JUDGMENT : S.NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.251 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai. They stood charged for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC. By judgment dated 17.01.2013, the trial court convicted the accused under both charges and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/accused are before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is as follows:- (2.1) The deceased in this case was one Chithra. P.W.2 is her father. P.W.2 is a Tailor by profession. The deceased was assisting him in his tailoring shop. In the course of time, the accused, who used to visit the shop, developed love for her. The deceased also positively responded and they decided to marry. Thereafter, the 1st accused, through his relatives, approached P.W.2 to marry the deceased. But, P.W.2 declined to give her in marriage to the 1st accused. Thereafter, in the month of May, 2008, the deceased eloped with the 1st accused and married him. After the said marriage, the 1st accused and the deceased were residing together as husband and wife at Koyembedu. It is alleged that the 2nd accused, who is the mother of the 1st accused, joined hands with the 1st accused and both of them demanded dowry from the deceased and harassed her. On 25.03.2009, in the night, the deceased hanged herself at the house of the 1st accused. The death of the deceased, according to the prosecution, is a dowry death which was caused by these accused and therefore, they are liable to be punished under Section 304-B of IPC. The demand of dowry and the consequential alleged harassment made by the accused, according to the prosecution, is an offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. (2.2.) After the death of the deceased, P.W.1, who is a neighbour, went to the police station and made a complaint at 8.30 a.m. on 25.03.2009. The demand of dowry and the consequential alleged harassment made by the accused, according to the prosecution, is an offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. (2.2.) After the death of the deceased, P.W.1, who is a neighbour, went to the police station and made a complaint at 8.30 a.m. on 25.03.2009. A case was registered on the same in Crime No.312 of 2009 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. on the file of K.10, Koyembedu Police Station by one Mr.Dharmalingam, the then Inspector of Police of Koyembedu Police Station. (2.3.) During the course of investigation, it is stated that the deceased was taken to the hospital by a Police Constable by name Kumarasamy. P.W.11- Doctor Arun Mozhi Rajan examined her at 10.40 a.m. on 25.03.2009 and declared her dead and then, he forwarded the body to the Mortuary. (2.4) P.W.16 took up the case for investigation. At his request, P.W.12, an Executive Magistrate, conducted inquest and forwarded the body for postmortem. P.W.15 Doctor Harish Santha Seelan conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and opined that the death was due to hanging. During the course of investigation, P.Ws.2 to 4 who are the father, mother and sister of the deceased were examined and P.W.5, who is the owner of the house, was also examined. On completing the investigation, P.W.16 laid charge sheet against both the accused. 3. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of the Judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 16 witnesses were examined and 13 documents were also marked. No material object was marked. 4. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, a neighbour, has not stated anything incriminating against the accused. He has only stated that the deceased and the accused were living together and on 24.03.2009, there was a wordy quarrel between the 1st accused and the deceased and on the next day, she died committing suicide. He has not stated anything more against the accused. P.W.2 is the father of the deceased. He has stated about the love affair between the 1st accused and the deceased and their marriage without his consent and knowledge. He has not stated anything more against the accused. P.W.2 is the father of the deceased. He has stated about the love affair between the 1st accused and the deceased and their marriage without his consent and knowledge. He has further stated that when the 1st accused and the deceased were residing at Koyembedu as husband and wife, on one occasion, the deceased contacted him over phone and wanted him to give Rs.10,000/- for the purpose of purchasing a computer. He has further stated that he paid that sum to his daughter. Thereafter, according to him, he heard that the deceased died by hanging. He has further stated that at the time of her death, she was 3 months pregnant. He has also stated that out of love for her, he presented 7 sovereigns of gold and 110 grams of silver to her. He has not at all stated that the accused ever demanded any dowry or harassed her in connection with the same. P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased. She has also stated so. Throughout her evidence, she has not stated anything to the fact that the accused demanded any amount of dowry nor that they harassed the deceased at any point of time. She has also stated that before her death, out of her own volition and out of love towards deceased, she presented the household articles worth Rs.10,000/- to her. P.W.4, the sister of the deceased has also stated so. She has also not stated anything against the accused that they either demanded anything as dowry or that they harassed her. Thus, from the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4, there is nothing on record to show that these accused demanded dowry, harassed her and on account of the same, she committed suicide. 5. P.W.5 is yet another neighbour who has also not stated anything against the accused before the Panchayatdars during inquest. He has only stated that he came to know that the deceased committed suicide. He has also stated that the accused had become a drunkard. P.W.6 has spoken about the Observation Mahazar prepared by the police and the Rough Sketch. P.W.7 has also spoken about the same fact. P.W.8 has turned hostile and he has not stated anything in favour of the prosecution. P.W.9 is yet another neighbour who has also stated that he came to know that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. P.W.6 has spoken about the Observation Mahazar prepared by the police and the Rough Sketch. P.W.7 has also spoken about the same fact. P.W.8 has turned hostile and he has not stated anything in favour of the prosecution. P.W.9 is yet another neighbour who has also stated that he came to know that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. P.W.10 has turned hostile and he has not stated anything in favour of the prosecution. P.W.11 is the Doctor who declared the deceased dead. P.W.12 has stated that in the capacity of an Executive Magistrate, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased. P.W.13 is a Forensic Expert who visited the place of occurrence. But, she could not find anything incriminating against the accused. P.W.14 has turned hostile and she has not stated anything in favour of the prosecution. P.W.15 has spoken about the postmortem conducted by him and his final opinion that the death was due to hanging. P.W.16 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed by him. 6. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false and they pleaded innocence. However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any document on their side. 7. Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court. 8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 9. As we have already pointed out, P.Ws.2 to 4 have not stated anywhere in the evidence, either in the chief Examination or in the cross-examination that the accused ever demanded anything from the deceased in connection with the marriage or harassed her. Absolutely, there is no evidence that soon before her death, the deceased was harassed demanding anything in connection with the marriage. From the evidence of these witnesses, it is crystal clear that out of love, the first accused married the deceased and they were living happily. This is also in their evidence that out of love, P.W.2 gave Rs.10,000/- to the deceased for purchasing a computer and P.W.3 gave some household articles and utensils. From the evidence of these witnesses, it is crystal clear that out of love, the first accused married the deceased and they were living happily. This is also in their evidence that out of love, P.W.2 gave Rs.10,000/- to the deceased for purchasing a computer and P.W.3 gave some household articles and utensils. Thus, absolutely, there is no evidence to hold that these accused have committed offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC. 10. From the evidences of the neighbours, it could be seen that the 1st accused had developed the habit of drinking and probably, out of frustration, the deceased would have committed suicide. At any rate, we do not find any evidence to sustain the conviction. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and the sentence made by the trial court on the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. The bail bonds, if any, executed by them, shall stand discharged. The fine amount, if any, paid, shall be refunded to the respective accused.