Judgment :- 1. The appellants are arrayed as A.1 to A.4 in S.C.No. 21 of 1999 on the file of the Mahila Court, Trichy and they, along with A.5 and A.6, stood charged and tried as follows: A.1 to A.6 ...U/s 498-A I.P.C. A.1 ...U/s 304-B I.P.C. A.2 to A.6 ...U/s 304-B r/w 109 I.P.C. 2. The trial Court acquitted A.5 and A.6 of the charges framed against them and convicted the appellants/A.1 to A.4, vide judgment dated 23.05.2007, as follows: Accused Conviction Sentence A.1 to A.4 U/s 498-A I.P.C. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. U/s 304-B r/w 109 I.P.C. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The State has not preferred any appeal challenging the acquittal of A.5 and A.6. The appellants/A.1 to A.4, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, have filed the present appeal. 3. The facts narrated in brief, necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are as follows: 3.1. The deceased namely, Jeyalakshmi, was the wife of A.1 and he is the son of A.2 and A.3. A.4 is the elder sister of A.1 and A.5 is the younger sister of A.1. A.6 is the younger brother of A.1. The marriage between A.1 and the deceased Jeyalakshmi was solemnised on 05.02.1995 as per the wishes of the elders of the family and in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. After the solemnisation of the marriage, A.1 to A.4 demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) by way of dowry from the deceased and A.1, on that pretext, did not accompany the deceased to her parental home for the Tamil month of “Aadi” (Mo) as it is a customary practice that the wife shall leave the company of the husband for that month and reside in her parental home. 3.2. The deceased became pregnant and after delivering the girl child, she was taken to her parental home and the delivery took place on 02.10.1996 and though it was informed to A.1 and his family, A.1 did not come and see the child and the deceased was staying in her parental home for 1 , years. 3.3. 3.2. The deceased became pregnant and after delivering the girl child, she was taken to her parental home and the delivery took place on 02.10.1996 and though it was informed to A.1 and his family, A.1 did not come and see the child and the deceased was staying in her parental home for 1 , years. 3.3. P.W.5 - Ex-MLA had intervened the matter and as a consequence, the father of P.W.1 had given five sovereigns of jewels and a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) and left her in the matrimonial home. 3.4. The family of A.1 also imposed a condition that none from her parents’ side should come and see her. The deceased also informed her parents that she and her husband wanted to set up a separate family and for that purpose, required the articles and household utensils and they were also given. 3.5. P.W.1 arranged the marriage for his son who is also the brother of the deceased and invited A.1 and his family members, but they did not turn up including the deceased and the head of the deceased was tonsured so as to prevent her from attending the marriage and when it was questioned, the parents of A.1 informed that for the purpose of prayer/penance, the head of the deceased was tonsured. On 17.09.1997, the relative of P.W.1, namely, P.W.6 - Chokkalingam, telephonically informed about the demise of the deceased - daughter of P.W.1 by self-immolation and immediately, they rushed to Musiri and reached the place at 09.00 p.m. 3.6. The deceased, while she was alive, has informed P.W.1 that her sister-in-law, namely, A.4 also threatened that she would pour kerosene and set fire on her and also stated that since they paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to his brother’s daughter, the deceased should also bring the dowry. 3.7. A.2 - father of A.1 has lodged a complaint on the file of Musiri Police Station, marked as Ex.P.4, wherein it has been stated about the marriage of his son with the deceased and that a girl child was born to them due to the wedlock. 3.7. A.2 - father of A.1 has lodged a complaint on the file of Musiri Police Station, marked as Ex.P.4, wherein it has been stated about the marriage of his son with the deceased and that a girl child was born to them due to the wedlock. It is further stated in Ex.P.4 that at about 05.45 p.m., on 17.09.1997, his wife - mother-in-law of the deceased, informed the deceased - her daughter-in-law that she is going outside and afterwards, his daughter-in-law went inside the wash room and locked it inside and committed self-immolation by pouring kerosene on her and on smoke emanated, the neighbours started raising alarm and immediately, A.2 informed his son - A.1 and they found that the wash room was locked inside and one Mayandi, neighbour, broke open the lock and found the body of his daughter-in-law. 3.8. It is further stated in Ex.P.4 that one year back, the deceased Jeyalakshmi developed pain on the lob of ear and an operation was done and she was repeatedly complaining about the pain and she has committed suicide on account of the said fact. 3.9. P.W.15 - Inspector of Police attached to Musiri Police Station, on receipt of the complaint under Ex.P.4, registered a case in Cr.No.347 of 1997 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The printed F.I.R. was marked as Ex.P.5. P.W.15 commenced the investigation and having found that the death took place within seven years from the date of marriage, has sent the case papers to the jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police for investigation and forwarded a copy to the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer for the purpose of conducting the inquest. Since the jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police was on ‘Other Duty’, P.W.15 prepared the Observation Mahazar, marked as Ex.P.2 and also Rough Sketh, marked as Ex.P.3 and also recovered the materials objects, marked as M.O.1 to M.O.3, under a cover of mahazar, marked as Ex.P.6 and forwarded the material objects under Form 95 to the jurisdictional Magistrate. 3.10. P.W.16 - jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police took up the investigation on 17.09.1997 and examined P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.8, P.W.6 and P.W.10, and recorded their statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. and on 05.10.1997, he recorded the statements of Seenivasan and Ramesh. A.1 was arrested and he voluntarily came forward to give a confession statement in the presence of Seenivasan and Ramesh and recovered the match box. A.1 was arrested and he voluntarily came forward to give a confession statement in the presence of Seenivasan and Ramesh and recovered the match box. P.W.16 also made a requisition for conducting autopsy on the body of the deceased and P.W.14 - Doctor, on receipt of the body of the deceased, commenced the post-mortem at 11.30 a.m., on 18.09.1997 and after obtaining the chemical analysis report, gave a opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to throttling and the death occurred 17 to 18 hours prior to autopsy. The post-mortem certificate given by P.W.14 was marked as Ex.P.1. 3.11. P.W.16, after completion of the investigation, has filed the final report charging the appellants/A.1 to A.4 for the commission of the offences under Sections 498-A , 304-B read with 34 I.P.C. on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Musiri, who took it on file in P.R.C.No. 17 of 1998 and on appearance of the accused, furnished the documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The said Court having found that the case is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, committed the same to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy, who made over the same to the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Trichy and the said Court, on appearance of the appellants/A.1 to A.4, framed the charges under Sections 498-A , 304-B read with 109 I.P.C. against them and so also A.5 and A.6, who were subsequently added as accused and questioned them and they pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and prayed for trial of the case. After the constitution of the Mahila Court, the case was transferred to the Mahila Court, Trichy. 3.12. The prosecution in order to sustain their case, examined P.W.1 to P.W.16 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 and also marked M.O.1 to M.O.3. 3.13. The accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against them in the evidence tendered by the prosecution and they denied it as false. 3.14. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was let it, however, Ex.D.1 - hyoid bone report was marked. 3.15. 3.13. The accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against them in the evidence tendered by the prosecution and they denied it as false. 3.14. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was let it, however, Ex.D.1 - hyoid bone report was marked. 3.15. The trial Court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, found the appellants/A.1 to A.4 guilty and convicted them and imposed the sentences as stated above and acquitted A.5 and A.6 of the charges framed against them and no appeal has been preferred by the State challenging the acquittal of A.5 and A.6. 3.16. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/A.1 to A.4, they have filed the present Criminal Appeal. 4. Mr. N. Mohideen Basha, learned Counsel for the appellants/A.1 to A.4, made the following submissions: 4.1. The complaint under Ex.P.4 was given by none other than A.2/father-in-law of the deceased and it also established the fact that though the deceased committed self-immolation in the matrimonial home, the conduct of the accused also assumed relevance as fearing reprisal, the police had kept them separately and it also strengthens the defence that the convicted accused have nothing to do with the alleged commission of the offences. 4.2. The testimonies of P.W.1 to P.W.3 would establish the fact that there was no demand of dowry and there are contradictions on material particulars. 4.3. The material witness examined on the side of the prosecution would state that a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) was demanded for the purpose of running the business by A.1 and it cannot be construed as dowry and none of the witnesses had spoken and substantiated the demand of dowry on the part of the convicted accused/appellants and there was no immediate reason for committing suicide. 4.4. P.W.5 - Ex-MLA, who was the Panchayatdar, also did not state anything about the demand of dowry or harassment and therefore, the conviction under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with 109 I.P.C. is not at all proper. 4.5. 4.4. P.W.5 - Ex-MLA, who was the Panchayatdar, also did not state anything about the demand of dowry or harassment and therefore, the conviction under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with 109 I.P.C. is not at all proper. 4.5. At the time of self-immolation by the wife of A.1, none of them were present and only on account of smoke and smell emanated at the door of the wash room, it was broken by one Mayandi, wherein the body of the deceased was found and Ex.D.1 - hyoid bone report would also disclose that there was no ante-mortem injuries. 4.6. The Revenue Divisional Officer was not examined and his report was also not marked by the prosecution, which would have established the cause of death and the prosecution failed to offer any explanation as to the non-examination of the said official and the report prepared by him. 5. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants/A.1 to A.4 that in view of the above said infirmities which had shaken the very foundation laid down by the prosecution, the trial Court ought to have awarded the benefit of doubt and acquitted them. He would further contend that on the same set of evidence, A.5 and A.6 were also acquitted. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellants/A.1 to A.4 has placed reliance upon the following decisions: (i) Appasaheb and Another v. State of Maharashtra 2007 (1) MWN (Cr.) 30 (SC) : AIR 2007 SC 763 : (2007) 9 SCC 721 (ii) Bakshish Ram and Another v. State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 1484 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 328 : (2013) 4 SCC 131 : (iii) Baljinder Kaur v. State of Punjab 2014 (4) Crimes 293 (SC) : 7. Per contra, Ms. S. Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent would submit that the testimonies of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6 would establish the fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty often and she was also slapped by A.1 and on account of the same, she developed injury in the ear which necessitated an operation being done and even she was prevented by the accused from attending her own brother’s marriage, on the ground that the demand of dowry was not met. 8. 8. It is further submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent that the deceased was deliberately tonsured so as to prevent her from attending her own brother’s marriage and the demand of a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) is only towards dowry and since the prosecution, beyond pale of doubt, has established the guilt on the part of the appellants/A.1 to A.4, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants/A.1 to A.4 and sentenced them adequately and prays for the dismissal of this appeal. 9. In support of her submissions, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent has relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Gurdip Singh v. State of Punjab [Criminal Appeal No.1308 of 2013, decided on 03.09.2013]. 10. This Court paid it’s best attention to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants/A.1 to A.4 and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent and also perused the oral and documentary evidence and the original records. 11. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased and father-in-law of A.1. In the chief examination, he has spoken about the giving of jewels and cash and further stated that A.1 and his daughter lived happily only for a period of three months and thereafter, his daughter informed him that her husband/A.1 is demanding a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to start a business and in that context, ill-treated her and also slapped her once and therefore, she has developed hearing problem. 12. 12. P.W.1 would further state that when he and his brother went to the matrimonial home of the deceased and invited her for the Tamil month of “Aadi” (Mo) function, A.1 has not come and at that time, his daughter was in the family way and they were ill-treated and she was taken to her parental home where she delivered a girl child on 02.10.1996 and though the said fact was informed to A.1, neither A.1 nor his family members did not care to see the new born girl child and in fact, his daughter was staying in the parental home for 1, years and due to the intervention of P.W.5 - Ex-MLA, she was taken to her matrimonial home and 5 sovereigns of jewels and a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) were given and at that time, a condition was imposed that her parents should not come and see their daughter. 13. He would further state that he has also invited his son-in-law/ A.1 and other family members to attend his son’s wedding, but, they prevented their daughter from attending the marriage by tonsuring her head and therefore, she did not attend the marriage of her own brother’s marriage. On 17.09.1997, he received a telephonic information from P.W.6 that his daughter was set on fire and immediately, they rushed to Musiri wherein they found a kerosene tin and a match box, near the body. 14. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 would state that his son-in-law/A.1 is a T.V. mechanic and for the purpose of running the business dealing, he demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) through his wife/deceased and since he has not possessed any means, he did not pay it and the said fact was also informed at the time of investigation by the police and the enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 15. He would further state that after P.W.5 - Ex-MLA held panchayat, his daughter was sent back to the matrimonial home and thereafter, his son- in-law/A.1 did not directly ask for any money and within four or five months thereafter, his daughter died. 16. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that unable to bear the pain, his daughter committed suicide and he would further state that when he went to see the body of his daughter, all the accused were kept opposite to their house. 17. 16. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that unable to bear the pain, his daughter committed suicide and he would further state that when he went to see the body of his daughter, all the accused were kept opposite to their house. 17. P.W.2 is the elder brother of the deceased - son of P.W.1 and in the chief examination, he would depose that his sister informed about the demand of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). In the cross-examination, he would depose that his sister/deceased informed him that her husband/A.1 demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) for his business. 18. P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased, wife of P.W.1 and the mother of P.W.2 and she speaks about the harassment meted out to the deceased when they went to bring their daughter for the purpose of Tamil month “Aadi” (Mo) function. She would further depose that after delivery of the girl child, she was in the parental home for 1 , years and none from her husband’s side came and took back her to matrimonial home and due to the intervention of P.W.5 - Ex-MLA, in the form of Panchayat, she was taken back to the matrimonial home and 5 sovereigns of jewels and a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) were also given. 19. In the cross-examination, she would state that no surgery was done with regard to the ear problem of her daughter and denied the suggestion that A.5 asked a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as the said sum was paid to her brother-in-law. She would further add that at the time of delivery of the girl child, Deepavali and other auspicious occasions, they used to give “Tamil”/gift of articles and she denied the suggestion that her daughter committed suicide unable to bear the paid n the ear. 20. P.W.5 - Ex-MLA, who acted as a mediator and panchayatdar, in the chief examination, would depose that P.W.1 and P.W.3 came to him about the demand of jewels and cash by A.2 and A.3 and he advised both of them. 21. P.W.6, who informed the death of the deceased - daughter of P.W.1, in the chief examination, would depose that on 17.09.1997, the deceased committed suicide and had also spoken about the mediation efforts done by P.W.5. 22. 21. P.W.6, who informed the death of the deceased - daughter of P.W.1, in the chief examination, would depose that on 17.09.1997, the deceased committed suicide and had also spoken about the mediation efforts done by P.W.5. 22. In the cross-examination, he would depose that the deceased told him that she was prevented to attend her brother’s marriage and for that purpose only, her head was tonsured. 23. P.W.7, neighbour, would state that after the occurrence took place, nobody was allowed to enter into the house and A.1 was not present at that time. 24. P.W.8, relative of the deceased, in the chief examination, would depose that he accompanied P.W.2 to invite the deceased and her in-laws, to attend the marriage of her own brother and they refused to send the deceased to attend the marriage of her own brother and after the intervention of P.W.5, she was sent and when they went to invite them for Deepavali function, she was informed that at any time, the deceased will be immolated by pouring kerosene. 25. P.W.9, neighbour, was treated as hostile and so also P.W.10. 26. P.W.11, neighbour, would also state that on account of what reason, the deceased died, he was not aware. 27. P.W.14 - Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, would state that hyoid bone was broken and since the body was fully burnt, the identification was not possible and the fracture of hyoid bone and other injuries were ante-mortem injuries. She would further state that the post- mortem was conducted by her and one Dr. Panneerselvam, who opined that due to asphyxia and burn injuries, the deceased died. 28. P.W.15, who registered the F.I.R and conducted initial investigation would depose that M.O.1 to M.O.3 were found in the wash room and the door of the wash room was removed and kept outside. 29. P.W.16 - Investigating Officer, who completed the investigation, in the cross-examination, would state that he has recovered a match box near the wash room. 30. It is pertinent to point out at this juncture that though certain questions were put to P.W.1 to P.W.3, in the form of contradictions, no specific questions were put to both the Investigating Officers. 31. P.W.16 - Investigating Officer, who completed the investigation, in the cross-examination, would state that he has recovered a match box near the wash room. 30. It is pertinent to point out at this juncture that though certain questions were put to P.W.1 to P.W.3, in the form of contradictions, no specific questions were put to both the Investigating Officers. 31. It is an admitted fact that the date of marriage is 05.02.1995 and the daughter of P.W.1/wife of A.1/deceased died on 17.09.1997, within six years from the date of the marriage and at the time of her demise, she had a girl child aged about 1 year. 32. The primordial point urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants/A.1 to A.4 is that a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) was demanded only for the purpose of starting a business and not by way of dowry and also invited the attention of this Court to the testimonies of P.W.1 to P.W.3. 33. However, it is pertinent to point out at this juncture that agony and torture undergone by the deceased at the hands of her husband and other appellants/A.1 to A.4 are tell-tale from the testimonies of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and it is also borne out by the fact that when she became pregnant, as per custom, she has to go to her parental home for the purpose of delivery and even after the delivery of the child, neither A.1 nor his relatives including the parents, did care to go to her house and see the girl child. 34. The testimonies of the above said witnesses would also disclose that after the delivery, for about 1 , years, she stayed in the parental home as she was not taken back to the matrimonial home by A.1 and hence, the parents of the deceased - P.W.1 and P.W.3, approached P.W.5 - Ex-MLA for mediation and on account of his intervention, the deceased was taken back to her matrimonial home and that too, after giving five sovereigns of jewels and a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as cash. 35. There is also a doubt as to the manner of death of the deceased. The post-mortem certificate, marked as Ex.P.1 would clearly disclose that hyoid bone was found fractured and Dr. 35. There is also a doubt as to the manner of death of the deceased. The post-mortem certificate, marked as Ex.P.1 would clearly disclose that hyoid bone was found fractured and Dr. Panneerselvam along with P.W.14, who conducted the autopsy, have opined that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to throttling. 36. Ex.D.1 - hyoid bone report, marked on behalf of the accused, given by Dr. S. Vijayalakshmi, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Medical College, Thanjavur, would also disclose that there were no evidence of any ante-mortem injury anywhere the hyoid bone, thyroid cartilage and the tracheal rings and post-mortem dislocation of right greater horn at the junction with the body which was confirmed by negative benzidine test. 37. However, P.W.16 who investigated the case, did not care to go through the report dated 16.10.1997 given by Dr. S. Vijayalakshmi and not even care to examine her as a witness. 38. The post-mortem certificate, marked as Ex.P.1, would clearly disclose that the deceased died of asphyxia due to throttling and unfortunately, no investigation was done based on the expert opinion given in the post-mortem certificate. 39. The judgments relied n by the learned Counsel for the appellants/A.1 to A.4 laid down the proposition that the demand of money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting urgent domestic expenses, etc. cannot be termed as a demand of dowry and therefore, the essential ingredient of Section 304-B I.P.C would not stand attracted in such circumstances and also laid down the proposition that the demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment in relation to the dowry demand should have been made soon before the death and in that event only, Section 304-B I.P.C stands attracted. There cannot be difficulty in accepting the said proposition as the application of the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 40. There cannot be difficulty in accepting the said proposition as the application of the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 40. The evidence tendered by the prosecution, especially, through the testimonies of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.6 - Chokkalingam, who would also disclose that the deceased was often subjected to ill-treatment and harassment and the conduct on the part of A.1 to A.4 as enumerated above, would also disclose the fact that the deceased was prevented from attending her own brother’s marriage and prior to that, when she delivered her first baby, none of the appellants went and saw her as well as the child and they also did not take her back to the matrimonial home and she continued to be in the parental home after delivering the girl child for about 1, years. 41. The parents of the deceased, namely, P.W.1 and P.W.3 approached P.W.5 - Ex-MLA, who mediated and thereafter only, she was taken back to the matrimonial home after giving five sovereigns of jewels and a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as cash. 42. The above facts and circumstances of the case as enumerated from the evidence tendered by the prosecution, would lead to the only inference that the demand of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) for the purpose of starting the business, can be termed as demand of dowry only. 43. As pointed out earlier, the cause of death as evidenced by Ex.P.1 - post-mortem certificate, is that the deceased dies of asphyxia due to throttling and for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the investigation has not been proceeded on those lines. 44. 43. As pointed out earlier, the cause of death as evidenced by Ex.P.1 - post-mortem certificate, is that the deceased dies of asphyxia due to throttling and for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the investigation has not been proceeded on those lines. 44. For recording the conviction under Section 304-B I.P.C, it is for the prosecution to prove that a ‘dowry death’ has occurred, namely, (i) that the death of a woman has been caused in abnormal circumstances by her having been burned or having been bodily injured; (ii) within seven years of a marriage; (iii) and that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (iv) in connection with any demand for dowry and (v) that the cruelty or harassment meted out to her continued to have a causal connection or a live link with the demand of dowry and once it is established or shown or proved by the prosecution, even by preponderance of possibility, the initial presumption of innocence is replaced by an assumption of guilt of the accused and thereafter, the burden lies heavily upon the accused to produce evidence dislodging the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 45. The said proposition has been laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in a catena of decisions and it has been referred to in the decision in Rajesh Bhatnagar v. State of Uttarakhand AIR 2012 SC 2866 : (2012) 7 SCC 91 : (2012) 3 MLJ (Crl) 73. 46. In the case on hand, the deceased was harassed, tortured and ill-treated by the appellants/A.1 to A.4, on account of unreasonable demand of dowry which led to her tragic demise and as already pointed out, she left a girl child aged 1 year. 47. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in a proper perspective and rightly arrived at a finding to convict and sentence the appellants/A.1 to A.4. 48. This Court after reserving the judgment on 11.02.2015, has gone through the records and found that the second appellant/A.2 and the third appellant/A.3 are no more as they died on 19.11.2010 and 22.09.2011 respectively and the said fact has also been confirmed by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent. Hence, the present appeal against A.2 and A.3, is dismissed as abated. 49. Hence, the present appeal against A.2 and A.3, is dismissed as abated. 49. This Court, on an independent application of mind to the oral and documentary evidence, is of the considered view that there is no error apparent or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court and finds no merit in this appeal preferred by A.1 and A.4. 50. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.21 of 1999, vide judgment dated 23.05.2007, by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Court, Trichy. The bail bonds executed by the appellants/A.1 and A.4 shall stand terminated. The respondent shall take necessary steps to secure the custody of the appellants/A.1 and A.4 for undergoing the remaining part of the sentence. The period of incarceration already undergone by the appellants/A.1 and A.4 during the course of the investigation and trial, is to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Appeal dismissed.