JUDGMENT N. ANANDA, J.—The State has filed this appeal against the Judgment of acquittal of respondents 1 to 3 (accused 1 to 3) for offences punishable under Section 498A, 302 of IPC and also under Section 3, 4 and 8 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused 1 was the son of accused 2 and 3. Accused 1 had married the deceased Nagarathna. P.W. 20-N. Kalegowda and P.W. 23-Lakshmamma are the parents of the deceased Nagarathna. P.Ws.21 and 22 are the paternal uncle and aunt of the deceased. P.W. 27 is the younger brother of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased with the accused was performed on 15.11.1999. 2. It is the case of the prosecution before the marriage negotiations took place in the house of P.W. 1, accused demanded cash of Rs. 15,000/-, gold jewels weighing 150 grams and a site measuring 40 x 60 feet at Bangalore, as dowry in connection with the marriage between the first accused and deceased. P.W. 20 agreed to give a site measuring 20 x 30 feet, cash of Rs, 10,000/- and gold jewels weighing 150 grams as dowry to the accused No. 1, a part of the dowry was paid at the time of marriage negotiations and also at the time of marriage. The remaining part of the dowry (a site measuring 20 x 30 feet) was agreed to be given after the marriage. 3. After the marriage, the accused and deceased lived in the house of P.W. 20 for about 4 or 5 months. The accused was working as a Group ‘D’ employee on contract basis in University of Agriculture Sciences, Bangalore. P.W. 20 took a house on mortgage in Srinivasanagar and provided accommodation to accused 1 and deceased. Accused 1 and deceased lived happily for a period of six months. The deceased conceived and returned to her parental house for delivery and confinement. Accused 1 abruptly left the job and started staying with his parents (accused 2 and 3) in his native place. 4. The deceased gave birth to a female child, when the child was aged about eight months, accused No. 1 took the deceased and child to his parental house at Eligehalli. Accused 1 abruptly left the job and started staying with his parents (accused 2 and 3) in his native place. 4. The deceased gave birth to a female child, when the child was aged about eight months, accused No. 1 took the deceased and child to his parental house at Eligehalli. When the parents of the deceased namely, P.W. 20-N. Kalegowda, P.W. 23-Lakshmamma had gone to the house of accused to bring their daughter for a religious ceremony, they refused to send the deceased and child stating that P.Ws.20 and 23 have not paid the remaining amount of dowry and, therefore, they would not send the deceased, There was intervention of some well wishers and the accused agreed to send the deceased to her parental house after a week. 5. On 14.2.2002, accused No. 1 took the deceased and his child to Magadi to see a movie. When the accused No. 1 and deceased were returning on a footpath at Huluvenahalli bus stop on the road leading to Eligehalli, accused 1 committed murder of the deceased by assaulting her with a chopper. Accused 1 took the jewels of the deceased and left that place even without caring for the child. The matter was informed to police. The parents of deceased lodged first information and set the law into motion. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused No. 1 for offences punishable under Section 302, 498A IPC and under Section 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and for offences Under Section 498A and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry prohibition Act against accused Nos. 2 and 3. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 35 were examined, documents as per Ex. P1 to P39 were marked and the material objects were marked as M.Os.l. to 21. The learned trial Judge framed the following points for determination: (1) Whether the prosecution proves that accused 1 to 3 demanded and accepted dowry in connection with the marriage of accused No. 1 and deceased Nagarathna? (2) Whether the prosecution proves that accused 1 to 3 subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassed her to meet their demand for additional dowry and a site? (3) Whether the prosecution proves that accused No. 1 had committed murder of his wife Nagarathna? 6. (2) Whether the prosecution proves that accused 1 to 3 subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassed her to meet their demand for additional dowry and a site? (3) Whether the prosecution proves that accused No. 1 had committed murder of his wife Nagarathna? 6. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence and on hearing the learned Counsel for the parties answered the points 1 to 3 in negative, acquitted the accused. The learned trail Judge has held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and acquitted the accused of the offences for which they were tried. Therefore, the State has filed this appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal. On 14.12.2006, learned Counsel appearing for the accused filed a memo reporting the death of first accused (first respondent). On 7.3.2007, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State filed death certificate of the first accused confirming his death. This Court accepting the memo and the death certificate filed by the learned Government Advocate recorded abatement of appeal against the first respondent (first accused). In view of this development, we have to appreciate evidence adduced by the prosecution in proof of points 1 and 2 stated supra. 7. We have heard Shri P.M. Nawaz, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and Shri G. Mylaralah, learned Counsel for the accused 2 and 3. We have been taken through evidence and the impugned Judgment. 8. We have confined determination of appeal to points 1 and 2 stated supra. It is not necessary to refer to evidence adduced by the prosecution in proof of point No. 3. Point No. 1: It is the case of the prosecution that accused 1 to 3 had demanded cash of Rs. 15,000/-, gold jewels weighing 150 grams, a site measuring 40 x 60 feet at Bangalore, as dowry In connection with the marriage of first accused and the deceased. About two months prior to the marriage, marriage negotiations had taken place in the house of P.W. 1, wherein, the above stated demand was made by the accused. P.W. 20 the father of deceased bargained and agreed to give a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, gold jewels weighing 150 grams and a site measuring 20 x 30 feet, as dowry to first accused in connection with marriage of deceased and first accused. Accordingly, he paid a sum of Rs. P.W. 20 the father of deceased bargained and agreed to give a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, gold jewels weighing 150 grams and a site measuring 20 x 30 feet, as dowry to first accused in connection with marriage of deceased and first accused. Accordingly, he paid a sum of Rs. 501/- as part of dowry on the date of the marriage negotiations and he also gave gold jewels at the time of marriage. He had agreed to give the remaining part of dowry viz., sum of Rs. 9,500/- and a site to first accused after the marriage. 9. As could be seen from the evidence of prosecution, P.W. 1 was the mediator for settling the marriage, The marriage negotiations had taken place in his house. P.W. 1 has not supported the case of prosecution. He was declared as hostile witness. Even during cross-examination, by the learned public prosecutor, P.W. 1 has reiterated version given in the examination-in-chief. Therefore, we are left with evidence of P.Ws. 20 to 23 and P.WS.26 to 27. P.W. 20-N. Kalegowda is the father of deceased. P.W. 20 has deposed that marriage negotiations in relation to marriage of first accused and deceased took place in the house of P.W. 1. P.W. 20 and his brothers had participated in marriage negotiations. On behalf of bridegroom, accused 2, P.W. 1 and one Gaviappa were present. They demanded a site measuring 40 x 60 feet at Bangalore, 150 grams of jewels and a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, as dowry in connection with marriage of deceased and first accused. P.W. 20 agreed to give a site measuring 20 x 30 feet, gold jewels weighing 150 grams and cash of Rs. 10,000/- as dowry. About two months prior to the date of marriage “Veelye Shastra” took place. At that time, P.W. 20 gave a sum of Rs. 500/-, as a part of dowry and gave the remaining sum of Rs. 9,500/- about fifteen days prior to the date of marriage. P.W. 26-Puttaiah has given altogether a different version. P.W. 26 has deposed about two months prior to the date of marriage, negotiations took place in the house of P.W. 1-Nanjappa. On behalf of bridegroom, accused 1 to 3 and P.W. 1, were present. They demanded a site measuring 40 x 60 feet, gold jewels and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as dowry. P.W. 20 agreed to give a sum of Rs. On behalf of bridegroom, accused 1 to 3 and P.W. 1, were present. They demanded a site measuring 40 x 60 feet, gold jewels and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as dowry. P.W. 20 agreed to give a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and half site as dowry. During Veelye Shastra, P.W. 20 gave dowry of Rs. 501/- and when they had gone to distribute marriage invitation cards, in the presence of P.W. 26, P.W. 20 gave a sum of Rs. 9,500/-. The evidence of P.W. 26 regarding demand and payment of dowry is contrary to evidence of P.W. 20. P.W. 21-Laxmana is the junior paternal uncle of deceased. P.W. 21 has deposed that marriage negotiations took place in the house of P.W. 1 and P.Ws. 20, 21 and 26 were present. On behalf of the accused, P.W. 1 demanded a site measuring 40 x 60 feet and a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, gold jewels weighing 150 grams as dowry, P.W. 20 and others agreed to give a site measuring 20 x 30 feet at Bangalore, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and gold jewels as dowry. About 2½ months prior to the date of marriage, “Veelye shastra” was performed. At that time, a sum of Rs. 500/- was given to the accused. About 15 days prior to the date of marriage, P.Ws. 20, 21 and 26 visited Eligehalli (the village of accused) and gave a sum of Rs. 9,500/-, besides gold jewels and dresses were also provided to accused 1. During cross-examination, P.W. 21 has admitted that even before the marriage negotiations took place, P.W. 20 had got prepared gold jewels. P.W. 20 did not have money to perform marriage of the deceased. P.W. 21 spent for the marriage of the deceased. However, he cannot say that how much money he had spent for the marriage of deceased. P.W. 21 has deposed that he had paid advance to purchase a site and the site was got registered in the name of P.W. 20. P.W. 21 has admitted that in his statement recorded by the police, he has not stated about the demand made by the accused. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that P.W. 20 has not deposed about purchase of site in his name. The document relating to purchase of site was not produced by the prosecution. P.W. 21 has admitted that in his statement recorded by the police, he has not stated about the demand made by the accused. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that P.W. 20 has not deposed about purchase of site in his name. The document relating to purchase of site was not produced by the prosecution. The evidence of P.W. 21 that jewels were got prepared even before the date of marriage negotiations, would lead to an inference that whatever jewels given by P.W. 20 to deceased was a customary presentation. The evidence of P.W. 21 that P.W. 20 did not have money to perform marriage of deceased and P.W. 20 had not spent money to perform the marriage of the first accused and deceased would prove that P.W. 20 was not financially sound. In the circumstances, evidence of P.Ws. 20 and 21 that they had agreed to give a site, cash of Rs. 10,000/- and gold jewels weighing 150 grams, as dowry to the first accused looks improbable. P.W. 22 has deposed that the accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as dowry. P.W. 22 has not deposed that the accused had demanded a site and gold jewels. Therefore, evidence of P.W. 22 runs contrary to evidence of P.Ws. 20 and 21. P.W. 23 is the mother of deceased. She has deposed that at the time of marriage, they gave a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and also assured to get a site to the first accused. P.W. 23 has not deposed about marriage negotiations said to have taken place in the house of P.W. 1. The evidence of P.W. 23 does not reveal that there was demand for dowry by accused 2 and 3. P.W. 26-Puttaiah was a colleague of P.W. 21. P.W. 26 has deposed that during marriage negotiations on behalf of accused, P.W. 1 was present and he had demanded a site measuring 40 x 60 feet, gold jewels and cash of Rs. 15,000/- as dowry. P.W. 20 agreed to give a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, half site as dowry. P.W. 26 has not deposed there was demand for dowry by accused 2 and 3. On the other hand, P.W. 26 has deposed that on behalf of accused, P.W. 1 had demanded dowry. As already stated, P.W. 1 has not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, he was declared as a hostile witness. 10,000/-, half site as dowry. P.W. 26 has not deposed there was demand for dowry by accused 2 and 3. On the other hand, P.W. 26 has deposed that on behalf of accused, P.W. 1 had demanded dowry. As already stated, P.W. 1 has not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, he was declared as a hostile witness. P.W. 27-Purushothama, is the younger brother of deceased. At the time of marriage, P.W. 27 was aged about 13 or 14 years. P.W. 27 has admitted he was aged 14 years at the time of marriage. Therefore, his evidence is of no avail to prosecution. Thus, on reappreciation of evidence of close relatives of deceased, we find the prosecution has failed to prove that accused 2 and 3 had demanded dowry in connection with marriage of first accused and deceased. Therefore, the learned trial Judge was justified in answering point No. 1 in the negative. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the finding recorded on point No. 1. 10. Point No. 2: It is the case of the prosecution that accused 2 and 3 were subjecting deceased to cruelty to bring the remaining part of dowry. Before adverting to evidence of close relatives of deceased, it is necessary to state the events that had taken place after the marriage of accused No. l and deceased till the death of deceased on 14.2.2002. The close relatives of deceased have deposed that after marriage, accused No. 1 and deceased were living in the house of her parents for a period of five or six months. Thereafter, the father of deceased obtained a house in Srinivasa Nagar under a mortgage and set up a separate house for accused 1 and deceased. They lived there for two months. The deceased conceived and she was taken to her parental house for delivery and confinement. Thereafter, accused No. l vacated the house at Srinivasa Nagar and started living alongwith accused 2 and 3 in his native place (Eligehalli village). When the child was aged about 8months, deceased and her child were taken to the house of accused 1 to 3. Accused 2 and 3 were harassing and ill-treating deceased and demanding her to bring the remaining part of dowry. The marriage between accused and deceased had taken place on 15.11.1999. The homicidal death of deceased occurred on 14.2.2002. When the child was aged about 8months, deceased and her child were taken to the house of accused 1 to 3. Accused 2 and 3 were harassing and ill-treating deceased and demanding her to bring the remaining part of dowry. The marriage between accused and deceased had taken place on 15.11.1999. The homicidal death of deceased occurred on 14.2.2002. During the period between 15.11.1999 and 14.2.2002, deceased had stayed in the house of accused 2 and 3, for a period of 2 to 3 months. P.W. 20, N. Kalegowda (father of deceased) has deposed that when deceased was staying with accused 1 to 3 in their house at Eligehalli village, she had contacted P.W. 20 over phone and informed him that accused No. 1 was demanding her to get a, site and accused 2 and 3 were instigating accused No. 1. P.W. 21, Lakshrnana (paternal uncle of deceased) had deposed that when the child of deceased was aged about 8 months, accused took deceased and her child to his house at Eligehalli village and agreed to send deceased and child to perform cradle ceremony to her parental house. Therefore, P.Ws. 22 and 27 had gone to the house of accused to Eligehalli village. Accused 2 and 3 murmured that they had not given a site and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as agreed at the time of marriage. At that time, accused No. 1 was present. P.W. 21 told them that it was his responsibility to get a site and requested the accused to send deceased and child to her parental house. Accused agreed to send the deceased and her child after a week. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that at the relevant time, accused 2 was aged about 65 years and accused No. 3 was aged about 55 years. They were rustic villagers. Accused 2 and 3 had not demanded dowry. It was accused No. 1, who was after the site. Therefore, evidence of P.W. 21 that accused 2 and 3 had demanded deceased to get a site and bring a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from her parents looks improbable. 11. It is relevant to state that the prosecution has no case that soon after marriage, there was demand for the remaining part of dowry by accused 2 and 3. As already stated, P.W. 1 has not supported the case of the prosecution. 5,000/- from her parents looks improbable. 11. It is relevant to state that the prosecution has no case that soon after marriage, there was demand for the remaining part of dowry by accused 2 and 3. As already stated, P.W. 1 has not supported the case of the prosecution. His evidence is not available to the prosecution. P.W. 26, Puttaiah has deposed that at the first instance, P.W. 21 and his wife P.W. 22 had gone to bring deceased and her child to her parental house. Accused scolded them for not giving site and money and sent them back. Thereafter, P.W. 21 and P.W. 26 had visited the house of accused in Eligehalli village. Accused agreed to send the deceased on ensuing Wednesday. Therefore, evidence of P.W. 26 is contrary to the evidence of P.W. 21. P.W. 23, Lakshmamma (the mother of deceased) has deposed that they had visited the house of accused to bring deceased and her child. They refused to send deceased and her child. Therefore, they returned back. After few days, P.W. 22, Kalamma (sister of P.W. 23) and P.W. 27, Purushothama (the younger brother of deceased) had gone to the house of accused 1 to 3 to bring deceased and her child. At that time, they were sent back by saying that they should pay what they ought to pay and then take deceased and her child. P.W. 23 has deposed that about 15 days prior to the incident, P.W. 23 and her husband had gone to Eligehalli village. At that time, accused 1 to 3 told them that they should pay the remaining part of the dowry to take the deceased and her child to her parental house. However from the evidence of P.W. 20. It is obvious that she had not visited the house of accused. P.W. 20, Kalegowda (husband of P.W. 23) has not deposed that about 15 days prior to the date of incident, he had taken his wife to the house of accused at Eligehalli village. On the other hand, P.W. 20 has deposed that about 15 days prior to the incident, he had visited the house of accused 1 to 3. The conduct of accused was irresponsible. The deceased told that she was not. able to pull on in the house of accused and, therefore, she would return back to her parental house. Thus, we find that testimonies of P.Ws. The conduct of accused was irresponsible. The deceased told that she was not. able to pull on in the house of accused and, therefore, she would return back to her parental house. Thus, we find that testimonies of P.Ws. 23 and 20 who are none other than the husband and wife are mutually contradictory. P.W. 27, Purushothama is the younger brother of deceased. He has deposed that he had accompanied his aunt (P.W. 22) to bring deceased and her child to his village. P.W. 27 has deposed that accused had told them that they could take the deceased and her child after paying what they ought to pay. Therefore, P.W. 22 and P.W. 27 returned back to their village. The evidence of P.W. 27 is vague. His evidence does not refer to the presence of accused 2 and 3 or demand made by them. 12. Thus, on overall appreciation of evidence, we find that accused No. 1 was totally irresponsible. He was not pursuing any gainful employment either in his village or at Bangalore. He was demanding deceased to get a site and money from her parental house. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 had not demanded dowry and they had not ill-treated the deceased. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused 2 and 3 had subjected deceased to cruelty in relation to dowry demand. 13. The learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has acquitted accused. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, we pass the following order. 14. The appeal is dismissed.