JUDGMENT Being aggrieved by the order dated 10-11-2003 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Tumkur, in S.C. No.2 of 2003 convicting the appellant for an offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and sentencing him to undergo for 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default simple imprisonment for 4 months for offence under Section 498-A; 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC; 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 4 months for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC; 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and 3 months for the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 4 months for the offence under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant being the husband of the deceased Shobha, married her on 5-12-2001 and at the time of marriage, he received a cash of Rs. 25,000/- and golden ornaments as dowry and thereafter, while living with the deceased, the appellant subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment, thereby the appellant committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. Secondly, it is the case of the prosecution that on 16-7-2002 at about 5 p.m., the deceased Shobha being unable to tolerate the cruelty given by the appellant, committed suicide by hanging herself and since such death is within 7 years from the date of her marriage and soon before her death, the appellant has also demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for digging borewell, he has committed an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC. It is further alleged that prior to 5-12-2001, the appellant demanded and received a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for digging borewell, he has committed an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC. It is further alleged that prior to 5-12-2001, the appellant demanded and received a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as dowry from the parents of the deceased Shobha and also received golden ornaments such as finger ring, mangalya sara from C.W. 1-Basavaraj thereby he is liable to be punished under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further charged against the appellant that the appellant was demanding additional dowry of Rs. 20,000/- which is punishable under Section 4 of the D.P. Act. It is also further charged against him that the appellant had not returned the gold ornaments to the father of the deceased thereby being guilty of offence under Section 6 of the D.P. Act. 3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined in all 25 witnesses and has got marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 26 and also produced M.Os. 1 to 10. The defence of the appellant was one of total denial. After hearing the prosecution and the defence, learned Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. Heard Sri Amar Corea, learned Counsel for the appellant and Smt. A.R. Sharadamba, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent and carefully perused the materials on record. 5. The prosecution has examined P.W. 1-Basavaraj, the father of the deceased. It is in his evidence that at the time of marriage, he had given a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the appellant and also he has also put gold ornaments to his daughter, but he has stated that he does not know about the cruelty meted out to his daughter by the appellant. P.W. 1 was treated hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined. 6. P.W. 2-Parvathamma the mother of the deceased, has also stated that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was given to the accused at the time of marriage and since she has not fully supported the case of the prosecution, she was treated hostile and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. 7. P.W. 3-Manjula is the sister of the deceased. She has been treated hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 4-Narasimhamurthy is a signatory to the inquest report. P.W. 5-Mahalingaiah is a neighbour who has stated that a sum of Rs. 7. P.W. 3-Manjula is the sister of the deceased. She has been treated hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 4-Narasimhamurthy is a signatory to the inquest report. P.W. 5-Mahalingaiah is a neighbour who has stated that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was given to the accused and one neck chain and gold ring were also given to him at the time of marriage, but he was also treated hostile so far as harassment is concerned. P.W. 6-Shivagangamma is another neighbour who has turned hostile to the prosecution case. P.W. 7-Chandraiah, P.W. 8-Shambulingaiah, P.W. 9-Siddalingaiah, P.W. 10-Teerthaprasad and P.W. 11-Thimmegowda have been examined in support of the case of the prosecution, but none of them supported the case of the prosecution case and have been turned hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. 8. P.W. 12-P. Ramappa is the Taluk. Magistrate. He has conducted the inquest proceedings on the deceased Shobha on the request of the Dandinashivara Police. At the time of inquest, he has examined certain witnesses including P.Ws. 1 to 4 and Ex. P. 3-Inquest report marked through him. P.W. I3-Hanumanthaiah and P.W. I4-Kumar have also been examined regarding cruelty meted out to the deceased but both of them turned hostile to the prosecution. 9. P.W. I5-Channabasaiah is a witness to the inquest who has also not supported the case of the prosecution in material aspects. P.W. 16-A.N. Vijayakumar and P.W. 17-Mohankumar have also been examined to prove the cruelty and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. 10. P.W. 18-Dr. Srilatha has conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased Shobha and has given opinion that the death of Shobha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging and such hanging is suicidal in nature. P.W. 19-Rajanna and P.W. 20-T.N. Somasekhara have been examined but their evidence is of no material use for the case of the prosecution. P.W. 21 is C.V. Dodavad, Deputy Superintendent of Police and P.W. 22-A.K Siddamma, another Deputy Superintendent of Police who have conducted investigation in the case. P.W. 23 is Nanjegowda, Police Constable who arrested the appellant. 11. P.W. 24-Raghuswamy is the brother of the deceased. He has stated in the examination-in-chief that the accused has demanded mangalya sara, neck chain and money and also dowry of Rs. 50,000/- at the time of marriage and that they had paid Rs. 25,000/- in cash. P.W. 23 is Nanjegowda, Police Constable who arrested the appellant. 11. P.W. 24-Raghuswamy is the brother of the deceased. He has stated in the examination-in-chief that the accused has demanded mangalya sara, neck chain and money and also dowry of Rs. 50,000/- at the time of marriage and that they had paid Rs. 25,000/- in cash. In cross-examination, he has stated that he has not witnessed anything given by his father to the accused in the marriage. He has further stated that he was not present at the time of marriage talks. P.W. 25-Ramanna is an acquaintance who has also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 12. From the evidence of all the above witnesses, it has to be seen whether the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge is proper and based on sound principle of law. It is to be seen that in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 who are parents of the deceased, no where they have stated that the accused has demanded any dowry. It is in the evidence of P. W. 24-the brother of the deceased that the fact of demand of Rs. 50,000/- and payment of Rs. 25,000/- has been elicited by the prosecution but in the cross-examination, P. W. 24 has stated that he was not present during the marriage talks prior to the marriage and also that he was not present when any amount or anything were given to the appellant. Therefore, he is a hearsay witness and he has not personally witnessed either the marriage talks or payment or any other aspects of the case. Therefore, the demand of dowry as stated by the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. So far ill-treatment given to the deceased Shobha is concerned, none of the witnesses has spoken in their evidence, more particularly the relatives, neighbour and acquaintance. Therefore, the ill-treatment or harassment has not been proved by the prosecution to attract Section 304-B. The ill-treatment or cruelty should be meted out with a purpose of extracting dowry from the parents or from the bride side. In this case, such evidence is not forthcoming. Under the circumstances, the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 13. In this case, such evidence is not forthcoming. Under the circumstances, the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 13. So far as the two charges are concerned, when there is no proof of payment or giving any property or valuables to the appellant, the question of returning them does not arise and therefore, I am of the opinion that the ingredients of the offence mentioned above are not proved by any cogent and clear evidence by the prosecution. In the circumstances, I hold that the conviction of sentence passed against the appellant is bad in law and the same is liable to be set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is set aside and appellant is acquitted of the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The bail bonds, if any, executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled.