JUDGMENT : Budihal R.B., J. 1. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.11.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court -IV, Bangalore city in Sessions Case No. 660/09, is called in question in this appeal by the State. By the said judgment, respondents 1 to 5 have been acquitted by the trial Court. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments Ex. P1 are that P.W. 1 who is the father of deceased Manjula lodged the complaint before Yelahanka police station, Bangalore alleging that he is having two sons and one daughter. Manjula was given in marriage to respondent No. 1/accused No. 1 on 2.4.2008. At that time, Rs. 1,00,000/- cash and 5 tholas of gold were given to bridegroom and marriage was performed in Kalamma Temple Choultry at Davangere as per Hindu custom. Accused No. 1 was working in DTDC couriers at Chamrajpet and after the marriage, accused No. 1 was staying in Sanjeevininagar at Hebbal, Bangalore. After the marriage, for about one month, accused No. 1 and the deceased Manjula lead happy marital life. After two months, all of a sudden deceased Manjula came to her parental place and on enquiry, she told that her husband has borrowed loans and that he is in need of Rs. 50,000/- urgently and he has sent her to bring the amount from her parents and in that regard he has also abused her in filthy language. Thereafter, the complainant borrowed the amount from somebody and he himself came to Bangalore and paid the amount to accused No. 1 and requested accused No. 1 to treat his daughter properly. Six to seven months thereafter, again deceased Manjula came to her parental place and informed P.W. 1 that accused No. 1 again insisted her to bring Rs. 50,000/- and in that connection he gave mental and physical cruelty to her. Again P.W. 1 brought and paid Rs. 50,000/- to accused No. 1 and requested accused No. 1 not to give any sort of ill-treatment to his daughter. When his daughter went to her husband's place, at that time also her in-laws accused Nos. 3 and 4 and accused No. 5, the sister of accused No. 1 also gave ill-treatment to her mentally, as informed by deceased Manjula. 50,000/- to accused No. 1 and requested accused No. 1 not to give any sort of ill-treatment to his daughter. When his daughter went to her husband's place, at that time also her in-laws accused Nos. 3 and 4 and accused No. 5, the sister of accused No. 1 also gave ill-treatment to her mentally, as informed by deceased Manjula. She had also informed P.W. 1 that since five days they have vacated the house and staying at Saggappa layout at Yelahanka. On 20.2.2009 morning at 10.00 a.m. P.W. 1 has received the information that his daughter has committed suicide by hanging and immediately he came to the house of his daughter at Yelahanka and found that his daughter had committed suicide in the hall, to the hook fixed to the ceiling, through the veil. The house was latched from inside. He has contended that accused Nos. 1 to 5 gave physical and mental ill-treatment in connection with dowry amount to deceased Manjula and made her to commit suicide and accordingly, he has requested to take legal action against the respondents-accused Nos. 1 to 5. 3. On the basis of the said complaint Ex. P1, case was registered in Yelahanka police station Crime No. 45/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC and FIR was issued as per Ex. P31. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution in all has examined 23 witnesses, 31 documents and got marked 5 material objects and on behalf of the defence, accused No. 1 has been examined as D.W. 1 and Exs. D1 to D10 were got marked. After considering the material placed on record, the trial Court has acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal. 5. Sri. Chetan Desai, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that so far as the payment of dowry amount of Rs. After considering the material placed on record, the trial Court has acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal. 5. Sri. Chetan Desai, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that so far as the payment of dowry amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and 5 tholas of gold there is consistent evidence on the side of the prosecution and all the witnesses examined have deposed about the same; even with regard to demand of additional dowry amount of Rs. 50,000/- twice and in that connection giving ill-treatment to Manjula by accused Nos. 1 to 5, all the witnesses have consistently deposed; when the incident has taken place in the house of accused No. 1, it is for the accused to explain how the incident has taken place if there was no any sort of ill-treatment and harassment. It is his submission that if at all Manjula has committed suicide because of stomach pain and if the accused were knowing that she was having such stomach pain, immediately, they could have taken the deceased to the hospital and they could have avoided the incident. He has submitted that all these aspects were not properly appreciated and considered by the trial Court. The trial Court has wrongly read the evidence and acquitted the accused. Hence, has submitted to allow the appeal and to convict respondents-accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the offences with which they were charged. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused Nos. 1 to 5 during the course of his arguments submitted that there is no consistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He has supported the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Sri. B.N. Jagadeesh, learned Amicus Curiae during the course of his arguments submitted that the evidence of P.W. 2, the brother of deceased Manjula clearly shows that Manjula was suffering from stomach pain, she used to take treatment and there was some medical problem with her menstrual cycle for which, accused No. 1 the husband of Manjula got treatment to his wife and in that regard, even the documents at Exs. D1 to D10 are produced. He also submitted that so far as payment of dowry amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and additional dowry of Rs. D1 to D10 are produced. He also submitted that so far as payment of dowry amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/- twice is concerned, no worth believable material is placed by the prosecution. He has also supported the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and submitted to dismiss the appeal. 7. Before discussing the prosecution case in detail, it is beneficial to refer to the evidence of each of the witnesses in brief. P.W. 1 Shivappa is the complainant and father of the deceased Manjula. He speaks about the demand and payment of dowry amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as additional dowry. P.W. 2 is the brother of the deceased. He has also spoken about payment of additional dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/-. P.W. 3, the grand father of the deceased and P.W. 4, the mother of the deceased have also spoken about payment of additional dowry amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. P.Ws. 5 and 6 are the persons acquainted with the complainant and speaks about their participation in the marriage talks and also regarding the harassment to the deceased by accused. They are also the panch witnesses to the inquest mahazar Ex. P20. P.W. 7 is the brother of the complainant. He also speaks about his participation in the marriage talks and the harassment meted out to deceased Manjula by the accused. He is also the panch witness to inquest mahazar Ex. P20. P.W. 8 is the owner of the house wherein the accused and deceased were staying and he is the panch witness to the spot mahazar Ex. P19. P.Ws. 9, 10 and 11 are known to the complainant/P.W. 1 and they have also spoken about the harassment meted out to deceased Manjula by the accused. P.W. 12 is the photographer who has taken the marriage photographs as per Ex. P4. P.W. 13 is also the photographer who has taken the photographs of the dead body as per Ex. P6. P.W. 14 is the Head Constable who apprehended the accused on 22.2.2009. P.W. 15 has submitted the Post Mortem report to the investigating officer from the hospital. P.W. 16 is the Taluka Executive Magistrate who conducted inquest mahazar proceedings as per Ex. P20. P.W. 17 is the Police Constable who took the dead body to the hospital for post mortem. P.W. 14 is the Head Constable who apprehended the accused on 22.2.2009. P.W. 15 has submitted the Post Mortem report to the investigating officer from the hospital. P.W. 16 is the Taluka Executive Magistrate who conducted inquest mahazar proceedings as per Ex. P20. P.W. 17 is the Police Constable who took the dead body to the hospital for post mortem. P.W. 18 is the Doctor who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of deceased Manjula and the P.M. report is at Ex. P29. P.W. 19 is also the Police Constable who guarded the dead body. P.W. 20 is the witness in whose presence inquest mahazar was conducted. P.W. 21 is the Police Inspector who registered the FIR and conducted part of the investigation. P.W. 22 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police who completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused. P.W. 23 is the Police Constable who is the scribe of the inquest report. D.W. 1/accused No. 1 is the husband of the deceased. He has spoken about the reason for committing suicide by the deceased. 8. It is not in dispute that deceased Manjula has committed suicide when she was staying in the house of her husband/accused No. 1. In the post mortem report Ex. P29 the doctor has mentioned that there was a ligature mark present obliquely in front of the upper part of neck above the thyroid cartilage measuring 22cm x 2cm. It is 3 cms upwards and backwards forwards the occipital region and is absent over the left side of the neck. It is situated 6 cm from the right ear lobule and 2 cm from left ear(torn). Skin over the ligature mark is dark brown, dry, hard and parchment like. The doctor has not at all mentioned any other external injuries over the body of the deceased. He has given his opinion regarding the cause of death as due to asphyxia consequent to hanging. It is the contention of the complainant and his family members that with regard to demand of additional dowry amount, accused used to give ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased and in that connection they have committed her murder and hanged. 9. Let us examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses in so far as the payment of dowry amount of Rs. 9. Let us examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses in so far as the payment of dowry amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- at the time of marriage so also, the demand made by accused No. 1 for additional dowry amount of Rs. 50,000/- twice. 10. P.W. 1 in his complaint at Ex. P1 has mentioned that after the marriage his daughter and son-in-law lived happily only for a period of one month and after two months, his daughter came to her parental place stating that accused No. 1 is insisting to bring dowry amount of Rs. 50,000/-. The evidence of P.W. 1, the father of the deceased shows that two times he had been to Bangalore and paid additional dowry amount of Rs. 50,000/- twice. But during the course of cross-examination he has deposed that he does not know in Bangalore where his daughter and son-in-law were residing. He has also further deposed that after the marriage his daughter told him that he has to give Rs. 50,000/- but he does not remember when she asked for the same. Though in the complaint Ex. P1 he has mentioned that they lead happy marital life only for a period of one month and after two months of the marriage all of a sudden his daughter came to her native place and told him about accused No. 1 demanding for additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/-, in the cross-examination he has deposed that after the marriage, after six months, his daughter told him that accused No. 1 is demanding additional dowry amount and that he arranged for the said amount by borrowing loan and also by selling jowar, but he is not having the document of borrowing the loan and there are no witnesses about the said fact. However, he denied the suggestion that accused never made demand for Rs. 1,00,000/- dowry and 5 tholas of gold and he has not given the same, so also, he denied the suggestion that accused never demanded additional dowry and not given any sort of ill-treatment to her. On page No. 10 of his deposition in the cross-examination, he has deposed that he was told that his daughter and son-in-law were happy, but accused were demanding money often. He has specifically denied that deceased Manjula was having stomach pain and because of that reason she herself committed suicide. On page No. 10 of his deposition in the cross-examination, he has deposed that he was told that his daughter and son-in-law were happy, but accused were demanding money often. He has specifically denied that deceased Manjula was having stomach pain and because of that reason she herself committed suicide. He has also deposed that he does not know what is written in the complaint Ex. P1, but the contents were read over to him. 11. Looking to the evidence of P.W. 2 who is the brother of deceased Manjula and son of P.W. 1, he has also spoken about payment of dowry amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and 5 tholas of gold at the time of marriage. He has also deposed that after the marriage his parents borrowed loan from somebody and paid additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/- at one time and another Rs. 50,000/- at another time. During the course of cross-examination he has deposed that his sister was suffering from stomach pain and she has told him about the same. He has also admitted that for the said stomach pain, she was taking medical treatment and was going to the hospital, but he does not know to which hospital she was going. This evidence of P.W. 2 falsifies the evidence of P.W. 1 that she was not suffering from stomach pain. We have also perused the documents Exs. D1 to D10, which clearly shows that deceased Manjula was having some ailments, for which, she used to take treatment in the hospital. The documents Exs. D1 to D10 and the oral evidence of P.W. 2, the brother of the deceased Manjula, clearly shows that she was having some medical problem and she was taking treatment in the hospital. During the course of cross-examination P.W. 2 has also deposed that he had been to call his sister and her husband for Diwali festival and they came to the said festival and stayed in their house for two days. Then accused No. 1 went to Bangalore and his sister went to her husband's village Doddasiddenahalli. He has also deposed that after Diwali festival his sister had again came to their house for Sankranti festival. Then accused No. 1 went to Bangalore and his sister went to her husband's village Doddasiddenahalli. He has also deposed that after Diwali festival his sister had again came to their house for Sankranti festival. Perusing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is seen that none of the witnesses have deposed that they have personally seen any of the accused giving physical and mental ill-treatment to deceased Manjula in connection with the additional dowry amount. 12. Looking to the evidence of P.W. 2 it goes to show that he was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month and accused No. 1 who was in courier service was getting monthly salary of Rs. 15,000-18,000/- and the materials on record also shows that the complainant family was an agricultural family and they were not well off. 13. P.W. 3 who is the grand father of deceased Manjula has not at all spoken about the demand for additional dowry amount of Rs. 50,000/- on two occasions. But he has stated about payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- and 5 tholas of gold at the time of marriage. 14. P.W. 4, the mother of the deceased, has deposed that as per the request of her daughter two times they have paid Rs. 50,000/-, but even then the couple were not leading happy marital life. 15. P.W. 5 has also deposed in his evidence in the examination-in-chief about payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- and 5 tholas of gold at the time of marriage to accused No. 1. He has further deposed that after the marriage whenever Manjula came to her native place she was telling before him about the ill-treatment by the accused for additional dowry amount and because of such demand for additional dowry amount, she has committed suicide. In the cross examination, P.W. 5 has deposed that Shivappa, the father of the deceased, told him that Shivappa went to Upendrachar and to the father of Upendrachar and gave Rs. 50,000/- two times. In the cross examination by advocate for the accused, himself (P.W. 5), Shivappa (P.W. 1) and Basavaraj (the younger brother of Shivappa) together went to Siddenahalli and paid Rs. 50,000/- in cash. This evidence of P.W. 5 regarding the payment of Rs. 50,000/- two times. In the cross examination by advocate for the accused, himself (P.W. 5), Shivappa (P.W. 1) and Basavaraj (the younger brother of Shivappa) together went to Siddenahalli and paid Rs. 50,000/- in cash. This evidence of P.W. 5 regarding the payment of Rs. 50,000/- to the accused goes to show that the said payment was not made in the house of accused No. 1 at Bangalore, but it was at Siddenahalli, the native place of accused No. 1. 16. The evidence of P.W. 6 shows that he had also participated in the marriage talks and at that time, the accused demanded Rs. 1,20,000/- cash and 6 tolas of gold, for which, they agreed for paying cash of Rs. 50,000/- and 5 tolas of gold and then, the marriage was performed. He has further deposed that when accused No. 1 (Upendrachar) demanded Rs. 50,000/-, P.W. 1 had paid that amount to accused No. 1 as told by P.W. 1 to him. P.W. 6 was treated hostile and when cross examined by the Public Prosecutor, P.W. 6 has denied the suggestion that at the time of marriage, P.W. 1 paid Rs. 1,00,000/-. He has further deposed that at the time of marriage, only Rs. 50,000/- was paid and after the marriage, when he went along with P.W. 1 to the house of the accused, another Rs. 50,000/- was paid. He has deposed that P.W. 1 told before him that he paid Rs. 50,000/- two times to the accused, but he has not seen it. In the cross examination, P.W. 6 has deposed that P.W. 1 was doing agriculture. He admitted as true that the family of P.W. 1 is a middle class family. He had not gone to the house of Manjula at Bengaluru to see her marital life. After the marriage, he had not gone to the house of accused No. 3 (Ananthachar). So this evidence of P.W. 6 is again contrary to all other prosecution witnesses i.e., P.Ws. 1 to 5 that at the time of marriage, Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid as dowry by P.W. 1 to the accused. The evidence of P.W. 6 would show that only Rs. 50,000/- was paid at the time of marriage and there afterwards, he went along with P.W. 1 to the house of the accused and Rs. 50,000/- was paid by P.W. 1. 1,00,000/- was paid as dowry by P.W. 1 to the accused. The evidence of P.W. 6 would show that only Rs. 50,000/- was paid at the time of marriage and there afterwards, he went along with P.W. 1 to the house of the accused and Rs. 50,000/- was paid by P.W. 1. Therefore, there is no consistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses even with regard to the payment of dowry amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- at the time of marriage. So far as the payment of additional dowry amount of Rs. 50,000/- twice is concerned, P.W. 6 has clearly deposed that he has not seen it. 17. P.W. 7 is the brother of P.W. 1. He has deposed in his evidence that during marriage talks, the elders of accused No. 1 said that the accused Upendrachari is serving in a courier service getting salary of Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- and on that ground, demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- cash and ten tola of gold. For that, they agreed for payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- and 5 tola of gold. Looking to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6, it is not their case that Rs. 2,00,000/- lakh dowry was demanded at the time of marriage talks, but, their evidence is that Rs. 1,00,000/- lakh dowry was demanded. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 7 is again contrary to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6 that accused demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- lakh dowry and ten tola of gold. Further, evidence of P.W. 7, at para 3 of his deposition, is to the effect that himself and his brother (P.W. 1) went to Doddasiddenahalli and paid Rs. 50,000/- to accused No. 3 (Ananthachar) and his wife. 4-5 months thereafter, his daughter again came to the village and told that her husband has demanded money and requested for Rs. 50,000/-. At that time, they gave Rs. 50,000/- into the hands of Manjula and sent her. So this evidence of P.W. 7 is completely contrary to the evidence of P.W. 1 that two times, P.W. 1 had been to Bengaluru to the house of accused No. 1 and paid amount of Rs. 50,000/- twice. The evidence of P.W. 7 clearly goes to show that the said amount was not paid at Bengaluru, but it was paid at Siddenahalli. At first, Rs. 50,000/- was paid into the hands of accused Nos. 50,000/- twice. The evidence of P.W. 7 clearly goes to show that the said amount was not paid at Bengaluru, but it was paid at Siddenahalli. At first, Rs. 50,000/- was paid into the hands of accused Nos. 3 and 4 and for the second time, it was paid into the hands of deceased Manjula. This goes to show that the additional alleged dowry amount was not at all paid into the hands of accused No. 1. 18. Looking to these materials on record, the Court below has rightly appreciated and came to the conclusion that there is no consistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses with regard to the payment of dowry amount as well as the additional dowry amount. 19. As we have already observed above that regarding the cruelty met out to deceased Manjula, both physical and mental in the house of accused No. 1, absolutely, there is no material placed by the prosecution. 20. We have also perused the evidence of prosecution witnesses more particularly, the evidence of P.W. 2, who is the natural brother of the deceased Manjula. His evidence goes to show that Manjula was having stomach pain. She used to get the medical treatment in the hospitals. The oral evidence of P.W. 2 is also supported by the documentary evidence at Exs. D.1 to D.10 produced by the defence so also the oral evidence of D.W. 1. In para No. 3 of his examination in chief, D.W. 1 has deposed that when he was staying with his wife at Bengaluru, she was complaining that she was having acute stomach pain; for which, he got treatment to her from the doctors; he has also produced the OPD book issued by the Government Hospital at Yelahanka, Bengaluru as per Ex. D.1 and six prescriptions as per Exs. D.2 to D.7 and three medical certificates as per Exs. D.8 to D.10; the landlord and also the parents of accused No. 1 were knowing about stomach pain of the deceased Manjula; when he was staying in the rented house at Bengaluru along with his wife Manjula, his wife was in talking terms with the landlord and also the neighbours; P.Ws. 1 and 2 to 7 never used to come to his house at Bengaluru, but he used to go to the house of P.Ws. 1 and 2 to 7 never used to come to his house at Bengaluru, but he used to go to the house of P.Ws. 1 and 7 along with his wife; when he had been to office for work, he received the phone message about the death of his wife; because of the severe stomach pain, his wife died by committing suicide; himself and his wife were living happily. Even in the cross examination by the prosecution, nothing has been elicited from mouth of D.W. 1 to disbelieve his version. 21. Looking to the materials on record, both oral and documentary, the trial Court has considered each and every aspect of the matter extensively and has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. We do not find any illegality in the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The view taken by the trial Court while acquitting the accused is one of the possible views under the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. We place on record the valuable assistance rendered by Sri. B.N. Jagadeesh, learned Amicus Curiae. The registry is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to learned Amicus Curiae, as honorarium.