JUDGMENT : H.P. SANDESH, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of acquittal passed in Sessions Case No.395/2011 dated 23.01.2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-XIV, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The brief facts of the case is that; The marriage of the deceased i.e., daughter of P.Ws.1 and 3 was solemnized with accused No.1 about five years back. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of the accused No.1. Accused Nos.4 and 5 are the brother and sister of accused No.1. It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of marriage, as per the demand made by accused, P.W.3 has given Rs.65,000/- and 91 grams gold ornaments as dowry to the accused and also spent huge amount for performing the marriage. After the marriage, the deceased was started to lead marital life. During that period, at the instigation of accused Nos.2 to 5, accused No.1 has started to demand additional dowry. They were also insisting the deceased to bring money for purchase of a bike and a car. At that time, P.W.1 has paid some money to purchase a bike and a car. In spite of it, the accused have started to give torture to the deceased-Mahalakshmi by demanding additional dowry. They were treating the deceased with cruelty and she was subjected to physical and mental torture. Due to the said torture, the deceased has come to her parents house. The deceased came and told the torture and she fed up with the harassment that on 23.09.2010 at about 3.00 p.m., in the house of her parents committed the suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan with the help of a Saree. 3. P.W.3 father of the deceased had lodged the complaint in terms of Ex.P.1 and police have registered the crime and conducted the spot mahazar and investigated the matter. After completion of the investigation, found that accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, filed the charge sheet. 4. After completion of the investigation, found that accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, filed the charge sheet. 4. The learned Magistrate after filing the charge sheet, took the cognizance and committed the case to the Sessions Court and accused Nos.3 and 5 were released on bail, accused Nos.2 and 4 obtained anticipatory bail and accused No.1 was in judicial custody. 5. The prosecution in order to prove the charges leveled against accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 24 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 20 and 4 material objects. The accused persons were subjected to 313 statement and they did not chose to led any defence evidence. The Court below after hearing both prosecution and also defence counsel acquitted the accused persons. Hence, the present appeal is filed being aggrieved by the order of acquittal. 6. The main grounds urged in the appeal is that, the Court below failed to consider both oral and documentary evidence. It is contended that P.Ws.1 and 3 i.e., parents of the victim stated that they have given the dowry to perform the marriage of their daughter and subsequently, P.W.3 also gave additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. P.W.6 is the maternal grandmother who corroborates the case stating regarding the quarrel, demand and settlements made between the victim and the respondents. P.W.8 in his evidence stated that after receiving the information, he had gone to the house of P.W.3. With the help of Jayaram and Suresha, P.W.5 opened the door and found the victim in a hanging position. P.W.5 is the witness to marriage talks and the settlements. P.Ws.10 and 11 are the known persons to the victim and they have stated with regard to additional dowry demands and the cause for victim committing suicide. P.W.18 is the Medical Officer who conducted post mortem and gave Report in terms of Ex.P.10. P.W.19 is the Taluk Magistrate who conducted inquest. P.W.20 is the Medical Officer who declared the victim brought dead to D.G Hospital. The trial Judge committed an error in accepting the defence that in respect of property of P.W.6, there was some dispute and quarrel between P.Ws.1, 6 and 8 and the victim without there being any specific evidence in this regard. P.W.20 is the Medical Officer who declared the victim brought dead to D.G Hospital. The trial Judge committed an error in accepting the defence that in respect of property of P.W.6, there was some dispute and quarrel between P.Ws.1, 6 and 8 and the victim without there being any specific evidence in this regard. The acquittal recorded is opposed to law as the charge is one under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code to be decided in the light of the provisions of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The unnatural death of the victim within 7 years of marriage of respondent No.1 with the victim is proved. The Court below should have dealt with the case in accordance with Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Expectation of independent witness other than the near relatives in these types of cases is not proper. The Court below has given much importance to minor contradictions and there was no any delay in giving the complaint. It is the definite case of the prosecution that the deceased was subjected to harassment. The accused persons have not explained anything in 313 statement and no explanation was offered. Hence, it is a fit case to reverse the findings of the trial Court to convict the accused persons for the charges leveled against them. 7. The learned counsel appearing for State i.e., Additional State Public Prosecutor, in his argument, he vehemently contended that the victim was committed suicide on 23.09.2010. Three days prior to the said incident, she came to the house of her parents when she was not in a position to tolerate the harassment. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of parents-in-laws, grand parents and also the persons who are the part of the marriage talks. It is the consistent evidence that after the marriage, he insisted for additional dowry and Pulsar Bike was provided to the accused by paying an amount of Rs.58,000/-. Apart from that, he demanded money to purchase a car. P.W.3 paid an amount of Rs.16,000/- to buy a ring and an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-, the same was paid in three occasions. The victim was driven out from the house and panchayath was held. P.Ws.10, 11, 14 and 15 speak about the dowry demand at the time of marriage. Apart from that, he demanded money to purchase a car. P.W.3 paid an amount of Rs.16,000/- to buy a ring and an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-, the same was paid in three occasions. The victim was driven out from the house and panchayath was held. P.Ws.10, 11, 14 and 15 speak about the dowry demand at the time of marriage. In spite of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Court below taking the minor discrepancies in the evidence acquitted the accused. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for accused/respondents, in his argument, he vehemently contended that in the complaint, nothing is mentioned regarding any incident of harassment subsequent to the marriage. No doubt, in the complaint, an allegation is made and the Court below taking into note of the prosecution witnesses, found material contradictions with regard to the demand and acceptance of dowry and the evidence of witnesses is not consistent for having paid the dowry and also for having paid the amount subsequent to the marriage. No material is placed for having paid the additional dowry. After the marriage, panchayath was not held and none of the witnesses have spoken about the panchayath. Hence, there are no incriminating evidence against the accused persons and the Court below has rightly acquitted the accused persons. There are no grounds to reverse the findings of the trial Court. 9. Having heard the arguments of Additional State Public Prosecutor and also learned counsel for respondents/accused, the points that would arise for our consideration are: 1. Whether the Court below has committed an error in acquitting the accused persons for the charges leveled against them and it requires interference of this Court to convict the accused persons? 2. What order? 10. Before considering the contentions raised by both appellants counsel and also respondents counsel, this Court has to in the nutshell consider the evidence available on record and this Court has to re-appreciate the material available on record in order to either to accept the findings or to reverse the findings of the trial Court. Now, let us consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 11. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. In her evidence, she says that at the time of marriage, they gave Rs.65,000/- and also gave gold ornaments and spent an amount of Rs.21/2 lakhs for performing the marriage of her daughter. Now, let us consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 11. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. In her evidence, she says that at the time of marriage, they gave Rs.65,000/- and also gave gold ornaments and spent an amount of Rs.21/2 lakhs for performing the marriage of her daughter. The family members of the accused have demanded money and gold. Hence, they paid the same. It is her evidence that after the marriage, her daughter joined the house of the accused persons and all of them were living together. It is also her evidence that her son passed away within three months after performing the marriage of her daughter. When her daughter came to postnatal period, she demanded for money and gold. Hence, panchayath was held. Thereafter, her daughter was sent to maternal home. On the date of the incident, they went to Kanakapura to perform the pooja in connection with death of their son. On that day, P.W.8 called and informed that their daughter committed suicide. When she reached the spot, neighbourers told that son-in-law called and abused over phone. It is her evidence that her daughter committed suicide due to dowry harassment of the accused. She was subjected to cross-examination. It is elicited that the family of the accused are their relatives and they were aware of the family background of the accused persons. Knowing fully well that the family of the accused is good, they performed the marriage. It is her evidence that marriage talks were held in her house and engagement was also done in the house. There was a talk to give Rs.65,000/- and 55 grams gold chain and 10 grams ring to the accused. It is suggested that they did not demand any dowry and the same was denied. However, she says that the gold articles and amount were given at the time of marriage and the same was vediographed and photos were also taken. Marriage photos were also given to the police for having given gold and money to the accused and the same can be found in the video. 12. P.W.2 is the maternal grandfather of the deceased. In his evidence, he says that he was present at the time of marriage talks. In the marriage talks, it was agreed to give 120 grams gold and Rs.65,000/- cash. 12. P.W.2 is the maternal grandfather of the deceased. In his evidence, he says that he was present at the time of marriage talks. In the marriage talks, it was agreed to give 120 grams gold and Rs.65,000/- cash. After the marriage, victim went and started to live in the maternal home. Within one week, accused No.1 demanded for Pulsar Bike. P.Ws.1 and 3 obtaining the loan gave Rs.58,000/-. Thereafter, they were cordial. Accused also demanded money to purchase Indica Car. P.W.3 gave an amount of Rs.60,000/- in the first time and in the second time, he gave Rs.50,000/-. Hence, accused purchased a car and the same was also sold. The victim came and told that she was subjected to harassment in the maternal home by all these accused. He also subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he says that the accused are the relatives to them and they were aware of the family back grounds. Hence, they have given his grand daughter to them. It is elicited that accused No.5 held marriage prior to the marriage of his grand daughter with accused No.1. It is suggested that she was living in the maternal home and the same was denied. It is elicited that on the date of engagement itself, they have given Rs.60,000/- as cash and 120 grams gold and there are photos. Gold and cash were given by P.W.3. He has witnessed giving of the gold. On the date of marriage, they have not given anything and the same was given prior to the marriage. He also admits that till the death of her grand daughter, she was living in her husband's house cordially. He says that his grand daughter came one week prior to her death and she voluntarily came to house. 13. P.W.3 is the father of the deceased. He reiterates the evidence of P.W.1 and says that he gave Rs.65,000/- cash and 130 grams gold including the daughter and also to accused No.1. He says that one day prior to the marriage, in terms of the marriage talks, he gave the money and gold was given at the time of marriage. It is also his evidence that he gave an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- to purchase a car and immediately, after the marriage, he gave an amount of Rs.68,000/- to purchase a bike so also an amount of Rs.16,000/- to purchase a ring. It is also his evidence that he gave an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- to purchase a car and immediately, after the marriage, he gave an amount of Rs.68,000/- to purchase a bike so also an amount of Rs.16,000/- to purchase a ring. He says that all the accused persons were living together. They were insisting the additional dowry after the marriage of their second son since they have received more dowry in the said marriage. It is his evidence that she was subjected to harassment after the marriage. He identifies his signature in Ex.P.1. It is his evidence, he says that he got released the gold articles belongs to his daughter and he identifies the same as M.Os.1 & 2 so also cash of Rs.51,000/- as MO.3. He was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he also admits that they were aware of the family background of the accused persons. The accused was also earning. In the further cross-examination, he says that three days prior to the marriage, accused persons came and took the amount of Rs.65,000/- and he gave the same as cash. It is suggested that he has not given any money and the same was denied. He cannot tell the name of the shop owner, who prepared the gold articles. He says that while giving the gold articles, photos were taken and gave the same to the police. He also says that on the date of the incident, when they left the house, his daughter was quite normal. But, he claims that when they were in the house, she received a phone call but does not know who made the call. But, she says that he made the statement before the police for having received the call. 14. P.W.4 is the friend of the deceased. She says that 15 days prior to her death, she has visited her husband's house and told that family members are demanding money. In the cross-examination, she admits that she does not know the payment of money to the accused. 15. P.W.5, in his evidence, he says that he also participated in the marriage talks and it was settled for Rs.65,000/- cash and 130 grams gold. After the marriage, they have given Pulsar bike. He also says that for one year, they were cordial and she delivered a female baby and she was visiting frequently to the parents house. 15. P.W.5, in his evidence, he says that he also participated in the marriage talks and it was settled for Rs.65,000/- cash and 130 grams gold. After the marriage, they have given Pulsar bike. He also says that for one year, they were cordial and she delivered a female baby and she was visiting frequently to the parents house. On enquiry, she said the accused persons are demanding additional dowry. He also signatory to the Ex.P.6. In the cross-examination, he admits that marriage talks were held in the house of P.W.3. Three months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks were held in the presence of P.W.3, his friend Murthy, Ambuja, grand parents of the deceased, he himself, Jayarama and Suresh were participated in the marriage talks. An amount of Rs.65,000/- was given three days prior to the marriage and gold articles were given on the date of the reception i.e., prior to the marriage. On the date of the marriage, they have not given anything. He also says that he was not present when the gold articles were given on the date of the reception. 16. P.W.6 is the grand mother of the victim and she also reiterates that Rs.65,000/- cash and 130 grams gold were given at the time of marriage. In the crossexamination, she says that marriage talks were held in the house of P.W.3 one month prior to the marriage and there was no any engagement. An amount was given 3-4 days prior to the marriage and gold articles were given at the time of marriage. P.W.6 also says that they have given gold and gold was got prepared by themselves and she gave the details of gold articles. 17. P.W.7, in his evidence, he says that he came to know through the P.W.3 that accused No.1 sent his wife to bring money. The witness is hearsay witness. 18. P.W.8 is the relative of the victim family and he also says that accused persons subjected her for both mental and physical cruelty. It is suggested that he only brought the victim in his motorcycle to the house of her parents and the same was denied. It is suggested that in order to settle the dispute between the victim, P.Ws.3, 6 and himself in respect of the property, she was brought to the house and the same was denied. It is suggested that he only brought the victim in his motorcycle to the house of her parents and the same was denied. It is suggested that in order to settle the dispute between the victim, P.Ws.3, 6 and himself in respect of the property, she was brought to the house and the same was denied. He says that at the time of engagement, no photos were taken. He did not accompany any family members while bringing the gold and he has not given any complaint when they demanded additional dowry. 19. P.W.9 is the Mahazar witness in respect of Exs.P.6 and 7. It is suggested that he was not present at the time of drawing the mahazar and the same was denied. He admits that photos were not taken. But, he claims that he knows the contents of the mahazar. 20. P.W.10 says that he also participated in the marriage talks and also participated in the marriage. An amount of Rs.65,000/- was given one day prior to the marriage and gold articles were given on the date of the marriage. He also says that additional dowry was demanded and he only told the victim to go back to matrimonial home. P.W.3 also told that he gave Rs.1,10,000/- to purchase a car. In the cross-examination, he admits that P.W.1 only brought him to Court. During the marriage talks, no photos were taken. He also admits that he is having acquaintance with P.W.3. It is suggested that no talks were held regarding dowry and the same was denied. He admits for one year both husband and wife were cordial. 21. P.W.11 who also claims that he also participated in the marriage talks and along with him, Suresh, Jayaram and sister of Mahadeva were also present. He says that at the time of marriage talks, settled for Rs.65,000/- cash and 135 grams gold, pulsar bike and cloth. The amount was given three days prior to the marriage. The gold articles were given in the previous day evening. He also says that two days prior to the death of the victim, she came to parental house saying that accused persons are making galata. In the crossexamination, he admits that vehicle-Pulsar Bike was purchased from Umesh and the same was given to the accused. He had purchased the bike in his name and P.W.3 gave the money of Rs.58,000/-. He also says that two days prior to the death of the victim, she came to parental house saying that accused persons are making galata. In the crossexamination, he admits that vehicle-Pulsar Bike was purchased from Umesh and the same was given to the accused. He had purchased the bike in his name and P.W.3 gave the money of Rs.58,000/-. He signed the document and gave the same to the accused. The police did not ask RC book. 22. P.W.12 is the neighbor. In her evidence, she says that victim was coming to her house and telling about the harassment. In the cross-examination, she admits that accused No.1 was coming along with victim and both of them were cordial. 23. P.W.13 is the hearsay evidence. She says that she came to know about they gave gold articles and Rs.65,000/- and told the victim to adjust with the accused persons when they demanded additional dowry. In the cross-examination, she admits that she came to know about the demand of dowry through her neighbors and till the delivery, both accused No.1 and victim were cordial and accused No.1 was coming along with the victim. 24. P.W.14 is also one of the witness for marriage talks. He says that they have agreed to give Rs.65,000/- and 130 grams gold articles and marriage was performed. They were cordial for one year. He comes to know about the harassment through P.W.3 and he gave Rs.1,10,000/- for purchasing the car. In the cross-examination of the learned Public Prosecutor, he states that at the time of marriage talks, Venkateshmurthy and Suresh were also present. They have also agreed to provide Pulsar bike and cloth. It is suggested that he only told the P.W.3 that if he is having money, give the same. He also says that he himself and father-in-law Siddegowda and other elders made the panchayath and advised them not to harass. He further admits that during the marriage talks, they came to know the fact that they are the relatives. He claims that Rs.65,000/- was given one week prior to the marriage. He also admits that accused No.1 was cordial with victim and was looking after the victim very well. He admits that he did not advise accused No.1. He came to know through the P.W.3 that his daughter came to his house. 25. He claims that Rs.65,000/- was given one week prior to the marriage. He also admits that accused No.1 was cordial with victim and was looking after the victim very well. He admits that he did not advise accused No.1. He came to know through the P.W.3 that his daughter came to his house. 25. P.W.15, in her evidence, she says that accused Nos.2 and 3 demanded Rs.65,000/- and 130 grams gold. Accordingly, the same was given and performed the marriage. That on 21.09.2010, the deceased came to her house and on enquiry, she revealed that the accused persons sent her to bring the money. She told her not to go back unless the amount was given to her. That on 22.09.2010, herself, P.W.1 and others have consoled her to stay in the house, till the amount is adjusted. That on the next day, she took extreme step to commit the suicide and when she came back, the victim did not open the door and when she peeped through the window, found the dead body which was in hanging position and immediately, she called Suresh and he came to the spot and they have also called P.W.8-Manjunath. He also rushed to the spot and door was broken and entered inside and she was already lost her breath. In the cross-examination, she admits that she knows only about the talk regarding the demand of money and gold. She is not aware of giving the same. It is elicited that on 21st and 22nd, she was cordial to her. The parents called her to village but she did not accompany them. On that day, she did not speak to any one by taking the phone of her father. 26. P.W.16 is the hearsay witness and states that he comes to know through the P.W.3 that they have been demanding the money. In the cross-examination, he says that he came to know that accused persons were harassing her through P.W.3. 27. P.W.17 says that whenever he used to meet the deceased, used to tell that the accused persons demanding additional dowry. In the cross-examination, it is suggested that at the instance of P.W.3, she gave false evidence and the same was denied. 28. P.W.18 who conducted the Post Mortem Examination, in his evidence, he says that he gave the opinion in terms of Ex.P.10. In the cross-examination, it is suggested that at the instance of P.W.3, she gave false evidence and the same was denied. 28. P.W.18 who conducted the Post Mortem Examination, in his evidence, he says that he gave the opinion in terms of Ex.P.10. He also identifies MO.4-Saree, which was used for committing the suicide and death is due to asphyxia. In the cross-examination, he admits that he cannot tell the exact timings of the death. 29. P.W.19 is the Tahasildar who conducted the inquest in terms of Ex.P.7. In the cross-examination, he admits that the inquest is not in his handwriting. It is suggested that he has signed the document, which the police have prepared and the same was denied 30. P.W.20 is the Chief Medical Officer. He examined the victim when she was brought to the hospital and declared that she was brought dead. Accordingly, he gave memo in terms of Ex.P.11 and also issued Certificate in terms of Ex.P.12. 31. P.W.21, in his evidence, he says that an amount was given prior to the marriage and gold was given on the date of the marriage. Pulsar bike was given after 25 days of the marriage. P.W.3 was telling that his daughter was subjected to harassment. In the cross-examination, he admits that he did not witness giving the gold ornaments. He admits that Pulsar bike is secondhand motor cycle and he did not see the same and he does not know the number. 32. P.W.22 is the Head Constable, who took the FIR and gave the same to the concerned Magistrate at 9.00 p.m. 33. P.W.23 is the Assistant Sub Inspector, who handed over the dead body of deceased-Mahalakshmi to Mahadeva after the inquest and post mortem. 34. P.W.24 is the Investigating Officer. In his evidence, he says that at 5.30 p.m., he recorded the statement of P.W.3 in terms of Ex.P.1 and issued FIR in terms of Ex.P.15. He also received Exs.P.11 and 12. He also conducted the spot panchanama in terms of Ex.P.2 and also seized the saree M.O.4. He also conducted the inquest and recorded the statement of witnesses. He also seized the cloths of the deceased. He also states that he recorded the voluntary statement of the accused and also seized the gold articles and Rs.51,000/- from the accused. After completion of the investigation, he has filed the charge sheet. He also conducted the inquest and recorded the statement of witnesses. He also seized the cloths of the deceased. He also states that he recorded the voluntary statement of the accused and also seized the gold articles and Rs.51,000/- from the accused. After completion of the investigation, he has filed the charge sheet. In the cross-examination, he admits that he did not enquire about the photos which evidence the fact of giving money and the gold articles. He did not seize the vehicle documents of Indica Car and also did not collect the receipt for having purchased the gold articles. He did not enquire from where the P.W.3 has mobilized the fund for giving dowry. 35. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court has to analyze firstly with regard to the payment of dowry in order to bring the accused within Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The main witnesses are P.Ws.1 and 3 who are the mother and the father of the victim. Though both of them say that they have given dowry and also gold articles, in the cross-examination, admit that they were having acquaintance with the family of the accused and the family of the accused are also their relatives. They were also aware of the background of the accused family and their background is good. P.W.1 mother of the victim. In her cross-examination, she says that both money and gold articles were given at the time of the marriage and photos evidence the same. But, no photos are produced before the Court. Investigating Officer did not collect any photos. P.W.3 is the father of the victim. In his cross-examination, he says that amount was given one day prior to the marriage and gold articles were given on the date of the marriage. There are contradictions in giving the money. P.W.2 is the Maternal Grandfather. In his evidence, he admits that the accused persons are their relatives and they were aware of the family backgrounds. The marriage of the accused No.5 took place prior to the marriage of the victim. He claims that an amount of Rs.60,000/- and 120 grams gold were given on the date of the engagement itself and photos were taken and not produced any photos. The marriage of the accused No.5 took place prior to the marriage of the victim. He claims that an amount of Rs.60,000/- and 120 grams gold were given on the date of the engagement itself and photos were taken and not produced any photos. He further says that on the date of the marriage, they have not given anything and the same was given prior to the marriage. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is inconsistent to the payment of dowry. However, P.W.2 is the Maternal Grandfather. In the cross-examination, he categorically admits that his grand daughter was looked after by the accused persons very well in the maternal home till her death. It is also his evidence that the victim i.e., his grand daughter came voluntarily to her parents house one week prior to the incident. 36. Having taken note of the answers elicited from the mouth of P.Ws.1 to 3, there are material contradictions for having paid the dowry amount and gold articles. P.W.3, in the cross-examination also, says that the accused persons three days earlier to the marriage came and took the money and he gave the amount in cash. There is no corroboration in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 for having paid the dowry amount. In order to evidence the fact that amount and gold articles are given, though they claim that there are photos and those photos are produced, the Investigating Officer did not seize the same. Investigating Officer, in his evidence, categorically admits that he did not collect any photos. P.W.3 also categorically admits that when they left the house, the victim was very fine. The victim also received the phone call. The other witnesses are P.W.4. In her evidence, she says that she met her 15 days prior to the incident and she told that family members of the accused are insisting to get the money. But, in the cross-examination, she categorically admits that both accused No.1 and the victim were coming in the Pulsar bike and she did not witness any amount given to the accused. The evidence of P.W.4 is also not helpful to the case of the prosecution. P.W.5 who is the participant of the marriage talks, in his cross-examination, he admits that marriage talks were held three months prior to the marriage. The evidence of P.W.4 is also not helpful to the case of the prosecution. P.W.5 who is the participant of the marriage talks, in his cross-examination, he admits that marriage talks were held three months prior to the marriage. He says that amount was given three days prior to the marriage and gold articles were given on the date of the reception and he was not present while giving the gold articles. The evidence of P.W.5 also did not help the case of the prosecution. P.W.6 evidence is contrary to the evidence of P.W.5. P.W.6 says that marriage talks were held one month prior to the marriage and there was no any engagement. P.W.6 also says that an amount was given 3 to 4 days prior to the marriage. P.W.6 says that accused only got prepared the gold articles and they have given only the gold. The evidence of P.W.6 is not inconsonance with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. The other witness P.W.7 is the hearsay witness and he comes to know only the demand of dowry from the P.W.3-father of the victim. P.W.8 evidence is also not in connection with the demand of dowry, though he claims that dowry was demanded and paid he has not witnessed. P.W.9 evidence is also not helpful and he is only a mahazar witness. P.W.10 claims that he was one of the participants of the marriage talks. There was an improvement in his evidence that apart from money and gold, it was agreed to give Pulsar bike. He also claims that amount was given one day prior to the marriage. But, in the crossexamination, he categorically admits that P.W.3 only brought him to the Court. He further reiterates that both the deceased and accused No.1 were cordial for a period of one year. P.W.11 also claims that he is one of the participants of marriage talks and also he says that he came to know through P.W.3 that the accused persons are demanding additional dowry. But, in the crossexamination, he admits that Pulsar bike was purchased in his name and P.W.3 gave the money and also he claims that he has signed the concerned document and Investigating Officer did not collect any document in respect of the motor cycle and also car. P.W.12 claims that victim herself told that their family members are demanding dowry. But, in the crossexamination, he admits that Pulsar bike was purchased in his name and P.W.3 gave the money and also he claims that he has signed the concerned document and Investigating Officer did not collect any document in respect of the motor cycle and also car. P.W.12 claims that victim herself told that their family members are demanding dowry. But, in the cross-examination, she categorically admits that both the accused and the victim were cordial and accused No.1 was also accompanying the victim to the house of her parents. 37. Having considered the material evidence available on record, the evidence of the prosecution is contrary to each other. The complainant in the complaint also mentioned that one Choode Gowda who has been examined as P.W.14 participated in the panchayath after the marriage, when the accused persons have demanded money. But, in the chief-examination, he did not say anything about the participation in the panchayath after the marriage. Only in the cross-examination of P.W.1 by the Public Prosecutor, it is suggested that he himself, his uncle, father-in-law, and others have made the panchayath and the same was not spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 3 and their family member. In the cross-examination, P.W.14 admits that the accused persons are also relatives to him and hence, the marriage talks were held. He claims that amount was given one week prior to the marriage. He also admits that accused No.1 was cordial with victim and accused persons were also looked after very well. Though this witness claims that he participated in the panchayath, which has been taken place after the marriage, none of the witnesses have spoken except P.W.14 about the panchayath was held after the marriage. There is no any iota of evidence before the Court that after the marriage, there was an harassment to the deceased and no complaint was given and the evidence of Investigating Officer is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. There is no any iota of evidence before the Court that after the marriage, there was an harassment to the deceased and no complaint was given and the evidence of Investigating Officer is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. In the cross-examination, he categorically admits that he did not enquire with regard to the photos in respect of engagement or the marriage and also he did not collect any receipts for having paid the money to the jewelry shop and also he did not collect any vehicle document in respect of Pulsar motorcycle and also Indica Car for having paid amount of Rs.58,000/- to Pulsar bike, and the payment of Rs.1,10,000/- to purchase a Indica Car. In this regard also, no document is collected by the Investigating Officer who has been examined as P.W.24. P.W.24 also categorically admits that he did not enquire the P.W.3-father of the victim with regard to his source of income for having paid the dowry amount. 38. Considering the material evidence available before the Court, in order to bring the accused within the purview of Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, for having paid the dowry amount prior to the marriage and after the marriage, there is no consistent evidence. Though the evidence is adduced and the same is inconsistent and nothing placed on record that they paid the additional dowry after the marriage. The evidence emerged in the cross-examination of witnesses who have been examined before the Court on behalf of the prosecution, none of the witnesses have spoken anything about that there was any disharmony between the family members and witnesses have categorically says that accused No.1 was also accompanying to the victim wherever the victim visit her house. It is the case of the prosecution that three days prior to committing of the suicide, the victim was driven out from the house of accused and none of the witnesses have spoken the same to bring the additional dowry. 39. The learned appellant counsel would contend that the Court below did not consider the Section 113(b) of Evidence Act to infer that the death was occurred within seven years of the marriage and the same has not been considered. No doubt, there is a presumption under Section 113(b) of the Evidence Act. 39. The learned appellant counsel would contend that the Court below did not consider the Section 113(b) of Evidence Act to infer that the death was occurred within seven years of the marriage and the same has not been considered. No doubt, there is a presumption under Section 113(b) of the Evidence Act. In the case on hand, there is no material with regard to the harassment and subjecting her for harassment after the marriage. Apart from that, death was taken place in the house of parents of the victim and not in the house of the accused persons. There is no proximity to death and harassment and in the absence of any cogent evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the harassment was meted out on her and merely because the death has taken place within five years, the Court cannot infer presumption under Section 113(b) of the Evidence Act. 40. On perusal of the entire prosecution evidence, this Court did not find any error committed by the Court below in appreciating the evidence. The prosecution witnesses for having paid the dowry as well as the gold articles not consistent and there are material contradictions. Each of the witnesses have given different versions. Some of the witnesses say that amount was given one day prior to the marriage and some of the witnesses say the same was given one week prior to the marriage. The P.W.3, the father of the victim says that three days prior to the marriage, they came and took the same. When there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we do not find any reasons to reverse the findings of the trial Court. In order to reverse the findings of the trial Court, there must be a cogent evidence before the Court and if it is not considered by the trial Court, then only this Court can reverse the findings. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following; ORDER Appeal is dismissed.