Common Judgment

K. Lakshman, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Achuta Reddy, learned counsel for appellants - accused and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

2. Crl.A. No.953 of 2016 is filed by the appellant - accused No.1 challenging the judgment dated 26.08.2016 in S.C. No.142 of 2012 passed by learned XII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Vikarabad, while Crl.A. No.860 of 2016 is filed by the appellants - accused Nos.2 to 5, challenging the very same judgment.

3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, learned trial Court convicted the appellants - accused for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC, and accordingly sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment.

4. The case of the prosecution is as under:

i) Deceased - Laxmi is the native of Thatipally Village, Munipally Mandal of Medak District and PW.1 is her father. Appellant - accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased, while accused Nos.2 and 3 are her in-laws, accused No.4 is the sister of accused No.1 and accused No.5 is the husband of accused No.4. Accused Nos.1 to 3 are the residents of Marpally Village, while accused Nos.4 and 5 are the residents of Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

ii) PW.1 performed the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 on 16.05.2010 at 12.30 hours at ZPHS, Thatipally Village as per their customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased gave net cash of Rs.4,50,000/-, 20 tulas of gold and other utensils as dowry. They lived together happily for about one year.

iii) All the accused harassed the deceased, both mentally and physically for additional dowry and sent the deceased to her parent’s house to bring additional dowry of Rs.2.00 lakhs. PW.1 and the deceased went to the accused house, convinced them and left the deceased in her in-laws house.

iv) On 22.08.2011 in the evening hours, PW.1 came to know that the deceased vexed with her life committed suicide by hanging at her in-laws house due to unbearable harassment of accused. Thus, all the accused committed the offence punishable under Section - 304-B of IPC.

v) On receipt of Ex.P1 - Telugu written complaint from PW.1, PW.12 - the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Marpally Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.64 of 2011 under Section - 304-B of IPC and issued Ex.P11 - FIR and handed over the CD file to PW.13, who took up investigation. PW.13 examined the relevant witnesses and recorded their statements. After completion of investigation, Pw.14 laid charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offence. Since the said offence is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the said case vide P.R.C. No.18 of 2012 to the District Court, who in turn made over to the trial Court vide S.C. No.142 of 2012 for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC for trial.

5. The trial Court framed charge for the aforesaid offence against the accused and then proceeded with trial.

6. During trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14 and marked Exs.P1 to P12 and MO.1 was exhibited to prove its case. On behalf of the accused, no evidence was let in, both oral and documentary.

7. After completion of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, all the accused were examined under Section - 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, upon hearing both sides, the trial Court recorded conviction against the appellants herein for the aforesaid offence and accordingly imposed life imprisonment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, the appellants preferred the present appeals.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant - accused Nos.1 to 5 contended as follows:

i) There are contradictions and omissions in the depositions of prosecution witnesses, more particularly PWs.1 to 3.

ii) PWs.1 to 3 are family members and they are interested witnesses and, therefore, no weight need to be given to their evidence.

iii) There are no eye-witnesses, and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence.

iv) The accused were implicated falsely for no fault of them.

v) The accused neither harassed the deceased nor demanded for additional dowry.

vi) The prosecution did not examine the RMP doctor, who advised PWs.4 and 5 to shift the deceased to the Government Hospital.

vii) The Investigating Officer except seizing MO.1 – Rope, no other material objects were seized.

viii) The prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC and also failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

ix) Without considering the said aspects, the trial Court convicted the accused for the said offence and imposed life imprisonment, which is illegal and against the evidence on record.

With the aforesaid submissions, he sought to set aside the impugned judgment recording conviction and imposition of sentence against the appellants herein.

9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit as under:

i) Though there are no eye witnesses to the incident, there is circumstantial evidence, and prosecution witnesses specifically deposed with regard to the harassment meted out by the accused towards accused. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution forms complete chain.

ii) The contradictions and omissions in the prosecution witnesses are minor in nature and the same would not tilt the case of the prosecution.

iii) The prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

iv) There is ample evidence to prove the demand of dowry by the accused and the harassment meted out by them for the additional dowry amount. Out of such harassment and cruelty only, the deceased committed suicide.

v) The prosecution also proved the essential ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC.

vi) The trial Court having considered all the said aspects only convicted the accused for the said offence and imposed life imprisonment. There is no error in it.

With the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the appeals.

10. In view above rival submissions, the point that falls for consideration by this Court is:

Whether the conviction and sentence of imprisonment recorded by the trial Court for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC against the appellants herein - accused Nos.1 to 5 are sustainable, both on facts and in law?

11. To prove the guilt of the appellants - accused, prosecution has examined PW.1 - father, PW.2 - mother, PW.3 - maternal grandmother of the deceased. PW.4 is the villager, PW.5 is the Auto- rickshaw driver and PW.6 is the immediate neighbor of the accused and both of them shifted the deceased to R.M.P. Doctor and from there to the Government Hospital, Marpally. PWs.7 and 8 are the mediators to the marriage. PW.9 and PW.10 are the panch witnesses to the inquest report. PW.11 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. PW.12 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered FIR and PW.13 is the first Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation. PW.14 is another Investigating Officer who filed charge sheet. Prosecution has filed Exs.P1 to P12 documents and exhibited MO.1 - rope.

12. In the light of the above, it is relevant to note that Section 304-B of IPC deals with ‘dowry death’. The same is relevant and it is extracted as under:

“304-B. Dowry death. (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub- section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.”

13. Therefore, to attract the offence under Section 304-B of IPC, the following ingredients are required:

i. within 7 years of the marriage, there must happen the death of a woman (the wife);

ii. the death must be caused by any burns or bodily injury; or the death must occur otherwise than under normal circumstances;

iii. it must be established that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment;

iv. the cruelty or harassment may be by her husband or any relative of her husband; and

v. the cruelty or harassment by the husband or relative of the husband must be for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.

14. It is also relevant to note that Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act deals with ‘Presumption as to dowry death’. The same is relevant and it is extracted as under:

“113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.-When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code(45 of 1860”)”

15. It is apt to note that there is no definition of ‘dowry’ in Indian Penal Code. However, Section - 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 defines the ‘dowry’ which is as follows:

“2. Definition of “dowry”. In this Act, “dowry” means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly—

(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or

(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.”

By virtue of an amendment vide Act 63 of 1984, which came into force with effect from 02.10.1985, the words “in connection with the marriage of the said parties” were inserted by the Legislature. Therefore, the Legislature in its wisdom, made it very clear that ‘dowry’ should be in connection with the marriage of the parties.

16. It is relevant to note that as per Section 304-B of IPC, husband or any relative of the husband shall be deemed to have caused her death. Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides for presumption as to dowry death. It provides that when the question is whether the dowry death, namely, the death contemplated under Section 304-B of IPC has been committed by a person, if it is shown that soon before her death, the woman was subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment, for in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall “presume” that such person had caused the dowry death. It is, no doubt, a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the husband and his relatives to show the absence of the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC.

17. It is also relevant to note that foremost aspect to be established by the prosecution is that there was reliable evidence to show that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives which must be for or in connection with any demand for dowry, soon before her death. Before the presumption is raised, it must be established that the woman was subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment and it is not any cruelty that becomes the subject matter of the provision but it is the cruelty or harassment or in connection with, demand for dowry.

18. In the light of the aforesaid provisions, it is relevant to note that PW.1 - father of the deceased, deposed that one year after the marriage, disputes were taken place between accused and the deceased. Accused Nos.1 to 5 harassed his daughter demanding Rs.2.00 lakhs as additional dowry. He agreed to give the said additional dowry of Rs 2.00 lakhs to the accused on their demand, after he received the harvest of his crop. The accused sent his daughter to his house at the time of Nagula Panchami Festival. Accused No.1 telephoned him and asked him to bring his daughter along with her son to their house as accused No.5 wanted to see his (accused No.1) son. Then he took his daughter along with her son to the house of the accused. Accused No.4 told him that his daughter was showing disrespect to her mother-in-law and asked him to admonish her to mend her behaviour. He agreed to send monthly provisions to his daughter at the house of the accused. He requested all the accused to look after his daughter well stating them that he would give the demanded additional dowry of Rs.2.00 lakhs. By dropping his daughter at the house of the accused, he returned to his house. Four or Five days thereafter, he received a phone call informing him that his daughter hanged herself. On coming to know about the same, he, his wife and son along with other went to Marpally Village in a rented Car. He saw the dead body of his deceased daughter lying in the Verandah of the house of the accused. None of the accused was present at that time. He gave complaint to the Police. He endorsed his thumb impression on Ex.P1 - complaint as he is an illiterate.

i) However, during cross-examination, PW.1 has categorically admitted that he did not give any report/complaint to the police against the accused complaining about their harassment on his daughter for additional dowry. He discussed the said issues between themselves i.e., his family members and also the family members of the accused. He has not lodged any complaint against the accused considering the fact that he gave his daughter to accused No.1 in marriage and also keeping their respect in their mind. He further admitted that accused No.1 did not make a phone call to him in person but he telephoned to his daughter. On the day of Nagula Panchami Festival, he took his daughter along with her son to the house of the accused. No panchayat was taken place about the same as he agreed to give demanded additional dowry to the accused. He did not give any complaint against the accused alleging that they harassed his daughter soon before her death. At the time of death of his deceased daughter, accused Nos.4 and 5 were at the house of accused Nos.1 to

3. Accused Nos.4 and 5 were the residents of Kukatpally in Hyderabad, but on the day of Nagula Panchami festival, they were at the house of accused Nos.1 to 3. Marriage of accused No.5 was performed with accused No.4 prior to the marriage of his daughter with accused No.1.

ii) He further admitted that his daughter was operated at the time of her delivery at Sadashivpet and he borne the medical expenses of Rs.30,000/-. His daughter was at his house for three (03) months after her delivery. During the said three (03) months, accused No.1 visited his daughter and he was good with her at that time. Accused No.1 personally demanded him additional dowry. His daughter also told him that accused No.1 was harassing her for additional dowry. He further admitted that he omitted to state to the police in his statement recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. that accused No.1 personally demanded him for additional dowry. Nobody was present at the time accused No.1 personally demanded additional dory at that time. No outsiders were present at that time when his daughter told him about the harassment of the accused on her for additional dowry but his wife and his son were present at that time along with him. Three months after his daughter’s delivery, all the accused came and took his daughter and her child to their house. Thereafter also, the accused harassed his daughter for additional dowry. He went to the house of the accused at that time and requested them by saying that he would pay the additional dowry. He omitted to say the aforesaid facts to the police in his statement recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. His daughter’s son is with him.

19. PW.2 - mother of the deceased also deposed on the same lines as that of PW.1. However, during cross-examination, she has categorically admitted that accused os.4 and 5 are the residents of Kukatpally, Hyderabad and they came to the house of accused Nos.1 to 3 on the occasion of Rakhi festival. Her daughter told her that they also harassed her. She has omitted to state in her statement recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. that she is an uneducated woman. Prior to the death of her daughter, they spoken the issue of additional dowry among themselves, but after the death of her daughter, when police examined them, they gave statement before the police that the accused harassed her daughter for additional dowry six months after her marriage. No panchayat was taken place as they went to the house of accused and adjusted the matter by requesting them. She has further admitted that on the occasion of Nagula Panchamai festival day, her husband (PW.1) went to the house of accused and brought their daughter to their house.

20. PW.3 is the maternal grandmother of the deceased. In her chief-examination, she also deposed in the lines as that of PWs.1 and 2. However, during cross-examination, she has admitted that she has omitted to state in her statement before the police that the accused demanded the deceased to bring additional dowry of Rs.2.00 lakhs, and in that connection she went to the accused and requested them by assuring that they would pay Rs.2.00 lakhs. She has further admitted that she omitted to state in her statement before the police that if the deceased fails to bring additional dowry of Rs.2.00 lakhs, the accused would neck out her from their house. She has also omitted to state in her statement before the police that her granddaughter (deceased) told her that the accused harassed her for additional dowry of Rs.2.00 lakhs and by saying the same she wept before her. On the next day of Rakhi Pournima festival, PWs.1, 2 and she took the deceased to the house of the accused and dropper her.

21. PW.4 - neighbor of the accused, did not support the prosecution and he was declared hostile. However, in the chief- examination, he has deposed that on the date of incident when he was in his tailor shop, accused No.3 telephoned him and asked him to come to her house saying that the deceased fell down in their house. He went to the house of accused No.3 by taking an auto-rickshaw so as to take the deceased to the Hospital. He shifted the deceased to a registered Medical Practitioner (RMP), who infor4med that the pulse of the deceased was un-observable and advised him to shift the deceased to Government Hospital, Marpally. Then he shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital, Marpally, where the doctor after examining the deceased declared her dead.

i) However, to a question posed by the trial Court, PW.4 answered that he did not know the reasons for the death of the deceased. Therefore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor declared him hostile and cross-examined him. Even then, he did not elicit anything from PW.4 during cross-examination.

22. PW.5 - neighbor of the accused, deposed that he along with PW.4 shifted the deceased to RMP doctor. However, he did not support the prosecution and, therefore, he was declared hostile.

23. PW.6 is the immediate neighbor of the accused and he deposed that the deceased hanged herself and died. He was out of station on the date of incident. The police examined and recorded his statement. He did not know why the deceased hanged herself. Accused No.1 did not harass the deceased. However, he was declared hostile.

24. PW.7 and PW.8 are the marriage elders and circumstantial witnesses. They too deposed about the marriage proposal and payment of cash of Rs.4,50,000/-, 20 tolas of gold to the accused at the time of marriage of accused No.1 with the deceased. They further deposed that after birth of the son, accused No.1 came to PW.1 and demanded additional dowry of Rs.2.00 lakhs and PW.1 agreed to give the said amount. However, PW.7 further deposed that in his presence, accused No.1 slapped the deceased, and on seeing the same, he asked accused No.1 as to why he was beating the deceased and if he wants anything more he would see PW.1 would give the said amount. Then, accused No.1 took the deceased to his house and subjected her to harassment. The deceased hanged herself and died.

i) PW.7 was declared hostile and on questioning by the Court, he answered that he is uneducated. The trial Court observed PW.7 is a rustic villager.

ii) PW.8, during cross-examination, categorically admitted that he is literate to some extent and elders were present at the time of marriage negotiations.

25. PW.9 - VRO is the panch witness to the inquest. He has identified MO.1 - Rope. During cross-examination, he has admitted that the rope (MO.1) is available in the market. No specification chit is attached to MO.1 to say that the said rope only was seized by the Police. The police did not seize the chair. He did not have personal opinion about the apparent cause of the death of the deceased.

i) PW.10 - retired MRO, another panch witness to the inquest, deposed on the lines as that of PW.9. During cross-examination, he admitted that there is blank against column No.10 in Ex.P5 - inquest panchanama. He has not recorded the statement of witnesses.

26. PW.11 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. According to him, cause of death is ‘asphyxia due to hanging’. He gave Ex.P9 - postmortem examination report and Ex.P10 is the FSL report.

27. PW.12 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered Ex.P12 - express FIR on receipt of Ex.P1 - report from PW.1. However, during cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that the general diary reference entry number is not mentioned in Ex.P11 - express FIR against column No.3 (c). As against column No.15, the date and time of dispatch of Ex.P11 are not mentioned. The endorsement of concerned Magistrate on Ex.P11 contains the date as 24.08.2011.

28. PW.13 - Investigating Officer, during cross-examination categorically admitted that he did not prepare any seizure report, but while conducting scene of offence, he seized MO.1 - rope from the scene of offence. No slip is pasted to MO.1. PW.1 did not state in his statement as to the time when accused persons harassed her for additional dowry. Accused Nos.4 and 5 were residing separately away from accused Nos.1 to 3 at the time of commission of offence.

i) He further admitted that the accused sent the deceased for her parents on the occasion of Nagula Panchami festival. Prior to the same, accused harassed the deceased for additional dowry. He cannot say as to on which days or how many days prior to Nagula Chavithi Panchami festival, the accused harassed the deceased for additional dowry. PW.1 did not mention the time and date as to when the accused harassed the deceased and, and, therefore, he did not mention the same. PW.1 in his statement stated before him that the accused persons harassed the deceased for additional dowry. There was no complaint either from the deceased or from her parents for taking action against the accused prior to registering the crime in this case. PW.1 in his statement before him stated that accused No.5 told the deceased that the deceased was not obeying the words of her mother- in-law and by saying so, accused No.5 uttered pinching words against the deceased. PW.1 did not state as to what were those pinching words. PW.2 did not state in her statement before him that she accompanied PW.1. at the time of dropping the deceased at her in- laws house and convinced accused No.1 and his parents by saying that they (PWs.1 and 2) would pay the demanded additional dowry after selling the harvest. PW.2 omitted to state in her statement before him that accused No.1 harassed the deceased for additional dowry six months after the marriage. PW.3 omitted to state in her statement that she convinced PWs.1 and 2 with regard to additional dowry demanded by the accused by requesting the accused, dropped the deceased at her in-laws house. PW.7 omitted to state in his statement before him that PW.1 gave an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs to the accused towards additional dowry and before his presence, accused o.1 slapped the deceased, and on seeing the same, he asked accused No.1 as to why he was beating the deceased and if he wants anything more if he see PW.1 give anything more. No panchayat was held about the harassment of the accused person over the deceased with regard to additional dowry and harassment.

29. It is also apt to note that PW.1 has lodged Ex.P1 - report with police dated 23.08.2011 at 9.30 hours. Even in Ex.P1, he has specifically stated that both accused No.1 and the deceased led their marital life happily for one year. Thereafter, since last 4-5 months, in- laws, sister of accused No.1 and brother-in-law of accused No.1 demanded additional dowry and sent his daughter to his house. He taken his daughter to her in-laws house and convinced his daughter and her in-laws. On 22.08.2011 evening, he received information about his daughter committing suicide by hanging herself due to harassment meted out by the accused.

30. The aforesaid Ex.P1 - report and the depositions of prosecution witnesses would reveal that the marriage of accused No.1 with the deceased was performed on 16.05.2010. They were blessed with a male child on 03.08.2011. The deceased committed suicide on 22.08.2011.

31. According to PW.11 - the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, the cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia due to hanging. As discussed above, according to the prosecution, the deceased committed suicide due to harassment meted out by the accused and it is a dowry death. Death is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself at her in-laws house.

32. In the light of the same, this Court has to see whether the deceased committed suicide due to dowry harassment or not and that the contents of Ex.P1 - report and depositions of prosecution witnesses, more particularly, PWs.1 to 8 constitute the ingredients as required under Section 304-B of IPC.

33. As discussed above, the offence under Section 304-B of IPC requires the aforesaid five (05) ingredients. There is no dispute that the death of the deceased was within seven (07) years of the marriage of accused No.1 with the deceased. It is not under normal circumstances and that the deceased herself committed suicide. However, this Court has to consider as to whether the deceased committed suicide due to harassment meted out by the accused and whether she was subjected to cruelty by the accused by demanding dowry.

34. As discussed above, PW.1, father of the deceased, during cross-examination, categorically admitted that he did not give any report/complaint against accused Nos.1 to 5 to the police complaining against them about the harassment towards his daughter demanding additional dowry. On the day of Nagula Panchami festival, he took his daughter along with her son to the house of the accused. No panchayat was taken place about the said harassment. He did not give any complaint against the accused alleging that they have harassed his daughter soon before her death. He has also specifically admitted that accused Nos.4 and 5 were residents of Kukatpally, Hyderabad, and accused Nos.1 to 3 are staying at Marpally Village and Mandal of Rangareddy District. There was no panchayat held. Though he stated that the accused No.1 personally demanded additional dowry, he has not mentioned the said fact in Ex.P1 - report. Of course, Ex.P1 - report is not an encyclopedia and it is for the Investigating Officer to consider several aspects including the aforesaid aspect. However, the Investigating Officer did not conduct any investigation on the same. Thus, PW.1 has not mentioned about the demand of additional dowry by accused No.1 and other accused in Ex.P1 - report and also in his statement recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the deposition of PW.1 that accused No.1 personally demanded additional dowry cannot be believed and his evidence to the said effect is not inspiring confidence. There is improvement in the said deposition.

35. As discussed above, PW.2, mother of the deceased, also admitted that no panchayat was taken place as they went to the house of the accused and adjusted the matter by requesting them. She has also admitted that on the occasion of Nagula Panchami festival, her husband went to the house of the accused and brought her daughter to their house. Thus, there was no mention about harassment caused to the deceased by the accused, more particularly accused Nos.1 to 3.

36. It is also apt to note that PW.3, maternal grandmother of the deceased, deposed about additional demand of dowry by the accused. However, during cross-examination, she has admitted that she omitted to state the said fact before the police. However, she has admitted that on the next day of Rakhi Pournima festival, she, PWs.1 and 2 took the deceased to the house of the accused and dropped her there. Thus, there is improvement in her deposition to that of her statement recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C.

37. PWs.4 and 5 deposed that they have shifted the deceased in an auto-rickshaw to a Registered Medical Practitioner, namely Mr. Panduranga Reddy, who advised them to shift the deceased to Government Hospital, Marpally. They have shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital and the doctor on examination of the deceased declared her dead. Even then, the police did not record the statement of the said Mr. Panduranga Reddy, RMP and they have not examined him before the trial Court.

38. PW.6, immediate neighbor of the accused, also deposed that the deceased hanged herself and died and he did not support the case of prosecution.

39. PW.7 - marriage elder, deposed about the marriage proposal of accused No.1 with the deceased and performance of marriage. However, he did not support the prosecution and he was declared hostile. It is apt to note that the trial Court observed that PW.7 is a ‘rustic villager’.

40. PW.8, another marriage elder, during cross-examination, categorically admitted that he is literate to some extent. However, he deposed that he came to know that the accused killed the deceased by hanging. His deposition is contrary to the deposition of PWs.1 to 3 and it is not useful to the prosecution.

41. PWs.9 and 10 - panch witnesses to the inquest report, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution.

42. As discussed above, the prosecution has to prove the aforesaid five (05) ingredients beyond reasonable doubt to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. In the present case, none of the witnesses deposed that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassed her demanding additional dowry. Even according to PWs.1 to 5, no panchayat was held. They have not reported the said demand of additional dowry to any of the elders. They have not examined any independent witness to prove the said fact.

43. It is apt to note that accused No.4 is sister of accused No.1 and accused No.5 is her husband. They are staying separately. There are no allegations, much less specific allegation that they have harassed the deceased demanding additional dowry. In fct, on the request made by accused No.4, PW.1 and PW.2 brought the son of the deceased to accused No.1 house to see him. Without considering the said aspects, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against them and learned trial Court convicted them.

44. However, as discussed above, there is no dispute with regard to the death of the deceased and that she has committed suicide by hanging herself. It is settled law that however, grave the offence may be, unless proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, accused is presumed to be innocent. Prosecution has failed to prove that the accused have demanded additional dowry, subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassed her and that she has committed suicide. In fact, PWs.1 to 5 omitted several facts in their statements recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. by the police. There are improvements in their depositions. PWs.1 to 3 are interested witnesses and family members. PWs.4 to 7 did not support the prosecution and they were declared hostile. Evidence of PW.8 does not inspire any confidence as he is only marriage elder. Prosecution did not examine any independent witness to prove the said demand of additional dowry, accused subjecting the deceased cruelty and harassment. Even according to prosecution witnesses, PWs.1 to 3, there was no physical assault/physical cruelty of deceased by the accused. PW.7 - marriage elder, in his deposition stated that accused No.1 slapped the deceased in his presence. The same is not there in the depositions of PWs.1 to 3. Even it is not there in the statement of PW.1 recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. Thus, there are improvements in his version. His evidence is not inspired confidence. However, he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution.

45. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Girish Singh v. The State of Uttarakhand (AIR 2019 SC 4529), had held that a right of appeal is the creature of statute. Unless appellate power is expressly limited by additional conditionalties, the Appellate Court has power or rather is duty bound in the case of an appeal by the Accused to reappraise the evidence. Even in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has power of reappraisal of evidence though subject to the limitation that interference would be in a case where the Trial Court's verdict is against the weight of evidence which is the same thing as a perverse verdict. In the said judgment also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the appellate Court must not be oblivious to the fact what it is duty bound to find is whether an offence is committed or not and such a pursuit also would embrace the duty of the court to apply its mind to the evidence as a whole and arrive at conclusions as to facts and inferences there-from as well. After all, at stake for the Accused are, priceless rights to liberty, reputation and the right to life, not only of himself but also his family members. The Law Giver, has contemplated that the High Court will be the final arbiter of facts and even of law. It further held that it wish to emphasize is that the cause of justice and the interest of litigants would be better sub-served if the Appellate Court takes a closer look, in particular of the cross- examination of the witnesses and analyze the same.

46. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durga Prasad v. State of M.P. ((2010) 9 SCC 73) held that benefit of doubt to the appellants having particular regard to the fact that except for certain bald statements made by prosecution witnesses alleging that the victim had been subjected to cruelty and harassment prior to her death, there is no other evidence to prove that the victim committed suicide on account of cruelty and harassment to which she was subjected just prior to her death, which, in fact, are the ingredients of the evidence to be led in respect of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in order to bring home the guilt against an accused under Section 304-B of IPC. It further held that in order to hold an accused guilty of an offence under Section 304-B of IPC, it has to be shown that apart from the fact that the woman died on account of burn or bodily injury, otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of her marriage, it has also to be shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Only then would such death be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused the death of the woman concerned. It also further held that no charges were framed against the Appellants under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the evidence led in order to prove the same for the purposes of Section 304-B of IPC was related to a demand of dowry.

47. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by referring to a judgment in Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder v. State of W.B. ((2008) 1 SCC 202) held that in order to bring home a conviction under Section 304-B of IPC, it will not be sufficient to only lead evidence showing that cruelty or harassment had been meted out to the victim, but that such treatment was in connection with the demand for dowry.

48. In Narayanamurthy v. State of Karnataka ((2008) 16 SCC 512), the Hon’ble Supreme Court by referring Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 304-B of IPC, laid down the basic ingredients to attract the offence of Section 304-B of IPC as extracted above. The Apex Court in the said judgment by referring to its earlier judgment in Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab5 has held that deficiency in the evidence proves fatal to the prosecution case. Even otherwise, mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to being in application of Section 304-B of IPC. It is to be established that `soon before death', deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband for, or `in connection with demand for dowry' and held in the said case, in the afore-mentioned situation, the provisions of Section 304-B of IPC, and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act could not be attracted to hold the accused guilty of the offence of dowry death.

49. The Apex Court in Satvir Singh (2001 Cri.L.J. 4625) held that there are three occasions related to dowry. (i) before the marriage, (ii) at the time of marriage, and (iii) `at any time' after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are `in connection with the marriage of the said parties'. This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of `dowry'. Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304-B of IPC should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage. It further held that it is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if Section 304-B of is to be invoked. But it should have happened `soon before her death'. The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words `soon before her death' is to emphasize the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry-related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval which elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide the court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the harassment or cruelty would not have been the immediate cause of her death. It is hence for the court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept `soon before her death'.

50. Thus, as discussed above, prosecution failed to prove the aforesaid five (05) ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC to convict the accused for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. Without considering the said aspects, vide impugned judgment, learned trial Court convicted all the accused and imposed life imprisonment on them. The same is contrary to record and deposition of PW.1. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

51. Both the Criminal Appeals are accordingly allowed setting aside the conviction recorded against the appellants herein - accused Nos.1 to 5 and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on them vide the judgment dated 26.08.2016 in S.C. No.142 of 2012 passed by learned XII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Vikarabad. Accused Nos.1 to 5 in S.C. No.142 of 2012 are acquitted of the aforesaid charge framed against them. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by them stand cancelled. Fine amounts, if any, paid by them are also ordered to be returned to the appellants herein - accused Nos.1 to 5 after expiry of appeal time.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these appeals shall stand closed.