ORDER: E.V.VENUGOPAL, J. 1. Heard Sri M.Achuta Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This criminal revision case, under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., was directed against the judgment dated 24.11.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2009 by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, wherein the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 in S.C.No.136 of 2007 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narayanpet, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ - each in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was confirmed. 3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1 report with the police setting the law into motion. According to him and Ex.P.1, his sister Anjamma was given in marriage to the first petitioner and a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh was given as dowry at the time of marriage besides presenting five tulas of gold and they lived happily for one year and later, A.1 and her in-laws beat the deceased (wife of A-1) on the demand of additional dowry and started harassing the deceased alleging that she did not give birth to children and that the same was informed to PWI and his mother. When the harassment was continuous, he took his sister to the house of her in-laws and convinced them and in spite of it, they did not stop. Ultimately, there was a panchayat and in the said panchayat also, the additional dowry amount was demanded and on the assurance that the amount will be paid after harvesting the crop, sent her to the house of her in-laws and within short period, she died in suspicious circumstances in the agricultural fields and after reaching the village, found the accused absconding and as such a report was given. 4. After the case was registered as S.C.No.136 of 2007, during the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked EXs.P.1 to P.8. On behalf of the defence Exs.D.1 to D.3 were marked. 4. After the case was registered as S.C.No.136 of 2007, during the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked EXs.P.1 to P.8. On behalf of the defence Exs.D.1 to D.3 were marked. On appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narayanpet, found the petitioners herein guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them as stated supra. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2009. However, the learned appellate court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners by the learned trial Court, by judgment dated 24.11.2010. Hence the present criminal revision case. 5. PW2 being mother of P.W.I, supported the version of P.W.1 in all respects. P.W.3 is having land adjacent to the land of A1. He deposed that on the date of the incident, on observing hue and cry of one M.Venkatamma, he reached the field and observed the deceased was struggling for life and he carried her to the village on his shoulder and on the way she died. PW4 found that the deceased died in her field and he too went there and observed it. PW5 while deposing about marriage of the deceased with A1, stated that rupees one lakh as dowry was given and on two occasions, two panchayats were held before him and other elders in which additional dowry amount was demanded. According to him, the elders gave a decision that the parents of deceased have to pay the amount after harvesting the crop and it was 20 days prior to the death of the deceased. According to him, A1, A2 and A4 were present in the panchayat and on the assurance, the deceased was sent back to the house of A1 and on coming to know the death, all the villagers went to that village and observed the dead body of the deceased, by which time, the inmates of the house have absconded. According to him, A1, A2 and A4 were present in the panchayat and on the assurance, the deceased was sent back to the house of A1 and on coming to know the death, all the villagers went to that village and observed the dead body of the deceased, by which time, the inmates of the house have absconded. PW6 while deposing about payment of the dowry amount at the time of marriage of the deceased with A1, stated that the accused were harassing the deceased that she did not beget children besides demanding additional dowry amount of Rs.20,000/ - and there was a panchayat 20 days prior to the incident, where he along with other elders convinced the accused that the amount will be paid after harvesting the crops and sent the deceased along with A1 to lead happy marital life. It is his further evidence that prior to the date of the incident the deceased telephoned and informed that Al beat her and while stating telephone was disconnected and on the next day, the deceased died by consuming pesticide poison and all the villagers went and observed the dead body by which time, none of the accused were in the house. PW-7 while supporting the evidence of PWs.5 and 6, stated that A1, A2 and A4 were present in the panchayat and the elders assured that the amount will be paid after harvesting the crops. According to him, he has acted as an elder in that panchayat. PW8 was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased and according to him, he signed inquest report under Ex.P3. He was also present when scene of offence panchanama was conducted. PW9 Tahsildar held inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P3. He deposed that there was bleeding from her private parts and on her thighs and that the panchayatdars opined that the death was due to beatings. PW10 being the Medical officer, held autopsy over the dead body on 22.02.2006 and opined that the deceased died due to smothering and symptoms are also possible in case of throttling. 6. The evidence of PW.11 who was the investigating officer is with regard to registering FIR and conducting investigation and arresting the accused. 7. PW10 being the Medical officer, held autopsy over the dead body on 22.02.2006 and opined that the deceased died due to smothering and symptoms are also possible in case of throttling. 6. The evidence of PW.11 who was the investigating officer is with regard to registering FIR and conducting investigation and arresting the accused. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses being brother, mother is interested and that there are several contradictions, improvements and omissions in their evidence and as such their evidence cannot be accepted in support of the charges. It is also his contention that they are no eye witnesses to the alleged harassment and though the Trial court has discarded the same, recorded a finding of conviction and as such, the finding recorded by the Trial court and also that of the appellate court is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the case of the prosecution is surrounded by suspicion because there is no corroboration between the medical evidence and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 8. As seen from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, panchayats were held between the parents of the deceased family and the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 with regard to additional dowry. On that aspect there was corroboration from all the material witnesses. But that alone cannot be a ground to found the petitioners guilty of the offence under Section 304-B IPC or the offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act. Significantly there was no report prior to the death of the deceased. 9. Each witness was suggested that because of A.1 alone leaving Bombay for cooli wok and without taking the deceased, the deceased was humiliated and frustrated for not going along with A.1 to Bombay. P.W.1 has categorically admitted that the deceased was always interested to be along with A.1 and she intended to go to Bombay along with A.1, but A.1 did not allow her to go with him. P.W.1 further admitted that four days prior to the incident the deceased telephoned and asked P.W.1 to request the A.1 not to go to Bombay, that too without the deceased. Further, each witness had accepted that as the deceased was not blessed with children even after five years, he had some guilty conscious for not having children. 10. P.W.1 further admitted that four days prior to the incident the deceased telephoned and asked P.W.1 to request the A.1 not to go to Bombay, that too without the deceased. Further, each witness had accepted that as the deceased was not blessed with children even after five years, he had some guilty conscious for not having children. 10. The very important point to be considered is that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the death of the deceased. Almost all the witnesses stated that there were injuries on the back side of thighs and chest, swelling over the neck and also there is bleeding on thighs. Whereas P.W.6 deposed that the deceased died by consuming pesticide. But the medical evidence is that the death was due to smothering and symptoms are also possible in case of throttling. Upon careful examination of P.W.10 the doctor, who stated in his cross examination that the injuries in Ex.P.5 are possible if a person hang himself to a tree in that struggle. Symptoms noted in Ex.P.5 are possible in hanging. So there is no clarity with regard to the death of the deceased. 11. The evidence of P.W.11 the investigating officer would go to show that PW.6 did not state before him that the deceased Anjamma informed him over phone that A.1 beat her. P.W.11 further stated that P.W.7 did not state before him that the parents of the deceased agreed to pay additional dowry after 20 days prior to the incident, he did not state that while the deceased was talking over phone, the accused disconnected the telephone. So, there are material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.11 with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7. As per the evidence of P.W.3, the deceased alone was in the fields on the date of the alleged incident and it is not the evidence of P.W.3 that the first petitioner or the other petitioners were present then and there. 12. Further, it is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased died due to smothering. On the other hand, the defence of the accused was that the deceased committed suicide by hanging to a tree in the fields and the post-mortem report and the evidence of P.W.10 corroborated the defence version that the deceased committed suicide. 13. 12. Further, it is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased died due to smothering. On the other hand, the defence of the accused was that the deceased committed suicide by hanging to a tree in the fields and the post-mortem report and the evidence of P.W.10 corroborated the defence version that the deceased committed suicide. 13. There is no specific attribution to the accused that only because of the harassment meted out by the accused the deceased committed suicide. There is no corroboration on the aspect of the death of the deceased between the prosecution theory and the medical evidence. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 304-B IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. 14. Both the courts below failed to take into consideration the various contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and failed to appraise the defence put forth by the accused. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the petitioners for the offences with which they were charged. 15. Accordingly, this criminal revision case is allowed, setting aside the judgment dated 24.11.2010 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2009 and also the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners/ accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narayanpet, in S.C.No.136 of 2007. Bail bonds of the petitioners shall stand cancelled. Miscellaneous petitions if any shall also stand closed.