JUDGMENT MANJULA CHELLUR, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.2.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Davanagere in S.C. No. 4/2004 acquitting respondent. Nos. 1 to 3 of the charges levelled against them for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. (for short ‘the D.P. Act’) and Sections 498A, 304B and 306 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under: P.W. 1-Sushellamma and P.W. 2-Halappa are the parents of deceased Chetana. Though P.W. 2 hailed from a village in Chennagiri Taluk, since he was employed as a Teacher in High School, in Nanjangud Taluk, they were residing in Mysore for about 25 years prior to 2003. Accused No. 1 is the husband while accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of deceased Chetana. The marriage of said Chetana with accused No. 1 was solemnized on 22.2.2000 in Sukrutheendra Kalyana Mantapa, Davanagere. At that time the accused were residing in Davanagere and accused No. 1 was running a provision store. Prior to the marriage, negotiations were held and during the pre-marriage negotiations, the accused persons demanded Rs. 1 lakh in cash, Rs. 10,000/- towards cloths for the bridegroom and also 20 tolas of gold ornaments as dowry. P.Ws. 1. and 2 agreed to pay dowry as demanded by accused and accordingly, few days prior to the marriage, cash of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 10,000/- towards cloths were given to the accused and at the time of the marriage, gold ornaments weighing about 20 tolas were given to the bride and the bridegroom. After the marriage the deceased joined her husband at Davanagere and stayed with her husband and in-laws. For about six months the deceased was looked after well by the accused. Thereafter the accused started subjecting her to cruelty and harassment by coercing her to bring further money for sinking bore well. Therefore, the parents of the deceased gave Rs. 25,000/- about 1½ years after the marriage. Thereafter accused No. 1 fell into bad wises. He was addicted to liquor, gambling etc. and he started selling away household articles and other valuables, incurred loss in business and, therefore, they shifted to their native village Kogalur in Chennagiri Taluk Davanagere District. In the mean while the deceased gave birth to a male child. Thereafter accused No. 1 fell into bad wises. He was addicted to liquor, gambling etc. and he started selling away household articles and other valuables, incurred loss in business and, therefore, they shifted to their native village Kogalur in Chennagiri Taluk Davanagere District. In the mean while the deceased gave birth to a male child. After the return of the deceased with the child to the matrimonial home, she was again subjected to cruelty and harassment. On 5.7.2003, deceased alongwith her son came to the parental home at Mysore and stayed there till 2.8.2003. On 2.8.2003 accused No. 1 and his mother, namely, accused No. 3 came to Mysore and demanded the deceased to return to the matrimonial home. However, when the deceased refused, accused No. 1 threatened to take the child with him. Therefore, the deceased came to the matrimonial home at Hirekerur with the child in the early hours of 4.8.2003. Apprehending some danger to their daughter, P.Ws. 1 and 2 came to the house of the accused at about 8.30 p.m. on 4.8.2003. On 5.8.2003 at about 9.00 a.m., accused Nos. 1 and 3 quarrelled with P.Ws. 1 and 2 and drove them out of the house. When P.Ws. 1 and 2 were standing out side the house of the accused, they heard scream of their daughter from inside the house. Immediately they went inside and saw their daughter struggling for breathing and they also saw white froth coming out of her mouth. Immediately they took her to the local hospital but the doctor was not available there. However, while shifting her to Davanagere, she breathed her last. Therefore, the dead body was brought to the house of the accused. Thereafter P.W. 1 informed the death of the deceased to her son who was in Mysore and waited for his arrival. Thereafter at about 5.30 a.m. on 6.8.2003 P.W. 1 lodged a complaint as per Ex. P1 based on which P.W. 29-Siddaramaiah, ASI and SHO of Santebennur Police Station registered case in crime No. 68/2003 and submitted FIR as per Ex. P17 to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Thereafter at about 5.30 a.m. on 6.8.2003 P.W. 1 lodged a complaint as per Ex. P1 based on which P.W. 29-Siddaramaiah, ASI and SHO of Santebennur Police Station registered case in crime No. 68/2003 and submitted FIR as per Ex. P17 to the jurisdictional Magistrate. As the death had occurred within 7 years from the date of the marriage, on the request of the Police, P.W. 15-C.B. Sajjana Shettar, Taluk Executive Magistrate conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of the panchas and blood relatives of the deceased and drew up inquest mahazar as per Ex. P19. Thereafter the dead body was subjected to autopsy. During post-mortem examination the Doctor preserved the vicera, namely, the parts of small intestine and its contents, liver, kidney etc. and handed over the sarna to the Investigation Officer. Thereafter P.W. 32-Sasavarajappa, Dy. S.P. took up investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, recorded the statements of witnesses, drew up spot mahazar in the presence of panchas, seized the empty bottle of Endosulphon said to have been consumed by the deceased and handed over further investigation to P.W. 31-P. Chandrashekar, PSI, COD who during the investigation, recorded the statement of witnesses, prepared the sketch of scene of occurrence, sent the preserved vicera to FSL for examination and received the report from P.W. 33-T.T. Venkatesha, Assistant Director Regional FSL, Davanagere on 30.9.2004 to the effect that presence of Organo Phosphorous was detected in the vicera sent for examination. On the basis of the FSL report, the Doctor who conducted the autopsy furnished the final opinion as to the cause of death to the effect that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of Organo Phosphorous poisoning which led to cardio-respiratory arrest. On completion of the investigation P.W. 31 laid the charge-sheet. 3. The accused persons pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons examined P.Ws. 1 to 33 and got marked Exs. P1 to P20 and M.O. 1. During the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses the defence got marked Exs. D1 to D4. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and that of false implication. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons examined P.Ws. 1 to 33 and got marked Exs. P1 to P20 and M.O. 1. During the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses the defence got marked Exs. D1 to D4. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and that of false implication. It was their further defence that the deceased who was born and brought up in Mysore city was very much used to the city life and though she was a graduate, much against her wish she was married to accused No. 1 who had passed only SSLC and thereby she was made to lead married life in a small village and after the marriage though she intended to complete some computer course and look for a job so that she could become economically independent, much against her wish she was sent back to the matrimonial home, and under these circumstances, being a highly hypersensitive lady she committed suicide by consuming poison, therefore, they are not, in any way responsible for the death of the deceased. 4. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing both sides and on assessment of the oral as well as documentary evidence, by the judgment under appeal, acquitted the accused persons of all the charges levelled against them holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons for the charges levelled against them. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State is in appeal before this Court. 5. We have heard Sri Shreenivasa Reddy, learned High Court Government Pleader and also Sri C.H. Jadav, learned counsel for the respondents-accused. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant State submits that the judgment under appeal is perverse and illegal as the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are contrary to the evidence on record as such the judgment is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant State submits that the judgment under appeal is perverse and illegal as the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are contrary to the evidence on record as such the judgment is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. It is his submission that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate that the evidence of the material witnesses has satisfactorily proved that there was pre-marriage negotiations and during the said negotiations, the accused demanded dowry both in cash and in kind and later accepted the same at the time of the marriage, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have held that the charges levelled against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P. Act are proved beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to properly appreciate the evidence of the parents and other relatives of the deceased which would clearly establish that while the deceased was staying with the accused in the matrimonial home she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by coercing her to bring further money and on account of failure on her part to comply with such illegal demands. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has committed error in acquitting the accused for the charge under Section 498A IPC. It is his further submission that having regard to the fact that admittedly the death of the deceased occurred within 7 years from, the date of the marriage and the death having occurred in an unnatural circumstance, in the light of the evidence of the parents and other relatives of the deceased, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have held that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before her death in connection with dowry as such the death of the deceased was dowry death within the meaning of Section 304B IPC and by drawing presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have held the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC. In the alternative, he submitted that if, for any reason, this Court were to hold that, the prosecution has failed to hold that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty soon before her death in connection with dowry, having regard to the admitted fact that the deceased, a married woman had died in an unnatural circumstance by consuming poison in the matrimonial home within 7 years from the date of the marriage, the death of the deceased was suicidal and by drawing presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have held that the accused persons abetted commission of suicide by the deceased and in that view of the matter the accused persons ought to have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 IPC if not for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC. Therefore, he submits that the judgment under appeal is liable to be set aside and the accused persons are liable to be convicted for the charges levelled against them. 7. On the other hand, Sri C.H. Jadav, learned counsel for the respondent- accused sought to justify the judgment under appeal and contended that the judgment under appeal does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. According to him the learned Sessions Judge on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence has recorded a finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove any of the charges levelled against them and since the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are sound and reasonable having regard to the evidence on record, this Court sitting in appeal against the judgment of acquittal cannot interfere with those findings. It is his submission that, the learned Sessions Judge has assigned cogent reasons as to why the evidence of the parents and other relatives of the deceased is not reliable and as to how the prosecution has failed to prove the charges, therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the judgment under appeal. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the points that arise for our consideration are: 1. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused persons and in acquitting them? 2. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the points that arise for our consideration are: 1. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused persons and in acquitting them? 2. Whether the judgment under appeal suffers from perversity or illegality calling for interference by this Court? 9. We have bestowed our anxious considerations to the submissions made on both sides. We have perused the records. Scrutinized the evidence both oral as well as documentary and also read the judgment under appeal. 10. As could be seen from the judgment under appeal, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused persons of the charges levelled against them for the following reasons: (a) There is no cogent and acceptable evidence to show that the accused persons demanded and accepted dowry both in cash and in kind in connection with the marriage of the deceased with accused No. 1; (b) The evidence of the parents and other relatives of the deceased with regard to the venue of the pre-marriage talks, with regard to the quantum of alleged dowry demanded, with regard to the nature of the gold ornaments given and the place where the gold ornaments were got prepared, is highly inconsistent and discrepant, as such, their evidence in this regard is not convincing and reliable; (c) The deceased hardly lived in the matrimonial home either at Davanagere or at Hirekogalur with the accused, as after the marriage, for a period of six months while she lived, with the accused in Davanagere, she was admittedly looked after well and thereafter for a maximum period till the date of her death she lived in her parental home at Mysore, as such, there was no opportunity for the accused to subject the deceased to any kind of cruelty; (d) The evidence with regard to the alleged demand for further money for sinking bore well is highly inconsistent and discrepant as such no reliance can be placed on them. The evidence on record does not establish that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty soon before her death in connection with dowry; (e) There is no evidence on record that the deceased committed suicide and by their wilful conduct the accused abetted commission of suicide by the deceased; (f) Having regard to the fact that the deceased was living in her maternal grand father’s house in Ajjihalli village for about one year prior to the marriage, the defence plea that the marriage of the deceased with accused No. 1 was much against her wish and that, the deceased being a graduate while accused No. 1 had merely passed SSLC and though she was born and brought up in a city like Mysore, much against her wish, she was forced to live in a small village where her matrimonial home was situated, she out of frustration in life committed suicide, is probable and acceptable; and (g) The evidence does not establish that P.Ws. 1 and 2 had financial capacity to pay Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments weighing 20 tolas as dowry and to spend Rs. 5 lakhs for the marriage as asserted by them. 11. In the light of the submissions made by the learned High Court Government Pleader, we closely scrutinized the evidence of the material witnesses to find out whether the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in respect of charges levelled against the accused persons is justified. With regard to the alleged demand of dowry both in cash and in kind, the prosecution relied on the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2 who are the parents, P.W. 3-Siddaiah and P.W. 21-Prabhu who are the two maternal uncles, of the deceased, as also the evidence of P.W. 7-Gurumurthy, the co-brother of P.W. 2 and P.W. 14-Lalithamma, the sister of P.W. 1 and wife of P.W. 7. 12. In her examination-in-chief, P.W. 1 has not stated as to where the pre-marriage talks took place. She merely states that at the time of the marriage, they gave cash of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments weighing about 20 tolas as dowry and Rs. 10,000/- for the cloths of the bridegroom and in all, spent about Rs. 5 lakhs for the marriage. She merely states that at the time of the marriage, they gave cash of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments weighing about 20 tolas as dowry and Rs. 10,000/- for the cloths of the bridegroom and in all, spent about Rs. 5 lakhs for the marriage. She has not stated as to whether any talks took place prior to the marriage and that during such marriage talks, the accused demanded dowry in cash and kind. 13. P.W. 2 in his examination-in-chief has merely stated that as offered during the pre-marriage talks, cash of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments weighing about 20 tolas and Rs. 10,000/- for the cloths of the bridegroom were given to the bridegroom at the time of the marriage. He has also not stated as to where the marriage talks took place and whether the accused made any demands. According to P.W. 3, pre-marriage talk took place in the house of the accused and he attended the said talk on behalf of the bride. According to him, the accused persons were also present during that talk. He has further stated that during the marriage talks it was agreed that the parents of the bride should give cash of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments weighing about 20 tolas as dowry and Rs. 10,000/- for the clothes of the bride groom and after one month of the marriage talks, Rs. 1 lakh was given to the accused and about 15-20 days prior to the marriage, Rs. 10,000/- towards the clothes was given and at the time of the marriage gold ornaments weighing 20 tolas were given. 14. According to the evidence of P.W. 7, he did not attend the pre-marriage talks. However, according to him, he came to know from accused No. 2 about the details of the discussion in the pre-marriage talks and learnt that cash of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments weighing about 20 tolas were to be given to the bridegroom, in addition to Rs. 10,000/- for the clothes of the bridegroom. Thus the evidence of P.W. 7 is only hearsay. He also has not stated as to where the pre-marriage talks took place. 15. According to the evidence of P.W. 14, younger sister of P.W. 1 and wife of P.W. 7, the pre-marriage talks took place at Davanagere. But she does not know as to in whose house pre-marriage talks took place. He also has not stated as to where the pre-marriage talks took place. 15. According to the evidence of P.W. 14, younger sister of P.W. 1 and wife of P.W. 7, the pre-marriage talks took place at Davanagere. But she does not know as to in whose house pre-marriage talks took place. According to her, she also did not attend the pre-marriage talk. However, she came to know subsequently about the details of the discussion and the decision reached. She has not stated as to from whom she came to know about those details. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 14 in this regard is only a hearsay and not admissible in evidence. 16. According to the evidence of P.W. 21-the younger brother of P.W. 3, the pre-marriage talks took place in his house at Ajjihalli village. According to him, he and all the accused were present. He has also stated that during the pre-marriage talks, it was decided that dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments weighing 20 tolas and Rs. 10,000/- for the clothes of the bridegroom should be given to the bride groom. 17. According to the evidence of P.W. 24-the younger brother of the deceased, he does not know as to where the pre-marriage talks took place, who all attended and whether he attended the marriage talks or not. 18. Thus the evidence on record with regard to alleged pre-marriage talk is not consistent and cogent. The parents of the deceased themselves have not stated as to where the pre-marriage talks took place. There is inconsistency in the evidence of two maternal uncles of the deceased as to the venue of the pre-marriage talks. None of these witnesses have stated in their evidence that the accused demanded the dowry and the parents of the bride accepted the same. In fact, in the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 and 2, it is elicited from them that it is custom in their community to give cash, gold and other articles at the time of the marriage and as per their custom they have given cash and other articles to the bride groom as “Varopachara”. 19. Perusal of the evidence of these witnesses indicate that P.Ws. 1 and 2 had no financial capacity to pay dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments weighing about 20 tolas. No material is produced to show that P.W. 2 had money. 19. Perusal of the evidence of these witnesses indicate that P.Ws. 1 and 2 had no financial capacity to pay dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments weighing about 20 tolas. No material is produced to show that P.W. 2 had money. It is not the say of P.W. 2 that he borrowed money from somebody. The details of the ornaments said to have been given to the bride and bridegroom have not been stated. There is inconsistency as to where the ornaments were got prepared. According to the parents of the deceased it was prepared in Mysore or Shimoga. According to the other witnesses it was prepared in Shimoga. There is no definite evidence as to where the ornaments were prepared, if so, what were the description of those ornaments. Except stating that 20 tolas of gold ornaments were given, the witnesses have not stated as to the description of the ornaments. Under these circumstances, in our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in holding that the evidence on record does not satisfactorily establish that the accused prior to the marriage demanded dowry in cash and kind and accepted the same either prior to or at the time of the marriage. Thus the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in this regard is sound and reasonable having regard to evidence on record. We find no error committed by the learned Sessions Judge in this regard, as such the said finding does not call for interference by this Court. 20. With regard to the alleged cruelty and harassment meted out to the deceased by the accused after she joined her husband in the matrimonial home is concerned, as rightly pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge, the evidence is not convincing and acceptable. It is the consistent say of all the material witnesses that for about six months after the marriage, the deceased was looked after well by the accused. It is also in evidence on record that about 3 months after the marriage, she became pregnant and while she was running fourth month pregnancy she came to the parental home at Mysore and till about 9 months after the birth of the child she stayed in her parental home. It is also in evidence on record that about 3 months after the marriage, she became pregnant and while she was running fourth month pregnancy she came to the parental home at Mysore and till about 9 months after the birth of the child she stayed in her parental home. Thereafter for a brief period she came to matrimonial home and within about 15 days or one month she went back to parental home and stayed there till 3.8.2003. Admittedly she came to the matrimonial home at Hirekogalur in the early hours of 4.8.2003 after leaving Mysore during the night of 3.8.2003 and at about 11.30 a.m. on 5.8.2003, she consumed poison in the matrimonial home and died. Thus, from this it is clear that the deceased hardly lived in the matrimonial home. 21. According to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, at the time of the marriage accused No. 1 was running a provisional store in Davanagere and after few months he fell into bad vices, incurred heavy loss in the business, therefore, closed down the business and went away and he was not heard for about one year and thereafter he jointed his parents in Hiekogalur. From the evidence on record, it is further clear that while the deceased and accused No. 1 were staying in Davanagere the parents-in-law of the deceased were residing in Hirekogalur which was native village of accused No. 2. Having regard to fact that the deceased hardly lived in the matrimonial home, the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that there was no opportunity for the deceased to hardly live in the matrimonial home and since accused Nos. 2 and 3 were living separately in Hirekogalur while the deceased and accused No. 1 were residing in Davanagere, there was no opportunity for the accused to subject the deceased to cruelty and harassment. 22. According to the case of the prosecution, after lapse of about six months, accused No. 1 started demanding Rs. 25,000/- for sinking bore well and the said demand was also fulfilled by P.Ws. 1 and 2. However, the evidence in this regard is also highly inconsistent and discrepant. According to some of the witnesses, Rs. 25,000/- was given while few other witnesses say that Rs. 20,000/- was given. Some witnesses say that the money was handed over to accused No. 1 while the others have stated that P.Ws. 1 and 2. However, the evidence in this regard is also highly inconsistent and discrepant. According to some of the witnesses, Rs. 25,000/- was given while few other witnesses say that Rs. 20,000/- was given. Some witnesses say that the money was handed over to accused No. 1 while the others have stated that P.Ws. 1 and 2 themselves came to Hirekogalur and sunk the borewell by spending money. Therefore, in the light of the inconsistent and discrepant evidence, in our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in holding that the evidence on record does not satisfactorily establish that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty and harassment either in connection with dowry or for any other reason while she was staying in her matrimonial home with the accused. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 498A IPC. 23. No doubt, the death of the deceased has occurred within 7 years from the date of the marriage in unnatural circumstance in the matrimonial home. It is very pertinent to note that at the time of death P.Ws. 1 and 2 were also present in the matrimonial home of the deceased. As noticed supra, there is no cogent evidence to accept that deceased had been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry soon before her death. Therefore, the death of the deceased cannot be termed as dowry death within the meaning of Section 304B IPC as such, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in holding that the accused are not guilty of the said charge. 24. No doubt, the evidence on record clearly establish that the death of the deceased was suicidal. However, in the absence of any cogent and acceptable evidence placed by the prosecution to prove that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC, the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act to the effect that the accused abated commission of suicide by the deceased cannot be drawn. 25. It is in the evidence on record that prior to the marriage, for about, one year, the deceased stayed in her maternal grandparents home in Ajjihalli village. The reason as to why the deceased stayed there for about one year prior to the marriage is not forth coming. 25. It is in the evidence on record that prior to the marriage, for about, one year, the deceased stayed in her maternal grandparents home in Ajjihalli village. The reason as to why the deceased stayed there for about one year prior to the marriage is not forth coming. Admittedly, the deceased was born and brought up in Mysore City. She was a B.A. graduate. It is suggested in the cross-examination of material witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1, 2 and other witnesses that while the deceased was in the college, she had a love affair with another boy and she wanted to marry the said boy and in order to bring an end to the said love affair, the deceased was left in Ajjihalli village. Of course, the witnesses have denied the said suggestion. In the absence of any specific reason, the fact that the deceased who was born and brought up in Mysore City and had completed B.A. graduation was made to stay in her maternal grandparents house for about one year prior to the marriage in Ajjihalli village, is sufficient to hold that all was not well in her family and for some specific reason she was made to stay in the village for about 1 year prior to her marriage. 26. It is in the evidence on record that accused No. 1 had merely passed SSLC and had no employment. He was running a medical and provision store in Davanagere. The family of the accused was not that sound financially. It is also in evidence on record that the deceased after having passed B.A., wanted to join some job and earn on her own. It is also in evidence on record that the deceased was a hypersensitive lady. The deceased hardly lived in the matrimonial home after the marriage and out of the total period of about 3½ years after the marriage, except for the initial period of six months during which she was undisputedly looked after well by the accused, the deceased hardly lived in the matrimonial home. It is also in the evidence on record that it is after the deceased came to Mysore while she was running 4th month pregnancy, she joined some computer course with a view to join some job so that she could earn her own living. It is in the evidence on record that on 2.8.2008 when accused Nos. It is also in the evidence on record that it is after the deceased came to Mysore while she was running 4th month pregnancy, she joined some computer course with a view to join some job so that she could earn her own living. It is in the evidence on record that on 2.8.2008 when accused Nos. 1 and 3 came to the parental home of the deceased and demanded the deceased to come back to the matrimonial home, she refused to go with them and much against her wish she was asked to go to matrimonial home by her parents. From all these circumstances, it is probable that the deceased being hyper-sensitive lady, since the marriage appears to be was much against her wish, accused No. 1 was not a match to her on the education front and since she was sent to matrimonial home much against her will, appears to have committed suicide. The reason for the deceased committing suicide is not shown to be on account of alleged cruelty and harassment. On the other hand, it was in the background of the circumstances noted supra. Under these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge in our opinion, is justified in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons were in any way responsible for the commission of suicide by the deceased. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are sound and reasonable having regard to evidence on record, We find no perversity or illegality in the judgment under appeal. Therefore, we find no ground to interfere with the said judgment. 27. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of acquittal dated 7.2.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court I, Davanagere in S.C. No. 4/2004 is hereby affirmed.