JUDGMENT N. ANANDA, J.—The State has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal of respondents 1 to 4 (accused 1 to 4) for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with 34 IPC and also for offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. We have heard Sri P.M. Nawaz, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and Smt. Padmavathi, learned Counsel for accused. We have been taken through evidence and the impugned judgment. 3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows: The marriage of first accused and Savithri @ Roopa. (hereinafter referred to as deceased) was performed on 11.2.2001. P.W. 1, Prabhakar is the elder brother of deceased, P.W. 2, Chinnamma is the mother of deceased and P.W. 3, Puttappa is the junior uncle of deceased. Accused No. 2 is the mother of accused No. 1,accused No. 3 is the eider sister of accused No. 1 and accused No. 4 is the husband of accused No. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that after marriage, deceased was living in the house of accused at Govindaraja Nagar, Bangalore, The accused, who had demanded and accepted dowry of Rs. 40,000/- started ill-treating deceased to bring additional dowry. The deceased somehow endured the acts of accused. The deceased conceived and returned to her parental house for delivery and confinement. She gave birth to a female child, When the child was aged about eight months, P.W. 1, Prabhakar set up a house to the accused in Gottigere, Bangalore. Accused No. 1 was demanding deceased to bring additional dowry of Rs. 10,000/-. He used to come home in a drunken state and he was frequently assaulting deceased. During the intervening night of 8/9.3.2008 at about 1.00 a.m., accused doused kerosene and set deceased on fire. The deceased was shifted to Victoria hospital and on 13.3.2003, she succumbed to burn injuries. On 9.3.2003, deceased had given a statement that accused had set her on fire. P.W. 1 lodged first information and set the law into motion. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused for the aforestated offences. 4. On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 23 were examined, documents as per Exs. P1 to P13 were marked and material objects were marked as per M.Os. 1 and 2. On behalf of accused, his erstwhile employer namely, Ranganatha was examined as DW1. 5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused for the aforestated offences. 4. On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 23 were examined, documents as per Exs. P1 to P13 were marked and material objects were marked as per M.Os. 1 and 2. On behalf of accused, his erstwhile employer namely, Ranganatha was examined as DW1. 5. The learned trial Judge, on appreciation, of evidence and on hearing the learned Counsel for parties acquitted accused of the aforestated offences. Therefore, the State is before us. 6. In this appeal against the judgment of acquittal, the following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether the prosecution has proved that before marriage of accused No. 1 and the deceased, accused 1 to 4 demanded and accepted dowry of Rs. 40,000/- in relation to marriage of first accused and deceased? (ii) Whether accused 1 to 4 were subjecting deceased to cruelty by making unlawful demands for money and that accused No. 1 was constantly ill-treating, harassing and assaulting deceased and thereby accused I to 4 committed an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC? (iii) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused No. 1 was subjecting deceased to cruelty soon before her death? (iv) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused No. 1 set deceased on fire during the intervening night of 8/9.3.2008 with the intention and knowledge of committing murder of deceased and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC? (v) Whether the impugned judgment calls for interference? (vi) To what order? The charge framed by the learned trial Judge against accused No. 1 indicates that accused No. 1 was charged with the allegation that accused No. 1 set the deceased on fire during intervening night of 8/9.03.2003. Therefore, we have formulated point No. 4 thought it is not found in the judgment of trial Court. Point No. 1: 7. The close relatives of deceased are P.Ws. 1 to 3. P.W. 1, Prahhakar has deposed; that the marriage of his sister (deceased Roopa) with first accused was performed on 11.2.2001. At the time of marriage, some persons on behalf of accused No. l had demanded a sum of Rs. 80,000/-, a gold chain, a gold ring, watch and clothes as dowry in connection with the marriage of first accused and deceased, P.W. 1 agreed to give a sum of Rs. At the time of marriage, some persons on behalf of accused No. l had demanded a sum of Rs. 80,000/-, a gold chain, a gold ring, watch and clothes as dowry in connection with the marriage of first accused and deceased, P.W. 1 agreed to give a sum of Rs. 40,000/-, a wrist watch, a gold chain and a gold ring as dowry. He agreed to give a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as dowry after a period of three months from the date of marriage and a wrist watch, a gold chain and a gold ring at the time of marriage. Accordingly, they gave a wrist watch, a gold chain and a gold ring at the time of marriage. After marriage, deceased was living in the house of accused 1 to 4. P.W. 1 did not give a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as dowry to accused. Therefore, accused started harassing deceased. After a period of four months, accused had driven deceased to her parental house, P.W. 1 borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,000/-, took his sister (deceased), gave the amount to accused and left his sister in the house of accused. After receiving the amount, accused told P.W. 1 that he should pay additional dowry of Rs. 10,000/- and sent back deceased, P.W. 1 pacified and sent deceased to the house of accused. The deceased conceived. When she was carrying seven months pregnancy, P.W. 1 brought her to his house for delivery and confinement. When the child was aged about nine months, P.W. 1. requested accused No. 1 to take her to his house. Accused No. 1 told P.W. 1 that his mother is not willing to take back deceased. Therefore, he requested P.W. 1 to set up a separate house for him. P.W. 1 took a house on lease in Gottigere and set up a house for accused No. 1. deceased and their child. The first accused was demanding deceased to bring a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. He used to come home In a drunken state and assault deceased. He was also not paying the house rents regularly and he was frequently quarreling with the landlord. Therefore, the accused was asked to vacate the house. Thereafter, P.W. 1 secured another house on rent. The first accused was demanding deceased to bring a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. He used to come home In a drunken state and assault deceased. He was also not paying the house rents regularly and he was frequently quarreling with the landlord. Therefore, the accused was asked to vacate the house. Thereafter, P.W. 1 secured another house on rent. In that house also the accused did not have a long stay, as he did not give up the habit of coming home in a drunken state and assaulting the deceased and picking up quarrel with the landlord without paying the rents regularly. Thereafter, P.W. 1 secured one more house on rent for the first accused, deceased and their child. During cross-examination, P.W. 1 has admitted that whatever the jewels were given at the time of marriage were customary presents. P.W. 1 has admitted that he was a weaver by occupation and he was earning a sum of Rs. 300/- per day. The evidence of P.W. 1 is not specific that accused 1 to 4 had demanded dowry. P.W. 1 has deposed that he borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to give accused as dowry. He has not. stated the name of the person from whom he had borrowed money and also the date on which he borrowed money. The person who had lent him Rs. 40,000/- was not examined before the trial Court. P.W. 1 has not deposed that he had given dowry of Rs. 40,000/- to one amongst accused No. 1 to 4. P.W. 1 has not stated whom amongst accused 1 to 4 had demanded additional dowry of Rs. 10,000/-. 8. P.W. 2. Chinnamma is the mother of deceased. She has deposed that before the marriage of first accused and deceased, negotiations took place and on behalf of bride side, P.W. 1 had taken part and on behalf of bridegroom side, accused 1 to 4 were present. Accused 1 to 4 demanded a sum of Rs. 80,000/-, a wrist watch, a gold ring and a gold chain as dowry, P.Ws. 1 and 2 gave gold ornaments and chain at the time of marriage and agreed to give a sum of Rs. 40,000/- after a period of three months from the date of marriage and as they failed to pay dowry, deceased was sent back to her parental house. Thereafter, P.W. 1 gave dowry to the accused. 1 and 2 gave gold ornaments and chain at the time of marriage and agreed to give a sum of Rs. 40,000/- after a period of three months from the date of marriage and as they failed to pay dowry, deceased was sent back to her parental house. Thereafter, P.W. 1 gave dowry to the accused. The evidence of P.W. 2 that the accused had demanded dowry is an improvised version. P.W. 2 has not stated that accused No. 1 had not demanded dowry. P.W. 2 has not deposed that P.W. 1 had raised loan to pay dowry amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the accused. 9. P.W. 8-Puttappa is the paternal uncle of deceased. P.W. 3 has deposed; that during marriage negotiations, P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, wife of P.W. 3 and accused No. 1 to 3 were present. The accused demanded a sum of Rs. 80,000/-, a wrist watch and a gold ring as dowry P.W. 3 and others had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/-, wrist watch and a gold ring as dowry. They had agreed to give wrist watch and a gold ring at the time marriage and dowry amount of Rs. 40,000/- after a period of 3 months form the date of marriage. After the marriage, deceased was living in the house of accused and she was happy for a period of one month. Thereafter, she was frequently demanding P.Ws. 1 and 2 to give dowry of Rs. 40,000/-. P.W. 3 informed P.W. 1 to give the dowry amount. Accordingly, P.W. 1 gave dowry amount to the first accused. P.W. 3 has not deposed that P.W. 1 had raised loan to give dowry. P.W. 3 has not deposed the point; of time at which dowry was paid by P.W. 1. It is obvious from the evidence of P.W. 3 that he was not present when P.W. 1 had visited the house of accused to give the dowry amount, It appears from the evidence of P.W. 3 that financial condition of P.W. 1 was not sound; he had struggled to perform the marriage of his sister (deceased). 10. In the circumstances, the evidence adduced by prosecution that accused No. 1. 10. In the circumstances, the evidence adduced by prosecution that accused No. 1. to 4 had demanded and accepted dowry from P.W. 1 does not inspire confidence, The learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has answered point; No. 1 in negative to hold that prosecution has failed to prove demand arid acceptance of dowry by accused No. 1 to 4. On reappreciation of evidence, we do not find any grounds to interfere with this finding. 11. It is the case of prosecution that after marriage, the deceased was being subjected to cruelty in connection, with dowry demand. As could be seen from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 8, the deceased had stayed In the house of accused No. 1 and 2 for a short period. After she conceived, she came back to her parental house for delivery and confinement. Accused No. 3 is the married daughter of accused No. 2 and she was living with her husband separately from accused No. 1 and 2. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 8 that accused Mo.8 and 4 were subjecting the deceased to cruelty in relation to dowry does not Inspire confidence. 12. P.Ws. 1 to 3 have deposed that after the deceased conceived, she was brought to her parental house for delivery and confinement. The deceased gave birth to a female child. When the child was aged about 9 months, as requested by accused No. 1, P.W. 1 set op a separate house for accused No. 1 and deceased in Gottigere, Accused No. 1 and the deceased were living together in Gottigere; Accused No. 2 was living in Vinayakanagar. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 that deceased was being subjected to cruelty by accused No. 2 does not inspire confidence. There is consistent evidence in proof of cruelty meted out to deceased by accused No. 1. P.W. 1, elder brother of deceased, P.W. 2, mother of deceased and P.W. 3, junior uncle of deceased have consistently deposed that accused was demanding the deceased to bring money from her parental house; the accused was a drunkard he used to come home in a drunken state and assault the deceased. 13. P.W. 8-Akkamma who had provided accommodation to accused No. 1 and deceased has categorically stated that accused No. 1 was frequently quarrelling with his wife (deceased). 13. P.W. 8-Akkamma who had provided accommodation to accused No. 1 and deceased has categorically stated that accused No. 1 was frequently quarrelling with his wife (deceased). When she enquired the deceased, she had told P.W. 8 that accused was demanding her to bring money from her parental house, P.W. 8 after seeing the quarrelsome conduct of accused No. 1 demanded him to vacate the house. During cross-examination. P.W. 8 has admitted that P.W. 1 had given advance amount of Rs. 5,000/- when taking the house on lease and he had agreed to pay rent, of Rs. 500/- per month. After going through the evidence of P.W. 8, we do not find any reasons to suspect her evidence. She had no enmity against the accused. 14. P.W. 12-Krishna was the broker who had secured the house for accommodating accused No. 1. and the deceased, P.W. 12 has deposed that the accused and deceased were cordial for a period of three months after the marriage. The accused was harassing and ill-treating the deceased. The accused was demanding the deceased to bring money from her parental house. P.W. 1 had approached P.W. 12 for money and he had given certain amount to P.W. 1. 15. At the relevant time, P.W. 18-Gurunath was a neighbour of P.W. 1. P.W. 13 has deposed; that after marriage, the accused and deceased were cordial for a period of three months. Accused No. 1 used to come home in a drunken state and quarrel with the deceased. He was also demanding the deceased to bring money from her parental house. P.W. 1 frequently used to inform P.W. 13 about the ill-treatment meted out to his sister (deceased) by the first accused. P.W. 13 has denied a suggestion that as he happened to be a friend of P.W. 1, he has given false evidence against the accused. Thus, we find that not only the close relatives of deceased but also independent witnesses have deposed that accused No. 1 used to come home in a drunken state and assault the deceased and frequently demanding the deceased to bring money from her parental house. P.W. 1 had obtained the house on lease to provide accommodation for accused No. 1 and deceased. This fact, has not been controverted. Accused No. 1 was depending on P.W. 1 even for his accommodation. Accused No. 1 was working as a weaver. P.W. 1 had obtained the house on lease to provide accommodation for accused No. 1 and deceased. This fact, has not been controverted. Accused No. 1 was depending on P.W. 1 even for his accommodation. Accused No. 1 was working as a weaver. It appears he was spending money earned by him for drinking and he used to frequently ill-treat and assault the deceased and he was unlawfully demanding the deceased to bring money from her parental house. Even the persons who had let out their houses to the first accused and deceased had taken strong objection for the conduct of the first accused. 16. In view of consistent and credible evidence given by close relatives of the deceased and Independent witnesses, we hold that accused No. 1 was unlawfully demanding the deceased to bring money accused No. 1 used to come home in a drunken state and assault the deceased; accused was not taking care of deceased; accused was not providing the basic amenities like food and shelter to the deceased; the deceased was frequently visiting her parental house to bring money for her sustenance. Therefore, we are of the opinion that prosecution has proved that accused No. 1 was subjecting the deceased to cruelty. 17. The learned trial Judge without bearing in mind the settled principles of law relating to appreciation of evidence has rejected the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and other independent witnesses as not being trustworthy evidence. The reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge to discard the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and other independent witnesses are perverse. The learned trial Judge has failed to notice that even after the marriage, accused No. 1 was not serious in his avocation. The accused even did not have money to set up a house. He was depending on P.W. 1 to set up a separate house. The deceased frequently used to visit the house of P.W. 1 to bring money for her sustenance. Therefore, we are of the opinion that judgment of acquittal of accused No. 1 for an offence punishable under Section 498A cannot he sustained. The prosecution has adduced satisfactory evidence to prove that accused No. 1 was subjecting the deceased to cruelty. 18. In the discussion made supra, we have held that accused No. 8 and 4 were residing separately from accused No. l and 2. The prosecution has adduced satisfactory evidence to prove that accused No. 1 was subjecting the deceased to cruelty. 18. In the discussion made supra, we have held that accused No. 8 and 4 were residing separately from accused No. l and 2. The deceased had not stayed with them. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 that accused No. 1 to 3 were ill-treating and harassing the deceased cannot be accepted. As already stated, the stay of deceased in the house of accused No. 1 and 2 was for a short period. P.Ws. 1 to 3 have deposed that accused No. 1 and deceased were happy for few months, The deceased conceived and she was brought back to her parental house for delivery and confinement. The deceased gave birth to a female child. When the child was aged about 9 months, P.W. 1 set up a separate house for accused No. 1 and the deceased in Gottigere village. The deceased had never gone back to the house of accused No. 2 after she came to her parental house for delivery and confinement. In the circumstances, the evidence on record is hardly sufficient to hold that the accused No. 2 was subjecting the deceased to cruelty or she was unlawfully demanding the deceased to bring money from her parental house. The evidence on. record does not reveal that the deceased was living with accused No. 2 to 4soon before her death or at any point of time alter she left the house of accused Nos. 1 and 2 for delivery and confinement to her parental house. 19. It is the case of prosecution that during the intervening night of 8/9.3.2003 at about 1.30 a.m., the accused doused kerosene and set the deceased on fire. This is because the deceased had failed to bring a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from her parental house, as demanded by accused No. 1. There are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The prosecution has entirely relied on the dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased at about 12.00 noon on 9.3.2008 in Victoria hospital at Bangalore. As could be seen from the medical evidence, the deceased had suffered 100% burn injuries. There is no evidence regarding mental and physical condition of the deceased at the time when tier statement was recorded. 20. P.W. 15-Dr. As could be seen from the medical evidence, the deceased had suffered 100% burn injuries. There is no evidence regarding mental and physical condition of the deceased at the time when tier statement was recorded. 20. P.W. 15-Dr. Gururaurthy had certified about the condition of deceased when her statement was recorded. In the case sheet of deceased, it is mentioned that condition of deceased at 8.45 a.m., on 9.3.2003 was critical, However, at 12.00 noon the deceased was in a condition to give her statement. The case sheet of deceased (Ex. P7) does not reveal that her condition had improved during period between 8.45 a.m., to 12.00 noon on 9.3.2003. We also see from the case sheet that the deceased was not being treated by P.W. 15-Dr. Gurumurthy, P.W. 15 has admitted that he had not treated the deceased. The evidence of P.W. 15 does not reveal that he had examined the deceased before certifying her condition. 21. P.W. 18-Chikka. Thimmaiah, the then ASI and SHO of Banoerghatta police station has deposed; that on 9.3.2008 at about 11.30 a.m., P.W. 1-Prabhakar (elder brother of deceased) had lodged the first information. P.W. 18 registered the first Information against accused In crime No. 33/2003. P.W. 18 has deposed that he recorded the statement of deceased at 12.00 noon on 9.8.2003. P.W. 18 has admitted that the distance between Bannerghatta police station and Victoria hospital Is about 15-16 kilometers. P.W. 18 has admitted that he had prepared the first information, at about 11.45 a.m., on 9.3.2003. Therefore, a reasonable doubt would arise as to whether P.W. 18 could have reached Victoria hospital, where the deceased was being treated, within a period of 10-15 minutes. The dying declaration of deceased marked as per Ex. P6 does not indicate the point of time at which the statement of deceased was recorded. P.W. 18 has admitted that he had not recorded the statement of deceased. On the other hand, P.W. 18 has deposed that statement of deceased was recorded by one Raraesh (PC 14.11). The said police constable was not examined before the Court. The statement of deceased does not bear the thumb impression or toe impression of deceased, however, it. bears a smudged mark which is not attested as thumb Impression or toe impression of the deceased. P.W. 18 has not deposed that the deceased was physically and mentally fit to give the statement. 22. The statement of deceased does not bear the thumb impression or toe impression of deceased, however, it. bears a smudged mark which is not attested as thumb Impression or toe impression of the deceased. P.W. 18 has not deposed that the deceased was physically and mentally fit to give the statement. 22. We have gone through the contents of statement said to have been given by the deceased. In the statement (Ex. P6) it is stated that on 8.3,2008 at 10.30 p.m., the accused came home in a drunken state and abused the deceased for not bringing Rs. 10,000/- from her parental house; the accused left the house and returned back at 11.00 p.m., alongwith a can containing kerosene oil; the accused told the deceased that things should be decided either this way or that way and slept; during the intervening night of 8/9.3.2008, at 1.45 a.m., when the deceased was sleeping, accused No. l doused kerosene and set her on fire; the accused took the child and left the house. The deceased raised hue and cry; the negbourers came and rescued her and shifted her to hospital. It is stated in Ex. P6 (statement of the deceased) that not only her husband but also accused No. 2 to 4 were harassing and ill-treating the deceased and she had requested the police to take action against accused No. 1 to 4. The statement of deceased that accused came home in a drunken state; scolded the deceased for not bringing Rs. 10,000/- from her parental house; again left the house and came back with a can containing kerosene oil looks improbable. The statement of deceased that accused No. 1 came and told the deceased that things should be decided either this way or that way and quietly slept looks improbable. The statement of deceased that accused No. 1 who had slept in a drunken state woke up at 1.45 a.m., and doused kerosene on her and set her on fire also looks improbable. The spot mahazar (Ex. P3) and rough sketch (Ex. P8) indicate that the house in which accused No. l and the deceased were living was measuring 5½ feet x 10 feet. It is not in dispute that accused No. 1 the deceased and the child were living in that house. The spot mahazar (Ex. P3) and rough sketch (Ex. P8) indicate that the house in which accused No. l and the deceased were living was measuring 5½ feet x 10 feet. It is not in dispute that accused No. 1 the deceased and the child were living in that house. In her statement, the deceased has not stated as to what had happened to her child when accused No. l. set her on fire. The evidence of immediate post-occurrence witness would reveal when the deceased had caught fire, accused No. 1 had come out of the house and he was holding the child, After fire was extinguished, accused No. 1 shifted the deceased in an autoriekshaw to Victoria Hospital at Bangalore. The subsequent conduct of accused is consistent with his innocence. It looks probable that the deceased was disgusted with the behaviour of accused No. 1. The deceased doused kerosene and set herself on fire. 23. In view of this discrepancy found in the statement said to have been given by the deceased, it is not possible to hold that Ex. P6 (statement of the deceased) was made by the deceased. On the basis of incredible and inconsistent statement, it is not possible to hold that the accused had doused kerosene and set the deceased on fire. The evidence on record does not disclose that there was demand or acceptance of dowry. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that accused Mo. 1 had subjected the deceased to cruelty in relation to dowry demand soon before her death, In view of the above discussion, we hold accused No. 1 guilty of an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. 24. In the result, we pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is accepted in part. (ii) The impugned judgment Is modified, (iii) The acquittal of accused No. 1 to 4 for offences punishable under Section 304B read with 34 IPC and also for offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act is confirmed, (iv) The acquittal of accused No. 1 for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is confirmed, (v) The acquittal of accused No. 2 to 4 for an offence punishable tinder Section 498A IPC is confirmed. (vi) The acquittal of accused No. 1 for an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC is set aside, (vii) Accused No. 1 is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, (viii) Accused No. 1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 8 years and pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for an offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C., in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. (ix) Out of the fine to be deposited, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- shall be paid as compensation to P.W. 1. (x) The period of detention undergone by accused No. 1 during trial is given set off as provided tinder Section 428 Cr.P.C. 25. Office is directed to send back the records alongwith a copy of this judgment to the trial Court to enable the learned trial Judge to secure accused No. 1 and implement the sentence in terms of this judgment.