JUDGMENT M. JAICHANDREN, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused against the conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Court, Karur, dated 3.3.2004, in S.C. No. 126 of 2003. 2. The accused had been charged under Sections 498-A and 302 I.P.C., read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961. Based on the trial conducted by the Sessions Court, Karur, the accused had been convicted, under Section and 302 I.P.C., as well as under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The accused had been imposed with life sentence, for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. , along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default in payment of the said amount to undergo one year of Rigorous Imprisonment. In respect of the charge, under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act ,1961, the accused had been imposed with Rigorous Imprisonment of one year and with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and on the failure to pay the same, to undergo three months of Rigorous Imprisonment. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused had been harassing his wife, Uma @ Kamalaveni, from the time of their marriage, held in the month of November, 1999. While so, at 10 a.m., on 22.8.2000, the accused had attacked his wife, Uma @ Kamalaveni, who was pregnant at that time, with the intention of committing murder, for her failure to bring dowry. The accused had kicked his wife on the stomach and had pushed her down and had caused her death, by asphyxiation, by pressing on her chest. In such circumstances, the accused had been charged, under Sections 498-A and 302 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act , 1961. 4. The case had been taken up for trial, by the Principal Sessions Court, Karur. During the trial, fifteen witnesses had been examined on behalf of the prosecution and thirteen documents had been marked. 5. The mother of the deceased, Uma @ Kamalaveni, had been examined as P.W.1. She had stated in her deposition that the accused had eloped with her daughter and had married her. Thereafter, he had been harassing her, asking her to provide him money for his regular expenses and for buying a car. The accused had been frequently quarrelling with his wife, Uma @ Kamalaveni and had been torturing her, asking for dowry. She had stated in her deposition that the accused had eloped with her daughter and had married her. Thereafter, he had been harassing her, asking her to provide him money for his regular expenses and for buying a car. The accused had been frequently quarrelling with his wife, Uma @ Kamalaveni and had been torturing her, asking for dowry. While so, on the date of the occurrence, the accused had kicked her daughter on the stomach, when she was pregnant, and had also caused her death, by throttling her. She had also stated that she had narrated the facts before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who had conducted the enquiry. 6. Witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.5 had turned hostile. 7. Chellammal, who had deposed as P.W.3, is the maternal grand mother of the deceased, Uma @ Kamalaveni. She had stated in her evidence that, on the date of the occurrence, she had been informed that her grand daughter had been taken to the hospital. Therefore, she had gone to the Karur Government Hospital, to see her. When she saw her grand daughter, she was not in a position to speak. She had also stated that she had given a statement before the Revenue Divisional Officer, during the enquiry conducted by him. 8. P.W.4, Thilakavathy, had stated, in her evidence, that the deceased had been living close to her house. The accused and the deceased had got married without the knowledge of their parents. After nearly four months of their marriage, the deceased was living in her mother’s house, for about two months. Thereafter, she had gone to live with her husband, who is the accused. On the date of the occurrence, she had seen the accused carrying the deceased on his shoulders to take her to the Government Hospital, Karur. She had passed on the information to the mother of the deceased, through telephone. 9. One M. Thangavel, who had been examined as P.W.6, had stated in his evidence that when he had visited the place of occurrence, the Revenue Divisional Officer and the police were conducting an enquiry. He had signed the Observation Mahazar and the mahazar prepared by the Police Officer concerned, for having recovered certain articles from the place of occurrence. 10. Doctor R. Susheela, had been examined as P.W.7. He had signed the Observation Mahazar and the mahazar prepared by the Police Officer concerned, for having recovered certain articles from the place of occurrence. 10. Doctor R. Susheela, had been examined as P.W.7. She had stated that, at about 11.40 a.m., when she was on duty at the Karur Government Hospital, Uma @ Kamalaveni, was brought dead. She had sent the body to the mortuary. She had also sent the information to the police station concerned. The Deputy Superintendent of Police had examined her and had prepared the case sheet, marked as Exhibit P-3. 11. Nandagopal, the Forensic Science expert, examined as P.W.8, had submitted a report, on examination of the internal organs of the deceased, marked as Exhibit P-4, stating that no poisonous substances were found in them. 12. Jayabalan, the Head Constable of Karur Town Police Station, examined as P.W.9, had stated that, at 12.30 p.m., on 25.8.2000, he had received an Express Report, with regard to the alteration of the charges, under Section 304-B I.P.C. On receipt of the said report, he had forwarded the same to the Court concerned. The Head Constable, P.W.10, had stated that, on 24.8.2000, he had received a request for an inquest, in respect of the case, in Crime No. 173 of 2000, registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. He had sent the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer. After the completion of the inquest, he had handed over the body to the relatives of the deceased. 13. The Head Constable, Ramasamy, examined as P.W.11, had stated that, on 22.8.2000, at about 5.00 p.m, he had reduced into writing, the complaint given by P.W.1, namely, Dhaivanai, the mother of the deceased. He had read over the complaint to the complainant and had obtained her signature on it. Based on the said complaint, he had registered a case, under Section 174 Cr.P.C, in Crime No. 173 of 2000, and the complaint had been sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The District Revenue Officer, Rajeshwari, examined as P.W.12, had stated that, when she was the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur, on 22.8.2000, she had received the information about the occurrence. On 23.8.2000, she had visited the Karur Government Hospital and had examined the body of the deceased. Thereafter, she had gone to the place of occurrence and had examined the witnesses. The District Revenue Officer, Rajeshwari, examined as P.W.12, had stated that, when she was the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur, on 22.8.2000, she had received the information about the occurrence. On 23.8.2000, she had visited the Karur Government Hospital and had examined the body of the deceased. Thereafter, she had gone to the place of occurrence and had examined the witnesses. During the enquiry, she had been informed, by the mother of the deceased, that her daughter, Uma @ Kamalaveni, had been tortured by the accused, demanding dowry. She had stated that there were no external wounds observed on the body of the deceased. The deceased could have been murdered, for some reason. The report prepared by P.W.12 had been marked as Exhibit P-6. Thereafter, she had sent a report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, marked as Exhibit P-7, for further action. Exhibit P-8 is the request made by her for conducting an inquest and for examination of the internal organs of the deceased, including the Hyoid bone. 14. Dr.Karthikeyan, examined as P.W.13, had stated that he was a Professor at Tiruchirapalli Government Medical College. On 25.8.2000, based on the request received by him, he had examined the Hyoid bone of the deceased, Uma @ Kamalaveni, and had given a report, marked as Exhibit P-9. In the said report, it had been stated that the Hyoid bone of the deceased was intact. 15. Doctor Ponniah, who had been examined as P.W.14, had stated that he was working as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Karur Government Hospital. On 23.8.2000, he had received a request for conducting an autopsy on the body of the deceased, Uma @ Kamalaveni. He had conducted the autopsy, along with doctor Kausaliya and had submitted the Autopsy Report, marked as Exhibit P-10. He had stated that the death could have been due to asphyxiation, which could have been caused due to the pressure applied to the Hyoid bone of the deceased. 16. Ramachandran, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, examined as P.W.15, had stated that, when he was on duty, on 23.8.2000, he had taken up the case for investigation. He had visited the Karur Government Hospital, at 9.00 p.m., when the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur, was conducting an enquiry relating to the death of Uma @ Kamalaveni. He had assisted the said officer during the enquiry. He had visited the Karur Government Hospital, at 9.00 p.m., when the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur, was conducting an enquiry relating to the death of Uma @ Kamalaveni. He had assisted the said officer during the enquiry. He had also examined the witnesses and had recorded their statements. He had also visited the place of the occurrence and had prepared the Observation Mahazar, marked as Exhibit P-2. He had also prepared the Rough Sketch of the place of occurrence, marked as Exhibit P-11. After recording the statements of the witnesses and after taking possession of the relevant materials available at the place of occurrence, he had altered the case, under Section 304-B I.P.C., and had sent an Express Report to the court concerned. He had also stated that, on 25.8.2000, at about 4.00 p.m, he had arrested the accused, at Gandhigram, and had recorded his statements. Thereafter, he had sent the accused to judicial custody. On completion of the investigation, on 13.3.2002, he had filed the charge sheet against the accused, before the Court concerned, under Section 304-B I.P.C., and 302 I.P.C. 17. When he had been told about the evidence available relating to the charges, he had made a statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C, denying his involvement in the death of the deceased, Uma @ Kamalaveni. He had stated that the prosecution had foisted a case against him and that the evidences of the witnesses were not true. 18. Having considered the evidence available on record, the trial Court had found the accused guilty of the charges levelled against him, under Sections 498-A and 302 I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act ,1961, and had punished him, accordingly. 19. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, dated 3.3.2004, in S.C. No. 126 of 2003, the accused has filed the present Criminal Appeal before this Court. 20. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused had submitted, inter alia, that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the appellant, beyond all reasonable doubts. He had further submitted that the ingredients of the offences, under Sections 498-A, 302 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act , 1961, had not been made out against the appellant to find him guilty of the charges framed against him. 21. He had further submitted that the ingredients of the offences, under Sections 498-A, 302 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act , 1961, had not been made out against the appellant to find him guilty of the charges framed against him. 21. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused had further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4, with regard to the alleged demand of dowry, are contradictory in nature. As such, their evidence should have been rejected, as a whole. The trial Court ought to have noted that P.W.1 had stated, in her evidence, before the trial Court, for the first time, that the appellant had tortured the deceased, when she had failed to bring money for the purchase of a car. In fact, P.W.1 had not made such a statement, either before the Revenue Divisional Officer, during the enquiry, or before the investigating officer, at an earlier stage. The trial Court ought to have noted that none of the independent witnesses, who had been examined, had spoken about the alleged demand of dowry and the harassment, said to have been caused to the deceased, by the accused. Further, there are contradictions between the medical evidence available on record and the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. As such, the trial Court ought to have acquitted the appellant, from all the charges framed against him. From the records available, it is seen that fifteen witnesses had been examined on the side of the prosecution and thirteen documents had been marked. The appellant, who was the accused before the trial court, had denied the charges framed against him and had stated that he is an innocent person. 22. On the contrary, it is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused could not have committed suicide, by hanging, as claimed on behalf of the accused, as the rafter in the house, in which she is said to have hanged herself, is only seven feet in height. Further, it has been proved, beyond doubt, from the evidence available, that the accused had been harassing the deceased, for dowry. Thus, it is clear that the accused, Manikandan, had killed his wife, Uma @ Kamalaveni. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant/accused is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits. 23. Further, it has been proved, beyond doubt, from the evidence available, that the accused had been harassing the deceased, for dowry. Thus, it is clear that the accused, Manikandan, had killed his wife, Uma @ Kamalaveni. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant/accused is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits. 23. This Court had heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State, and had carefully perused the records available. 24. Admittedly, this is a case based on circumstantial evidence, as there were no eye witnesses to the occurrence. In such circumstances, there is no doubt that a heavy onus lies on the prosecution to establish, clearly, the chain of events pointing towards the guilt of the accused, as reiterated in a recent decision of the Supreme Court, in Munna Kumar Upadhyay v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 6 SCC 174 . Paragraphs 24 and 25 of the said decision reads as follows: “24. A case of circumstantial evidence is primarily dependent upon the prosecution story being established by cogent, reliable and admissible evidence. Each circumstance must be proved like any other fact which will, upon their composite reading, completely demonstrate how and by whom the offence had been committed. This Court has clearly stated the principles and the factors that would govern the judicial determination of such cases. 25. Reference can be made to Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B., (2010) 8 SCC 249 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 814 , where the Court held as follows: “27. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that it is a case of circumstantial evidence as there was no eyewitness to the occurrence. It is a settled principle of law that an accused can be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence provided, the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt complete chain of events and circumstances which definitely points towards the involvement and guilt of the suspect or accused, as the case may be. The accused will not be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eyewitness in the case. It is also equally true that an accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence subject to the satisfaction of the accepted principles in that regard. 28. The accused will not be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eyewitness in the case. It is also equally true that an accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence subject to the satisfaction of the accepted principles in that regard. 28. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 487 , held as under: ‘152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1953 Cri LJ 129. This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance, Tufail v. State of U.P. (1969) 3 SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 55 and Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra (1972) 4 SCC 625 . It may be useful to extract what MAHAJAN, J. has laid down in Hanumant case (Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. (supra),) “10. … It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 , where the observations were made: “19. … Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.’” However, in the present case, it is clear that the prosecution had not discharged the onus of proving the complete chain of events and circumstances to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond any reasonable doubt. 25. The case of the prosecution is that the accused had been harassing and torturing his wife, Uma @ Kamalaveni, for dowry. On the date of the occurrence, he had caused the death of his pregnant wife, by throttling. 26. It has been stated, on behalf of the prosecution, that the accused, Manikandan and the deceased, Uma @ Kamalaveni, had liked each other and had got married, without the consent of their parents. On the date of the occurrence, he had caused the death of his pregnant wife, by throttling. 26. It has been stated, on behalf of the prosecution, that the accused, Manikandan and the deceased, Uma @ Kamalaveni, had liked each other and had got married, without the consent of their parents. Thereafter, the accused had started harassing the deceased, for dowry, and by asking her to get money, to buy a car. On the date of the occurrence, i.e. on 22.8.2000, the accused had quarrelled with his wife, kicked her on the stomach and had throttled her to death. 27. In the report of the Forensic Science expert, examined as P.W.8, marked as Exhibit P-4, it could be noted that there were no poisonous substances found in the internal organs of the deceased. Doctor A. Karthikeyan, who was working in the Medico-Legal Department of the Tiruchirapalli Government Hospital, examined as P.W.13, had given his report, marked as Exhibit P-9, stating that the Hyoid bone of the deceased was intact. Doctor M. Ponnaiya, who had performed the autopsy on the body of the deceased, Uma @ Kamalaveni, examined as P.W.14, had stated, in his Autopsy Report, marked as Exhibit P-10, that the deceased appeared to have died due to asphyxiation. However, during the cross-examination, he had stated that the death could have also occurred due to suicide, or due to an accident. Thus, there is some doubt as to whether the deceased had died only due to the alleged strangulation said to have been caused by the accused, on 22.8.2000. 28. Further, with regard to the conduct of the accused, immediately after the alleged occurrence, it is noted that he had raised an alarm, calling his neighbour, on seeing the body of his wife hanging from the rafter in her house. Further, from the evidence of P.W.1, the mother of the deceased, and P.W.3, the maternal grand mother of the deceased, it is noted that it is the accused who had taken the deceased and had admitted her in the Government Hospital, Karur, after the occurrence. P.W.4, a neighbour, had also deposed stating that the accused had carried the deceased on his shoulders, to admit her in the hospital and that she had passed on the information regarding the occurrence to the mother of the deceased. P.W.4, a neighbour, had also deposed stating that the accused had carried the deceased on his shoulders, to admit her in the hospital and that she had passed on the information regarding the occurrence to the mother of the deceased. Even though, there are certain statements made by the prosecution witnesses that there has been some misunderstanding between the accused and the deceased, relating to dowry, there is no conclusive evidence for this court to arrive at the decision that the death of the deceased had occurred only as a consequence of the assault said to have been committed by the accused. Further, it is noted that the death could have occurred, either due to suicide, or due to an accident, as deposed by P.W.14, during his cross-examination. 29. It is also noted that there is no clear evidence to corroborate and to sustain the charge that the accused had been harassing the deceased, for dowry. Further, there is no doubt that the present case is one of circumstantial evidence, as there are no eye witnesses to the commission of the crime, alleged to have been committed by the accused. 30. In view of the above, it is clear that onus casts upon the prosecution to prove the complete chain of events and circumstances to establish the guilt of the accused beyond any doubt had not been discharged. 31. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the prosecution has not been established beyond the pale of reasonable doubt. Therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused, by the trial Court, on 3.3.2004, in S.C. No. 126 of 2003. Accordingly, they are set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed. The bail bond, if any, executed by him shall stand cancelled and the fine amount, if any, paid by him, shall be repaid. Appeal allowed.