JUDGMENT : M G Uma, J. The appellants being accused Nos.1 and 2 in SC.No.143/2012, on the file of the learned II Fast Track Court, Tumkur, are impugning the Judgment of conviction and order of Sentence dated 31.07.2012, convicting accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for 7 years and pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC, under-go imprisonment for 3 years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, undergo imprisonment for 6 months and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act and convicting accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and sentencing her to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default sentences. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court. 3. Brief facts of the case as per the prosecution is that, deceased Rukmini married accused No.1 on 01.03.1998. At the time of marriage, gold ornaments worth Rs.50,000/-, 650 grams of silver articles and Rs.30,000/- towards scooter were demanded by accused and the same were given as dowry. After marriage, accused No.1 being the husband, accused No.2 being the mother-in-law started ill-treating the deceased by demanding additional dowry of Rs.80,000/- for the purpose of purchasing a matador. When the informant and his family members expressed their inability to pay such huge amount, the accused continued ill-treating the deceased. In the meantime, the deceased delivered two children. It was found that she was again four months pregnant. Since the second child was still young, the deceased wanted to abort the pregnancy. She did it against the medical advice but had not taken proper treatment. As a result, pus has formed in the uterus and she was experiencing unbearable pain. She was taken to hospital on 12.11.2011. But before reaching the hospital she died. Initially, it was suspected that she had consumed pesticide. 4. She did it against the medical advice but had not taken proper treatment. As a result, pus has formed in the uterus and she was experiencing unbearable pain. She was taken to hospital on 12.11.2011. But before reaching the hospital she died. Initially, it was suspected that she had consumed pesticide. 4. The informant filed the first information against accused Nos.1 to 10 i.e., the present appellant and their family members for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC. Investigation was undertaken and the charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Section 498A R/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the DP Act, only against accused Nos.1 and 2, while dropping the allegations against accused Nos.3 to 10 named in the FIR. 5. The Trial Court took cognizance for the above said offences and summoned the accused. Accused have appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined PWs1 to PW16 and got marked Exs.P1 to 19 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record. But have not chosen to lead any evidence in their defence. They got marked Ex.D1 during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. 6. During pendency of the trial, the Trial Court modified the charge to include Section 304B of IPC against both the accused. After taking into consideration all the materials on record, the Trial Court formed an opinion that accused No.1 has committed the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act. It is also opined that accused No.2 has committed the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC, while acquitting her for the other offences and sentencing them as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 and 2 have approached this Court by filing the appeal. 7. Heard Sri. Suyog Herele E, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned ASPP for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 8. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the appellants-accused Nos.1 and 2 have made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court? Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 8. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the appellants-accused Nos.1 and 2 have made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court? My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 9. PW15 is the elder brother of the deceased who filed the first information as per Ex.P15 on 13.11.2002 at 11.30 a.m., The deceased had died on 12.11.2002 at about 3 p.m. PW15 being the elder brother of the deceased stated regarding the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 and giving gold worth Rs.50,000/-, 650 gms of silver articles, Rs.30,000/- in cash and spending Rs.40,000/- for arranging the marriage. It is alleged that accused No.1 used to ill-treat the deceased from the date of marriage, and he started demanding additional dowry of Rs.80,000/- to purchase a Matador. When he pleaded his inability to pay such amount, accused Nos.1 and 2 along with other family members i.e., sisters and brother-in-law of accused No.1, continued to ill-treat her. The deceased had written a letter to the complainant and explained the ill-treatment meted to her. 10. The informant also stated that, about 1 ½ months earlier to the incident, the deceased was subjected to abortion by the accused. Subsequently, on 12.11.2002, all the accused administered poison to her, as a result of which, she died on the same day. Therefore, it is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 10 have committed the offences punishable under Sections, 498A and 304B of IPC. While filing the charge sheet, Section 304B of IPC was dropped, but accused Nos.1 and 2 were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498A R/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3, 4, 6 of DP Act. 11. It is specifically stated in Cl.No.7 of the charge sheet that the deceased was being ill-treated by accused Nos.1 and 2 for not meting their demand for additional dowry of Rs.80,000/-. The deceased already had two children, but she became pregnant again. Hence, she was intending to abort, the pregnancy. She contacted a doctor, who refused to effect termination since she was already four months pregnant. The deceased already had two children, but she became pregnant again. Hence, she was intending to abort, the pregnancy. She contacted a doctor, who refused to effect termination since she was already four months pregnant. Therefore, the deceased approached a private doctor, got aborted the pregnancy but had not taken proper treatment. As a result of which, there was pus inside the uterus and she died on 12.11.2002, while she was being taken to the hospital. With these allegations, charge sheet was filed without invoking Section 304B of IPC. Initially, the charge framed by the Trial Court was only for the said offences and not for 304B of IPC.But subsequently it appears that 304B was invoked. 12. The prosecution examined PW1-the elder sister of the deceased. Even though she partially supported the case of the prosecution, she pleaded her ignorance regarding the reason as to why the deceased died. She was treated partially hostile. During cross-examination by the learned prosecutor, the witness categorically stated that the witness died due to the illness which she was suffering. Nothing has been elicited from her to prove the charge against the accused. 13. PWs.2 and 5 are also the sisters of deceased. PW3 is the husband of PW2. PW4 is the brother of the deceased. None of these witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. PW6 is the Doctor, who is said to have aborted the pregnancy of the deceased illegally. But this witness has also not supported the case of the prosecution, and there are no materials in support of the contentions taken by the prosecution. 14. PW7 is the Doctor, who first examined the victim prior to her death. Witness stated that when the deceased was brought to the hospital, she was having high fever, so he advised the accused to take her to other hospital. Therefore, his evidence is also not helpful to the prosecution. 15. PW8 is the witness to the inquest mahazar Ex.P9.PW9 is the Engineer, who has drawn the spot sketch as per Ex.P10. These witnesses are only formal witnesses to prove Exs.P9 and 10. PW10 is said to be the family friend of the informant, who was part of the panchayath to resolve the dispute between the husband and wife. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. 16. These witnesses are only formal witnesses to prove Exs.P9 and 10. PW10 is said to be the family friend of the informant, who was part of the panchayath to resolve the dispute between the husband and wife. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. 16. PW11 is the Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination and issued the report as per Ex.P12. As per this document, viscera was collected and sent for chemical examination. No opinion was expressed pending chemical examination report. After receipt of chemical examination report, the final opinion was given that the death was due to septicemia. PW11 subsequently stated that he found pus inside the stomach and that there was heavy infection. PW12 is the chemical examiner, who issued the examination report as per Ex.P13. As per the evidence of PW12 and the report Ex.P13, the samples subjected for examination responded for presence of Organo Phosphorus - an insecticide. 17. PW13 is the Investigating officer, who conducted partial investigation by collecting few documents and recorded statement of accused No.1. During cross-examination, this witness stated that the informant PW.15 is a police official working in the department. She denied the suggestion that even though there were no substance in the allegations against the accused, she filed false charge sheet. PW14 is the Tahasildar, who conducted inquest panchanama. He pleaded his ignorance about the reason for the death of deceased. As per the inquest pahchanama, there were no external injuries on the dead body. 18. PW15 is the material witness to the prosecution i.e., the elder brother of the deceased, who filed the first information as per Ex.P15. It is stated that he was working as head constable in the department of police. This witness speaks about the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1, payment of dowry, demand for additional dowry and ill- treatment meted to the deceased by the accused. It is pertinent to note that this witness has specifically deposed in the chief examination that the deceased was pregnant and the sisters of accused No.1 had taken her to a hospital and got the pregnancy aborted. This fact was informed by the deceased to him. As a result of illegal termination of pregnancy, she was suffering from pain. When he questioned the acts of the sisters of accused No.1, they denied the fact that they got the pregnancy aborted. This fact was informed by the deceased to him. As a result of illegal termination of pregnancy, she was suffering from pain. When he questioned the acts of the sisters of accused No.1, they denied the fact that they got the pregnancy aborted. Strangely, the sisters of accused No.1 who were arrayed as accused in the FIR were dropped while filing charge sheet and they were not prosecuted. 19. Witness further stated that accused No.1 has administered poison to the deceased, as a result of which, she died and that is why he filed the first information. Strangely, as per the evidence of PW-1 no poison was found during post- mortem examination. As per final opinion found in Ex.P12, the death of the deceased was due to septicemia and not due to poisoning. That is why the charge sheet was not filed initially for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC but charge was framed by the Trial Court at a later stage for the above said offence. If the evidence of PW-15 being the elder brother of the deceased is to be taken into consideration, there is serious doubt regarding the cause of death of the deceased. The version of PW-15 regarding treating the deceased with cruelty also cannot be believed. Since the evidence of PW-15 is not of sterling quality, it requires corroboration. Unfortunately, none of the other witnesses have spoken about any of these facts. Under such circumstances, it is not safe to rely on the uncorroborated evidence of PW-15 to convict the accused for the above said offences. 20. It is to be noted that PW-15 in his evidence, got marked Ex.P16 - a letter said to have been written by the deceased. There is no investigation on Ex.P16. PW-15 does not say that he had produced Ex.P16 before the Investigating Officer. Definitely, it was not part of the charge sheet and there is no reference to it. Suddenly during examination of PW-15, this letter came to be marked as per Ex.P16. Even if this letter is to be taken into consideration, as written by the deceased, much earlier to her death, she has given clean chit to accused Nos.1 and 2, stating that her husband and mother-in-law are too good and she would not like to lose them. There is a specific allegation against the sisters of accused No.1, who are not charge sheeted. There is a specific allegation against the sisters of accused No.1, who are not charge sheeted. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably filed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, they are entitled for acquittal. 21. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has proceeded to convict accused No.1 for the offence under Section 304B solely on the basis of the uncorroborated evidence of PW-15 and the FSL report-Ex.P13. It has ignored the fact that PW-11 - the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination categorically stated that, he had not found poison in the stomach, and even as per the final opinion, the death was not due to poisoning, but it was due to septicemia. Under such circumstances, I am of opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused. Since there are serious doubts in the case made out by the prosecution, it is well settled preposition of law that the benefit of such reasonable doubt is to be extended to the accused, and the accused are liable to be acquitted. 22. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. (ii) The Judgment of conviction and order of Sentence dated 31.07.2012 passed in S.C.No.143/2012, on the file of learned II Fast Track Court, Tumkur, is hereby set aside. (iii) Consequently, accused No.1 is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act. Accused No.2 is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. (iv) Bail bond and that of sureties shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, deposited by accused Nos.1 and 2 is ordered to be refunded to them after appeal period is over. Registry to send back the TCR along with copy of this judgment for information and for needful action.