JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment dated 09.01.2014 in SC No.255 of 2010 on the file of the Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvallur).) 1. The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethi Mandram, Tiruvallur, by judgment dated 09.01.2014, in S.C.No.255 of 2010 has convicted the appellants/A1 and A2 under section 498-A IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months each and under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years each and directed that the sentences imposed on them to run concurrently and acquitted the appellants/A1 and A2 of the offence under Section 306 IPC and further acquitted A3 Elumalai of the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B IPC and challenging the conviction and sentences imposed on them, the appellants/A1 and A2 have come forward with the present appeal. 2. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, according to the prosecution case, the marriage between A1 and the deceased Kotteeswari was held on 06.10.2008 and after the marriage, the accused A1, the deceased Kotteeswari, the mother of A1 namely A2,and the uncle of A1 namely A3 all resided at Othappai village as a joint family and on or before 24.03.2009, it is put forth that A1 to A3 subjected the deceased Kotteeswari to cruelty, harassed her and ill-treated her physically and mentally with a view to coerce her for obtaining a further sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs as dowry from her parents and the willful cruel acts of A1 to A3 were in such a manner to drive the deceased to commit suicide by hanging herself and accordingly it is alleged that A1 to A3 voluntarily abetted the deceased to commit suicide by subjecting her to cruelty as abovestated and thereby the deceased committed suicide on 24.03.2009 at about 11 a.m. in the abovesaid residential house by hanging herself and A1 to A3 had thus caused the dowry death of the deceased Kotteeswari, soon before her death and she was subjected to cruelty in connection with the illegal demand of a further sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs as dowry by the accused and as the abovesaid acts forced the deceased to commit suicide as aforestated within 7 years of marriage with A1, it is alleged that the accused A1 to A3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B IPC. 3. The abovesaid case projected by the prosecution has been taken on file in PRC No.16 of 2009 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukottai and after furnishing the copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution to the accused on entering appearance and noting that the case levelled against the accused’ has to be tried exclusively by the Sessions Court, the aforestated District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate has committed the accused for trial to the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur and the case had been taken on file as S.C.No.255 of 2010 and subsequently the case had been made over to the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethi Mandram, Thiruvallur for trial. 4. 4. The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethi Mandram on a perusal of the records relied upon by the prosecution and after hearing the submissions of the Public Prosecutor and the accused noting that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further against the accused, accordingly, framed charges against A1 to A3 under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B IPC and the accused, on being questioned with reference to the same, having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, it is found that the case had been further proceeded with the trial. 5. To sustain the prosecution case, P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined and Exs. P1 to P10 were marked and no MO has been exhibited. On the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.Pc with reference to the incriminating evidence tendered against them by the prosecution witnesses and the accused had denied the same. According to the accused, they had not committed the offences put forth against them and the case has been falsely foisted against them and would further state that the deceased had committed suicide due to her various body ailments. On behalf of the accused Dws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs. D1 to D3 were marked. No M.O has been marked on the side of the accused. 6. On an appreciation of the aforestated materials, both oral and documentary, put forth by the prosecution as well as the accused, the trial court, namely, the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethi Mandram, was pleased to convict and sentence the accused A1 and A2 as aforestated and acquitted A3 of all the charges put forth against him and accordingly it is found that impugning the conviction and sentences imposed on them, the appellants/A1 and A2 have preferred the present appeal. 7. From the materials projected in the matter, it is found that the marriage between the first accused (A1) and the deceased Kotteeswari was performed on 06.10.2008 and it is further noted that the marriage was organised by D.W.1 Elumalai and P.W.5 Dilli Babu and it is further noted that after the marriage, the accused A1 to A3 and the deceased were living at A3’s house at Othappai and it is further noted that the deceased had chosen to hang herself at the abovesaid residence on 24.03.2009 at about 11 am and consequently died. Following the complaint lodged by her father, namely Ramalingam (P.W.1), it is seen that the criminal action has been set in motion in the matter. 8. Ex.P1 is the complaint lodged by P.W.1. On a perusal of Ex.P1, it is found that P.W.1 has alleged therein that he had furnished 40 sovereigns of jewels and Rs.5.00 lakhs cash at the time of the marriage between A1 and the deceased Kotteeswari as dowry. P.W.1, in Ex.P1, has not alleged that the abovesaid dowry amount had been insisted to be paid by the accused at the time of marriage. Further from the defence version projected by the accused, it is seen that the abovesaid averment putforth by P.W.1 has been seriously challenged by the accused. According to the accused, at the time of marriage, only 20 sovereigns of jewels were given to the deceased and 5 sovereigns were given to the first accused and it is further stated that a sum of Rs.50,000/- alone was given, i.e., Rs.45,000/- was given for purchasing a two wheeler and Rs.5,000/- was furnished for purchasing dress by A1. Therefore, according to the accused, the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 had furnished or provided 40 sovereigns of jewels and Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash at the time of marriage is a false theory and it is put forth that the same had been invented only for the purpose of the case. As abovesated, even assuming the abovesaid case of the prosecution is true, it is not the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 had been forced to provide the abovesaid jewels and cash as dowry by A1 to A3 at the time of marriage. As abovesated, even assuming the abovesaid case of the prosecution is true, it is not the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 had been forced to provide the abovesaid jewels and cash as dowry by A1 to A3 at the time of marriage. The crux of the prosecution case is that the accused A1 to A3 had been demanding a further sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry from the deceased and forcing her to get the said amount from her parents and consequently ill-treated and harassed her and though the parents of the deceased and others had pacified the deceased and the accused that they would furnish the abovesaid amount by selling their land, according to them, the accused persons were not satisfied with the abovesaid version of the parents of the deceased and consequently ill-treated and tortured the deceased one way or the other, both physically and mentally and left with no other alternative, according to the prosecution, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself on 24.03.2009 at about 11 am and consequently died and thus it is put forth that the accused had caused the dowry death of the deceased by ill-treating and harassing her to fetch a further sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs as dowry from her parents and thereby abetted her to commit suicide and thus perpetrated the offences alleged against them. 9. As above pointed out, the case of the prosecution that the parents of the deceased had provided 40 sovereigns of jewels and a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry at the time of the marriage between A1 and the deceased Kotteeswari is being stoutly challenged by the accused. With reference to the abovesaid case projected by the prosecution, there is no acceptable material to sustain the said version. Now according to P.W1, for providing the abovesaid jewels and cash at the time of marriage, he had sold his land and by way of the sale price obtained by him, he had purchased the jewels and offered the cash to the accused at the time of marriage and from the materials placed on record, according to P.W1, with reference to the sale of land, etc., he had documents and furnished the same to the RDO, who had conducted the inquest as well as to the respondent police. However, particularly when the accused has disputed the abovesaid case of the prosecution in toto, atleast to sustain that the parents of the deceased were possessed of sufficient means to provide 40 sovereigns of jewels and a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry, the prosecution should have endeavoured to place the abovesaid documents in support of their case. However, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the prosecution has not endeavoured to project the abovesaid documents to sustain their case. 10. In this connection, as rightly putforth by the counsel for the accused, Ex.D1 agreement projected by the accused assumes significance. It is found that subsequent to the institution of the case, the parents of the deceased on one hand and the accused on the other hand had chosen to enter into an agreement amongst themselves in the presence of village panchayatars and accordingly it is seen that the accused had handed over the jewels and cash provided by the parents of the deceased at the time of marriage and it is also noted that the parents of the deceased namely, PWs.1 and 2 as well as the brother of the deceased Duraimurugan (P.W.6) have not disputed the execution of Ex.D1 agreement with reference to the return of the jewels and cash between the two parties. In fact, P.W.1, during the course of evidence, has clearly admitted that as per the agreement Ex.D1, they had received the jewels and cash provided by them at the time of marriage from the accused and the said agreement had been voluntarily executed by them in the presence of panchayatars and subsequent to Ex.D1, no further jewels or cash are required to be handed over to them by the accused. The same is also the version of P.W.2, the mother of the deceased as well as P.W.6, the brother of the deceased. Therefore, when it is found that subsequent to the institution of the case, the parties had chosen to voluntarily execute an agreement vis-a-vis the return of the jewels and cash provided at the time of marriage by the parents of the deceased, it has to be seen whether Ex.D1 supports the version of the prosecution with reference to their case regarding the furnishing of 40 sovereigns of jewels and a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry at the time of marriage. However, as rightly putforth by the counsel for the accused, Ex.D1 totally belies the abovesaid case of the prosecution. On a perusal of the averments contained in Ex.D1, it is found that the parents of the deceased had chosen to receive some jewels and a sum of Rs.50,000/- alone alleged to have been given at the time of marriage and therefore, when the parents of the deceased had chosen to receive only a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the accused under Ex.D1 and not Rs.5.00 lakhs as alleged to have been given by them at the time of marriage, the prosecution is unable to give a plausible explanation as to why they had not chosen to incorporate the receipt of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash in Ex.D1 at the time of entering into the agreement with the accused. With reference to the abovesaid contention put forth by the counsel for the accused, according to the prosecution and as averred by P.W.1, it is stated that the sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs is not incorporated in Ex.D1, as the same would be noted as an offence and create problem and therefore, it is alleged that even though they had received a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs from the accused under Ex.D1, they had only recited Rs.50,000/- in the said agreement. However, the abovesaid version is totally unacceptable. When much prior to Ex.D1, P.W.1 has come forward in black and white in Ex.P1 complaint that he had furnished 40 sovereigns of jewels and Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry at the time of marriage and if the abovesaid version has any element of truth, when the parties had voluntarily chosen to enter into an agreement with reference to the return of the jewels and cash provided at the time of marriage, if really the parents of the deceased had provided a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry, the same would have been incorporated in Ex.D1 agreement and on the other hand, inasmuch as they had only furnished a sum of Rs.50,000/- in cash voluntarily as alleged by the accused, accordingly it is seen that they had chosen to get back the said amount only under Ex.D1 and not raised any protest in incorporating the abovesaid figure in Ex.D1. Therefore, to say that they had not chosen to incorporate the sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in Ex.D1 as the same would be construed as offence as now sought to be projected by the prosecution cannot at all be accepted particularly when as above pointed out P.W.1 has already come forward in black and white in Ex.P1 complaint about the furnishing of 40 sovereigns of jewels and Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry at the time of marriage. Therefore, the concurrence of the trial court that the sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs has not been incorporated in Ex.D1 only for the reasons furnished by P.W.1 cannot at all be accepted in any manner and therefore, as rightly putforth by the counsel for the accused, the case of the prosecution, particularly the case projected by the parents of the deceased that they had furnished 40 sovereigns of jewels and a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry at the time of marriage is not borne out by any acceptable material. On the other hand, the abovesaid case of the prosecution is totally belied by Ex.D1 agreement voluntarily executed between the parties concerned. 11. As above pointed out, even assuming the abovesaid case of the prosecution is true, it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused had insisted the provision of the aforestated dowry to them from the parents of the deceased at the time of marriage and on the other hand, it is found that the abovesaid seer had been voluntarily given by the parents of the deceased at the time of marriage. It is not the case of the prosecution also that the accused had been ill-treating and torturing the deceased for providing 40 sovereigns of jewels and a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry. On the other hand, the most important point of the prosecution case is that the deceased had been subjected to ill treatment, torture and harassment by the accused by only demanding a further sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs as cash and thereby committed the offences levelled against them. Therefore, it has to be further seen whether the abovesaid case of the prosecution that the accused had been subjecting the deceased to ill-treatment and harassment by demanding a further sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs is a true one and established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 12. Therefore, it has to be further seen whether the abovesaid case of the prosecution that the accused had been subjecting the deceased to ill-treatment and harassment by demanding a further sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs is a true one and established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 12. The case instituted against the accused having been initially registered as unnatural death under Section 174(3) Cr.PC, accordingly it is found that FIR had been forwarded to the RDO for conducting the inquest as per law. In this matter, P.W.13, Balasubramanian, RDO, had conducted the inquest on receipt of the FIR on 24.03.2009 and in the course of inquest, it is seen that he had examined the parents of the deceased, the brother of the deceased, relatives namely Dilli Babu (P.W.5) and one Ravi and also examined the accused A1 and A2 and father of A1 and husband of A2 Munusamy and also examined the panchayatars. They are all found to be examined on 24.03.2009 by the RDO. The inquest report of the RDO has been marked as Ex.P10. As above pointed out Ex.P1 complaint had been lodged by P.W1, the father of the deceased on 24.03.2009. Under Ex.P1, P.W.1 has averred that the accused had further demanded a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry and on that score, harassed and tortured his daughter despite the assurance given by him and others that they would settle the said amount and thereby forced his daughter to commit suicide. It has not been mentioned in Ex.P1 as to since when from the date of marriage the accused had further demanded a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry from the deceased and thereby harassed and ill-treated her. Very vaguely, it has been averred in Ex.P1 that subsequent to the marriage the accused had demanded a further sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry from the deceased and on that score tortured and ill-treated her. If the abovesaid version of P.W.1 as alleged in Ex.P1 is true, on being enquired by the RDO with reference to the death of the deceased, as rightly putforth by the counsel for the accused, the same would have been divulged by P.W.1 as well as the mother and brother of the deceased and others at the time of inquest. If the abovesaid version of P.W.1 as alleged in Ex.P1 is true, on being enquired by the RDO with reference to the death of the deceased, as rightly putforth by the counsel for the accused, the same would have been divulged by P.W.1 as well as the mother and brother of the deceased and others at the time of inquest. On the other hand, on a perusal of the statements furnished by the parents of the deceased, namely, Ramalingam and Banumathy and the brother of the deceased, namely. Durai Murugan, the relatives of the deceased, namely, Dilli Babu and Ravi, none have averred anything before the RDO about the further demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry by the accused from the deceased and thereby they had been torturing and ill-treating her. Therefore, as rightly contended by the counsel for the accused, inasmuch as the accused had not demanded any further sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry and also not on that score ill-treated and harassed the deceased in any manner, accordingly, it is found that none examined on behalf of the deceased had deposed before the RDO with reference to the abovesaid case. The same has been clearly admitted by the RDO during the course of evidence. The RDO, Balasubramnian, examined as P.W.13,during the course of cross examination has testified that the panchayatars examined by him had deposed that there is no issue between the first accused and the deceased Kotteeswari and they were living peacefully and happily and they had only opined that the deceased would have died inasmuch as her request for setting up a separate residence has not been considered. Therefore, the panchayatars examined by the RDO has not opined that there has been any dowry demand on the part of the accused from the deceased and not deposed anything about the ill-treatment or harassment caused to the deceased by the accused by demanding a further sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry. Therefore, the panchayatars examined by the RDO has not opined that there has been any dowry demand on the part of the accused from the deceased and not deposed anything about the ill-treatment or harassment caused to the deceased by the accused by demanding a further sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry. Further P.W.13 during the course of evidence has deposed in the cross examination that P.W.2, the mother of the deceased has not stated anything about the further demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs by the accused in connection with the marriage and also deposed that P.Ws.1 and 2 have not deposed about any ill-treatment caused to the deceased by demanding dowry and also deposed that the witnesses 3, 4 and 5 examined by him have not stated that there had been a demand of a further sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry by the accused and the witness Ravi examined by him has not stated anything about the demand of a further sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry and also further stated that the parents of the deceased, namely, P.Ws.1 and 2 have not stated to him about the demand of a further sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs by the accused and therefore, when none of the witnesses examined by the RDO on behalf of the deceased had stated anything about the further demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry and the consequent harassment and ill-treatment caused to the deceased thereby, when there is no plausible explanation on the part of the prosecution as to why the parents, brother and relatives of the deceased had not stated anything about the further demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry on the part of the accused as well as the consequent ill-treatment and harassment caused to the deceased to the RDO, accordingly, it is seen that as rightly contended by the counsel for the accused, inasmuch as there has been no demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry subsequent to the marriage on the part of the accused and as there had been no ill-treatment or harassment caused to the deceased by the accused on that score, the parents, brother and the other relatives of the deceased have not stated anything about the same at the time of inquest enquiry conducted by the RDO and as above pointed out, when the RDO has clearly admitted the same and when according to the prosecution case, the accused had caused ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased only by further demanding a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry and as above referred to when the case of the prosecution that the parents of the deceased had provided 40 sovereigns of jewels and Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry at the time of marriage is not a true version and belied by Ex.D1, all put together, accordingly it is seen that the case projected by the prosecution that the accused had further demanded Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry and on that score caused ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased cannot at all be accepted in any manner. 13. As noted supra, in Ex.P1, P.W.1 has very vaguely mentioned that the accused further demanded a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry and consequently ill-treated and harassed his daughter. As to when from the date of marriage, they had demanded the said amount, there is no clear version in Ex.P1. P.W.6, Duraimurugan, the brother of the deceased during the course of his 161 statement before the IO has clearly admitted that the deceased and the first accused had been happily living for 3 months after the marriage. That he has given such a statement at the time of investigation has been clearly admitted by the IO examined as P.W.12. Therefore, the version of P.W.6 that right from the date of marriage the first accused and the deceased were not happily living and the accused had been ill-treating and torturing the deceased etc., as spoken to by him cannot at all be believed and the same is found to be an improved version offered by P.W.6. Further P.W.6 would also project the case as if the deceased had been subjected to burn injuries by the accused in connection with the demand of dowry. The same is also found to have been spoken to by P.W.2 at the time of inquest. Further P.W.2 has not spoken about the same during the course of trial. As above pointed out, as per the version of P.W6 before the IO, the accused and the deceased were happily living for three months from the date of marriage and only thereafter the trouble had started. The deceased is found to have committed suicide on 24.03.2009 i.e. within 170 days from the date of marriage. If really the deceased had been subjected to burn injuries as testified by P.W.6 and spoken to by P.W.2 at the time of inquest, definitely there would have been burn injuries on the body of the deceased. The post-martem Doctor, examined as P.W.9, has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to hanging. The post-martem certificate has been marked as Ex.P4 and the final opinion of the post-martem doctor has been marked as Ex.P5. P.W.9, post-martem doctor, during the course of cross examination, has deposed clearly that other than the ligature mark found on the body of the deceased at the neck, he has not noted any external injuries on the body of the deceased. P.W.9, post-martem doctor, during the course of cross examination, has deposed clearly that other than the ligature mark found on the body of the deceased at the neck, he has not noted any external injuries on the body of the deceased. Therefore, it is found that the deceased had not suffered external injuries other than the ligature mark caused by way of hanging. If really the deceased had been subjected to burn injuries by the accused one way or the other as alleged by P.W.6 and P.W.2, as rightly contended by the counsel for the accused, the same would have been noted by the post-martem doctor and the same should have been reflected in the post-martem certificate Ex.P4. However the post-martem doctor has not noted any external injuries on the body of the deceased other than the ligature mark caused due to hanging. In view of the abovesaid position, the reasoning of the trial court that the burn injuries would have subsided by the time the post-martem had been conducted, as such, cannot at all be countenanced and on the other hand as rightly put forth by the counsel for the accused, inasmuch as the deceased had not been subjected to any burn injuries as alleged by P.W.2 and P.W.6, it is seen that the post-martem doctor had not noted any external injuries on the body of the deceased corresponding to any burn injury. Furthermore, it is seen that P.W.6, in particular, has not stated anything about the inflictment of burn injury on the deceased by the accused in connection with the demand of dowry during the course of 161 statement before the IO. He has come out with such a case for the first time during the course of trial. As above pointed out P.W.2 has not deposed during the course of trial about the inflictment of burn injuries on the deceased by the accused and she has only averred the same during the course of inquest. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that the deceased had been subjected to burn injuries by the accused in connection with the demand of dowry amount cannot at all be accepted in any manner. 14. The criminal law in this matter has been set in motion by the lodgment of the complaint Ex.P1 by P.W.1. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that the deceased had been subjected to burn injuries by the accused in connection with the demand of dowry amount cannot at all be accepted in any manner. 14. The criminal law in this matter has been set in motion by the lodgment of the complaint Ex.P1 by P.W.1. According to the prosecution, the accused had demanded a further sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry and on that score caused ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased and thereby committed the offences putforth against them. As above pointed out, there is no clear version on the part of the prosecution, as to when from the date of marriage, the accused had been demanding a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry from the deceased. The same has not been averred by anyone of the prosecution witnesses to the RDO at the time of the inquest. Even during the course of trial, both P.Ws.1 and 2 have not come forward in a clear manner as to the further demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry by the accused and the consequent ill-treatment and harassment caused to the deceased by them on that score. Very vaguely, they have deposed that the accused had been demanding dowry. Other than that they had not averred with reference to the specific case of the prosecution qua the further demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry by the accused and the consequent ill-treatment and harassment caused to the deceased by them on that score. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6 with reference to the demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry and the ill-treatment and torture caused with reference to the same. Even the trial court has opined that the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 do not lend support to the abovesaid case projected by the prosecution. Therefore, the trial court itself has not relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 and on a perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 5, as rightly determined by the trial court, they have not stated anything about the further demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry by the accused and the consequent ill-treatment and harassment caused to the deceased by the accused and therefore, P.Ws.3 and 5’s evidence would not provide any assistance to the prosecution case. 15. 3 and 5, as rightly determined by the trial court, they have not stated anything about the further demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry by the accused and the consequent ill-treatment and harassment caused to the deceased by the accused and therefore, P.Ws.3 and 5’s evidence would not provide any assistance to the prosecution case. 15. P.W.4 has turned total hostile to the prosecution case and therefore, his evidence would not lend support to the prosecution theory in any manner. 16. Barring the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 we have only the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6, who are the parents and brother of the deceased. As above pointed out, P.Ws.1, 2 and 6, namely, the parents and the brother of the deceased have not spoken anything about the further demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry by the accused and the consequent ill-treatment and torture caused to the deceased by them at the time of inquest. Further, as above pointed out, both P.Ws.1 and 2 have not come forward clearly during the course of evidence with reference to the further demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry by the accused and the consequent ill-treatment and harassment caused to the deceased on that score. Very vaguely they have deposed that the accused had demanded dowry. Other than that, they had not, in specific, testified about the case of the further demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry by the accused and the consequent ill-treatment and torture caused to the deceased by the accused with reference to the same. P.W.6 would come forward with the case that the accused were not satisfied with the half a sovereign of jewel provided to the first accused at the time of Deepavali and his version that on that score, the accused caused burn injuries to the deceased as such cannot at all be accepted and as above discussed when the post-martem doctor had not noted any burn injuries on the body of the deceased and when P.W.6 has not spoken anything about the same before the IO during the course of investigation, his evidence that the deceased had been subjected to ill-treatment and harassment on that score by the accused, as such, cannot be believed and accepted in any manner. Even P.W.6 during the course of chief examination has not come forward in a clear manner as to the further demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash by the accused and the consequent ill-treatment and harassment caused to the deceased by the accused on that score. Therefore, when according to the trial court the prosecution case is only spoken to by P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 and considering the evidence of P.Ws 1, 2 and 6 as deposed by them before the RDO as well as during the trial in toto and considering the totality of the case projected by the prosecution and with reference to the provision of 40 sovereigns of jewels and Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry at the time of marriage, which has been totally belied by Ex.D1 and when P.W6 has admitted that the deceased and the first accused were living happily for three months from the date of marriage and P.W.5 Dillii Babu has also deposed about the deceased having not complained to him in any manner about the marital life when he had enquired her during the festival, all put together, it is found that the prosecution witnesses, particularly, P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 have come forward with the false case as if the accused had further demanded a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry and on that score caused ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased and thereby committed the offences put forth against them. 17. As rightly determined by the trial court, with reference to the provision of dowry at the time of marriage as well as the demand of further dowry by the accused’ family, only the relatives would be in a better position to speak about the same. On that score, the trial court seems to have relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6, who are the parents and brother of the deceased. On that score, the trial court seems to have relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6, who are the parents and brother of the deceased. As above pointed out, when no such statement had been offered by P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 before the RDO at the earliest point of time and when the version projected in Ex.D1 about the further demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs is vaguely made and when P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 have not come forward in specific about the said case during the course of chief examination, in such view of the matter, as rightly contended by the counsel for the accused, the IO should have endeavoured to examine the other witnesses qua the further demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry by the accused from the deceased and the consequent ill-treatment or harassment caused by the accused. Though the prosecution, namely, the IO has admitted that there are various houses nearby to the residence of the accused, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the IO has not chosen to examine the neighbours to ascertain whether the deceased had been subjected to ill-treatment or harassment by the accused in connection with the dowry demand. Though the IO had admitted that various neighbours are available, he had not chosen to examine them as according to him none had come forward to depose with reference to the prosecution case. At the same time, he would also admit that he had not given any notice to the neighbours to appear before him and give statement. Though the IO had admitted that various neighbours are available, he had not chosen to examine them as according to him none had come forward to depose with reference to the prosecution case. At the same time, he would also admit that he had not given any notice to the neighbours to appear before him and give statement. Therefore, when it is found that the deceased had been residing at Othapai along with the accused from the date of marriage and P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 are not residing nearby and when the case projected by the prosecution that the accused had further demanded a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry and the consequent ill-treatment and harassment caused to the deceased by them on that score is not borne out by acceptable and reliable material and on the other hand, P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 have not come forward with any such statement before the RDO during the course of inquest and as above pointed out, when the Panchayatars examined by the RDO had not given any statement about the demand of dowry by the accused and on the other hand they had clearly averred that the first accused and deceased had been happily living together, the real problem being the insistence of the deceased to set up a separate residence particularly when it is noted that A3, brother of A2 and the maternal uncle of A1 is affected with leprosy and furthermore when it is seen that according to the parents of the deceased the accused had suppressed his employment in the Railways and the deceased had been complaining about the same to her parents and the abovesaid reasons had been the cause for the deceased to take a decision to end her life and therefore to say that the deceased had chosen to commit suicide on account of the ill-treatment and harassment caused to her by the deceased in connection with the dowry demand as such cannot be accepted sans any acceptable and reliable evidence pointing to the same. 18. It has been mainly projected by the prosecution witnesses that the accused had suppressed the employment of the first accused in the Railways. However, from the materials placed on record, it is found that the first accused is employed in Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society. 18. It has been mainly projected by the prosecution witnesses that the accused had suppressed the employment of the first accused in the Railways. However, from the materials placed on record, it is found that the first accused is employed in Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society. The abovesaid factor is established by the identity card furnished to the first accused marked as Ex.D2 and the salary slips given to him marked as Ex.D3 series. As noted supra, the marriage between the first accused and the deceased was organised by D.W1 and P.W.5. The same is not disputed. D.W.1 is found to be having knowledge about the accused family much prior to the marriage. P.W.5 during the course of evidence would feign ignorance about the conduct of the marriage between A1 and the deceased at his instance. Be that as it may, when it is found that the deceased is found to have been employed in the Railways Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., at the time of marriage, the case projected by the prosecution that the first accused had suppressed his employment in the Railways, as such, cannot be readily accepted. On the other hand, as rightly contended by the counsel for the accused, knowing fully well that the first accused is employed in the Railways Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., it is found that the parents of the deceased had offered the deceased in marriage to the first accused and subsequent to the death of the deceased it is found that the parents of the deceased had developed a theory about the supression of the employment on the part of A1 at the time of marriage. Considering the materials placed on record, particularly, the evidence of D.W.1 as well as the evidence P.W.5, it is found that the accused had not suppressed employment of A1 at the time of marriage and accordingly it is found that as stated by P.W.6 both the first accused and the deceased were happily living for 3 months from the date of marriage. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that the first accused had mis-represented about his employment in Railways at the time of marriage and the same had been one of the causes for the unhappy marital life between the first accused and the deceased as such cannot be countenanced in any manner. 19. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that the first accused had mis-represented about his employment in Railways at the time of marriage and the same had been one of the causes for the unhappy marital life between the first accused and the deceased as such cannot be countenanced in any manner. 19. Now according to the accused they had not demanded any dowry particularly a further sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash from the deceased and not caused any ill-treatment or harassment to the deceased. According to the first accused the deceased had been suffering from stomach ache and unable to bear the same, she had committed suicide. With reference to the same, the first accused examined as D.W.4 has tendered evidence. No doubt he has not corroborated his oral evidence with the medical records. From the post-martem certificate Ex.P4, it is found that the deceased is a mal-nourished lady and her body is poorly built up. The post-martem doctor, examined as P.w.9, during the course of cross examination has admitted about the abovestated stature of the deceased and further testified that the same would be due to improper feeding. Now according to the accused, the deceased was suffering from stomach pain often and been taking treatment with reference to the same. With reference to the same, D.W.4 alone has tendered evidence and further P.W.1, the father of the deceased would also state that the deceased had been taking treatment in connection with the fever experienced by her. Be that as it may, as rightly contended by the Government Advocate, there is no clear cut evidence that the deceased had committed suicide due to stomach pain. Equally, it has to be held that there is no clear cut evidence pointing to the harassment or ill-treatment caused to the deceased by the accused in connection with the further demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry. Equally, it has to be held that there is no clear cut evidence pointing to the harassment or ill-treatment caused to the deceased by the accused in connection with the further demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry. When the duty is cast upon the prosecution to establish the case projected by them beyond reasonable doubt and as above discussed when the evidence projected in the matter do not lend support to the prosecution case particularly with reference to the further demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry and the consequent ill-treatment or harassment caused to the deceased by the accused with reference to the same and when the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 do not lend support to the abovesaid case of the prosecution, in such view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the trial court has erred in upholding the prosecution case and further erred in convicting and sentencing the appellants/A1 and A2 under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC. Merely because the deceased is found to have committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage, in this case within 170 days, from the date of marriage, it cannot be presumed that the deceased would have been subjected to dowry demand and on that score would have committed suicide. When with reference to the abovesaid case projected by the prosecution, we have no clear cut, reliable and acceptable evidence as above discussed, I am unable to uphold the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the trial court. 20. If really the deceased had been subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by the accused in connection with the demand of dowry as alleged by the prosecution, as contended by the counsel for the accused, the deceased would have committed suicide only on account of the same. 20. If really the deceased had been subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by the accused in connection with the demand of dowry as alleged by the prosecution, as contended by the counsel for the accused, the deceased would have committed suicide only on account of the same. When the trial court has chosen to acquit the appellants/A1 and A2 of the offence under 306 IPC and when there is no material pointing to the further demand of dowry by the appellants as projected by the prosecution and the consequent ill-treatment or harassment caused to the deceased with reference to the same and when it is found that the prosecution witnesses, particularly, P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 have improved their version day by day without any basis and accordingly it is seen that the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellants A1 and A2 by the trial court based on the unreliable and unacceptable evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6, as such, cannot be sustained. 21. The counsel for the accused would also contend that P.W.2’s brother Adikesavan is employed as Sub Inspector of Police and he has been subsequently promoted as Inspector of Police. The same has also been spoken to by D.Ws.1 and 2. Therefore, according to the counsel for the accused, considering the influence exercised by the abovesaid Adikesavan, the prosecution witnesses, particularly, P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 have chosen to come forward with the case of further demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs as dowry by the accused and consequent ill-treatment and harassment caused to the deceased by the accused on that score. Inasmuch as, as above discussed, there is no clear cut, reliable and acceptable evidence pointing to the abovesaid case attributed against the accused, in such view of the matter, the argument of the counsel for the accused that Adikesavan had played a vital role in influencing the mind of P.Ws.1,2 and 6, as such, cannot be ruled out. 22. In this matter, the IO had chosen to levy the charge sheet without citing the RDO as a witness as well as without including the inquest report as a document in support of the prosecution case. Further, the IO has also tendered inconsistent evidence with reference to the receipt of inquest report from the RDO. 22. In this matter, the IO had chosen to levy the charge sheet without citing the RDO as a witness as well as without including the inquest report as a document in support of the prosecution case. Further, the IO has also tendered inconsistent evidence with reference to the receipt of inquest report from the RDO. It is found that only during the course of trial, by way of a miscellaneous petition, the RDO has been included as an additional witness in support of the prosecution case and consequently he has been examined. His report has been marked in this matter. The abovesaid fact has been projected by the counsel for the accused with reference to the inefficient investigation on the part of the IO in this matter. No doubt there had been some improper investigation with reference to the same by the IO. However, on that score alone, we cannot undermine the prosecution case as a false one. Therefore, the reasoning of the trial court that flaw in the investigation would not totally affect the prosecution case, as such, cannot be discountenanced. 23. In the light of the abovesaid discussions, when there is no reliable and acceptable evidence adduced on the part of the prosecution with reference to the further demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash as dowry and the consequent ill-treatment and harassment caused to the deceased by the accused with reference to the same and in such view of the matter, when the prosecution case is beset with serious doubts, defects, failures loopholes, surmises and when the prosecution has not come forward with any plausible explanation to dispel with the abovesaid factors, resultantly, the benefit of doubt emanating from them should be extended in favour of the accused. In such view of the matter, I hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges levelled against the appellants/A1 and A2 under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and resultantly acquit the appellants/A1 and A2 of the aforestated offences. For the reasons aforestated, the judgment dated 09.01.2014 passed in SC No.255 of 2010 on the file of the Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvallur), convicting and sentencing the appellants/A1 and A2 under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC are set aside and resultantly, the appellants/A1 and A2 are acquitted of the offences under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC and accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The bail bond executed by the accused shall stand discharged. The fine amount, if any, paid by the accused persons shall be refunded to them.