JUDGMENT These two criminal appeals filed by A.1 to A3 are directed against the judgment dated 26.02.2001 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda in S.C.No.117 of 1999, whereby and whereunder the appellants A1 to A3 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-8 IPC and Al was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period often years and A2 and A3 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. 2. There has been no representation for the appellants though the Court posted the appeals under the caption 'for Judgment'. Even this day also, none appears for the accused. Under these circumstances, I am disposing of these criminal appeals on merits after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and on perusing the judgment of the trial Court and the entire material on record. 3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is like this: Smt. Indramma, hereinafter called as 'the deceased' was the daughter of PWI and her marriage was performed with Al about four years one month prior to the accident. It is said that at the time of marriage PW.1 gave some cash, gold and silver articles worth ~ 40,0001- to Al and his parents, who are A2 and A3 as dowry. The marriage was consummated with Al and the deceased lived happily at her in-laws' place for some time. Thereafter, on demand made by Al for additional dowry of Rs. 40,000/-, PWI after expressing his inability, approached one person by name Porugu Rajaiah of Nalgonda and arranged a loan of Rs, 5,500/- on interest. It was further alleged that few days thereafter when PW.1 asked Al to A3 to repay the amount arranged by him, they demanded him to pay sum of Rs. 40,000/- as additional dowry and as the said demand was not fulfilled, all the accused further harassed the deceased physically and mentally. 4. On 21.06.1998 while the deceased was at the house of PW.1, Al went there and took away the deceased forcibly to his house and all the accused harassed the deceased for additional dowry. It is said that on 01.07.1998 being unable to bear the harassment meted out to her by the accused, the deceased consumed pesticide poison at her in-laws' house and became unconscious. She was shifted to Government Headquarters Hospital, Nalgonda, but died while undergoing treatment. It is said that on 01.07.1998 being unable to bear the harassment meted out to her by the accused, the deceased consumed pesticide poison at her in-laws' house and became unconscious. She was shifted to Government Headquarters Hospital, Nalgonda, but died while undergoing treatment. Thereafter on a report lodged by PW .1, a case in Crime N 0.51 of 1998 was registered by PW.11-the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Valigonda Police Station. PWs.12 and 13 are the Sub Inspectors of Police conducted investigation and subsequently the investigation was handed over to PW.14, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nalgonda. After completing investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellants. 5. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the appellants before the Assistant Sessions Judge examined PWs.1 to 14 and marked Exs.P.1 toP.10. The appellants examined DW1 and marked Exs.01 to 03 on their behalf. The learned Assistant Sessions Judgeon a consideration of the entire evidence on record, convicted Al to A3 for the offence punishable under Section 304-B and sentenced them to punishment as mentioned above. 6. Now the point for determination in these appeals is: whether the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants in both the appeals by the Assistant Sessions Judge can be sustained? 7. PW.1 is the de facto complainant and he is the father of the deceased Indramma. His evidence before the trial court is to the effect that he gave cash, gold and silver articles worth Rs. 40,000/- at the time of marriage of the deceased with A1 and subsequently, arranged loan Rs. 5,500/- when A1 demanded him to give amount of Rs. 10,000/, A1 further demanded an amount of Rs. 40,000/- as additional dowry when he asked him to repay the loan amount, for which he expressed his inability. It is his version that the deceased came to his house and informed him that A1 to A3 were asking her to bring money as demanded by A1 and were harassing her. It is also his evidence that while the deceased was at his house, A1 took her from the house by beating her and three days thereafter, he went to the house of the accused to see his daughter and on the next day morning, he came to know about the deceased consuming pesticide poison. 8. PW.2 is the brother of the deceased. He also spoke about PW.1 paying an amount of Rs. 8. PW.2 is the brother of the deceased. He also spoke about PW.1 paying an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to A1 as dowry and two months after the marriage, A1 coming to PW.1 and asking Rs. 10,000/- for digging bore-well and on that PW.1 arranging the amount through one Rajaiah, PW.1 raising disputes before him and some elders in Boyenapally, the accused demanding additional dowry of Rs. 40,000/- and subsequently his receiving information about the deceased being admitted in the hospital after consuming pesticide poison. 9. PW3 is the co-brother of PW.1. He besides stating about PW.1 paying an amount of Rs. 40,000/- as dowry at the time of his daughter's marriage stated that one month after the marriage, the accused prevented the deceased lndramma coming to his house and that on some occasions the deceased informing him about the illtreatment by the husband and in-laws for coming to his house. 10. PW.4 is the inhabitant of the same street of the accused. He stated in his deposition that there were no quarrels or disputes between the deceased and the accused and further deposed that when he enquired the deceased, she told him that because of the quarrels between her father and the accused, she consumed poison. This witness is treated hostile by the prosecution. 11. PW.5 had spoken about the panchayat convened by him and other elders at the instance of PW.1 on the ground that Al was harassing the deceased for additional dowry. PW.6, a neighbour of the accused stated in his deposition that the deceased was living happily with the accused and there were no disputes or quarrels and that one day prior to the deceased consuming poison, PW.1 abused the accused and also the deceased for not repaying the amount borrowed by the accused as loan, again on the next day morning also PW.1 came to the house of the accused and abused them in spite of the protest by his daughter (the deceased). This witness is also treated hostile by the prosecution. 12. DW.1 a resident of Bowenapally, the place at which the accused were also residing was examined on behalf of the accused. It appears from his evidence that he is closely associated with the family of PWI and the accused. This witness is also treated hostile by the prosecution. 12. DW.1 a resident of Bowenapally, the place at which the accused were also residing was examined on behalf of the accused. It appears from his evidence that he is closely associated with the family of PWI and the accused. He stated in his evidence that at the time of marriage of the deceased, the accused did not demand dowry amount and did not receive any dowry amount as well. According to this witness, A1 was doing coolie work prior to the marriage and after the marriage he started working as cleaner in the lorry, A2 and A3 were also doing coolie work though the family has Ac.1.1/2 of land. DW.1 specifically stated that the deceased was happily living in the house of her in laws without any disputes. His version before the trial Court is like this. 1/A2 borrowed some amount from PW.1 for digging bore-well and was unable to repay the same and that PW.1 was insisting for repayment of loan quite often, a panchayat was also convened at which the elders told PW.1 to wait for some time. He further deposed that one day prior to the death of the deceased PW.1 came to his house and asked him about the amount payable by A2 and he advised PW.1 to come on the next day morning, again PW.1 came in the morning, the elders were called, all of them sat at the bore-well of Karingi Mallaiah to discuss the said issue, they called A2 and A3 and asked them about repayment of the amount to PW.1 and A2 replied that A.1 went on lorry and after his arrival the money will be paid. But PW.1 did not agree and insisted upon payment of money on the same day itself. The deceased, who came to fetch water from the bore-well came near them and asked PW.1 to wait till the arrival of Al as they were not having any amount by then. But PW.1 did not accept and insisted that he wanted money then and there and commented that on her demise only he can get back the money. The deceased, who came to fetch water from the bore-well came near them and asked PW.1 to wait till the arrival of Al as they were not having any amount by then. But PW.1 did not accept and insisted that he wanted money then and there and commented that on her demise only he can get back the money. While the discussion was going on, the deceased went into the house and within 15 minutes they received information that the deceased was behaving abnormally, noticing her condition he and some other persons shifted her immediately to Government Hospital, Nalgonda." 13. It requires to be noticed in the first place, according to PW.1, the demand for additional dowry on' 40,000/- arose when he asked Al to repay the amount of Rs. 5,500/which he arranged through P.Rajaiah of Nalgonda. It is the version of PW.1 that when he asked A1 about the said repayment, Al replied that PW.1 had to pay a further sum Rs. 40,000/- towards additional dowry and the said amount is required for the business purpose of AI. From the evidence of PW.1 itself it does not appear that either Al or the remaining accused on their own did make any demand for additional dowry and such demand was pressed into service by Al only when he was asked about the repayment of loan which was arranged by PW1 through P.Rajaiah. 14. The prosecution did not examine P.Rajaiah as witness. The defence version was that the entire prosecution story is absolutely false and the fact is that Al actually borrowed an amount of Rs. 5,500/- from PW.1 for the purpose of bore-well, thereafter he was unable to repay the same, PW.1 was pressing for repayment of the same, when the pressure exerted by PW.1 against the accused to repay the amount became so acute, the deceased according to the defence theory suffered lot of mental agony and resorted to consume pesticide poison. 15. To substantiate the said version, the accused examined DW1 as a witness whose evidence is extracted in the foregoing paragraph. This apart, the accused produced promissory note executed by the second accused in favour of P.Rajaiah which is marked as EX.D2. From Ex.D.2, promissory note for an amount of Rs. 5,5,00/- it can be understood that A2 actually borrowed the amount from P.Rajaiah, but not PW1. This apart, the accused produced promissory note executed by the second accused in favour of P.Rajaiah which is marked as EX.D2. From Ex.D.2, promissory note for an amount of Rs. 5,5,00/- it can be understood that A2 actually borrowed the amount from P.Rajaiah, but not PW1. If that document is considered along with the evidence of DW1, the defence theory is more probable and acceptable. 16. Perusal of evidence of PW.1, does not disclose any occasion on which the deceased complained to PW.1 about the harassment meted out to her in connection with the demand of additional dowry. The manner in which PW1 had spoken about the demand of additional dowry does not inspire any confidence. It is lacking in any details and the very manner in which the alleged additional dowry was said to have been demanded appears to be highly unconvincing. The version that the deceased told PW.1 about the harassment in connection with the additional dowry is an improvement from what it is stated in Ex.P.1 statement of PW.1 before the Sub Inspector of Police, basing on which the first information report is registered. PWs.2 and 3 are close relatives of PW.1 and their evidence does not disclose that the deceased ever personally informed them about the harassment caused to her in connection with the demand of additional dowry and it is not at all their case that in their presence such harassment is meted out and their evidence is based on what is said to have been stated to them by PW.1. Further PW.3 only stated that one month after the marriage, the accused prevented the deceased Indramma coming to his house and when she came to his house, she told that she was being ill-treated by the husband and in-laws for coming to his house. If there was any harassment meted out by the accused to the deceased for additional dowry, she would have definitely stated the same to PW.3and thus, the evidence ofPW.3, seems to be artificial. The evidence of PW.4, as already indicated, discloses that when he asked the deceased after she consumed poison, the deceased told her that she consumed poison because of the quarrels between her father and the accused. The evidence of PW.4, as already indicated, discloses that when he asked the deceased after she consumed poison, the deceased told her that she consumed poison because of the quarrels between her father and the accused. Similarly, PW.6 also stated in his evidence that on the previous night of the deceased consuming poison PW.1 came to the house of the accused and abused them and also the deceased for not repaying the loan. His evidence also further discloses that on the next day morning also PW.1 went to the house of accused and abused the accused and also his daughter fornot repaying the amount borrowed from him. The evidence of PWs.5 and 6 corroborate the version of DW.1. 17. It is settled law that even if the witness is treated hostile, either the prosecution or defence can rely on the said evidence and the Court in such an event, has to evaluate the evidence of hostile witness for ascertaining the truth. Similarly equal treatment shall be given to prosecution witness as well as defence witness and if it seems that there is a ring of truth in the version of defence witness and it appears to be more probable, the court can base its decision on the evidence of defence witness to record a finding. 18. Section 304-8 of IPC is one of the provisions which is being quite often misused and the Court while trying an offence punishable under the said provision has to be extremely careful in evaluating the evidence. There may be so many reasons for a woman to commit suicide. The endeavour of the Court should be to ascertain as to whether such suicide was committed in consequence of cruelty or harassment concerning demand of additional dowry. There may be instances where the parents or close relatives of a woman died otherwise than under normal circumstances making reports falsely introducing the element of dowry harassment may be perhaps due to shock arising out of grief on account of sudden and untimely demise of the woman. The Court has to properly assess the real cause of the unnatural death of the woman on a thorough scrutiny of the evidence on record without being swayed away by the mere fact of the unnatural death of the woman. 19. The Court has to properly assess the real cause of the unnatural death of the woman on a thorough scrutiny of the evidence on record without being swayed away by the mere fact of the unnatural death of the woman. 19. In the instant case, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and 5 is lacking in details about the cruel treatment meted out to the deceased by the accused in connection with the demand of additional dowry and it does not inspire confidence of this Court. It does not appear that there is any iota of truth in the version of PW.1 and the other witnesses, who supported his story. While evaluating the entire evidence available on record, the defence version appears to be more probable and the prosecution story and the evidence of the main witnesses for the prosecution do not inspire any confidence. The learned trial court, in my view while assessing the evidence acted in a mechanical way without examining the circumstances under which the evidence was brought on record by the prosecution. The learned trial Court considering all the aforementioned crucial facts ought to have acquitted the accused, but had fallen into error in recording the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court are not sustainable and liable to be set aside. 20. On the aforesaid reasoning and analysis, both the appeals viz. Crl.A.No.432 of 2001 and Criminal Appeal No.296 of 2001 are allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellants/ A-I to A-3 are set aside and they are acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B IPC. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them.