JUDGMENT 1. The appellants were convicted under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment by the learned District Judge, Mahila Court, Coimbatore, in S.C. No. 20 of 2006 dated 10.7.2007. 2. The following is the prosecution case :- (a) P.Ws.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased Suba Prabha. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are her brother and sister. She was married to the first accused on 21.11.2003 at Periyanayakkan- palayam. The second accused is the mother of the first accused. P.W.1 lodged a complaint Exhibit P-1 with the police stating that at the time of marriage, 42 sovereigns of gold jewels were given to his daughter and 8½ sovereigns was given to the bridegroom. A cash of Rs. 60,000/- was also given. The couple were living with the parents of A-1 as joint family. The deceased informed her father P.W.1 over phone that for the maiden Pongal, her mother-in-law had demanded Rs. 20,000/-. On the next day, P.W.1 gave Rs. 15,800/-. After Pongal, deceased was taken to his house by A-1. He told P.W.1 that only under compulsion of his mother, he married the deceased and he was not leading family life with her. On enquiry, father-in-law of the deceased told that time was not good and hence the deceased might be in the house of P.W.1 for six months. Two months later, A-1 and his sister, came and requested to send the deceased to their house. Accordingly, she was sent with them. Even thereafter, both the accused used to demand the balance jewels of 8 sovereigns and cash, besides saying she was black and obese and asked her to climb (sic) in the stairs and also to attend to all the house works and she was harassed in this way. (b) On 8.8.2005, at about 8.30 p.m., father-in-law of the deceased called P.W.1 over phone and asked him to come to their house. Hence, P.W.1 along with P.W.4, went to the house of the accused and they were told that deceased went inside the room and locked from inside. Since key of the room was inside, they broke open the door and found the deceased hanging herself from the ceiling by nylon saree. She was laid on the floor. Hence, P.W.1 along with P.W.4, went to the house of the accused and they were told that deceased went inside the room and locked from inside. Since key of the room was inside, they broke open the door and found the deceased hanging herself from the ceiling by nylon saree. She was laid on the floor. According to P.W.1, because of the harassment and cruelty purported by the accused, she committed suicide. (c) On receipt of the complaint, P.W.13 registered a case and lodged FIR Exhibit P-11. He sent the FIR to the Revenue Divisional Officer and also to the police officials. P.W.12 – Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, on receipt of the FIR reached the scene of occurrence, conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared Exhibit P-8 – inquest report. She enquired the witnesses and recorded their statements. She prepared Exhibit P-9 report opining that both the accused are cause for the death of the deceased. On the request of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Doctor conducted autopsy and extracted the internal organs and sent the same for toxicological examination. Exhibit P-4 is the Toxicological report. It was mentioned in the toxicological report that poison was not present in any of the internal organs. Exhibit P-3 is the postmortem certificate. Exhibit P-5 is the final opinion of the Doctor, after perusal of Exhibit P-4 in which he has stated that the deceased would appear to have died of hanging and vicera does not contain any poison. Exhibit P-14, Deputy Superintendent of Police, took up the case for investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared observation magazar and drew rough sketch Exhibit P-12. He seized two pieces of saree and other parts of articles which were used for hanging, under cover of mahazar. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. P.W.16, next incumbent of P.W.14, conducted further investigation. He arrested both the accused and sent them for judicial custody. He examined the doctors and on completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against the accused. (d) P.W.12 – Revenue Divisional Officer, sent a request to the forensic science laboratory to compare the signatures found in Exhibit P-2 along with sample hand writings of the deceased. P.W.15, handwriting expert compared the handwritings and gave Exhibit P-13 report stating that the sample handwritings and disputed questions handwritings were written by the same person. (d) P.W.12 – Revenue Divisional Officer, sent a request to the forensic science laboratory to compare the signatures found in Exhibit P-2 along with sample hand writings of the deceased. P.W.15, handwriting expert compared the handwritings and gave Exhibit P-13 report stating that the sample handwritings and disputed questions handwritings were written by the same person. (e) After the prosecution evidence was over, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied their complicity to the occurrence. They did not examine any witness and nor did they mark any document. After analyzing the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Coimbatore, convicted both the accused under Section 498-A I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the accused are before this Court with this appeal. Point for consideration :- 3. Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts? Point :- 4. Mr. M. Vijayakumaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that by no stretch of imagination, the appellants could be found guilty under Section 498-A IPC inasmuch as they have not been found guilty under Section 304-B IPC; that source of sample handwritings of the deceased was not revealed; but they were sent for comparison by the expert with Exhibit P-2 and hence opinion of the handwriting expert could not be relied upon; that evidence of P.W.1 would show that there were two complaints as to the intimation of death to the police; that the main reason alleged for the occurrence is, abuse of appellants that the deceased was black and the allegation of abuse was falsified by the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 4 which would go to show that she was fair and that cumulative effect of all these circumstances would indicate that the prosecution case is highly improbable. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that the evidence of the prosecution witness are cogent and satisfactory; that on a careful appreciation of the materials on record, the trial Court has found the Appellants guilty under Section 498-A IPC and there was no valid ground to disturb the findings of the trial Court. 6. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that the evidence of the prosecution witness are cogent and satisfactory; that on a careful appreciation of the materials on record, the trial Court has found the Appellants guilty under Section 498-A IPC and there was no valid ground to disturb the findings of the trial Court. 6. First and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the Appellants is that under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, the statement of the deceased could be relied upon only for the cause of the death and that any evidence with regard to the cruelty or the method of death could not be considered for convicting the accused under Section 498-A IPC. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Court in Inderpal v. State of M.P., (2001) 10 SCC 736 : wherein their Lordships have observed thus ::- “7. Unless the statement of a dead person would fall within the purview of Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act there is no other provision under which the same can be admitted in evidence. In order to make the statement of a dead person admissible in law (written or verbal) the statement must be as to the cause of her death or as to any of the circumstance of the transactions which resulted in her death, in cases in which the cause of death comes into question. By no stretch of imagination can the statements of Damyanti contained in Exhibit P-7 or Exhibit P-8 and those quoted by the witnesses be connected with any circumstance of the transaction which resulted in her death. Even that apart, when we are dealing with an offence under Section 498-A IPC disjuncted from the offence under Section 306 IPC the question of her death is not an issue for consideration and on that premise also Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act will stand at bay so far as these materials are concerned.” 7. Even in identical case, the Supreme Court has also reiterated the same proposition in the decision in Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa, (2002) SCC (Cr) 461 : (2002) 2 SCC 619 : (2002) 1 MLJ (Crl) 422. The Supreme Court observed thus :- “10. Another circumstance of cruelty is with respect to taking away of the child from the deceased. The Supreme Court observed thus :- “10. Another circumstance of cruelty is with respect to taking away of the child from the deceased. To arrive at such a conclusion, the trial Court has referred to the statement of P.W.5, who is the sister of the deceased. In her deposition recorded in the Court on 4.5.1990, P.W.5 had stated: “Whenever I had gone to my sister, all the times she was complaining that she is not well treated by her husband and in-laws for non-fulfilment of balance dowry amount of a scooter and a two-in-one.” and added: “On 3.6.1987, for the last time I had been to the house of the deceased i.e. to her separate residence. Sworna, Snigdha, Sima Apa, Baby Apa accompanied me to her house on that day. At that time, the deceased complained before us as usual and added to that she said that she is being assaulted by the accused nowadays. She further complained before us that the accused is taking away the child from her, and that her mother-in-law has come and some conspiracy is going against her (the deceased). She further told that ‘mate au banchei debenahin’.” Such a statement appears to have been taken on record with the aid of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act at a time when the appellant was being tried for the offence under Section 304-B and such statement was admissible under clause (1) of the said Section as it related to the cause of death of the deceased and the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death. Such a statement is not admissible in evidence for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and has to be termed as being only a hearsay evidence. Section 32 is an exception to the hearsay rule and deals with the statements or declarations by a person, since dead, relating to the cause of his or her death or the circumstances leading to such death. If a statement which otherwise is covered by the hearsay rule does not fall within the exceptions of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, the same cannot be relied upon for finding the guilt of the accused.” 8. If a statement which otherwise is covered by the hearsay rule does not fall within the exceptions of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, the same cannot be relied upon for finding the guilt of the accused.” 8. In the above said decision, it is ruled that previous statement of the deceased relating to cause of death while dealing with Section 304 B IPC and other statements with regard to ill-treatment etc. are not admissible in evidence for punishing an accused under Section 498-A IPC and they have to be treated only as hearsay evidence. When the ratio laid down in the above said decision is applied to the case on hand, it is to be observed that the alleged ill-treatment as stated by the deceased could not be the sole basis for convicting the accused under Section 498-A IPC. 9. At the time of conducting postmortem, Doctor P.W.3 happened to see two letters which have been marked as Exhibit P-2 series, one lengthy letter addressed by the police and another letter with three sentences addressed to the parents. In the letter addressed to the police, she has purportedly narrated the bad experience which she suffered at the hands of her husband and his mother. In another letter to her parents, she has stated that since she determined not to be a burden for her parents, she took the decision of committing suicide. The Doctor handed over the letters to the Revenue Divisional Officer, who sent them for comparison. P.W.15 compared those two letters and gave a report that the sample handwriting and the handwriting in Exhibit P-2 series are identical. There is no evidence on record to show from whom the sample handwritings were received and whether there was any mahazar recorded for seizure of the same. It is for the police to take steps for comparing the disputed documents with the admitted documents. But, this task has been done by the Revenue Divisional Officer in this case. Revenue Divisional Officer is only authorized to conduct inquest. Since there was no connecting materials between the expert opinion and Exhibit P-2 series, no conclusion could be made as to the handwritings in Exhibit P-2 series. Even the Revenue Divisional Officer in her examination has not stated from whom she got the sample handwriting of the deceased. Revenue Divisional Officer is only authorized to conduct inquest. Since there was no connecting materials between the expert opinion and Exhibit P-2 series, no conclusion could be made as to the handwritings in Exhibit P-2 series. Even the Revenue Divisional Officer in her examination has not stated from whom she got the sample handwriting of the deceased. In this regard, Exhibit P-13 opinion of the handwriting expert does not serve any purpose to the prosecution case. 10. It was the case of the prosecution that the deceased was harassed for being dark in complexion. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, in the cross examination, P.W.2 – mother of the deceased has stated that the deceased was in fair complexion and well built and also charming. P.W.4 – brother of the deceased also says that his sister was fair in complexion and she was beautiful. P.W.5 sister of the deceased would also say in the same tone. This part of oral evidence would indicate that the deceased was fair complexion and hence the alleged abuse on the part of the Appellants as if she was dark and not beautiful is not acceptable. Hence, one of the reasons which is reportedly stated to have driven the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide has been falsified. 11. It is also contended that the evidence of P.W.1 would show that there were two complaints as regards the intimation to the police as to death. Exhibit P-1 complaint was registered at 12.45 a.m. on 9.8.2005. P.W.1 says that he received phone call on 8.8.2005 at about 8.30 p.m. from the father of the first accused and he proceeded there with his son. He further said as follows :- 12. P.W.4 would say that within one hour after the receipt of information he came to the scene of occurrence. In the chief examination, he told that at 8.30 p.m. they received the phone call from the house of the accused. Hence both P.Ws 1 and 4 reached the scene of occurrence around 10 p.m. So P.Ws 1, 2 and 4 should have gone to the scene of occurrence at about 11 p.m. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that when they went to the place, police was also there on receipt of the complaint and police constables were present there. They also assisted in bringing down the body from hanging. They also assisted in bringing down the body from hanging. This would go to show that even earlier than 11 p.m. on 8.8.2005, police received complaint. Exhibit P-1 complaint came to be lodged at 10.45 hours on 9.8.2005. It transpires that there might have been two complaints and the contention that the earlier complaint was suppressed has considerable force. 13. The above said circumstances would show that the allegations levelled against the appellants as to the cruelty perpetrated by them are false. The said circumstances would also raise suspicion over the prosecution case. In this regard, prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The charge under Section 498-A IPC stands unproved. Hence, the judgment of conviction by the Court below is to be necessarily interfered with and the same is set aside. I answer this point as indicated above. 14. In fine, the appeal is allowed, acquitting the appellants of the charge under Section 498-A IPC. Fine amount shall be refunded to the accused. Bail bonds shall stand discharged. Appeal allowed.