JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is preferred by the State being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.11.2011 passed by the XLV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in S.C.No.71/2011, wherein the accused persons have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments that the father of the deceased lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1 and he has been examined before the Court below as P.W.1. The contents of the complaint are that the complainant is residing in the address mentioned in the complaint and he is working as Watchman; he is having two daughters and one son; Rekha is the eldest daughter, Ananda is the only son and Ramya was the youngest daughter, who is the deceased in this case. It is stated that Ramya was given in marriage to accused No.1 on 14.06.2009, at the time of engagement they paid an amount of Rs.50,000/-, one gold chain, one gold ring, one watch to accused No.1 and one gold necklace, one mangalya chain, totally 100grams of gold and they have also given the silver articles. The marriage of deceased with accused No.1 was performed in Basaveshwara Temple at Maralebekuppe village in the presence of elders. After marriage, the deceased went to her matrimonial house, wherein accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and the deceased were residing together in a rented house. Accused No.1 was working in Durana enterprises and since one month prior to the incident the deceased was also working in the garments and she was doing tailoring work. Whenever the deceased was talking with neighbours or over phone, accused were raising suspicion about her fidelity and as she has not begotten the child even after the period of one year after marriage, even on that ground also accused No.1 often abusing the deceased, he was assaulting her, which the deceased was informing to her parents over phone. Accused persons were also telling the deceased that if they had performed the marriage of accused No.1 with some other girl they would have given more dowry amount and also gold ornaments. Accused persons were also telling the deceased that if they had performed the marriage of accused No.1 with some other girl they would have given more dowry amount and also gold ornaments. Accused persons were picking up quarrel with the deceased everyday, assaulting her, insisting her to go to her parental place and to bring additional dowry amount of Rs.50,000/and everyday they were giving ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased both physical and mental. The deceased was informing about the same to the complainant and other family members over phone. One month earlier to the incident, the complainant along with his relatives went to the house of accused persons and spoke to accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 and informed them that they will give the amount within few days. On 17.06.2010 at 7.30 a.m. when the complainant was in his house, the neighbour of the accused persons telephoned him and informed that his daughter went into bedroom and latched it, at that time the complainant called accused No.1 through his mobile phone and enquired the matter, at that time accused No.1 informed the complainant that his daughter committed suicide by hanging. Then the complainant along with his family members and relatives went to the house of his daughter, by that time the deceased was taken down from ceiling fan, but the veil was hanging to the fan, and when they touched the body of the deceased, she was dead. Therefore, they became frightened and informed to their relatives over phone, thereafter the complainant went to the police station and lodged the complaint. It is also stated in the complaint that accused Nos.1 to 3 gave physical and mental harassment to the deceased in connection with the dowry amount and because of that reason his daughter committed suicide, hence, all the three accused persons are responsible for the death of his daughter. 3. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR came to be registered in Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru South Taluk, Crime No.323/2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 304B and 498A read with 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Then, Investigating Officer conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet for the said offence. Then, Investigating Officer conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet for the said offence. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused persons and when the charges were read over and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, their plea was also recorded, then the matter was setdown for trial. 4. In support of its case, prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 11 and produced documents Exs.P1 to P8 with sub-markings and also got marked the material objects M.Os.1 to 5. On the side of the defence, no witnesses were examined and no documents were produced. After hearing the arguments of both sides, learned Sessions Judge considering the materials placed on record both oral and documentary, ultimately held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, acquitted the accused persons from all the charges. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of acquittal and challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment on the grounds as mentioned at ground Nos.1 to 10 of the appeal memorandum, the State has preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard the arguments of the learned Addl. SPP appearing on behalf of the appellant/State and also the arguments of learned amicus curiae on behalf of respondents/accused. 6. Learned Addl. SPP during the course of his arguments made the submission that looking into the allegations made in the complaint, so also, the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 there is a material to show that there was a demand for dowry amount of Rs.50,000/- at the time of marriage and even subsequently there was a demand for additional dowry amount of Rs.50,000/-. Learned Addl.SPP drew our attention to the entire materials from the paper book to deposition of the prosecution witnesses, so also, the documents. Looking into the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, wherein it has been observed that in connection with the demand for dowry, ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased, no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution and it is only P.W.1 and his family members were examined in the case, for this, learned Addl. Looking into the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, wherein it has been observed that in connection with the demand for dowry, ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased, no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution and it is only P.W.1 and his family members were examined in the case, for this, learned Addl. SPP made the submission that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 cannot be rejected only on the ground that they are the relatives and in that connection he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2003) 8 SCC 80 in the case of Hira Lal and others vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi and submitted that the evidence cannot be rejected only on the ground that they are the relatives of deceased. It is also his submission that looking into the incident in question is concerned, it has taken place in the house of accused No.1 and as per Section 106 of Evidence Act burden is on the accused persons to explain the circumstances under which the incident has taken place. He also submitted that though it is the contention of the defence that the deceased committed suicide as she was suffering from stomach pain, but neither there is any acceptable and satisfactory material produced by the defence nor the same has been established during the course of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, hence, in the absence of such material on the side of defence and in view of the principle under Section 106 Evidence Act, the defence has not discharged its burden by explaining the circumstance. He also submitted that the deceased herself was informing her parents about the ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her i.e., both physical and mental, over phone as well as personally when she used to visit her native place. Hence, he submitted that though sufficient and acceptable material was placed before the learned Sessions Judge by way of oral as well as documentary evidence, the same was not properly considered by the Court below and the learned Sessions Judge wrongly proceeded to acquit the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3, hence, submitted that as there is a sufficient acceptable and worth believable material placed on record to allow the appeal and to convict the respondents/accused for the above said charges by setting aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court below. 7. 7. Per contra, learned amicus curiae-during the course of his arguments, insofar as the demand of dowry before the marriage is concerned, drew the attention of the Court to the contents of the complaint/Ex.P1 and submitted that looking into paragraph No.1 of the complaint absolutely there is no allegation that there was any demand for dowry by any of the accused. No doubt it is mentioned in paragraph No.1 of the complaint that dowry amount of Rs.50,000/, neck chain, one gold ornament, one wrist watch were given to accused No.1, but it is not because of any demand made by any of the accused persons. Even with regard to the additional dowry amount is concerned, except the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, who are the relatives of deceased viz., father, mother, daughter, son-in-law and the son, whose evidence is stereotyped, no other independent witness was examined in that regard. Regarding the allegation of payment of dowry amount and the demand made by the accused persons even for additional dowry amount is concerned, no worth believable material has been placed by the prosecution. It is also his submission that though the FIR was entrusted to Police Constable, but same was submitted before the concerned Magistrate Court on the next day even though the police station is very near from the Court, hence, regarding this delay of more than 23.00 hours in submitting the FIR there is no explanation offered by the prosecution and the person, who was entrusted with carrying the FIR to the Court, has not been examined by the prosecution during the course of trial. Therefore, it also raises reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court regarding the delay of 23.00 hours in submitting the FIR before the concerned JMFC Court. It is also his contention that regarding the ill-treatment and harassment in connection with dowry amount is concerned, he submitted that prosecution examined two witnesses i.e., P.W.7, who is the owner of the house of accused and P.W.8Jyothi, who is a neighbourer of the accused persons, whose evidence show that accused No.1 and the deceased were leading happy marital life, he also submitted that they turned hostile to certain aspects but insofar as the relationship between accused No.1 and the deceased, it is cordial in nature. Therefore, the evidence of these two witnesses falsify the contention of the prosecution that in connection with the dowry amount the accused used to give ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased. Learned amicus curiae drew our attention to the evidence of prosecution witnesses, more particularly P.W.2, the mother of deceased, and submitted that though the allegation is against all the accused persons that they were giving illtreatment and harassment, but P.W.2 herself admitted in her cross-examination that accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the in-laws of the deceased, were residing in their native i.e., Maralebekuppe village. He further submitted that even through the mouth of other witnesses also it has come on record that accused Nos.2 and 3 were residing separately, hence, this itself creates a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court that whether really all the accused persons together gave such ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased. He also submitted that the Doctor/P.W.9 has deposed before the Court that he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, except the ligature mark on the neck, no external injuries were seen on the body. Therefore he submitted that this material also supports the defence of the accused that neither they gave any illtreatment and harassment nor they assaulted the deceased at any point of time in connection with the alleged dowry amount. It is his further contention that though it is contended by the prosecution that at the time of marriage talks, they gave Rs.50,000/-as dowry and gold ornaments to both accused No.1 as well as the deceased, but regarding the financial condition of P.W.1, it has come on record that he was working as Watchman drawing a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month; it has also come on record that while performing the marriage of his elder daughter, he has not given any such dowry or gold ornaments to her. Out of Rs.5,000/- monthly salary, the complainant was paying house rent of Rs.3,000/-. This aspect shows that the statement in the complaint about payment of Rs.50,000/-as dowry and further demand of additional dowry are not acceptable. Out of Rs.5,000/- monthly salary, the complainant was paying house rent of Rs.3,000/-. This aspect shows that the statement in the complaint about payment of Rs.50,000/-as dowry and further demand of additional dowry are not acceptable. Referring to the cross-examination of P.W.1 and his other family members i.e., P.Ws.2 to 5, learned amicus curiae-submitted that accused persons have performed the marriage at their native place in a temple and it is they, who born the expenses of marriage and food etc., Hence, he submitted that this is also one of the important material fact to be taken into consideration while appreciating the allegations made by the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that no gold ornaments are seized by the Investigating Officer, if really the gold ornaments are given to the accused as well as the deceased and if they were available on the body of the deceased, same could have been seized by the Investigating Officer, nothing has been mentioned in the investigation material about what has happened to the gold ornaments said to have been given by the complainant to the accused as well as to the deceased, hence, this aspect also creates doubt about the case of the prosecution. He contends that looking to the evidence of P.W.2, the mother of the deceased, wherein it is stated that for the purchase of gold ornaments, they are having receipts with them, whereas the evidence of P.W.1 shows that the said receipts were given to her daughter Ramya. Hence, he submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is totally inconsistent about the purchase of gold ornaments. Learned amicus curiae further submits that no material is placed by the prosecution to show that soon before her death. The victim was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry by her husband or any of the accused, unless and until this aspect is established by the prosecution, mere making bald and vague allegations in the complaint and in the oral statement is not sufficient to attract the alleged offence under the provisions of Section 304B of IPC. In this connection, learned amicus curiae relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2008) 16 SCC 512 rendered in the case of Narayanamurthy vs. State of Karnataka and another and drew our attention to the relevant paragraphs in the said decision and submitted that the factual matrix in the said decision is squarely made applicable to the factual matrix in the case on hand. Even according to the principles enunciated in the said decision it cannot be said that the alleged offence under Section 304B of IPC regarding dowry death is attracted in this case. It is also submitted that the factual matrix of the case also makes it clear that when P.W.1 received the message, he was informed that his daughter went inside the bed room and latched it from inside. With reference to the explanation from the accused regarding the circumstances for the death of the deceased is concerned, learned amicus curiae-submitted that the deceased was suffering from stomach pain and also excess bleeding and number of times accused No.1 took her to the Doctor. He further submitted that P.W.1 the father of the deceased has deposed in his evidence that deceased was not suffering from any sort of ailments, whereas P.W.2, the mother of deceased, admitted in her evidence during cross-examination that themselves as well as the accused persons took the deceased to the Doctor for treatment many times and it has come on record that during menstruation cycle period, she was having excess bleeding and in that connection she was taken to the Doctor. Therefore, he submitted that even accused persons have made out a case of their defence that because of the stomach pain and the medical problems the deceased committed suicide by hanging. Hence, these aspects were properly taken care of by the learned Sessions Judge and rightly came to the conclusion in holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that when two views are possible, the view which is favourable to the accused is to be considered by the Court, hence, there is no merit in this appeal, same is to be rejected. 8. We have perused the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court below, oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 11, documents Exs.P1 to P8. 9. 8. We have perused the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court below, oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 11, documents Exs.P1 to P8. 9. With regard to the payment of dowry amount, which was agreed at the time of marriage talks is concerned, looking into the first paragraph of complaint Ex.P1, no doubt it is mentioned about the payment of Rs.50,000/- as dowry, then gold chain, gold ring and one wrist watch to accused No.1, so also, the gold ornaments to deceased, but as it is rightly submitted by the learned amicus curiae that there is no mention in the complaint itself that there was a demand made by any of the accused for the payment of dowry amount. It is true that though the allegations are made in the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 i.e., the complainant and other family members, that there was a demand for payment of dowry amount, unless and until there is a mention about the same in the complaint, which is like a foundation in the criminal case, only deposing before the Court about the said aspect is nothing but an improvement in the case of the complainant. Apart from that it is the case of the prosecution itself that at the time of marriage talks some independent witnesses were also present viz., Chandrappa, Chennegowda Srinivas and other relatives of P.W.1 and the owner of P.W.1, who is also said to be an independent witness was also present, but none of these independent witnesses were examined before the Court on the side of the prosecution. Even with regard to the demand for additional dowry amount of Rs.50,000/is concerned, except the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 there is no independent witness examined. 10. We have perused the decision and the principles enunciated in the said decision relied upon by the learned Addl. SPP for the appellant/State. Even with regard to the demand for additional dowry amount of Rs.50,000/is concerned, except the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 there is no independent witness examined. 10. We have perused the decision and the principles enunciated in the said decision relied upon by the learned Addl. SPP for the appellant/State. The evidence of the relatives of the deceased cannot be rejected only on the ground that they are the relatives, the said proposition cannot be disputed by anybody, but the question is even as per the prosecution case itself some independent witnesses were participated in the marriage talks then in that case it is for the prosecution to examine any one of the independent witness apart from examining the family members of the deceased to prove about the demand for dowry or any additional dowry amount is concerned. Therefore, looking into the factual matrix in the case on hand and the factual matrix in the reported decision relied upon by the learned Addl. SPP, they are not exactly one and the same, therefore, the said decision will not come to the aid and assistance of the prosecution case. Apart from that the other materials placed by the prosecution during the course of trial is also having bearing on this aspect; regarding the financial capacity of P.W.1 is concerned, it is brought on record that the complainant is working as a Watchman drawing salary Rs.5,000/- per month, out of which Rs.3,000/is paid as rent for the house. It is also come on record that all the marriage expenses were borne by the accused, it was performed in the native place of accused in a temple, even for food and other expenses were borne by the accused persons. It has also come on record that P.Ws.1 and 2 have admitted during the course of cross-examination when they performed the marriage of their eldest daughter they have not paid any dowry amount to him and it is the husband of their elder daughter, who had bear the marriage expenses. 11. It has also come on record that P.Ws.1 and 2 have admitted during the course of cross-examination when they performed the marriage of their eldest daughter they have not paid any dowry amount to him and it is the husband of their elder daughter, who had bear the marriage expenses. 11. The other materials collected regarding the gold ornaments said to have been given to the deceased as well as accused No.1 is concerned, we have perused the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, though it is stated that they are having the receipts for purchasing the gold ornaments, P.W.1 has stated that those receipts were given to his daughter Ramya, whereas P.W.2 has deposed on oath that she is having the receipts with herself. If the receipts are available with P.Ws. 1 and 2, nothing prevented them to produce the same before the Court. Therefore, in view of non-production of receipts, the Court can draw adverse inference with regard to purchase of gold ornaments are concerned. 12. Apart from that neither any gold ornaments were seized from the house of accused persons during investigation nor there is any explanation about what has happened to the gold ornaments. Though it is mentioned in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 that there was a demand for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/and there was an ill-treatment and harassment both physical and mental and even the accused used to assault the deceased, but the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.9) shows that there were no external injuries on the body of the deceased except the ligature marks on the neck of the deceased. 13. The prosecution case is that all the accused were giving ill-treatment and harassment in connection with additional dowry amount, but looking into the prosecution materials it has come on record that too through the mouth of the mother of the deceased/P.W.2 that accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e., the in-laws of deceased, were residing in their native village i.e., Maralebekuppe, and it is only the accused No.1 and the deceased were staying together, hence, this evidence makes it clear that insofar as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned false allegations are made that they also used to give ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased along with accused No.1. It is to be appreciated that even with regard to accused No.1 is concerned, whether the said allegations have been supported by acceptable material or not. In this connection, learned amicus-curiae-drew our attention to the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8; P.W.7 is the owner of the house where accused were residing and P.W.8 is the neighbour of accused No.1, who have deposed that the relationship between accused No.1 and the deceased was cordial in nature. 14. We have perused the decision relied upon by the learned amicus curiae-about the factual story involved in the said reported decision and the principles enunciated by Their Lordships at the relevant paragraphs to which our attention was drawn; the factual matrix of the case on hand are almost similar with the factual matrix of the reported decision. As it is rightly submitted by the learned amicus curiae-regarding subjecting the deceased to ill-treatment and harassment soon before the said incident is concerned, we do not find any acceptable materials on the side of prosecution. Therefore, all these aspects as well as the oral and documentary evidence were extensively taken care of by the learned Sessions Judge in his judgment and rightly came to the conclusion in holding that prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted all the accused persons. 15. On appreciation of entire materials i.e., both oral and documentary, we do not find any illegality in the judgment and order passed by the Court below. There are no valid and justifiable grounds for this Court to interfere with the judgment and order of learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby rejected confirming the judgment and order of the Court below. We appreciate and place on record the valuable assistance rendered by Sri N.S.Sampangi Ramaiah, learned amicus curiae. Hence, Registry is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to Sri N.S.Sampangi Ramaiah, learned amicus curiae as Honorarium.