Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 993 (KAR)

STATE OF KARNATAKA v. S. DINESH KUMAR

2013-08-26

H.S.KEMPANNA, N.K.PATIL

body2013
JUDGEMENT H.S. KEMPANNA, J.-These three appeals preferred by the State and Accused No. 1 respectively are directed against the judgment and order dated 16.7.2007 passed in S.C. No. 901/05 by the Addl. Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer FTC-IV, Bangalore City. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 1711/07 has been preferred by the State seeking for enhancement of sentence passed on Accused No. 1, whereas Criminal Appeal No. 1708/2011 has been preferred challenging the judgment and order of acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 3. Criminal Appeal No. 1351/07 has been preferred by A1 challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with 34 of IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- I.D. to undergo S.I. for six months, S.I. for seven years and S.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- I.D. to undergo S.I. for one month for the aforesaid offences respectively. 3. For the sake of convenience the accused would be referred to by their rankings as they are arrayed before the learned Sessions Judge. 4. The accused in these appeals are A1, A2 and A3 before the learned Sessions Judge. They were tried on the charges for the offences under Sections 498A read with 34 of IPC, 304B read with 34 of IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It is alleged that the accused who are the husband and in-laws of the deceased-Uma Maheshwari had subjected her to cruelty and harassment of such a nature to drive her to commit suicide and in pursuance of the same, the deceased Umamaheshwari being unbearable of the cruelty and harassment meted out to her by the accused on 18.7.2005 at about 5.00 p.m. committed suicide in the house of the accused by hanging and as her death had taken place within seven years of her marriage, the accused have committed the offences under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC and further the accused prior to the marriage and after the marriage had demanded and accepted dowry in a sum, of Rs. 10,000/- and gold jewels and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and gold jewels and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and further had demanded Pulsar Motor Cycle about three months after the marriage and thereby have committed the aforementioned offences. It is the case of the prosecution that A1 is the son of A2 and A3. The deceased is the daughter of PW5 and niece of PW4. The deceased-Uma Maheshwari had been given in marriage to A1 and their marriage had been performed on 3.3.2004 at TTD Kalyana Mantapa, Bangalore as per the Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage jewellery worth 20 sovereign comprising one ring, chain and other articles were given to A1. After the marriage the deceased led a cordial marital life in her matrimonial home along with the accused. A few months after the marriage the accused started subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment on the ground to bring additional dowry of Rs. 30,000/-, which according to the prosecution was paid by PW4, the maternal uncle of the deceased, by going to the house of the accused and requested them to take care of his niece cordially. It is further the case of the prosecution thereafter the accused started subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment on the ground of demand get a Pulsar Motor Cycle. The deceased informed the same to PW4 and PW5 and requested them to meet the demand of the accused. In response to the said demand according to the prosecution PW4 went to the house of the accused and told them that he would comply with their demand for getting them a Pulsar motor cycle after the completion of Ashada masa in the year 2005. He also advised the deceased that if for any reason, the accused pursue their demand in spite of their request made to them and if she finds any difficulty in the matrimonial home, to talk to him on phone. In response to the same, the deceased told PW4 that her in-laws have locked the phone which was installed in their house and therefore, she is unable to inform either PW4 or PW5 on phone. Such being the position, it is the case of the prosecution on 18.7.2005 at about 5.00 p.m. the deceased Umamaheshwari committed suicide by hanging in the house of the accused situated at Sreekanteshwaranagar in Mahalaxmi Layout, Bangalore. Such being the position, it is the case of the prosecution on 18.7.2005 at about 5.00 p.m. the deceased Umamaheshwari committed suicide by hanging in the house of the accused situated at Sreekanteshwaranagar in Mahalaxmi Layout, Bangalore. Immediately thereafter wife of PW4 received a telephone call from A3 to the effect that the deceased has commit suicide. Immediately PW4 accompanied by his wife and PW5-sister of PW4 and mother of the deceased, came to the house of the accused and there they saw the deceased having found in the hanging position (having hanged herself to the ceiling fan with a saree). Apprehending that the deceased must be still alive PW4 removed the deceased in his car to Ananya hospital, Rajajinagar where she was examined by PW10-the medical officer who declared her having brought dead. Thereafter he brought the dead body in the car near the house of the accused. Thereafter, PW4 suspecting some foul play in the death of deceased Umamaheshwari proceeded to Mahalaxmi Layout police station and there he filed his complaint as per Ex.P4 before PW17-PSI at about 8.35 p.m. PW17 on the basis of Ex.P4 registered a case in Crime No. 144/2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act 1961 and issued FIR as per Ex.P9 to the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Thereafter he proceeded to the scene of occurrence. At the said place he found the body of the deceased having been kept in the rear seat of the car. He shifted the same to M.S. Ramaiah hospital and also deputed his staff to keep watch over the scene of occurrence. Next day he visited the scene of occurrence and there he drew up the spot panchanama as per10 Ex.P5 in the presence of panchas-PW6 and another by name B.S. Krishnan. He also seized the saree used for committing suicide and other articles which are at MOS 1 and 2. As the death of the deceased had taken place within seven years of her marriage, he sent a requisition to the Taluka Executive Magistrate to conduct inquest over the body of the deceased. In response to the same, PW18, the Taluka Executive Magistrate held inquest over the body of the deceased and drew up the inquest panchanama as per Ex.P8 in the presence of the panchas. In response to the same, PW18, the Taluka Executive Magistrate held inquest over the body of the deceased and drew up the inquest panchanama as per Ex.P8 in the presence of the panchas. He also recorded the statements of the blood relatives-PWs 4, 5 and PW6, who is the friend of PW4. PW17 continuing the investigation drew up the rough sketch of the scene of occurrence as per Ex. P. 30. Thereafter he handed over further investigation of the case to PW19-ACP. PW19 thereafter recorded the statements of the witnesses and on the same day the staff who had been deputed to trace and apprehend the accused produced before him A1 to A3. He arrested them and on completion of their arrest formalities got them remanded to judicial custody. On 20.7.2005 he recorded further statements of PW4 and also received the marriage invitation card of the deceased with A1 and also the photographs. Thereafter he also recorded the statement of PW5-Smt. Nagarathna, PW8, and the medical officer-PW10. On 21.7.2007 he also seized the clothes found on the body of the deceased produced by the police constable who had been deputed to subject the body for post mortem examination. He seized the same under the panchanama Ex.P11. On 22.7.2005 he recorded the statement of PW7. On 25.7.2005 he recorded the statements of the witnesses cited in the charge sheet and also sent a requisition to the PWD authorities to prepare the sketch of the scene of occurrence. On 2.8.2005 he received the inquest report-Ex.P8 from the Taluka Executive Magistrate and forwarded the same to the JMFC. On 5.8.2005 he also recorded the statements of the other witnesses cited in the charge sheet. On 21.8.2005 he seized MOs 3 to 17 under the panchanama-Ex.P 12, which are the gold jewellery and the articles given to the deceased at the time of marriage, from the house of the accused. Thereafter, PW19 on receipt of the relevant documents from the concerned authorities, since the investigation had been completed, submitted final report against the accused before the Jurisdictional Magistrate who in turn committed the case of the accused to the Court of sessions which on receipt of the records secured the presence of the accused, framed charges against them as aforesaid to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case in all examined PWs 1 to 19 and got marked exhibits P1 to P30 and MOs 1 to 21. The accused during the course of examination of the prosecution witnesses got marked exhibits D1 to D4. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating circumstances that were put to them found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Thereafter they were called upon to enter on their defence and to lead any evidence that they may have in support of their case. In response to the same they examined DWs 1 to 3. Apart from examining their witnesses, at the time of examination of 313 of Cr.P.C. among the accused, A1 and A2 filed their statements in support of their case. Total denial is the defence of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish all the charges leveled insofar as A2 and A3 is concerned. Accordingly they were acquitted. But, insofar A1 is concerned, learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established charges for the offences under Section 498A, 304B and under Section 4 of DP Act and accordingly, by the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced A1 for the said offences as aforesaid. 5. A1 being aggrieved by the judgment and order of his conviction and sentence has preferred Criminal Appeal 1351/2007. The State being aggrieved of acquittal of A2 and A3 of all the charges has preferred Crl. A 1708/2011 and Crl. A. 1711/07 being aggrieved by the inadequacy of sentence passed on A1. 6. Sri. Hasmath Pasha, learned counsel for the appellant/A1, assailing the impugned judgment and order of conviction contended the case of the prosecution rests mainly on the evidence of PWs 4 to 8. He submitted that these witnesses having regard to the inter se relationship with the deceased are interested witnesses. He further submitted merely because they are interested witnesses, it is not the law that their evidence has to be brushed aside in toto, but their evidence has to be subjected to close scrutiny before relying on their testimonies. He submitted that these witnesses having regard to the inter se relationship with the deceased are interested witnesses. He further submitted merely because they are interested witnesses, it is not the law that their evidence has to be brushed aside in toto, but their evidence has to be subjected to close scrutiny before relying on their testimonies. He submitted the evidence of these witnesses does not in any way inspire confidence to place reliance either in respect of the demand for dowry or in respect of they subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment either physically or mentally. He contended so far as PW4 is concerned, in his first information-Ex.P4 filed before the police on the very date of occurrence, there is no mention with regard to the demand made for dowry at the time of marriage. There is also no mention about the same having been given at the time of marriage. He further contended that the witnesses, who had attended the marriage talks, Rajanna and Chandrashekar, have not been examined in the case. That fortifies to show that there was no demand for dowry made by any of the accused as projected by the prosecution. He further contended that the material on record does not disclose that the accused had subjected the deceased Uma Maheshwari to cruelty and harassment. Though this witness has been examined at the time of inquest by PW18, the Taluka Executive Magistrate, he has not come out with the version of the accused subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment on the ground of demand for dowry, more particularly for the Pulsar Motor Cycle and that demand was made by the accused soon before the death of Umamaheshari. According to him the evidence of PW4 reveals that he paid cash of Rs. 30,000/- on 10.6.2004 and thereafter, the accused continued their demand for Pulsar motor cycle till her death from that date which is contrary to the evidence on record. He further submits that this evidence of PW4 is not corroborated from any independent quarters. Nextly he contended insofar as PW5, the mother of the deceased, is concerned, her evidence also does not disclose that there was any demand for dowry by the accused either before marriage, at the time of marriage or subsequent to the marriage. He further submits that this evidence of PW4 is not corroborated from any independent quarters. Nextly he contended insofar as PW5, the mother of the deceased, is concerned, her evidence also does not disclose that there was any demand for dowry by the accused either before marriage, at the time of marriage or subsequent to the marriage. Insofar as PW8 is concerned, he submitted that he is none other the brother-in-law of PW5 and PW4. His evidence prima facie would disclose that it is a hear-say evidence, since he has claimed that he came to know about the demand through his wife Navarathna, to whom according to him had been told by the deceased over phone. Therefore, he submits that his evidence being a hear-say does not help the prosecution in any manner to connect the accused with the charge leveled against them. Coming to the evidence of PWs 6 and 7 he vehemently contended admittedly they are friends of PW4. The evidence of PW7 does not disclose at any point of time he was told about the alleged demand for dowry or harassment meted out by the accused to him by the deceased. His evidence disclose that he came to know about the alleged demand for dowry and harassment only through PW4. Therefore, his evidence also being hear-say, no reliance can be placed on his testimony. Insofar as PW6 is concerned, he submits that his testimony cannot be believed in view of the fact firstly that he does not own any shop near the house of the accused. According to him he had owned a shop, but he had let it out to his friend. His examination in-chief reveals that he is a building contractor closely associated with PW4. He has also been examined by the Taluka Executive Magistrate at the time of inquest. He has clearly stated that he came to know about the alleged demand for dowry and harassment and no where he has stated that the deceased had personally told him about the demand for dowry and the cruelty meted out to her. The evidence of PW6 that he had heard the accused subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment when he had gone to the house of the accused is an improvement and an after-thought. He also submitted that the evidence of PW6 insofar as the demand for Rs. The evidence of PW6 that he had heard the accused subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment when he had gone to the house of the accused is an improvement and an after-thought. He also submitted that the evidence of PW6 insofar as the demand for Rs. 30,000/- and the motor cycle is also an improvement which is a material omission which goes to the root of the case which does not inspire any confidence to place reliance on his testimony. Therefore, he submits that since all these witnesses are interested witnesses, their testimony cannot be believed. The learned Trial Judge without appreciating their evidence in its right perspective with the material on record which does not go to show that the accused had made any demand for dowry, has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the charge insofar as A1 is concerned for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. He also further contended the material on record reveals that the deceased has committed suicide having become desperate in life on the ground she was not able to secure employment despite she having attended interviews for about 30 times, which is fortified from the statement of A1 filed after his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. That material is further fortified from the evidence of DW2-maid servant examined in the case who has clearly stated that on the date of occurrence the deceased returned at 3.00 p.m. and at that time she was not in her normal mood and had become upset and she went and locked inside the room without taking food. This would go to show that the deceased having been dejected in life has committed suicide and the same cannot be ruled out and PWs 4 to 8 taking advantage of the death of the deceased have foisted a false case cannot be ruled out. He further contended insofar as A2 and A3 is concerned, the learned trial Judge himself has come to the conclusion that there is nothing on record to show that there is any demand made by A2 and A3. In this connection he submitted A2 was working as an Auditor in Mysore Brevaries Ltd. and on his super annuation he had received a sum of Rs. 1,85,655/- on 3.6.2004. In this connection he submitted A2 was working as an Auditor in Mysore Brevaries Ltd. and on his super annuation he had received a sum of Rs. 1,85,655/- on 3.6.2004. He further submitted that accused had owned vehicles viz. Scooty and a Kinetic Honda which has been fortified from producing the registration certificates in the course of examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Submission of the accused reveal that the deceased was being taken care off cordially in the matrimonial home. There is no allegation that A1, who is the husband of the deceased, was a vagabond, spend-thrift or a drunkard. There is also no allegation to the effect that A1 had subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment by assaulting her or the accused had made any demand for dowry or much less motor cycle. In view of the fact that the evidence on record does not reveal that any of the accused had made any demand for dowry, had accepted any dowry and they had subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment on the ground of demand for dowry and as there is no clinching evidence to show that soon before the death of the deceased, the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment, the learned trial Judge has committed no error in acquitting A2 and A3 and therefore, the said order of acquittal does not call for any interference. Insofar as the other appeal preferred by the State seeking for enhancement of sentence passed on A1 is concerned, he submitted in view of the submission made, as there is no evidence on record to show that there is any demand for dowry or the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment soon before her death, the said appeal does not survive for consideration and it be dismissed. 7. Per contra, the learned HCGP appearing for the State contended that the evidence of PWs 4 to 8 insofar as the demand for dowry, prior to the marriage and receipt of dowry viz. amount of Rs. 10,000/- and gold jewels at the time of marriage and after the marriage demand for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and subsequently thereto demand for Pulsar motor cycle is consistently spoken to by PWs 4 to 8. amount of Rs. 10,000/- and gold jewels at the time of marriage and after the marriage demand for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and subsequently thereto demand for Pulsar motor cycle is consistently spoken to by PWs 4 to 8. The evidence of PWs 4 and 5 clinchingly establishes the accused had made the demand for Pulsar Motor cycle which led to the death of the deceased. The evidence of PWs 4 and 5 is corroborated from the evidence of PW6. Nothing is brought about in the cross examination of these witnesses to discard their testimonies. The learned trial Judge without appreciating the evidence of these witnesses which has been pressed into service by the prosecution properly has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges leveled against A2 and A3. He further submitted insofar A1 is concerned, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion the evidence of PWs 4 to 8 discloses that there was demand for money by way of dowry and also there was demand for Rs. 30,000/- and Pulsar motor cycle. Accepting their evidence he has convicted A1 for the offence under Section 498A, 304B of IPC under Section 4 of DP Act, 1961. However, having found A1 guilty for the offences under Section 304B of IPC he has passed the sentence of only seven years. In this connection he contended the punishment provided for Section 304B of IPC is sentence up to imprisonment for life and minimum sentence of seven years. In view of the fact that A1 has been convicted for the offence under Section 304B of IPC, having regard to the facts and circumstances which discloses a young lady having committed suicide within one-and-half years of her marriage, the sentence that has been imposed on A1 calls for enhancement and therefore, the appeal preferred by the State be allowed and the appeal preferred by A1 be dismissed. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts, evidence and the documents placed on record, the points that arise for our consideration are :- (i) Whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed on A1 is sustainable? (ii) Whether the impugned judgment and order of acquittal of A2 and A3 calls for interference? (iii) Whether the State has made out a case for enhancement of the sentence insofar as A1 is concerned? 9. (ii) Whether the impugned judgment and order of acquittal of A2 and A3 calls for interference? (iii) Whether the State has made out a case for enhancement of the sentence insofar as A1 is concerned? 9. The marriage of deceased Uma Maheshwari with A1 having been performed on 3.3.2004 at TTD Kalyana Mantapa, Bangalore is not disputed before us. The deceased having led her marital life in the house of the accused situated at Srikanteshwaranagar in Mahalakshmi Layout is also not disputed to before us. 10. The deceased having died on account of committing suicide in the house of the accused is not disputed. That is fortified from the evidence of PW12-the medical officer who has conducted autopsy and has issued post mortem report as per Ex.P10. 11. It is the case of the prosecution some time after the marriage the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment on the ground for demand for dowry. According to the prosecution the accused in the marriage talks had demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in cash apart from gold jewellery and other usual articles. The same was paid by PW4 at the time of marriage. PW4 who is none other than the maternal uncle of the deceased has testified to this effect. 12. The evidence on record reveals Krishnamurthy the husband of PW5 deserted her and after the desertion, PW5 was living with her deceased daughter in the house of PW4. PW4 had brought up the deceased and had graduated her. He had also performed her marriage. He has testified to the effect of marriage talks, the demand made by the accused in respect of cash and the dowry and the subsequent demand made by the accused through the deceased. In the cross examination he has admitted that when the deceased had come to his house, one Chandrashekar, the mother of deceased-PW5 and himself were present. At that time, the deceased told them that the accused had told her to bring a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from him as he is well placed and at the time of marriage, they have not demanded any dowry. This evidence of PW4 would go to show the accused having made any demand for dowry either by way of cash or jewellery prior to the marriage and the same having been given at the time of marriage cannot be believed. This evidence of PW4 would go to show the accused having made any demand for dowry either by way of cash or jewellery prior to the marriage and the same having been given at the time of marriage cannot be believed. Apart from this, PW4 admittedly is the first informant in the case. He has filed his complaint on the very date of occurrence before PW17-CPI at about 8.55 p.m. In Ex.P4 the first information which has been lodged by him there is no whisper about the marriage talks, the demand for Rs. 10,000/- or gold ornaments or other articles. There is no mention of any dowry having been paid at the time of marriage. What has been mentioned is only with respect to the demand made by the accused for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- after the marriage and the motor cycle subsequently. This witness is also examined by the Taluka Executive Magistrate at the time of inquest. At that time there is no mention about any demand made by the accused as projected in his evidence before the Court. The two witnesses viz. Rajanna and Chandrashekar who had attended to the marriage talks have not been examined in the case. The other witnesses is only PW5. In view of PW4 having not mentioned in the first information Ex.P4 about the alleged demand for dowry and further as he has admitted in the cross examination that the deceased himself had told him that the accused had not demanded for any dowry, his testimony now before the Court that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment goes a long way to place any reliance on his testimony. Apart from the same we do not find any corroboration from any independent quarters. The testimony of PW5 who is none other than his own sister and mother of the deceased also does not corroborate his testimony in respect of the demand made by the accused. The entire material placed with regard to the demand made by the accused is an improvement and an after thought at the time of trial. 13. Insofar as PW8 is concerned on a perusal of his evidence it discloses that he was told about the alleged demand for dowry by his wife Navarathna who is none other than the sister of PW5, mother of the deceased. 13. Insofar as PW8 is concerned on a perusal of his evidence it discloses that he was told about the alleged demand for dowry by his wife Navarathna who is none other than the sister of PW5, mother of the deceased. No where in his evidence he claims that the deceased had personally told him about the alleged demand for dowry or harassment meted out to her on the ground of demand for Pulsar motor cycle. A perusal of entire evidence of PW8 in view of it being hear say also does not inspire confidence in us to place reliance on the same. 14. Coming to the evidence of PW7 he also stands in the same shoes of PW8 as no where in his evidence he claims that the deceased had told him about the alleged demand for dowry and cruelty and harassment meted out by the accused. According to him he came to know about the alleged demand only through PW4 which in turn becomes a hear-say and no reliance can be placed on the same. 15. Insofar as PW6 is concerned, we find that his evidence does not inspire any confidence for the reasons firstly though he claims that he owns a shop near the house of the accused, he later on states that he has given away his shop and he is not running the same. His evidence discloses that one day when he went near the house of the accused and near the gate he heard the accused abusing the deceased and making demand for dowry. This testimony of PW6 is an after-thought and an improvement which has been brought about in his cross examination and has been proved through the evidence of PW19-the ACP who has recorded his statement. The evidence of this witness in respect of the alleged demand for dowry, the harassment meted out by the accused to the deceased is a complete omission which omission is a material omission going to the root of the case. As this witness is a close friend of PW4, we find it difficult to accept his testimony in view of the fact that the first information lodged by PW4 on the very date of occurrence does not reflect the demand for dowry made by the accused. As this witness is a close friend of PW4, we find it difficult to accept his testimony in view of the fact that the first information lodged by PW4 on the very date of occurrence does not reflect the demand for dowry made by the accused. On the other hand, on a perusal of the statement filed by A1 it reveals that the deceased at the time of marriage was working in a private Bank and was getting a sum of Rs. 1500/- p.m. and she had discontinued the same. She was in search of a job. In this direction A1, her husband, had taken steps to get her trained in various courses. He has spent money for the same. It further reveals as on 18.7.2005 also in the morning she had left the house with A1 in order to attend to an interview at ISCKON temple. She returned to the house at about 3.00 p.m. and at that time she was in a frustrated mood. She did not take her lunch. She went inside the room and latched the door from inside. At 5.00 p.m. there was a call from ISKCON to her and when A3 went to inform the deceased of the said call, she found the deceased having hanged in the room. This is also fortified from the evidence of DW2 who is maid servant working in the house of the accused. This would probabalise the defence of the accused that the deceased has committed suicide having been dejected in life on account of she having not secured any job cannot be ruled out. Even otherwise on appreciation of the entire evidence, we do not find any clinching evidence to show that the deceased had been subjected to such type of cruelty either mentally or physically which drew her to commit suicide. Even otherwise on appreciation of the entire evidence, we do not find any clinching evidence to show that the deceased had been subjected to such type of cruelty either mentally or physically which drew her to commit suicide. Therefore, we find that the finding of the learned trial Judge that the evidence on record discloses that the accused had demanded dowry by way of money and jewellery prior to the marriage, accepted the same at the time of marriage and subsequent to the marriage, he had made a demand for dowry in the form of money and it had been accepted and thereafter also they had made a demand for Pulsar Motor cycle cannot be sustained as the material on record reveals which is supported from the documents placed on record by the accused that they had owned a Scooty and a Kinetic Honda among which, Scooty was being used by the deceased. On a perusal of the entire evidence we find that the testimonies of PWs 4 to 8 among whom PW4 is the maternal uncle, PW5 is the mother, PW8 is the uncle of the deceased being interested, it does not inspire confidence to place reliance on their testimony. 16. Further PWs 6 and 7 admittedly though they are independent witnesses in view of their close association being friends of PW4 and as the evidence of PW7 is a hear say evidence and further the evidence PW6 which is an entire improvement made during the course of trial, does not inspire confidence in us in any manner to place reliance on them. 17. Apart form these witnesses the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 who are the immediate neighbours of the accused to establish that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment. But unfortunately as they did not support the case of the prosecution they have been treated as hostile. In view of they having been treated as hostile, in our view, their evidence does not in any way come to the aid of the prosecution in establishing the charge leveled against the accused. 18. Further we have the evidence of PW10-Dr. Asha Laxmi. In view of they having been treated as hostile, in our view, their evidence does not in any way come to the aid of the prosecution in establishing the charge leveled against the accused. 18. Further we have the evidence of PW10-Dr. Asha Laxmi. According to the prosecution PW4 after his arrival to the house of the accused along with his wife and PW5, on noticing the deceased in the hanging position, took her immediately in his car to the nearby nursing home. There on examination, she was declared as having been brought dead. The prosecution in support of the same have examined PW10-Dr. Asha Laxmi. The said doctor in her evidence has not stated in clear terms that the body of the deceased had been brought and she had examined and had declared having brought dead and therefore, that evidence also does not in any way help the prosecution. 19. Insofar as the other witnesses are concerned, they are the police officials who have apprehended the accused, taken the dead body for subjecting for subjecting to post mortem examination, F.I.R. to the Jurisdictional Court, panch witnesses for the spot panchanama and the inquest panchanama. Their evidence does not in any manner further the case of the prosecution pointing towards the guilt of the accused. 20. Taking from any angle the evidence on record does not inspire any confidence in us to place reliance on the same. The learned trial Judge, in our view, has committed an error in holding that the prosecution has established the charge so far as A1 is concerned. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion we find there is no clinching and reliable evidence on record to show that any of the accused had made any demand for dowry and had subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment soon before her death which drove her to commit suicide. Further, there is no evidence also to show that the accused had accepted the dowry from PWs 4 and 5.Therefore, we are of the view on a close scrutiny of the entire material on record, the prosecution has failed to establish the charge leveled against any of the accused. 22. For the reasons stated to above, we pass the following order :- (i) Criminal Appeal No. 1711/2007 and 1708/2011 preferred by the State are dismissed; (ii) Criminal Appeal No. 1351/2007 is allowed. 22. For the reasons stated to above, we pass the following order :- (i) Criminal Appeal No. 1711/2007 and 1708/2011 preferred by the State are dismissed; (ii) Criminal Appeal No. 1351/2007 is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed on A1 is set aside. A1 is on bail pursuant to the order passed by this Court. The bail bonds executed by him and his surety stands cancelled.