JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has challenged the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC on a trial held by the Fast Track Court, Kollegal. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under:- The appellant married Pushpa @ Kamala (the deceased) on 14.6.1998. Prior to the marriage they were loving each other. Though at the time of marriage the demand was made for the dowry, the parents of the deceased were not able to pay anything, therefore the marriage was performed without any dowry having been paid by the parents to deceased. They lead happy married life for about 1½ years. Through the wedlock Pushpa @ Kamala gave birth to a male child. After 1½ years of the marriage the prosecution alleges that the appellant, husband and in-laws and the members of the family were insisting the deceased to bring dowry by way of gold chain, scooter etc., She was not in a position to meet the demands, as her parents were not financially sound. For non payment of the dowry, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment and ultimately on a day prior to 11.5.2001 Pushpa @ Kamala committed suicide by jumping into the well. A complaint of this incident was filed by her mother Nagarathnamma PW15 on 11.5.2001 at 9.45 a.m. alleging the demand, harassment and consequent death of the deceased by jumping into the well and the death was due to asphyxia as a result of drowning. During the course of investigation the statement of the witnesses were recorded. Spot mahazar Ex.P3 was held in the presence of PWs.3 and 4. Inquest on the body of the deceased was held as per Ex.P2 in the presence of the aforesaid two attesting witnesses. The body was subjected to post mortem examination and the post mortem report was secured. The apparels of the deceased was seized under the mahazar Ex.P20 in presence of PWs.13 and 14. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant- her husband, their parents-in-law - accused Nos.2 and 3, the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased accused Nos.4 and 5. In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 21 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P26 and MOs.1 to 10. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant- her husband, their parents-in-law - accused Nos.2 and 3, the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased accused Nos.4 and 5. In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 21 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P26 and MOs.1 to 10. The statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence evidence was led. Anyhow, the accused got marked the contradictions Exs.D1 to D4 in the evidence of PWs.7 and 15. The trial Court after hearing the counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the material on record convicted the appellant - (husband of the deceased) and acquitted the other accused. The appellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and lesser sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned High Court Government Pleader. 4. The point that arises for my consideration is:- "Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to warrant interference in his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304(B) IPC?" 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that except the interested evidence of PWs.1, 7 and 15, none others have supported the case of the prosecution and as the aforesaid witnesses are the close relatives and as there is material discrepancy in their evidence in addition to inconsistent version, the trial Court has committed an error in accepting the evidence of the said witnesses and awarding conviction and sentence. Therefore, he submits that the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial Court be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader supporting the judgment and order of the trial Court contends that the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses is convincing, acceptable, trustworthy and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses. Hence he submits that the appellant has not made out any grounds to warrant interference to conviction and sentence ordered. 7. It is not in dispute that the marriage of appellant and Pushpa @ Kamala was a love marriage. Hence he submits that the appellant has not made out any grounds to warrant interference to conviction and sentence ordered. 7. It is not in dispute that the marriage of appellant and Pushpa @ Kamala was a love marriage. Prior to the marriage they were loving each other and that compelled the parents of the appellant to insist the parents of the deceased to perform the marriage of the deceased with the appellant. Though PWs.1, 7 and 15 state in their evidence that there was demand for dowry at the time of marriage, anyhow it is admitted by the aforesaid witnesses that they were not able to pay any dowry or gold ornaments or any articles and the marriage was performed without the dowry. It is the case of the prosecution that subsequent to the marriage after the birth of the child there was insistment to bring a scooter for the appellant and gold ornaments were demanded by the other members of the family. 8. As could be seen from the evidence of PW1 who is the father of the deceased Pushpa @ Kamala, he states that the appellant was insisting to bring the scooter and gold chain and for not giving the said articles the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment. PW7 is the brother of the deceased. His version is different in the evidence. He states that accused Nos.3 and 5 were asking for gold ornaments, whereas the appellant was demanding the scooter. PW15 is the mother of the deceased and she does not speak about the demand of scooter and speaks only with regard to demand of gold ornaments and that too the demand was only by the accused Nos.3 and 5. The trial Court granted an order of acquittal in respect of other accused and convicted only the appellant for the aforesaid charges. That apart it is relevant to note that a complaint that has been lodged by PW15 the mother of the deceased does not reveal any individual demand of the scooter or gold ornaments by the appellant. The allegations in the complaint are vague and general and the demand is attributed as against all the members of the family of the appellant. Even perusal of the statement recorded during the inquest, there is no whisper with regard to the demand made by the appellant in relation to the scooter or the gold ornaments. The allegations in the complaint are vague and general and the demand is attributed as against all the members of the family of the appellant. Even perusal of the statement recorded during the inquest, there is no whisper with regard to the demand made by the appellant in relation to the scooter or the gold ornaments. The averments made in the statement recorded during the inquest is also vague and general. For the first time during the course of trial a theory has been put by the witnesses PWs.1, 7 and 15 who are the close relatives of the deceased. If this vague and general statement that is looked into in the context of the love marriage of the deceased with the appellant, a serious doubt arises with regard to the complicity of the appellant as well. That apart, when a vague and general statement is made against all the members of the family with regard to the demand of scooter or gold chain, when the other accused have been acquitted of the charge, there is no reason for the trial Court to grant conviction against the appellant. The benefit extended to the other accused will have to be extended to the appellant as well. That apart in the cross examination of the aforesaid witnesses it has been elicited that the deceased was a sensitive girl, that may also be one of the causes for commission of suicide. 9. PWs.2 to 6, 10, 11, 13 and 14 are the attesting witnesses for the spot mahazar, seizure mahazar etc., and some are the neighbours of the deceased and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. They have been treated hostile. PW8 is the Taluka Executive Magistrate who recorded the inquest proceedings as per Exs.P2 and P3 and statement of the aforesaid witnesses. PW12 is the photographer who took the photograph of the corpus of Pushpa @ Kamala at Exs.P16 to 19 with its negatives. PW16 is the doctor who held the autopsy on the body of the deceased and submitted his report Ex.P21. The other witnesses are the Police Officials who have assisted the investigation and on completion of the investigation a charge sheet was laid against he accused. PW16 is the doctor who held the autopsy on the body of the deceased and submitted his report Ex.P21. The other witnesses are the Police Officials who have assisted the investigation and on completion of the investigation a charge sheet was laid against he accused. Scrutiny of the material placed on record does not reveal any consistent, cogent and trustworthy evidence in relation to the cruelty and harassment meted out by the deceased at the hands of the appellant. 10. Taking into consideration the appreciation and re-appreciation of the evidence placed on record, I am of the opinion that the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial Court is erroneous and illegal. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered by the trial Court for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the said charges. The fine if any deposited shall be refunded to the appellant.