JUDGMENT : K.Suresh Reddy, J. Sole accused in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2013 on the file of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada (for short, 'the trial Court'), is the appellant in the present criminal appeal before this Court. Initially, the accused was tried by the trial Court under the following two charges: I charge was under Section 498-A IPC; and II charge was under Section 306 IPC Thereafter, an additional charge was framed under Section 304-B IPC. 2. Substance of the charges is that prior to 11-04-2012, the accused used to harass his wife by name Vattipalli Nagamani (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') both physically and mentally demanding her to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/- accrued to her credit in Agri Gold Savings and being unable to bear the harassment, the deceased consumed acid on 11-04-2012 in her house situated at Peter Street, Pejjonipet, Vijayawada, and thereafter succumbed to internal burns, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B IPC. 3. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months, for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The trial Court also convicted the accused and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. Case of the prosecution in brief is thus: The accused, the deceased and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Pejjonipet, Vijayawada. The deceased is none other than wife of the accused. Their marriage was performed in the year 2006. After one month from the date of marriage, the accused started to quarrel with the deceased to withdraw Rs.10,000/- accrued to her credit in Agri Gold Savings. The accused used to subject the deceased to cruelty both physically and mentally. Unable to bear the harassment, the deceased consumed acid, which is used for cleaning bathrooms, on 11-04-2012 at about 11 p.m. Later, P.W.1 woke up and observed the deceased while she was vomiting. When P.W.1 questioned the deceased, the latter informed that the accused used to quarrel with her and harass her for the sake of money and unable to bear the harassment, she consumed acid. When P.W.1 questioned the deceased, the latter informed that the accused used to quarrel with her and harass her for the sake of money and unable to bear the harassment, she consumed acid. Immediately, P.W.1 informed the same to P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.1 took the deceased to Vijeta Hospital, Vijayawada, and from there to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada. On receipt of Ex.P4-intimation from the hospital, P.W.8- Head Constable, Outpost Police Station, Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, went to casualty ward and recorded statement of P.W.1- Ex.P1 and sent the same to Satyanarayanapuram Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. Having received Ex.P1, P.W.12-the then Sub Inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, registered the same as a case in crime No. 204 of 2012 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR was marked as Ex.P9. While undergoing treatment, the deceased died on 15-04-2012. Subsequently, P.W.12 altered the section of law from 174 Cr.P.C. to Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. Altered FIR was marked as Ex.P10. P.W.12 sent a requisition to P.W.10-the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Vijayawada Urban, for holding inquest. Accordingly, P.W.10 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.9 and another. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P5. On 17-04-2012, P.W.12 visited the scene of offence and prepared an observation report- Ex.P3 in the presence of P.W.7 and another. P.W.12 seized M.O.1- plastic acid bottle at the scene of offence. P.W.12 also prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P11 at the scene of offence. P.W.12 got the scene photographed through P.W.6. Photographs were marked as Ex.P2. P.W.12 secured the presence of P.Ws.1 to 6 and recorded their statements. P.W.12 sent the dead body for conducting post mortem examination. P.W.11-Head of the Department, Forensic Medicine, Siddhartha Medical College, Vijayawada, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.11 opined the cause of death was due to Sulphuric Acid, a corrosive chemical substance poison, with acid burns. Accordingly, P.W.11 issued post mortem certificate-Ex.P6 and final opinion under Ex.P8. On 18-04-2012, P.W.12 arrested the accused and remanded him to judicial custody. P.W.12 sent the material objects to R.F.S.L., Vijayawada. R.F.S.L. Report was marked as Ex.P7. After completion of investigation, P.W.12 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 apart from exhibiting M.O.1. 6. On 18-04-2012, P.W.12 arrested the accused and remanded him to judicial custody. P.W.12 sent the material objects to R.F.S.L., Vijayawada. R.F.S.L. Report was marked as Ex.P7. After completion of investigation, P.W.12 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 apart from exhibiting M.O.1. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him and reported no defence evidence. 7. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the trial Court convicted the accused as afore-stated. 8. Heard Sri P.Y.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 9. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. Admittedly, the deceased consumed acid on her own being unable to bear the harassment by the accused. P.Ws.1 to 4 in their evidence stated that the accused used to demand the deceased an amount of Rs.10,000/- accrued to her credit in Agri Gold Savings and as the deceased refused to give the said money, quarrel took place between both of them but P.W.1 did not state about the said demand in her earliest report-Ex.P1. P.W.1 only stated in Ex.P1 in the following lines: "Now and then petty quarrels arose between my daughter and my son-in-law. Today i.e. on 11-04-2012 during night at 11.15 hours, one Narasimham, who is residing by the side of our house, came to me and said that my daughter is allegedly consumed acid. Immediately I went to the house of my daughter who is residing by the side of my house wherein I am residing. My son-in-law is also present in the house. When I asked my daughter as to why she consumed the acid, she said just before a petty quarrel took place between her and my son-in-law. That is why, having been distressed mentally I consumed the acid." As seen from Ex.P1, absolutely there is no reference to the demand of Rs.10,000/- by the accused. P.W.1 only stated that some petty quarrels took place between the accused and the deceased. According to P.W.1, she came to know through one Narasimham that the deceased consumed acid but the prosecution did not choose to examine the said Narasimham for the reasons best known to it. P.W.1 only stated that some petty quarrels took place between the accused and the deceased. According to P.W.1, she came to know through one Narasimham that the deceased consumed acid but the prosecution did not choose to examine the said Narasimham for the reasons best known to it. Further, P.W.1 has altogether come up with a new version introducing the story of demand of additional dowry. As such, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 10. Having carefully examined the case in its entirety and for the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant-accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 304-B IPC, of course the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 is consistent with regard to the harassment of the deceased by the accused to draw her savings amount. 11. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant-accused by judgment dated 02-06-2016 in S.C.No. 100 of 2013 on the file of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, for the offence under Section 304-B IPC while confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against him for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The appellant-accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 304-B IPC. As the appellant-accused already served more than five years of sentence and as the appellant-accused is enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 19-01-2023 in I.A.No. 2 of 2022 in terms of the order dated 02-11-2016 passed by a Division Bench of the composite High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Batchu Ranga Rao and others Vs. State of A.P., represented by its Public Prosecutor , he is directed to surrender himself before the concerned jail authorities for completing the formalities for his release. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in consequence.