Judgment This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 4th July, 2003 passed by 23rd Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in SC No. 201 of 1996 acquitting the respondents-accused persons of the charges leveled against them for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 498-A and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 1860. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is as under: Deceased Nazira Begum was the daughter of P.W. 1-Syed Noor Ahamed. She was married to accused 1-Mohammed Nakeed Pasha on 19-7-1987. Accused 2-S.M. Ghouse Peer and accused 3jaibunnisa are the parents-in-law and accused 4 and 5 are the brothers-in-law of the deceased Nazira Begum. During pre-marriage talks, the accused persons demanded dowry in the form of Chetak Scooter, 21/2 sovereigns of gold ring, 5 sovereigns of gold chain, a wrist watch and a site at Bangalore and house to be constructed later on at the costs of the parents of the bride. P.W. 1 agreed to comply with all those demands. Accordingly, at the time of the marriage, parents of Nazira Begum fulfilled the above said demands except giving site and construction of the house. After the marriage, the deceased started living with the accused in her matrimonial home. After some times accused persons started subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment, since her parents failed to provide the site and also to construct the house as agreed earlier. They also insisted her to bring further dowry from her parental house. On 11-5-1990, mother of the deceased had been to the house of the accused to extend the marriage invitation of her another daughter and requested the accused persons to send Nazira Begum to attend the marriage. At that time, the deceased insisted the accused persons to get back her pledged ornaments to facilitate her to attend the marriage of her sister. At that time, the deceased insisted the accused persons to get back her pledged ornaments to facilitate her to attend the marriage of her sister. At that juncture, accused 2-father-in-law of the deceased became angry and quarreled with the mother of the deceased on the ground that they have not yet given the site and constructed the house as agreed. At that time, the deceased insisted the accused persons to get back her pledged ornaments to facilitate her to attend the marriage of her sister. At that juncture, accused 2-father-in-law of the deceased became angry and quarreled with the mother of the deceased on the ground that they have not yet given the site and constructed the house as agreed. After her mother left the house, all the accused persons with a common intention to finish off Nazira Begum, gathered in the house and at about 6.30 p.m., on the same day, accused 4 poured kerosene on the deceased, accused 2 lit the fire, on account of which, the deceased sustained burn injuries. Immediately injured Nazira Begum was shifter to HAL hospital for treatment. On 12-5-1990, while she was taking treatment in the hospital, P.W. 13-Head Constable of HAL Police Station recorded the statement of the injured Nazira Begum in the presence of P.W. 10-Dr. Nalini Bafat as per Ex. P. 4 During the said statement, she disclosed the details about the demand of dowry prior to the marriage, cruelty as well as harassment meted out to her by accused persons. She further stated that unable to bear the said cruelty as well as harassment, in a brid to commit suicide she doused herself with kerosene and set herself ablaze inside the kitchen of the house. Based on the said statement of the injured Nazira Begum, case in Crime No. 94 of 1990 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act and FIR was submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate as per Ex. P. 6. On 14-5-1990 Nazira Begum succumbed to the injuries. After receipt of the death memo from the hospital, on the request of the police, P.W. 16 B. Nagaraja, Taluk Executive Magistrate conducted the inque3st on the dead body of the deceased Nazira Begum on 15-5-1990 and thereafter, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination through P.W. 15-Dr. Thiruvasakarusu, who after conducting post-mortem examination opined that the death of Nazira Begum was due to toxemia consequent to burn injuries. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to COD, Anti Dowry Cell, Bangalore During investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statement of parents of the deceased and other witnesses. Thiruvasakarusu, who after conducting post-mortem examination opined that the death of Nazira Begum was due to toxemia consequent to burn injuries. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to COD, Anti Dowry Cell, Bangalore During investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statement of parents of the deceased and other witnesses. During investigation, it was revealed that on the date of the incident on hearing the screams of deceased Nazira Begum, P.W. 6-Syed Azeez a neighbour came near the house of the accused persons and noticed deceased Nazira Begum having sustained burn injuries. In enquiry, the deceased Nazira Begum having sustained burn injuries. On enquiry, the deceased Nazira Begum informed to P.W. 6 that accused 4 poured kerosene on her and accused 2 lit the fire, as a result, she sustained burn injures. Based on the statement of P.W.6, the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC was added to the case already registered and investigation was conducted. During investigation, it was revealed that P.W. 5-Syed Gafar after coming to know of deceased having been admitted to the hospital with burning injuries, visited the hospital and on enquiry, the injured told him that Syed Pasha (accused 4) poured kerosene on her and her father-in-law (accused 2) lit the fire. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet came to be laid for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 498-A and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. During investigation the accused persons were apprehended and produced before the learned Magistrate. Though they were initially remanded to judicial custody, subsequently, they were enlarged on ;bail. During the pendency of the case before the learned Sessions Judge, accused 2 and 3-parents-in-law of the deceased died therefore case as against them was closed as abated. Accused 1, 4 and 5 pleaded not guilty of the charges leveled against them and claim to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecutio0n examined P.W. 1 to P.W. 17 and got marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 12. During their examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. By way of defence, accused persons examined D.Ws. 1 to 3 and got marked Ex. D. 1 and Ex. D. 2. P. 1 to P. 12. During their examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. By way of defence, accused persons examined D.Ws. 1 to 3 and got marked Ex. D. 1 and Ex. D. 2. The defence of the accused persons was one of total denial and that of false implication. According to them , the deceased accidentally caught fire in the house, as a result, she sustained burn injuries and later succumbed and that they have not committed any offences alleged against them. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing both sides and assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, by the judgment under appeal acquitted accused 1, 4 and 5 of all the charges leveled against them holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of acquittal, the State has presented this appeal. 4. Upon service of notice of this appeal, accused 1, 4 and 5 appeared through their Counsel. 5. Today, learned Counsel for the respondents/accused filed a memo reporting the death of respondent 2/accused 4 on 6-3-2007. A copy of the death certificate issued by the Register of Births and Deaths, CMC, KR Puram, Bangalore is also produced. In the light of this, the appeal as against respondent 2/accused 4 is dismissed as abated. 5-A. We have heard Sri Rajasubramanya Bhat, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant-State and Sri Mohd. Usman Shaik, Counsel for the respondents/accused 1 and 45. Perused the records and also judgment under appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the points that arise for our consideration in this appeal are: “(1) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in acquitting the respondents-accused of the charges leveled against them? (2) Whether the judgment under appeal calls for interference by this Court?” 6. Perused the records and also judgment under appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the points that arise for our consideration in this appeal are: “(1) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in acquitting the respondents-accused of the charges leveled against them? (2) Whether the judgment under appeal calls for interference by this Court?” 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of arguments contended that the judgment under appeal is perverse and illegal inasmuch as, it is contrary to the evidence on record and that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, which clearly established the guilt of the accused persons of the charges levelled against them and therefore, the judgment under appeal is erroneous as such is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents sought to justify the judgment under appeal and contended that the judgment do not suffer from any perversity or illegality. He contends that the learned Sessions Judge has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and is justified in holding that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused persons and therefore, be sought for dismissal of the appeal. 8. There is no dispute that the deceased Nazira Begum, daughter of P.W. 1 was married to accused 1 on 19-7-1987. There is also no serious dispute that Nazira Begum sustained burn injuries on 11-5-1990, while she was staying in her matrimonial home and later she succumbed ib 14-5-1990 while taking treatment in HAL hospital. 9. The case of the prosecution is that prior to the marriage, the accused persons demanded dowry and P.W.1 complied with all those demands except providing a site and construction of the house, which was agreed to be done later. Since he could not comply with those demands immediately after the marriage, the accused persons subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment. It is further specific case of the prosecution that on 11-5-1990 at about 6.30 p.m while the deceased was in the house, accused 4 poured kerosene and accused 2 lit the fire, as a result, she sustained burn injuries and later succumbed. Even according to the prosecution, the death of the deceased was homicidal and therefore, the charge-sheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC apart from other offences. Even according to the prosecution, the death of the deceased was homicidal and therefore, the charge-sheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC apart from other offences. 10. As noticed earlier, the criminal law was set on motion on the basis of the statement said to have been made by the deceased Nazira Begum, while she was taking treatment in the hospital which was recorded in the presence of P.W. 10-Dr. Nalini Bapat as per Ex. P. 4. Thus, according to the prosecution, when Es. P. 4 was recorded on 12-5-1990 Nazira Begum was alive. As could be seen from the FIR-Ex. P. 5, very strangely the SHO, who registered the case in Crime No. 94 of 1990 on the basis of Ex. P. 4 registered the case in Crime No. 94 of 1990 on the basis of Ex. P. 4 registered the same for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. If Nazira Begum was alive on 12-5-1990, the caser for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC could not have been registered. 11. According to the statement said to have been made by the deceased as per Ex. P. 4, in a bid to commit suicide, she doused herself with kerosene and set herself ablaze. Therefore, according to her, it was a case of attempt to commit suicide. Since she later died, at best it could attract the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, if the prosecution proves that the deceased committed suicide on account of the abatement by the accused persons. However, the Investigating Officer, who filed the charge-sheet did not invoke the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC nor the learned Sessions Judge before whom the accused took their trial framed a charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. The charges were framed against the accused persons only for the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and for the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, the alleged statement said to have been made by the deceased as per Ex. The charges were framed against the accused persons only for the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and for the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, the alleged statement said to have been made by the deceased as per Ex. P. 4 is of no assistance to the prosecution in proving the charge framed against the accused persons for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. The other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to invoke the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC is the alleged oral dying declaration said to have been made by deceased Nazira Begum. P.W. 6-Syed Azeez, in his oral evidence has stated that after hearing the screams from inside the house of accused he went near the door of the accused persons. At that time, accused 3-Jaibunnisa was standing at the door and was not allowing any one to enter the house and after 5 minutes accused 1, 4 and 5 brought Nazira Begum by lifting her, At that time, he noticed burn in juries on the body of Nazira Begum. When he enquired with her as to how she sustained burn injuries, she told that accused 4-Syed Pasha poured kerosene and accused 2 lit the fire. This witness has been cross-examined at length. The learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the testimony of P.W.6 on the ground that the so-called oral dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased is quite contrary to the alleged statement made by the deceased before the doctor as per Ex. P. 4, when she was in the hospital. Similarly, the evidence of P.W. 5 that when he went to the hospital. Nazira Begum told him that accused 4 poured kerosene and accused 2 lit the fire, is contrary to the contents of Ex. P.4. The alleged oral dying declarations made before P.Ws. 5 and 6, as noticed by the learned Sessions Judge is quite contrary to0 the statement said to have been made by the deceased before the doctor. It is in the evidence of P.W. 10-Dr. Nalini Bapat that when the injured Nazira Begum was brought to the hospital, the history was furnished as stove burst. 5 and 6, as noticed by the learned Sessions Judge is quite contrary to0 the statement said to have been made by the deceased before the doctor. It is in the evidence of P.W. 10-Dr. Nalini Bapat that when the injured Nazira Begum was brought to the hospital, the history was furnished as stove burst. As noticed earlier, as per the alleged statement of the injured Nazira Begum before the police as per Ex. P. 4, she doused herself with kerosene and set herself ablaze in a bid to commit suicide. The father of the deceased in his evidence has stated that after coming to know about his daughter having been admitted to the hospital, he came there and on enquiry, he learnt that at about 5.30 p.m: while she was cooking food with the help of the stove, accused 4 made the kerosene to come out from the stove, as a result, she caught fire and sustained burn injuries. Thus different versions have been furnished as to how the deceased sustained burn injuries. Under these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge in our opinion has rightly disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6. Apart from the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6, there is no other evidence on record to establish the charge for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Even otherwise, the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC was framed only against accused 2 and 4. Both accused 2 and 4 have died already and case against them has been closed as abated. Therefore, there is no need for us to consider the correctness of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge regarding the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 12. Perusal of the contents of Ex. P. 4 clearly indicated that even according to the deceased, she had no grievance against her husband-accused 1 and accused 5-her brother-in-law. The only grievance made by the deceased was against he parents-in-law and accused 4. As accused 2 and 3 have died, Ex. P.4 is of no assistance to the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused 1 and 4 for the charges leveled against them. The only grievance made by the deceased was against he parents-in-law and accused 4. As accused 2 and 3 have died, Ex. P.4 is of no assistance to the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused 1 and 4 for the charges leveled against them. If the evidence of P.W.1 is read as a whole, it would clearly indicate that the articles which were given to the bride and bridegroom at the time of marriage was as per their customs and therefore, they are customary gifts as such, cannot be termed as dowry. There is no satisfactory evidence to prove that prior to the marriage any of the accused demanded dowry either in each or in kind. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly disbelieved the case of the prosecution in respect of the charges under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 13. The allegation attracting the offence under Section 498-A of IPC as noticed above, is only against the parents-in-law and the brother-in-law. The records disclose that accused 1 was suffering from vertebral cancer and he was treated as inpatient in the hospital upto 10-5-1990 and was discharged on 10-5-1990, to attend the marriage of his sister-in-law namely, the sister of the deceased. Subsequently, he was again admitted to the hospital during the month of October 1990. He underwent surgery in St. John’s Hospital and later he was treated in Kidwai Hospital during the months of October and November 1990. Even in Ex. P. 4, the facts of accused 1 being treated in the hospital for the cancer of the vertebrae is indicated. Having regard to the situation in which accused 1 was placed and he being treated as inpatient in the hospital for the serious ailment, it is highly difficult to believe that accused 1 had in any way subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment. In fact, according to the statement of the deceased, till 10-5-1990 she attended her husband in the hospital by carrying food and other materials from her parental house. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that prosecution has utterly failed to prove any of the charges leveled against accused 1 and 5 as such in our opinion, the learned Sessions is justified in acquitting the accused 1 and 5 of the charges leveled against them. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that prosecution has utterly failed to prove any of the charges leveled against accused 1 and 5 as such in our opinion, the learned Sessions is justified in acquitting the accused 1 and 5 of the charges leveled against them. We find no error committed by the learned Sessions Judge therefore, there re no merits in this appeal. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.