JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai, in S.C.No.28 of 2012, dated 30.09.2013.) 1. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the conviction and sentence dated 30.09.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.28 of 2012 by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows: 2.1. The deceased Manjula is the daughter of PW1 Pakirisamy and PW2 Manomani. P.W.3- Venkatesan is the brother and P.W.4 –Jayabarathi and P.W.5- Chitra are sisters of the deceased. P.W.6- Thamilvani is the wife of P.W.3. The marriage between the deceased and the 1st Appellant/ A1 was performed on 17-12-2009. P.W.1 offered to give 12 sovereigns of jewellery to his daughter, but he was able to give 7 sovereigns of jewellery only during the marriage. He promised to give the balance 5 sovereigns latter, for which A1 and his parents A2- Perumal and A3- Maheswari agreed. The couple first resided in the house of A2 and A3 at Kesavaperumal Street, Greenways Road, for 2 months and then set up their separate residence in a Government Quarters allotted to A1, as a Government Servant at Todhunder Nagar, Saidapet. A1 and the deceased lived happily there for one month. A1 and A3 started harassing the deceased thereafter by demanding the balance 5 sovereigns of jewellery as promised by her parents. On 03-10-2010, P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the house of A1 to see their daughter. The deceased took P.W.1 to the bath room and complained that A3 has been torturing her by demanding the balance jewellery. P.W.1 decided to sell his land at his native place for purchasing the balance jewellery. While so, on 10-10-2010, at about 7-00 PM, PW1 received an information over Mobile Phone from the neighbours of A1 that his daughter committed suicide by hanging. P.W.1 to P.W.6 rushed to the spot and found the deceased Manjula hanging in the residence of A1. P.W.1 went to J1- Saidapet Police Station and filed a complaint in Ex.P1. 2.2. P.W.11- Tmt. Jansi Rani, Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.1168/2010 under Sec.174(3) Cr.P.C. and placed it before P.W.12- Mr.Rajendran, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Saidapet. P.W.1 to P.W.6 rushed to the spot and found the deceased Manjula hanging in the residence of A1. P.W.1 went to J1- Saidapet Police Station and filed a complaint in Ex.P1. 2.2. P.W.11- Tmt. Jansi Rani, Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.1168/2010 under Sec.174(3) Cr.P.C. and placed it before P.W.12- Mr.Rajendran, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Saidapet. Ex.P12- is the Printed copy of the F.I.R. P.W.12 received the papers at about 8-15 PM and visited the spot with P.W.8- Mr.Kanthan, Photographer, who took photos of the deceased in different angles. M.O.2 – Series are the photos. P.W.12 prepared an Observation Mahazar in Ex.P.4 in the presence of P.W.7- Mr.Murali and a sketch in Ex.P.13. He seized M.O,1 – Sari used by the deceased for hanging under the Seizure Mahazar in Ex.P5. P.W12 examined the witnesses present on the spot and then sent the dead body through a Women Police Constable for Post-Mortem. As the death occurred within 10 months from the marriage, he sent a requisition in Ex.P6 to the Personal Assistant to the Collector of Chennai for conducting inquest over the dead body. P.W.12 examined some more witnesses on 11-10-2010 and 12-10-2010. 2.3. P.W.9.-Mr.M.Selavarj, who was the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate-Cum-Additional Personal Assistant to the Collector of Chennai conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of Panchayathars on 11-10-2010. Ex.P7 is the Inquest Report. He recorded the statements of P.W.1. and P.W.2 and the accused 1 to 3. Ex.P2 is the statement of P.W.1 and Ex.P3 is the signature of P.W.2 therein for having endorsed the same statement. Ex.P.8 is the statement of A1 to A3. P.W.9 sent the report in Ex.P.9 to P.W.12 opining that the death of the deceased was due to dowry harassment. 2.4. P.W.10- Dr.V.Dekal conducted Post Mortem over the dead body on 12-10-2010 at Government Royapettah Hospital. After obtaining chemical analysis report, he gave the report in Ex.P11 with the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of Asphyxia due to hanging. 2.5. P.W.12 altered the case into Sec.498-A and Sec.304 B of IPC on 15-10-2010. Ex.P14 is the alteration report. He arrested A1 and A2 on 16-10-2010 and sent them for remand. He completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused. 3. 2.5. P.W.12 altered the case into Sec.498-A and Sec.304 B of IPC on 15-10-2010. Ex.P14 is the alteration report. He arrested A1 and A2 on 16-10-2010 and sent them for remand. He completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused. 3. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges for the offences under Sections Sec.498-A and Sec.304 B of IPC or in the alternative Sec.306 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A3. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.14 and M.O.1 to M.O.2 were marked. 4. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating materials adduced by the prosecution against them, they denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence. A1 stated that his deceased wife was having illicit relationship with her sister’s husband, that he witnessed their illicit contact and warned her, that she was mentally disturbed for 2 or 3 days thereafter, that she committed suicide and that he alone first gave the complaint before the Police. No witness was examined on the side of defence. The Form-95, through which M.O.1 was sent to the Committal Court was marked as Ex.D1 on their side. 5. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, found 1st Appellant/A1 guilty under Sec.498-A and Sec.304 B of IPC and the 2nd Appellant/A3 guilty under Sec.498-A of IPC and sentenced the appellants to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Sec.498-A of IPC and sentenced 1st Appellant/ A1 to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence under 304 B of IPC. The period of sentence imposed on the 1st Appellant was ordered to run concurrently and the period of imprisonment already undergone was set off. Mr.Perumal, who was the 2nd accused, was found not guilty and acquitted of the charges. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present criminal appeal is filed. 6. The period of sentence imposed on the 1st Appellant was ordered to run concurrently and the period of imprisonment already undergone was set off. Mr.Perumal, who was the 2nd accused, was found not guilty and acquitted of the charges. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present criminal appeal is filed. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the deceased committed suicide as she was caught red-handed in having illicit relationship with one Dilly Babu, the husband of P.W.4, that immediately after A1 found his wife hanging at about 4-30 PM on 10-10-2010, he reported it to the respondent Police, that his information was not recorded, that the versions stated by the accused before P.W.9 during his inquiry were not at all properly investigated by examining the said Dilly Babu, that P.W.1 has disowned his own complaint in Ex.P1, that there was no demand of any dowry at the time of marriage as admitted by P.W.1, that the F.I.R. was registered with ante-time and that the trial court has erred in convicting the appellants by not properly analysing the evidence on record. 7. Whereas, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that P.W.1 to P.W.6 have adduced cogent and corroborative evidence against the appellants/ Accused 1 and 3 regarding their act of cruelty demanding balance 5 sovereigns of jewelleries from the deceased, that the trial court has properly analysing the evidence on record, has come to a correct conclusion of guilt against the appellants and that the sentence awarded to them is adequate. 8. In the light of the above submissions, it has to be analysed whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellants / accused 1 and 3 ? 9. The following post-mortem injuries were found over the dead body of the deceased: An incomplete, asymmetrically oblique, well defined brownish black ligature abrasion 32x2.5- 2 cm on front and sides of upper part of the neck above the level of thyroid cartilage. Post-mortem peeling of cuticle in patchy areas were present on the ligature abrasion. The ligature abrasion was 5 cm below the chin, 7cm above the suprasternal notch and 3cm & 5cm below right and left mastoid processes respectively: On dissection, the subcutaneous suft tissues underneath the ligature abrasion were pale. Hyoid bone and other laryngeal cartilages were intact.” There were no other external or internal injuries anywhere on the body. The ligature abrasion was 5 cm below the chin, 7cm above the suprasternal notch and 3cm & 5cm below right and left mastoid processes respectively: On dissection, the subcutaneous suft tissues underneath the ligature abrasion were pale. Hyoid bone and other laryngeal cartilages were intact.” There were no other external or internal injuries anywhere on the body. Hence, it is proved that the deceased died due to hanging, as proved by the medical evidence. The question is whether the deceased committed suicide due to the cruelty alleged to be caused by the appellants by demanding the balance 5 sovereigns of jewelleries?. 10. The Apex Court in the case of Sher Singh @ Partapa Vs. State of Haryana [Criminal Appeal No. 1592 of 2011 dated 9.1.2015] reported in (2015) 3 SCC 724 , while dealing with S.304B IPC and S.113B Evidence Act inter-alia held as follows: (i) The Prosecution can discharge the initial burden to prove the ingredients of S.304B even by preponderance of probabilities (ii) Once the presence of the concomitants are established or shown or proved by the prosecution, even by preponderance of Probabilities Once the presence of the concomitants are established or shown or proved by the prosecution, even by preponderance of probability, the initial presumption of innocence is replaced by an assumption of guilt of the accused, thereupon transferring the heavy burden of proof upon him and requiring him to produce evidence dislodging his guilt, beyond reasonable doubt. 11. Similarly, the Supreme Court has considered the scope of statutory presumption under Sec. 113-B of Evidence Act in the subsequent case in Baijnath & Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.1097 of 2016 reported in ABC 2016 (II) 273 SC and held as follows: A conjoint reading of these three provisions, thus predicate the burden of the prosecution to unassailably substantiate the ingredients of the two offences by direct and convincing evidence so as to avail the presumption engrafted in Section 113B of the Act against the accused. Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or her relative or the person charged is thus the sine qua non to inspirit the statutory presumption, to draw the person charged within the coils thereof. Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or her relative or the person charged is thus the sine qua non to inspirit the statutory presumption, to draw the person charged within the coils thereof. If the prosecution fails to demonstrate by cogent coherent and persuasive evidence to prove such fact, the person accused of either of the above referred offences cannot be held guilty by taking refuge only of the presumption to cover up the shortfall in proof.” (Para 33) 12. In the present case, there is discrepancy in the evidence on record regarding the time of filing the complaint in Ex.P1. A perusal of the printed F.I.R. in Ex.P12 would show that the complaint was received at 7-00 PM of 10-10-2010 and the F.I.R was registered immediately. But, P.W.1 would state in his evidence that he received the information about the hanging of his daughter at about 7-00 PM when he was in duty as a Watchman. He along with P.W 2 and other relatives went to the spot thereafter. The Police already arrived and present there. On the advice of the Police, P.W.1 went to J1- Saidapet Police Station and filed complaint at about 8-15 PM only. P.W.1 has further admitted that the 1st accused was already present in the Police Station. In his statement during the inquiry by P.W.9, which has been marked as Ex.P8, A1 has stated that on 10-10-2010, he along with his wife and mother went to A.G.Church, Chinnamalai, at about 5-30 am, that they returned back at about 8 am, that his mother ( A3) returned to her house at about 10 am after taking Tiffin, that as his wife did not cook lunch, he went to his parent’s residence at about 12-00 Noon, that when he returned back at about 4-30 PM, he found his wife hanging and that he immediately went to the Police Station and informed it. The said statement and the admission of P.W.1 about the presence of A1 in Police station show that A1 alone first reached the Police Station and informed about the hanging of his wife and on receipt of the information, Police Constables were deputed to the spot. Instead of recording the first information of A1, the Sub-Inspector of Police waited till the arrival of P.W.1 and registered the case with post-time at 7-00 PM. 13. Instead of recording the first information of A1, the Sub-Inspector of Police waited till the arrival of P.W.1 and registered the case with post-time at 7-00 PM. 13. A scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1 before the Trial court would show that he has almost disowned the contents of Ex.P1. Ex.P1 is a written complaint filed by him before the Police. It runs as follows: “TAMIL” But P.W.1 has stated during the cross-examination that though he was able to read, he was not able to write a complaint, that the Station Writer wrote the complaint as dictated by the Sub-Inspector of Police, that it was not read over to him and that he does not know its contents. P.W.1 has deposed in his cross examination as follows:- “TAMIL” As such, it is apparent that P.W.1 has disowned the averments made in the complaint lodged by himself. Thus, Ex.P.1/complaint has become a disputed and doubtful document. 14. As regards the alleged visit dated 03-10-2010, which was about 7 days before the act of suicide, there are different versions in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6. As per Ex.P1, P.W.1 alone went to the residence of his daughter on 03-10-2010, when the deceased is alleged to have stated to him that A1 and A2 were beating her by demanding the balance 5 sovereigns of jewelleries. there is no whisper about the 2nd appellant/3rd accused in Ex.P1. But, P.W.1 has stated before the trial Court that he and his wife (P.W.2) went to their daughter’s house on 03-10-2010, that the deceased took P.W.2 to the bathroom and that she complained about her mother-in-law (A3) of attempting to strangle her neck by demanding the balance 5 sovereigns of jewellery. P.W.2 has stated similar version in her evidence. But their son P.W.3 and daughter P.W.4 have deposed that their mother alone went to their sister’s house on 03-10-2010, when she made a complaint against her mother-in-law. The said different account regarding the alleged visit to the house of the deceased would create reasonable doubt about the visit itself and that it was created by them in order to implicate the 2nd appellant/ 3rd accused in a case of dowry harassment. 15. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have admitted in their evidence that there was no demand of dowry by way of any cash, jewelleries or other items before or at the time of marriage. 15. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have admitted in their evidence that there was no demand of dowry by way of any cash, jewelleries or other items before or at the time of marriage. They have stated that when they were reluctant to give their daughter in marriage to A1 due to paucity of funds, the accused 1 to 3 offered to provide Rs.2,00,000/- to clear their debts and that accused did not make any demands. The evidence of P.W.2 in this regard runs as follows: “TAMIL” The evidence P.W.1 and P.W.2 shows that they have voluntarily offered to give 12 sovereigns of jewelleries without any demand from the accused 1 to 3, that they gave 7 sovereigns of jewellery at the time of the marriage and that they promised to give the balance in another 3 months. Admittedly, they failed to keep up the promise and there was no direct demand by any one of the accused to any one of P.W.1 to P.W.6. Apart from the general allegations made by P.W.1 to P.W.6 with parrot like similarity, the allegation of cruelty and harassment to the deceased is founded on the confidential communications by her to her parents in particular and is not supported by any other independent witnesses. Further, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have improved their versions regarding the alleged harassment demanding the balance 5 sovereigns of jewellery from the stage of F.I.R upto adducing evidence before the Trial Court. They have different accounts before P.W.9, P.W.12 and before the Trial Court. The contradictions have been elicited through P.W.12. The 1st appellant/ A1 and the deceased were residing separately in Government Quarters at Todhunder Nagar, Saidapet, and the 2nd appellant/ A3 was an occasional visitor. The residence of A1 was surrounded by many such quarters occupied by Government Servants. But, the prosecution has failed to examine any one of the neighbours to corroborate the fact that there were any quarrels between the couple at any time before the suicide. Similarly, P.W.9- Sub-Divisional Magistrate has also failed to examine the neighbours during his inquiry in order to ascertain the veracity of the version of the 1st appellant/1st accused. But, the prosecution has failed to examine any one of the neighbours to corroborate the fact that there were any quarrels between the couple at any time before the suicide. Similarly, P.W.9- Sub-Divisional Magistrate has also failed to examine the neighbours during his inquiry in order to ascertain the veracity of the version of the 1st appellant/1st accused. When the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6 is viewed in the back-round of the admitted fact that A1 to A3 offered to help P.W.1 and P.W.2 by advancing a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to tide over their financial problems without making any demand would enable this Court to come to a conclusion that the suicide committed by the deceased Manjula was not due to any demand of dowry and that it was subsequently created by them to implicate the accused in a case of dowry death. 16. The statement in Ex.P.8 made by A1 before P.W.9 explaining the reasons for misunderstanding with his wife also merits consideration. He has stated therein that after setting up separate residence at Todhunder Nagar, he came to know about the earlier illicit relationship of his wife with Dilly Babu, who is her sister’s husband, and that he frequently visited their house. A1 has further stated that he asked his wife to avoid such visits by Dilly Babu. P.W.3, who is the son of P.W.1, has stated in his evidence that Dilly Babu opposed the marriage of the deceased with A1. In such circumstances, the Prosecution should have examined him as a witness. But, he was not examined by P.W.12 during investigation or by P.W.9 during his inquiry. No attempt was made to probe the version of A1 involving the said Dilly Babu in the matrimonial dispute with the deceased. 17. A cumulative consideration of the overall evidence regarding the allegation of demand of dowry, leaves me not convinced about the truthfulness of the charges against the appellants/accused 1 and 3. The prosecution, in my opinion, has failed to prove the indispensable component of the two offences under Sec.498-A and Sec.304 B of IPC or in the alternative Sec.306 r/w 34 IPC, both by preponderance of probability and also beyond reasonable doubt. The factum of unnatural death in the home of A1 within 10 months of marriage alone is not sufficient to bring home the charge against the appellants. The factum of unnatural death in the home of A1 within 10 months of marriage alone is not sufficient to bring home the charge against the appellants. The prosecution has failed to prove the crucial ingredient of cruelty and harassment by cogent and convincing evidence thereby disentitling itself to the benefit of the statutory presumption available under Section 113-B of the Act. 18. In my view, the analysis of the evidence by the Trial Court has not been in the proper factual and legal perspectives and thus the findings recorded by it cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. The Point is answered accordingly. 19. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No.28 of 2012 by Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai, are set aside. The appellants/1st and 3rd accused are acquitted. Bail bond, if any executed by them shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any paid by them is ordered to be refunded forthwith.