JUDGMENT B.V. Pinto, J.— This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 12.8.04 passed by the Fast Track -II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore acquitting the Respondents of the offences punishable Section 498A, 304B and 306 IPC. r/w Section 34 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that Accused No. 1 being husband of the deceased - Bhagya, Accused No. 2 being brother of Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 6 Meena @ Meenakshi being sister-in-law of Accused No. 1 have participated in the marriage negotiations of Accused No. 1 with deceased - Bhagya. At that time, all the accused persons have demanded dowry of Rs. 100,000 in cash, one Hero Honda Motor Cycle, 25 sovereign of gold from the parents of the deceased, thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence Section 4 of DP Act. It is further alleged that Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6, after the marriage talk, have demanded additional dowry of Rs. 1,00,000. Thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence Under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and Section 498A of the IPC. It is further alleged that being unable to tolerate ill-treatment and harassment, the deceased committed suicide on 1.9.99 at 6.30 am by hanging through her saree at the branch of jack fruit tree situated in the land bearing Sy. No. 191 belonging to CW 10 at Hulugondanahalli., thereby they are alleged to have abetted the commissioner of suicide by Bhagyamma. Hence they are alleged to be liable for offence Section 306 IPC. It is further alleged that Accused 1, 2 and 6 were ill-treating the deceased and causing cruelty to her for demanding additional amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry which is soon before her death on 1.9.1999 and thereby they ore alleged to have committed an offence Section 304B r/w Section 34 IPC. It is also charged against the accused that the accused have not returned the articles and dowry amount received in consideration of the marriage of the deceased with Accused No. 1 after her death, thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence Section 6 of DP Act. 3. The prosecution in order to prove its case, has examined in all 20 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P16 and produced M Os 1 to 3. 3. The prosecution in order to prove its case, has examined in all 20 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P16 and produced M Os 1 to 3. The defence of the accused was one of the total denial. After hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused of the offences. Hence the appeal is filed by the State. 4. The prosecution case has commenced with filing of complaint by Puttamadaiah who is the father of the deceased on 1.9.99 before the Harohalli Police Station, Kanakapura Taluk. It is alleged in the complaint by the father of the deceased that his daughter - Bhagyamma was married to Vyramudi Accused No. 1 about 1 year 3 months prior to the date of her death and after the marriage, it is stated that the accused was harassing his daughter for bringing additional sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and all the accused persons were harassing her in this connection. It is further stated that on 1.9.99 in the morning, the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself outside their house to a jack fruit tree and they are responsible for the death of the deceased and thereby he has prayed for action according to law. The police have registered case in Crime No. 108/99 for offence Section 304B IPC and have commenced the investigation. Thereafter, after completion of the investigation, have filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. 5. PW 1 - Shivalingaiah is the signatory to Ex.P1 which is inquest report regarding the commission of suicide by the deceased. 6. PW-2 - Shivaraju is the relative of the complainant - CW1. He has stated that he has gone to the marriage of the deceased and accused No. 1 but he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 7. PW3- Chennappa, PW 4 - Ganesha and PW 5-Lakshamma have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 8. PW 6 - Mahadeva Kumar is the signatory to seizure mahazar as per Ex-P7 where certain articles belonging to the deceased were seized by the police. 9. PW 7 - Nanjappa is also another eye witness to Panchanama Ex.P 8 where the clothes worn by the deceased were seized by the Taluka Executive Magistrate. 10. 8. PW 6 - Mahadeva Kumar is the signatory to seizure mahazar as per Ex-P7 where certain articles belonging to the deceased were seized by the police. 9. PW 7 - Nanjappa is also another eye witness to Panchanama Ex.P 8 where the clothes worn by the deceased were seized by the Taluka Executive Magistrate. 10. PW 8 - Kumara is the police who has carried the dead body from the scene of occurrence to the hospital and thereafter released the dead body to the relatives of the deceased. 11. PW 9 - Puttamadaiah is the father of the deceased. He has stated that the accused were asking Rs. 1,00,000/-, one hero honda motor cycle, 25 sovereign of gold at the time of negotiation for marriage. He has further stated that the marriage has taken place on 25.5.98 and at that time, the accused had taken a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and thereafter, he has paid Rs. 80,000/- to the accused one month prior to the marriage. He has also stated that he has given gold ornaments to his daughter as well as to his son-in-law at the time of marriage. He has further stated that his daughter was living well with her husband for about 5-6 months. Thereafter, the accused was demanding additional dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- from his daughter and in this connection, he was assaulting his daughter. He has further stated that Accused No. 1 had come to their house only once and demanded additional amount of dowry. He was also assaulting his daughter for that purpose. This matter was disclosed to him by his daughter. He has further stated that he has sent a sum of Rs. 25,000 to Accused No. 1 since Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 were threatening the deceased to bring dowry. On 31.8.99 one Prakash brother of the accused informed them that the deceased Bhagya is not found in the house and she is missing. Thereafter, they searched for his daughter and later on, it was found that his daughter had committed suicide by hanging herself to jack fruit tree in the land of one Ganesha. Thereafter, he has given complaint as per Ex.P1. 12. PW 10 Ramachandra is the son-in- law of PW9. He has stated regarding the marriage negotiations which took place about 3 months prior to the marriage. Thereafter, he has given complaint as per Ex.P1. 12. PW 10 Ramachandra is the son-in- law of PW9. He has stated regarding the marriage negotiations which took place about 3 months prior to the marriage. He has stated that at the time of marriage, the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 25 sovereign of gold, one hero honda moor cycle for A1 Thereafter, he has stated that they had prayed for payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry, gold ornaments like chain and mangalaya sutra and other articles to bride. He has further stated that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was given during negotiations and balance of Rs. 25,000/- and gold ornaments were given during the marriage. He has also stated that 15 days prior to her death, the deceased had come to the house of PW 9 and at that time, she had informed regarding demand of dowry. 13. PW 11 - Chodegowda has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 14. PW 12 - Devamma has stated in her evidence in chief that Accused No. 2 was instigating A1 saying that the deceased was very proud and hence A1 should assault the deceased. However, in her evidence, there is no mention of demand for dowry nor payment of cash. 15. PW 13 - Dr. Gopalaiah has conducted the PM examination on the deceased and opined that the death of the deceased is due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. He has issued PM certificate as per Ex.P12. He has further opined that ligature mark on the dead body is possible by means of MO1- blue colour saree produced before the Court. 16. PW14 - Puttamma is the mother of the deceased. She has stated that the negotiation took place regarding the marriage of her daughter with Accused No. 1 and at that time, accused demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- cash and 25 soverign of gold and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid before the date of marriage and gold chain were given to Accused No. 1. However, the motor cycle was not given to the accused, but the bride was given gold jewels. It is in her evidence that deceased was informing regarding harassment by the accused for bringing Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry. 1,00,000/- was paid before the date of marriage and gold chain were given to Accused No. 1. However, the motor cycle was not given to the accused, but the bride was given gold jewels. It is in her evidence that deceased was informing regarding harassment by the accused for bringing Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry. It is in her evidence that three days prior to the death, the deceased had come to her house and at that time, she has stated that the accused is harassing for bringing additional dowry. Thereafter, it was informed that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself. 17. PW15 - Ammayya is the sister of the deceased. She has also stated regarding payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-as dowry to Accused No. 1 and Hero Honda motor cycle and 25 soverign of gold. However, they had informed the accused No. 1 that they are not in a position to give Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry. However, they had given gold ornaments and cash at the time of marriage. It is in her evidence that accused was asking additional dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in this connection Accused No. 1 was assaulting and abusing her. Once again her father paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the deceased in order to give it to the same to Accused No. 1 She has stated that deceased had come to their house three days prior to her death and at that time, she was also in her mother's house. Even she was informed that the accused is harassing for money. 18. PW16 - Puttamadaiah states that he v/as present at the time of negotiation of the marriage of deceased with Accused No. 1. He has also stated regarding demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry, one Hero Honda motor cycle. However, he has stated that he has not witnessed the said articles being handed over to the accused. He has been treated as hostile to the case of the prosecution. 19. PW17 - Thipprayya has also stated regarding the presence at the time of marriage negotiation. However, he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 20. PW18 - Ravishankar, Inspector of C.O.D. has registered a case in Crime No. 108/99 and started investigation in the case and handed over further investigation to Anti Dowry Cell of C.O.D., Bangalore. 21. PW19 - Mahadevaiah is the relative of the deceased. However, he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 20. PW18 - Ravishankar, Inspector of C.O.D. has registered a case in Crime No. 108/99 and started investigation in the case and handed over further investigation to Anti Dowry Cell of C.O.D., Bangalore. 21. PW19 - Mahadevaiah is the relative of the deceased. He ha stated that he was questioned by the police after the death of the deceased and has stated before the police that he has seen the ill treatment by the accused to the deceased. 22. PW20 - Seetharamaiah is the Taluka Executive Magistrate who has conducted inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased. 23. It is from the evidence of these witnesses the learned Sessions Judge has held that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The State has filed this appeal. 24. Heard Sri P.M. Nawaz, learned Addl. SPP and Sri Shakarappa, learned Counsel for the Respondents. Perused the materials on record. 25. It is seen that in the evidence of PW12 - Devamma. she has stated that three days prior to the death of the deceased, PW14 had brought the deceased to the house of her husband. PW12 is the neighbourer of the house of the accused. This witness has not stated regarding demand of dowry. But it is stated that accused No. 2 was insisting accused No. 1 to assault the deceased, since the deceased was very proud. It is because of this nature of the deceased that deceased had committed suicide. This witness has not been turned hostile by the prosecution. Her evidence remained unchallenged On going thorough the entire materials on record, though there is verbal evidence regarding payment of dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- PW9 or any other witness has not proved the source of their having Rs. 1,00,000/- in their possession. So far as payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- is concerned, there is discrepancy in the evidence of family members while some witness say that dowry was not given on the date of marriage itself in one lump sum, here is evidence to show that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was given earlier and balance of Rs. 80,000/-was given on the date of marriage. However, prosecution has not proved the source of PW9 to possess such money as on the date of marriage and to pay to the accused. PW9 is an agriculturist. 26. 20,000/- was given earlier and balance of Rs. 80,000/-was given on the date of marriage. However, prosecution has not proved the source of PW9 to possess such money as on the date of marriage and to pay to the accused. PW9 is an agriculturist. 26. Under the circumstance, the learned Sessions Judge has found that the allegation of the prosecution that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid by the deceased family to the accused is not probable and therefore, the accused has been acquitted by the trial Court So far as ill treatment before death is concerned, there is no convincing evidence and in the circumstance we are of the opinion that the judgment of trial Court in acquitting the accused of the offences charged against them does: not call for interference. The appeal is liable 10 be dismissed and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.