JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Jukanti, J. This criminal appeal is filed by appellant/accused No.1, aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.12.2016 in S.C.No.306 of 2013 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, convicting the appellant/accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). 2. Heard Mr. T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for appellant/accused No.1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. 3. PW.1, father of the deceased, lodged a Telugu written complaint on 07.12.2011 at 15:00 hrs, stating that his elder daughter (Deepthi) married the appellant/ accused No.1 (M.Radha Hari Seshu, a Software Engineer working in M/s. Polaris Company, Chennai) on 13.02.2005. He gave Rs.1,50,000/-, 3 tulas of gold, 1 kg silver, household articles, etc., as dowry. Accused No.1 was harassing the deceased physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. Both were blessed with two sons. It is further stated in the complaint that on 07.12.2011, at around 11:20 hours, mother-in-law of the deceased informed over phone that his daughter was not well and she was shifted to a nearby hospital for treatment. PW.1, along with his wife (PW.2), rushed to the deceased’s place and found her lying dead in parking place of the apartment. They were informed by deceased’s in-laws that their daughter committed suicide by hanging. It is also stated in the complaint that PW.3, friend of the deceased, had informed PW.1 on 07.12.2011 at around 10:00 hours that his daughter was harassed mentally and physically for additional dowry, and that accused No.1 forcibly obtained a suicide note from his daughter 3 days ago. Injuries were there on the body of his daughter and as such, PW.1 suspected that accused No.1 might have killed his daughter. 4. Crime No.964 of 2011 was registered under Sections 498 A and 304 B of IPC and an Express FIR was sent to the Court. PW.12, Inspector of Police, examined PW.1, recorded his statement, preserved the scene, and sent requisition to PW.11 to conduct inquest over the body. Thereupon, PW.14 took up investigation, went to the scene of offence, drafted scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch in the presence of PWs.8 and 9, and seized the saree (MO.1) used for committing suicide. PW.14 examined PWs.2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 and recorded their statements. Thereupon, PW.14 took up investigation, went to the scene of offence, drafted scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch in the presence of PWs.8 and 9, and seized the saree (MO.1) used for committing suicide. PW.14 examined PWs.2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 and recorded their statements. Statements of P.Anil Kumar (LW.4) and S.Sekhar (LW.7) were not recorded. PW.1 narrated the same statements as narrated before PW.12, hence, statement was not recorded by PW.14. PW.11 conducted inquest over the corpse of the deceased in the presence of PW.9 and LW.12. Postmortem examination was conducted on 08.12.2011. Accused No.1 was arrested on 14.12.2011 and accused Nos.2 and 3 (mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased) were granted anticipatory bail on 04.01.2012. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 5. The case against accused Nos.2 and 3 was discharged vide order, dated 14.05.2014, in Crl.M.P.No.82 of 2014. 6. The case of the prosecution is that after the marriage, accused No.1 took the deceased to Chennai and stayed there for four months. On instigation of accused Nos.2 and 3, accused No.1 started harassing the deceased physically and mentally for additional dowry. Accused No.1 shifted to Hyderabad (to M/s. Satyam Computers) and rented a flat at Nizampet. First child, Harthik Chandra, was born to the couple. After three months, accused No.1 left to USA, and three months later, deceased joined him. Accused No.1 used to beat the deceased often and force her to consume liquor, which the deceased refused. Aggrieved by his behaviour, the deceased returned to India in February, 2008 and was blessed with a child in May, 2008. After returning to India, accused No.1 began neglecting deceased and demanded additional dowry. PW.1 performed marriage of his second daughter in November, 2011, which was attended by accused No.1 and his parents. Accused No.1, along with accused Nos.2 and 3, insulted the deceased by stating that PW.1 gave more dowry to second daughter (witnessed by PW.7). 7. Further case of the prosecution is that the deceased sent an e- mail to PW.3 on 07.12.2011 at 07:07 a.m., about the physical torture by her husband the previous day. That on 07.12.2011, at around 09:00 hours, after dropping the children at School, when the deceased returned home, accused No.1 picked up a quarrel and beat her. 7. Further case of the prosecution is that the deceased sent an e- mail to PW.3 on 07.12.2011 at 07:07 a.m., about the physical torture by her husband the previous day. That on 07.12.2011, at around 09:00 hours, after dropping the children at School, when the deceased returned home, accused No.1 picked up a quarrel and beat her. Disturbed, deceased rushed to the bedroom, bolted the room, and committed suicide by hanging from the ceiling fan with a saree. Accused No.1, on noticing that deceased bolted the room, banged on the door. When there was no response, he took the help of PW.5 and tried to open the bedroom door. Both accused No.1 and PW.5 borrowed a hammer from LW.7 (S.Sekhar, tiles worker) and broke open the bedroom door and found the deceased hanging. Accused No.1, along with PWs.5 and 6 and LW.7, shifted the deceased to a nearby Hospital, where the deceased was pronounced dead. 8. Learned Sessions Judge, having framed the charges, examined PWs.1 to 14 and marked Exs.P1 to P6, and convicted the appellant/accused No.1 for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC. 9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellant/ accused No.1 submitted that though the complaint (Ex.P1) was lodged on 07.12.2011 at 03:00 p.m., FIR (Ex.P8) reached Magistrate on 08.12.2011 at 01:00 p.m., and there is a delay of around 21 hours. 10. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that PW.4 had stated that when he visited the deceased’s place on 07.12.2011 between 11:00 to 12:00 am, Police came to the scene of offence, however no report was given at the time. It is further submitted that the allegations with regard to dowry were not stated by PW.1 in the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that PW.9 had stated that when he reached the place of offence at 12:00 noon on 07.12.2011, Police reached the place of offence after one hour. However, Police chose not to register FIR and waited for PW.1 to come to Police Station. 11. It is contended that email from the deceased to PW.3 was on 07.11.2011 at 07:07 a.m. and deceased committed suicide at 10:00 a.m. The allegation in Ex.P2-copy of E-mail is that, "raatri baaga kottinde nannu kuntodantava aniraatri almost okka ganta sepu kottindu". However, Police chose not to register FIR and waited for PW.1 to come to Police Station. 11. It is contended that email from the deceased to PW.3 was on 07.11.2011 at 07:07 a.m. and deceased committed suicide at 10:00 a.m. The allegation in Ex.P2-copy of E-mail is that, "raatri baaga kottinde nannu kuntodantava aniraatri almost okka ganta sepu kottindu". (Translation: He beat me severely in the night for about an hour.) There is no allegation with regard to demand of dowry. That according to Post Mortem Certificate (Ex.P6), there are absolutely no injuries found on the deceased. It is further contended that according to PW.3 (friend of deceased), she opened Ex.P2 e-mail on 08.12.2011 between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. According to PW.1, PW.3 informed him about Ex.P.2/e-mail on 09.12.2011, when she attended the cremation of deceased and in turn, PW.1 handed over Ex.P2 to PW.14 on 11.12.2011 along with Ex.D8-Letter. In other words, PW.3 has seen the e-mail on 08.12.2011 and the same was handed it over to PW.1 on 09.12.2011, who in turn, handed it over to PW.14 on 11.12.2011. Therefore, there is any amount of doubt with regard to genuinety of Ex.P2. It is submitted that though the soft copy of e-mail was filed, the Prosecution failed to procure 65-B Certificate. It is further submitted that even according to PW.3, only soft copy of the e-mail was taken, and neither statement was recorded nor recovery panchanama was drafted. 12. Placing reliance on certain exhibits marked, it is submitted as follows: i) that on 13.01.2012, PW.14 addressed a letter-Ex.P12 to PW.13 ACP Cyber Crime requesting for login and logout details of PW.3 and deceased on 07.12.2011. ii) that in pursuance to Ex.P12 Letter, PW.13 ACP Cyber Crime gave a notice under Section 160/91 Cr.P.C. to Google, USA on 23.01.2012 requesting for login and logout details of PW.3 and deceased from 01.12.2011 to 08.12.2011 for further investigation, marked as Ex.P11. iii) that Google has sent a mail, marked as Ex.D6, to PW.13 on 13.02.2012, wherein it was informed that "Pursuant to the US Law and your authority under Section 91 of Indian Cr.P.C, please find attached IP Activity from December 1, 2012 to December 8, 2012 to the extent readily available in our systems for account {prathyuani@gmail.com} as listed in your request to us. That after a careful and diligent search we were unable to locate any login or logout IP Activity for account {deepthi.mulugu@gmail.com} from Dec 1 to Dec 8 as specified in your request. Please note that we usually only keep the most recent login or logout IP Activity for any given Google Account, which is approximately 30 days." 13. It is contended that PW.5 Watchman had stated that he does not know the disputes between the appellant/ accused No.1 and the deceased. That PW.6, a neighbour, had stated that he did not observe any quarrels between the accused No.1 and deceased. 14. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted that the evidence of PW.3, a friend and neighbor of the deceased, cannot be discarded and is trustworthy. Evidence of PW.3 is corroborated with the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 with regard to ill-treatment, harassment, i.e., physical and mental and also the harassment for additional dowry. It is further submitted that PW.4 found an injury on the right side of the cheek of the deceased when he saw the dead body of the deceased. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has supported the findings given by learned Sessions Judge. 15. Having gone through the record, Ex.P1 is a Telugu written complaint of PW.1 addressed to Inspector of Police, KPHB PS, dated 07.12.2011, received at 03:00 p.m. Ex.P1 is signed by PW.1 and date is mentioned. It is noticed that there is an overwriting of the date as contended. The contention that date is manipulated cannot be brushed aside. 16. Ex.P8 is the FIR registered at 15:00 hours, on 07.12.2011. It was received on 08.12.2011 at 01:00 p.m. in the Court. There is a delay of 22 hours. The delay is not explained. Manipulation of date coupled with the delay in FIR reaching the Court creates any amount of suspicion as to genuinity of the complaint being lodged on 07.12.2011. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 cannot be negatived, since the delay of 22 hours is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The fact that there is an overwriting of the date mentioned in the complaint gives rise to any amount of doubt, as rightly canvassed by learned Senior Counsel. 17. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 cannot be negatived, since the delay of 22 hours is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The fact that there is an overwriting of the date mentioned in the complaint gives rise to any amount of doubt, as rightly canvassed by learned Senior Counsel. 17. PW.9 in his evidence stated that he reached the place of offence at 12:00 or 12:30 noon, that one hour after, Police reached the place and conducted panchanamas by 6:30 p.m. in the presence of PW.12. PW.4 in his evidence deposed that he visited the apartment between 11:00 to 12:00 in the morning and by then, the Police came to the place of offence. PW.8 deposed that panchanama was prepared by the Police in between 04:00 to 05:00 p.m. PW.12 in his cross examination stated that FIR was registered at 03:00 p.m. Ex.P3 is the scene of offence panchanama. It is reflected in the panchanama that it was conducted at 16:30 hours by PW.12. Ex.P1 is the complaint received by PW.12 at 03:00 p.m. From the depositions and the panchanama, it is apparent that PW.12 was at the place of offence till 16:30 hours. The fact that complaint was received by PW.12 at 03:00 p.m. in the Police Station suffers a set back as to the timing of the complaint and creates any amount of doubt. 18. Ex.D8 is a letter dated 11.12.2011 addressed to Circle Inspector of Police, enclosing the text of e-mail message. It is written in the letter that the deceased had flashed an e-mail message “Distress Message” to her friend, Smt. Pratyusha-PW.3 on 07.12.2011 morning, i.e., the day on which the crime occurred. That PW.1 was informed when PW.3 attended the cremation on 09.12.2011. 19. Pursuant to Ex.D8, Ex.P13, an email communication dated 06.01.2012 (at 11:33:18 hrs), was sent by Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station to Airtel, requesting the details of user of I.P.No. 20. Ex.P14 is an email communication from Bulusu Chinaramaiah, Assistant Nodal Officer, TTSL-AP Circle, to sho_cybercrimes@cyb.appolice.gov.in on 09.01.2012 (at 13:36:40 hrs). The communication forwarded to Bulusu Chinaramaiah by Alok, CNOC_CSO MUMBAI is as follows: “The below IP Address does not belong to TTSL CDMA Wireless IP Pools”. It is also observed that in Ex.P14 under the caption ‘original message’, a request was made to furnish details of user of I.P. No. in Cr.No.964/2011. The communication forwarded to Bulusu Chinaramaiah by Alok, CNOC_CSO MUMBAI is as follows: “The below IP Address does not belong to TTSL CDMA Wireless IP Pools”. It is also observed that in Ex.P14 under the caption ‘original message’, a request was made to furnish details of user of I.P. No. in Cr.No.964/2011. Reference is also made to the name of PW.1. 21. Ex.P12 is a letter dated 13.01.2012 addressed by Officer on Special Duty, Kukatpally Division to Asst. Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crime PS, Cyberabad. In the letter, it is requested to address a letter to the concerned for furnishing the login and logout details of email ids deepthi.mulugu@gmail.com & prathyani@gmail.com for the particular mail received by latter on 07.12.2011 at 07:07 a.m., for the purpose of investigation. 22. Ex.P11 is a notice under Section 160/91 Cr.P.C. dated 23.01.2012 from Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime PS, Cyberabad to Google Inc., USA. The contents are as follows: “ NOTICE U/S 160/91 Cr.P.C. Sub: Request to furnish the login and logout details of email ids deepthimulugu@gmail.com and prathyuani@gmail.com from 1 st Dec 2011 to 08 th Dec 2011 for further investigation in Murder cum Dowry Death case in Cr.No.964/2011 of KPHB Police Station, Hyderabad - Reg. *** It is bring to your notice that on 04-01-2012 received a complaint from Inspector of Police, KPHB P.S., Hyderabad that the following email IDs’ deepthimulugu@gmail.com and prathyuani@gmail.com are involved in a MURDER CUM DOWRY DEATH CASE. The Inspector is requested for login and logout details from 1 st Dec 2011 to 08 th Dec 2011 for further investigation. In this regard it is requested that kindly furnish the Login and Logout details of email ids deepthimulugu@gmail.com and prathyuani@gmail.com from 1 st Dec 2011 to 08 th Dec 2011 for further Investigation.” 23. In response to Ex.P11, dated 23.01.2012, legal investigations support, Google Inc. replied as follows, which is marked as Ex.D6: “Dear Sir or Madam, Thank you for your message. Pursuant to US Law and your authority under Section 91 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code, please find attached IP activity from December 1, 2012 to December 8, 2012 to the extent readily available in our system, for account prathyuani@gmail.com as listed in your request to us. Pursuant to US Law and your authority under Section 91 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code, please find attached IP activity from December 1, 2012 to December 8, 2012 to the extent readily available in our system, for account prathyuani@gmail.com as listed in your request to us. After a careful and diligent search, we were unable to locate any login or logout IP activity for account (deepthimulugu@gmail.com) from December 1, 2012 to December 8, 2012, as specified in your request. Please note that we usually only keep the most recent login or logout IP activity for any given Google Account, which is approximately 30 days.” 24. In the light of the statement in reply, i.e., Ex.D6 that legal investigation support of Google Inc. was unable to locate any login or logout IP activity for account (deepthimulugu@gmail.com) from December 1, 2012 to December 8, 2012. 25. As already discussed, there is no 65-B certificate filed along with the print out of the E-Mail. 26. In view of the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Mohd.Arif alias Ashfaq v. State (NCT of Delhi) , [ (2023) 3 SCC 654 ] , in the absence of the certificate as required under Section 65 B (4) of Indian Evidence Act, the E-mail cannot be read in evidence. Both for the reason of the investigation being unable to locate any ‘login’ or ‘logout’ activity, and also for the reason of there being no 65 B certificate, the E-mail- Ex.P2 is eschewed from consideration. 27. PW.1 who is the father had lodged complaint and narrated about the appellant harassing the deceased for additional dowry. The harassment as stated by PW.1 is an improvement from his earlier statement which is evident from the evidence of the Investigation Officer-PW.12. 28. PW.12 stated as follows: “PW.1 did not state to me that the accused demanded Rs.5 lakhs, but he has paid Rs.1,50,000/-. So also PW.1 did not state to me that the deceased brought less dowry and if he would have married any other girl, he would have received Rs.1 crore. PW.1 did not state to me that subsequent to the marriage the accused and his family members accepted Christianity and forced the deceased to follow Christianity. PW.1 did not state to me that on the eve of housewarming ceremony of his son, the accused came to the house and abused his wife and left the house. PW.1 did not state to me that subsequent to the marriage the accused and his family members accepted Christianity and forced the deceased to follow Christianity. PW.1 did not state to me that on the eve of housewarming ceremony of his son, the accused came to the house and abused his wife and left the house. PW.1 did not state to me that when he offered clothes to the accused at the marriage of his second daughter, he refused the same and left the place and on the next day on the date of Satyanarayana Vratam the accused came and abused his wife. So also PW.1 did not state to me that when he went to the house of the accused, the deceased asked him to give Rs.2 lakhs, so that the accused will stop his harassment. PW.1 did not state to me that when he asked his daughter to come to the house, she refused and demanded Rs.2 lakhs. So also he did not state to me that he will arrange Rs.2 lakhs within two days. PW.1 did not state to me that he found there are no eatables in the house of the deceased as such he purchased fruits and biscuits and handed over the same to the deceased. PW.1 did not state to me that his daughter requested him to go away as the accused will return home in drunken condition and abuse him. It is not true to say that the complaint and statement was prepared after due deliberations.” 29. PW.2, who is the mother of the deceased, stated about the harassment by the appellant. She narrated that the deceased informed her that the appellant was harassing her physically and mentally on a regular basis. PW.2 further stated that the appellant did not change his attitude after he secured a job in the USA. The deceased joined the appellant in the USA where she conceived. The deceased came back to Hyderabad and informed PW.2 that the appellant used to harass her in the US after coming home drunk. PW.2 also narrated that the deceased informed her about the appellant beating her and squeezing her neck. 30. PW.3 in her deposition has stated that the deceased was a close friend. That deceased used to show her new clothes purchased by her husband, and gold bangles and necklace. PW.2 also narrated that the deceased informed her about the appellant beating her and squeezing her neck. 30. PW.3 in her deposition has stated that the deceased was a close friend. That deceased used to show her new clothes purchased by her husband, and gold bangles and necklace. PW.3 deposed that the deceased never informed her that she abused her husband as ‘kuntoda’. She further deposed that the parents of the deceased came on 06.12.2011 and she was present. In the chief examination PW.3 deposed that she informed parents of the deceased to take the deceased with them. She further deposed that accused beat deceased severely and made her to write a suicide note about 4 or 5 days prior to incident. When questioned, the deceased informed her why will I commit suicide, I am having children. That she was under the impression that parents of the deceased will take the deceased with them. That deceased came to her house in the evening at 06:00 or 07:00 p.m. and the deceased was in her house for one hour and attended mails and sent acceptance for interviews. That next day morning at 08:00 a.m., she received a call from the deceased and that the deceased was weeping as the accused beat her on the previous night. In the cross-examination, it is stated that she saw the mail on 08.12.2011 between 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and handed over the e-mail Ex.P2 to the Police on 10.12.2011. 31. When the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is considered, though there is a narration about the appellant harassing the deceased, however, their version does not disclose that there was a demand for additional dowry in proximity with the death of the deceased. Further, there is no evidence that to fulfill the alleged dowry demand there was any harassment. As already discussed, the entire version of PW.1 about the additional dowry demand is a complete omission in his earlier statement. PW.2, who is the mother, did not speak anything about the dowry demand of Rs.2 lakhs by the appellant. However, PW.2 stated that the appellant was harassing the deceased to get Rs.4 lakhs for clearing his home loan, however, the amount was not paid. PW.2 totally omitted to state anything about any kind of demand for additional dowry. PW.3 also speaks about the harassment by the appellant as informed by the deceased. However, PW.2 stated that the appellant was harassing the deceased to get Rs.4 lakhs for clearing his home loan, however, the amount was not paid. PW.2 totally omitted to state anything about any kind of demand for additional dowry. PW.3 also speaks about the harassment by the appellant as informed by the deceased. PW.3 does not have any personal knowledge about the alleged harassment apart from the information given by the deceased. 32. PW.7 is related to PWs.1 and 2. According to her, PW.1 informed about the differences between appellant and the deceased and about the appellant harassing the deceased. She has no personal knowledge and PW.7’s evidence is on the basis of information given by PW.1. 33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Major Singh and another v. State of Punjab , [(2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases 201] , held as follows: “ 10. To sustain the conviction under Section 304-B IPC, the following essential ingredients are to be established: (i) the death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a ‘normal circumstance’; (ii) such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (iii) she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry; and (v) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. 34. The Honourable Supreme Court, in U.Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police and another , [(2009) 6 SCC 757] , discussed the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC, which are as follows: “Ingredients of 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are: a) The woman must be married. b) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband” 35. The prosecution has failed to prove that there was any kind of harassment for additional dowry in proximity with the death. Though there can be no time frame fixed by the Court to arrive at a conclusion of harassment in proximity with the death, however, every case has to be considered on its own facts and circumstances. The prosecution has failed to prove that there was any kind of harassment for additional dowry in proximity with the death. Though there can be no time frame fixed by the Court to arrive at a conclusion of harassment in proximity with the death, however, every case has to be considered on its own facts and circumstances. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 regarding the appellant beating the deceased and harassing her is overwhelming. However, such harassment was not proved to be in relation to any dowry demand made and to fulfill such demand. In the present facts, prosecution failed to prove that the harassment by appellant was for additional dowry in proximity with the death of the deceased. 36. In the said circumstances, no offence under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code is made out against the appellant. However while setting aside the conviction under Section 304-B of IPC, the conviction under Section 498-A of IPC is upheld, placing reliance on the narration of PWs.1 to 3 about the harassment meted out by the appellant. 37. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed.