JUDGMENT K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.—This appeal by the two convicted accused persons is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.10.2005 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in S.C Nos. 211/2003 and 124/2005. 2. The appellant No. 1-Gurumurthy was arraigned as accused No. 1, while appellant No. 2-Bodappa was arraigned as accused No. 2. Accused No. 2 is the father of accused No. 1. One Smt. Anitha-daughter of P.W. 1 and wife of accused No. 1 is the deceased in this case. It is an admitted fact that the marriage of Anitha with accused No. 1 was solemnized on 23.6.2002 in Chikka Tirupathi Temple, Malur Taluk. The said Anitha after the marriage joined her husband and started living with him in the matrimonial home situated at Villasandra Palya, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Accused No. 2 was also residing with them in the said house. The said Anitha died on 21.5.2003 in the matrimonial home by hanging and it was a suicidal death. On coming to know of the death of the said Anitha, P.W. 1-Jayamma-the mother, P.W. 7-Krishnappa-father, P.W. 2-Chinnappa-junior paternal uncle and other relatives went to the house of the accused, saw Anitha lying dead and thereafter, P.W. 7 lodged a report before the Jurisdictional Police as per Ex.P-14 with regard to the death of his daughter, inter alia alleging that before the marriage, during the negotiations, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 60,000/-, but agreed to receive Rs. 20,000/- as dowry and later at the time of the engagement, accused received dowry of Rs. 20,000/- in cash and at the time of the marriage received gold ornaments and thereafter, though for about two to three months, the deceased was looked after well, thereafter, the accused started coercing her to bring further dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- and since their demand was not complied with, they subjected her to mental and physical cruelty and unable to bear the cruelty, the deceased committed suicide by hanging. On the basis of the said report-Ex.P-14, P.W. 13-R. Bhanu Prasad-Police Sub-Inspector, Hebbagodi Police Station, registered the case in Crime No. 154/2003 initially for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and took up investigation. On the basis of the said report-Ex.P-14, P.W. 13-R. Bhanu Prasad-Police Sub-Inspector, Hebbagodi Police Station, registered the case in Crime No. 154/2003 initially for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and took up investigation. During investigation, P.W. 11-Srikantaswamy, Tahasildhar and Taluka Executive Magistrate held inquest over the dead body and thereafter, the dead body was subjected to postmortem examination. P.W. 14-Dr. Y. Uday Shankar who conducted the postmortem examination and submitted the report as per Ex.P-18 opined that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. During investigation, P.W. 13 visited the scene of occurrence, prepared spot mahazar as per Ex.P15 and seized rope as per M.O.1 said to have been used for hanging. P.W. 10-Sarala Somiah, Police Inspector, C.O.D., Bangalore, who took up further investigation of the case, recorded the statement of witnesses, collected necessary documents, apprehended accused No. 1 and on completion of the investigation laid the charge sheet showing accused No. 2 as absconding. Before the Committal Court, since the presence of accused No. 2 could not be secured and since the accused No. 1 was in judicial custody, the case as against accused No. 2 was split up and the case against accused No. 1 was committed to the Court of Sessions. Based on which Sessions Case No. 211/2003 came to be registered before the Sessions Court against accused No. 1. Subsequently, presence of accused No. 2 was secured and case against him was also committed to the Court of Sessions which came to be registered as Sessions Case No. 124/2005. Both the Sessions Cases were clubbed and tried together. Upon their appearance before the Sessions Court, accused Nos. 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 to P.W. 14 and relied on documentary evidence Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-23 and M.O.1. During their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Byway of defence, the accused examined one Shanthamma as D.W.1. During their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Byway of defence, the accused examined one Shanthamma as D.W.1. The defence of accused persons was that at no point of time they demanded nor accepted dowry either in cash or in kind and that at no point of time, they subjected the deceased to any kind of cruelty or harassment in connection with or in relation to demand for dowry nor the deceased had been subjected to cruelty by them for any reasons. It was their further defence that the deceased was suffering from stomach pain for which she was treated for a long period and despite such treatment, since she was not cured, she committed suicide unable to bear the stomach pain. 3. After hearing both sides and on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge by the judgment under appeal, held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of I.P.C., therefore, acquitted accused No. 1 of those two charges. The learned Sessions Judge further held that the evidence placed by the prosecution satisfactorily established that during the negotiations held prior to the marriage, both the accused demanded and accepted dowry of Rs. 20,000/- in cash and they failed to restore the same to the deceased after the marriage, therefore, they are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act. Accordingly, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act. The learned Sessions Judge further held that the evidence on record satisfactorily established that accused No. 2 by making sexual advancement towards her, subjected the deceased to mental cruelty and that the deceased committed suicide in the background of such cruelty and thereby accused No. 2 abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge further held that the evidence on record satisfactorily established that accused No. 2 by making sexual advancement towards her, subjected the deceased to mental cruelty and that the deceased committed suicide in the background of such cruelty and thereby accused No. 2 abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. In that view of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge held accused No. 2 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of I.P.C. Consequently, the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P. Act and convicted accused No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P. Act and Sections 498A and 306 of I.P.C. After hearing the accused, the learned Sessions Judge sentenced both the accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay fine. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both the appellants are in appeal before this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment under appeal suffer from perversity and illegality, inasmuch as the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that the evidence of P.W. 1 with regard to the alleged sexual advancement made by the accused No. 2, was not convincing and acceptable and that the sole evidence of P.W. 1 in this regard could not have been the basis for recording conviction against accused No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of I.P.C. He contended that the prosecution has not placed acceptable evidence to establish that accused No. 2 had made sexual advancements against his own daughter-in-law and thereby subjecting her to mental cruelty, which drove her to commit suicide. Therefore, the conviction of accused No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of I.P.C. is without any basis, as such, it is perverse and is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the conviction of accused No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of I.P.C. is without any basis, as such, it is perverse and is liable to be set aside. He further contended that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to notice that the evidence regarding the alleged demand and acceptance of dowry, is not consistent and cogent, as such, no reliance could be placed on such oral evidence to base conviction of the two accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act. He further contended that the photographs produced showing exchange of money would not establish that accused received the amount as dowry from the parents of the bride and therefore, reliance placed on the said photographs by the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to law. In that view of the matter, the learned counsel contended that the finding recorded by the Court below, for the purpose of convicting the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act is also highly perverse and is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the learned counsel sought for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and for acquittal of the accused of all the charges. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader sought to justify the judgment under appeal, contending that the learned Sessions Judge on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has recorded finding of guilt as against accused Nos. 1 and 2 and since the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are sound and reasonable regard being had to the evidence on record, the judgment under appeal does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 1 and 2 and since the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are sound and reasonable regard being had to the evidence on record, the judgment under appeal does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. He contended that the evidence placed by the prosecution with regard to demand and acceptance of the dowry prior to and at the time of the marriage, is consistent and cogent and the oral evidence of the witness in this regard is corroborated by the documentary evidence namely photographs which are not disputed by the accused and the photographs clearly indicate the payment of money by the relatives of the bride to the bridegroom and its acceptance by the bridegroom, therefore, the conviction recorded by the Court below for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act is just and proper and does not warrant interference. He further contended that the evidence of P.W. 1 with regard to accused No. 2 making sexual advancements towards the deceased and thereby subjecting her to mental cruelty and thereby driving her to commit suicide is natural and acceptable, therefore, the Court below has not committed any error in basing the conviction of accused No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of I.P.C. on the evidence of P.W. 1. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 7. I have bestowed my anxious considerations to the submissions made on both sides. I have perused the records secured from the Trial Court. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the submissions made on both sides, the point that arise for my consideration is: “Whether the judgment under appeal suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court?” 9. As noticed supra, there is no dispute as to the relationship inter se between the two accused and their relationship with the deceased. The marriage of the deceased with accused No. 1 was solemnized on 23.6.2002, while the deceased died on 21.5.2003. The accused have not disputed the fact that the deceased died on account of hanging in the matrimonial home and it was a suicidal death. Thus, from the above admitted facts, it is clear that the deceased died in an unnatural circumstance in the matrimonial home within about 11 months of her marriage. The accused have not disputed the fact that the deceased died on account of hanging in the matrimonial home and it was a suicidal death. Thus, from the above admitted facts, it is clear that the deceased died in an unnatural circumstance in the matrimonial home within about 11 months of her marriage. Though accused No. 1 was also charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of I.P.C., the Court below has acquitted accused No. 1 of the said charges on the ground that P.W. 1-mother of the deceased, in her evidence has given a clean chit to accused No. 1 stating that at no point of time, her daughter had made any complaints or grievance against her husband-accused No. 1. However, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to convict accused No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of I.P.C. based on the evidence of P.W. 1 to the effect that the deceased had disclosed to her that accused No. 2 was making sexual advancements towards her and was demanding her to have sexual act with him and thereby he was harassing her and it is in that background the deceased committed suicide. The learned Sessions Judge found no evidence to establish that the death of the deceased was a dowry death within the meaning of Section 304B of I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that since the death of the deceased occurred within seven years form the date of the marriage and she met with suicidal death and since the evidence of P.W. 1 indicates that the accused No. 2 had made sexual advancements towards the deceased and thereby subjected her to mental cruelty, presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act require to be drawn to the effect that accused No. 2 being the father-in-law of the deceased, abetted the commission of the suicide by the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge has further opined that accused No. 2 has not rebutted the said presumption by producing any acceptable evidence or by bringing out any circumstances on record in that regard. The learned Sessions Judge has also held that the defence theory that the deceased committed suicide in the background of the stomach pain suffered by her has not been probablised by any acceptable evidence. 10. The learned Sessions Judge has also held that the defence theory that the deceased committed suicide in the background of the stomach pain suffered by her has not been probablised by any acceptable evidence. 10. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the conviction of accused No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of I.P.C., is based only on the evidence of P.W. 1. Therefore, the question for consideration would be whether the evidence of P.W. 1 is sufficient and satisfactory to establish that accused No. 2 had made sexual advancements towards the deceased and thereby subjected the deceased to mental cruelty. 11. P.W. 1 in his evidence in this regard has stated as under: “After the marriage of my daughter-Anitha was living with Accused Nos. 1 and 2 at Vittasandra Village. For about three months accused and my daughter were living in cordial terms. Afterwards Accused No. 2 was treating my daughter as his wife. Accused No. 1 was working in a factory. After Accused No. 1 went-out for work, Accused No. 2 was asking my daughter to become his wife and my daughter used to tell me about the same. Accused No. 2 had asked my daughter to bring Rs. 3 lakhs as dowry for purchase of land and my daughter came to my house and told me about the same. Accused No. 1 was treating my daughter properly and my daughter had not complained before me against her husband at any time. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx After the post-mortem, body was given to us. My daughter had died due to the behavior of Accused No. 2 with her and also as Accused No. 2 was demanding her to bring dowry.” 12. In the cross-examination it is elicited from P.W. 1 that there was no impediment for her and her husband to convene a panchayath when they came to know about Accused No. 2 harassing their daughter with his behavior and also about demanding their daughter to bring money. It is further elicited from her that, as her husband, brother-in-law: Chinnappa were not having time, they did not go to the house of the accused and questioned Accused No. 2 about his conduct with her daughter, after her daughter told her about the same. It is further elicited from her that, as her husband, brother-in-law: Chinnappa were not having time, they did not go to the house of the accused and questioned Accused No. 2 about his conduct with her daughter, after her daughter told her about the same. It is further elicited from her that several other houses situated around the house of the accused at Vittasandra and her daughter was in cordial terms with the neighbourers and her daughter had not disclosed about the bad conduct of Accused No. 2 with her to any of the neighbourers. She has denied the suggestion that Accused No. 2 had not misbehaved with her daughter at any time. According to her, she did not enquire the persons residing in the neighbourhood of the accused about Accused No. 2 harassing her daughter. Thus, according to P.W. 1, his daughter, namely deceased Anitha informed her about Accused No. 2 harassing her by demanding her to co-operate with him as his wife. As admitted by P.W. 1, neither she nor her husband nor any of her family members had questioned Accused No. 2 about this alleged conduct. It is not the say of P.W. 1 that after coming to know of this alleged conduct on the part of Accused No. 2, they reprimanded Accused No. 2 nor made any efforts to ask Accused No. 1 to take a separate house so that they could live separately from Accused No. 2. P.W. 1 stated to have come to know about this fact through the deceased. Accused No. 2 is none other than the father-in-law of the deceased, who was shown to be aged about 70 years as on the relevant date. It is highly unnatural to believe that Accused No. 2 being father-in-law aged about 70 years would try to mis-behave with his daughter-in-law. If really there was such mis-behavior on the part of Accused No. 2 and the said fact had been revealed to P.W. 1-the mother of the deceased, as a prudent person the least that ought have been done by P.W. 1 was to reprimand Accused No. 2 by visiting his house or to ask Accused No. 1 to take a separate house so that he and his wife could live peacefully away from Accused No. 2. Nothing of that sort has been done by P.W. 1. Nothing of that sort has been done by P.W. 1. Her conduct in keeping quiet even after coming to know of this behavior of Accused No. 2 is highly unnatural and unbecoming of a mother. 13. Reading of the evidence of P.W. 2-Chinnappa, who is the younger brother of the husband of P.W. 1 and who took active role in the marriage of the deceased with Accused No. 1, indicates that neither P.W. 1 nor the deceased revealed to him about the alleged misbehavior by Accused No. 2. P.W. 2 in his oral evidence has stated that after the marriage, Anitha started residing in the house of Accused No. 1 at Vittasandra, wherein Accused No. 2 was also living with Accused No. 1 and the deceased. He has further stated that for about two or three months, he was getting information that Accused No. 2 and Anitha are in cordial terms and about three months after the marriage, P.W. 1 came to his house and told that the accused persons were demanding Anitha to bring Rs. 3 lakhs for purchasing land and enquired him as to whether he could arrange for the amount. It is his further say, thereafter about 15 days earlier to the death of Anitha, P.W. 1 and Anitha came to his house and at that time, P.W. 1 told him that accused persons were harassing Anitha and asked him to arrange at least Rs. 2 lakhs, so that it could be given to the accused. Thus, from the above answers in the examination-in-chief of P.W. 1, it is clear that when P.W. 1 met P.W. 2, she did not disclose to him about the alleged misbehavior by Accused No. 2 with the deceased nor when the deceased alongwith her mother met P.W. 2 about 15 days prior to her committing suicide, revealed to P.W. 2 about the alleged misbehavior by Accused No. 2. If really Accused No. 2 had misbehaved with the deceased and thereby she was being subjected to mental cruelty, she would have certainly disclosed the said fact to P.W. 2, who is her junior paternal uncle and who had taken a leading role in her marriage. If really Accused No. 2 had misbehaved with the deceased and thereby she was being subjected to mental cruelty, she would have certainly disclosed the said fact to P.W. 2, who is her junior paternal uncle and who had taken a leading role in her marriage. This circumstance creates great amount of doubt about the evidence of P.W. 1 with regard to her daughter revealing the alleged misbehavior by Accused No. 2 and if the deceased had revealed the said fact to P.W. 1, as mother of the deceased, she would have certainly disclosed the same to P.W. 2. From the evidence of P.W. 7 it is clear that he was not caring for P.W. 1 and the deceased. P.W. 1 appears to be the second wife of P.W. 7. P.W. 7, according to his evidence, was residing with his first wife separately. The conduct of P.W. 7, as noticed by the trial Court indicates that he is not a worthy-man. He had come to the Court to give evidence fully drunk. On coming to know of the same, the Court had stopped recording of his evidence mid-way and sent him back. The evidence of P.W. 7 also discloses that even on the date of the marriage negotiations, he, as father of the bride, was not present. It was P.W. 2 who took active role in the marriage talks on behalf of the bride. It is also the say of P.W. 7 that the dowry demanded was paid by P.W. 2. Therefore, P.W. 1 appears to have been looking forward at P.W. 2 for everything rather than her husband. In this view of the matter, if P.W. 1 had come to know from the deceased about the alleged misbehavior by Accused No. 2, she would have certainly disclosed the same to P.W. 2. However, from the evidence of P.W. 2, it is clear that P.W. 1 has not disclosed the said fact to him. Therefore, it is highly difficult to believe that the deceased had informed P.W. 1 about the alleged misbehavior by Accused No. 2. Under these circumstances, it is highly unsafe to place reliance on the sole evidence of P.W. 1 and to base conviction on such evidence. The evidence of P.W. 1 in this regard, in my considered opinion, does not inspire confidence and is not free from doubt. Under these circumstances, it is highly unsafe to place reliance on the sole evidence of P.W. 1 and to base conviction on such evidence. The evidence of P.W. 1 in this regard, in my considered opinion, does not inspire confidence and is not free from doubt. Therefore, on the basis of the sole evidence of P.W. 1, in my opinion, the trial Court is in error in holding that the prosecution has proved that Accused No. 2 by his willful conduct of misbehavior with the deceased, subjected her to cruelty within the meaning of 498-A of IPC and thereby abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge is not justified in drawing presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act to come to the conclusion that Accused No. 2 is guilty of the offence under Section 306 of IPC. The finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge with regard to the guilt of Accused No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC is highly perverse and is not supported by acceptable evidence. Glaring infirmity in the evidence of P.W. 1 has rendered her evidence highly unreliable, therefore, the judgment of the trial Court convicting Accused No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC is highly perverse and cannot be sustained, as such, it is liable to be set aside. 14. The next aspect required to be considered is, whether the conviction recorded by the Court below as against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P Act is justified? 15. P.W. 1 in her evidence has stated that about eight days earlier to the marriage of her daughter (deceased) with Accused No. 1, marriage talks were held in her house at Thirumenahalli and Accused Nos. 1 and 2 alongwith Seenappa, Ramachandrappa and Nageshappa had come to her house for marriage talks and from her side, P.W. 2-Chinnappa, Jayamma and Jungamanna were present in first marriage talks. It is her further say that in the marriage talks, on behalf of the accused, Seenappa asked them to pay Rs. 60,000/- as dowry, but they agreed to pay Rs. 20,000/- and the same was paid to the hands of Seenappa about eight days earlier to the marriage and thereafter the marriage was performed. It is her further say that in the marriage talks, on behalf of the accused, Seenappa asked them to pay Rs. 60,000/- as dowry, but they agreed to pay Rs. 20,000/- and the same was paid to the hands of Seenappa about eight days earlier to the marriage and thereafter the marriage was performed. The said Seenappa is none other than the husband of the sister of Accused No. 1, in other words, son in-law of Accused No. 2. In the cross-examination it is elicited from P.W. 1 that her husband works in a private factory, but she does not know as to the income of her husband. According to her, the marriage talks were held in the house of P.W. 2-Chinnappa, who is the brother of her husband. To a question that she had no capacity to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the accused, she stated that her husband borrowed Rs. 20,000/- from P.W. 2 and paid the amount as agreed. She has admitted the suggestion that the accused persons are financially in a better position than herself and her husband. P.W. 2-Chinnappa in his evidence has stated that one month earlier to the marriage of Anitha, marriage talks were held in his house at Thirumenahalli which was attended by both the accused persons, Ramachandrappa,25 Seenappa and Nageshappa, and from the bride side, himself, his wife, P.W. 1 and one Jungamappa were present. It is his further say that in the marriage talks, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 demanded dowry of Rs. 60,000/-, but he and others agreed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as dowry, for which, the accused agreed. According to him, eight days earlier to the marriage, engagement ceremony was celebrated and at that time, dowry amount of Rs. 20,000/- was given to Accused No. 1. In the cross-examination it is elicited from him that he had paid Rs. 20,000/- to the accused and later that amount was returned to him by his brother. It is further elicited from him that he has no document to show that he had Rs. 20,000/- to pay the same to the accused. According to him, he was working in Central Government Agency and he was getting gross salary of Rs. 7,000/- p.m. and before the marriage of Anitha, he was getting net salary between Rs. 3,500/- to 4,000/- per month. According to him, the dowry amount was paid in bundles of Rs. 20,000/- to pay the same to the accused. According to him, he was working in Central Government Agency and he was getting gross salary of Rs. 7,000/- p.m. and before the marriage of Anitha, he was getting net salary between Rs. 3,500/- to 4,000/- per month. According to him, the dowry amount was paid in bundles of Rs. 10/-, 50/- and 100/- denomination currency notes. 16. According to the evidence of P.W. 3-Ramachandrappa, he also attended the marriage talks held about a month prior to the marriage of Anitha and the said marriage talks were held in the house of P.W. 2. It is his further say that Accused No. 2 had also come to the marriage talk and during marriage talks, Accused No. 1 demanded Rs. 60,000/- as dowry and for that, P.W. 2 told that he would pay Rs. 20,000/- in cash apart from the gold jewellaries, for which Accused Nos. 1 and 2 agreed. He has further stated that seven days earlier to the marriage, engagement ceremony was held and at that time dowry amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid to Accused No. 2 and at the time of marriage a gold ring, a wrist watch and clothes were given to the bride and bridegroom. In the cross-examination it is elicited from him that he was in cordial terms with P.Ws. 2 and 7. It is elicited from him that in the photographs-Exs. P1 to P10, he is not seen. He has admitted the suggestion that at the time of engagement, fruits, coconuts and money will be kept and photographs will be taken. It is further elicited from him that in photographs-Exs. P5 and P6, Accused No. 1 is visible receiving the dowry amount. He has admitted that in Ex.P5, Seenappa, the brother of Accused No. 1 is seen. He has admitted that the father of Anitha was not financially in better position. According to him, the father of Anitha paid the dowry amount. He has denied suggestion that there was any demand for dowry, nor it was paid. 17. P.W. 7, the father of the deceased in his evidence has stated that about 20 days earlier to the marriage, talks were held in his house, and at that time, Accused No. 2 and others had come to his house. However, he has stated that he was not present when the marriage talks were held. 17. P.W. 7, the father of the deceased in his evidence has stated that about 20 days earlier to the marriage, talks were held in his house, and at that time, Accused No. 2 and others had come to his house. However, he has stated that he was not present when the marriage talks were held. According to him, thereafter engagement ceremony had been arranged, which he attended. According to him, in the engagement function, his brother had kept Rs. 20,000/- in a plate, which he handed over to Accused No. 1 as dowry and photographs were also taken in the engagement function. He has identified Exs.P1 to P10 as photographs taken at the time of engagement function. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 7 is consistent with regard to the marriage talks held about a month or 20 days earlier to the marriage and engagement ceremony arranged about eight days prior to the marriage. Their evidence is also consistent with regard to demand of dowry by one Seenappa-brother-in-law of Accused No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- and ultimately agreed to receive Rs. 20,000/-. Their evidence is also consistent with regard to payment of dowry of Rs. 20,000/- at the time of the engagement ceremony held about eight days prior to the marriage. Though P.W. 7 has stated that he was not present at the time of marriage talks, his evidence indicates that he was present at the time of engagement ceremony. The photographs-Exs.P1 to P10 show that they were taken at the time of engagement ceremony. 18. In fact from the tenor of the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 7 by the learned counsel for the accused, it is clear that the accused have not disputed the fact that at the time of engagement ceremony, photographs were taken as per Exs.P1 to P10. Perusal of photographs-Exs.P1 to P10 clearly indicates that at the time of the engagement, money kept in a plate was handed over to Accused No. 1 by P.W. 7. During cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 7, the accused have not disputed the correctness of the said photographs. However, what is sought to be projected is that it was only a ritual. Such a stand cannot be accepted. The photographs-Exs.P1 to P10 in general and particularly Exs. P5 and P6 corroborate the evidence of P.Ws. During cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 7, the accused have not disputed the correctness of the said photographs. However, what is sought to be projected is that it was only a ritual. Such a stand cannot be accepted. The photographs-Exs.P1 to P10 in general and particularly Exs. P5 and P6 corroborate the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 7 with regard to handing over of money and its acceptance by Accused No. 1. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 make it clear that even Accused No. 2 was present at the time of marriage talks. 19. Though it is the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 that Seenappa, brother-in-law of Accused No. 1 and son-in-law of Accused No. 2 demanded Rs. 60,000/- as dowry, such a demand cannot be without the consent or knowledge of Accused Nos. 1 and 2. Such a demand has been made in their presence. Therefore, the evidence, as rightly held by the learned Sessions Judge, clearly establish that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 during the pre-marriage negotiations demanded dowry of Rs. 60,000/- and ultimately agreed to receive Rs. 20,000/- in cash and during the engagement ceremony held about eight days prior to the marriage, Accused No. 1 received the said dowry of Rs. 20,000/- from P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7. 20. Having regard to the evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Sessions Judge is justified in holding that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. It is not the say of the accused that they restored the said amount to the deceased till her death. Therefore, the trial Court is justified in convicting Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 6 of the D.P. Act. The judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P. Act is sound and reasonable regard being had to the evidence on record. The judgment does not suffer from any kind of perversity or illegality. The minor discrepancy or inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7 have not rendered their evidence unreliable. On the other hand, their evidence is corroborated by the photographs-Exs.P5 and P6. The judgment does not suffer from any kind of perversity or illegality. The minor discrepancy or inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7 have not rendered their evidence unreliable. On the other hand, their evidence is corroborated by the photographs-Exs.P5 and P6. Therefore, no infirmity is found in the judgment of the trial Court insofar as it relates to the finding of guilt of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P. Act. 21. The trial Court, having regard to the minimum sentence prescribed for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, has rightly sentenced both the accused for imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/-, which was the amount of dowry received by them. Therefore, the sentence passed by the trial Court cannot be termed either as harsh or as excessive, as such, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court in this regard does not call for interference by this Court. 22. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.10.2005 in S.C. Nos. 211/2003 and 124/2005 passed by the trial Court convicting Accused No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC is hereby set aside. Accused No. 2 is acquitted of the said offences. However, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court convicting Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P. Act, is hereby affirmed. 23. The bail and surety bonds executed by Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are ordered to be cancelled. 24. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to surrender themselves before the trial Court forthwith and upon such surrender, the trial Court shall commit them to prison to serve the sentence. In case of failure to surrender, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to secure the presence of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and commit them to prison for the purpose of serving sentence.