JUDGMENT N. ANANDA, J.—This appeal is filed by the State represented by Byappanahalli Police, under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr. P.C., against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S.C. No. 683 of 2003, whereby the respondents/accused were tried and acquitted for offences punishable under sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also for offences punishable under sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal, the State represented by Byappanahalli Police has preferred this appeal. 2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows: P.W. 1-Narayana was an ITI employee and resident of Viveknagar, Bangalore. P.W. 1 performed the marriage of his daughter Saraswathi with accused No. 1-Vasudev @ Vasu on 26-2-1999 at Kaiwara Temple, Chintamani Taluk, Chikballapur District. At the time of marriage, accused demanded a sum of Rs. 80,000/- as dowry, apart from one necklace, Mangalya Chain to the bride and one pair of suit, a finger ring and a gold chain to bridegroom. The complainant has expressed his inability to pay the same. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 18,000/- as dowry, a gold chain and a gold finger ring to bridegroom. The complainant has also given a pair of ear studs, nose stud and a pair of leg chain to his (deceased Saraswathi). After the marriage, accused No. 1 and his wife Saraswathi lived happily for three months. Thereafter, accused 1 and 2 and the deceased used to visit the house of the complainant and stayed in his house for about 3 months. Accused 2 and 3 were living in a hut in Indira Harijana Colony at Hosa Byappanahalii, Bangalore. After some time, accused 2 and 3 demanded accused No. 1 and his wife (deceased Saraswathi) to live separately by taking a separate house anywhere. Accused No, 1 was doing barbending work and he was not doing the work properlyand he was not bringing ration. Accused No. 1 started cooling to his house by consuming liquour. Accused No. 1 started harassing his wife Saraswathi by demanding her to bring money by going to her parental house and he was quarrelling with her. Deceased Saraswathi was telling the said fact to the complainant (P.W. 1). Accused No. 1 started cooling to his house by consuming liquour. Accused No. 1 started harassing his wife Saraswathi by demanding her to bring money by going to her parental house and he was quarrelling with her. Deceased Saraswathi was telling the said fact to the complainant (P.W. 1). The deceased was going to her parental house and taking money from P.W. 1, her father for family expenses. On 6.3.2002 at about 12.30 p.m., deceased came to her parental house along with accused No. 1. At that time, P.W. 1 was not in the house. P.W. 1 came to the house at about 4 p.m. Accused No. 1 was sleeping on the cot, P.W. 1 asked accused No. 1 about giving cruel treatment by accused 1 to 8 to his daughter (deceased Saraswathi), P.W. 1 told accused No. 1 that he would give some amount to him and asked accused No. 1 to take some rented house at any place to live separately with his daughter. At that time, deceased Saraswathi asked P.W. 1 to give a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for family expenses, P.W. 1 paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to deceased Saraswathi, Accused No. 1 and deceased Saraswathi went away by saying that they wouldgo to their house. On the same day, at about 8 p.m., some persons residing In Indira Harijana colony telephoned and informed the complainant to come to the house of accused, When P.W. 1 and his wife-P.W. 11 reached the house of accused No. 1, they saw deceased Saraswathi was lying dead with burn Injuries. Thereafter, P.W. 1 went to jurisdictional police station and registered a complaint alleging that accused 1 to 8 by pouring kerosene set fire to her with intention to kill her. The complaint was registered by the jurisdictional police in Crime No. 88 of 2002. P.W. 12-Gangaiah, the then Circle Inspector of Police visited the place of incident situate at Indira Harijana colony bearing house No. 95, Hosa Byappanahalli, Bangalore, where accused No. 1 and deceased were living. P.W. 12 shifted the dead body of deceased to Bowring & Lady Curzon Hospital at Bangalore with a request to conduct post-mortem examination. P.W. 10-Dr. Bheemappa Havanur, in-charge Medical Officer conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased and issued Ex. P12. After completion of investigation, P.W. 14-Sangram Singh. P.W. 12 shifted the dead body of deceased to Bowring & Lady Curzon Hospital at Bangalore with a request to conduct post-mortem examination. P.W. 10-Dr. Bheemappa Havanur, in-charge Medical Officer conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased and issued Ex. P12. After completion of investigation, P.W. 14-Sangram Singh. T.G., filed charge sheet against accused 1 to 3 for aforesaid offences. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for parties, the trial Court framed charges against accused 1 to 8 for offences punishable under sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also for offences punishable under sections 498A and 304B of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. The plea of accused Is of total denial. 5. The prosecution has examined P.W. 1 to P.W. I8 and marked documents as per Ex. P1 to Bx.P16 and marked material objects as per M.O. 1 to M.O. 11. During cross-examination of P.W. 11, the defence got marked the contradictory portion as Ex. D1. 6. Considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses, documents filed by prosecution and material objects, the learned additional Sessions Judge found that the accused were not guilty for which the accused were charged and acquitted accused 1 to 3 under Section 235(1) of Cr. P.C. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. 7. We have heard Sri. N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned HCGP and Sri. Naushad Pasha, learned counsel for accused and we have gone through the evidence and the judgment of the trial Court, 8. The trial Court acquitted accused 1 to 8 mainly on the ground that there are material discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, i.e., the evidence of P.W. 1 and 11 is not consistent and also on the ground that financial condition of the complainant is not sound, therefore, the question of demand of dowry by accused 1 to 8 does not arise. 9. The learned HCGP for the State, submits that there was demand of dowry by the accused and the complainant gave a sum of Rs. 18,000/- instead of Rs. 60,000/- as demanded by accused. The evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 11, who are the parents of deceased would dearly indicate that there was demand of dowry and harassment of accused to the deceased. Therefore, the trial Court was not justified in acquitting the accused, 10. 18,000/- instead of Rs. 60,000/- as demanded by accused. The evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 11, who are the parents of deceased would dearly indicate that there was demand of dowry and harassment of accused to the deceased. Therefore, the trial Court was not justified in acquitting the accused, 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents/accused submitted that P.W. 11, the mother of deceased terminated pregnancy of deceased when she was second time pregnant without the knowledge and consent of accused no. 1 and against the will of the deceased. In that connection, there was quarrel between deceased and her parents. On account of that reason, deceased poured kerosene and set herself on fire. Though the same was suggested to P.W. 11, in the cross-examination, P.W. 11 has admitted that the deceased was pregnant again after the birth of first daughter, hut she has denied the suggestion, they got aborted said pregnancy without the knowledge of accused. In the complaint, it is clearly stated that deceased died when her first daughter was ten months old. Therefore, question of deceased Saraswathi again getting pregnant after two years of birth of first daughter does not arise. The deceased succumbed to injuries when her first daughter was aged about ten months. On this ground, the accused has tried to shift blame on the parents of deceased. Therefore, the deceased committed suicide. There is no acceptable evidence that deceased was pregnant two years after the birth of first daughter and her pregnancy was terminated by her parents. At the time of examination of accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C, none of the accused has stated about the fact that the parents of deceased terminated pregnancy of deceased against her will and on account of that there was quarrel. Therefore, the contention of the accused that P.W. 1 and P.W. 11. who are the parents of deceased were responsible for commission of suicide by the deceased cannot be accepted. The evidence on record would clearly indicate that accused No. 1, who is the husband of deceased was almost depending on the parents of the deceased and he used to stay at his in-laws house without earning anything to maintain his wife and the child and thereby he was always demanding the deceased to bring dowry for maintenance of his family and to meet his vices like drinking liquor. P.W. 1 and P.W. 11 have stated in their evidence that accused no. 1 used to harass the deceased to bring some more money from her parents. On the date of incident, accused no, 1 and deceased left the house of P.W. 1 at 4.00 p.m. and reached their house. At about 8.00 p.m., P.W. 11 received a phone call from a neighbour of accused no. 1 about the Incident, It is seen from the evidence that accused no. 1 did not choose to inform P.W. 11 about the death of deceased soon after the incident. Accused no.2 and 3 had gone to their work. The conduct of accused 2 and 3 would indicate their concern about the deceased. Both P.W. 1 and P.W. 11 have stated in their evidence that accused 2 and 3 were visiting their house and the relationship between the deceased and accused 2 and 8 was cordial. In fact, accused 2 and 8 were demanding accused no. 1 to set up a separate house and live separately and advising accused no. 1 who was not earning. There is absolutely no evidence on record to indicate that accused 2 and 8 were demanding deceased to bring more dowry from her parental house and subjecting the deceased to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry or for some other reason. Therefore, accused 2 and 3 were rightly acquitted by the trial Court for the aforesaid offences. So far as accused no. I Is concerned, the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 11 would Indicate that accused No. 1 used to harass the deceased and he was depending on her and demanding her to bring some more money from her parents to meet his vices and maintenance of family. In fact accused no. 1 pledged a gold chain and a gold ring with pawnbrokers which were given to him at the time of marriage, which clearly establishes the fact that there was cruelty and harassment by accused no. 1 to the deceased. The cruelty otherwise inflicted on the deceased would be a relevant circumstance to maintain the conviction under Section 498A of IPC unless there was evidence of demand of dowry and, therefore, the provisions of Section 304B IPC would not be attracted. 11. 1 to the deceased. The cruelty otherwise inflicted on the deceased would be a relevant circumstance to maintain the conviction under Section 498A of IPC unless there was evidence of demand of dowry and, therefore, the provisions of Section 304B IPC would not be attracted. 11. The evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 11 clearly shows that there was demand for a gold chain and a gold finger ring by accused No. 1 at the time of marriage. P.W. 1, the father of deceased complied with the demand of dowry. Subsequently, after the marriage, accused No, 1 pledged a gold chain (M.O.9) with P.W. 6 and a gold finger ring (M.O.11) with P.W. 13. 12. The evidence on record clearly shows that accused No. 1 was subjecting the deceased to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry. The learned trial Judge has not considered the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 11 in proper perspective. The learned trial Judge has not considered the fact that accused No. 1 had pledged gold ornaments with pawn brokers (P.W. 6 and P.W. 13). The learned trial Judge has not considered the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 11 with reference to the ingredients of Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498A of IPC. Therefore, we hold accused No. 1 guilty of an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also for an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. 13. The evidence on record does not disclose that soon before her death, accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty in connection with dowry demand, then accused no. 1 cannot be held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304B IPC. 14. Therefore, we pass the following: ORDER The appeal is accepted in part. The impugned judgment is modified. Accused 2 and 3 are acquitted of offences punishable under sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also for offences punishable under sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of IPC. Accused No. 1 is acquitted of offences punishable under sections 4 and 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also for an offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC. Accused No. 1 is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. Accused No. 1 is acquitted of offences punishable under sections 4 and 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also for an offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC. Accused No. 1 is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 15,000/- in default to undergo simple Imprisonment for six months. Further, accused No, 1 is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo simple Imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of detention undergone by accused No. 1 during trial shall be given set off as provided under Section 428 Cr. P.C. The bail bonds If any executed by accused 2 and 3 stands cancelled. The trial Court shall secure accused No. 1 to implement the sentence. Office is directed to send back records along with a copy of this order.