JUDGMENT : G.BASAVARAJA, J. Appellants who are accused before the trial Court, have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 31 st July, 2014 and order on sentence dated 16 th August, 2014 passed in SC No.157 of 2012 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur (for short "the trial Court). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Facts leading to this appeal are that Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiptur Sub-Division, Tiptur laid charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 4 98A and 306 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 , 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act . 4. It is the case of the prosecution that Shruti, daughter of PWs1 & 2, was given in marriage to accused No.1 and the marriage was solemnized at PGM Kalyana Mantapa, Tiptur on 23 rd November, 2009 as per Hindu customs and rites. Two months prior to the marriage, engagement conducted. By that time accused received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards dowry. About fifteen days prior to marriage, the accused has received Rs.1,50,000/- dowry and at the time of marriage about 400 grams of gold arguments, as demanded prior to marriage, was given. After some days of marriage, accused No.1 being her husband, and accused No.2 aunt of accused No.1, treated deceased Shruti with cruelty, both physically and mentally for unlawful demand of dowry. Being unable to bear the physical and mental torture, on 8 th November 2011 at about 10.00 am, in the room situated on the upstairs of the House of her father, H.K. Shivadhyani, Shruti committed suicide by hanging to the beam of window of the room and soon before her death, she was subjected for death physically and mentally by the accused. The accused has received a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- from Karnataka Bank account and PW2, Sulochana through HDFC Bank, and on different dates the accused has received Rs.6.00 lakh from CW1. So also, about two and a half months prior to the marriage, as per marriage negotiation, accused received both money and gold Jewellery, so also, the further demand of dowry amount from her parents, on several occasions. So also, about two and a half months prior to the marriage, as per marriage negotiation, accused received both money and gold Jewellery, so also, the further demand of dowry amount from her parents, on several occasions. After the death of Shruti within three months after marriage, accused have not transferred the dowry to the parents of Shruti or had used the said amount for the welfare of their daughter. Thus the accused have committed the alleged offences. 5. After committal, case was registered in SC No.157 of 2012. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court has framed charges for commission of offence punishable under Section 4 98A and 304B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 , 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act . The same were read over and explained to the accused. Having understood, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove the case of the prosecution, in all, examined 16 witnesses as PWs1 to 16, 27 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P27 and six material objects were marked as MO1 to MO6. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 3 13 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court acquitted the accused for offence under Sections 3 , 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act , however, convicted the accused for offence punishable under Section 4 98A and 306 read with Section 3 4 of Indian Penal Code . Accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years 9 months and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for eight months for offence under Section 4 98A of Indian Penal Code ; and to undergo imprisonment for six years six months and to pay fine of Rs.75,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for offence under Section 3 06 Indian Penal Code . The accused No.2 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year six months with payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to pay fine to undergo simple imprisonment for four months for offence punishable under Section 4 98A of Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years 9 months with fine of Rs.25,000/- and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- for offence under Section 3 06 Indian Penal Code . Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, appellants have preferred this appeal. 7. Sri A.H. Bhagavan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of accused for offence punishable under Sections 3 , 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 3 06 of Indian Penal Code . The learned counsel would further submit that the deceased was a diarist. Exhibit P20-Diary maintained by the deceased, reveals that Satish (husband of the deceased) is a nice person like her father and brother. He should give up his drinking habit during weekends and should not listen everything that is told by his aunt and by friends. It is further pointed out to the contents of the Diary and submitted that in the Diary it is dated that Satish should neglect his brothers, aunt and uncle's family, and then only he will come up in his life. It is further submitted that from January 2011 onwards, the Diary shows as to the mental status of the deceased that she was depressed. Deceased was a holder of Diploma in Engineering. It is further pointed out that, as noted in the Diary dated 13 th September 2011, Satish hit her with his belt for the first time. The deceased told him that his mother won't adjust with her or anybody else, so he had beaten her with belt severely and it was only solitary incident between the accused and the deceased. It is the case of prosecution that Rs.3,25,000/- was remitted to the account of the accused on various dates. But, mere remittance of amount to the account, does not mean that accused has committed any offence under Section 4 98A of Indian Penal Code since there is no evidence to show that the accused has demanded dowry. It is the case of prosecution that Rs.3,25,000/- was remitted to the account of the accused on various dates. But, mere remittance of amount to the account, does not mean that accused has committed any offence under Section 4 98A of Indian Penal Code since there is no evidence to show that the accused has demanded dowry. PW2 in her examination in chief has stated that she has remitted the amount to the account of daughter in Karnataka Bank. They have pledged ornaments with the Bank and obtained loan of Rs.3.00 lakh. But they have not given the same as a lumpsum and they have paid the same stage by stage. After the marriage, within two months, they have paid Rs.1.50 lakh and totally they have remitted amount of Rs.5.00 lakh to the bank account of accused No.1. In addition, they have paid an amount of Rs.3.00 lakh by hand. In this regard, the deceased has not referred to anything in her death note. Therefore, absolutely there is no evidence to convict accused for the offence punishable under Sections 4 98A and 306 of Indian Penal Code . It is further submitted that when the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 3 , 4 and 6 of, the question of demanding dowry and ill-treatment to the deceased, as alleged, does not arise. The learned counsel would submit that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel has relied on the following decisions: 1. M. VIJAYAKUMAR v. STATE OF TAMILNADU - (2024)4 SCC 633 ; 2. SAKATAR SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA - 2004(7) SBR 306; 3. S. ANIL KUMAR ALIAS ANIL KUMAR GANNA v.STATE OF KARNATAKA (2013)7 SCC 219 ; 4. SANJU ALIAS SANJAY SINGH SENGAR v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 2002 CRI.LJ. 2796; 5. ASSOO v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 2012 CRI.LJ. 658; 6. STATE OF PUNJAB v. GURDIP SINGH AND OTHERS - 1996 SCC (CRI) 244; 7. KANCHAN SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER (2021)13 SCC 806 ; 8. STATE OF KARNATAKA v. H.A. RAMASWAMY - ILR 1996 KAR.1107 . 8. 2796; 5. ASSOO v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 2012 CRI.LJ. 658; 6. STATE OF PUNJAB v. GURDIP SINGH AND OTHERS - 1996 SCC (CRI) 244; 7. KANCHAN SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER (2021)13 SCC 806 ; 8. STATE OF KARNATAKA v. H.A. RAMASWAMY - ILR 1996 KAR.1107 . 8. As against this, Sri R Rangaswamy, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, would fairly submit that the State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of acquittal for the offence under Sections 3 04B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 , 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act . He would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and has convicted the accused for the offence punishable and Sections 4 98A and 306 read with Section 3 4 of Indian Penal Code . Absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State, the following point would arise for my consideration: "Whether the appellants have made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence?" 10. I have examined the materials placed before the Court. It is the case of the prosecution that Shruti, daughter of PW1 and two, was given in marriage to accuse number one and the marriage was at PGM Kalyana Mantapa Tiptur on 23 rd November, 2009 as per Hindu customs and rites. Accused received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards dowry at the time of Engagement, performed two months prior to marriage. About fifteen days prior to marriage, accused No.1 has received Rs.1,50,000/- dowry and about 400 grams of gold ornaments as per demand made in the marriage talk took place two and half months prior to marriage. Some days after marriage, accused No.1 being her husband and accused No.2 the aunt of accused No.1, treated deceased Shruti with cruelty, both physically and mentally, for an unlawful demand of dowry. Some days after marriage, accused No.1 being her husband and accused No.2 the aunt of accused No.1, treated deceased Shruti with cruelty, both physically and mentally, for an unlawful demand of dowry. Being unable to bear the physical and mental torture, on 08 th November 2011 at about 10.00 am, in the room situated on the upstairs of the House of her father H.K. Sivadhyani, Shruti committed suicide by hanging to the beam of window and soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty physically and mentally. In total, the accused has received a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- from Karnataka Bank account of PW2-Sulochana and through HDFC Bank account has received Rs.6.00 lakh from CW1 on different dates. So also, about 2½ months prior to marriage, as per marriage negotiation, they have received both cash and Gold Jewellery, so also further received amount from her parents towards demand of dowry on several occasions after marriage. After the death of Shruti within three months of marriage, accused have not transferred the dowry amount to the parents of Shruti nor have used the said amount for the welfare of her daughter. Thus the accused have committed the alleged offences. 11. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined sixteen witnesses. Out of them, PW1 and PW2 are the parents of the deceased. PW13 is the uncle of the deceased. Rest are formal witnesses. All the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. PW13 is the hearsay witness and he has no personal knowledge and only on the basis of the information given by the parents of the deceased, he has deposed regarding the dowry demanded by the accused. PWs1 and 2 were residing at Tiptur. Deceased and her husband were residing in Bangalore. PWs1 and 2 do not know about the alleged incident personally. It is the case of the prosecution that the daughter has told to her parents as to the dowry harassment from the accused. Exhibit P13 is the death note. The deceased has not whispered anything against the accused as to the harassment of dowry and also abetment of suicide. At the end of suicide note, it is written as "Sorry Mom, Dad and Lappu" (which is the nick-name of her husband). The death note is quite contrary to the evidence of PWs1 and 2 and also the contents of the complaint. 12. At the end of suicide note, it is written as "Sorry Mom, Dad and Lappu" (which is the nick-name of her husband). The death note is quite contrary to the evidence of PWs1 and 2 and also the contents of the complaint. 12. The Genesis of the case arise out of the Exhibit P1- complaint of PW1-H.K. Shivadhyani. The same reads thus: 13. H.K.Shivadhyani examined as PW1 has deposed as to the contents of Ex.P1. He has also deposed as to the inquest mahazar conducted by the Police as per Ex.P1 and seizure of Dupatta-MO.1 has deposed as per mahazar conducted by the Police as per Ex.P3 and pass book as per Ex.P11. He has deposed regarding note book maintained by his daughter which are marked as Exhibits P13 and P14. He has deposed as to the mahazar conducted by Police as per Ex.P15. 14. PW2-Sulochana, the mother of the deceased has also deposed regarding the dowry given by them to the accused and also supported the evidence of PW1. 15. PW3-Rajashekaraiah D.S, the Principal of Siddarameshwar Polytechnic, Tiptur, has deposed regarding mahazar conducted by police as per Exhibits P19 and P20. 16. PW4-Shivashankarappa, another mahazar witness, PW5-Father Anif and PW6-Mallikarjunaiah M.N have deposed for inquest panchanama conducted as per Ex.P21. 17. PW7-A.B.Vijayakumar, Tahasildar has deposed regarding the inquest mahazar as per Ex.P1 and also recording the statement of relatives of the deceased at the time of conducting inquest panchanama. 18. PW8-M.N.Siddaramaiah is an hearsay witness. 19. PW9-K.G.Ramakrishna, Police Inspector has deposed as to his investigation. 20. PW10-S.K.Vidyashankar has deposed in his evidence regarding mahazar conducted by the Police as per Ex.P3. 21. PW11-Ganesh Kumar, Manager of Karnataka Bank has deposed in his evidence that Sulochana was having a Savings Bank Account bearing No.7672500101359401. On 15.12.2011, he has issued the Savings Bank Account extract as per Ex.P5 at the request of Dy.SP. He has also deposed as to five transactions between 18.12.2009 and 21.10.2011 pertaining to HDFC Bank Account No.03531610004467. 22. PW12-H.Sadashivappa, the retired Physical Instructor has deposed in his evidence that Police have conducted mahazar as per Ex.P15 and has identified the handwriting of the deceased in Ex.P13-note book. 23. PW13-H.K.Basavalingaiah who is none other than elder brother of PW1, has deposed regarding the dowry given to the accused. 24. PW14-C.Kotresh, PW15-R.Shivarudraswamy and PW16-Dr.Boralingaiah have deposed as to their respective investigation. 25. 23. PW13-H.K.Basavalingaiah who is none other than elder brother of PW1, has deposed regarding the dowry given to the accused. 24. PW14-C.Kotresh, PW15-R.Shivarudraswamy and PW16-Dr.Boralingaiah have deposed as to their respective investigation. 25. CW1-M.N.Lakshipathaiah, PSI has deposed as to the arrest of the accused No.1 on 10 th November, 2011 and produced him before the Inspector on the same day at 9.30 am. 26. The trial Court has clearly observed in the judgment that the prosecution has failed to establish the offence under Section 3 04B of Indian Penal Code and also the offence under sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act . The trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offence under sections 3, 4 and 6 of. The State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal for the offence under sections 3, 4 and 6 of . 27. The prosecution has produced Ex.P20-Diary of the deceased in which the deceased has not written anything as to the alleged dowry demonstrated by the accused. In the Diary dated 13 th September, 2021, it is written that Satish hit the victim with his belt, for the first time. The deceased told him that his mother would not adjust with her or anybody else, so he had beaten her with belt severely and that was the solitary incident between the accused and the deceased. Except this allegation there are absolutely now other evidence to substantiate the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code . 28. It is the case of the prosecution Rs.3,25,000/- was remitted to the account of the accused on various dates. Mere remittance of the amount to the account of the accused does not mean that the accused has committed an offence under Section 4 98A of Indian Penal Code . Since there is no evidence to show that the accused as demanded dowry, the trial Court has already acquitted the accused for the offence under Sections 3 , 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act . 29. With regard to offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is concerned also, the deceased has not referred to anything in her death note. Absolutely, there are no evidence to convict the accused for the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code . 30. 29. With regard to offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is concerned also, the deceased has not referred to anything in her death note. Absolutely, there are no evidence to convict the accused for the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code . 30. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as also, keeping in mind the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code , which is not sustainable under law. Hence, I answer the point that arose for consideration in the affirmative. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed; ii. Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 16 th August, 2014 passed in SC No.157 of 2012 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur, is set aside; iii. Accused are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code ; iv. Fine amount, if any deposited by the appellants, shall be refunded to the accused; v. Registry to send the copy of this judgment along with trial court records to the concerned Court.