JUDGMENT V. SURI APPA RAO, J.-The State represented by Mahalakshmi Lay-out Police, filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.1.2008, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Bangalore City in SC. No. 962/2005. 2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder: Deceased Parvathi was the sister of PW.1-Nagaraju, the complainant. Her marriage was performed with accused No. 1 on 10.6.2001 as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, accused No. 1 demanded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and the same was paid as dowry along with other articles like necklace, ear rings, jumuki, ring, etc., to the bride and a neck chain, ring and watch to the bridegroom. After some time, the couple lived peacefully and also blessed with a female child. Thereafter accused No. 1 started ill-treating the deceased by abusing her in filthy language often telling her that she is not educated and not brought sufficient dowry from her parents' house. Accused Nos. 2 and 3, the sisters of accused No. 1 also joined accused No. 1 and started ill-treating the deceased Parvathi. Accused No. 1 started harassing and ill-treating the deceased Parvathi telling that he had intention to marry his sister's daughter, but she was not grown up to that age when he contracted marriage with deceased Parvathi. After giving birth to a female child, when deceased went to her matrimonial house, her mother also followed her to the house of accused No. 1 and even in the presence of mother of deceased, accused No. 1 used to ill-treat her for not fault of her. Seeing this, the mother of the deceased kept quite with a pond hope that on one day or the other, accused No. 1 will mend his attitude. While so, on 26.10.2004 at about 11.00 p.m., accused No. 1 picked up a quarrel with the deceased stating that she did not prepare food up to his taste and threw away the rice prepared by her and also abused her that herself and her brothers belong to slum area and had he married an educated lady, he would have got sufficient dowry. So saying, he poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze. Accused No. 1 thereafter shouted for help as if the deceased Parvathi herself has committed suicide. The neighbours gathered there and took the deceased for treatment. So saying, he poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze. Accused No. 1 thereafter shouted for help as if the deceased Parvathi herself has committed suicide. The neighbours gathered there and took the deceased for treatment. On the next day, the deceased succumbed to the injuries while she was under treatment. After coming to know about the incident through the neighbours of accused No. 1, PW.1, the brother of the deceased lodged the complaint before the police. The same was registered as Crime No. 206/2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307 and 109 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of investigation, PW.23 filed charge sheet against the accused. 3. The Trial Court after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused framed charges under Sections 498A, 302 and 109 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. After recording the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and on the basis of the application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, the Trial Court altered the charge to Sections 498A, 304B, 302 and 109 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused pleaded not guilty for the charged levelled against them. 5. In order to establish the aforesaid charges, the prosecution in all has examined PWs.1 to 24 and relied on Ex.P1 to P41 and MOs.1 to 20. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused examined DW.1 as defence witness and marked D1 to D1(a). Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence, the Trial Court held that the accused found not guilty for the offences for which they were charged on the ground that there was no harassment of dowry by any of the accused and that the death of the deceased was not homicidal to it was either accidental or suicidal. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, the State filed this appeal contending that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses and that the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is not on the basis of the evidence available on record. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, the State filed this appeal contending that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses and that the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is not on the basis of the evidence available on record. In fact PWs.1, 4, 5 and 6 have supported the prosecution case with regard to demand of dowry and harassment and ill-treatment by the accused. Therefore, it is contended that the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is liable to set aside and that the respondents-accused are liable to punished for the offences for which they are charged. 7. We have heard the learned Government Pleader and the counsel for the accused. We have been taken through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the impugned judgment. 8. According to the prosecution, on 26.10.2004, at about 11.00 p.m. accused No. 1 picked up a quarrel with the deceased Parvathi on the ground that she did not prepare food up to his taste and threw away the rice prepared by her and poured kerosene and set her ablaze. On hearing the cries, the neighbours gathered and the deceased was shifted to the hospital for treatment. PW.1, the brother of the deceased lodged complaint as per Ex.P1 to the police, after receiving information about the incident through the neighbours. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased was immediately taken to Gurukrupa Nursing Home, Bangalore and thereafter she was shifted to Pristine Hospital. PW.14 G. Krishnaiah, PSI after receiving intimation from Basaveswaranagar Police about the admission of the deceased in Pristine Hospital with burn injuries, directed the subordinates to visit the hospital and to record her statement. But in fact by the time the staff of PW.14 visited the hospital and enquired the Medical Officer whether the deceased was in fit condition to give statement. They were given to understand the injured was not in a fit condition to give statement. Therefore, they returned to the Police Station and submitted a memo on the basis of which, crime came to be registered. On the next day at about 6.15 a.m., PW.1 brother of the deceased lodged complaint-Ex.P1 alleging that accused No. 1 was responsible for causing death of the deceased Parvathi. 9. Therefore, they returned to the Police Station and submitted a memo on the basis of which, crime came to be registered. On the next day at about 6.15 a.m., PW.1 brother of the deceased lodged complaint-Ex.P1 alleging that accused No. 1 was responsible for causing death of the deceased Parvathi. 9. Out of the prosecution witness examined PWs.1, 4 5 and 7 who are none other than the brother and sisters of the deceased. All of them have stated in their evidence about the negotiations for the marriage between the deceased and accused No. 1 and demand of dowry of Rs. 25,000/- to accused No. 1. They have also stated in their evidence that after the deceased delivered a female child, the accused started harassing the deceased and abusing her in filthy language. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No. 1 started ill-treating and harassing the deceased that he had an intention to marry his sister's daughter. PW.1, brother of the deceased has stated in his evidence that accused No. 1 was harassing the deceased as accused No. 1 intends to marry his sister's daughter who had not attained majority at the time of marriage between the deceased and accused No. 1. According to him on 23.10.2004 he received a phone call from the brother of accused No. 1 and enquired whether the deceased had come to their house because on the said there was some galata between the deceased and accused No. 1 in the house of accused No. 1. Subsequently, on 26.10.2004, he received information that the deceased was admitted to Pristine Hospital. They went to the hospital and found dead body of the deceased. PW.1 was informed by the neighbours that on the previous day accused No. 1 dragged Parvathi to bathroom, poured kerosene and set her ablaze as a result of which deceased sustained burn injuries. Based on the information furnished by the neighbours, PW.1 lodged complaint before the police and he stated same before the Tahsildar who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. 10. PW.4, the mother of the deceased, PW.5 another brother of the deceased and PW.7, the sister of the deceased have stated in their evidence that the deceased was being harassed by the accused with a view to perform marriage between accused No. 1 and his sister's daughter. 11. 10. PW.4, the mother of the deceased, PW.5 another brother of the deceased and PW.7, the sister of the deceased have stated in their evidence that the deceased was being harassed by the accused with a view to perform marriage between accused No. 1 and his sister's daughter. 11. The prosecution examined PWs.2, 3, 9 and 21, who were the neighbours of the deceased to prove that the accused used to ill-treat and harass the deceased and that on the date of incident, accused poured kerosene and set her ablaze. Unfortunately, neighbours, who are stated to have witnessed the incident, did not support the case of prosecution and they have turned hospital. None of the neighbours supported about the ill-treatment of the deceased by the accused in connection with the demand of dowry and the accused harassing the deceased with an intention to perform marriage between accused No. 1 and his sister's daughter. Even PWs.1, 4, 5 and 7 who were brothers, sister, mother of the deceased also not stated about the accused ill-treating the deceased and harassing her in connection with the demand of dowry. According to them, accused No. 1 stated harassing the deceased with an intention to marry his sister's daughter. Admittedly, as per the evidence of these witnesses, sister's daughter of accused No. 1 was aged about 15 years only. Admittedly the deceased had a female child aged about 1V2 years as on the date of the incident. 12. It is the case of the prosecution that the death of the deceased Parvathi is homicidal and the death was due to pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze by accused No. 1. But the Medical Officer-PW.11 Raghavendra Rao examined by the prosecution has stated in his evidence that the injuries sustained by the deceased Parvathi were due to stove burst. The same was mentioned in Ex.P26. The case sheet produced by the prosecution indicates that the deceased died to due to stove burst. Case sheet Ex.P26(a) also contains endorsement of the doctor that the deceased had sustained injuries due to stove burst. Relying on Ex.P26 and the evidence of PW.11,the Trial Court has rightly observed that the prosecution failed to prove the death of the deceased was homicidal. Case sheet Ex.P26(a) also contains endorsement of the doctor that the deceased had sustained injuries due to stove burst. Relying on Ex.P26 and the evidence of PW.11,the Trial Court has rightly observed that the prosecution failed to prove the death of the deceased was homicidal. The Trial Court after appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence and the medical evidence produced by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was either accidental or suicidal. We have already observed that the alleged eye witnesses, i.e., neighbours of the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution about the involvement of any of the accused in the crime and as per the medical evidence, the death was due to stove burst. There is absolutely no evidence on record to prove that the deceased was subjected to harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. Considering the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges levelled against the accused and accordingly found the accused not guilty for the offences for which they are charged. On appreciation of the entire evidence, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused are therefore entitled for acquittal. The appeal filed by the State is therefore liable to be dismissed as there are no merits in the appeal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.