Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 663 (KAR)

Seetharamaiah v. State of Karnataka

2010-05-28

H.G.RAMESH

body2010
Judgment : The appeal is against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Court III, Mysore in SC 370/2000 on 28.7.2005 against the accused for the offences punishable under Ss.304 B, 498A, IPC and Ss. 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Deceased Girija is the wife of the 1st accused and the 2nd accused is her brother-in-law. The marriage of the deceased had taken place on 24.8.1997 with the 1st accused. As per the facts averred, at the time of marriage, accused had demanded Rs. 1 lac in cash and 120 grams of gold jewellary from the father of the deceased who is examined as PW.5. After marriage, the deceased was staying with the accused. The accused ill-treated and harassed her to bring more dowry. Being unable to tolerate the ill-treatment and cruelty, on the morning of 9.2.2000 between 9.40 and 10.00 a.m., the said Girija committed suicide in the house of the 1st accused situate at K R Nagar, 3rd Cross. On coming to know of the incident, the owner of the house-PW 10 intimated the KR Nagar Police as per Ex.P.11 and the same was registered as UDR/FIR at Ex.P22 by the ASI. Further investigation was taken up by PW 17-PSI. On the basis of the inquest report, he registered a case in Crime No.26/2000 and submitted the FIR to the Magistrate as per Ex.P23. Further investigation was taken over by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mysore Rural Sub-Division and on 19.2.2000, he visited the spot and having conducted the mahazar, recorded the statement of several witnesses and after receiving the opinion of the Doctor and also the post mortem report of the deceased, after completion of the investigation, prepared charge-sheet. But it was filed by his successor to office. After committal to the sessions Court, matter was pending before the III Addl. Session Judge on such assignment made by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Mysore and later, it was assigned to the Fast Track Court III, Mysore. The Fast Track Judge framed charges against the accused for the above said offences. Since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, nineteen witnesses were examined and twenty six documents were got marked along with seven material objects. The accused were examined under S.313, Cr.PC. The Fast Track Judge framed charges against the accused for the above said offences. Since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, nineteen witnesses were examined and twenty six documents were got marked along with seven material objects. The accused were examined under S.313, Cr.PC. Thereafter, the accused also filed separate statement with the list of documents and also lead evidence of DW1. After hearing both sides, the 1st accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Ss.498A and 304 B, IPC and both the accused were convicted by the Fast Track Judge for the offences punishable under Ss. 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 60,000/- each and default sentence of six months for the offence under S. 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and default sentence of two months. Further, the 1st accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and default sentence of three months for the offence under S.498A, IPC and was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under S.304 B, IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently by also giving the benefit of set off. Out of the fine amount, Rs.1 lac was ordered to be paid to PW 5 – father of the deceased, as compensation. However, the 2nd accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under S.498A and 304B, IPC. Against this order, appeal has been preferred on various grounds. 3. Heard the counsel representing the parties. 4. It is the argument of the appellants counsel that there was no such dowry harassment nor the death was due to dowry demand. She being a sensitive woman, and also she was suffering from severe pain in stomach even as per the evidence of DW1 & Medical Officer of Bettadapura, unable to tolerate the pain, has committed suicide. The first complaint was filed by PW 10 and it was registered as UDR. PW5 – father of the deceased created a story of harassment by way of concoction. The evidence regarding demand for dowry is only elicited for the first time by PWs. The first complaint was filed by PW 10 and it was registered as UDR. PW5 – father of the deceased created a story of harassment by way of concoction. The evidence regarding demand for dowry is only elicited for the first time by PWs. 6 & 7 before the Court and that was not supported by the version of PW 5. Even PW 15 who speaks about the alleged dowry-has not stated anything on the said aspect before the Court and PW 5 also has not stated anything about the demand and acceptance even before the Taluka Executive Magistrate and PWs. 6 & 7 have made a general omni-bus statement regarding dowry. However, there is no whisper as to harassment by PW5 is in variance with the statement given by him before the Taluka executive Magistrate. There are several contradictions and omissions. Without properly analyzing the evidence on record, it is stated, the trial Court simply6 came to the conclusion that the accused are guilty of the offences. IT is also contended, there, is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and it is an afterthought by PW5, the father of the deceased. It is also submitted, the accused are well of – the 1st accused is a veterinary doctor by profession. When the incident has taken place, he was not at home and was on duty. In connection with the deceased attending a function of her relative, except that the 1st accused did not express his willing ness, that was made much of by the parents of the deceased. There is no cogent and legal evidence eon record to hold the accused guilty of the offences. 5. It is also the argument, of the learned counsel for the accused is a government servant and never stayed together with the 1st accused was residing at K R Nagar along with his family and the 2nd accused was residing at Mysore working there and the 2nd accused never attended any marriage talks except that he attended the marriage and, there is no occasion for the 2nd accused to0 demand dowry and also the father of the deceased who arrived at the spot at the time of inquest, has also spoken that there was no dowry harassment and the alleged harassment for dowry is only an after thought developed by PW5, the father of the dece4ased who was grief struck. At the first instance itself, the accused are innocent of the alleged offences. Only to make up a dowry death case, a false case has been concocted as an afterthought which is clearly evident from the statement of several witnesses including that of the father of the deceased. The trial Court without appreciating the same, only on technicality and without there being legal and admissible evidence on record, has proceeded to convict the accused. Accordingly, he has sought for acquittal of the accused. 6. Per contra, learned SPP argued that the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the alleged offences. The accused accepted dowry and the evidence of the family members of the complainant and others do prove the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, learned SPP sought for dismissal of the appeal. 7. In view of the arguments advanced, the points that arise for consideration are – (i) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused are guilty of the alleged offences; (ii) Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the 1st accused for the offence under Ass.498A, 304 B, IPC r/w S.3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; (iii) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the 2nd accused is guilty of the offence under Ss.3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; (iv) Whether the impugned order passed by the trial Court calls for interference. 8. So far as the cause of death of the deceased is concerned, the evidence of the Medical Officer at General Hospital, K R Nagar – PW 2 Dr. Poornima depicts that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. Ex.P5 is the post-mortem report and also ligature marks found on the body was also opined as due to hanging by a saree. 9. It is also clear from the records, neither of the accused were present at the time of the deceased having committed suicide. The 1st accused had been on duty at that time and the 2nd accused was on duty at Mysore. 10. Even the report of the Tuluka Executive Magistrate depicts that on 10.2.2000 he visited the house of the 1st accused around 9.00 a.m. and conducted inquest of the dead body after removing the body from hanging position in the bed room and that he has drawn inquest proceedings as per Ex.P8. 10. Even the report of the Tuluka Executive Magistrate depicts that on 10.2.2000 he visited the house of the 1st accused around 9.00 a.m. and conducted inquest of the dead body after removing the body from hanging position in the bed room and that he has drawn inquest proceedings as per Ex.P8. The statement of the father of the deceased also had been recorded. It is also noticed from the evidence of PW 10landlord of the house in which the accused and deceased were staying together that, on 9.2.2000 around 9.00 am PW 9-Parashuram told him about the suicidal death of Girija, as such, he went to the house of the 1st accused and broke open the door of the bed room and found Girija dead in a hanging position. PW 10 has informed the police and also lodged a complaint as per Ex.P11. The evidence of PW 10 depicts the fact that the deceased herself has bolted from inside the rook and committed suicide by hanging with a saree. At that time, 1st accused was not present in the house and rather he was on duty. The opinion of the Doctor as well as Taluka Executive Magistrate who conducted the inquest depicts the fact that it is a suicidal death and also that at the time of inquest, parents of the deceased were present. PW 5-father of the deceased has also not made any statement implicating the accused at that time. On perusal of the inquest at Ex.P8. statement of PW5, father of the deceased, recorded on 10.2.2000 i.e., on the next date of conducting of the inquest by the Taluka Executive Magistrate depicts, at the time of marriage PW5 is said to have given dowry of Rs. 1 lac and about 115 gms of gold and spending about Rs.2.5 lacs, celebrated the marriage, 2nd accused was residing at Mysore and also according to PW 5, the deceased used to tell him about the abetment/instigation of the 2nd accused and that she was being mentally harassed. She also used to write letters regarding harassment meted out to her by the 1st accused. She also used to write letters regarding harassment meted out to her by the 1st accused. It is also the specific statement of PW 5 that on 9.2.2000 there was a house warming ceremony of one Manjula Nagendrappa who is the daughter of his uncle (chikka mava) at Tumkur and although the said Manjula had extended invitation to the accused and the deceased to attend the function, when the deceased requested her husband/1st accused to take her along with him, he refused. In this regard, there was a talk between the couple and accordingly. PW5 having suspected, narrated the same before the Taluka Executive Magistrate. It is also stated by him that the 1st accused has prevented the deceased from attending the house warming ceremony of her elder sister. According to PW 5, the 1st accused never used to send the deceased to any of the functions at this home. Accordingly he opined that the 1st accused is a suspicious person. On 9.2.2000, he learnt about the death of his daughter and on that day, he reached there around 6.00 p.m. and found his daughter’s body hanging. According to his testimony, the deceased committed suicide because of the harassment by the 1st accused. 11. The evidence of PW 6 Jayamma, mother of the deceased, PW7-Suguna, sister of the deceased and PW 15-Sathyanarayana, brother-in-law of the deceased, in addition to the evidence of PW5 speak about the harassment meted out to the deceased. PW 9 is one Parashuram who stayed with the 1st accused for about three years. So far as the evidence of PW 9 regarding ill-treatment is concerned, he has not supported the version of the prosecution. He has stated, on 9.2.2000 as per the instructions of Girija, he went to the School to apply for leave, when she expressed she was not keeping well and asked him to apply for leave. When he returned, he found that Girija had licked from inside the bed room and as such, he called PW10-Landlord who broke open the door and they found the body of Girija hanging. Further evidence of PW 9 is to the effect that Girija was suffering from pain in the stomach and leg. PW10 is the landlord and neighbour of the house where the incident has taken place. Further evidence of PW 9 is to the effect that Girija was suffering from pain in the stomach and leg. PW10 is the landlord and neighbour of the house where the incident has taken place. According to him, except that he intimated the police and broke open the lock of the room where Girija had bolded from inside, there is no other incriminating evidence against the accused. Even in the cross-examination, he has stated that he is residing in the backside portion of the house where the incident has taken place and also Girija never complained of ill-treatment by her husband the 1st accused and also that his wife is a good friend of Girija. He has also stated that the accused everyday used to leave the house at 8.00 in the morning and return at 6.00p.m. and deceased Girija was having freedom and also it is his evidence that Girija was suffering from stomach pain and paid in the left leg. 12. Another witness is Sulochana, wife of PW 10. According to the prosecution, she is also a witness to the ill-treatment to the deceased by the 1st accused. In her evidence, she has deposed to the effect that the relation between the accused and the deceased was cordial and Girija never complained of ill-treatment by her husband. Of course, she has went to the extent of deposing to the effect that Girija used to tell her that the stomach pain was due to caesarian operation. She was treated as hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution but, to no avail. In the cross-examination on behalf of the defense, she rather stated that Girija was often suffering from stomach-ache and pain in the leg and was expressing that she was feeling it difficult to look after her child and sometimes expressed that she would commit suicide. She also admitted that at the time of inquest by the Taluka Executive Magistrate, the parents of the deceased were present and they did not complain any thing about the accused 1 and 2. Similarly even PW 10 in his cross-examination has admitted that the parents of the deceased did not complain against the accused before the Tahsildar. 13. Another witness PW 12-Lakshmanamma who is a neighbour also speaks about the harassment meted out to the deceased Girija. Similarly even PW 10 in his cross-examination has admitted that the parents of the deceased did not complain against the accused before the Tahsildar. 13. Another witness PW 12-Lakshmanamma who is a neighbour also speaks about the harassment meted out to the deceased Girija. Although she has also stated that Girija while talking with her during her lifetime, never complained of ill-treatment against her husband. However, according to the prosecution, the 1st accused was harassing the deceased Girija and not allowing her to go anywhere. This aspect has been denied by the witnesses. 14. PWs. 10 to 12 who are independent witnesses have not supported the version of the prosecution rather, they have pleaded that the deceased and the accused were cordial and the deceased was suffering from stomach-ache and also pain in the leg. On behalf of the prosecution, parents of the deceased have spoken to about some harassment meted out to the deceased. But, in the statement given by PW 5 before the Taluka Executive Magistrate, he has stated that he had suspicion regarding harassment. Though he has spoken about the acceptance of dowry by the 2nd accused, he did not clearly state as to whether there was any demand or acceptance so as to attract the provisions of Ss. 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In his cross-examination, PW5 has denied the aspect of Girija suffering from ill-health although some medical prescriptions i.e., Exs.D1-D3 were confronted regarding Girija taking treatment. In this regard, he has stated that they are not in respect of treatment for stomach paid and he has pleaded his ignorance that the deceased was suffering form stomach pain. He has also pleaded ignorance as to the 1st accused getting treatment to Girija by one Dr. Shivananjappa. Regarding the conduct of the 1st accused certain questions were posed in the cross-examination wherein this witness has admitted that according to the community customs, they perform the engagement ceremony but, they did not perform the engagement ceremony of the deceased Girija as the accused did not demand performing of the engagement ceremony. He has further pleaded ignorance as to whether the accused had 30.00 acres of land in Sira Taluk and also the fact that the accused themselves got printed the marriage invitation cards. He has further pleaded ignorance as to whether the accused had 30.00 acres of land in Sira Taluk and also the fact that the accused themselves got printed the marriage invitation cards. Although he has stated his statement was recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate on 10.2.2000, he has pleaded ignorance as to what he has stated before him. He also admits that he does not remember having stated as per Ex.D4 that Dr. Seetharamaiah/accused was paid dowry of Rs. 1 lac. He also pleads ignorance as to whether the police have recorded his statement or not. 15. The evidence of PW 6 Jayamma wife of PW 5 is to the effect that the accused demanded Rs.2 lacs and a site and they agreed to pay Rs. 1 lac as dowry and it was paid fifteen days prior to the marriage and after marriage. Girija was living with the 1st accused at Bettadapura and later at K R Nagar. It is also her evidence that 1st accused expressed that dowry given was not sufficient and demanded additional dowry and in this regard, deceased used to tell her about the harassment meted out to her i.e., the 1st accused was heating her and nor providing her food and, they advised the 1st accused to take care of Girija properly and after several months when Girija was seven months pregnant, they brought her to their house and there she delivered a female child. The child was suffering from jaundice and it was got treated at Manipal hospital, Bangalore./ After five months, they left Girija in the house of the 1st accused and also they asked the 2nd accused to advise the 1st accused not to harass Girija. This witness also speaks about the demand of Rs. 20,000/- by the 1st accused and that they pleaded their inability to make payment. However, she has pleaded ignorance as to the statement recorded by the Tahsildar and the police when they went to the house of the accused in the evening on the day of the incident. 16. The evidence of PW 7 Suguna, sister of the deceased is to a similar effect to that of PWs. 5 and 6 regarding demanding dowry of Rs. 2 lacs and her parents paying Rs. 1 lac to the accused fifteen days prior to the marriage. 16. The evidence of PW 7 Suguna, sister of the deceased is to a similar effect to that of PWs. 5 and 6 regarding demanding dowry of Rs. 2 lacs and her parents paying Rs. 1 lac to the accused fifteen days prior to the marriage. Her evidence is also that Girija used to tell before her parents that the accused was demanding to bring additional dowry. It is also her statement that her father paid Rs. 25,000/- to the 1st accused. However, the evidence of PW 6, mother of the deceased is that accused was demanding Rs.20,000/- but she has not whispered anything about making payment of additional dowry. According to PW7, there was ill-treatment by the 1st accused to the deceased, therefore, she committed suicide. It is her evidence that the 1st accused has not allowed Girija to attend the house warming ceremony of her relatives. As to the financial condition, in the cross-examination to the suggestion that her father was not financially sound as such, her father did not perform the engagement ceremony, she has denied the suggestion. However, she has pleaded ignorance as to whether Girija was suffering from pain in the leg and she has admitted that there are no documents regarding payment of dowry to the accused. 17. PW 15 is another relative of the deceased (brother-in-law of the deceased-sister’s husband). Although he has spoken about the marriage talks about two to three months prior to the marriage and that he came to know about the marriage talks, he has stated nothing about payment of dowry or dowry demand. He has stated nothing about payment of dowry or dowry demand. He has stated that Girija was residing with her husband at K R Nagar and prior to that, at Bettadapura. Further he has stated that Girija whenever met him, she used to tell that the 1st accused was demanding dowry. However, this witness was treated hostile as he has not fully supported the prosecution version. Rather, he has denied the suggestion by the prosecution that the has stated that it is not correct to say that the accused was demanding dowry of Rs.2 lacs and 100 gms of gold and in this connection, parents of the deceased gave Rs.1 lac and 100 gms of gold to the deceased. Rather, he has denied the suggestion by the prosecution that the has stated that it is not correct to say that the accused was demanding dowry of Rs.2 lacs and 100 gms of gold and in this connection, parents of the deceased gave Rs.1 lac and 100 gms of gold to the deceased. What is being noticed in the evidence of this witness is, there is no give and take of dowry as stated by other witnesses. However, he has stated and asserted that deceased was complaining of harassment to together by the 1st accused, over phone. 18. The argument of the appellants’ counsel is, although PWs. 6 & 7 have spoken about demand of Rs. 20,000/- but, for the first time, such evidence of was given before the Court and it is not supported by the evidence of PW 5, the father of the deceased. Even PW 15 who has spoken about the payment of dowry to the accused at the time of marriage, has not whispered anything before the Court. It is argued. PW10 who is an independent witness and neighbour has rather stated that the deceased and accused were cordial and, the evidence given by PWs. 6 & 7 regarding the 1st accused beating the deceased and not providing her food is a omission. It is also the argument of the appellants’ counsel that, even the letters written by Veena, sister of the deceased to the deceased depicts that there is no dowry harassment and also it is his argument that Ex.D1 to D3 depicts the treatment taken by the deceased for her ailment. 19. It is pertinent to note in this context, although on 10.2.2000 the inquest was drawn in which the statement of PW5, father of the deceased was recorded, the FIR is shown to be registered only on 18.2.2000 which is at Ex.P23 and the complainant is shown as one Jagadish. Sub-Inspector. Apart from that, complaint is also filed stating only that information has been received from the relatives of the deceased. The first information given by PW 10 is in respect of the unnatural death of the deceased that is registered as UDR 5/2000-Ex.P11. The subsequent FIR was registered only on 18.2.2000 for the alleged offences. Although the father of the deceases was there, he never made up; his mind to lodge a complaint. The first information given by PW 10 is in respect of the unnatural death of the deceased that is registered as UDR 5/2000-Ex.P11. The subsequent FIR was registered only on 18.2.2000 for the alleged offences. Although the father of the deceases was there, he never made up; his mind to lodge a complaint. Even regarding the statement recorded at the time of inquest also, there is some discrepancies, as to the statement he h as given. Except the testimony of he interested witnesses viz., father, mother and the sister regarding alleged dowry demand and acceptance, even the brother-in-law (sister’s husband) of the deceased has supported the case of the prosecution. But, he has not supported regarding the demand and acceptance of dowry and also it is noticed in the version of PW15 that though he came to know of the marriage talks, he has not whispered anything about the payment of dowry and other things. The admission of PW5 that no betrothal ceremony was held goes to show that the accused never insisted for formalities and also when PW15 has not spoken as to the alleged demand and acceptance, apart from the evidence of the interested witness, it cannot be gain said that there is demand and acceptance of dowry. In constituting the offences under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the evidence of the interested witnesses has to be carefully scrutinized as to whether they paid dowry and whether such payment of dowry was doubtful. Even there is no consistency in the evidence of the witnesses who are the father, mother and the sister of the deceased as to whom the amount was paid. Even it is seen, in the case of marriage of other daughters of PW5 the betrothal ceremony has taken place and it is the specific case of PW5, since the 1st accused has not demanded for performing such a ceremony, no such ceremony was held and it goes to show that the 1st accused is a simple man and had not opted for luxuries. Apart from that, there is no cogent document produced in proof of paying the dowry. Even it is the sole testimony of PW5 that 2nd accused has demanded and accepted dowry whereas other witnesses have stated that 1st accused has demanded,. Apart from that, there is no cogent document produced in proof of paying the dowry. Even it is the sole testimony of PW5 that 2nd accused has demanded and accepted dowry whereas other witnesses have stated that 1st accused has demanded,. In view of the contradictory version as to the fact that there was dowry demand and also there was acceptance, the same cannot be accepted. As such, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against accused 1 and 2 regarding demanding dowry and acceptance. 20. So far as the offence under Ss. 498 A and 304 B, IPC is concerned, throughout it has come on record that accused 2 was staying elsewhere whereas accused I and deceased were staying first at Bettadapura and later at K. R. Nagar. It is also the evidence of the neighbouring witnesses staying near the house of the accused and deceased that the couple were cordial and some of the women who were talking with the deceased also have specifically stated that there was no dowry demand much less payment of additional dowry. Even the deceased had not complained of the harassment to bring additional dowry. 21. Of course, the defense of the accused is that the deceased was suffering from stomach-ache and also pain in the left lower limb as such, she being frustrated, committed suicide. It is seen, on some occasions the deceased had been treated at the hospital for which some documents are produced. Further, it is the specific case of the father of the deceased and other witnesses viz., PWs. 6 & 7, mother and sister that accused was never allowing the deceased to attend any of the ceremonies in their family. Even as per the prosecution, the deceased to attend any of the ceremonies in their family. Even as per the prosecution, the deceased requested the 1st accused to take her to the house warming ceremony of one of her relatives and he refused to take her on which much thrust has been given in the evidence of PWs. 5 to 7. Of course, due to such an indifferent attitude on the part of 1st accused, the deceased must have felt humiliated or got annoyed. 5 to 7. Of course, due to such an indifferent attitude on the part of 1st accused, the deceased must have felt humiliated or got annoyed. In the usual course, family bickering between spouses by itself, cannot be said to be a reason for her to commit suicide and it may n ot be a ground to hold against the accused that there was abetment to commit suicide and also that the accused is guilty of the offence under S.498A, IPC. 22. From the evidence on record that of PWs. 5 to 7 and PW 15, it is seen, they have spoken about the deceased complaining of harassment to her whenever she used to meet them. In this regard, however, no complaint has been filed by the family of the deceased against the accused. Apart from that, what is noticed is, the deceased was residing along with her husband and after marriage, for three years she lead marital life and also gave birth to a child. It is also noticed, the 1st accused was demanding Rs.20,000/- as per the evidence of some of the witnesses and also they made arrangement to pay Rs.15,000/-. In this regard, PW5 has not stated or whispered anything before the Taluka Executive Magistrate. So, it appears to be an afterthought to make out a dowry harassment case to implicate the accused. Even with regard to the evidence as to collecting dowry is concerned, the statement of PW5 is that the 2nd accused has collected dowry amount whereas in the further statement it is stated that 1st accused has collected dowry amount and that itself shows that there is much contradictions and Ex.D5 also depicts the contradiction version. Moreover, in the absence of any such complaint being filed by PW5 or 6 on coming to know of the death of the deceased except the suspicion they have expressed at the time of recording the inquest statement by the Tahsildar, no other steps have been taken by PW5 to file the complaint. Even the FIR is registered for the alleged offences only after ten days. Certain of the contradictions marked at Ex.D4 to 6 show that there is no such demand by the accused for dowry. May be some misunderstanding between the husband and wife regarding not allowing the deceased to attend the function of her relative but, that itself cannot be treated as a cruelty harassment. Certain of the contradictions marked at Ex.D4 to 6 show that there is no such demand by the accused for dowry. May be some misunderstanding between the husband and wife regarding not allowing the deceased to attend the function of her relative but, that itself cannot be treated as a cruelty harassment. In order to prove the offence under S.304 B, IPC, death must have occurred within seven years of marriage in unnatural circumstances in connection with dowry harassment. The evidence of the neighbouring witnesses is consistent and contradicts the version of the relatives of the deceased and also, apart from that, the boy-PW 7 who was residing along with the deceased and the accused has not whispered anything about any untoward incident that has occurred to hold the accused guilty of the offences under Ss.498A and 304 B, IPC. Even if some amount is given or taken, it appear to be in the form of customary practice having regard to the status of the family and, even for having made payment, there is no record made available. Believing the version of the relatives of the deceased as gospel truth the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused without looking into the various contradictions and admissions and also the delay in filing the complaint. The complaint is lodged, that too by the police, after ten days. Ex.D1 to D3 are the prescriptions of the deceased who was treated for ailments. The statement of PW5 is recorded by the police only after 9 to 10 days after the death of the deceased and nothing has been stated by him in the Inquest report regarding alleged demand for additional dowry by the accused. It appears to be an afterthought and improvement made by the prosecution witnesses, especially by PWs. 5 to 7. 23. In view of the above discussions, having noticed that deceased committed suicide within seven years of her marriage, it appears her death would have probably been due to misunderstanding between the deceased and the 1st accused in not sending her to attend the ceremony of her relative in the family of her parents. Although several wild allegations are made, there is no cogent evidence to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offences. Although several wild allegations are made, there is no cogent evidence to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offences. The order of conviction and sentence rendered by the trial Court is without looking into the contradictions and also without considering the material evidence of the independent witnesses who got to speak about the attitude of the accused with the deceased. 24. Accordingly, while setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, extending the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused, the accused are acquitted of the offences with which they were charged. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Appeal is allowed.