JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant-A1 against the conviction and sentence imposed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam, in SC No. 1 of 2005 vide judgment dated 19.4.2007. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The appellant-A1 is the son of Venkata Rao (A2) and Siromani (A3). Madhavi Rani (A4) is the sister of A1 and wife of Satyanarayana (A5). PWs.1 and 2 had a daughter by name Mukkamala Uma Devi (for short, 'the deceased'). The marriage of the deceased was performed with A1 on 2.7.1999 at Annavaram Satyanarayanaswamy Temple as per Hindu Customs and at that time, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was agreed to be given in addition to 25 sovereigns of gold and Acs.3.00 of land to A1. The parents of the deceased gave gold and also cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- in instalments to the accused as and when demanded. After the marriage, the deceased lived happily for 10 days and thereafter, all the accused started harassing, humiliating and torturing her. While the deceased was carrying pregnancy, PWs.1 and 2 sent Naidu Sobha Rani and Naidu Bhabu to the house of the accused to bring the deceased. But, the accused refused to send her and demanded Rs. 1,50,000/- towards balance dowry. Four or five days thereafter, PW2 and Naidu Bhabu went to the house of the accused and paid Rs. 50,000/- and brought the deceased to her parents’ house. The deceased was blessed with a male child. But the accused did not see the child and deceased. PWs.1 and 2 made conciliation and the accused demanded the remaining dowry amount. PW1 paid an amount of Rs. 80,000/- to A1 through one Janakamma. A1 and the deceased left from joint family and they are together living in a separate house. When PWs.1 and 2 came to know that the deceased was carrying pregnancy for the second time, PW1 and PW9 went to the house of the accused to take her for delivery and at that time, the accused demanded and forced PW1 to sell away Acs.3.00 of land, which was promised to be given at the time of marriage. While the deceased was carrying 7th month pregnancy, PW1 tried to bring her. But, the accused refused to send her. The deceased gave birth to a female child at a hospital but the same was not informed to PWs.1 and 2. While the deceased was carrying 7th month pregnancy, PW1 tried to bring her. But, the accused refused to send her. The deceased gave birth to a female child at a hospital but the same was not informed to PWs.1 and 2. When the parents of the deceased went to the hospital, the accused did not allow them. On one occasion, A1 squeezed the neck of the deceased and beat her indiscriminately, due to which, she was admitted in a hospital at Vijayawada. When PW3 went to the hospital, the deceased informed her that the accused has been harassing her to meet unlawful demands of dowry. Prior to 10.8.2003, the deceased spoke to her father-PW1 over telephone and informed about the ill-treatment of the accused for want of dowry and she also informed that she is unable to bear the same. On 10.8.2003, all the accused killed the deceased for want of additional dowry by squeezing her neck and on being informed, when PWs.1 and 2 and others went to the house of the accused and questioned about the death of the deceased, A1 brought a knife and hacked on the head of PW17-who is the brother of PW1 and other accused sprinkled chilly powder in the eyes of PWs.1, 2 and others. On 11.8.2003 at about 3 a.m., PW1 presented a report, basing on which a case was registered and investigated into. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 3. The trial Court framed charges for the offence under Sections 304-B IPC and 498-A IPC against A1 to A5; 324 IPC against A1 and Sections 3(1) and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against A1 to A5, read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 23 were examined and Exs.P1 to P17 and MOs.1 to 7 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral evidence was adduced. But Exs.D1 to D8 were marked on behalf of the accused. 5. 4. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 23 were examined and Exs.P1 to P17 and MOs.1 to 7 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral evidence was adduced. But Exs.D1 to D8 were marked on behalf of the accused. 5. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court having found the appellant-A1 alone guilty for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304B IPC and Sections 3(1) and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, convicted and sentenced him as follows, while acquitting the other accused for the charges levelled against them: (1) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 304-B IPC; (2) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 3(1) of the Dowry Prohibition Act; (3) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; (4) Though the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, no separate sentence was awarded in view of the sentence awarded to the major offence viz., 304-B IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the appellant-A1 filed the present appeal. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant-A1 contended that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is hear say evidence and therefore, much credence cannot be attached to their evidence and that there is no evidence to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before her death and the prosecution failed to satisfy the ingredients of Sections 304-B IPC and 3(1) and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and that the death of the deceased is natural and the conviction recorded by the trial Court is based on mere surmises and conjectures. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgments rendered in Rakhal Debnath v. State of West Bengal, (2012) 11 SCC 347 ; Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and others v. State of Maharashtra, 2011 (1) ALD (Crl.) 616 (SC) = (2010) 13 SCC 657 ; Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others, (2011) 12 SCC 408 ; T. Aruntperunjothi v. State through S.H.O. Pondicherry, (2006) 9 SCC 467 ; Rohtash v. State of Haryana, 2012 (2) ALD (Crl.) 340 (SC) = (2012) 6 SCC 589 ; Pathan Hussain Basha v. State of A.P., (2012) 8 SCC 594 ; Suresh Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2009 (2) ALD (Crl.) 243 (SC) = (2009) 17 SCC 243 ; Devinder alias Kala Ram and others v. State of Haryana, 2013 (1) ALD (Crl.) 452 (SC) = (2012) 10 SCC 763 and Shindo alias Sawinder Kaur and another v. State of Punjab, 2012 (1) ALD (Crl.) 652 (SC) = (2011) 11 SCC 517 . 7. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are no substantial grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellant-A1 and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Now, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: "Whether the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the appellant-A1 warrant any interference by this Court?" 9. Point: It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant-A1 subjected the deceased to harassment and he is responsible for the death of the deceased in unnatural circumstances. 10. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence on record. The entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. Point: It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant-A1 subjected the deceased to harassment and he is responsible for the death of the deceased in unnatural circumstances. 10. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence on record. The entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. In a case of this nature, the case of the prosecution has to be subjected to the tests as laid down in Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and others, AIR 1990 SC 79 , wherein the apex Court held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. Bearing the above principles in mind, it has to be seen as to whether the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution leads to draw any presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act against the appellant-A1. 11. PW1-father of the deceased deposed as follows: The marriage of the deceased with A1 was performed on 2.7.1999 and at that time, he agreed to give Rs. 5,00,000/-, 25 sovereigns of gold and Acs.3.00 of land. The land and gold was given at the time of marriage. But no cash was given at the time of marriage and no document was executed for giving the land at the time of marriage. The deceased and A1 lived happily for a period of five months. Out of Rs. 5,00,000/-, a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- was given two months after the marriage in the presence of LWs.5, 6, 8 and 9. Five months thereafter, the accused refused to send the deceased on the ground that remaining dowry amount was not given. The deceased and A1 lived happily for a period of five months. Out of Rs. 5,00,000/-, a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- was given two months after the marriage in the presence of LWs.5, 6, 8 and 9. Five months thereafter, the accused refused to send the deceased on the ground that remaining dowry amount was not given. Thereafter, he sent his wife and Naidu Bhanu along with a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and they brought the deceased for delivery. Two months thereafter, the deceased was blessed with a male child at Nuzvid Hospital. They informed about the same to the accused. But none came to see the deceased and her child. When he informed the accused to take the deceased, the accused refused to take on the ground that the remaining amount of dowry was not paid. He paid Rs. 20,000/- and promised to pay the remaining amount when A1 and the deceased set up separate residence. On the next day morning, he sent the deceased along with Rs. 20,000/- through Ponnam Janakamma. Subsequently, A1 and the deceased started living separately in Aripirala Village and at that time, they gave household samans and cash of Rs. 80,000/-. He reiterated the contents alleged in the charge-sheet. He further deposed that when his wife, his third daughter and LW27 went to village of Aripirala, the accused beat them. A1 pressed the neck of his third daughter. A3 threw away the bread and fruits in the hands of PW2. A1 to A3 did not allow them to meet and speak to the deceased. In his cross-examination, he deposed that in Ex.P1 he got it mentioned that the cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- and 25 sovereigns of gold were given at the time of marriage. In Ex.P1 there is no mention about his giving Acs.3.00 of land to the deceased at the time of marriage. He did not state either in Ex.P1 or P2 or in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that five months after the marriage the accused refused to send the deceased that they failed to give the remaining amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. He did not state either in Ex.P1 or Ex.P2 that five days thereafter, he sent his wife along with cash of Rs. 50,000/- and they brought his daughter for delivery. 1,50,000/-. He did not state either in Ex.P1 or Ex.P2 that five days thereafter, he sent his wife along with cash of Rs. 50,000/- and they brought his daughter for delivery. He did not state either in Ex.P1 or P2 that Ponnam Janakamma was approached by him and informed to ask the accused to take his daughter and then, she sent a word to A1 and A2 to take his daughter and then, A1 and A2 informed that they would not take his daughter until they paid the remaining amount of dowry. He cannot say either the date or month or year in which the accused demanded to give the cash by selling away Acs.3.00 of land. All the harassment and ill-treatment made by the accused was known to him only when his daughter informed him in person or by phone. On 11.8.2003 M.R.O. recorded his statement and the contents of his statement were read over to him and he stated in Ex.P2 since two years they have not seen the deceased. He came to know at 1.30 p.m., on 10.8.2003 that the deceased was killed. The said fact was informed to him by Gopalarao of Rangannagudem. He came to the place where the dead body of the deceased was found at 5 p.m., on 10.8.2003 and about 200 relatives came to the said place in several cars, tractors and motorcycles and by the time, they came all the five accused were there. The distance between the house of A1 to A3 and Nandivada Police Station is 4 Kms. He went to police station on 11.8.2003 at about 2.30 a.m., and presented Ex.P1. He deposed that the children of the deceased have been residing with A1 to A3 only and he did not make any attempt to take the children of the deceased either by giving notice or by filing any petition. Out of Acs.3.00 of land gifted to the deceased Ac.1.50 cents is mango garden and the remaining Ac.1.50 cents is wet land. He did not deposit the income on the Acs.3.00 of land in the name of children of the deceased. He admitted that he does not know whether A1 returned from the fields at about 10.30 a.m., on 10.8.2003 and found the deceased vomiting. 12. PW2-mother of the deceased deposed in his chief-examination in the same lines as spoken to by PW1. He admitted that he does not know whether A1 returned from the fields at about 10.30 a.m., on 10.8.2003 and found the deceased vomiting. 12. PW2-mother of the deceased deposed in his chief-examination in the same lines as spoken to by PW1. In cross-examination, she admitted that the children of the deceased have been living with A1 and they never tried to take the custody of those children. She further stated in her cross-examination that the harassment or ill-treatment meted out to the deceased from the accused was only known to her when the deceased informed either personally or over phone. She admitted that she stated before the M.R.O., that since two years they have not seen the deceased. 13. PW3-sister of the deceased deposed in her chief-examination nearly on the same lines as spoken to by PWs.1 and 2. In her cross-examination, she admitted that they never lodged any report to the police about the alleged harassment made by accused. She admitted that she might have stated to the M.R.O. that she has not seen her sister since two years. She admitted that PW1 gave Acs.3.00 of mango garden to her and to her younger sister-PW16 towards pasupukumkuma. 14. PW4-husband of the sister of the deceased deposed in his chief-examination as spoken to by PW3. In cross-examination, he stated that PW1 agreed to give Acs.3.00 of land to the deceased and he went to the house of A1 only once. Except the deceased stating to him about the harassment made by the accused, he has no personal knowledge. He further stated in his cross-examination that he advised PW1 to gift Ac.1.50 cents to each of the children of the deceased, but he did not respond either positively or negatively. 15. PW5-maternal uncle of the deceased deposed in chief-examination as spoken to by PW1. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he was present at the time when PW1 gave Rs.3,50,000/- at the house of A1, but he cannot say to whom the said amount was handed over by PW1. He does not know whether any demand was made to sell away Acs.3.00 of land after the 2nd pregnancy of the deceased. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he was present at the time when PW1 gave Rs.3,50,000/- at the house of A1, but he cannot say to whom the said amount was handed over by PW1. He does not know whether any demand was made to sell away Acs.3.00 of land after the 2nd pregnancy of the deceased. He does not know the alleged harassment made by the accused, but he came to know about the said harassment when the deceased told him, He deposed that he did not state to the M.R.O. in Ex.D4 to the effect that since two years, PWs. 1 and 2 and they did not see the deceased. 16. PW6 is one of the panchayatdars to the inquest conducted over the dead body of the deceased. PW7-Panchayat Secretary deposed that he recorded the confessional statement given by A1 before him. The said statement was recorded as Ex.P6 subject to the objection that the copy of the same was not furnished to the accused. In his cross-examination, he admitted that while he was taking Ex.P6 statement from A1, he found one or two Constables outside the Panchayat Office. 17. PW8 deposed that he came to know that there are some disputes between the deceased and A1 and he never acted as mediator for any of the disputes between them and he does not know personally about the misunderstandings between A1 and the deceased. 18. PW9 deposed that PW1 is his cousin brother. He went to the house of A1 along with PW1 when the deceased was carrying pregnancy for the second time. When PW1 asked A1 to send the deceased, he refused to send the deceased as there was balance amount of dowry payable to him. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he never acted as mediator in connection with the differences between A1 and the deceased. PW1 agreed to gift Acs.3.00 of land to the deceased and also cash of Rs.5,00,000/-. 19. PW10-Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased found the following marks on the dead body of the deceased: (1) Skin around the neck is black in colour. Underlying neck structures are normal; (2) Face, neck, and front of chest up to the level of upper end of sternums are black in colour. 19. PW10-Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased found the following marks on the dead body of the deceased: (1) Skin around the neck is black in colour. Underlying neck structures are normal; (2) Face, neck, and front of chest up to the level of upper end of sternums are black in colour. There is marbling of veins found over the front of chest; (3) ½” x ½” abrasion over the middle of anterior aspect of left thigh. Black in colour. According to him, the cause of death of the deceased is Vasovagal shock due to pressure over the neck. He further stated that Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 may be caused due to pressure, but they also may be caused due to putrefying changes. In cross-examination, he stated as follows: "He did not find any finger nail marks over the neck and chest of the deceased. He found frothy and bloody mucus escaping from the mouth and nostrils. According to Modi, if a person falling facing downwards into vomited matter or on the sand or on floor during an epileptic fit, death may occur. Even if the wind pipe was blocked by a foreign body like vomited material or mucus, the death may occur. This Vasovagal shock can be caused due to a sudden and unexpected fall, then there will be a cardiac arrest due to vagal inhabitation. In a case of asphyxia death, there will be petical haemorrhages over the brain. Even a small object blocking the lumen partially may cause death by laryngeal spasm. All the injuries are on the front portion. These injuries could be caused by a fall facing downwards. As seen from the dead body the underlying neck structures are normal. As seen from the injuries and the possibilities, he may not confirm, it is a homicidal death." 20. PW11 is the Police Constable, who handed over the dead body of the deceased to the blood relations. 21. PW 12-maternal uncle of the deceased deposed that he once heard the deceased talking over telephone to LW11-Gopalarao and informing him that she was being harassed by the accused and that she wanted to meet LW 11. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he heard the conversation in between the deceased and LW 11 in the telephone. He admitted that the telephone of LW 11 had no capacity of speaker phone. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he heard the conversation in between the deceased and LW 11 in the telephone. He admitted that the telephone of LW 11 had no capacity of speaker phone. He admitted that he never acted as mediator with regard to the alleged harassment made by the accused. The evidence of PW12 is falsified by the evidence of PW 13 (LW 11)-grandfather of the deceased, who deposed that he does not know about the details of the dowry etc. He knew about the alleged harassment through PWs.1 and 2 and he has no personal knowledge about the harassment by the accused and he does not know who killed the deceased. He further deposed that while the deceased was carrying third month pregnancy, he went to the house of the accused and requested them to send the deceased to her parents’ house but the accused refused to send the deceased to her parents’ house on his request. The accused demanded either the articles or for some money. Therefore, much credence cannot be given to the evidence of PW 12. 22. PW14 deposed that PW1 came to him as there were disputes relating to dowry and asked him to accompany him to the house of A1 and he went to the house of A1. When PW1 asked the accused to send the deceased, the accused demanded balance dowry and PW1 told them that he need not pay any amount as he already paid the entire amount. He admitted in his cross-examination that he went along with PW 1 to the house of A1 in order to bring the deceased and they returned within fifteen minutes. He admitted that he does not know how much dowry was given by PWs.1 and 2 to their three daughters. 23. PW15 deposed that the deceased along with A1 and A3 came to her house to convey their condolence to her on the death of her husband. She deposed that the deceased came into the bedroom and contacted her mother over phone. She deposed that she heard the deceased telling her mother over phone that she was being subjected to lot of mental and physical harassment She admitted in cross-examination that she did not hear the replies given by PW2 to the deceased. 24. She deposed that the deceased came into the bedroom and contacted her mother over phone. She deposed that she heard the deceased telling her mother over phone that she was being subjected to lot of mental and physical harassment She admitted in cross-examination that she did not hear the replies given by PW2 to the deceased. 24. PW16-sister of the deceased deposed that the deceased informed her when she came to her parents’ house that A1 to A3 are not treating her properly and they were harassing her. She subsequently heard about the mediations and panchatyat at the house of Ponnam Janakamma. Her evidence in chief-examination is falsified by her cross-examination. She admitted in her cross-examination that she came to know about the alleged dowry and other things through her parents and she has no personal knowledge about the alleged harassment. She admitted that her parents never agreed to give Acs.3.00 of land to the deceased nor they gave any income from that land. 25. PW17 turned hostile. PW18 deposed that when he was in the field of Rajugaru as coolie, LW19-Ramaswamy came and informed him that the deceased fell down and asked him to arrange a tractor. Then, he brought the tractor to the house of the accused and A1 and himself carried the deceased in the said tractor to the hospital and thereafter, the deceased was shifted to Hanuman Junction Hospital and the doctor examined her and declared as dead. In his cross-examination, he deposed that on the way to the hospital, the deceased vomited. 26. PW19-Compounder in Seetharamalakshmi Nursing Home deposed that while he was in the ward, the deceased was brought and was laid on the table and he found her dead. 27. PW20, who was M.R.O., of Nandivada Mandal deposed that he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. 28. PW21-N. Srinivas deposed that he used to attend to small treatments. On the date of incident, A1 brought the deceased in a tractor and he saw the pulse of said Umadevi and advised them to take to her to Gudivada Government Hospital. 29. PW22-S.I. of Police deposed that on 11.8.2003 at about 3 a.m., PW1 came and gave Ex.P1 report, basing on which, he registered a case. PW23 is the Investigating Officer. 30. On a perusal of the entire evidence, it is obvious that there was no cogent and consistent evidence on record. 29. PW22-S.I. of Police deposed that on 11.8.2003 at about 3 a.m., PW1 came and gave Ex.P1 report, basing on which, he registered a case. PW23 is the Investigating Officer. 30. On a perusal of the entire evidence, it is obvious that there was no cogent and consistent evidence on record. PW7-Panchayat Secretary deposed that A1 confessed before him. But in his cross-examination, he admitted that while he was recording the statement of A1, Police Constables were present outside the panchayat. Therefore, it cannot be said that it was voluntary and as such, much sanctity cannot be attached to it. 31. Insofar as the demand of dowry is concerned, the evidence of PW16-who is the sister of the deceased, falsifies the entire case of the prosecution. She categorically admitted in her cross-examination that her parents never agreed to give Acs.3.00 of land to the deceased nor they gave any income from that land. Further, the evidence of PW4 in his cross-examination that he advised PW1 to gift Ac.1.50 cents to each of the children of the deceased but he did not respond either positively or negatively, belies the case of the prosecution. 32. The evidence of all the material witnesses has not withstood to the tests in their cross-examination so as to elicit the truth. There are many contradictions in their cross-examination. It is admitted that the children of the deceased have been staying with A1 only and the parents of the deceased did not make any efforts to bring those children. If really, the appellant-A1 is responsible to the death of the deceased, the attitude of PWs.1 and 2 in not bringing the children of the deceased, is quite unnatural. 33. It is pertinent to note that one of the essential ingredients in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and 304B IPC, is the concerned woman must have been soon before her death subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry. From the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and 16, it is obvious that they have not seen the deceased since two years prior to her death. Even if it is assumed that the appellant-A1 used to harass the deceased for dowry amount, the attitude of the parents of the deceased in not seeing their daughter for a period of two years is quite unnatural. Even if it is assumed that the appellant-A1 used to harass the deceased for dowry amount, the attitude of the parents of the deceased in not seeing their daughter for a period of two years is quite unnatural. The prosecution did not examine any of the neighbours to establish as to whether there were any disputes between A1 and the deceased soon before her death. On a mere fact of death of a woman in the house of the accused, presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act against the accused cannot be drawn. There must be proximity or live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and concerned death. The evidence of all the material witnesses is only a circumstantial evidence. The circumstances stated by them do not point out the guilt of the appellant-A1 by disclosing any proximity and link between the cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. Apart from that, the medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution. 34. In view of above circumstances, this Court feels that it is not a fit case to draw any presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act against the appellant-A1. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offences under Section 304-B IPC are not sustainable. 35. Insofar as the other offences viz., Sections 498-A IPC and 3(1) and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are concerned, the evidence of PW16 in her cross-examination that her parents never agreed to give Acs.3.00 of land to the deceased nor they gave any income from that land, and her parents gave Rs.20,000/- towards cost of produce, falsifies the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 with regard to the alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry. There is no cogent evidence on record with regard to any harassment by the accused. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the conviction recorded for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offence under Sections 3(1) and 4 of D.P. Act are also not sustainable. 36. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellant-A1 for the offences are not sustainable and hence, they are liable to be set aside. 37. 36. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellant-A1 for the offences are not sustainable and hence, they are liable to be set aside. 37. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam, in SC No. 1 of 2005 vide judgment dated 19.4.2007 against the appellant-A1 for the offence under Sections 304-B IPC and Sections 3(1) and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the conviction recorded for the offence under Section 498-A IPC against him. Consequently, the appellant-A1 is acquitted for the said charges. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties are discharged.