JUDGMENT: Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, dated 06.07.2007, passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge (III Fast Track Court), Warangal at Mahabubabad in Sessions Case No.456 of 2006, the appellants preferred the present appeal. 2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court convicted the appellant Nos.1 to 3 - accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each for the said offence. 3. Appellant No.1 - Accused No.1 is the husband and appellant Nos.2 and 3 - Accused Nos.2 and 3 are in-laws of deceased - Jyothi. 4. As per the prosecution case, PW.1, father of the deceased, alleges that about ten years back, Buchi, wife of PW.1 died in a Crane accident and the Contractor paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation. He gave the said amount to his brother-in-law, accused No.3 herein on interest for the welfare of his daughter. After about two years back, he performed the marriage of his daughter - Jyothi with accused No.1 and paid Rs.60,000/- towards dowry. At the time of marriage, he also presented gold jewellery worth Rs.10,000/-. The couple lived happily for a period of six months and thereafter Accused Nos.1 to 3 started harassing and ill-treating his daughter demanding her to bring additional dowry amount of Rs.40,000/- and also beat her. On knowing about the demand of additional dowry, PW.1 went to the in-laws of his daughter and requested them not to harass his daughter and he would pay the said dowry amount after harvesting crops. About one year back, accused sent his daughter to his house demanding to bring additional dowry amount of Rs.40,000/-. On that, PW.1 - complainant conveyed a panchayat in his house in the presence of PW.4 and PW.5 and accused No.1 attended the said panchayat. PW.1 promised to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- by selling his land and requested him not to harass his daughter. As no-one came forward to purchase the said land due to draught, he could not pay additional dowry as promised by him and accused Nos.1 to 3 again harassed and bet her daughter. 5. PW.1 promised to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- by selling his land and requested him not to harass his daughter. As no-one came forward to purchase the said land due to draught, he could not pay additional dowry as promised by him and accused Nos.1 to 3 again harassed and bet her daughter. 5. It is the further case of the prosecution that about 15 days back of the death of the deceased, PW.3, the cousin of PW.1, complainant, while passing through the field of the accused, met accused No.2 and enquired about his niece, on which accused No.2 sarcastically told that they would continue ill-treating the daughter of PW.1 till they pay dowry amount of Rs.20,000/-. Thereafter, PW.3 went and met the daughter of PW.1, who was attending the agricultural work in the field, and on enquiry, she narrated that she was being ill-treated and subjected to harassment by accused Nos.1 to 3 for additional dowry. The same was conveyed by PW.3 to PW.1. 6. It is also the further case of the prosecution that about 10 days before the death of the deceased, PW.1 sold his land to his cousin brother, Lakavath Tirupathi, who promised to give sale proceeds after fifteen days. On 24.06.2004, PW.1 went to the house of accused No.1 to inform them about sale of land and would pay the additional dowry amount of Rs.20,000/- after five days on receipt of sale proceeds. At that time, accused Nos.1 to 3 abused him in filthy language. PW.1 stayed on that night in the house of his daughter and appealed accused Nos.1 to 3 not to harass his daughter and to wait for five days so that he would pay the amount. Thereafter, PW.1 returned his house on 25.06.2004 at about 9.00 hours. 7. It is the further case of the prosecution that on the same at about 13:00 hours, one Banoth Linga (PW.8) came and informed PW.1 that his daughter died at 1.00 p.m. by hanging herself in her in-laws house. On knowing about the said incident, PW.1 went to the house of her daughter, found her dead body lying in front of the house and found ligature marks around her neck. On knowing about the said incident, PW.1 went to the house of her daughter, found her dead body lying in front of the house and found ligature marks around her neck. PW.1 lodged Ex.P1 complaint with police complaining that his daughter committed suicide by hanging herself on account of unbearable harassment and ill-treatment by the accused for want of additional dowry and requested the police to take action against them. 8. On receipt of Ex.P1 complaint, on 25.06.2004, the police registered a case and after completion of investigation, they have filed charge sheet. The same was taken on file vide S.C. No.456 of 2006 for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. 9. The trial Court framed charge under Section 304-B of IPC. The appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3 pleaded not guilty and sought for trial. Before the trial Court, during trial, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses as PWs.1 to P17 and marked Exs.P1 to P12. The accused have examined two witnesses as DW.1 and DW.2 and marked Exs.D1 and D2. 10. The trial Court on the analysis of the entire evidence convicted the appellants-accused for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. 11. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 preferred the present appeal. 12. Impugning the judgment, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the accused as well as PW.1, 7 and DWs.1 and 2 are close relatives. Even according to PW.1 and 7, the deceased and accused No.1 lived happily, more particularly, as per Ex.P1, for one year. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, there are serious contradictions in the depositions of prosecution witnesses, more particularly, PWs.1, 2 and 7. According to him, there are omissions which are serious in nature and there are also developments in the depositions of prosecution witnesses from that of their statements given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that in Ex.P1 - complaint, PW.1, father of the deceased, has stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 fled away after the incident, whereas during cross-examination, PW.1 has categorically admitted that after getting information about suicide of his daughter, he reached his daughter’s house and found that accused Nos.1 to 3 were present in the house of his deceased daughter. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Investigating Officer has also categorically admitted about serious omissions, more particularly, demand of dowry and conducting panchayat etc. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants by referring the depositions of prosecution witnesses would contend that there are serious contradictions in the depositions of prosecution witnesses, no panchayat was held, there is no direct evidence to show that the deceased committed suicide due to harassment by the accused demanding additional dowry. He would further contend that the deceased committed suicide due to unbearable stomach pain which is evident from the depositions of PWs.1 and DW.2, neighbours of the deceased and the accused. The learned counsel for the appellants would further contend that PWs.4 to 6, elders, did not speak about the alleged harassment of the deceased by the accused demanding additional dowry. PWs.7 to 12, villagers of the appellants, were declared as hostile and nothing contra was elicited from them during cross-examination by the prosecution to prove that the deceased committed suicide due to harassment of the accused demanding additional dowry. According to him, PW.7, the maternal grandfather of the deceased and father of accused No.3 and the prosecution declared him hostile, which fact was not considered by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellants would further contend that though PW.7, maternal grandfather of the deceased, declared as hostile, nothing contra was elicited from him during cross-examination. 15. By referring the said depositions of prosecution witnesses, the learned counsel for the appellants would contend that none of the witnesses deposed about the demand of dowry by accused Nos.1 to 3 and according to him, all the accused and prosecution witnesses are closely related. There is no proof of panchayat and there is no evidence to the said effect. He would further contend that the police did not examine Mr. Ramchand, cousin of PW.1, scribe of Ex.P1. The learned counsel would contend that DW.1 is the paternal uncle of Accused No.3 and according to him, the accused never harassed the deceased for additional dowry and that accused No.1 was staying at Hyderabad at the time of death of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that DW.1 categorically admitted during cross-examination that no panchayats were held with regard to dowry harassment. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that DW.1 categorically admitted during cross-examination that no panchayats were held with regard to dowry harassment. He would further contend that DW.2 is the cousin of accused No.3 and he also deposed that there was no harassment of deceased by the accused for demand of additional dowry and accused No.1 and deceased lived cordially and there were no disputes. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants would also contend that the depositions of prosecution witnesses, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are lacking, even then the trial Court convicted the appellants and, therefore, the findings of the trial Court are erroneous and contrary to record. With the said contentions, the learned counsel would contend that the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 17. On the other hand, supporting the judgment, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the deposition of PW.1 is inconsonance with the contents of Ex.P1 and there are no contradictions. There is corroboration of evidence of prosecution witnesses, more particularly, PWs.1, 3, 4 and 5. Their evidence would show that there was demand of additional dowry and PW.1 agreed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- by disposal of land as advised by the elders in the panchayat. There is no evidence with regard to stomach pain and that the death of the deceased was due to the said stomach pain. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and that there is no circumstance or reason that warrants interference with the findings of the trial Court in the impugned judgment. 18. On perusal of the entire record, it is not in dispute that death of the deceased - Jyothi occurred on 25.06.2004 and that the death was due to hanging as per post-mortem examination report, supported by deposition of PW.14, doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination. It is also not in dispute that the deceased died by committing suicide. According to the prosecution, the deceased committed suicide due to harassment of the appellants being husband and in-laws of the deceased demanding additional dowry and it amounts to dowry death. It is also not in dispute that the deceased died by committing suicide. According to the prosecution, the deceased committed suicide due to harassment of the appellants being husband and in-laws of the deceased demanding additional dowry and it amounts to dowry death. Therefore, it is also relevant to extract Section 304-B of IPC as under: “304-B. 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 purposes of this sub-section, "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.” 19. It is also relevant to extract Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, which deals with presumption as to dowry death, which is as under: “113-B. 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”)” 20. 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”)” 20. On perusal of the above said provisions, it can be seen that the offence under Section 304-B of IPC requires the following ingredients:- (i) within 7 years of the marriage, there must happen the death of a woman (the wife); (ii) the death must be caused by any burns or bodily injury; or the death must occur otherwise than under normal circumstances; (iii) it must be established that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment; (iv) the cruelty or harassment may be by her husband or any relative of her husband; and (v) the cruelty or harassment by the husband or relative of the husband must be for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. 21. It is relevant to note that as per Section 304-B of IPC, husband or any relative of the husband shall be deemed to have caused her death. Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides for presumption as to dowry death. It provides that when the question is whether the dowry death, namely, the death contemplated Under Section 304-B of IPC has been committed by a person, if it is shown that soon before her death, the woman was subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment, for in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall “presume” that such person had caused the dowry death. It is, no doubt, a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the husband and his relatives to show the absence of the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC. 22. It is also relevant to note that foremost aspect to be established by the prosecution is that there was reliable evidence to show that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives which must be for or in connection with any demand for dowry, soon before her death. Before the presumption is raised, it must be established that the woman was subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment and it is not any cruelty that becomes the subject matter of the provision but it is the cruelty or harassment for or in connection with, demand for dowry. 23. Before the presumption is raised, it must be established that the woman was subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment and it is not any cruelty that becomes the subject matter of the provision but it is the cruelty or harassment for or in connection with, demand for dowry. 23. It is also apt to note that there is no definition of ‘dowry’ in IPC. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, defines the ‘dowry’ which is as follows: “2. Definition of “dowry”.- In this Act, “dowry” means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly— (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.” By virtue of an amendment vide Act 63 of 1984, which came into force with effect from 02.10.1985, the words “in connection with the marriage of the said parties” were inserted by the Legislature. Therefore, the Legislature in its wisdom, made it very clear that ‘dowry’ should be in connection with the marriage of the parties. 24. In view of the above stated legal position and also provisions of law, the question falls for consideration is: (a) Whether the above said ingredients are present in the case on hand; and (b) Whether the conviction recorded by the trial Court for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC against the appellants is sustainable, both on facts and law? 25. It is relevant to note that it is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if Section 304-B of IPC is to be invoked. But it should have happened “soon before her death”. The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. But it should have happened “soon before her death”. The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words soon before her death is to emphasize the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide the court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the death would not have been the immediate cause of her death. It is hence for the court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept “soon before her death.” 26. On perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, it is not in dispute that the death of the deceased was on 25.06.2004. Her marriage with accused No.1 was performed about one year before the death. It is also not in dispute that after marriage, they have lived happily for a period of six (06) months. It is also not in dispute that accused No.3 was the brother of first wife of PW.1 and he is maternal uncle of the deceased. The deceased mother “Buchi”, first wife of PW.1, died in a Crane accident while crane was digging a Well. An amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid towards compensation for the death of the said Buchi, mother of the deceased. 27. According to PW.1, it is not disputed and disproved by the accused that at that particular point of time, the deceased was aged about ten (10) years. Thereafter, accused No.3, brother of deceased wife - Buchi of PW.1, informed PW.1 that he would keep the said compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- with him, he would perform the marriage of his son, accused No.1, with the daughter - Jyothi after she attains majority. Thereafter, accused No.3, brother of deceased wife - Buchi of PW.1, informed PW.1 that he would keep the said compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- with him, he would perform the marriage of his son, accused No.1, with the daughter - Jyothi after she attains majority. Till then, accused No.3 would lend the said amount on interest so that the said amount would be useful for her marriage towards dowry. According to PW.1, he has kept the said amount of Rs.20,000/- with accused No.3 and the same became an amount of Rs.60,000/- including interest. According to PW.1, the marriage of his daughter - Jyothi was performed with accused No.1, son of accused No.3, who is none other than the brother of PW.1’s deceased wife’s (Buchi) brother. At the time of marriage, gold ornaments worth Rs.10,000/- were given. 28. It is relevant to note that according to PW.1, father of the deceased, accused No.1 and the deceased led their happy marital life for about six (06) months. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 3 started harassing the deceased demanding additional dowry of Rs.40,000/-. They have also abused the deceased in filthy language, bet her and sent her from their house demanding additional dowry. PW.1 brought the said fact to the notice of elders i.e., PW.4 and PW.5. A panchayat was held in the Thanda of PW.1, wherein it was advised to PW.1 to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards additional dowry by any means including selling of land. 29. PW.3, first cousin of PW.1, deposed that ten (10) days prior to the death of the deceased, he went to the Thanda of his son’s in-laws i.e., Pedda Vangara Thanda and while returning he went to the house of the accused, wherein accused No.2 was present. At that particular point of time, the deceased went to field. Accused No.2 complained with PW.3 about nonpayment of agreed additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- by PW.1. He has further deposed that on coming to know that the deceased was in the field, he went to the field and met the deceased, who in turn informed him with weeping about her harassment both physical and mental by the accused demanding additional dowry. She has further informed that she was given yesterday’s food on that day with a piece of mango pickle which was not eatable. It is relevant to note that nothing contra was elicited from him. 30. She has further informed that she was given yesterday’s food on that day with a piece of mango pickle which was not eatable. It is relevant to note that nothing contra was elicited from him. 30. PW.2 is the second wife of PW.1 deposed about the entire incident. Nothing contra was elicited from her by the accused during cross-examination. However, she has admitted during cross-examination that they did not give any report to the police about harassment of the deceased by the accused by demanding additional dowry prior to her death. It is not in dispute that no complaint was given to the police by PW.1 complaining about the harassment of the deceased by the accused demanding additional dowry before the death of the deceased. However, PW.1 has brought the said fact to the notice of elders who have conducted a panchayat and advised PW.1 to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards additional dowry. Even according to PW.1, he tried to sell his land and to pay the said amount to the accused and he could not due to drought. However, ten (10) days prior to death of the deceased, he has sold the land to his cousin, who promised him to pay the said sale proceeds within fifteen (15) days. Therefore, a day prior to the death of the deceased, PW.1 went to the house of the accused to inform them about the said fact of sale of land and to pay the said amount of Rs.20,000/- towards additional dowry as promised in the panchayat in five (05) days. But, the accused abused him in filthy language and however he has informed the said fact to the accused with a request not to harass his daughter and return to his house. On the next day, he received information about the death of his daughter. 31. PWs.4 to 6, elders, participated in the panchayat and advised PW.1 to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as additional dowry. However, a suggestion was made to all of them by the accused that they have omitted to state in their statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. about harassment of the deceased by the accused on taking the deceased to their house after the panchayat. 32. However, a suggestion was made to all of them by the accused that they have omitted to state in their statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. about harassment of the deceased by the accused on taking the deceased to their house after the panchayat. 32. PW.7, maternal grandfather of the deceased, deposed that the deceased committed suicide by hanging due to stomach pain and she used to go to doctor for treatment for the said stomach pain. However, he was declared as hostile. During cross-examination, he has admitted that after the death of his daughter - Buchi, he brought the deceased - Jyothi, who was aged between 8-9 years and about 10-12 years thereafter he performed her marriage with accused No.1. 33. PWs.8 to 12, villagers of the appellants - accused, were declared as hostile. 34. PW.13 is another elder of the village, panch witness to the inquest, deposed about the death of the deceased due to hanging on account of harassment of additional dowry. Nothing was elicited from his during cross-examination by the accused. 35. PW.14 is the doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination and submitted Ex.P10 - post-mortem examination, deposed that to his best of knowledge and belief, the cause of death of the deceased was due to cardio respiratory failure on account of hanging. 36. PW.17 is the Investigating Officer, who deposed about the entire incident including receipt of Ex.P1 complaint, registration of crime and issuance of Ex.P11 - FIR in Crime No.85 of 2004 and conducting of postmortem to the body of the deceased and investigation, filing of charge sheet. 37. However, during cross-examination, he has admitted about certain omissions by PW.1, PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6 in their statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. He has further admitted that PW.5 omitted to state before him that five or six months after the pacnahyat, PW.1 agreed to sell his land to his own brother and PW.5 stated before him that ten days prior to the death of deceased, PW.1 sold his land to his brother-Titurpati, who promised PW.1 to pay the sale proceeds within fifteen days. 38. The above stated depositions would clearly reveal that the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 was performed one year prior to the death of the deceased. They led their marital life happily for about six (06) months. 38. The above stated depositions would clearly reveal that the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 was performed one year prior to the death of the deceased. They led their marital life happily for about six (06) months. Thereafter, accused started demanding additional dowry of Rs.40,000/- from PW.1 and harassed the deceased both physically and mentally. PW.1 brought the said fact to the notice of the elders, who in turn conducted a panchayat, wherein PWs.4 to 6 participated and advised PW.1 to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards additional dowry to the accused by any means including sale of land. It is relevant to note that PW.3, cousin of PW.1, went to the accused house ten (10) days prior to the death of the deceased, met accused No.2 and also the deceased. According to him, the deceased informed about the harassment meted out by the accused demanding additional dowry and she wept before him. 39. It is also relevant to note that panchayat was held, wherein accused No.1, PW.1 and PWs.4 to 6 were also present. They have advised PW.1 to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards additional dowry. Thus, the prosecution has proved that the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 was performed one year before the death of the deceased and the death is due to hanging as deposed by PW.14, the doctor, who conducted postmortem examination and submitted Ex.P10 - post-mortem examination report. The said death was not under normal circumstances. There is specific evidence that the accused harassed the deceased demanding additional dowry, a panchayat was held and PWs.4 to 6, elders, advised PW.1 to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards additional dowry to the accused. Accused No.1 was present in the said panchayat. PW.3 specifically deposed about the meeting accused No.2 and the deceased ten (10) days prior to the death of the deceased and the deceased informing about the harassment meted out by the accused demanding additional dowry. The prosecution has also established that PW.1 went to the house of accused a day prior to the death of the deceased to inform them about the sale of land, payment of sale proceeds after fifteen (15) days thereafter and will pay the said amount of Rs.20,000/- as agreed within five (05) days. The prosecution has also established that PW.1 went to the house of accused a day prior to the death of the deceased to inform them about the sale of land, payment of sale proceeds after fifteen (15) days thereafter and will pay the said amount of Rs.20,000/- as agreed within five (05) days. PW.1 has deposed that the accused abused him in filthy language, however, he has conveyed the said message of payment of additional dowry within five (05) days thereafter and return to his house. On the next day, the deceased committed suicide. Thus, the prosecution has proved the guilty of the accused that the deceased died by hanging herself due to harassment meted out by the accused demanding additional dowry and she was subjected to harassment, both mental and physical soon before her death. On the analysis of the entire evidence, it can safely be concluded that the prosecution has proved the guilty of the accused by examining relevant witnesses and the entire evidence is in corroboration with each other. 40. It is relevant to note that Section 113 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with presumption as to ‘dowry death’. However, it is a rebuttable presumption. In the present case, the accused failed to rebut the said presumption. The defence of the accused that the deceased died due to stomach pain is not convincing. It is relevant to note that PW.7 to PW.12, villagers deposed that the death of the deceased was due to stomach pain. They were declared hostile by the prosecution since their depositions are contrary to their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. (i.e., Exs.P2 to P7). Though PW.7, maternal grandfather of the deceased, deposed about the cause of death of the deceased due to stomach pain, he was declared hostile. It is relevant to note that PW.7 is also a close relative of the accused. Accused No.3 is own brother of first wife of PW.1 and PW.7 father of accused No.3 and grandfather of accused No.1. With the said reason and due to the said relation, the accused have won over PW.7 due to lapse of time after the death of the deceased. 41. It is relevant to note that on the critical analysis of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, there is no specific overt acts against accused No.2, second wife of accused No.3. With the said reason and due to the said relation, the accused have won over PW.7 due to lapse of time after the death of the deceased. 41. It is relevant to note that on the critical analysis of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, there is no specific overt acts against accused No.2, second wife of accused No.3. The prosecution failed to prove the alleged harassment of the deceased by accused No.2 including demand of additional dowry. In the panchayat, accused No.1 was present and accused No.2 was not present. None of the prosecution witnessed deposed specifically about the harassment of the deceased by accused No.2. Therefore, appellant No.2 - accused No.2 is entitled for acquittal. 42. The accused have examined neighbours as DWs.1 and 2, who deposed that the accused never harassed the deceased and no dowry was paid at the time of marriage and accused No.1 was staying at Hyderabad at the time of death of the deceased. It is relevant to note that accused No.3 is son of DW.1’s elder brother and own brother of PW.7. As stated above, PW.7 was declared hostile since he deposed contrary to his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 43. DW.2 is the cousin of accused No.3. There are serious contradictions in his evidence to that of the entire facts as admitted by him during cross-examination. Therefore, both DW.1 and DW.2 are not reliable witnesses and their evidence is not trustworthy. 44. In view of the above stated facts, the accused failed to rebut the presumption as per Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The defence taken by the accused that the deceased died due to stomach pain is not trustworthy and believable. On the other hand, the prosecution proved all the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC against accused Nos.1 and 3 beyond reasonable doubt. At the cost of repetition, it is relevant to note that there are no specific overt acts against appellant No.2 - accused No.2 and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused No.2 beyond reasonable doubt. It is relevant to note that the trial Court without dealing with and considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, in respect of accused No.2, held in general that accused No.2 is also liable for conviction. It is relevant to note that the trial Court without dealing with and considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, in respect of accused No.2, held in general that accused No.2 is also liable for conviction. The trial Court lost sight of deposition of PW.1, PW.3 and PWs.4 to 6 and that they have not specifically deposed about the harassment of the deceased by accused No.2 and their depositions are general in nature but not specific. 45. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Girish Singh v. The State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2019 SC 4529 , had held that a right of appeal is the creature of statute. Unless appellate power is expressly limited by additional conditionalties, the Appellate Court has power or rather is duty bound in the case of an appeal by the Accused to reappraise the evidence. Even in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has power of reappraisal of evidence though subject to the limitation that interference would be in a case where the Trial Court's verdict is against the weight of evidence which is the same thing as a perverse verdict. In the said judgment also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the appellate Court must not be oblivious to the fact what it is duty bound to find is whether an offence is committed or not and such a pursuit also would embrace the duty of the court to apply its mind to the evidence as a whole and arrive at conclusions as to facts and inferences therefrom as well. After all, at stake for the Accused are, priceless rights to liberty, reputation and the right to life, not only of himself but also his family members. The Law Giver, has contemplated that the High Court will be the final arbiter of facts and even of law. The jurisdiction of the Apex Court was deliberately limited to the extra ordinary powers it enjoys Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India unless it be exercised under other provisions. It further held that it wish to emphasize is that the cause of justice and the interest of litigants would be better sub-served if the Appellate Court takes a closer look, in particular of the cross-examination of the witnesses and analyze the same. 46. It further held that it wish to emphasize is that the cause of justice and the interest of litigants would be better sub-served if the Appellate Court takes a closer look, in particular of the cross-examination of the witnesses and analyze the same. 46. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durga Prasad v. State of M.P., (2010) 9 SCC 73 held that benefit of doubt to the appellants having particular regard to the fact that except for certain bald statements made by prosecution witnesses alleging that the victim had been subjected to cruelty and harassment prior to her death, there is no other evidence to prove that the victim committed suicide on account of cruelty and harassment to which she was subjected just prior to her death, which, in fact, are the ingredients of the evidence to be led in respect of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in order to bring home the guilt against an accused under Section 304-B of IPC. It further held that in order to hold an accused guilty of an offence under Section 304-B of IPC, it has to be shown that apart from the fact that the woman died on account of burn or bodily injury, otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of her marriage, it has also to be 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. Only then would such death be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused the death of the woman concerned. It also further held that no charges were framed against the Appellants under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the evidence led in order to prove the same for the purposes of Section 304- B of IPC was related to a demand of dowry. 47. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by referring a judgment in Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder v. State of W.B., (2008) 1 SCC 202 held that in order to bring home a conviction under Section 304-B of IPC, it will not be sufficient to only lead evidence showing that cruelty or harassment had been meted out to the victim, but that such treatment was in connection with the demand for dowry. 48. 48. In Narayanamurthy v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 16 SCC 512 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court by referring Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 304-B of IPC, laid down the basic ingredients to attract the offence of Section 304-B of IPC as extracted above. The Apex Court in the said judgment by referring its earlier judgment in Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, 2001 Cri.L.J. 4625 has held that deficiency in the evidence proves fatal to the prosecution case. Even otherwise, mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to being in application of Section 304-B of IPC. It is to be established that `soon before death', deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband for, or `in connection with demand for dowry' and held in the said case, in the afore-mentioned situation, the provisions of Section 304-B of IPC, and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act could not be attracted to hold the accused guilty of the offence of dowry death. 49. The Apex Court in Satvir Singh held that there are three occasions related to dowry. (i) before the marriage, (ii) at the time of marriage, and (iii) `at any time' after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are `in connection with the marriage of the said parties'. This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of `dowry'. Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304-B of IPC should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage. It further held that it is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if Section 304-B of is to be invoked. But it should have happened `soon before her death'. It further held that it is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if Section 304-B of is to be invoked. But it should have happened `soon before her death'. The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words `soon before her death' is to emphasize the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry-related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval which elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide the court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the harassment or cruelty would not have been the immediate cause of her death. It is hence for the court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept `soon before her death'. 50. In G.M. Ravi v. State of A.P., 2003 (2) ALD (Cri) 344 (AP), a Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of combined Andhra Pradesh State at Hyderabad has categorically held that prosecution witnesses had to depose more specifically with regard to harassment and in the absence of the same, recording conviction is not sustainable. 51. As discussed supra, the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 3 by examining proper and relevant witnesses. 51. As discussed supra, the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 3 by examining proper and relevant witnesses. From the depositions of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has established the above said five ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC i.e,, (i) within 7 years of the marriage, there must happen the death of a woman (the wife); (ii) the death must be caused by any burns or bodily injury; or the death must occur otherwise than under normal circumstances; (iii) it must be established that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment; (iv) the cruelty or harassment may be by her husband or any relative of her husband; and (v) the cruelty or harassment by the husband or relative of the husband must be for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. 52. On the critical analysis of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court gave a finding that the prosecution has established that accused Nos.1 and 3 have harassed the deceased to bring additional dowry amount, due to unbearable harassment by them, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself and that the prosecution has successful in establishing all the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. This Court is satisfied with the said reasons given by the trial Court. Accordingly, the appellants - accused Nos.1 and 3 are not entitled for acquittal and they failed to establish any ground or circumstance to interfere with the finding of the trial Court in the impugned judgment. 53. The learned counsel for the appellants - accused No.1 and 3 would submit that they belong to the Scheduled Tribes, uneducated and they are closely related to each other. Accused No.3 is aged about 65 years and has been suffering from old age ailments. He would further submit that accused Nos.1 and 3 have no motive to commit any offence, more particularly, offence under Section 304-B of IPC. With the said submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant Nos.1 and 3 prayed to take a lenient view on the quantum of sentence of imprisonment. 54. It is relevant to note that the deceased - Jyothi is the daughter of PW.1 and Buchi is first wife of PW.1. Accused No.3 is own brother of the said Buchi and, thus, maternal uncle of the deceased. 54. It is relevant to note that the deceased - Jyothi is the daughter of PW.1 and Buchi is first wife of PW.1. Accused No.3 is own brother of the said Buchi and, thus, maternal uncle of the deceased. PW.7 is the maternal grandfather of deceased - Jyothi and father of accused No.3. All the accused and the prosecution witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 13 and defences witnesses DWs.1 and 2 belong to the Scheduled Tribes. Accused and PW.1 are eking out their livelihood as coolies and living in Thandas (hamlets) and they are uneducated. They are living in below poverty line. Thus, they are suffering from so many social evils, like illiteracy, poverty etc. Therefore, they are entitled for a taking a lenient view by this Court with regard to reduction of punishment. 55. It is relevant to note that this Court is having power to record sentence of imprisonment for a lesser period by giving special reasons in writing and the said principle is also held by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 56. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (III Fast Track Court), Warangal at Mahabubabad in Sessions Case No.456 of 2006 against appellant Nos.1 and 3 - accused Nos.1 and 3 for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC is confirmed. However, the sentences of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court against them for the said offence are modified as that of the period which appellant Nos.1 and 3 - accused Nos.1 and 3 have already undergone under the said offence. Concerning appellant No.2 - accused No.2, the conviction and sentence of imprisonment recorded by the trial Court is hereby set aside. Accused No.2 is on bail. Her bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, paid is ordered to be returned to her. 57. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.