JUDGMENT : The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused Nos.1 to 3 being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 24.04.2010, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, in S.C. No.14/2006. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the daughter of the complainant viz., Ratnawwa, was performed prior to 28.11.2005 with accused No.1 Hemareddi. Before the marriage, marriage talks took place before the elders and thereby, it was agreed that an amount of Rs.25,000/, 5 tolas of gold, watch, clothes and utensils were to be given and accordingly, the marriage was performed by giving the said dowry. It is the further case of the complainant that, at the time of marriage, dowry was given before one Shekhappa Purad and other persons. After the marriage, Ratnawwa went to the house of accused No.1. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were residing together. For few days, Ratnawwa was looked after well and thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 3 started to harass her and treat her with cruelty in connection with demand of 10 tolas of gold and cash of Rs.50,000/. The said fact was informed by the daughter of the complainant. The complainant, along with Shekhappa Purad and others, went to the house of the accused and advised accused Nos.1 to 3. But, in spite of the said advice, accused persons continued their ill-treatment and harassment. In the meanwhile, the said Ratnawwa gave birth to a male child, when she had come to the house of the complainant for delivery purpose and thereafter, she was sent back to the house of the accused No.1. About two months prior to the filing of the complaint, the said Ratnawwa came to the house of the complainant and again told the complainant that she was sent to her house to bring cash of Rs.50,000/and 10 tolas of gold. Ratnawwa also insisted for payment of the same from the complainant. It is the further case of the prosecution that after expiry of few days, accused No.1 came to the house of the complainant and the complainant told accused No.1 that cash and gold will be given as early as possible and thereafter, the daughter of the complainant was sent along with accused No.1. It is the further case of the prosecution that after expiry of few days, accused No.1 came to the house of the complainant and the complainant told accused No.1 that cash and gold will be given as early as possible and thereafter, the daughter of the complainant was sent along with accused No.1. It is the further case of the complainant that on 28.11.2005, at about 1.30 p.m., the younger brother of the complainant made a telephone call informing one Suresh Channalli that the daughter of the complainant had died in Bennihalli and immediately, the complainant and other persons came and there they found the dead body of her daughter. When the complainant enquired with the accused about the cause of death of her daughter, accused Nos.1 to 3 did not whisper any word and they kept mum. Subsequently, the complainant came to know from others that the accused illtreated and harassed her daughter in connection with the demand to bring additional dowry and gold, as the dowry and gold given in the marriage was less, and because of the illtreatment and harassment given by the accused, Ratnawwa consumed poison and died. After coming to know the said fact, the complainant lodged a complaint. On the basis of the complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.175/2005. After investigation, a chargesheet was laid as against the accused persons. 3. After filing of the chargesheet, as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, after following the formalities, the committal Court committed the case to the Sessions Court. Thereafter, the Sessions Court took cognizance of the matter, secured the presence of the accused persons and, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, charges were framed as against the accused persons. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such, the Trial was fixed. In order to prove its case, prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 26, marked Exs.P.1 to P.24 and produced M.Os.1 to 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code by confronting incriminating material as against them. The accused persons denied the said questions. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused persons, the impugned judgment and order came to be passed. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code by confronting incriminating material as against them. The accused persons denied the said questions. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused persons, the impugned judgment and order came to be passed. Assailing the same, the accused/appellants are before this Court. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellants/accused are that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is erroneous and the same is not sustainable in law. The Trial Court only on the basis of the testimony of the interested witnesses has passed the order of conviction. He further contended that, if actually the accused persons had illtreated and harassed Ratnawwa, then immediately, a complaint ought to have been filed as against the accused, but no such complaint is forthcoming to substantiate the said fact. He further contended that the prosecution has to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. He further contended that, in the case on hand, the father of the deceased and the elder sister of the deceased had committed suicide and there is a tendency of committing suicide in the family of the complainant. This aspect has not been properly considered and appreciated by the Trial Court. He further contended that there is no iota of evidence to show that the deceased died because of the demand of dowry. The theory put forth by the prosecution is false and no material has been produced. He further contended that if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted at its face value, the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304B are not forthcoming. He further contended that none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. In that light, the conviction based upon the testimony of interested witnesses is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. On these grounds, he prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued by contending that the evidence of the other persons corroborates with the evidence of the complainant and other material. On these grounds, he prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued by contending that the evidence of the other persons corroborates with the evidence of the complainant and other material. Admittedly, as the death of the deceased has taken place within seven years of the marriage, a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act would arise. The accused have to rebut the said presumption by preponderance of probabilities, but the accused persons have not made out any good grounds rebutting the said presumption raised against them. Even the evidence of P.W.10 complainant testifies the complaint and its contents, and though there are contradictions, they are minor and would not go to the root of the case of the prosecution so as to disbelieve the evidence produced by the prosecution. He further contended that the evidence of P.Ws.15 and 16 clearly indicates that they were present at the time of marriage talks and also at the time when dowry was given. When the said witnesses have given their evidence specifically stating about the demand of dowry, the same would meet the ingredients of the offences with which the accused persons were chargesheeted. Even the evidence of P.W.11, the brother of the complainant and P.W.17, who were present at the time of the marriage talks and demand of dowry corroborates the evidence. He further contended that the Trial Court, after considering all the materials, has come to the right conclusion in convicting the accused and the same is in accordance with law. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the accused persons. 6. Before going to discuss the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the accused, I feel it just and necessary to have a cursory glance of the evidence which has been ledin before the Trial Court, which are (a) P.W.1 is a witness who has deposed that he knows accused and the deceased. P.Ws.2 and 3 are neighbours of the accused. All these three witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. They have been treated as hostile and, even during the course of crossexamination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited so as to substantiate the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.2 and 3 are neighbours of the accused. All these three witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. They have been treated as hostile and, even during the course of crossexamination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited so as to substantiate the case of the prosecution. P.W.4 is the doctor, who examined the deceased immediately when she was brought to the hospital after she consumed poison. After examination, he declared her dead. (b) P.Ws.5, 6, 7 and 8 are the persons who were present at the time of marriage and who have deposed that the accused persons demanded dowry. P.W.8 is the person who carried the deceased to the hospital of P.W.4, where she was declared as dead. P.W.9 is also a witness for demand of dowry. P.Ws.5 to 9 have not supported the case of the prosecution. They have been treated as hostile. Even during the crossexamination, nothing has been elicited so as to prove the case of the prosecution. (c) P.W.10 is the mother of the deceased and the complainant. She has deposed that the marriage of the deceased was performed with accused No.1 and they agreed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/and 5 tolas of gold by way of dowry and at that time Shekhappa Purad, Hanumanthappa Gaddad and Ishappa were also present. She has further deposed that accused Nos.1 to 3 were jointly living with the deceased. For about 1½ months, they led happy married life and thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 3 started illtreating the deceased to bring Rs.50,000/cash and 10 tolas of gold from her parents’ house. She has further deposed that illtreatment means, they (accused) were abusing, assaulting and not providing food till she (deceased) fulfills their demands. She further deposed that whenever her daughter used to come to her house, she used to tell her about the illtreatment, to which she used to advise by saying that already sufficient amount has been paid and she will arrange to pay further dowry and by saying so she used to sent her daughter to the house of the accused. She has further deposed that one month prior to her death, her son-in-law i.e., accused No.1 visited her house and, at that time also, her daughter told regarding harassment, to which, she (complainant) requested accused No.1 to treat her daughter properly. She has further deposed that one month prior to her death, her son-in-law i.e., accused No.1 visited her house and, at that time also, her daughter told regarding harassment, to which, she (complainant) requested accused No.1 to treat her daughter properly. She has further deposed that because of demand of dowry her daughter committed suicide. She has further deposed that after coming to know about the death of her daughter, she filed a complaint. During the course of cross-examination, it has been elicited that accused No.1 was a good man; at the time of giving her daughter in marriage, she (deceased) was going to college. It has been further elicited that her daughter was intelligent in the college; her daughter’s friends, who were going to college with her daughter, continued to go to college even after the marriage of her daughter; her daughter had disclosed not to perform her marriage early as she wanted to continue her studies. She has also admitted that when she went to the house of daughter’s husband and when they came to her (complainant’s) house, they were living happily; what are all the articles and other things that had to be given in marriage was reduced into writing. Except this, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness. (d) P.W.11 is the brother of P.W.10. He has deposed about the demand of dowry i.e. payment of Rs.25,000/cash and 5 tolas of gold at the time of performing marriage. He has also deposed that the deceased and accused Nos.1 to 3 were living together. He has further deposed that the accused persons were illtreating and harassing the deceased and the said fact used to be told by the deceased whenever she came to his house. (e) P.W.12 is also one of the brothers of P.W.10, who was also present at the time of marriage talks and subsequently, who also participated in the compromise as an elderly person to pacify the quarrel. During the course of crossexamination, nothing has been elicited in this behalf. (f) P.W.13 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and who issued the postmortem report as per Ex.P.10. He has opined that the death is due to asphyxia as a result of consumption of poison. (g) P.W.14 is the younger brother of P.W.10, who was also present at the time of marriage negotiations. (f) P.W.13 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and who issued the postmortem report as per Ex.P.10. He has opined that the death is due to asphyxia as a result of consumption of poison. (g) P.W.14 is the younger brother of P.W.10, who was also present at the time of marriage negotiations. He speaks about the illtreatment and harassment caused by the accused persons. He also speaks that P.W.10 informed him about the illtreatment and harassment caused by the accused persons and he also went to the house of the accused along with P.W.12 and advised them to lead a proper life. During the course of crossexamination, nothing has been elicited so as to discard the evidence of this witness. (h) P.Ws.15, 16 and 17 are the witnesses who were also present at the time of marriage talks and demand of dowry and payment of dowry. During the course of crossexamination of these witnesses nothing has been elicited so as to discard their evidence. These witnesses have also deposed about the elders going to the house of the accused and holding a panchayat and advising the accused on two occasions. (i) P.W.18 is the Investigating Officer who took up the investigation of this case and partly investigated it. P.W.19 is the Police Inspector who received the complaint and registered the case. P.W.20 is the Tahsildar who conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased as per Ex.P.18. P.W.21 is the Police Inspector who took up the further investigation of the case and filed chargesheet. P.W.22 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police who participated in the investigation of this case. (j) P.W.23 is a witness who has deposed that he was present at the time of marriage talks and also at the time of marriage. He has deposed that he has not seen the amount of Rs.25,000/and gold being given to accused No.1 by the complainant, though he had attended the marriage. He has also deposed that he heard that only after giving the cash and gold to the accused, the marriage was performed. This witness has been treated as hostile. But, nothing has been elicited by the learned Public Prosecutor to substantiate the case of the prosecution. P.W.24 has reiterated the evidence of P.W.23. During the course of crossexamination nothing has been elicited so as to discard the evidence of this witness. This witness has been treated as hostile. But, nothing has been elicited by the learned Public Prosecutor to substantiate the case of the prosecution. P.W.24 has reiterated the evidence of P.W.23. During the course of crossexamination nothing has been elicited so as to discard the evidence of this witness. P.W.25 is a witness who was supposed to depose about the marriage talks. But he has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated as a hostile. (k) P.W.26 is another witness, who advised the accused persons when he came to know that the deceased Ratnawwa was being harassed in connection with demand of additional dowry and gold. During the course of crossexamination of this witness nothing has been elicited so as to discard his evidence. 7. With the above evidence let me consider as to whether the prosecution has established the case as alleged by it. The marriage of accused No.1 with the deceased is not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that accused No.2 is the mother of accused No.1 and accused No.3 is the brother of accused No.1. It is the case of the prosecution that, at the time of marriage, the accused persons demanded an amount of Rs.25,000/and 5 tolas of gold as dowry; after marriage, the accused further started demanding Rs.50,000/and 10 tolas of gold; the accused started illtreating and harassing in connection with additional dowry and when the said fact was informed to the parents of the deceased Ratnawwa, her parents advised the accused; that panchayats were held on two occasions to pacify the issue, but in spite of that subsequently, on 28.11.2005, the deceased Ratnawwa consumed poison and died. It is not in dispute that the deceased Ratnawwa died within seven years of marriage. 8. The only question that arises for consideration of this Court is whether the deceased Ratnawwa died because of the illtreatment and harassment caused by the accused persons and whether such cruelty or harassment was in connection with the demand of dowry. 9. Before considering the point in controversy, it is desirable to extract the relevant provision of Section 304B which reads as under: “304B. 9. Before considering the point in controversy, it is desirable to extract the relevant provision of Section 304B which reads as under: “304B. Dowry death.—(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.– For the purpose of this subsection, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.” The above provision was inserted to protect a woman from such cruelty and harassment by the inlaws. In order to convict an accused for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC, the prosecution has to prove and satisfy the following ingredients: (i) that the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) that such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (iii) that soon before her death, a woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and (iv) such cruelty or harassment was in connection with demand for dowry If the above said ingredients are established by reliable and acceptable evidence, then the Court can hold that such death shall be a dowry death and the Court can presume that the husband and relatives have caused her death in furtherance of demand of dowry. If the above ingredients are satisfied, then the Court shall presume and record such fact as proved until and unless it is disproved by the accused by producing cogent and acceptable evidence. 10. Before going to consider the case of the prosecution, I feel it just and necessary to extract Section 113B of the Evidence Act which reads as under: “113B. Presumption as to dowry death. 10. Before going to consider the case of the prosecution, I feel it just and necessary to extract Section 113B of the Evidence Act which reads as under: “113B. Presumption as to dowry death. - When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation.– For the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).” 11. In the case on hand, the deceased Ratnawwa died because of consuming poison or pesticide, which is not in dispute and it is not a normal death is also not in dispute. It is not even in dispute that the deceased Ratnawwa died within seven years of her marriage. The only point which the Court has to consider is, whether the prosecution has been able to establish its case that before the death of Ratnawwa, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry so as to attract the provisions of Section 304B of IPC. Though the expression “soon before her death” is used, it does not mean that, immediately prior to the death there must be illtreatment or harassment. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maya Devi & Another Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2015(4) Crimes 572(SC). Keeping in view the above ratio, if the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is analysed, it is clear that the witnesses have specifically deposed before the Court that, at the time of marriage talks, they were present and accused demanded an amount of Rs.25,000/and 5 tolas of gold and even the mother and brother of the deceased have also substantiated the said fact, and subsequently after the marriage the accused persons demanded further amount of Rs.50,000/and 10 tolas of gold and in that context, the accused persons used to abuse and harass Ratnawwa and the same has been informed by the deceased to P.W.10 and other relatives. The said fact is also on record. The said fact is also on record. Even in the evidence, it has been brought on record that on two occasions panchayats were held to pacify the quarrel. All these circumstances narrated by these witnesses clearly go to show that the accused persons illtreated and harassed the deceased Ratnawwa for demand of dowry. When the said evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution, then under such circumstances, the Court is bound to presume and it shall record such a fact as proved until and unless, it is disproved by the accused. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mayadevi’s case (supra). It is relevant to extract para 22 of the said judgment which reads as under: “22. The key words under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 are “shall presume” leaving no option with a court but to presume an accused brought before it of causing a dowry death guilty of the offence. However, the redeeming factor of this provision is that the presumption is rebuttable. Section 113B of the Act enables an accused to prove his innocence and places a reverse onus of proof on him or her. In the case on hand, accused persons failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died a natural death. When Kavita allegedly committed suicide, her husband-appellant No.2, though he was not present in the house, was present in his office at M.D. University, Rohtak at the relevant time but he did not make any sincere effort to take her to the hospital which was very near to the place of the incident. Similarly, appellant No. 2 got the deceased examined by DW2 in order to create an impression that she was struggling with chronic depression but the truth floated upon the surface when the deceased reveals that the accused persons were maltreating her and she had started picking up the ideas of suicide. Lastly, appellant No. 2 falsely informed the court that having learnt about the death of his wife Kavita, he left for Delhi to inform her family members. In fact, the accused never went to Delhi and the complainant received a telephonic message from an unknown person regarding the death of his daughter. Lastly, appellant No. 2 falsely informed the court that having learnt about the death of his wife Kavita, he left for Delhi to inform her family members. In fact, the accused never went to Delhi and the complainant received a telephonic message from an unknown person regarding the death of his daughter. So far as Maya Devi-appellant No.1 herein is concerned, there is no denying the fact that she was working as a teacher in a government school and she was not present at the relevant time at the place of incident but it is very much clear from the evidence on record that both the accused persons had a dominating role in the entire episode and she had always accompanied her son-appellant No. 2 herein to the house of the complainant (PW3) for the dowry demands. The presumption under Section 113B of the Act is mandatory may be contrasted with Section 113A of the Act which was introduced contemporaneously. Section 113A of the Act, dealing with abetment of suicide, uses the expression “may presume”. This being the position, a two-stage process is required to be followed in respect of an offence punishable under Section 304B IPC: it is necessary to first ascertain whether the ingredients of the Section have been made out against the accused; if the ingredients are made out, then the accused is deemed to have caused the death of the woman but is entitled to rebut the statutory presumption of having caused a dowry death. From the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that in the present case Kavita died an unnatural death by committing suicide as she was subjected to cruelty/harassment by her husband and inlaws in connection with the demand for dowry which started from the time of her marriage and continued till she committed suicide. Thus, the provisions of Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC will be fully attracted”. 12. On ascertaining the evidence, it is seen that ingredients of Section 304B of IPC have been made out by the prosecution and, in that light, it may be held that the accused have caused the death of Ratnawwa. However, the accused are also entitled to rebut the said statutory presumption for having caused the dowry death. 12. On ascertaining the evidence, it is seen that ingredients of Section 304B of IPC have been made out by the prosecution and, in that light, it may be held that the accused have caused the death of Ratnawwa. However, the accused are also entitled to rebut the said statutory presumption for having caused the dowry death. On perusal of the records, the statements of accused recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they have stated that they will give their written statement, but, during the course of arguments, when this Court requested the learned counsel appearing for the parties to trace the said statements given by the accused persons, no such statements were available on record. It indicates that though they have stated that the accused would file a written statement, they have not filed any such statement. It also indicates that the accused persons have not rebutted the said presumption raised under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. From the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that in the present case, Smt. Ratnawwa died an unnatural death by consuming pesticide; that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused persons in connection with demand for dowry which started from the time of her marriage and continued till she committed suicide. It is well established principles of law that when once the Court draws a presumption and if the same is not rebutted by cogent and acceptable evidence by the accused, the accused persons are liable to be convicted. In that light, on the basis of the presumption that can be raised and on perusal of the entire evidence placed on record, it can be safely held that accused have committed the alleged offence. 13. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants/accused vehemently argued by contending that the said witnesses are the interested witnesses and related witnesses and under such circumstances, their testimony are not acceptable and reliable. As could be seen from the evidence of P.W.15 and 16, they are the independent witnesses and they have also testified the case of the prosecution. It is well established principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the witness who had lost her daughter and other relatives and if they come and depose, merely because they are related, their testimony cannot be discarded. It is well established principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the witness who had lost her daughter and other relatives and if they come and depose, merely because they are related, their testimony cannot be discarded. There is no earthly reason to categorise them as interested witnesses who would nurture animosity to see that the accused persons are convicted though they are not involved in the crime. On the contrary, they would like that the real culprits are prosecuted and convicted. It is also well established principles of law that whenever an interested witness comes and deposes before the Court, the testimony of such a witness must be subjected to careful scrutiny and thereafter, the same has to be accepted with great care and caution. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kanaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013 Crl.L.J. 2921. The relevant paras 18 and 20 of the said judgment read as under: “18. In Hari Obula Reddy and others vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, a three Judges Bench has opined that it cannot be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of the interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon. 20. In the case at hand, the witnesses have lost their father, husband and a relative. There is no earthly reason to categorise them as interested witnesses who would nurture an animus to see that the accused persons are convicted, though they are not involved in the crime. On the contrary, they would like that the real culprits are prosecuted and convicted. That is the normal phenomena of human nature and that is the expected human conduct and we do not perceive that these witnesses harboured any ill motive against the accused persons, but have deposed as witnesses to the brutal incident. On the contrary, they would like that the real culprits are prosecuted and convicted. That is the normal phenomena of human nature and that is the expected human conduct and we do not perceive that these witnesses harboured any ill motive against the accused persons, but have deposed as witnesses to the brutal incident. We may proceed to add, as stated earlier, that this court shall be careful and cautious while scanning their testimony and we proceed to do so.” 14. On going through the above proposition of law, it is clear that whenever the interested witnesses come and depose before the Court their evidence cannot be discarded only because they harboured illmotive against the accused persons. On going through the evidence of these witnesses, no such evidence has been brought on record by the accused stating that the witnesses were grinding axe against them and, in that light, the witnesses have deposed falsely against them. In the light of the discussion held by me above, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant is not tenable in law and the same is liable to be rejected, and accordingly it is rejected. 15. I have gone through the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Though the trial Court has not discussed the evidence in detail by appreciating each of the facts and circumstances, on a detailed analysis of the entire evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the accused persons have not made out a case so as to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. The order of the Trial Court is neither perverse nor capricious. Any illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Trial Court in convicting the appellants/accused. The appellants have not made out any grounds to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. 16. In the light of the discussion held by me above the appeal being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to issue the conviction warrant accordingly.