THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.130 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal, under Section 378 (1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), is preferred by the State, against the judgment dated 02.07.2007 in S.C.No.207 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, whereunder and whereby the respondent/accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 {IPC}, and accordingly, acquitted. 2. The facts, in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are as follows. The marriage of the accused with Ganta Anantalaxmi {hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”} was performed on 06.05.1998. After the marriage, the accused started harassing the deceased to bring additional money from P.Ws.1 to 4. Unable to bear the said harassment, the deceased committed suicide by hanging to the roof of the ceiling. Basing on the report given by P.W.1, police registered a case, originally under Section 174 Cr.P.C., and after receipt of post mortem report, section of law was altered to Section 304-B IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet. 3. When a charge under Section 304-B IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 18 besides marking Exs.P1 to P71. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the State. 6. Heard the learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the judgment. 7. There is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent, unless contrary is proved. The presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless a finding is shown to be improper or not based upon any admissible evidence, ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the same. There must be compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the order. 8. To prove the offence under Section 304-B IPC, the following ingredients have to be established: (1) The death of a woman occurred within seven {7} years after the marriage; (2) The death should be otherwise than under normal circumstances; (3) Before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in the hands of the husband or in-laws for or in connection with dowry; and (4) Such harassment or cruelty must be in connection with demand of dowry. 9. It is not in dispute that the deceased committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling in the house. It is also not in dispute that the death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven {7} years of marriage. Therefore, the prosecution could establish the first two ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. 10. With regard to the third and fourth ingredients, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8, who are closely related to the deceased, did not support the case of the prosecution. They have given a complete go by to their earlier statements recorded by the police under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C.. Therefore, the prosecution sought to declare them hostile after obtaining permission from the Court. P.Ws.1 to 8 were cross examined. Except marking Exs.P2 to P5 and Exs.P7 to P10, nothing has been elicited from their evidence, so as to connect the accused with the offence. There cannot be any dispute that the statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation cannot be used for any other purpose except for contradicting the witness in the manner as provided for under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 11. The only evidence remained on record is Ex.P6, the death note allegedly written by the deceased. Even in Ex.P6, there is no incriminating material to connect the accused with the crime or that he was responsible for causing her death. On the other hand, the recitals in Ex.P6 would strengthen the defence of the accused in view of the fact that both the deceased and the accused were living happily prior to the death. Except proving that the death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven {7} years after the marriage, absolutely there is no evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment with regard to demand of dowry. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. There are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. 12. The appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed confirming the judgment dated 02.07.2007 in S.C.No.207 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 27th January 2010 RRB