JUDGMENT : H.P. Sandesh, J. This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 22.11.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.142 of 2011 on the file of Fast Track Court-III and Additional Session Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that, the prosecution filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the accused was performed with the deceased Pushpa about 4 years back and at the time of marriage talks, the accused demanded Rs.2,50,000/- and the same was settled for Rs.1,50,000/- and the said amount was given along with gold jewels of 10 savaren. After the marriage, the accused and his wife resided at House No.277, 4th Cross, Domlur Extension, Bangalore and thereafter, the accused started ill-treating his wife by demanding further dowry and alleging that she did not bear any child. As such, due to the ill-treatment meted out by his husband, she committed suicide by hanging on 25.09.2010 at about 8.00 a.m. in the house of the accused. The death has occurred within seven years of the marriage and hence, Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code and other offences are invoked. 3. The charges are framed against the accused initially for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code and thereafter, additional charges under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are framed. The accused did not plead guilty and claims for trial. Hence, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P54 and also M.O.Nos.1 to 26. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code was recorded and thereafter, the accused examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D11. The Court below after closure of the evidence, heard the arguments of prosecution and also learned counsel for accused and acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against him. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal. 4. Sri I.S.Pramod Chandra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would contend that the learned trial Judge has failed to consider the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, who are the brother, sister, father and relatives of the deceased. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal. 4. Sri I.S.Pramod Chandra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would contend that the learned trial Judge has failed to consider the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, who are the brother, sister, father and relatives of the deceased. The material witnesses have clearly deposed before the Court about the ill-treatment meted out by the accused to the deceased and also about receiving dowry by the accused. The learned trial Judge without appreciating the evidence of the above witnesses has passed the impugned judgment of acquittal giving benefit of doubt in favour of the accused and the same is erroneous. The Court below also failed to take note of the fact that the deceased committed suicide within four years of her marriage. There is no reason for her to commit suicide at the matrimonial home, except for the harassment given by the accused in connection with the dowry and also for the reason that she did not beget the child even after four years of marriage. The circumstances of committing suicide has not been properly evaluated by the learned Sessions Judge. The other contention that the complaint lodged by P.W.1, brother of the deceased which is marked as Ex.P1 and also his evidence corroborates the same and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1, P.Ws.3 to 6 and P.W.11, who have supported the case of the prosecution. He would further contend that on the previous day of committing suicide, the deceased went to the house of her parents and demanded Rs.15,000/- from them to meet the medical expenses. The parents have given the reply that her father was admitted to hospital due to heart ailment one week prior to that date and she was sent with an assurance that the amount would be adjusted and given shortly. On the very next date, she committed suicide. There is a proximity with taking steps to commit the suicide. These aspects have not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Without considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused. Hence, he prayed the Court to convict the accused. 5. On the very next date, she committed suicide. There is a proximity with taking steps to commit the suicide. These aspects have not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Without considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused. Hence, he prayed the Court to convict the accused. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused would contend that the learned trial Judge after considering both oral and documentary evidence has meticulously appreciated the same in right perspective and nothing remains to be considered to reverse the findings of the trial Court and hence, prayed this Court to dismiss the appeal. 6. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsels and also on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for our consideration is: "Whether the Court below has committed an error in acquitting the accused for the charges leveled against him and the same requires interference of this Court". 7. Having heard the arguments of both the counsels and on perusal of the records, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the deceased committed suicide and the cause of death is due to asphyxia and hanging and the same is evident from the evidence of P.W.14, who conducted the post mortem examination. In Ex.P46, the post mortem report, the cause of death is mentioned as asphyxia, as a result of hanging. The same is also not in dispute. Hence, it is clear that the death is due to hanging. 8. Now the question before us for consideration is whether the accused has committed the offences alleged against him beyond reasonable doubt, since it is alleged that accused demanded his wife to bring additional dowry by ill-treating her and also he received the dowry prior to the marriage and during the course of marriage. 9. P.Ws.1 to 3 in their evidence say that when the marriage settlement talks were held in the house of the parents of the deceased, it was settled for Rs.1,50,000/- and to give gold jewels of 10 savaren. P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased in his evidence says talks were held prior to two months of the marriage. On behalf of the accused, the accused and his brother-in-law Thirupathaiah and his sister Ramadevi were present. On their behalf, he himself, his father and C.Ws.5 and 9 were present i.e., P.Ws.3 and 9. P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased in his evidence says talks were held prior to two months of the marriage. On behalf of the accused, the accused and his brother-in-law Thirupathaiah and his sister Ramadevi were present. On their behalf, he himself, his father and C.Ws.5 and 9 were present i.e., P.Ws.3 and 9. In his evidence, he says accused and his brother-in-law demanded Rs.2,50,000/- and 15 savaren gold and it was settled for Rs.1,50,000/- and 10 savaren gold. He further says that at the time of engagement, they gave Rs.50,000/- to Thirupathaiah and gave 10 grams gold ring and prior to marriage, Rs.1,00,000/- was given through cheque. After the marriage, his sister joined the matrimonial home. Accused continued the harassment insisting her to bring additional dowry and this demand has taken place for a period of one year. He also says his sister was working after the marriage and continued the job for 11/2 year. Whenever she used to come late, he was abusing her. Since the father of the deceased took treatment at Jayadeva Hospital for heart aliment, it is also his evidence that when his sister went to house, the accused insisted for money. She called and told to adjust the same. On the very next day, he received the information of committing the suicide. 10. P.W.1 was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that in the presence of accused, marriage talks were not held. He also admits that TV was purchased by accused himself, but Rs.30,000/- was given to accused after one year of marriage. In the cross-examination, he admits that the cheque was not given in the name of the accused and further, he admits that Ex.P.14 cheque is a self-cheque which is counter signed by his father. He further admits that his sister has not written any letter for having subjected her for harassment. But, he claims orally that she was telling the same. He further claims that when the accused demanded additional money in the house of the accused, a panchayath was held and they did not give any complaint. It is suggested that his sister was not having interest to marry the accused and she was forced to marry him and the said suggestion was denied. 11. He further claims that when the accused demanded additional money in the house of the accused, a panchayath was held and they did not give any complaint. It is suggested that his sister was not having interest to marry the accused and she was forced to marry him and the said suggestion was denied. 11. P.W.2 is the colleague of P.W.5 and he claims that he was informed by the father of the deceased that accused subjected her for harassment. It is his further evidence that once the deceased came near office and told that she did not begotten child and hence, accused is subjecting harassment and at that time, he advised to take treatment with Dr.Kamini Rao. In the cross-examination, he admits that he told that he would talk to the accused at the appropriate time. It was suggested that no such statement was made either by the father of the deceased or by the deceased and the same was denied. P.W.2 is hearsay witness. On the say of P.W.5, he deposed about harassment. 12. P.W.3 is the relative of the deceased. He claims that he was also present at the time of marriage talks. He demanded Rs.2,00,000/- and it was settled for Rs.1,50,000/-. At the time of engagement, they gave an amount of Rs.50,000/-. He claimed that he himself gave money to Thirupathaiah and remaining amount was given through cheque. The accused started harassment after two to three months of marriage. He himself and C.Ws.1 and 2 went to the house of the accused and advised. She did not beget child and hence, accused was harassing her. In the cross-examination, he admits that in his presence, marriage talks were not held. He further admits that at the time of engagement, except money, nothing is given. After the engagement, he did not go to the house of P.W.1 and even after the marriage also. 13. P.W.4 is the sister of the deceased. In her evidence, she claimed that she was also present when the marriage talks were held. The accused, his sister and brother-in-law were present at the time of marriage talks and they demanded Rs.2,50,000/- and 10 savaren gold. It was settled at Rs.1,50,000/- and 8 savaren gold. At the time of engagement, they gave Rs.50,000/- and the same was given to brother-in-law of the accused through the P.W.3, remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was given through cheque. The accused, his sister and brother-in-law were present at the time of marriage talks and they demanded Rs.2,50,000/- and 10 savaren gold. It was settled at Rs.1,50,000/- and 8 savaren gold. At the time of engagement, they gave Rs.50,000/- and the same was given to brother-in-law of the accused through the P.W.3, remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was given through cheque. It is her evidence that after one month, again he demanded additional dowry and gold and the same was told to her by her sister. They have provided treatment to both accused and her sister since they did not beget a child. The accused was subjecting her for harassment by consuming alcohol and he also sold the gold ornaments, which were given to him. On 24.09.2010, her sister came and demanded Rs.15,000/- for her treatment. At that time, she was also present. On the very next day, she received the information of committing suicide. In the cross-examination, she admits that they have purchased jewels from Khajana Jewelers, but they are not having any receipt. She also admits that they are not having any receipts for having purchased other gold ornaments and she admits that they have not given any complaint during the life time of her sister regarding the harassment by the accused. She cannot tell on which date, her sister told about the harassment. Further, she admits that panchayath was also held and she cannot produce any documents. It is suggested that no dowry was given and accused did not demand any additional dowry or gold ornaments and the same was denied. 14. P.W.5 is the father of the deceased. He deposed that accused, his sister and brother-in-law came to the marriage talks. He himself, his family members and his son-in-law and P.W.3 were present. They demanded Rs.2,50,000/- and 15 savaren gold. It was settled for Rs.1,50,000/- and 10 savaren gold and the amount was given to his brother-in-law Thirupathaiah. He also gave a ring. His daughter was cordial with her husband for one month and thereafter, accused was demanding additional dowry and golden ornaments. He also claimed that he gave Rs.30,000/- to purchase TV since accused demanded the same. He further says that since his daughter did not beget child, he took her to Dr. Kamini Rao. Six months treatment was provided. On the previous day of committing suicide, she came and demanded Rs.15,000/-. He also claimed that he gave Rs.30,000/- to purchase TV since accused demanded the same. He further says that since his daughter did not beget child, he took her to Dr. Kamini Rao. Six months treatment was provided. On the previous day of committing suicide, she came and demanded Rs.15,000/-. At that time, he expressed difficulty to pay the same. In the cross-examination, it is suggested that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was not given at the time of engagement and the same was denied. It is suggested that for treatment, he has spent only Rs.400/- and the same was denied. But, he admits that he is having receipt only for Rs.400/-. Ex.P.14 is his bank cheque. He claims that he paid Rs.30,000/- for purchasing TV by availing loan from KGID. He admits that Police seized all the jewels in the house of the accused and mahazar was drawn. It is suggested that his daughter was not having any interest to lead her life with the accused, hence, she committed suicide and the same is denied. 15. P.W.6 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. He says that he was also present at the time of marriage talks. At the time of engagement, Rs.50,000/- was given to Thirupathaiah and ring was given to the accused. The remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid through cheque. The accused was demanding additional dowry and the deceased was telling the same. The accused was harassing the deceased on the ground that she did not beget child and treatment was provided to her. He further claimed that since accused had sold the gold ornaments which were given at the time of marriage, there was misunderstanding. In the cross-examination, he claimed that ring was given at the time of engagement and bracelet was given at the time of marriage. The amount was given to Thirupataiah by P.W.3, who was present. In the cross-examination, he says that his father-in-law did not pay Rs.15,000/- when the amount was demanded. 16. The other witness is P.W.9 who is the tenant of the accused. He was doing business in the premises attached to the house of the accused. In his evidence he says that the accused came and enquired whether his wife gave the key of the house and he gave the reply that no key was given. Accused thereafter called him near the house and door was locked. He was doing business in the premises attached to the house of the accused. In his evidence he says that the accused came and enquired whether his wife gave the key of the house and he gave the reply that no key was given. Accused thereafter called him near the house and door was locked. When peeped through the window, it was found that the deceased was in hanging position. Immediately, he shifted his wife to hospital. He does not know the reason for suicide. 17. P.W.11 is another witness, who is son of P.W.3. He also claims that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was given at the time of marriage and Rs.50,000/- was given at the time of engagement and 10 savaren gold was also given. He came to know that the accused was insisting her to bring the additional dowry and also harassing her since she did not beget child. 18. P.Ws.7 and 8 are mahazar witnesses to seizure of articles in the house of accused. P.W.10 is the spot mahazar witness. P.W.12 is another witness to inquest. P.W.13 is the doctor, who examined the deceased when she was taken to hospital. P.W.14 conducted autopsy. P.W.15 is the Tahsildar, in whose presence inquest was conducted and statement of witnesses were recorded. P.W.16 is the mahazar witness. P.Ws.17 and 18 registered the case and conducted the investigation. In respect of Ex.P42 i.e., Mahazar, all these witnesses are formal witnesses. 19. The accused also examined himself as DW.1 and denied the allegations made in the charge sheet. He produced the documents at Exs.D1 to D11 in support of his contentions. 20. Having considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses and also the charges leveled against the accused, this Court has to examine whether the Court below has committed an error in acquitting the accused. Let us consider the evidence of PWs.1 to 6, 9, 11 and 13 who have supported the case of the prosecution. The charges leveled against the accused is that he demanded and accepted the dowry of Rs.1,50,000/-. P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased says that he himself, his father and his senior uncle, who are examined as P.Ws.3, 5, 6 and 7 were present at the time of marriage talks and have also spoke about giving money of Rs.50,000/- at the time of engagement and Rs.1,00,000/- prior to marriage. P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased says that he himself, his father and his senior uncle, who are examined as P.Ws.3, 5, 6 and 7 were present at the time of marriage talks and have also spoke about giving money of Rs.50,000/- at the time of engagement and Rs.1,00,000/- prior to marriage. In the cross examination of P.W.1, he categorically admits that, at the time of marriage talks the accused was not present. Though in the chief evidence, he claims that he was present in the cross examination, he categorically admits that he was not present. It is further important to note that though it is the case of the prosecution that the accused demanded money to purchase TV and accordingly Rs.30,000/- was paid, P.W.1 admits that accused himself has purchased the same, but they have made payment of Rs.30,000/- i.e., after one year of the marriage. Accused in his evidence produced Ex.D4 to show that he only purchased TV and the prosecution did not place any material for having paid Rs.30,000/- to accused to purchase the TV. 21. The other case of the prosecution is that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid at the time of marriage. In the cross examination, P.W.1 admits that cheque was not given in the name of accused and the father of the deceased only has counter signed on the overleaf of the cheque. P.W.1 also admits that when the accused was harassing his sister, she did not write any letter and also they have not given any complaint. He claims that panchayath was held and the same is not substantiated by examining any of the witnesses. P.W.2 though spoke that the father of the deceased and also the deceased herself had informed about the harassment, it is only hearsay evidence. P.W.3, who is the relative of the deceased though claims that in his presence marriage talks were held and he only gave money to brother-in-law of accused, in the cross examination, he categorically admits that in his presence, no marriage talks were held. Hence, it is clear that his evidence cannot be believed when he did not participate in the marriage talks. In the further cross-examination, he admits that he did not go to the house of P.W.1 after the engagement and even after the marriage also. The other witness P.W.4 is the sister of the deceased. Hence, it is clear that his evidence cannot be believed when he did not participate in the marriage talks. In the further cross-examination, he admits that he did not go to the house of P.W.1 after the engagement and even after the marriage also. The other witness P.W.4 is the sister of the deceased. No doubt P.W.1 says that P.W.4 was also present when the amount was given to Thirupathaiah and remaining amount was given through cheque. In the cross-examination, she had categorically admitted that they are not having any receipt for having purchased the gold articles. She also claims in her chief evidence that accused was consuming alcohol and beating the deceased. He sold the gold ornaments which they have given at the time of marriage and her evidence has not been substantiated. The significant portion in the evidence of P.W.4 is regarding selling of gold ornaments and the same is not substantiated. Instead the accused has produced a receipt for having purchased the gold more than the value of the gold returned. 22. P.W.5 is the father of the deceased. In the cross examination, he claims that he gave the amount of Rs.30,000/- by availing KGID loan and as against his evidence, the accused has relied on Ex.D.4, the receipt for having purchased the TV by himself. No document is produced for having availed loan from KGID and the same is given to the accused. The TV is purchased within six months of the marriage and P.W.1 says his father gave money after one year. The prosecution relied on the other evidence of P.W.9, who is the tenant of the accused. His evidence is only with regard to he locating the dead body through the window in a hanging position and immediately, went inside the house. He categorically says that he does not know the reason for committing the suicide. His evidence is not at all helpful to the prosecution since, he did not speak anything about the harassment. 23. The other witness is P.W.3. It is not the case of P.W.1 that he was present at the time of marriage talks. Though he deposed with regard to the payment of 50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque, in his cross examination, he admits that he was not present at the time of marriage talks. 24. 23. The other witness is P.W.3. It is not the case of P.W.1 that he was present at the time of marriage talks. Though he deposed with regard to the payment of 50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque, in his cross examination, he admits that he was not present at the time of marriage talks. 24. Having considered the evidence available on record, P.W.1 categorically admits that accused was not present at the time of marriage talks. Though prosecution claims that P.W.3 was present, in the cross examination, he admits that he was not present at the time of marriage talks. Hence, it is clear that in their presence, marriage talks were not held. With regard to demand and acceptance of dowry amount, no material is placed. It is the case of the prosecution witnesses that amount was given to the brother-in-law of the accused-Thirupathaiah and he has not been cited as a witness. According to the prosecution, he has received the dowry amount and he has not been examined before the Court. He has also not been arraigned as accused. The other contention was that the amount was paid through cheque and it is admitted in the cross examination that cheque was not given in the name of accused and the same is a self cheque of the father of the deceased. The father has counter signed on the overleaf of Ex.P.14. Hence, there is no material before the Court for having paid the amount of Rs.50,000/- and also the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry. 25. The other allegation with regard to subjecting the deceased for harassment, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the deceased was not having children after the marriage which was solemnized four years ago. It is the admitted fact that the deceased as well as her husband i.e., accused were subjected to medical examination. In the cross-examination, the father of the deceased admits that he is having receipt of Rs.400/- for having provided treatment to his daughter. Though he claims that he paid the medical expenses, they have not produced any proof before the Court for having spent more money for proving treatment to both the accused and his daughter. It is further important to note that the prosecution witnesses claim that panchayath was held regarding harassment. Though he claims that he paid the medical expenses, they have not produced any proof before the Court for having spent more money for proving treatment to both the accused and his daughter. It is further important to note that the prosecution witnesses claim that panchayath was held regarding harassment. None of the witnesses were examined, in order to prove the fact that panchayath was held. Further, it is elicited that no complaint was given and only claims that they advised the accused. 26. No doubt, the death has taken place within seven years of marriage and the suicide was committed in the house of the accused. In order to substantiate the harassment and additional dowry, none of the witnesses have spoken that in their presence, additional dowry and additional gold ornaments were demanded. P.W.4 and her husband claims that accused has sold the ornaments given at the time of marriage. Nothing is produced before the Court that the accused himself exchanged the old gold ornaments worth Rs.33,534/ and obtained the new items worth Rs.44,534/-. Hence, the very evidence of sister of the deceased and her husband did not support the case of the prosecution. The selling of gold ornaments after the marriage by the accused is nothing but an improvement in the evidence of P.W.4 and her husband. P.Ws.1 and 5 have not spoken anything about the same. The other aspect regarding proximity to cause of death, there is no evidence that both of them quarreled on the previous night and P.W.9-Tenant, who is running business in the attached shop premises also says, he does not know the reason for committing the suicide. 27. Upon evaluation of the evidence of the witnesses, particularly the evidence of PWs.1 to 6, 11 and 13 and after meticulously considering the admissions elicited in the cross-examination, we do not find any material to form other opinion and the learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused by giving reasons. Hence, it is not a fit case to reverse the findings of the trial Court to convict the accused. In view of the discussions made above, the appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.