JUDGMENT : Heard the learned State Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the accused. 2. The State is in appeal questioning the acquittal of the accused for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Sections 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The case of the prosecution was that accused no.1 was married to Shakuntala, the sister of the complainant in the year 2004. The couple had two children by the marriage. Accused no.1 was serving as a Physical Education Teacher at Bengaluru in a private school and was residing along with Shakuntala and the mother of accused no.1at Bengaluru. It was alleged that accused no.1 had demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/-which was required to pay Security Deposit for the rented house and that the deceased was compelled to secure such money from her parental home. It transpires that the money was indeed supplied by the relatives of Shakuntala over a period of time as accused no.1 was drawing a meagre salary and was not able to meet this financial requirement. It transpires that about six months prior to the complaint, accused no.1 even moved to Halkurki village on account of his ill-health and over a period of four months prior to the complaint, he is said to have constantly physically and mentally harassing the deceased and making demands of huge amount of money to be brought from her parents’ house on the footing that he required such money to secure better employment and he had thus received further contributions from her family. Inspite of which, he had continued to harass the deceased and on account of such cruelty and harassment she had been driven to take an extreme step of committing suicide. Since on her death, the complainant was informed of the incident, he had thereafter gone and found that there was apparent acrimony preceding the death of his sister as he found the house to be in disarray and possibly on his sister having struggled against physical ill treatment which was apparent from the broken glasses and other displaced furniture in the house of the accused. It is in this background that the complainant lodged a complaint alleging that the accused and his family had received a large amount of dowry not only at the time of marriage, but over a period of time. But inspite of which, they had mentally and physically harassed the deceased which had driven her to commit suicide. It is in this background that the respondents stood trial. They had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 26 witnesses and marked several exhibits and material objects. While the defence did mark some documents in cross-examination of PWs.7, 8, 10, and 14. The court below had then framed the following points for consideration:- “1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that deceased Shakuntala died of suicidal death? 2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused no.1 being the husband, accused no.2 being the mother-in-law and accused nos.3 to 5 being the distant relatives of deceased Shakuntala, on 30.5.2004 the marriage of accused no.1 was solemnized with deceased Shakuntala and at the time of marriage all the accused demanded and received Rs.50.000/-and 5 tolas of gold as dowry and subsequently on 20.5.2005 received Rs.50.000/-towards deposit for occupation of house at Bangalore, received Rs.20,000/-on 28.01.2009 from CW.2 Manohar Kurandawad towards the treatment of accused no.1 and received Rs.10.000/-on 28.12.2008 from CW.4 Kamalavva as additional dowry and thereby committed offence punishable U/s.3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961? 3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused with common intention from 30.5.2004 till the death of Shakuntala i.e. till 3.3.2009 subjected her to constant mental and physical cruelty in the House No.568 standing in the name of accused no.2 situated at Halkurki village and thereby committed offence punishable U/s. 498(A) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code? 4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused with common intention from 30.5.2004 till the death of Shakuntala i.e. till 3.3.2009 subjected her to constant mental and physical cruelty demanding dowry. 4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused with common intention from 30.5.2004 till the death of Shakuntala i.e. till 3.3.2009 subjected her to constant mental and physical cruelty demanding dowry. Due to which deceased Shakuntala on 3.3.2009 in between 12.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. (i.e. within seven years of her marriage) hanged herself with the help of saree in the House No.568 standing in the name of accused no.2 situated at Halkurki village and thereby the accused have committed offence punishable U/s. 304(b) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code? Or in the alternative, Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused with common intention from 30.5.2004 till the death of Shakuntala i.e. till 3.3.2009 subjected her to constant mental and physical cruelty demanding dowry. Due to which deceased Shakuntala on 3.3.2009 in between 12.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. (i.e. within seven years of her marriage) hanged herself with the help of saree in the House No.568 standing in the name of accused no.2 situated at Halkurki village and thereby the accused have abetted the deceased to commit suicide and thereby committed offence punishable U/s.306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code?” The court below has answered point no.1 in the affirmative and points no.2 to 4 in the negative and acquitted the accused. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal. 3. The learned State Public Prosecutor would point out that there is consistent evidence of PWs.4 to 8, 10,13,14 as regards the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased over a period of time by accused no.1 and his family and huge amounts of money that was demanded and collected and in spite of which, the harassment had continued over the years inspite of two children having born of the marriage and therefore, the court below having proceeded to acquit the accused on a theory propounded that since the accused had contracted HIV disease and that the deceased was of a sensitive nature and had the knowledge of her husband having afflicted with a serious illness which may have been fatal, had gone and committed suicide. This theory is sought to be sustained on the statements made in cross-examination by PWs 7,8 and 10. This theory is sought to be sustained on the statements made in cross-examination by PWs 7,8 and 10. This, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit is clearly by overlooking the positive evidence tendered by the prosecution as to the sustained cruelty meted out to the deceased and large amounts of dowry that was collected over the years from the family of the deceased and the deceased being unable to bear the continuous mental and physical torture having committed suicide is a straight forward case established by the prosecution and there was no warrant to dilute the same by reference to extraneous considerations and the theory propounded, by itself, would not overturn the case of the prosecution. In this regard, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor takes the court through the voluminous record and the material on hand to demonstrate that the court was not justified in a brief reasoning that could be seen at paragraph 25 of the judgment that the entire case of the prosecution stood effaced only on account of the possibility that the deceased had gone into deep depression of having learnt of her husband’s illness and therefore had committed suicide. This, the learned State Public Prosecutor would submit is perverse and results in a gross miscarriage of justice while enabling the accused to get away with the serious offences which attract the maximum punishment, having regard to the sustained torture and humiliation that the deceased had to undergo before taking the extreme step of committing the suicide. All on account of the conduct of the accused. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor therefore seeks that the judgment of the court below be set aside and the accused punished appropriately. 4. While the learned Counsel for the accused would point out that the contention of the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor that the evidence of the prosecution in having established the unrelenting torture and humiliation meted out to the deceased has been established cogently and consistently by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not wholly correct. It is pointed out that PWs.1 to 3 were the immediate neighbours of accused no.1 and they had been tendered by the prosecution to establish that the relationship between accused no.1 and his wife was not cordial and that she was being subjected to constant cruelty. It is pointed out that PWs.1 to 3 were the immediate neighbours of accused no.1 and they had been tendered by the prosecution to establish that the relationship between accused no.1 and his wife was not cordial and that she was being subjected to constant cruelty. However, the said witnesses had not supported the case of the prosecution in that regard. They had merely stated that they had not seen any incident of cruelty being meted out by the accused to the deceased. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that there are any independent witnesses supporting the case of the prosecution. The other witnesses namely, PWs.4 to 8, 10, 13,14 are all relatives who were keen on ensuring that the complaint was taken to its logical conclusion and therefore have mechanically supported the case of the prosecution. It is not the case of the prosecution that all these witnesses were residents in the matrimonial home of the deceased. Though they were related, they lived away from the matrimonial home. Hence, none of them were capable of speaking on first hand information or knowledge of any such ill-treatment. Repeated reference to the demands being made for money was admittedly towards the genuine need and necessity which any person belonging to a middle class or lower middle class would face in day to day life and it is not unusual for the people better provided to lend a helping hand as in the case on hand. The first instance of having demanded Rs.50,000/- towards the security deposit of a rented house was a genuine need which has been supplied over a period of time by the family of the deceased. This can neither be considered as unusual or characterised as demand for dowry. The further request for financial support towards the health of accused no.1 or further request for financial support to secure better employment opportunities could only be termed as a dire necessity and not dowry, for which the deceased is said to have been harassed. If the deceased was really being harassed, there would have been no warrant for any family member of the deceased to support the accused. The family of accused no.1 and the deceased were in good terms. If the deceased was really being harassed, there would have been no warrant for any family member of the deceased to support the accused. The family of accused no.1 and the deceased were in good terms. It was found that the brothers of the deceased were employed in better positions, as one of the brothers was working as a Police Sub-Inspector and others as a lecturer and a contractor. On the other hand, the accused had not sought financial support from his family as his family members were placed in humble positions, as his only brother was serving in the Military and his wife was working as a teacher in a private school and were not in a position to support him financially. Therefore, he had to reach out to the better placed family members of the deceased. Admittedly, the couple had two children by the marriage and if all was not well and if there was constant discord, it is inexplicable that the children could be produced in the marriage. Further, PWs.7,8 and 10 were also close relatives of the deceased. It is they who have admitted in their cross-examination that the deceased was a highly sensitive person and therefore, mere knowledge of accused no.1 suffering from fatal illness was sufficient to drive her into deeper depression and ultimate suicide by her. This has been construed as a case of cruelty and the deceased having been driven to commit suicide. The consistent statements of not one, but three witnesses of the prosecution having stated that the deceased was suicide-prone as she was very highly sensitive and the fact that accused no.1 was suffering from a fatal disease is also not denied by the prosecution. Therefore, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor seeking to characterise the circumstance as a theory propounded which has been accepted by the trial court is unfair and it is the truth of the matter which has been appreciated by the trial court and therefore, there is no warrant for interference. It is also pointed out on the other hand, that PW.9 has, in fact, spoken well of the relationship between the deceased and the accused no.1 and nobody could be a better witness than an independent neighbour who would have been privy to the day to day conduct of the accused and the relationship he had with the deceased. It is also pointed out on the other hand, that PW.9 has, in fact, spoken well of the relationship between the deceased and the accused no.1 and nobody could be a better witness than an independent neighbour who would have been privy to the day to day conduct of the accused and the relationship he had with the deceased. In this light, he would seek that the judgment of the court below, which is a well considered judgment, with cogent reasons and with reference to the case law, be confirmed and the appeal be dismissed. 5. Given the rival contentions, and on an examination of the record, it is indeed found that accused no.1 was a man of humble means and it is also on record that it has been elicited in the course of evidence that one of the brothers of accused no.1 was a Police Inspector and another brother was a lecturer whose wife was also gainfully employed in a public office. This would indicate that it was accused no.1 who had fallen on bad times in being employed only as a Physical Education Teacher and was earning meagre income. Therefore, he had required the financial support of others including the family members of the deceased which appears to have been voluntarily provided over time. It is seen that accused no.1 and the deceased only had the mother of accused no.1 for company before they produced two children, who were 4 and 2, respectively, at the time of the incident and they had been married since the year 2004. There was no instance of any violence or other untoward incident which are matter of record. It is only after accused no.1 is said to have fallen ill and he was no longer able to work regularly, that they had moved to Halkurki about 4 months prior to the incident. It is thereafter that the deceased had committed suicide. This would point to the circumstance that fatal illness which accused no.1 had contracted may be one pressing circumstance which had driven the deceased to commit suicide. For there is no evidence by any independent witness of alleged ill-treatment during the time that the couple lived at Bengaluru nor when they lived at Halkurki village, except the evidence of the close relatives. For there is no evidence by any independent witness of alleged ill-treatment during the time that the couple lived at Bengaluru nor when they lived at Halkurki village, except the evidence of the close relatives. At the same time, the other close relatives of the deceased have also confirmed that the deceased was of a sensitive nature and that it was quite possible that she was distraught and in total depression on account of her husband’s fatal illness. Hence, it could not be said that the degree of cruelty which requires to be established in terms of Section 498A IPC has been established. On the other hand, there is material evidence even as brought out from the statements of the witnesses for the prosecution that accused no.1 and the deceased were living in harmony and there was no untoward incident of cruelty that was evident and except the allegations of having sought financial assistance over time, there is no other incident which would point to the constant and unrelenting cruelty which is a necessary ingredient to be established for an offence under Section 498A of the IPC. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused and from the reasoning of the court below, it cannot be said that on theoretical assumptions, the court below has proceeded to acquit the accused, on the other hand, on a close analysis of the evidence and on proper reasoning, the court below has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. We agree with the view taken by the court below. There is no merit in this appeal and the appeal stands dismissed.