JUDGMENT: J.SREENIVAS RAO, J. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, dated 25.11.2014, in S.C.No.671 of 2013, where under, the appellants were found guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short 'IPC') and convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- by each of the appellant and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell: 3.1. The de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 01.11.2009 stating that the marriage of his brother’s daughter, namely V. Kranti, was solemnized with accused No.1 on 03.05.2009. As V. Kranti was pursuing her B.Com final year at Eluru and accused No.1 was pursuing his B.Tech. final year at Hyderabad, they were living separately. V. Kranti used to visit her matrimonial home during festivals, holidays and other occasions. On 31.10.2009 at 7.30 A.M., he dropped V. Kranti at her matrimonial home in Hyderabad. On 01.11.2009, accused No.2 telephoned him and asked him to come immediately. When he reached their house, the accused informed him that V. Kranti had committed suicide by jumping from the 4 th floor. When he questioned them about the incident, they stated that they had no knowledge of how it happened and that they came to know about it only when their watchman informed them. It is further stated that for about four months prior to the incident, accused No.1 had been subjecting the deceased to mental and physical harassment for additional dowry and get money by selling Ac.5.00 of land. The deceased used to inform her mother about this harassment. In this regard, the parents of the deceased confronted accused Nos.2 and 3 about the attitude of accused No.1 and requested them to look after her properly and ensure that such harassment was not repeated. However, the deceased committed suicide. Hence, requested the police to take necessary action against the accused persons. 3.2. In this regard, the parents of the deceased confronted accused Nos.2 and 3 about the attitude of accused No.1 and requested them to look after her properly and ensure that such harassment was not repeated. However, the deceased committed suicide. Hence, requested the police to take necessary action against the accused persons. 3.2. Basing on the said complaint, Crime No.1352 of 2009 was registered against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and the Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed the charge sheet and the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Miyapur, took cognizance of the offence under Section 304-B IPC and numbered it as PRC No.186 of 2013 and committed the case to the Court of Sessions and numbered it as S.C.No.671 of 2013 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. 3.3. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 14 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 got marked. On behalf of defence, no witnesses were examined and Exs.D1 to D6 were marked. 3.4. Learned Sessions Judge after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing the parties, acquitted accused Nos.1 to 3 for the charged offence under Section 304-B IPC, however, convicted them for the offence under Section 498-A IPC as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 to 3 have preferred the present appeal. 4. Heard Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Vivek Jain, learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 3, and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 5. Submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for accused Nos.1 to 3: 5.1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that accused Nos.1 to 3 have not committed the alleged offence levelled against them. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint/Ex.P1, charge sheet and evidence on record, the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A IPC are not attracted. He further submitted that even according to the prosecution, accused No.1 and deceased never lived together continuously after the marriage, because the deceased was prosecuting her B.Com. (Computers) Final Year at Eluru and accused No.1 was prosecuting B.Tech Final Year at Hyderabad. PW.6, father of the deceased, and PW.4, junior paternal uncle of the deceased, used to drop the deceased at the house of the accused whenever the deceased had holidays. (Computers) Final Year at Eluru and accused No.1 was prosecuting B.Tech Final Year at Hyderabad. PW.6, father of the deceased, and PW.4, junior paternal uncle of the deceased, used to drop the deceased at the house of the accused whenever the deceased had holidays. Hence, the question of harassment by the accused does not arise. 5.2. He further submitted that Ex.P.1 does not mention any dowry i.e., cash of Rs.2,00,000/-, 30 tolas of gold and Ac.5.00 gts. of land, was allegedly given by the parents of the deceased to the accused persons at the time marriage and also there is an interpolation in Ex.P.1 that accused No.1 harassed the deceased to bring additional dowry by selling Ac.5.00 of land, which was given to her. He further submitted that in Ex.P.1, there is no allegation of entrustment of giving dowry at the time of marriage and there is an interpolation regarding demand of additional dowry. PW.13-Investigating Officer admitted in his evidence about interpolation in Ex.P.1. 5.3. Even according to the evidence of PWs.4 and 6, the deceased informed her mother only about the alleged demand of additional dowry by the accused, however, she died prior to commencement of the trial. The trial Court relied upon the hearsay evidence of PWs.4 and 6 convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. 5.4. He also submitted that PWs.1 and 4 to 6 are interested witnesses and the conviction of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC was based solely on their testimony and the same is not permissible under law. 5.5. He further submitted that basing upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court acquitted accused Nos.1 to 3 holding that they were not found guilty for the charged offence under Section 304-B IPC, on the other hand, convicted them for the offence under Section 498-A IPC basing on the very same evidence and the same is not permissible under law. 5.6. He further submitted that PW.5 in her chief-affidavit stated that the deceased informed her that she was harassed by accused No.1 for additional dowry and accused Nos.2 and 3 used to support him. However, in her cross-examination, PW.5 specifically admitted that she had not stated the above said allegations either to the police or in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 5.7. However, in her cross-examination, PW.5 specifically admitted that she had not stated the above said allegations either to the police or in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 5.7. He also submitted that PWs.1 and 4 to 6 admitted in their cross-examination that they were never informed directly by the deceased regarding the harassment of accused No.1 for additional dowry and that they came to know about the alleged harassment only through the wife of PW.6. Their evidence, therefore, amounts to hearsay, which is inadmissible under Section 60 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872. Basing upon such evidence, the trial Court convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. 5.8. He further submitted that the prosecution has not established and proved the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC that the deceased committed suicide on account of physical and mental harassment by accused Nos. 1 to 3 and that such harassment constitutes ‘cruelty’. 5.9. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments. i) Bhagwati Devi v. State of Uttarakhand , [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1849] ii) Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa , [ (2002) 2 SCC 619 ] iii) Bakshish Ram and another v. State of Punjab , [ (2013) 4 SCC 131 ] ; and iv) Shoor Singh and another v. State of Uttarakhand , [ (2025) 2 SCC 815 ] 6. Submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor: 6.1. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, rightly convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and on perusal of the record, the following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the impugned judgment passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, convicting accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC is sustainable under law? (ii) Whether accused Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for any relief in the present appeal? (iii) To what relief? Analysis: Point Nos. (i) and (ii):- 8. (ii) Whether accused Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for any relief in the present appeal? (iii) To what relief? Analysis: Point Nos. (i) and (ii):- 8. It is not in dispute that the marriage of accused No.1 with the deceased was solemnized on 03.05.2009. PW.4 is the de facto complainant/junior paternal uncle of the deceased and PW.6 is the father of the deceased. PW.1 is the wife of PW.4 and PW.5 is the cousin of the mother of the deceased. PW.4 lodged the Ex.P.1- complaint on 01.11.2009. In the said complaint, he stated that the deceased was prosecuting B.Com. (Computers) Final Year at Eluru and accused No.1 was prosecuting B.Tech. Final Year at Hyderabad, at the time of their marriage. He also stated that he and PW.6 used to drop and pick up the deceased to the matrimonial home at Hyderabad whenever she had holidays. 9. The specific contention of learned Senior Counsel for the accused is that in Ex.P.1, there is no allegation that at the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased gave Ac.5.00 of land to her. However, subsequently included in Ex.P.1 that the accused have demanded to bring additional dowry and also bring money by alienating Ac.5.00 of land and the said allegations were included subsequently and there is a material alteration in the complaint. 10. The record discloses that PWs.1 and 4 to 6 are close relatives and interested witnesses and their evidence contains inconsistencies regarding the alleged payment of Rs.2,00,000/-, 30 tolas of gold and giving Ac.5.00 of land towards dowry at the time of marriage of accused No.1 with the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge based on the same evidence adduced by the prosecution acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 304-B IPC holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC beyond reasonable doubt, on the other hand, convicted the accused under Section 498-A IPC. 11. The record further reveals that PW.5 in her evidence stated that the deceased informed her about harassment by the accused, but the same was not mentioned in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and she had not supported the case of the prosecution. 12. 11. The record further reveals that PW.5 in her evidence stated that the deceased informed her about harassment by the accused, but the same was not mentioned in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and she had not supported the case of the prosecution. 12. Upon perusal of the statements of PWs.4 and 6 recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., it reveals that they have not stated in their statements that accused No.1 demanded additional dowry and the deceased also no point of time informed them about any harassment for such demand of additional dowry by the accused. In the cross-examination and the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., PWs.4 and 6 stated that the deceased informed her mother about harassment by the accused and demand of additional dowry. However, the mother of the deceased had passed away even before the case was riped for trial. There is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the alleged cruelty or harassment. However, basing upon the hearsay evidence of PWs.4 and 6, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the accused harassed the deceased for additional dowry, 13. Even according to the prosecution, the evidence of PW.2 and 3, who are the watchman and his wife, is relevant only regarding the death of the deceased. PW.3, who worked as a maid in the accused’s house, stated in her cross-examination that the deceased used to keep quite in a mood and when she questioned her as to why she was keeping aloof, the deceased stated that she was not in good spirits and not feeling well. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 also not supported the case of the prosecution. 14. Similarly, the evidence of PWs.7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 only establishes the factum of death and no eye witnesses were examined. The prosecution miserably failed to prove about the element of demand of dowry or harassment made by the accused to attract the ingredients under Section 498-A IPC and also the prosecution failed to prove that the specific nature of harassment has made by the accused. The prosecution mainly relied on the hearsay evidence of PWs.1 and 4 to 6. 15. The prosecution miserably failed to prove about the element of demand of dowry or harassment made by the accused to attract the ingredients under Section 498-A IPC and also the prosecution failed to prove that the specific nature of harassment has made by the accused. The prosecution mainly relied on the hearsay evidence of PWs.1 and 4 to 6. 15. In Bhagwati Devi supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that Section 498-A IPC is attracted where a woman is subjected to willful conduct likely to of drive her to commit suicide or cause grave injury due to mental and physical harassment, or where such harassment is inflicted to coerce her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands, including dowry, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that persistent or proximate acts of cruelty are required, and trivial marital disagreements do not meet the threshold. In Gananath Pattnaik supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that cruelty under Section 498-A is not limited to physical violence and may include mental torture or abnormal behavior, reiterating that the statutory definition encompasses both willful conduct causing grave harm and harassment linked to unlawful demands. 16. In Bakshish Ram supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 304-B-IPC, as the mother of the deceased (PW-2) had no direct knowledge of any harassment and her statements were purely hearsay, inadmissible under Section 60 of the EVIDENCE ACT ; further, the alleged demands had been fulfilled by the parents and no other witness supported the allegation of dowry-related cruelty. In Shoor Singh supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that although the testimonies of PW.1 and PW.2 were admissible as part of the circumstances surrounding the unnatural death, admissibility alone does not ensure reliability, and such evidence must be evaluated against the surrounding circumstances and other proved facts before being accepted as m proof beyond reasonable doubt. 17. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said judgments supra are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case on hand also there are no eye witnesses and there is no direct or reliable evidence and, therefore, falls short of proving the essential ingredients of cruelty or dowry harassment to attract the offence under Section 498-A IPC. 18. In the case on hand also there are no eye witnesses and there is no direct or reliable evidence and, therefore, falls short of proving the essential ingredients of cruelty or dowry harassment to attract the offence under Section 498-A IPC. 18. It is already stated supra that, PWs.1 and 4 to 6 are interested witnesses and close relatives of the deceased and the prosecution miserably failed to prove the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 304-B IPC, but convicted them for the offence under Section 498-A IPC solely basing upon the circumstantial evidence of PWs.1 and 4 to 6 and whose evidence does not establish the ingredients of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC, further, there is no eye witness to speak about the cruelty or harassment made by the accused. Even according to the prosecution, the deceased informed only her mother about the alleged harassment, but neither the mother nor PW.6 lodged any complaint or brought the matter to the notice of any one. Even according to PWs.4 and 6, the deceased never informed them about demand of additional dowry and harassment by the accused and their evidence is only hearsay evidence. CONCLUSION: 19. In view of foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court supra, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, convicting the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC is liable to be set aside and the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 are deserve the relief of acquittal. Accordingly point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered. POINT NO.(iii) : 20. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar, dated 25.11.2014, in S.C.No.671 of 2013 convicting the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC is set aside and the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.