Judgment K.N. Phaneendra, J. 1. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Fast Track Court & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, FTC No. VI, in SC No. 516/2004 dated 28.4.2010, the first informant by name Smt. Ratna-PW13 (complainant) has preferred Crl. Appeal No. 597/2010. So also, the State has preferred an appeal against the same judgment of acquittal in Criminal Appeal No. 1326/2010. 2. The Trial Court has tried the respondents herein who are arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 of IPC, also under Section 3& 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of IPC and ultimately found that the accused found not guilty of the aforesaid offences and consequently, acquitted them. 3. The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that: Smt. Ratna and Sri Channaveerappa, parents of the deceased simpa, examined as PWs. 13 and 16 respectively are the husband and wife. They have given their daughter by name Simpa (deceased) in marriage to Accused No. 1. The other accused persons i.e., A2 and A3 are the parents of A1. A4 Smt. Mangala Gowri and A5 Sathish Kumar are the sister and brother-in-law of A1 respectively. The marriage between A1 and Simpa, undisputedly taken place on 5.9.1999. It is also not disputed that they have got a child of 1 1/2 years old at the time of the incident. The main case of the prosecution is that even at the time of the marriage, particularly at the time of negotiations, the accused persons have demanded cash of Rs. 1 lakh and Jewellary worth Rs. 5 lakhs. At the time of marriage, the said amount was paid as dowry and Jewelry worth Rs. 5 lakhs were also given in consideration of the marriage. Sometime after the marriage, A1 and Smt. Simpa lived happily as husband and wife in the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the accused persons being not satisfied with the dowry of Rs. 25,000/- given at the time of marriage and the Jewellary have started demanding more money and articles from the parental house of the deceased. In this background, it is specifically alleged that there was ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased which were un-tolerable. Thereafter, the accused persons being not satisfied with the dowry of Rs. 25,000/- given at the time of marriage and the Jewellary have started demanding more money and articles from the parental house of the deceased. In this background, it is specifically alleged that there was ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased which were un-tolerable. In this backdrop, on 30.5.2002, in the morning hours as per the prosecution case, at about 7.30 a.m., the accused persons have killed the deceased by causing burn injuries by pouring kerosene on her and liting fire in the lavatory situated in the backyard of their house, which is situated at 11th-C Cross, 3rd Block, BEL Extension, Vidhyaranyapura, Bangalore. The prosecution case further continues on the allegations that the Accused No. 1 secured the presence of the police giving information that she died in the lavatory. The Police Constable-CW33 (examined as DW-6) went to the spot and recorded the statement of A1 and thereafter, a case was registered by Police in UDR No. 14/2002 and submitted FIR and requested the Taluka Executive Magistrate to conduct the inquest panchanama. The Taluka Executive Magistrate - PW20 Mr. N.R. Sudakar has conducted the inquest panchanama at M.S. Ramaiah Hospital, where the dead body was shifted by that time. Thereafter, on the request of the Police, the dead body of the deceased Smt. Simpa was shifted from M.S. Ramaiah Hospital to Bowring Hospital for the purpose of conducting post-mortem examination. On 31.5.2002, the post-mortem examination was conducted and on the basis of the statements of the father and the mother of the deceased, the Police have registered a case in Crime No. 86/2002 against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 304B, and 302 of IPC and also u/s. 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34of IPC. 4. The records disclose that at the initial stage A2 to A5 were enlarged on bail and subsequently A1 was also enlarged on bail. The Trial Court, after going through the contents of the charge sheet, has framed charges against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 304B and also under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition act, read with Section 34 of IPC. The Trial Court, after going through the contents of the charge sheet, has framed charges against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 304B and also under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition act, read with Section 34 of IPC. The prosecution has proceeded with the trial and examined as many as 24 witnesses PWs.1 to 24 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P63 and MOs.1 to 48. The accused were examined u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. and called upon the lead defence evidence if any. The accused persons have also examined as many as 7 witnesses as DWs. 1 to 7 and got marked Exhibits D1 to D107. 5(a). The prosecution witnesses examined particularly, PW1 Mr. Ravikumar, PW-10 Srinivas and PW-19 Narsimha, who are the panch witnesses to the inquest panchanama and they have seen the dead body and also attested the panchanama and spoken to about the conducting of the inquest panchanama. (b) PW2 is the seizure mahazar witness for Exs.P3 and P4, wherein, A1 handed over gold and silver ornaments to the Police in his house. (c) PW3 is also another panch witness who is no other than the co-brother of A2 by name G. Mahesh, who was present at the time of the dead body being taken out from the toilet and the Police have conducted mahazar at that spot and he is the signatory to the spot panchanama and during that panchanama MOs. 1 Kerosene container and MO2 match box were recovered. (d) PW-4 Sri G. Umesh, another panch witness for seizure of some gold and silver ornaments by C.C.B. Police produced by A3 under Exs.P5 and P6. (e) PW5 one Mr. Guruswamy is no other than the brother of CW10 who speak about the negotiations held prior to the marriage between A1 and A2 and also he speak about the demand of dowry etc., (f) PW-6 Mr. S.C. Chandrasekhar is the neighbor of the complainant at Somawarpeth. He also speaks about the negotiations and demand of dowry and also he has seen the dead body and he also speaks about the injuries on the dead body. (g) PW7 H.B. Krishnappa also deposed in the similar manner as that of PW6 stating about the negotiations in demand of further dowry and injuries on the dead body. He also speaks about the negotiations and demand of dowry and also he has seen the dead body and he also speaks about the injuries on the dead body. (g) PW7 H.B. Krishnappa also deposed in the similar manner as that of PW6 stating about the negotiations in demand of further dowry and injuries on the dead body. (h) PW-8 Suma is no other than the sister of the paternal aunt (father's sister of the deceased). She also deposed about the demand of further dowry and torture by the accused persons as well as the injuries on the dead body. (i) PW-9 Rekha Mohan also speaks in similar manner as that of PW8. (j) PW-11 Sri R. Naganna is the PSI of Vidhyaranyapura Police Station. He speaks about his visit to the house of A1 on the date of the incident at about 8.45 a.m. and recorded the statement of A1 through his writer and registered a case in UDR No. 14/2002 and also requested the Taluka Executive Magistrate to conduct the inquest panchanama. (k) PW12 Champa is the sister of the deceased. PW13 Smt. Ratna, mother of the deceased, PW15 Nagaraj is genetive brother of the deceased, PW16 Channaveerappa is the father of the deceased have all spoken to about the negotiations in demand of dowry by A1 to A3 and further demand of dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs etc., and torture and harassment given to the deceased and also the accused persons have killed the deceased by pouring kerosene on her and liting fire. (l) PW-14 A.S. Umesh has deposed about the demand of dowry after the marriage and also about the galata taken place at the house of the accused on the previous day and also saw the dead body and injuries on the dead body etc., (m) PW17 Dr. Beemappa Havanur is the doctor who was working in the Bowring Hospital during the relevant point of time has conducted the P.M. examination on the dead body of the deceased Simpa and issued PM report as per Ex. P-32 and also given information to the Police and answered the queries of the Police. (n) PW18 K. Ajjanna, Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Crime No. 86/2002 as per Ex. P44 and dispatched the First Information Report to the court as per Ex. P43 on the same evening on which day, the case was registered. P-32 and also given information to the Police and answered the queries of the Police. (n) PW18 K. Ajjanna, Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Crime No. 86/2002 as per Ex. P44 and dispatched the First Information Report to the court as per Ex. P43 on the same evening on which day, the case was registered. (o) PW19 one N.M. Narasimhan is the Medical Shop owner in J.P. Nagar, Bangalore, who also speaks about the galata in the house of Accused No. 1 on the previous day. (p) PW21 Dr.M. Somashetty, HOD of Forensic Lab, MS Ramaiah Hospital has deposed before the Court with regard to the receipt of the dead body of the deceased and thereafter, the dead body was shifted to Bowring Hospital for the purpose of PM examination. (q) PW-22 ACP Sri V. Thimmappa in fact is the brother who conducted partial investigation in this case has deposed about the seizure of some gold ornaments at the instance of A1 to A3. (r) PW-23 Sri S.P. Naik is the Investigating Officer, who has deposed about the investigation done by him, recording of the sworn statement of the witnesses with regard to the demand of further dowry, harassment by the accused both physically and mentally etc., (s) PW-24 Sri Panduranga Rao, ACP has completed the investigation after taking over the same from PW-22 and he subsequently handed over the investigation to PW23 and ultimately, charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons. 6. We have heard the detailed and very lengthy arguments addressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and also Sri V. Balakrishna, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant/complainant in Criminal Appeal No. 597/2010. 7. The arguments of Sri B. Visweshwaraiah learned High Court Government Pleader and Sri V. Balakrishna, learned Counsel for the complainant are almost similar. On the same grounds, they have challenged the judgment of acquittal of the trial Court. Apart from describing the factual matrix of the case in their Memorandum of Appeals and at the time of arguments, it is specifically contended that the trial Court has committed a serious illegality in acquitting the accused for the offences charged against them. In fact, the evidence of PWs.6, 7, 12, 13 and 16 unequivocally establish the case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. In fact, the evidence of PWs.6, 7, 12, 13 and 16 unequivocally establish the case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused persons have demanded dowry, gold articles prior to the marriage, received the same at the time of the marriage and also subsequently, demanded heavy amount of dowry and for that reason, they have ill-treated and harassed the deceased and ultimately killed her by pouring kerosene and litting fire. Their evidence fully corroborated with the evidence of other witnesses i.e., PW5 Guruswamy and sister of the deceased by name Champa, Suma, Rekha Mohan and father and mother of the deceased by name Ratna and Channaveerappa. The evidence of PW15 Nagaraja and evidence of the father of the deceased have also not properly appreciated by the trial Court though the allegations made against the accused with regard to the demand of dowry, receiving of the dowry and gold articles and subsequent demand of dowry, ill-treatment and harassment given to the deceased has been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court failed to consider the evidence of the doctors with regard to the Post Mortem report, inquest report and also the opinion of the doctor as well as the Taluka Executive Magistrate with regard to the death of the deceased Simpa. The trial Court also failed to consider that the accused persons have not properly explained as to how the death was occurred, what is the reason for the death and non-explanation by the accused has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court and thereby committed serious error in acquitting the accused. 8. Sri Balakrishna, learned Counsel for the complainant has further elaborately contended that the trial Court has not appreciated the statements of the accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. in proper perspective. For several questions, the accused have not properly given answers and the trial Court has failed to appreciate that those improper answers are in addition to the proven case of the prosecution fill up the doubts in the prosecution case, those improper answers could have been considered as additional circumstance against the accused in support of the case of the prosecution. 9. The learned High Court Government Pleader as well as the learned Counsel for the complainant have also cited several rulings in this regard which are discussed in succeeding paragraphs while appreciating the evidence. 10. 9. The learned High Court Government Pleader as well as the learned Counsel for the complainant have also cited several rulings in this regard which are discussed in succeeding paragraphs while appreciating the evidence. 10. Sri C.H. Hanumantharaya learned Counsel for the accused with all force countered the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader as well as the learned Counsel for the complainant. He has specifically contended that the trial Court has appreciated the materials on record by taking all care and caution by giving equal importance to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also the defence witnesses. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence considering the contradictions, omissions which are serious in nature elicited during the course of cross examination of the witnesses proved through the evidence of the Investigating Officers. He has specifically contended that the case of the prosecution has been made from time to time, from the time of the First Information Report and the subsequent statements of the witnesses. Further, he contended that there is sufficient material to show that the Post Mortem report has been manipulated and the said document amply proves that the prosecution witnesses want to implicate the accused falsely into the crime to make believe the court that suicidal death of the deceased to that of murder by the accused persons. He has taken us through the evidence of the witnesses and also specifically the evidence of the Taluka Executive Magistrate, the doctor and other witnesses and also particularly the evidence of the Investigating Officer to show that the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses is nothing but improvement by stage by stage. Therefore, the trial Court, after considering the above said aspects in detail, has specifically come to the conclusion that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. 11. He has also humbly urged before this Court that when the trial Court has acquitted the accused persons, it is doubly made sure that the accused persons are innocent. While dealing with the acquittal judgments, the court must be very careful in reversing the judgment unless the judgment of the trial Court is so erroneous, illegal and it bites the conscious of the court. Therefore, he contended that there is no room for this court to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court. While dealing with the acquittal judgments, the court must be very careful in reversing the judgment unless the judgment of the trial Court is so erroneous, illegal and it bites the conscious of the court. Therefore, he contended that there is no room for this court to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court. Hence, he has pleaded for confirmation of the said judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 12. We have also carefully perused the entire judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court after forming the points for consideration has come to the definite conclusion on appreciation of the materials on record that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the defence which are cropped up in the case go to the root of the prosecution case and there is no material to show that the accused persons have committed the murder of the deceased. With reference to the demand of dowry prior to the marriage and receipt of the dowry and cash of Rs. 25,000/- at the time of marriage is not at all supported by the sufficient convincing and acceptable evidence by the court. Further trial court also elaborately discussed with regard to subsequent demand of dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/- and held that such demand and receipt of Rs. 5,00,000/- are also not proved to the satisfaction of the Court. Hence, the trial Court has acquitted the accused persons. 13. Appreciating the above said arguments submitted by the learned Counsels and also on looking to the judgment of the trial Court, it is clear that the trial Court has written a very lengthy judgment and appreciated the material on record and drawn some inferences and concluded the judgment by acquitting the accused persons. 14. The Court should bear in mind that when the accused persons are acquitted by the trial Court, the appellate court normally should not interfere with such judgment particularly, when the case is based on circumstantial evidence and also the evidence of the close relatives of the victim. 15. 14. The Court should bear in mind that when the accused persons are acquitted by the trial Court, the appellate court normally should not interfere with such judgment particularly, when the case is based on circumstantial evidence and also the evidence of the close relatives of the victim. 15. It is worth to note here the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 between Chandrappa and Others v. State of Karnataka, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court to be borne in mind by the court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. The relevant portion reads as under:-- (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it, may reach its own conclusion both on questions of fact and law. (3) Various expressions, such as "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstance", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes" etc., are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. (5) If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of evidence on record and one favorable to the accused has been taken by the trial Court, it ought not to be disturbed by the appellate court." 16. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. (5) If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of evidence on record and one favorable to the accused has been taken by the trial Court, it ought not to be disturbed by the appellate court." 16. Consistent with the above said observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, there are catena of rulings wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had amply made it clear that in a case based on circumstantial evidence and when the case mainly rests on the interested witnesses testimony under which, the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully proved and such facts and circumstances must be conclusive in nature. All the factual aspects and circumstances should be complete and there should be no loop hole left in the chain of evidence. The proof must be complete, consistent and cogent, only with hypothesis of the guilt of accused and totally inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. We are also conscious and cautious of the principles that accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved. But the innocence of the case is fortified by the acquittal of the accused persons by the trial Court. The Appellate court normally should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal except in exceptional circumstances and for compelling reasons and in that event it should not hesitate to reverse the judgment of acquittal. The court has to bear in mind the findings recorded by the trial Court if it is perverse, illegal and the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is contrary to the evidence on record or the entire approach of the trial Court with respect to dealing with the evidence is patently illegal, leading to miscarriage of justice, or if the judgment of the trial Court is so un-reasonable and based on erroneous understanding of the facts of the case, then the appellate court can interfere with such judgments. If for any reason, the appellate court comes to a different view as that of the trial Court, it should also bear in mind that the view taken by the trial Court is also possible on the basis of the material on record; and that, such view also should not be interfered with. 17. If for any reason, the appellate court comes to a different view as that of the trial Court, it should also bear in mind that the view taken by the trial Court is also possible on the basis of the material on record; and that, such view also should not be interfered with. 17. Keeping in mind the above said valuable principles, let us deal with the present case on hand. 18. On over all analysis of the entire materials on record, in our opinion, three important points crop up for consideration of this court: (1) Whether on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Simpa D/o. PW16 died a homicidal death or a suicidal death. (2) whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased Simpa has died an un-natural death (Suicidal death), within seven years of marriage and soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons in connection with any demand of dowry or whether, the accused persons have abated the commission of such suicide by the deceased by means of their conduct. ? (3) Whether the prosecutions proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons treated the deceased with cruelty in demand of dowry or for any other reasons which are sufficient to drive her to commit suicide. POINT NO 1. 19. In order to deal with the first point, this Court has to consider the materials on record. According to the overall case of the prosecution case is. A1 to A3 with an intention to extract more dowry and money from the deceased started quarreling with the deceased on the previous day. On the date of the incident, they killed her inside their house, and after her death, in order to make believe the public that she has committed suicide, they took the dead body and put the same in a sitting posture in the lavatory situated outside the house and poured kerosene on her and lit fire. 20. The prosecution has also relied upon some of the injuries on the dead body i.e., to say three injuries on the dead body in detail we discuss about the injuries little later. 20. The prosecution has also relied upon some of the injuries on the dead body i.e., to say three injuries on the dead body in detail we discuss about the injuries little later. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused after committing the murder of his wife, did not shift the dead body to the Hospital but they first secured the Police in order to create the evidence in their favour. Therefore, looking to the circumstances, it is crystal clear that it is not a suicide but a murder. For this, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs.1, 10 and 19 who are the inquest panch witnesses at the initial stages, who have actually seen the dead body. 21. Before adverting to the evidence of these witnesses, it is just and necessary to have a brief look at the First Information Report submitted by the mother and father (PW 13 and 16) of the deceased which is marked at Ex. P13, so far as it relates to the death of the deceased and how it has taken place according to the witnesses. The inquest of the dead body was conducted in the MS Ramaiah Hospital by the Taluka Executive Magistrate on 30.5.2002 at 4.00 p.m. and it was concluded at 6.00 p.m. At 6.15 p.m., the First Information Report was lodged and a case has been registered in Crime No. 86/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 302 of IPC. 22. In this context the learned counsel Sri Balakrishna relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble apex court reported in, AIR 1975 S.C. 1252 between Podda Naryanan and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, where in the Hon'ble Apex court observed that,- There is no need to mention every minute detail in the FIR mentioning the overt acts of each and every accused. It is neither customary nor necessary to go in detail to narrate the story of prosecution. The object of Section 174 is very limited. It can only be used for the purpose of ascertaining whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an un-natural death, and if so what is the apparent cause of death. It is contented in this background the court has take into consideration the contents of FIR and the inquest. The object of Section 174 is very limited. It can only be used for the purpose of ascertaining whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an un-natural death, and if so what is the apparent cause of death. It is contented in this background the court has take into consideration the contents of FIR and the inquest. Therefore we feel it just and necessary to have the brief account of FIR and the Inquest panchanama and then we would like to discuss the evidence on record to find out whether the contents of these documents play any dominant role in the case. The gist of the First Information Report is: that on the previous day of the incident at about 3.00 p.m., the accused No. 2, father of A2, has called the mother of the deceased (PW13) stating that their grandson (son of the deceased) has been assaulted by the deceased on the ground that he was grumbling for taking any food and they requested the father and mother of the deceased to immediately go over to Bangalore and to advice their daughter properly and they also stated that they are not responsible if she commit anything to herself. At about 5.00 p.m., the father and mother of the deceased tried to contact A1, but they could not get him over phone. Up to 10.00 p.m., on 30.5.2012 they waited. On the date of the incident at about 8.45 p.m., A2 called the parents of the deceased and informed them that Simpa is dead and immediately asked them to go over to Bangalore and they saw the dead body in M.S. Ramaiah Hospital, Bangalore at about 4.30 p.m., and stated that their daughter is a Law Graduate and she is not a lady who could commit suicide and therefore they suspected the death is a homicidal death at the hands of the accused as such they requested the Police to take action against the accused. Nowhere in the FIR, have they stated as to how the incident has happened and how the deceased died and also nothing stated about the injuries on the dead body of the deceased. 23. Coming to the evidence of PW2, 10 and 19 who are the inquest panch witnesses, which discloses that they are friends of PW15 Nagaraj. Nagaraj is no other than the brother of the deceased. 23. Coming to the evidence of PW2, 10 and 19 who are the inquest panch witnesses, which discloses that they are friends of PW15 Nagaraj. Nagaraj is no other than the brother of the deceased. It is specifically stated by them that PW20 Taluka Executive Magistrate has conducted the inquest and they found at the time of inquest itself a portion of the index finger of the deceased was chopped off and there was a scratch injury on the palm and it was depicted in the inquest panchanama. They also stated that there was a stab injury on the person of the deceased. On perusal of the inquest panchanama which is marked at Ex. P2 at column No. 7, it is specifically written that no external injuries were found on the dead body except the burn injuries. It is also to be taken note of, that the cause of the death at column No. 3 that accused person No. 1 has screamed for help on that particularly day, on seeing the deceased inside the lavatory, bolted from inside, flames and smoke coming out from the lavatory and thereafter, the door of the lavatory was broke open and water was poured inside the lavatory and the said death was due to burn injuries. Even at column No. 5 also, the inquest report shows that there are no other injuries on the dead body. The statement of the father of the deceased PW16 Channaveerappa was also recorded at the time of inquest. In his statement, he also never stated anything about the serious injuries on the dead body which were visible. What is stated by PW16 is nothing but reiteration of the First Information report and nothing more than that. Column No. 11 also shows that panch witnesses have opined that death was due to the burn injuries. When such being the case, it appears, the panch witnesses have improved their version during the course of the evidence. But in the course of cross examination, they have admitted that at the time of inquest, the Taluka Executive Magistrate has narrated the physical features of the dead body and also specifically about the burn injuries and peeling of the skin and not finding any other marks. But in the course of cross examination, they have admitted that at the time of inquest, the Taluka Executive Magistrate has narrated the physical features of the dead body and also specifically about the burn injuries and peeling of the skin and not finding any other marks. They also admitted that they did not bring to the notice of the Taluka Executive Magistrate regarding any injury to the index finger or any other parts on the dead body. PW19 in fact has in the course of examination in chief itself has deposed that he observed the stab injury on the palm and cut injury to the index finger. But nobody has stated in the course of cross examination that they have appraised this fact to the Taluka Executive Magistrate. Of course, during the course of the Post Mortem examination, these injuries appear to have come to the light. The panch witnesses to the inquest and the evidence of the PW16 compared to his earlier statement before the Taluka Executive Magistrate and in the First Information Report, it is clear that there is nothing on record with regard to the visible injuries on the dead body. Therefore, it is very difficult to draw any inference that these injuries are in any manner caused by any person during the life time of the deceased. 24. The learned Counsel Sri Balakrishna has strenuously argued that during the course of Post Mortem examination, it is very much made clear that those injuries were found on the dead body and blood was present in the said injuries and the doctor has also specifically and categorically stated that those injuries are ante mortem in nature and could be caused by means of knife or other sharp edged weapon. Therefore, he argues before the court that A1 has committed the murder first stabbing and thereafter bring the dead body to the lavatory, and there after poured kerosene and lit fire on the body of the deceased. 25. Countering the above submissions, the learned Counsel for the accused Sri C.H. Hanumantharaya strenuously contends that if the evidence of the doctor and the Post Mortem report is properly understood and meticulously observed, it clearly reveals that the over handedness of the complainant and the witnesses colluding with the doctors created such evidence in order to improve the case of the prosecution. Therefore, he draws the attention of the court as to why the dead body was shifted from M.S. Ramaiah Hospital to the Bowring Hospital. 26. In the above said backdrop the evidence of PW21 Dr. Somshekar play an important role. He deposed that he was on duty in the M.S. Ramaiah Hospital on 31.5.2002. He has deposed that the Taluka Executive Magistrate has conducted the inquest panchanama on the dead body. After about 15 minutes of the inquest, this witness has received a requisition from Vidhyaranyapura Police, requesting to shift the dead body to the Bowring Hospital as the parents of the deceased suspected that some Doctors in M.S. Ramaiah Hospital are related to the accused. 27. It is worth to note here the document Ex. P52 written by PW16 who made a request to shift the dead body from M.S. Ramaiah Hospital to Bowring Hospital, wherein it is categorically stated that some of the doctors who are related to the accused are working in M.S. Ramaiah Hospital. Therefore, PW16 has specifically suggested the name of Bowring Hospital wherein the Doctor by name Sarvamangala who is related to the parents of the deceased was working. In fact, the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW17 has admitted this aspect as to one of the doctor is relative to the deceased. 28. Be that as it may, PW17 Dr. Havanur has conducted Post Mortem examination on the dead body. The Post Mortem examination report clearly discloses that the deceased has sustained three injuries over neck, face front and back of chest and abdomen, as follows: i) Incised wound found on the middle portion of the right palm measuring 2 cm x 0.2 cm x 0.5 cms.; ii) Incised wound 3 cm below the right Metacarpus of the right index finger measuring 1.5 cm x 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm. iii) Stab wound on the left side of the front of the abdomen measuring 2.5 cm x 0.25 cm, abdominal cavity deep. It is stated that those were ante-mortem in nature. Mentioning the same, PW-17 has issued the PM report as per Ex. P32. He also gave his opinion that those injuries could be caused by a sharp weapon like blade and by a single edged weapon like knife. The doctor has also issued his opinion as per Ex. P-34 stating that injury Nos. Mentioning the same, PW-17 has issued the PM report as per Ex. P32. He also gave his opinion that those injuries could be caused by a sharp weapon like blade and by a single edged weapon like knife. The doctor has also issued his opinion as per Ex. P-34 stating that injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3 noted above could not cause the death of a person. 29. It is further observed by this court that during the course of cross examination of the doctor, Ex. P45 and P46 were shown to the witnesses. Those are the Form No. 146(I) and 146(II). The forms sent to the doctor by the Taluka Executive Magistrate in which it was brought to the notice of the doctor that the deceased bolted the toilet from inside, poured kerosene herself and lit fire and after seeing these two documents, it is brought to the notice of the doctor that there is no mention regarding presence of the blood at the stab wound, as such in Ex. P32. 30. The learned Counsel for the accused has elaborately argued that the Investigating Officer has sent a letter to the doctor as per Ex. P49. Ex. P35 is the reply and in Ex. P35, there is no blood in the abdominal cavity but in Ex. P32 it is stated so. 31. The learned Counsel for the accused, brought to our notice the cross examination portion of the doctor in order to establish the manipulations of inserting the words "blood present in the wound" at page 12 of the evidence of the doctor in his further examination dated 2.4.2008, wherein the doctor has stated that "I agree that the wordings "blood present in the wound" written in the portion of the Post Mortem report vary from the earlier writing at the same portion. It is denied by him that the words "the blood present in the wound after the description of the injury at Ex. P32 being written subsequently." 32. We have seen the original Post Mortem report marked at Ex. P-32, wherein it is noted at page 2 that while describing abdomen, it is stated that peritoneum is pierced on the left side of abdomen (lower part). But, after dissection, while explaining the abdomen portion of injury, nothing has been stated with regard to the presence of the blood present inside the wound. P-32, wherein it is noted at page 2 that while describing abdomen, it is stated that peritoneum is pierced on the left side of abdomen (lower part). But, after dissection, while explaining the abdomen portion of injury, nothing has been stated with regard to the presence of the blood present inside the wound. On the other hand, while describing the external injuries itself, the presence of the blood in the wound has been described. The depth of the injury is also mentioned while describing the external injuries itself, whereas it is not stated so while explaining the abdomen. Therefore, what is found in page No. 4 with regard to the presence of the blood in the wound is not explained at page No. 2 while explaining the abdomen after dissection. Though the doctor has admitted this, but he has not explained as to how he could say while describing the external injuries about the depth of the injury. On careful perusal of the Post Mortem report, it discloses the presence of blood in the wound. Wherever the words "presence of blood in the wound" finds a place in the Post Mortem report, they are of different fonts appears to be written subsequently. 33. In this background, now we will come back to the evidence of the doctor PW-17 in this regard. At page 12 of his evidence, he has admitted that he do not remember that the words "the blood present in the wound" was written after the description of the injury at Ex. P32 being written subsequently. But he denies that those words are inserted subsequently. Looking to the above said circumstances, a doubt is definitely created in the mind of the court as to why and how the doctor can note the presence of the blood in the wound while explaining the external injuries even before dissecting the body. There is no such explanation available in the evidence of the doctor. Perhaps, that may be the reason to explain that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the doctor must have noted the same with regard to the presence of the blood in the wound. The court should not ignore the admission of the Investigating Officer that he has been receiving instructions from the Director of prosecution so far as the investigation of this case is concerned. 34. The court should not ignore the admission of the Investigating Officer that he has been receiving instructions from the Director of prosecution so far as the investigation of this case is concerned. 34. Be that as it may, the doctor has explained the injuries as ante-mortem in nature. However, the doctor has categorically stated that the injuries are very trivial and simple in nature not sufficient to cause the death. The Taluka Executive Magistrate not at all observed the injuries at the time of the inquest. Perhaps that may be the reason to write those injuries are trivial and simple in nature and also burn injuries being present on the dead body. The learned Counsel has rightly contended that the Post Mortem report Ex. P32 shows that the margins of the injuries are clear cut and that was due to burns, margins cannot be clear cut if really they were ante-mortem in nature and they should be even edged. The learned Counsel also successfully persuaded us that there is doubt with regard to the injuries being ante-mortem or post mortem. He drew our attention to the evidence of the doctor PW-17 at page 17, wherein he admitted that, when a person dies, first he meets a somatic death and then molecular death. He explains that the somatic death is nothing but stopping of the functioning of the brain, heart and respiratory function, this occurs about 5 to 10 minutes after stoppage of supply of oxygen. Molecular death is nothing but the death of the individual cells of the different organs of the body. In case of somatic death followed by the injuries suffered by such person between somatic death and Molecular death, those injuries simulate ante mortem injuries. In view of the above, the learned Counsel has also successful in creating doubt in the mind of the court that in this case, the dead body was inside a lavatory, situated outside the house of the accused, which was bolted from inside. It is also a fact proved before the court by the prosecution itself, that the door was broken by the Police and then the dead body was dragged out from the lavatory, through the broken door, there may be chances of broken pieces of door coming in contact with the body of the deceased causing such simple and trivial injuries. It is also a fact proved before the court by the prosecution itself, that the door was broken by the Police and then the dead body was dragged out from the lavatory, through the broken door, there may be chances of broken pieces of door coming in contact with the body of the deceased causing such simple and trivial injuries. By that time, the deceased must have died and it may be somatic death and thereafter, the injuries being caused before the molecular death. Therefore, there are chances of confusion of those injuries as ante mortem. In view of the circumstances prevailing in this case and also the evidence of the doctor and also the evidence of DW.6 Head Constable who has dragged the dead body from the lavatory, it creates a serious doubt as to the nature of injuries as ante-mortem. More over the doctor has clearly opined that the above said injuries cannot cause the death of a person. However, a doubt is created in the mind of court, whether in order to help the prosecution, the doctor has inserted the words "blood present in the wound" subsequently after writing the Post Mortem report. This doubt in our opinion goes a long way so far as the prosecution case is concerned. 35. The other circumstance which the prosecution would like to establish before this court as argued by the learned High Court Government Pleader and also the learned Counsel Sri Balakrishna for the complainant is that, A1 to A3 were alone in their house with the deceased. Particularly on the day of the incident, A1 was very much present with the deceased when the incident took place. He had drawn our attention to Ex. P59, which is a sketch of the house and submitted that the incident was not taken place in the toilet, but inside the bathroom in the house. He concentrated on the conduct of the accused that he has not made any efforts to save the wife nor telephoned to the doctor, but immediately informed the Police. He draws our attention that the lavatory could be bolted from outside. He concentrated on the conduct of the accused that he has not made any efforts to save the wife nor telephoned to the doctor, but immediately informed the Police. He draws our attention that the lavatory could be bolted from outside. Actually, the murder was committed inside the house and thereafter, the dead body was put in the lavatory, lit fire to the body after pouring kerosene and thereafter the door of the lavatory was bolted from outside itself, so as to make it appear to the public that the deceased went inside the lavatory and committed suicide. There is no reason as to why the said lady has to go to the toilet outside when there is a toilet inside the house also. He also draws our attention that the matchbox, plastic bucket were intact inside the lavatory and it creates a serious doubt with regard to the conduct of the accused. He also contended that the accused No. 1 in his statement also admitted that he was present at that relevant point of time. 36. He specifically contends that A1 has admitted in his statement that he denies that the deceased has committed suicide; therefore, it should be treated as a murder. There is absolutely no explanation by the accused as to how the deceased died. 37. In this context he relied upon some of the observation on facts by the apex court and submitted that under similar circumstances the apex court found the accused guilty. 38. In the decisions reported in, AIR 1992 SC 2045 between State of U.P. v. Dr Ravindra Prakash Mittal, and 2006 AIR SCW 5300 between Trimuk Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, wherein the Supreme Court has observed thus:-- "The husband committing the murder of his wife, medical evidence disclosing that she died of strangulation and her body was set on fire thereafter. The circumstances indicating that none other than the accused had access to the room where the wife died. The accused has to explain the death of the deceased. Regarding conduct of the accused it is observed that, in a circumstantial evidence case, the husband commuting the murder of his wife, medical evidence disclosing that she died of strangulation and her body was set on fire thereafter. The circumstances indicating that none other the accused had access to the room where the wife died. Regarding conduct of the accused it is observed that, in a circumstantial evidence case, the husband commuting the murder of his wife, medical evidence disclosing that she died of strangulation and her body was set on fire thereafter. The circumstances indicating that none other the accused had access to the room where the wife died. Accused has to explain the death of the deceased. 39. He also relied upon some other rulings regarding conduct of the accused, reported in 2009 AIR SCW 3381 between State of West Bengal v. Deepak Haldar and another, 2010 AIR SCW 419 between Jayabalan v. union territory of Pondicherry. 2010 AIR SCW 7144 between Sathyanarayan Tiwari and another v. State of U.P. Wherein the apex court observed that, The Conduct of the accused plays a dominant role. The doors and windows of the house were kept closed at the time of the incident. The deceased was assaulted by accused/husband prior to the incident. Later, she was put on fire by pouring kerosene. The accused did not make any efforts to put off the fire nor made any arrangements for treatment. On the other hand, he was found abusing the deceased and her relatives, no evidence to show that the death was due to burst of the stove. Circumstances clearly lead to the inference of guilt of the accused. 40. All the above said rulings rendered on the basis of the facts of the respective cases, no principle as such laid down except that the conduct of the accused in the criminal cases also to be taken into consideration by the courts dealing with especially in bride burning cases. Therefore the court has to consider those decisions depending upon the facts and circumstances of the cases. It is a very well know phenomenon that no two cases are similar in all respects. Each and every case has got its distinctive and individual characteristics. Therefore the court has to apply the above principles to the facts and circumstances of each case. 41. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the accused strenuously contended that A2 to A5 were not all present at the time of the incident, they were not known as to the deceased went into the Toilet situated outside the house and committed suicide. 41. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the accused strenuously contended that A2 to A5 were not all present at the time of the incident, they were not known as to the deceased went into the Toilet situated outside the house and committed suicide. Accused No. 1 (DW1) in his evidence explained as soon as he saw the smoke coming out from the lavatory he came out with hue and cry and immediately informed the Police in order to save his wife. Within short span of time DW6 Maregowda came to that particular spot, broke open the door, then only he came to know about the suicide committed by his wife and thereafter the dead body was dragged out from the lavatory and shifted to the Hospital. 42. Looking to the above said submissions, it is seen from the records, particularly the evidence of DW1 that he in fact in his examination in chief explained that as soon as he came near the lavatory and suspected his wife might be inside, in order to open the door, he kicked the door with his legs and tried to broke open the door, but he could not open it, as the toilet door was bolted from inside. In the mean while, people gathered and he also tried to extinguish fire by pouring water to inside the toilet and thereafter only he informed to the Police. The court cannot expect a particular set of reaction from all the persons, as varieties of men, may have varieties of behavior. Merely because A1 informed the Police, before informing the doctor and taking the deceased to the Hospital, it cannot be said that his attitude is abnormal. Perhaps may be the reason that if he informs the Police they would quickly take action and shift the deceased to the Hospital. This also cannot be ruled out. DW-1 has further deposed that the Police broke open the door and then dragged the dead body of the deceased, by that time; the dead body was completely burnt. In fact, even much before DW1 gave such explanation before the court, but soon after the incident, his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer as per Ex. P39 on which basis the Police have registered a UDR Case earlier. In fact, even much before DW1 gave such explanation before the court, but soon after the incident, his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer as per Ex. P39 on which basis the Police have registered a UDR Case earlier. In the course of cross examination, DW1 has denied that even much earlier to the Police came to the spot, he already made a hole on the door of the toilet, because, he actually kept the dead body to facilitate himself to bolt the lavatory from outside, he hatched such plan, but those suggestions are denied. Even accepting for a moment, the conduct of the accused is suspicious. But, the said explanation given by the accused is fully corroborated and fortified by the evidence of DW6. In this background, his evidence plays an important role. 43. DW6 Maregowda, Head constable, in fact is a prosecution witnesses cited as CW31. He was not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to the prosecution. He has deposed before the court that on the date of the incident, after receiving the telephone message, he went to the spot along with the Investigating Officer at about 8.15 a.m. by that time, 30 to 40 persons were already gathered, and DW1 (Accused) was also present. He has categorically stated that there was a hole in the lavatory door and he made the hole big by breaking the door with a stone. He categorically denied that the hole was sufficient to unbolt the door from outside itself. He has categorically stated that the hole was not sufficient to unbolt the lavatory from outside. Therefore, he made all his efforts to broke open the door by kicking and stoning the door in order to enlarge the hole and thereafter he dragged the dead body to outside the lavatory. The evidence of DW6 cannot be easily brushed aside. Nowhere is it elicited that he has got any animosity or ill-will against any of the prosecution witnesses nor it is elicited that he is interested witness so far as the accused is concerned. He being the prosecution witness has deposed before the court as to what he has stated before the Police. Nowhere is it elicited that he has got any animosity or ill-will against any of the prosecution witnesses nor it is elicited that he is interested witness so far as the accused is concerned. He being the prosecution witness has deposed before the court as to what he has stated before the Police. But, the evidence of DW1, DW2 and DW6 goes to show that a small hole in the said door of the toilet was made big by breaking the same with a stone and thereafter, removed the dead body. 44. DW3 is another witness by name Smt. Rashmi. She has stated that when she came to the spot, A1 was present and was making efforts to extinguish fire by pouring water inside the toilet and in the mean while the Police came there. She also supported the evidence of DW1 as well as DW6. In view of the above said evidence on the accused side, the story of the prosecution that the accused after killing the deceased, put the dead body in the lavatory and poured kerosene and lit fire and thereafter, bolted the lavatory from outside through that hole is not believable. On the other hand the explanation offered by the accused in his evidence is also probable. 45. It is a well recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence that the accused need not establish a fact in issue or any relevant fact, beyond all reasonable doubt as it is incumbent on the prosecution to do the same. It suffice that by means of preponderance of probabilities, if the accused is able to create a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution, the court has to give due weight for the said probabilities. Further, added to that the court has to give equal importance to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as the evidence of the defence. Therefore, the story of the prosecution as noted above has to be suspected, in view of the plausible explanation offered by the accused and also as stated by the witnesses to the defence. 46. In order to prove that it is a murder, the previous antecedents of the accused soon before the death also play an important role. The evidence of DWs2 and 3 who are independent neighboring witnesses cannot be in this case easily discarded. 46. In order to prove that it is a murder, the previous antecedents of the accused soon before the death also play an important role. The evidence of DWs2 and 3 who are independent neighboring witnesses cannot be in this case easily discarded. Admittedly, A2 and A3 were not present at the time of the incident, but they came later as per the evidence of DW2 and DW3. When DW2 and DW3 came to the spot, A1 was present and he was raising hue and cry and pouring water into the lavatory. Perhaps with an intention to extinguish fire. So it is crystal clear that A2 and A3 were not present, and A1 made all his attempts which occurred to his mind at that time, it cannot be said that the prosecution story is fully believable. The evidence of DWs.2 & 3 in this regard cannot be easily discarded. 47. The lavatory is situated outside of the house of the accused in the backyard. The sketch Ex. P59 shows that it is a very small lavatory and the photographs of the dead body produced before the court clearly establishes that prior to dragging out the dead body from the toilet, it was in a sitting posture. The court cannot imagine certain things which are not supported by any settled principles of medical jurisprudence or by means of any imagination as to how the incident had happened inside the lavatory. Merely because the dead body was in a sitting posture, it cannot be inferred that after killing the said lady, the dead body was taken to the lavatory and thereby, made the dead body to sit in the sitting posture. If that were to be the view, other view proposed by the learned Counsel for the accused that when the lavatory door was bolted from inside after bolting if the deceased ablazed herself, after pouring kerosene, immediately after sustaining severe burn injuries, she must have lost her balance and due to which she gradually collapsed and in that context also, the dead body might have found in a sitting posture in the lavatory. Therefore with all certainty it cannot be imagined, as to how exactly the dead body came into sitting posture, she might have fallen on the wall, or on the bucket or kerosene or even other portion of the lavatory, therefore, the court is not in a position to exactly imagine as to what happened inside the lavatory. Therefore, when two views are possible on the same set of facts and circumstances and the view which is favorable to the accused has been preferred by trial Court, such view based on the factual matrix of the case and also appreciating certain facts, it may not be proper on the part of this court to deviate from the observations made by the trial Court. The burn injuries found on the head, mouth back and chest. Therefore, it shows that if the kerosene is poured from the head portion it will drop down from the head to the mouth, back, chest and other parts of the body. The back portion is not so much caught with fire. Therefore, it probabalises that because of the congested place in the lavatory, the kerosene might not have fallen on the back portion of the body of the deceased to the fuller extent. Even the doctor was not taken to the spot by the Investigating Officer, in order to ascertain whether the dead body could be in a sitting posture if she has committed suicide, and could have lost consciousness immediately and gradually her body fell down to the sitting posture. It is also quite natural as per the doctors evidence that immediately after sustaining burn injuries, the injured due to lack of oxygen and also smoke due to the kerosene burning, she must have lost the consciousness within one or two minutes, therefore, the body of the said lady immediately might have lost the control and that may also be one of the reason as to the dead body found in sitting posture. Looking to the above said circumstances we do not want to propose substitute our views to that of the views of the trial Judge in this regard when such inference is also possible. 48. Now, coming to the other argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri Balakrishna that the accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. according to him has admitted certain things. 48. Now, coming to the other argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri Balakrishna that the accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. according to him has admitted certain things. The questions put to accused No. 1, PW9 Rekha Mohan, and P.W.11 Naganna that "Simpa committed suicide by burning" but in their answer they denied it as false. Therefore the learned counsel contends that they indirectly admitted that simpa died a homicidal death. But such an inference cannot be drawn by the Court taking such answers as admission of the accused. 49. The accused also at page 26 has given an explanation that immediately, after the incident, even before the Police came to the spot, about 10 to 12 persons assembled there, he was at a shock, Therefore, he immediately did not make any effort to brake open the door of the toilet. The learned Counsel contended that he never made any attempts to save his wife. Therefore, when he was present just prior to the incident with the deceased, he did not make any effort to save the life of his wife; on the other hand he wanted to create some evidence in his favour by calling the police to the spot. Therefore the court has to draw an adverse inference. 50. Drawing of adverse inference, in my opinion is in very rarest of rare circumstances on the basis of the admission of the accused so far as the criminal cases are concerned. Such admissions, either with regard to a fact in issue, or a relevant fact should be of such a nature, it should not create even a semblance of suspicion with regard to the conduct of the accused, and such circumstance should be unerringly point to the guilt of the accuse. But here the said statement of the accused about his presence and also he made some effort to pour water to save his wife and not broke open the door etc., cannot be taken as an un-equivocal admission, so as to draw an adverse inference against him. Therefore, in our opinion, the court has to visualize the entire evidence placed before the court not only the statement of the accused. Therefore, in our opinion, the court has to visualize the entire evidence placed before the court not only the statement of the accused. If the other materials available on record unequivocally point towards the guilt of the accused in such an eventuality, admission by way of any conduct of the accused with regard to such relevant facts can be made use of as additional corroborative evidence. Therefore, such argument of the learned Counsel cannot be easily accepted. 51. The records also disclose as we have already referred to taking of the dead body from M.S. Ramaiah Hospital to Bowring Hospital wherein one of the relatives of the deceased was working by name Dr. Sarvamangala, the insertion of the words "blood in the wound" by the doctor is to some extent doubtfully established before the court. Further, it discloses that one Swamiji of Koladmath related to the deceased was very much present throughout at the time of Post Mortem examination. Further, the lavatory door being bolted from inside and no cogent materials are placed to show that the door could be bolted from outside. The doubtful circumstance with regard to the ante-mortem nature of injuries on the dead body, the witnesses who saw the dead body, have never spoken anything about the injuries on the dead body including the Taluka Executive Magistrate coupled with the conduct of A1, who according to the other witnesses also poured water from outside in order to save his wife. These are all the circumstances which create a serious doubt with regard to the death of the deceased. When the case of the prosecution surrounded with mysteries and also suspicious circumstances, then the court cannot say that the death of the deceased has been proved to be a murder beyond all reasonable doubt. When the court is of such opinion that the death was not a homicidal death, the other alternative inference should be that the death must have been caused due to suicide. Hence, giving such benefit of doubt, we propose to answer this point that the prosecution has established before the court that the death occurred by means of burn injuries and the same amounts to a suicidal death and not a homicidal death. POINTS 2 AND 3. 52. Hence, giving such benefit of doubt, we propose to answer this point that the prosecution has established before the court that the death occurred by means of burn injuries and the same amounts to a suicidal death and not a homicidal death. POINTS 2 AND 3. 52. In order to answer the second and third point for consideration formulated by us, it is just and necessary to bear in mind few facts projected by the prosecution in order to establish the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act and also for the offences under Sections 304B, 306 and 498A of the IPC. 53. The prosecution has projected the facts that the marriage between the 1st accused and daughter of PW16 by name Simpa was taken place on 5.9.1999. Prior to the marriage in the month of February 1999, there was negotiation and at that time, the accused persons one Mahesh, his wife Meena and all the family members of the complainant viz; Channaveerappa were present. During that time, the accused persons have demanded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- cash and gold chain, gold karadige, suit, silk clothes, diamond ring and five sets of gold jewelries to the bride Simpa. Thereafter Channaveerappa expressed his incapacity and has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- cash, gold chain, bracelet, diamond ring, gold karadige, watch, suit, silk clothes and three sets of gold ornaments to Simpa along with six silk sarees and matrimonial engagement was agreed to be fixed on 28.04.1999. At the time of engagement, as agreed upon, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was given as dowry and other articles as noted above were also given in consideration of the marriage and the marriage was performed on 4th and 5th of September 1999. Therefore, it is contended that the accused persons have committed the offence under Section 3 of the D.P. Act 54. It is the further case of the prosecution that, about two months later after the marriage, the accused persons have started ill-treating and harassing the deceased Simpa in demand of cash of Rs. 10,000,00. In that context, the father of the deceased - PW6 Channaveerappa made arrangements for payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lakh) and the same was given to the accused persons. 10,000,00. In that context, the father of the deceased - PW6 Channaveerappa made arrangements for payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lakh) and the same was given to the accused persons. In spite of that, persistence for demand of dowry did not stop, ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased Simpa intensified for the purpose of extracting the remaining amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 55. Apart from the above, the prosecution also projected that the parents of the deceased have spent lot of money at the time of marriage and they actually sent the couple for honeymoon by spending Rs. 20,000/- and they have also given lot of gold and silver articles and household articles on demand by the accused persons on several ceremonies and functions. In that connection also, the accused persons have ill-treated and harassed deceased Simpa. Their ill-treatment and harassment was to such an extent that the deceased could not tolerate, and it drew the deceased to commit suicide and such ill-treatment was sufficient to commit suicide by the deceased. In this background, the prosecution has relied upon the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court. 56. In the above said scenario, the learned High Court Government Pleader and also the learned Counsel for the appellant (Complainant's Counsel) strenuously argued that the Court has to re appreciate the entire materials on record. It should not give much importance to minor mistakes and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. It is contended that though there are some contradictions and omissions compared to the First Information Report, inquest and earlier statement of the witnesses and subsequent statements before the CCB police, however, acceptable and believable evidence is available before the Court against the accused. Therefore, whatever the evidence placed before the Court has to be taken into consideration by the Court. He further contended that much importance should not be given to the contradictions and omissions, particularly in dowry death cases. He also contends that the witnesses, though they are close relatives, particularly in the dowry death case, the evidence of the parents and the close relatives of the deceased play a dominant role. Therefore, he contends that the evidence placed before the Court are sufficient to draw an inference that, due to the ill-treatment and harassment by the accused in demand of dowry prior to and after the marriage, it actually drew the said lady to commit suicide. Therefore, he contends that the evidence placed before the Court are sufficient to draw an inference that, due to the ill-treatment and harassment by the accused in demand of dowry prior to and after the marriage, it actually drew the said lady to commit suicide. In the event this Court comes to a conclusion that it is not a murder and it is a suicide by the deceased, then the Court can draw inference on the basis of the evidence that the accused persons are solely responsible for the death of the deceased who died a suicidal death. 57. As we have already held while discussing point No. 1 that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons have committed the murder of the deceased and therefore, the offence does not fall under Section 302 of the IPC. Therefore, in view of the above said submissions, the Court has to see whether the act or omission or any conduct of the accused persons in any manner falls within the four corners of the above said provisions of law. 58. In this background, some of the rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants, in our opinion, are also important to be taken note of before adverting to the evidence on record, which are as under: (1) AIR 1975 SC 1252 between Podda Narayana & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that; "There is no need to mention every minute detail in the First Information Report mentioning the overt acts of each and every accused. It is neither customary nor necessary to go in detail to narrate the story of the prosecution. The object of Section 174 of Cr.P.C. is very limited. It can only be used for the purpose of ascertaining whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an un-natural death and if so, what the apparent cause of the death is. It is neither customary nor necessary to go in detail to narrate the story of the prosecution. The object of Section 174 of Cr.P.C. is very limited. It can only be used for the purpose of ascertaining whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an un-natural death and if so, what the apparent cause of the death is. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and scope of Section 174 Cr.P.C. The object of holding any inquest as can be seen from Section 175 Cr.P.C. is only to ascertain whether a person died natural death, or a homicidal death or due to un-natural death like suicide." The learned Counsel submitted that, in this case also much importance should not be given to the contents of the FIR and also the statement made by PW13 and PW16 at the time of inquest proceedings. Those statements shall be looked into only for limited purpose as guided by the above decision. (2) 1997 SCC (CRL.) 981 between Harpalsingh v. State of Haryana & Others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made an observation that - "Merely because a material witness was not examined by the prosecution, a criminal court is not lean to draw the adverse inference that if he was examined, he would have given a contrary version. The illustration (g) in Section 114 of the Evidence Act is only a permissible inference and not a necessary inference. Unless there are other circumstances also to facilitate the drawing of an adverse inference, it should not be a mechanical process to draw the adverse inference merely on the strength of non-examination of a witnesses even if it is a material evidence". It was also held that - "The supplementary statement of the first informant recorded by the Investigating Officer could only have been used to contradict the witnesses in view of the interdict contained in Section 162 of Cr.P.C. the statement cannot be used for comparing with the First Information Report. The Investigating Officer elicit more details from such persons, during any subsequent interrogation, his evidence does not become suspect. The Investigating Officer elicit more details from such persons, during any subsequent interrogation, his evidence does not become suspect. It is not advisable to throw the evidence of the informant over phone, merely because the Investigating Officer succeeded in eliciting further details or even fuller details during subsequent interrogation." In this case, the learned Counsel drew our attention that the subsequent statements of the witnesses before the CCB Police giving the details and also the said statements are fully supported by the evidence before the Court. Though there are some contradictions and omissions in the evidence of these witnesses, the overall case of the prosecution has to be looked into and the Court has to see what the truth in the evidence before the Court is. Therefore, the Court should not give much importance to the minor contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. (4) The learned Counsel also cited another ruling reported in, (2005) SCC (CRL.) 113 between Parsuram Pandey and others v. State of Bihar - wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that - "The contradictions inconsistencies, exaggeration or embellishments in putting the story by the prosecution about the starting of the incident cannot wash away the entire incident proved by eyewitnesses. If no prejudice shown to have caused to the accused due to the irregular, imperfect recording of statement u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. accused is not entitled to the benefit for the defective recording of the statement." (5) The learned Counsel also cited another ruling reported in (2006) 1 SCC (CRL.) 134 in the case of Devindersingh and others v. State of Punjab, wherein the Apex Court observed that,- "In the absence of the deceased, testimony of her parents would be most relevant - Evidence regarding continuous dowry demands and consequent cruelty and harassment to the wife becomes more believable where a young woman having a small child of 15 months and another in her womb, ended her life." 59. By citing the above said rulings, the learned Counsel for the appellants has strenuously contended that the Court has to bear in mind the conduct of the accused persons prior to the marriage and after the marriage and also the evidence placed on record. By citing the above said rulings, the learned Counsel for the appellants has strenuously contended that the Court has to bear in mind the conduct of the accused persons prior to the marriage and after the marriage and also the evidence placed on record. On over all analysis of the entire materials on record, if the Court is of the opinion that the evidence of the close kith and kin of the deceased can be believed, there is no reason to deny justice to the victim, the Court has to magnanimously analyze and appreciate the evidence of the close relatives of the deceased. Therefore, in this case the entire case would base on the relatives' evidence. But their evidence has to be very carefully scanned, scrutinized and accepted by the Court. Hence he pleaded for accepting the evidence of the witnesses and to convict the accused for the above said offences. 60. Contrary to this, the learned Counsel for the accused Sri. C.H. Hanumantharaya has strenuously contended that, in this particular case, there are huge contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding demand of dowry prior to and after the marriage as alleged by the prosecution witnesses. There is long delay in recording the statement of the witnesses by the Investigating Officer, who took over the investigation subsequently that is by the CCB police. 61. In this regard, the learned Counsel relied upon the decision reported in, AIR 1971 SC 804 in the case of Balakrushna Swain v. State of Orissa, wherein the Apex Court held that, "The unjustified and unexplained long delay and recording the statement and material witnesses by the Investigating Officer will render the evidence of such witnesses unreliable." In support of the same contention, he relied upon another ruling reported in, 2005 Cri.L.J 1913 in the case of Vishwanath and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it was held that, "Delay in recording the statement of crucial witnesses in the absence of explanation of delay cannot render the witnesses reliable." 62. The learned Counsel also submitted before the Court that the failure of the witnesses to give particulars of dowry demand either in the complaint to the police or during the course of subsequent investigation makes the evidence of said witnesses unreliable. The learned Counsel also submitted before the Court that the failure of the witnesses to give particulars of dowry demand either in the complaint to the police or during the course of subsequent investigation makes the evidence of said witnesses unreliable. Where the evidence rendered by the witnesses is totally bereft of the foundation, either in the First Information Report or in the statement at the earliest point of time that is at the time of inquest but totally improved before the Court while giving evidence, such evidence has to be very carefully scrutinized by the Court. The learned Counsel further submits that there is no hard and fast rule as to how the evidence of the witnesses has to be analyzed by the Court. But the golden principles should be born in mind by the Court, that with all care and caution and over all analysis of the entire materials on record, it should convince the conscience of the Court that such evidence can be relied upon, particularly if the witnesses are the relatives who are interested in the case of dowry death cases, their evidence has to be very carefully candidly scanned. 63. In this background, the earlier statements at the time of inquest, contents of the First Information Report and their evidence before the Court play a very important rule. Though they cannot be compared with each other, nevertheless, the proven material omissions and contradictions, if they go to the root of the allegations made against the accused, the court should be very slow to accept the same without any corroboration from other independent source. 64. After hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel, the Court has to see the materials placed before the Court by the prosecution whether on the basis of the entire materials on record, the prosecution is able to prove the offences alleged against the accused. Before adverting to the evidence adduced by the prosecution for the above said offences, it is just and necessary for this Court to bear in mind what proof is required in order to prove the above said offences. 65. Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 reads as under: "3. Before adverting to the evidence adduced by the prosecution for the above said offences, it is just and necessary for this Court to bear in mind what proof is required in order to prove the above said offences. 65. Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 reads as under: "3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.- (1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with the fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to or, in relation to,- Presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without nay demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in list maintained in accordance with rule made under this Act; Presents which are given at the time of marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with rules made under this Act; Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given. 4. Penalty for demanding dowry.--If any person demands directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months." 66. In order to prove the above said provisions, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a demand for dowry or any consideration towards the marriage prior to the marriage. In order to prove the offences under Section 4 of the D.P. Act, there must have been persistent demand for dowry at the time or after the marriage and either it must have been complied or there was consistent and persistent demand by the accused persons. 67. In order to prove the dowry death, the prosecution has to prove certain ingredients of Section 304B of the IPC, which reads as under: "304B. Dowry death- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation- For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life." 68. In order to prove the offence in this particular provision, the prosecution has to prove that the death of a woman, particularly in this case Smt. Simpa was due to burn or fatal injuries occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, there is no dispute that the death of the deceased Simpa occurred due to burn and fatal injury and it was occurred otherwise than in normal circumstances. The marriage was taken place in the year 1999 and death was occurred in the year 2002. Therefore, the death was occurred within seven years of her marriage. The marriage was taken place in the year 1999 and death was occurred in the year 2002. Therefore, the death was occurred within seven years of her marriage. These ingredients have been in fact established before the Court, but the prosecution has to prove that the death was not only occurred due to otherwise than normal circumstances within seven years of marriage, but the death was occurred due to subjecting the deceased to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with any demand for dowry, then only the said death can be called as dowry death and for the purpose of this Section, dowry was in the same manner as in Section (2) of the D.P. Act. 69. Therefore, the ingredient that the death was occurred due to subjecting of the deceased to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand for dowry is the essential ingredient, which has to be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Even if the offence under Section 304B is not established, the Court has to see whether the offence falls under Section 306 of the IPC. Section 306 of the IPC reads as follows: "306. Abetment of suicide If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 70. In order to attract this provision, the accused persons must have abetted the suicide committed by the deceased. In this case, we have already held that the deceased has committed suicide within seven years of her marriage and also the said death is an unnatural death. Whether the death of the deceased was due to any illegal act or omission or the conduct of the accused and they actually facilitated the deceased to commit suicide. Though the abetment is not defined under Section 306 of the IPC, the Court has to fall back upon Section 107 of the IPC, which defines what is meant by abetment, which reads as under: "107. Though the abetment is not defined under Section 306 of the IPC, the Court has to fall back upon Section 107 of the IPC, which defines what is meant by abetment, which reads as under: "107. Abetment of a thing A person abets the doing of a thing, who - First- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1- A person who by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing." 71. Insofar as this case is concerned, the prosecution has to establish that the accused persons abetted the said suicide by the deceased by instigating the deceased or intentionally aided by their act or illegal omissions driving the lady to commit suicide. Therefore, the conduct of the accused persons plays a very dominant role in order to attract Section 306 of the IPC. 72. In order to prove the offence under Section 498A of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove certain conduct of the accused as noted in the said provision. Section 498A of the IPC reads as under: "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also liable to fine. Section 498A of the IPC reads as under: "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also liable to fine. Explanation- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means- (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 73. In order to prove this provision, the prosecution must prove that the deceased Simpa was subjected to cruelty or harassment and such cruelty or harassment was by the husband or by the relatives of the husband and the cruelty meted out by them was with a view to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical or such harassment was with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security or on account of failure of such woman or any person related to her to meet such unlawful demand. 74. On perusal of the above said provisions so far as it relates to this case, the whole case of the prosecution is concentrated on the fact that, the accused persons have ill-treated and harassed the deceased in cruel manner with an intention of coercing her and her father to meet their unlawful demand by way of demanding valuable properties and also cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- prior to the marriage and Rs. 10,00,000/- after the marriage. On account of failure on the part of the deceased Simpa and her father to meet such demand, the cruelty was intensified by the accused persons which reached to the climax and resulted in the death of the deceased. 75. 1,00,000/- prior to the marriage and Rs. 10,00,000/- after the marriage. On account of failure on the part of the deceased Simpa and her father to meet such demand, the cruelty was intensified by the accused persons which reached to the climax and resulted in the death of the deceased. 75. As could be seen from the entire materials on record, there is no other reason explained either by the witnesses or by the prosecution that, for any other reason the accused persons have harassed or treated the deceased Simpa in cruel manner. Therefore, the trial Court has also relied upon the evidence in order to ascertain whether the ill-treatment and harassment was made in order to extract more dowry or money or other valuable things at the instance of the deceased and her father. 76. The prosecution in order to prove the above said provisions relied upon the evidence of PWs. 5 to 9 and 12 to 16. PWs. 13 and 16 are the parents of the deceased. PWs. 12 and 15 are respectively the sister and brother of the deceased. PW5 is the senior paternal uncle of the deceased. PWs 6 and 7 are the neighbors of PW16 and PW8 is the sister of PW16. Therefore, it goes without saying that all these witnesses are closely inter-related to each other. 77. Before adverting to the evidence of these witnesses, it is just and necessary for this Court to go through the contents of the First Information Report and also the earliest statement made by the parents PWs. 13 and 16 at the time of inquest. 78. Ex. P42 is the UDR F.I.R. registered on the basis of the statement of the husband of the deceased, (accused No. 1) wherein he has categorically stated that, on 30.05.2002 at about 7.30 am, when himself and his wife Simpa were standing in the front yard of their house along with their child, the deceased Simpa handed over the child to DW1 -accused and went to attend the nature call. She did not return soon. Therefore, the husband went to the back yard lavatory and saw that some smoke and flames were coming from the lavatory, immediately he made attempts to pour water to save the deceased and simultaneously he informed the police. She did not return soon. Therefore, the husband went to the back yard lavatory and saw that some smoke and flames were coming from the lavatory, immediately he made attempts to pour water to save the deceased and simultaneously he informed the police. After police came there, they came to know that the deceased Simpa committed suicide by pouring kerosene and litting fire on herself. This is the earliest statement made by DW1, which is also later translated into evidence in the deposition of DW1 (accused No. 1). 79. Subsequently, after receiving the information of the death of the deceased Simpa PWs. 13 and 16 came to the spot and in fact at the time of inquest, (Ex. P.2) they have given their statement before the Taluka Executive Magistrate -PW20 Mr. N.R. Sudhakar, wherein PW16 has stated that he performed the marriage his daughter Simpa in accordance with customs and as 'Varopachara' he has given a bracelet, golden karadige, golden chain, a ring and Rs. 25,000/- cash to the bridegroom and also golden jewelries worth Rs. 5,00,000/- to his daughter. It is also stated that, after the marriage the accused persons were mentally and physically ill-treating and harassing the deceased. Further on 29.05.2002, he came to know about the death of his daughter and he came to Ramaiah hospital and saw the dead body and thereafter he gave the statement and also the complaint. On the same facts and allegations he lodged the First Information Report. 80. In this background, the police have registered the case and investigated the matter. At the earliest point of time, the investigation was done by the jurisdictional police and later the same has been transferred to CCB police and they have investigated the matter. Now in this background, the Court has to examine the evidence on record. 81. The evidence of PWs. 13 and 16 disclose that, at the time of inquest or at the time of the First Information, they have only stated that, as 'Varopachara' they have given certain articles and cash of Rs. 25,000/- to the bridegroom and also given clothes and ornaments worth Rs. 5,00,000/- to the bride. Nowhere in these two documents is it specifically stated that those articles were persistently demanded by the accused persons. 25,000/- to the bridegroom and also given clothes and ornaments worth Rs. 5,00,000/- to the bride. Nowhere in these two documents is it specifically stated that those articles were persistently demanded by the accused persons. But subsequently, during the course of investigation also, they have not stated before the Investigating Officer about the said demand prior to the marriage. But after lapse of one month from the date of registration of the case, the CCB Police have taken over the case and witnesses given their further statement before the Police. But the contradictions elicited from the mouth of these two witnesses and the same has been proved by the evidence of the Investigating Officer show that they have not even stated so before the Investigating Officer. As we have re-looked to the statement of these two witnesses, at the time of inquest and also at the time of the First Information Report they have never stated regarding any of the accused demanding dowry of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as alleged. Even on the next date of the incident, Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of these two witnesses, but admittedly they have only re-iterated the facts as stated by them during the inquest proceedings. The statement of PW12 in fact was not at all recorded by the Investigating Officer, but she has stated before the CCB police subsequently after the lapse of one month for the first time. As could be seen from the evidence of PWs. 13, 15 and 16 in their evidence itself, they have admitted that they have not stated all those things at the time of inquest, First Information Report or at the earlier point of time when the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement with regard to demand of dowry of Rs. 25,000/-. But they have reiterated that all those things were given by way of 'Varopachara'. 82. It is worth to note here the evidence of the Investigating Officer who is examined before the Court as PW23 - Mr. S.P. Nayak, who has stated that, from December 1999 to 15.07.2007, he was working as ACP of CCB Police. On 28.06.2002, he recorded the statement of Smt. Ratna and Channabasappa (PW 13, and 16). In the course of cross-examination at pages 22 to 29, the material contradictions have been elicited. S.P. Nayak, who has stated that, from December 1999 to 15.07.2007, he was working as ACP of CCB Police. On 28.06.2002, he recorded the statement of Smt. Ratna and Channabasappa (PW 13, and 16). In the course of cross-examination at pages 22 to 29, the material contradictions have been elicited. He has admitted that witnesses have not stated those things as stated by them in the examination-in-chief with regard to the demand of Rs. 25,000/- gold articles as dowry or as consideration for the marriage. For the first time after the lapse of one month after the incident, the said witness deposed before the CCB Police, but even before the CCB Police as admitted by the Investigating Officer, they have not vividly and more meticulously stated that those articles were given by way of dowry. 83. Though the evidence of those witnesses cannot be out-rightly rejected, nevertheless, has to be very carefully scrutinized. When other material witnesses, according to the prosecution, were also present at the time of this marriage talks i.e., to say one Mr. Mahesh and his wife Meena, those witnesses were not examined before the Court for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Hence the evidence of these two witnesses has to be rejected with a pinch of salt. 84. PWs. 5 to 7 have also deposed before the Court that they were present at the time of marriage talks and accused have demanded dowry and other articles in consideration of marriage and subsequently PW16 gave such cash and ornaments at the time of marriage. It is worth to note here that these witnesses were not cordial with PW16 at the time of engagement programme or at the time marriage and naming ceremony of the child of the deceased. They are no other than the brother and neighbor of PW16. The documents produced before the Court by the accused which were confronted and marked at Exbts. D8 to D26 show that presence of these witnesses was conspicuously not there and none of the family of PW5 is found in the said photographs. PW16 has not admitted that his sisters are given in marriage and they are residing at Bangalore and PW5 never visited the house of the deceased till the death of the deceased. D8 to D26 show that presence of these witnesses was conspicuously not there and none of the family of PW5 is found in the said photographs. PW16 has not admitted that his sisters are given in marriage and they are residing at Bangalore and PW5 never visited the house of the deceased till the death of the deceased. Though such suggestions have been denied, nevertheless, there are some materials to show that PW5 was not cordial with PW16 as per the evidence of defense witnesses. Therefore, perhaps that may be reason they were not found in the photographs at the time of engagement function. The searching and detailed cross-examination has been adverted to these witnesses in order to prove that, during marriage talks, these articles were not at all given by way of dowry and also as consideration of the marriage. The evidence of PWs. 13 and 16 - parents of the deceased show that, at the time of marriage talks, the accused persons have demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- and gold ornaments. Accordingly, PW16 has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- during engagement and they were given at the time of marriage. But the accused persons have contended that, at no point of time, they demanded dowry. This has been reiterated in the evidence of DW1 and it is also admitted by the accused persons that those articles and a cash of Rs. 25,000/- were actually given by PW16 as agreed at the time of engagement and given them at the time of marriage. But those things were voluntarily given as per the customs prevailed in their community and not on any demand by the accused persons. 85. Therefore, the evidence let in by the accused persons, particularly DW1 and other witnesses clearly establishes that there is no overall denial by the accused persons with regard to these articles and cash amount, but they have stated that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was given to accused No. 1 for clothes, but not as dowry. 86. Ex. D59 is the portion of the statement of PW16 marked and proved before the Court through the Investigating Officer. It reveals that, he has earlier stated that, at the time of marriage, a diamond ring and ornaments worth Rs. 5,00,000/- were given to the bridegroom as Varopachara'. 86. Ex. D59 is the portion of the statement of PW16 marked and proved before the Court through the Investigating Officer. It reveals that, he has earlier stated that, at the time of marriage, a diamond ring and ornaments worth Rs. 5,00,000/- were given to the bridegroom as Varopachara'. PW15 - Nagaraj who is no other than the son of PW16 (son of the deceased) in his statement at Ex. P33 has also repeated the same factual aspects that those articles were given as Varopachara'. It is also fortified by the evidence of PW9 - Smt. Rekha at Ex. D27 that these articles were not given as Varopachara' and accused persons never did not demand nor they ill-treated the deceased in demand of dowry. 87. The other witnesses PWs. 12 and 15 who are the sister and brother of the deceased, have reiterated in their evidence in support of the evidence of PW13 and 16. The evidence of these interested witnesses is almost similar in all respects. Therefore, there is absolutely no need to discuss their evidence in detail word by word and witness by witness. With regard to demand of dowry, PW13 has categorically admitted that PWs. 12 and 15 were not there are at the time of marriage talks. Therefore it is clear that, PWs. 12 and 15 tried to exaggerate the things and they also stated about the demand and receipt of the amount and jewelries in consideration of the marriage. When at the earliest point of time in the First Information Report, inquest and also at the time of subsequent statement before the Investigating Officer, there is absolutely no whisper from any of the witnesses that those articles were demanded and received by the accused persons, but while investigation was handed over to the CCB Police, at the time of recording their further statement, the prosecution has stated that the accused demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- and they have agreed to pay Rs. 25,000/- and also the ornaments, which clearly amounts to improvement step by step by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the trial Court has declined to accept the statement of those witnesses. 88. It is worthwhile to note here that the CCB police have recorded further statements of most of the witnesses after a month. 25,000/- and also the ornaments, which clearly amounts to improvement step by step by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the trial Court has declined to accept the statement of those witnesses. 88. It is worthwhile to note here that the CCB police have recorded further statements of most of the witnesses after a month. When such serious and incriminating evidence was available with these witnesses, they never stated anything at the time of First Information Report or at the time of inquest or at the time when their first statement was recorded by the earlier Investigating Officer. At least why they have waited for one month to state such important facts before the CCB Police is nowhere explained. We are at loss to understand that, at the time of the inquest and the First Information Report, the parents and relatives might be in grief due to the death of their daughter and under such circumstances, they might not have given a detailed, meticulous and vivid statement. But they have to explain, though they have an opportunity, whenever their subsequent statement was recorded, why they have not stated all those things before the earlier Investigating Officer. Even otherwise, if the Investigating Officer has not recorded their statement properly, why they have waited for one month till the CCB Police recorded their statement. What transpired during these one month is not stated by any of the witnesses and why they have kept mum for all these days without disclosing the same to any of the Police Officers? Therefore, though all the witnesses have stated in their examination-in-chief regarding demand of dowry and ill-treatment and cause of death in detail, but they have not stated so even before the CCB Police. In the course of cross-examination of PWs. 22 and 23 who are the Investigating Officers, all these contradictions have been meticulously proved. Therefore, it goes to show that lot of improvements have been made by these witnesses after long lapse of one month. Even during the course of evidence, they have improved a lot by deposing what they have not stated even before the Investigating Officers PWs. 22 and 23. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the accused, their evidence has to be rejected. Even during the course of evidence, they have improved a lot by deposing what they have not stated even before the Investigating Officers PWs. 22 and 23. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the accused, their evidence has to be rejected. Therefore, when there evidence is not natural and trust worthy for acceptance and their improved version stage by stage create a serious doubt with regard to their conduct. Hence their evidence deserves no credibility. 89. In this context, the evidence of the defense also plays an important role. We have already referred to the evidence of DW1 who has accepted the receipt of an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and the other ornaments. DW4 has also stated that PW16 has agreed to give Rs. 20,000/- to accused No. 1. But subsequently he agreed to pay Rs. 20,000/-. Accordingly, PW2 has given only Rs. 20,000/- to purchase clothes. At the time of marriage talks, one Mahesh and his wife Smt. Meena were also present. In fact PW16 has also accepted this particular factum. The records disclose that in the charge sheet also this Mahesh was cited as CW26 and Smt. Meena was cited as CW27. But they were not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. It is never stated by PW16 in his evidence that these two witnesses are not cordial with each other and they were not at all present at the time of marriage talks. But he never stated why those witnesses are left out from examination. These witnesses particularly Mahesh was examined before the Court as DW4. He has categorically stated that, he and his wife Smt. Meena were present at the time of marriage negotiations. Photographs produced before the Court also establishes their presence and the non-examination of these Mahesh and Meena was held to be fatal by the trial Court. We also found that the prosecution at least should have explained why these witnesses were left out unnecessary and why only close relatives were examined insofar as this aspect is concerned. DW4 has categorically stated that there was absolutely no demand of any cash or any jewelry by the accused persons and all those things were agreed to be given as Varopachara'. Therefore, the prosecution has not established with regard to demand of Rs. 25,000/- and other jewelries as stated by PWs. DW4 has categorically stated that there was absolutely no demand of any cash or any jewelry by the accused persons and all those things were agreed to be given as Varopachara'. Therefore, the prosecution has not established with regard to demand of Rs. 25,000/- and other jewelries as stated by PWs. 13 and 16 by way of dowry or as consideration of the marriage. Therefore, when material witnesses have not been examined, an adverse inference has to be drawn by the Court. Accordingly, we also do not accept the evidence of these witnesses insofar as this aspect is concerned. Certain discrepancies have also been seen in the evidence of these witnesses. Some of the witnesses have stated that dowry was given to accused No. 2, but some witnesses have stated that the dowry amount was given to accused No. 1 etc. There is no consistency in the evidence of the witnesses. The evidence of the witnesses regarding demanding of dowry by accused Nos. 1 to 3 and PW16 giving the same, in our opinion, is also not reliable and credit worthy. The omissions and contradictions, which we have observed, proved through PWs. 22 and 23 are not mere omissions. They amount to contradictions go to the root of the prosecution case. Of course, mere delay as noted in the above said Supreme Court decisions in examining the witnesses is not sufficient to discard, but the nature of evidence given, conduct of the witnesses and the time gap in giving such opportunity to the witnesses, and immediately not disclosing the truth before the competent authorities, have also to be counted before accepting or discarding the evidence of those witnesses. Therefore, the decisions cited by the Counsel for the accused that the unexplained delay, particularly long delay in cases like this, in recording the statement of the witnesses and not giving any proper explanation why they have kept quiet for so many days and why their statement is not recorded by the earlier Investigating Officer, why they have not stated all the details at least at the time of their second statement, makes their evidence unworthy for acceptance. 90. Now coming to the subsequent demand of dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/- as demanded by accused No. 1, we have once again re-evaluated the evidence of important witnesses i.e., PWs. 90. Now coming to the subsequent demand of dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/- as demanded by accused No. 1, we have once again re-evaluated the evidence of important witnesses i.e., PWs. 13, 16, 14 and 15, who have spoken to insofar as this demand is concerned. According to these witnesses, immediately after two months of the marriage, the accused have started ill-treating the deceased by demanding additional dowry. PW14 has stated that the accused demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- immediately after two months of the marriage. However, PW15 has deposed before the Court that, in the month of January 2002, the accused demanded Rs. 10,00,000/-. PW13, who is no other than the mother of the deceased has stated that the accused demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- at the time of naming ceremony of her grandson. 91. The trial Court has declined to accept the evidence on the ground that PW16 in his evidence has stated that prior to the marriage, the accused have demanded Rs. 1,00,000/-, out of which he has only paid Rs. 25,000/-. It is not that he was capable of giving the said amount, but he did not pay the same. But according to him, he was unable to meet such demand by the accused. when at the time of marriage or prior to the marriage or after the marriage, he was unable to meet the demand of the accused even Rs. 1,00,000/-, can it be said knowing fully well the capacity of PWs. 16 and 13, the accused persons could have demanded Rs. 10,00,000/-, particularly when the accused no 1 is a software engineer and earning hand sum salary. Therefore, the trial Court held the said circumstances as improbable. We also fortify the said observation as a possible observation on the basis of the facts of the trial Court. No where the prosecution witnesses have stated that the accused demanded the said amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as dowry. The important witnesses including father and mother of the deceased PWs. 13 and 16 have stated that the accused demanded the said amount for the purpose of starting a factory. The amount, even if it is demanded, cannot be called as a dowry. But nevertheless, as argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant any amount in consideration of the marriage, if it is demanded prior to or subsequent to the marriage amounts to dowry. 92. The amount, even if it is demanded, cannot be called as a dowry. But nevertheless, as argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant any amount in consideration of the marriage, if it is demanded prior to or subsequent to the marriage amounts to dowry. 92. It is the case of the prosecution that PW16 has stated in his evidence that, out of Rs. 10,00,000/- he made arrangements for payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-. He in fact has given a detailed and vivid description as to how he secured this amount. He arranged such a huge amount by selling the coffee crops, borrowing a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from PW14 and a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs from Vijaya Bank. PW14 in fact is an advocate, who has stated that he gave Rs. 50,000/- to PW16. It is pertinent to note here these incriminating materials are only stated at the time of their statement being recorded by CCB Police as already narrated, after a lapse of one month from the date of the incident. PW14 being a lawyer, he has not produced any material to show that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was given as hand loan to PW16. This also creates a serious doubt as to why no documentation has been made. Even PW14 being an advocate knows the consequence of making such hand loan without there being any record to that effect. This type of evidence can be created at any time therefore it is difficult to believe such evidence also. 93. PW16 has also produced certain document i.e., Ex. P36 - the certificate issued by Vijaya Bank for having borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 13.05.2002. The evidence of PW16 reveals that he has taken a crop loan to meet the expenses of the maintenance of coffee crop. But except Ex. P36, no other document has been produced before the Court. Ex. P36 also does not disclose all the details of the crop loan accorded by the said bank. This Ex. P36 was issued on 05.08.2002. According to PW16, he has taken loan on 13.05.2001. The demand by the accused persons as per the evidence of PW16 was in the month of January 2002. After the death of the deceased, this document was secured on 05.08.2002. It also creates a serious doubt whether this amount of Rs. This Ex. P36 was issued on 05.08.2002. According to PW16, he has taken loan on 13.05.2001. The demand by the accused persons as per the evidence of PW16 was in the month of January 2002. After the death of the deceased, this document was secured on 05.08.2002. It also creates a serious doubt whether this amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was utilized for the purpose of maintaining the crops or to meet the demand of accused persons. If at all this amount was taken as a crop loan for the purpose of meeting the expenses of maintaining the crop, and if that amount was not utilized for maintaining the crop, how the crops were managed is not explained by PW16. It also creates a doubt whether after the death of the deceased, though this person has taken the crop loan and utilized for the said purpose, but that has been used for the purpose of laying a false claim against the accused. In the absence of examining any witness in this regard, as to whether this crop loan was properly utilized for maintaining the crop or the same was utilized for any other purpose, the Court cannot come to a definite conclusion that this amount was utilized for meeting the demand of the accused. It is quite understandable that when once the bank grants any crop loan to PW.16, there would be a regular monitoring by the bank authorities to ensure that the said amount was utilized for the purpose it was granted to him. Therefore, it creates a serious doubt whether such payment as crop loan is not properly utilized and the same was used for meeting the demands of the accused. 94. Another document produced as Ex. P37 that PW16 has received Rs. 3,00,000/- from Prime Associates and Ex. P38 is an endorsement issued by the Prime Associates. It is stated that PW16 has paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. According to him, deceased Simpa had been to Somawarpeth, the native place of PW16 on 24.05.2002 and after mobilizing the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- he requested PW6 Chandrasekhar to go along with the deceased to the house of PW12 - Champa and wait for accused No. 1 to come to the house of PW12 and hand over the said cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- to accused No. 1. According to the prosecution story, PW6 took Rs. 5,00,000/- he requested PW6 Chandrasekhar to go along with the deceased to the house of PW12 - Champa and wait for accused No. 1 to come to the house of PW12 and hand over the said cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- to accused No. 1. According to the prosecution story, PW6 took Rs. 5,00,000/- and handed over to accused No. 1 in the presence of PW12. PW12 has also stated about the same. If really PW16 has sufficient source of income, why he has to borrow the money from PW14 and also from the bank. Moreover, the said amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is not a small amount and it is not that the accused No. 1 has demanded the same by way of dowry. It is stated that the said amount was for the purpose of establishing the factory. Therefore, PW16 ought to have given this money either by way of cheque or by way of DD. Why he has given the same by way of cash is also not established before the Court. The accused have insisted or demanded for payment of said money by way of cash is also not established before the Court. The author of the said document is also not examined before the court. It is not that the accused have insisted or demanded for payment of said money by way of cash. This also creates reasonable doubt with regard to arranging the money as stated by P.W. 16. 95. The testimony of PW6 coming to the house of PW12 and handing over the amount to accused No. 1 is also not believable, because of the simple reason that, even this meticulous description as given in the statement of this witness, has not been stated before the investigation officers. As we have already discussed the evidence of PWs. 22 and 23 which disclose that, whatever they have stated about this payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- subsequently by mobilizing the said amount and payment of the said amount to the accused are all conspicuously not there in their earlier statement and it is proved to be an improvement before the Court. As we have already discussed the evidence of PWs. 22 and 23 which disclose that, whatever they have stated about this payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- subsequently by mobilizing the said amount and payment of the said amount to the accused are all conspicuously not there in their earlier statement and it is proved to be an improvement before the Court. All the witnesses invariably in their oral statement before the Investigating Officers have not at all disclosed these important facts, but they have deposed for the first time before the Court, perhaps, may be the reason subsequent to their statement before the CCB police, they have created a story meticulously regarding the payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the accused. Therefore, such evidence has also rightly not been accepted by the trial Court. 96. Once again, at the cost of repetition, we refer the evidence of PW23, who in his evidence during the course of cross-examination, at pages 7 to 30, the improvement and contradictions are elicited. The contradictions in the evidence of PW5 - Guruswamy, PW6 - S.C. Chandrasekhar, PW7 - H.B. Krishnappa, PW8 - Suma, PW9 - Rekha Mohan, PW14 - A.S. Mahesh, PW16 - Channaveerappa have been elicited, that what the above witnesses have stated before the Court with regard to subsequent demand of dowry in particular manner sending PWs. 6 to the house of PW12 all these facts have not been stated in their earlier statements. When such being the case, how evidence before the Court alone can be accepted. Therefore interestedness of the witnesses is apparent on the face of their evidence which creates a serious doubt with regard to their conduct. 97. Therefore, after meticulously analyzing the evidence on record, the trial Court has observed that, when there is a long cleavage between the statement of these witnesses earlier made to the police and the evidence before the Court, the said evidence cannot be used for the purpose of drawing any inference against the accused persons. 98. Looking to the above said materials on record, even after re-evaluation of the evidence of these witnesses, we are also of the opinion that the witnesses are not only related to each other, but also closely to the deceased. They have made lot of improvements from time to time. 98. Looking to the above said materials on record, even after re-evaluation of the evidence of these witnesses, we are also of the opinion that the witnesses are not only related to each other, but also closely to the deceased. They have made lot of improvements from time to time. Of course, once again we reiterate that there is no hard and fast rule to disbelieve the evidence of related witnesses. They should not be without any reason dubbed as interested witnesses. The interestedness of the witnesses has to be qualified and quantified on the basis of the materials on record. If the evidence by the witnesses are natural and it is forthcoming without any embellishment and they have no intention to falsely implicate the accused persons into the crime, then only the evidence of such witnesses can be believed. That is how the Apex Court has opined that their evidence has to be very meticulously scanned and scrutinized in order to ascertain the truth or falsity in their evidence. Neither the truth nor falsity can be ascertained from the evidence of those witnesses. When such situation occurs, it is difficult to hold that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt with regard to the said demand of dowry, either prior to the marriage or after the marriage, and that there was any ill-treatment or harassment to the deceased in demand of the said dowry or any articles in consideration of marriage. It cannot also be said that, by means of their conduct, the accused persons have demanded any dowry or any valuable consideration after the marriage and due to which the deceased has committed suicide and that the ill-treatment was to such an extent that it was sufficient to drive a woman to commit suicide. 99. Now coming to the other circumstances pleaded by the prosecution witnesses, though they have not been meticulously stated in their statement earlier, it is the case of PW16 that after the marriage they send the bride and bridegroom to honeymoon and in fact PW16 has spent Rs. 20,000/-. But the same has been denied by the other side. Contrary to that, DW1 in his statement has stated that even after the marriage, even without the knowledge of PW16, he has booked for honeymoon and they went to several places. In this regard, he has produced Ex. 20,000/-. But the same has been denied by the other side. Contrary to that, DW1 in his statement has stated that even after the marriage, even without the knowledge of PW16, he has booked for honeymoon and they went to several places. In this regard, he has produced Ex. D72 that he has actually spent money for their honeymoon. On the other hand, PW16 has not produced any document to show that he has spent an amount of Rs. 20,000/-. It is further stated by PW13, the mother of the deceased that, after two months of the marriage, there was some demand by the accused persons and the ill-treatment started. But no where in the evidence of these witnesses any of the witnesses have stated what was the nature of ill-treatment meted out by the accused persons on the deceased. Only by using of the word that the accused persons have ill-treated and harassed is not sufficient to draw an inference that in a particular manner, the accused persons were ill-treating and harassing the deceased. Further added to that, except stating the demand of dowry and other articles and persistent demand for the said amount, no witnesses have stated whether there was any physical or mental ill-treatment to the deceased otherwise than such demand. 100. In this background, the Court has to see the evidence of these witnesses with regard to other factors. PW13 has stated that, after two months of the marriage, the accused No. 1 and deceased came to their house. At that time, PW13 had given Deepale kamba, arathi battalu, kumkum battalu, silver idols on demand by accused No. 1. It is stated that the accused have also demanded a cot, kitchen set and almirah and in fact these were also given to them. Therefore, they say that PW16 gave cash of Rs. 30,000/- in order to purchase all these things. It is further stated that, at the time of Seemantha to the deceased for her first issue, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 have insisted for arranging Seemantha at Bangalore and in fact PW16 at his cost performed the Seemantha and gave several gold ornaments to Simpa and gave gold karadige and clothes to accused No. 1. It is further stated that, at the time of Seemantha to the deceased for her first issue, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 have insisted for arranging Seemantha at Bangalore and in fact PW16 at his cost performed the Seemantha and gave several gold ornaments to Simpa and gave gold karadige and clothes to accused No. 1. It is further stated that at the time of naming ceremony of their grandson, they gave gold bracelet, ring, chain, silver plate, and bowl with spoons to the child and sari to their daughter. The prosecution has also produced Exs.P21 to P30 - receipts to show that PW16 has purchased gold ornaments at different places and naming ceremony and Seemantha were also conducted by PW16. 101. Looking to the above said circumstances, in our opinion, the evidence of PWs. 13 and 16 in this regard becomes totally unnatural, because of the simple reason, whatever they have given to their daughter and even to the son-in-law and grandson, which are customary in nature and with lot of love and affection at the relevant point of time even conducting of Seemantha in the house of accused No. 1 and naming ceremony of their grand son and giving some articles by way of gift or by way of love and affection have been converted into dowry and also ornaments given on demand by way of consideration of marriage subsequent to the death of the deceased. There is no semblance of material to show that, at the time giving statement before the police they have stated that these articles were given by way of dowry or in consideration of marriage. It appears to us after the death of the deceased even small matters have been converted in to allegations against the accused by PWs. 13 and 16 and all the relatives. Perhaps, in order to see that the accused are sent behind the bars, they have even meticulously nurtured few of the tiny things which happen in almost all the families as incriminating materials against accused person. It goes without saying that in almost all the families giving of the clothes, gold articles conducting of Seemantha ceremony are all customary in nature. Even it is very usual, in middle class and poor parents also conduct such customary functions to their capacity. In our opinion it is unwarranted on the part of PWs. It goes without saying that in almost all the families giving of the clothes, gold articles conducting of Seemantha ceremony are all customary in nature. Even it is very usual, in middle class and poor parents also conduct such customary functions to their capacity. In our opinion it is unwarranted on the part of PWs. 13 and 16 to create such a story that they have conducted all those customary performance or ceremonies only on demand by the accused persons. Therefore, when the circumstances show that those ceremonies and performances are improbably having been done by PWs. 13 and 16, only on the insistence and demand by the accused, probably they must have done with all love and affection as per the customs. Looking to the conduct of these witnesses it is apparent that they are highly interested witnesses who can exploit small tiny matters to lay a false case against the accused persons. Even otherwise there is lot of inconsistencies regarding alleged ill-treatment and harassment by the accused in order to secure all those things. Hence the trial Court is also properly appreciated these materials on record. We do not want to differ from the said findings. 102. According to the prosecution, the accused having ill-treated the deceased by not allowing her to use the telephone and made all attempts to separate the child from the deceased and deceased joined job for some time in order to avoid the ill-treatment by the accused persons. Nowhere in the evidence of PWs. 13 and 16, have they stated that during the period of converture PW16 has convened any Panchayath requesting any of the elders of both the families, in order to advise the accused persons not to ill-treat or harass the deceased. This is the natural conduct which is expected of a father and even at no point of time, it is stated that they have received any phone calls from the deceased and any letters from the deceased, making allegations of ill-treatment or harassment against the accused persons. It is quite relevant to note here that the prosecution has not made any efforts even during the course of investigation or at the time of evidence before the Court to examine any one of the neighboring witnesses of the accused persons to establish the conduct of the accused persons in this regard. It is quite relevant to note here that the prosecution has not made any efforts even during the course of investigation or at the time of evidence before the Court to examine any one of the neighboring witnesses of the accused persons to establish the conduct of the accused persons in this regard. They are natural and proper witnesses to establish or to corroborate the evidence of the related witnesses. Therefore, in our opinion, the non-examination of material witnesses Mahesh and his wife Meena and non-examination of DW6 with regard to the death of the deceased, though those witnesses were available to the prosecution and no explanation is offered for not examining those witnesses, who were in fact examined by the accused on his side, creates a serious unexplained doubt regarding the truth of the prosecution case. Such benefit also enure to the benefit of the accused. 103. Therefore, looking from any angle, in our opinion, the prosecution has not established with regard to the demand of dowry and ill-treatment or harassment to the deceased in demand of dowry by the accused persons. According to the prosecution, it is an admitted fact by PW16 that at the time of Seemantha programme, naming ceremony and marriage of the deceased and also the marriage talks prior to the marriage, the photographs and video were taken. And even subsequent to the marriage lot of programmes was conducted in the house of PW16 and for all those programmes, the accused and deceased have participated. Even it is there in the evidence those ten days prior to the death of the deceased, birthday of accused No. 1 was celebrated in the house of PW16. Photos produced by DW1 reveals that PW5 - brother of the deceased, PW16 and his family members were not at all participated in any of these functions. That shows that subsequently, PW16 might have persuaded PW5 his brother to give evidence in support of their cases. It also creates a serious doubt with regard to the natural conduct of PW16 and the events naturally taken place must have been converted as incriminating materials against the accused. 104. The evidence of material witnesses PWs. 12, 13 to 16 as we have already referred, is quite contrary to each other. Admittedly, marriage of accused Nos. 4 and 5 was performed much earlier to the marriage of the deceased. Accused Nos. 104. The evidence of material witnesses PWs. 12, 13 to 16 as we have already referred, is quite contrary to each other. Admittedly, marriage of accused Nos. 4 and 5 was performed much earlier to the marriage of the deceased. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 are none other than the sister and her husband, of accused No. 1 who have been staying separately much earlier to the marriage of accused No. 1. In only one sentence it is stated in the evidence of PWs.13 and 16 that accused Nos. 4 and 5 have insisted the deceased to bring money and nowhere in the evidence it is elicited on what dates and at what time these accused Nos. 4 and 5 were present in the house of accused No. 1 and ill-treated and harassed the deceased. This clearly goes to show that, because of their relationship with accused No. 1, they were unnecessarily dragged to the Court and false allegations have been made against them. Only one sentence by way of allegation that they also insisted the deceased to bring money, such mere allegation bereft of any proof is not reliable and creditworthy. It clearly goes to show the false allegations with accused No. 4 and 5. All the witnesses deposed for the first time before the Court with regard to the ill-treatment and harassment. But as we have referred to the evidence of the witnesses, nowhere in their earlier statement they have stated anything about the ill-treatment or harassment by accused Nos. 4 and 5. 105. In this background, it is also worth to note here some evidence of DW1 and DW7. It is stated by PW13 that in the year 2001, her husband was admitted to Wockhardt hospital due to heart problem. Accused No. 1 requested PW13 to go to his place and at that time itself, the deceased telephoned to PWs. 13 stating that her Mangalya Chain was torn by accused No. 1 and she requested accused not to give torture to her. In fact PW16 also went to the house of accused and advised him. But according to PW16, taking advantage of the situation that PW16 was suffering from heart problem, they demanded remaining amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the ground that, when PW16 can spend money for his heart treatment, why he cannot give another Rs. 5,00,000/- to accused No. 1. In fact PW16 also went to the house of accused and advised him. But according to PW16, taking advantage of the situation that PW16 was suffering from heart problem, they demanded remaining amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the ground that, when PW16 can spend money for his heart treatment, why he cannot give another Rs. 5,00,000/- to accused No. 1. PW13 further stated that, during February 2002, accused Nos. 2 and 3 called her to come to their house and at that time, they have demanded such an amount. Contrary to this, DW1 has led the evidence. He has deposed that, he was not so inhumane to demand such an amount from PW16. Even admitting the version of PW16 in such a manner, it is stated by DW1 that after discharge from the hospital, PW16 was advised to take rest. Hence DW1 made arrangements in his company guesthouse from 07.11.2001 till 18.12.2001. DW7 - Mr. Prasannakumar, an accountant of the company in which A-1 was working, has deposed before the Court that accused No. 1 has actually booked a room for PW16 and PW16 stayed in the said guesthouse and DW1 has paid such an amount as per Ex. P104 and DW7 has identified his signature at Ex. P104B and accused No. 1 put his signature at Ex. P104A. DW7 is an independent witness. Why he has to tell falsehood before the Court is not explained. On the other hand, it is the natural conduct of DW1, who shows that he actually helped PW16 in making accommodation in the guesthouse belonging to the company of accused No. 1. Therefore, it clearly goes to show that the conduct of DW1 cannot be easily ignored and that he inhumanly demanded any money at that time. In this context, DW5 - father-in-law of PW12, close relative of PW16. has also stated that PW16 was admitted to Wockhardt hospital and at that time, he paid Rs. 1,40,000/- to PW16 for medical expenses and after discharge, PW16 stayed in Koramangal Guest House for 25-30 days. Though he has not produced any material to show the payment of Rs. 1,40,000/-, nevertheless, the staying of PW16 in the guest house is fortified. Though PW16 has denied having been used the guest house, but according to him, he stayed in the Koladmath in Bangalore but none has been examined from said Koladmath. Though he has not produced any material to show the payment of Rs. 1,40,000/-, nevertheless, the staying of PW16 in the guest house is fortified. Though PW16 has denied having been used the guest house, but according to him, he stayed in the Koladmath in Bangalore but none has been examined from said Koladmath. Though the witnesses of both sides have not properly established this fact, it goes to show that the cordial relationship between the accused and PWs.16 and 13 were there even prior to the death of the deceased. But abruptly after the death of the deceased, each and every small circumstances, which were not at all sufficient to lodge any complaint against accused, appears to have been made use of by PW16. 106. The learned Counsel for the accused also brought to our notice that, on several occasions, the accused left India to different places. The sequence of events from 05.09.1999 to 30.05.2002 for a period of 2 years 8 months, on several occasions and most of the time, the accused has left the country on his official duties as he is a Software Engineer and he used to get lots of money by doing work in the foreign countries. In this regard, Exs.P83 and P84 are the visa and passport produced before the Court, which fortifies the said claims of DW1. It is also an admitted fact by the prosecution witnesses that, often the deceased Simpa used to visit parental house. According to the evidence of DW1, as and when he used to go to the foreign country, it was an agreement between the parties that he has to leave his wife Simpa in her parent's house and whenever he comes back from foreign country, he has to take her to back to matrimonial home at Bangalore. The evidence of defence witness should also be given the same credit as that of the prosecution witnesses. If really torture started after two months of marriage, the accused ought not to have been left his wife to stay in her parents' house on so many occasions 107. The evidence of defence witness should also be given the same credit as that of the prosecution witnesses. If really torture started after two months of marriage, the accused ought not to have been left his wife to stay in her parents' house on so many occasions 107. Looking to the above said evidence, though DW1 has taken a different stand that he used to give money to the mother-in-law (mother of the deceased) and she was doing chit business out of the said money and she was also using the said money for gaining interest by giving loans to different persons, but no such materials are produced to accept the evidence of DW1. 108. On over all looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case and over all the analysis of the entire materials on record, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence before the Court with regard to small things and small ceremonies performed by the PW16 including naming ceremony and Seemantha, giving gifts to the daughter and grandson were all taken into consideration as consideration of marriage that shows the conduct of PWs.13 and 16 that they are not trustworthy for acceptance. Even those circumstances cannot be used by any ordinary prudent man against the accused persons, but they want to use those circumstances also in order to create certain evidence against the persons. Therefore, in this background, their statement earlier made to the police at the time of inquest and while giving the First Information Report to the police plays a very dominant role in order to ascertain the contradictions, omissions in the evidence placed before the Court by these witnesses. 109. Therefore, we are of the opinion that, looking to the facts and circumstances even on re-assessment of the evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this Court cannot come to any other conclusion than the one reached by the trial Court. 109. Therefore, we are of the opinion that, looking to the facts and circumstances even on re-assessment of the evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this Court cannot come to any other conclusion than the one reached by the trial Court. As we have already said that, even this Court is of the opinion that some materials are sufficient to draw any different inference, but the Court should be reluctant to draw such inference when appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court is fully based on the materials on record and such opinion of the judge with regard to the reliability and credit worthiness of the witnesses is also possible. 110. For the above said reasons, we are of the opinion that none of the offences under Sections 304B, 306 or 498A of the IPC or under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act have been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 111. Therefore, the appeals fail and accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.