained the remaining poison. Similarly, the broken cool drink bottle was also found without any cool drink. Therefore, these circumstances would go a long way to show that there was no compulsory administration of poisoned cool drink by the appellant/accused, but it could have been consumed by the deceased Dhanakodi of her own accord for the purpose of commission of suicide. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that the appellant/accused had compulsorily administered the poisoned cool drink to the deceased Dhanakodi at the fateful night and had caused the death of Dhanakodi, and therefore, he is guilty of commission of murder, cannot be true. 23. The stand taken by the accused was that the said Dhanakodi had consumed poisoned cool drink on her own accord in order to commit suicide. It has also been so suggested to the prosecution witnesses by the defence. In the previous discussion, it is also found that the accused had not committed the murder of the deceased Dhanakodi, but she had consumed poison on her own accord. 24. The evidence of the prosecution would go a long way to show that the accused and the deceased were married 2-/2 years prior to the date of occurrence and there was a talk of presenting TVS-50 motor cycle to the accused by the parents of the deceased at the time of the marriage, and on that promise, disputes arose between the accused and the deceased. The deceased also gave a complaint to the All Women Police Station and therefore, we could see that there is a clear and cogent evidence for demand of dowry in the form of TVS-50 motor cycle on the part of the accused against the deceased immediately prior to the death of the deceased Dhanakodi Ammal. 25. The deceased also gave a complaint to the All Women Police Station and therefore, we could see that there is a clear and cogent evidence for demand of dowry in the form of TVS-50 motor cycle on the part of the accused against the deceased immediately prior to the death of the deceased Dhanakodi Ammal. 25. It is also the evidence of P.W.9—V.A.O that the dispute in between the accused and the deceased Dhanakodi was compromised in the Panchayat and during the next week itself, she died due to consumption of poison. The evidence of P.W.2, the mother of the deceased and the evidence of yet another grandfather, P.W.7, would also prove the fact that the deceased Dhanakodi was tortured and harassed by the appellant/accused immediately prior to the occurrence and she was also in the constant dowry harassment by demanding for the purchase of TVS-50 motor cycle. Such harassment immediately prior to the commission of suicide by the said Dhanakodi, would certainly draw the legal fiction as described under Section 304-B IPC. 26. All the above circumstances would warrant a strong presumption as to dowry death under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, which would make the Court to come to a conclusion that the death of the said Dhanakodi Ammal was clearly due to dowry death (demand of TVS-50 motor cycle) within the meaning of Section 304-B IPC, which is a lesser offence than the offence under Section 302 IPC. 27. Even though the prosecution had not proved the case of "murder" beyond reasonable doubt through evidence, it has proved its case relating to the "dowry death" caused on the deceased Dhanakodi due to consumption of poisoned cool drink at the house of the accused, and therefore, the accused is squarely fastened with the criminality of committing an offence under Section 304-B IPC. 28. The above conclusion is fully supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2003 (8) SCC 80 (cited supra). Relevant passage would run as follows: "Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act were inserted by Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths. 28. The above conclusion is fully supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2003 (8) SCC 80 (cited supra). Relevant passage would run as follows: "Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act were inserted by Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths. Keeping in view the impediment in the pre-existing law in securing evidence to prove dowry-related deaths, the legislature thought it wise to insert a provision relating to presumption of dowry death on proof of certain essentials. It is in this background that presumptive Section 113-B in the Evidence Act has been inserted. The essential ingredients to attract application of Section 304-B are that (i) the death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance, (ii) such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage, (iii) she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, (iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry, and (v) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death." (para 8) 29. On a careful perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, we could see that the ingredients which are required for drawing the inference of dowry death as per Section 304-B IPC and the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, are clearly mentioned. So far as this case is concerned, it was categorically spoken to by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, we could safely come to the conclusion that the prosecution witnesses have proved the guilt of the accused and the death of the deceased Dhanakodi at the house of the accused was one of dowry death and not a case of murder. 30. Now, the point for consideration is whether the accused could be convicted for the offence under Section 304-B IPC in the absence of framing any charge under Section 304-B IPC, despite the fact that the framed charge against the accused was only for the offence under Section 302 IPC. For that purpose, the learned Addl.P.P. cited the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 1992 Crl.L.J. 563 (supra). For that purpose, the learned Addl.P.P. cited the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 1992 Crl.L.J. 563 (supra). The relevant passage of the judgment of the A.P. High Court runs as follows: "Three ingredients essential for establishing the offence punishable under S.304-B, IPC are: (a) that there is a demand of dowry and harassment by the accused; (b) that the deceased died; and (c) that the death is under unnatural circumstances. Once there is harassment for the payment of dowry and unnatural death occurs within 7 years after the marriage, the presumption of dowry death is inherent. When the facts noted in charges put together satisfied the ingredients of S.304, IPC; merely because there is no separate charge u/S.304-B, IPC, it cannot be said that any prejudice is caused to the accused, and that in absence of charge the accused cannot be convicted thereunder. Further, the court can convict a person for lesser offence viz. S.304-B when there is a charge framed for a higher offence i.e. for offence u/s.300, IPC." (paras 22, 23) 31. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Supreme Court, in its judgment reported in 2003 (8) SCC 80 (cited supra) had converted the conviction under Section 304-B IPC to that of conviction under Section 306 IPC read with 498-A IPC. The relevant passage runs as follows: "Though no charge was framed under Section 306 IPC that is inconsequential. On the facts of the case, even though it is difficult to sustain the conviction under Section 304-B IPC, there is sufficient material to convict the accused-appellants in terms of Section 306 IPC along with Section 498-A IPC." (paras 15,16 and 17) 32. Therefore, we can safely come to the conclusion under the guidance of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2003 (8) SCC 80 , that the principles followed by the A.P. High Court in the decision reported in 1992 Crl.L.J. 563, can be adopted for the purpose of passing a conviction against the accused in the present case, for the offence under Section 304-B IPC, instead of under Section 302 IPC. 33. The only point we have to see is as to whether the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC have been already put in the charge framed against the accused in the present case under Section 302 IPC. 33. The only point we have to see is as to whether the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC have been already put in the charge framed against the accused in the present case under Section 302 IPC. In the charge already framed against the accused under Section 302 IPC, the demand of TVS-50 motor cycle is clearly mentioned as one of the reasons for the death of the deceased Dhanakodi. When the dowry in the form of demand of TVS-50 motor vehicle, was shown to have been the cause of the death of the deceased Dhanakodi, this Court has, from the foregoing discussion, found that it is only a dowry death based on the presumption drawn against the accused, under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, and not a case of murder under Section 302 IPC and the same is squarely covered under Section 304-B IPC, which is a lesser offence than that of the offence under Section 302 IPC. Under the said Section 302 IPC, the charge has been farmed. The conviction can very safely be arrived at against the accused for the offence under Section 304-B IPC, for the reasons stated supra. 34. Therefore, we are of the view that the evidence of prosecution has not shown the case of murder of the deceased Dhanakodi, but however, it has shown the guilt of the accused for committing "dowry death" against the deceased Dhanakodi. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC, by the trial Court, are set aside, and instead, he is found guilty of committing an offence under Section 304-B IPC for "dowry death" and the appellant/accused is accordingly convicted for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. 35. With the above modification in the offence, the appeal filed by the appellant/accused is dismissed.