JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant, who was the Accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 142 of 2008, on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, challenging the judgment, dated 26.04.2010, where under the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short) as against the charge under Section 304-B of I.P.C. and accordingly, convicted him under Section 235(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The Sessions Case No. 142 of 2008 arose out of a committal order in P.R.C. No. 10 of 2006, relating to Crime No. 254 of 2005 of Bheemunipatnam Police Station. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet filed by the police before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bheemunipatnam, pertaining to the above crime is that two years prior to the incident, the marriage of one Kilana Nagamani (hereinafter will be referred to as “deceased”) with A.1 was performed in the house of the accused as per their caste customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased presented to A.1 dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and three tulas of gold and other customary articles. The deceased joined with A.1 at Bheemunipatnam. Since the date of marriage, A.1 was harassing his wife (deceased) on every simple reason. He subjected her to cruelty mentally and physically. Other accused joined hands with A.1 and subjected her with cruelty. They demanded her additional dowry and other articles. Parents of the deceased convened Panchayats with the elders of the village and the deceased was sent again to her in-laws house. Deceased was informed about the harassment to Molli Appalakonda (PW-2), the second wife of Molli Errinaidu, the defacto-complainant and the father of the deceased. At one occasion, to meet the demand made by A.1, the parents of the deceased disposed of their gold and purchased an Auto Rickshaw for him. Deceased was informed about the harassment to Molli Appalakonda (PW-2), the second wife of Molli Errinaidu, the defacto-complainant and the father of the deceased. At one occasion, to meet the demand made by A.1, the parents of the deceased disposed of their gold and purchased an Auto Rickshaw for him. Even then the accused did not stop the harassment. Due to unbearable harassment, the deceased committed suicide by hanging from the roof of their house on 30.08.2005 in the evening hours. On being informed of the incident by PW-2 to the parents of the deceased, they rushed to the place of offence. Basing on the report lodged by PW-1, a case was registered by Bheemunipatnam Police and later, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Anakapalle, took up investigation. During investigation, he examined several witnesses. Mandal Revenue Officer conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the same for postmortem examination. The investigating officer during the course of investigation arrested the accused and sent them for remand. Hence, the charge-sheet. 5. On appearance of the accused before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bheemunipatnam and after complying the formalities under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. P.R.C. No. 10 of 2006 was committed to the Court of Sessions and thereupon, it was numbered and made over to IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, for disposal in accordance with law. On appearance of A.1 to A.5 before the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, charge under Section 304-B of I.P.C. was framed and it was explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried. 6. To bring home the guilt of the accused, during the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PW-1 to PW-10 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and M.O.1 to M.O.5 were marked. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in, for which they denied the same. They did not let in any defence evidence. 7. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in, for which they denied the same. They did not let in any defence evidence. 7. The learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found A.1 to A.5 not guilty of the offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C. and acquitted them under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, found A.1 guilty of the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him as above. Aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful A.1 in the above said Sessions Case, filed the presence Criminal Appeal, challenging the judgment of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. 8. Before going to frame the point for determination, this Court would like to make it clear that there is no appeal from the prosecution side as to the findings of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, that the evidence on record did not prove the offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C. The learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, convicted the present appellant under Section 498-A of I.P.C. 9. Hence, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the point for consideration is as to whether the prosecution before the Court below proved the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. against A.1 beyond reasonable doubt? POINT: 10. Sri I.V.N. Raju, the learned counsel, who is appointed under State Brief to defend the appellant, would contend that the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the Court below is with discrepancies and with contradictions on material aspects and the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 suffers with any amount of inconsistency and there are certain latches on the part of the prosecution. The learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam having recorded an order of acquittal for the allegations under Section 304-B of I.P.C. convicted the present appellant without there being any charge under Section 498-A of I.P.C. Even the evidence on record is not sufficient to convict the appellant under Section 498-A of I.P.C. as such, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be allowed. 11. 11. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and the prosecution proved that A.1 demanded the parents of the deceased and the deceased to provide amount to purchase an Auto and compelled them to do so and even after that he did not satisfy himself about that and subjected the deceased to cruelty, as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. 12. PW-1 before the Court below is the defactocomplainant. His evidence in substance is that he is running a cycle shop. Deceased is his daughter. A.1 is his son-in-law. A.2 is mother, A.3 is sister, A.4 is brother and A.5 is sister-in-law of A.1. The deceased died four years ago. He performed the marriage of the deceased with A.1 two years prior to the incident. He presented Rs. 50,000/- towards dowry on demand made by the accused. A.1 is no other than the son of the brother of his father-in-law. The deceased joined with A.1 at his house at Bheemili. She was subjected with cruelty and harassment by all the accused. They demanded additional dowry. The deceased used to come and to complain against the accused. He used to conduct panchayats and used to send back the deceased. Again accused used to send back the deceased. When A.1 wanted to purchase an Auto, he arranged 3½ Tulas of Gold to A.1 and sent the deceased to him. Again the accused sent the deceased to him for additional dowry. A.1 approached him and promised to set up a separate family to look after the deceased well. Then, he sent the deceased with him. After one week he received information that the deceased was in serious condition. Then, they rushed to the house of the accused and found the deceased hanging to a beam. Then, he presented Ex.P.1. 13. PW-2 is the second wife of PW-1 and she testified the facts as stated by PW-1. 14. Coming to the evidence of PW-3, the so-called mediator, he spoken to the fact that at the time of marriage, PW-1 presented Rs. 50,000/- to A.1 and A.1 used to demand to fetch additional dowry and used to send back the deceased and the deceased used to came back and they used to conduct mediations. 14. Coming to the evidence of PW-3, the so-called mediator, he spoken to the fact that at the time of marriage, PW-1 presented Rs. 50,000/- to A.1 and A.1 used to demand to fetch additional dowry and used to send back the deceased and the deceased used to came back and they used to conduct mediations. Mediations took place four or five times. After several mediations, deceased was sent to A.1 again. Again 10 days prior to the incident, deceased came to her parents’ house. A.1 demanded PW-1 to provide him finance to purchase Auto Rickshaw. PW-1 expressed his inability, but, gave 3½ Tulas of Gold to A.1. A.1 took the deceased along with him to his village. After 10 days, they received the death intimation of deceased. 15. PW-4 was a mediator at the time of observation of the scene of offence and he testified that the police seized M.O.1-rold gold black beads chain, M.O.2-Gold ring, M.O.3-one silver anklet and M.O.4-three gold Satamanams at the time of observation of the scene. Ex.P.2 is the observation report. 16. PW-5 is the inquest panchayatdar, who supported the case of the prosecution. 17. PW-6 is the medical officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and his evidence in substance is that after noting the injuries and after conducting necessary formalities, he is of the opinion that the cause of death of deceased was due to asphyxia due to hanging. Ex.P.4 is the postmortem report. 18. PW-7, the concerned Tahsildar, testified the fact that he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased committed suicide. 19. PW-8 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered F.I.R. and he testified the same that basing on the report of PW-1 on 30.08.2005, he registered the F.I.R. under Section 304-B of I.P.C. and Ex.P.5 is the F.I.R. He visited the scene of offence and posted a Guard. Then, he sent requisition to M.R.O. at the instructions of Dy. S.P. to conduct inquest. 20. PW-9 is the then Dy. S.P. who spoken about his visiting to the scene of offence and preparation of observation report and seizure of M.O.1 to M.O.4 and M.O.5 and further spoken about the inquest conducted by him. 21. PW-10 is the successor of PW-9, who completed the investigation and filed charge sheet. 22. S.P. to conduct inquest. 20. PW-9 is the then Dy. S.P. who spoken about his visiting to the scene of offence and preparation of observation report and seizure of M.O.1 to M.O.4 and M.O.5 and further spoken about the inquest conducted by him. 21. PW-10 is the successor of PW-9, who completed the investigation and filed charge sheet. 22. As seen from Ex.P.1, it contained bundle of allegations to the effect that the defacto-complainant presented a cash of Rs. 50,000/- to A.1 and after the marriage, accused used to harass the deceased and she used to come back and he (defacto-complainant) used to conduct mediations and used to send her back and ultimately when A.1 demanded to provide amount to purchase Auto, he gave gold to him to purchase the Auto. The bundle of allegations as regards the demand for additional dowry was not believed by the Court below. So, the simple issue which is to be considered by this Court is as to whether the evidence before the Court below is sufficient to convict A.1 under Section 498-A of I.P.C. 23. As seen from Ex.P.1, though the allegations regarding the additional dowry, etc. is bereft of necessary details i.e. the amount demanded and the date of demand, etc. but there is one specific instance that about 10 days back prior to the report at the demand of A.1 to purchase the Auto, they gave 3½ Tulas of Gold to A.1 and he purchased the Auto and even thereafter he harassed his daughter. PW-1 deposed the same in his chief examination clearly as pointed out. During the cross examination it was elicited that he gave his Gold to A.1 to purchase the Auto. Even by the time of marriage, A.1 was plying Auto Rickshaw in Vijayawada on hire basis. So, it is clear that A.1 had no Auto on his own and he was running the Auto on hire basis. A.1 got elicited negative answers in cross examination of PW-1 which would only strengthen the evidence of PW-1 in the chief examination that A.1 demanded him for Auto, as such, he was forced to hand over his gold jewellary to A.1 to purchase the Auto. This evidence of PW-1 has corroboration from the evidence of PW-3, who was an independent witness. This evidence of PW-1 has corroboration from the evidence of PW-3, who was an independent witness. In his evidence, PW-3 categorically deposed that he took part in several mediations whenever the deceased was sent back and about 10 days prior to the incident, the deceased came to her parents’ house and A.1 demanded PW-1 to provide finance to purchase the Auto Rickshaw. PW-1 expressed his inability, but he gave 3½ Tulas of Gold to A.1 and then only A.1 took the deceased along with him to his village. During the cross examination, PW-3 categorically testified that he was present when PW-1 gave 3½ Tulas of Gold to A.1. The above answer that was elicited from the mouth of PW-3 in cross examination was not further challenged. In my considered view, there was consistency in the evidence adduced by the prosecution that A.1 used to demand the deceased and PW-1 to provide finance to purchase the Auto. 24. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer here Section 498-A of I.P.C. Section 498-A of I.P.C. runs as follows: 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty: Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation: For the purpose of this section “cruelty” means: (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 25. So, Section 498-A of I.P.C. especially Clause (b) reveals that if a woman is subjected to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand amounts to cruelty. So, the harassment of woman as contemplated under Section 498-A of I.P.C. need not be for dowry specifically. So, the harassment of woman as contemplated under Section 498-A of I.P.C. need not be for dowry specifically. Here, the act of A.1 in repeatedly demanding the deceased to get finance to purchase the Auto and sending to her parental house is nothing but an act of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of I.P.C. 26. As regards the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 that the demand of A.1 was met by handing over gold of PW-1 to A.1, it remained unshaken. The defence of A.1 that the deceased was against alliance with A.1 and that she had a tenancy to commit suicide, deserves no merits, in my considered view. 27. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that though there were allegations by the prosecution under Section 304-B of I.P.C. which the prosecution failed to prove, but the ingredients of Section 498-A of I.P.C. are minor one when compared to Section 304-B of I.P.C. 28. The learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, rightly dealt with this aspect also to the effect that though there was no charge under Section 498-A of I.P.C. but it is a lesser offence when compared with Section 304-B of I.P.C. 29. There was allegation in the charge under Section 304-B of I.P.C. that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband. The said cruelty and harassment are for the purpose of dowry. The cruelty and harassment under Section 498-A of I.P.C. need not be for the purpose of dowry. 30. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that legally the conviction of the appellant by the Court below under Section 498-A of I.P.C. is sustainable under law and facts. The learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, rightly convicted and sentenced the A.1 under Section 498-A of I.P.C. with valid reasons and there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment. 31. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 32. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court to the trial Court on or before 06.03.2023 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the appellant and to report compliance to this Court. 33. 32. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court to the trial Court on or before 06.03.2023 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the appellant and to report compliance to this Court. 33. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.