JUDGMENT (Per A. Gopal Reddy, J.) Appellants (A-1 and A-2), who are mother in-law and husband of the deceased - Alugubilli Kavitha, were tried for the offence under Sections 304-8, 302 r/w 34 IPC and Sees. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") in S.C. No. 522 of 2005 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge (III Fast Track Court), Nalgonda at Miryalaguda. The Learned Sessions Judge found A-1 guilty for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Act, accordingly convicted her for the said offence and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and six months respectively. A-2 was found guilty for the offence under Section 3 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. Questioning the same the appellants preferred the present appeal. 2. The substance of the charge against the accused is that on the intervening night of 04-05-2005 at about 2 a.m. they caused the death of Alugubeili Kavitha - deceased by burns within seven years of her marriage and subjected her to harassment in connection with demand of dowry and committed the offence. 3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is an under: The deceased was the only daughter of Uppala Jayamma-complainant(P.W. 1). The accused are the resident of Sreenivasanagar village and material witnesses are the resident of Arakuntapalem village. The deceased's marriage was performed with A-2 about four years back, by giving a net cash of Rs. 50,000/-, two tulas of gold and four acres of dry land situated on the out skirts Guntipall1 Annavaram village towards dowry. The couple led happy married life for a period of three years and blessed with one daughter. After three years of marriage, the accused used to harass the deceased to sell away the four acres of land, which was given to her at the time of marriage. On coming to know about the harassment, PW. 1, one month prior to the date of offence, went to the house of the deceased to bring the deceased daughter to their house for Vadi Biyyam function. On coming to know about the harassment, PW. 1, one month prior to the date of offence, went to the house of the deceased to bring the deceased daughter to their house for Vadi Biyyam function. -The accused (A-1 ) refused to send the deceased until the four acres of land was disposed of. Then, P.W, 1 gave Rs. 70/- to the deceased and requestedA-1 to send her daughter to their house atleast for Ugadi festival. On 05-04-2005 early morning at 4 a.m., P.W. 1 received a phone call from her brother P.W. 3 that the deceased was admitted in the Government Hospital, Miryalaguda with burns. Immediately she rushed to the hospital and saw the deceased, where the deceased told to her that A-1 poured kerosene and set fire to her, and her child was taken away from her bed by A-2. As the deceased was in critical condition, in order to give good treatment, P. W. 1 shifted the deceased to Jyothi Hospital, Miryalaguda, where the doctors declared that the deceased died. On 05-04-2005 at 6.30 a.m., P.W. 1 submitted Telugu written compliant - Ex. P-1 to P.W. 13 – Sub-Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda Rural Police Station, on which basis he registered a case in Cr. No. 54 of 2005 under Sections 307, 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Ex. P-14 is the FIR. P.W. 13 examined P.W. 1 in the police station and recorded her statement. As the concerned Magistrate was on leave, P.W. 13 sent a requisition to the M.R.O. -PW. 1 o for recording dying declaration. P .W. 10 recorded the dying declaration of the deceased in the presence of P.W. 12-doctor. PW. 13 proceeded to the Government hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased. On the same day at about 10 a.m. he received an information about the death of the deceased; then he altered the section of law and sent the altered FIR - Ex. P-15 to all the concerned; he visited the scene of offence and conducted panchanama of scene of offence in the presence of P.W. 7; drawn the rough sketch; got photographed the scene of offence through P .W. 4 photographer. After completion of inquest, P.W. 13 sent the dead body for post mortem examination. P.W. 8, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Miryalaguda conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and gave Ex. After completion of inquest, P.W. 13 sent the dead body for post mortem examination. P.W. 8, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Miryalaguda conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and gave Ex. P-9 post mortem report opining that the cause of death is shock due to second degree 88% burns. P.W. 13 arrested the accused on 26-04-2005 and sent them to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, PW. 11, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Miryalaguda filed a charge sheet before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalaguda, who committed the case to the court of sessions. On committal, a charge under Section 304-8 IPC and alternative charge under Section 302 IPC and Section 4 of the Act was framed against A-1; and under Section 304-8 IPC alternatively under Section 302 r/w 341PC againstA-2 apart from a charge under Section 3 of the Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 13, marked Exs. P-1 to P-17 and exhibited M.Os. 1 to 3. On behalf of defence Ex. D-1 - portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W. 3 was marked but no oral evidence was let in. 5. After completion of trial and on analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, the learned sessions judge found the accused guilty for the offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to imprisonment a aforementioned by impugned judgment dated 15-09-2006. Questioning the correctness of the finding so recorded, the present appeal, has been filed. 6. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contended that when P.W. 10 - M.R.O. recorded the dying declaration under Ex. P-11 in the presence of P.W. 12, P.W. 13 also went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased but the same has not been produced before the Court. When hospital intimation - Exs. P-16 and P-17 disclose self immolation, by non-production of dying declaration recorded by P.W. 13, presumption has to be drawn that the same do not favour to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the accused are entitled to acquittal. In support of the same, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Sirumalla Bhumesh v. State of A.P.' (to which one of us is a party). Therefore, the accused are entitled to acquittal. In support of the same, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Sirumalla Bhumesh v. State of A.P.' (to which one of us is a party). When there are two dying declarations and one of which is not produced, accused cannot be convicted under Section 304-8 IPC. For the said proposition he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Panneerselvam v. State of Tamil Nadu2. He further contended that except the statement recorded by M.R.O. no evidence is made out to attract Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Further, P. W. 1 in Ex. P-1 report stated that four acres of dry land was given to her daughter, whereas in her evidence she stated that the same was given toA-2; if it is given toA-2 towards dowry accused insisting to sell away the land does not arise. Therefore, they cannot be convicted for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. 7. learned Additional Pubic Prosecutor supported the judgment, convicting the accused for the offence, and contended that Ex. P-11dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate - P. W. 10 clearly establishes that itisA-1, mother in law of the deceased, poured kerosene and set fire to her. According to Additional Public Prosecutor, not only the dying declaration recorded by P .W. 10 but the oral declaration made by the deceased with P.Ws. 1 to 3 are also consistent that the accused (A-1) poured kerosene on the deceased and set fire to her. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded by the lower court needs no interference. 8. In view of the above rival submissions, the point that arises for consideration is: "Whether the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused on the basis of dying declaration can be sustainable or not." 9. Admittedly, the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate-MRO and the oral declaration made by the deceased with P.Ws. 1 to 3. 10. P.W. 1, the mother of the deceased lodged Ex. P-1 - report to the police, on which basis P.W. 13 registered the crime. She stated that A-1 demanded the deceased to sell away the four acres of land, which was given to her at the time of marriage as dowry, and used to harass both mentally and physically. 10. P.W. 1, the mother of the deceased lodged Ex. P-1 - report to the police, on which basis P.W. 13 registered the crime. She stated that A-1 demanded the deceased to sell away the four acres of land, which was given to her at the time of marriage as dowry, and used to harass both mentally and physically. About one month prior to the date of incident, she asked A-1 to send the deceased for giving sare; but she (A-1) refused to send the deceased unless the four acres of land is disposed of and give money;then she gave Rs. 70/- to the deceased and asked her to come Ugadi festival. On 05-04-2005 early morning at 4 a.m. she received a phone call from her relatives that the deceased was admitted in Government Hospital, Miryalguda with burns. Immediately she rushed to the hospital along with relatives; on enquiry the deceased informed that: on 05-04-2005 she alone slept in the room, her husband slept outside along with the daughter, at 2 a.m. her mother-in-law (A-1) poured kerosene and set fire to her. Whereas in the court P.W. 1 deposed that marriage of the deceased and A-2 was performed four years prior to the date of incident by presenting Rs. 50,000/- case, who tulas of gold and four acres of dry land situated at Annaram village to A-2 towards dowry. Three years after the marriage both the accused started demanding the deceased to sell away the four acres of land given as dowry to A-2; in that process, they harassed the deceased; one month prior to the death of the deceased when she went to invite the deceased for performing Vadi Biyyam (traditional family function); A-1 refused to send the deceased along with her, unless the four acres of land given as dowry was disposed of and gave money; then she gave Rs. 70/- to the deceased at least to enable her to come on the occasion of Ugadi. On the date of incident she received a phone call in the early morning from her elder brother - P. W. 3 informing that the deceased was admitted in Miryalaguda Government Hospital with burns. When she visited the hospital, the deceased told her A-1 poured kerosene and set fire; the- child was taken away by A- 2. On the date of incident she received a phone call in the early morning from her elder brother - P. W. 3 informing that the deceased was admitted in Miryalaguda Government Hospital with burns. When she visited the hospital, the deceased told her A-1 poured kerosene and set fire; the- child was taken away by A- 2. As the deceased was in critical condition, with a found hope of survival, she got admitted in Jyothi Hospital, Miryalaguda where the doctors declared as dead. In the cross-examination she admitted that on behalf of the accused, the maternal uncle - Kandhimalla Ranga Reddy and junior maternal uncle Upender Reddy of A-2 took part in the marriage alliance and the marriage terms were not reduced in writing; as on the date of marriage of the deceased, she got two acres of land from her in laws and four acres of land from her parents, which was given as dowry to A-2; she do not know the survey number f four acres which she got from her parents. Two acres of land still stands in the name to her father. The accused persons insisted her to mention on white paper about giving four acres of land to them, but no registration as such took place. P.W. 2 was present in Hyderabad when the deceased was admitted in hospital, but he came to Miryalaguda before the death of the deceased. She denied the suggestion that herself and her deceased daughter consistently demanding A-2 to set up a separate family in order to look after the agriculture and the deceased was having disinclination to live with parents in law. 11. P.W. 2, who is the son of P.W. 1 and brother of the deceased, corroborated the evidence of P .W.1. On 05-04-2005 he along with his cousin - Kiran Reddy started on scooter from Hyderabad to reach his village on the eve of Ugadi festival. After he crossed Hyderabad, suddenly he received a telephone message to his cell phone from P.W. 1 that his sister was admitted in hospital with burns; so, he directly visited the government hospital where his deceased sister was conscious and she narrated the incident to him. He admitted in the cross-examination that an amount of Rs. After he crossed Hyderabad, suddenly he received a telephone message to his cell phone from P.W. 1 that his sister was admitted in hospital with burns; so, he directly visited the government hospital where his deceased sister was conscious and she narrated the incident to him. He admitted in the cross-examination that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was given in vara puja by P .W. 1 prior to the marriage, but he cannot say how many days prior to marriage the vara pooja was held. Two tulas of gold was presented in the shape of ornaments to his sister in the marriage, four acres of dry land, which is located at Guntipally Annaram village, was also given at the time of marriage. The said land stands in the name of his maternal grand father. His maternal uncles have signed on the document about giving the land to A-1; the said document was executed in favour of his sister. He started at Hyderabad at 5 a.m. on motor cycle and reached Miryalaguda hospital at 8 a.m.; about 20 persons were present in the hospital when he reached the hospital; but he cannot give specific place where the deceased laid down on the bed in the hospital either in the burns ward or general ward or elsewhere. 12. P.W. 3, who is the maternal uncle of the deceased and brother of P.W. 1, deposed that he passed on information to P. W. 1; went to the hospital, there he saw the deceased with burn injuries who narrated him that A-1 poured kerosene and lit fire with match stick. He has not stated about the arrival of PW. 2 at the hospital and admitted in the cross-examination that there is no record or proof present four acres of laid to P .W. 1 at the time of marriage towards pasupu kumkuma and later giving the same to the deceased in her marriage with A-2. By the time he reached the hospital A-1 and relatives are present and A-2 was not present. 13. P.W. 10, M.R.O., Miryalaguda, who recorded the dying declaration under Ex. P-11, stated that on 05-04-2005 at 6.55 a.m. he received a requisition from P.W. 13 to record the dying declaration; immediately he proceeded to Area Hospital, Miryalaguda and met the duty doctor- Dr. 13. P.W. 10, M.R.O., Miryalaguda, who recorded the dying declaration under Ex. P-11, stated that on 05-04-2005 at 6.55 a.m. he received a requisition from P.W. 13 to record the dying declaration; immediately he proceeded to Area Hospital, Miryalaguda and met the duty doctor- Dr. P.H. Aruna and with her assistance he went to the burns ward where he identified the deceased through the said doctor; he enquired the doctor about the physical and mental condition of the deceased; who stated that the deceased was fit to give statement. After satisfying the mental ability to give statement on putting some preliminary questions, he recorded her answers, where the deceased stated that on the previous night after completion of dinner she slept inside the house and her husband and daughter slept outside; at 2 a.m. her mother-in-law poured kerosene and set fire to her with match stick and the deceased further revealed that motive for setting fire is due to demand for disposal of four acres of land situated at Garekuntapalem village and giving the sale proceeds of the land on its disposal; she was also not allowed to leave the house in connection with Vadi Biyyam function. The deceased further stated that her husband and father-in-law are innocents and they are under the control of A-1.lmmediately after recording the dying declaration in the presence of duty doctor he obtained the right thumb impression of the deceased. 14. P.W. 13, who worked as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda at the relevant point of time, deposed that on 05-04-2005 at 6.30 p.m. P.W. 1 visited the police station and submitted Telugu written complaint - Ex. P-1, on which basis he registered a case in Cr. No. 54 of 2005 under Section 307, 498-A I PC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and issued Ex. P-1, on which basis he registered a case in Cr. No. 54 of 2005 under Section 307, 498-A I PC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and issued Ex. P-14 - FI R; thereafter, he examined P.W. 1 in the police station and recorded her statement; since the condition of the deceased was in critical condition and the concerned Magistrate was on leave, he made a requisition to the M.R.O. for recording dying declaration: later he proceeded to the Government hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased on the same day at 10 a.m. P.W. 1 once again came to the police station and reported to him that the deceased last her breath at 9 a.m. while shifting from Government Hospital, Miryalaguda to Jyothi Hospital, Miryalaguda. In the cross-examination he admitted that P.W. 10-M.R.O. visited the Government hospital for recording the dying declaration at the time when his recording the statement of the deceased is nearing to complete. He reached the Government hospital at 7.00 or 7.30 a.m. and had not obtained any writings from the duty medical doctor about the condition of the deceased to give statement prior to recording her statement. He has not enquired what was the land involved in the dispute, which is the survey number and execution of any document pertaining to the said land during his investigation. He denied the suggestion that he made enquiries in respect of land in issue. 15. P.W. 5 deposed that relationship between the accused were cordial prior to her death. When he was sleeping in his house at 1.00 or 1.30 a.m., he heard shouts from the house of the accused; then he went there and saw the deceased was burning in flames; they all put off the flames and shifted the injured in his tractor being driven by his driver to the Government hospital, Miryalaguda. He has not talked with the deceased; in fact, ~he was not in a position to talk and after shifting to the hospital she was taken inside the hospital as such she does not state anything to him. At this stage he was treated hostile. 16. He has not talked with the deceased; in fact, ~he was not in a position to talk and after shifting to the hospital she was taken inside the hospital as such she does not state anything to him. At this stage he was treated hostile. 16. P. W. 8, the doctor who conducted post mortem examination over the body of the deceased deposed that he found external burn injuries on the dead body of the deceased at 88% and spared areas are mentioned in the postmortem report; cause of death is due to shock due to second degree 88% burns. 17. I n the dying declaration - P-11 recorded by P.W. 10 it is stated as under: "On 05-04-2005 in the morning hours at 2 a.m. my mother-in-law- Savithramma poured kerosene on me while I was sleeping in my room and litted fire. My daughter slept with my husband outside. My mother gave Rs. 70/- inviting me to come for Ugadi festival when she came here about a month back. I kept the money in my box, but somebody took that amount. My mother invited me to vie saree, but my mother in law demanded my mother to send money by selling the land given to me as dowry. My husband is innocent and he is under the influence of his mother. My father in law is also innocent. He is also under his wife's influence. My mother in law used to harass me and used to beat me daily." 18. In Ex. P-17 - case sheet it is recorded alleged h/o sustained burns due to pouring of kerosene herself on 5-4-2005 at 1 a.m. at her residence, Srinivasnagar, Miryalaguda. 19. From the above evidence it is clear that immediately after receipt of information, P.W. 13 visited the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased; at the time of nearing completion of recording the statement, P.W. 10-M. R.O. visited the hospital and recorded the dying declaration under Ex. P-11. P .W. 13 admitted that the statement recorded by him has not been produced. He also admitted that police station is located half kilometer to the Court as well as the residence of the Magistrate. FIR reached the Court at 5.30 p.m. on the same day. P-11. P .W. 13 admitted that the statement recorded by him has not been produced. He also admitted that police station is located half kilometer to the Court as well as the residence of the Magistrate. FIR reached the Court at 5.30 p.m. on the same day. P.W. 3 has not stated about the presence of P.W. 2 but P .W. 2 admitted that the deceased made oral declaration to him. Therefore, there is any amount of doubt that deceased making oral declaration to P.W. 2, as stated by him. Therefore is no evidence to show that the four acres of land, which was given to P.W. 1 towards pasupu kumkuma at the time of her marriage, in turn was given to the deceased or A-2 towards dowry and P.W. 3 admitted that the land still stands in the name of his father i.e. maternal grand father of the deceased. P. W. 12, doctor who admitted the deceased in the hospital deposed that she informed the concerned police on phone about admission of the deceased with burns in their hospital and M.R.O. recording the dying declaration; she is also the team doctor for conducting post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. She admitted in the cross-examination that close relatives were very much present by the side of the deceased before P.W. 10 came to the hospital for recording the dying declaration. She was again recalled after cross-examination wherein she stated that mother-in-law of the deceased has reported that the deceased herself poured kerosene as such, she mentioned the said fact in Exs. P-16 and 17 - intimation and case sheets. 20. In the case of Sirumalla Bhumesh (1 supra) held that the statement recorded by P.W. 13 becomes dying declaration, on account of death of the deceased and is admissible in evidence. This Court after referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sayarabano @ Sultanabegum v. State of Maharashtra ( 2007 (2) Supreme 49 ) held even in case some very important documents could not be produced by the prosecution also, the accused cannot be acquitted on account of illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Act. In view of suppression of earlier dying declaration recorded by P.W.13 by the prosecution adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution under Section 114, illustration (g)of the Indian Evidence Act. 21. In view of suppression of earlier dying declaration recorded by P.W.13 by the prosecution adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution under Section 114, illustration (g)of the Indian Evidence Act. 21. Recently the Supreme Court in the case of Pannerselvam v. State of Tamil Nadu (2 supra) after summing up all principles laid down in its earlier judgments governing dying declaration held that dying declaration should be such nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its correctness. The court has to be guard that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination: The court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant and after analyzing the evidence set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the lower court as confirmed by the High Court. 22. This Court in Harijana Mulinti Bhushanna v. State of A.P. 3 after referring to its earlier judgments in Gaddem Jayarami Reddim, in Re ((1959) 1 An.W.R. 196) and Kota Peda Nagesh v. State of A.P. (1999 (1) ALT (Crl.) 364) held that no doubt adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for non-production of dying declaration recorded by P.W. 14 and the entire prosecution evidence cannot be thrown on that ground. 23. From the principles summarized by the Apex Court in Pannerselvam (2 supra), we have to consider whether the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate inspires the confidence of the court to convict the accused. P.W. 12 - doctor admitted that close relatives of the deceased are very much present before P .W. 10- M.R.O. come to the hospital for recording dying declaration, whereas P. W. 10 stated that outside the premises of the hospital he found some people; may be the relatives of the deceased, but nowhere he called upon the relatives to leave the place to record the dying declaration in their absence. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that the dying declaration made by the deceased was a result of tutoring by relatives and P.W. 1, who are present by the side of the deceased, and alone cannot form basis for conviction of the accused unless corroborated with the other evidence. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that the dying declaration made by the deceased was a result of tutoring by relatives and P.W. 1, who are present by the side of the deceased, and alone cannot form basis for conviction of the accused unless corroborated with the other evidence. Further, when the earliest statement recorded by P.W. 13 has not been produced by the prosecution, the accused was denied fair trial and adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution under Section 114, illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act. 24. Further, the question is whether a case under Section 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act has been made out by the prosecution against the accused persons. 25. Section 304-B IPC which deals with dowry death reads as follows• "304-8. Dowry death:- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death she be called 'dowry death', and such husband or relative ,shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-section, 'dowry' shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961 ). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life." 26. The word 'dowry' has been defined under Section 2 of the Act which reads as under: "2. Definition of 'dowry':- In this Act, 'dowry' means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly- (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or anytime after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim personal law (Shariat) applies. Explanation 1:- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any presents made at the time of a marriage to either party to the marriage in the form of cash, ornaments, clothes or other articles, shall not be deemed to be dowry within the meaning of this section, unless they are made as consideration for the marriage of the said parties. Explanation ll/:- The expression 'valuable security' has the same meaning as in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)." 27. Section 3 of the Act provides penalty for giving and taking dowry which reads thus: "3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry:- (1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable 2[with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less then 3'five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more]: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than 4[five years)). (2) Nothing in sub-section (1 )shall apply to, or in relation to,- (a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act; (b) Presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act: Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.] 28. Section 4 of the Act provides penalty for demanding dowry which reads as under: "4. Section 4 of the Act provides penalty for demanding dowry which reads as under: "4. Penalty for demanding dowry:-If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees: . Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months." 29. We are, however, relied of the necessity to delve deep into the scope of Section 304-B IPC in view of the decision of this Court and the Supreme Court referred hereunder: 30. This Court in Vemuri Venkateswara Rao v. State of A.P.4 held that three ingredients essential to establish Section 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. 31. The Supreme Court in Hiralal v. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi summarized the essential ingredients to attract application of Section 304-IPC, which reads thus: (i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury 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 . (v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the part of the Court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. The essentials requirements for raising the said presumption as summarized in the above judgment are as under: (1) The question before the court must whether the accused has committed the dowry death of the woman. (This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304-B IPC). The essentials requirements for raising the said presumption as summarized in the above judgment are as under: (1) The question before the court must whether the accused has committed the dowry death of the woman. (This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304-B IPC). (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any demand for dowry 32. The learned Sessions Judge after referring to Section 2 of the Act and the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 held that their evidence is consistent to the extent of presentation of four acres of agricultural land to A-2, nevertheless it stands in the name of husband of P.W. 1, bringA-2, within the penal provision of Section 3 of the Act and convicted for the said offence. 33. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 do not indicate any demand made by the accused for dowry at the time of marriage or after the marriage except the alleged demand for disposal of four acres of land which was given to the deceased towards "pasupu kumkuma". Therefore, it has to be seen whether prosecution established the giving of four acres of land towards dowry. Except the oral testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2, as already adverted to, P.W. 2 admitted that there is no evidence that four acres of land, which was given to P.W. 1 towards "pasupu kumkuma", in turn was given to the deceased or A-2 towards dowry. The finding of the lower court that the land stands in the name of husband of P.W. 1 is contrary to the evidence of P.W. 3. P.W. 3 categorically asserted that four acres of land was originally given to P.W. 1 towards pasupu kumkuma at the time of her marriage and still it stands in the name of his father and the said land was given to A-2 through unstamped and unregistered document which was not produced. He also admitted that there is no record of proof of presentation of four acres of land to P.W. 1 at the time of her marriage and later given the same to the deceased in her marriage with A-2. He also admitted that there is no record of proof of presentation of four acres of land to P.W. 1 at the time of her marriage and later given the same to the deceased in her marriage with A-2. P.W.1 admitted that she got two acres of land from the said of her in laws and four acres of land from her parents, which was given in marriage to A-2 as dowry. Out of four acres of land got from her parents, two acres was given at the time of her marriage and by adding two more acres in total four acres of land was given to A-2, which is contrary to the evidence of P.W. 3. The Investigating Officer- P.W. 13 admitted that he has not enquired with regard to the land given by the maternal grand father of the deceasedtoP.W.1-motherofthedeceased at the time of her marriage and the same was given to the deceased/A-2 towards dowry. Once the evidence of the prosecution is not consistent with regard to giving of four acres of land to P. W. 1 by her father at the time of her marriage and the same was given to the deceased towards dowry, demand for disposal the same does not arise, prosecution miserably failed to establish that any demand made by A-1 towards dowry, she cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 4 of the Act. Since the prosecution failed to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by A-1 in connection with demand of dowry, namely, for disposing of valuable security alleged to be given at the time of marriage, she cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 304-8 IPC and Section 4 of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the conviction and sentenced recorded against her for the said offence. 34. Similarly, once the prosecution miserably failed to prove that four acres of land was given to A-2 towards dowry, the conviction and sentenced recorded by the learned Sessions Judge against A-2 for the offence under Section 3 of the Act cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside. 35. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. 34. Similarly, once the prosecution miserably failed to prove that four acres of land was given to A-2 towards dowry, the conviction and sentenced recorded by the learned Sessions Judge against A-2 for the offence under Section 3 of the Act cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside. 35. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against A-1 for the offence under Section 304-B and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the conviction and sentence recorded againstA-2forthe offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the V Additional Sessions Judge (III FIC) Nalgonda at Miryalaguda in S.C.No. 522 of 2005 are set aside and consequently they shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants (A-1 and S-2) shall be returned to them after expiry of appeal time.