***

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J. –

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.3.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, H.P. vide which, the respondents (accused persons before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused persons before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC. It was asserted that the police received information from Chamba Hospital that Anita Devi (since deceased) had consumed poison and she was brought to the hospital for treatment. The information was reduced to writing. An entry No. 53(A) (Ex.PW4/A) was registered in the Police Station. ASI Kuldeep Singh (PW13), HC Ramesh Chand, HHC Subhash Chand and HHG Kishori Lal were sent to verify the correctness of the information. ASI Kuldeep Singh filed an application (Ex.PW11/A) to obtain Anita's medico-legal certificate (MLC). An MLC (Ex. PX) mentioning that the patient had died in the casualty and was declared dead was issued. The gastric lavage of the deceased was preserved, which was handed over to the police officer accompanying the dead body. Rattni Devi (Pw1), the mother of the deceased, made a statement (Ex.PW1/A) to the police stating that Anita was married to accused Hem Raj. One son was born to Anita and her husband. Accused Hem Raj started beating Anita after about one year of the marriage. Rattni Devi counseled Hem Raj not to beat Anita but Hem Raj continued beating Anita. Accused Savita Devi, mother-in-law of Anita and Sukh Dev, father-in-law of Anita, used to harass her. They used to turn her out of her matrimonial home. They used to demand ?30,000/- for purchasing a vehicle. Anita disclosed this fact many times to her mother but she (her mother) expressed her inability to fulfill this demand. Anita also complained that Hem Raj had beaten and turned her out of her matrimonial home. Anita resided in her paternal home but her mother sent her to her matrimonial home after counselling her and accused Hem Raj; however, the accused resumed beating Anita after some time and compelled her to commit suicide. Nisha Devi (PW2) went to Anita’s matrimonial home on 8.10.2010, where Anita disclosed that Hem Raj had beaten her in the previous night. Nisha disclosed this fact to Rattni Devi. Someone informed Rattni Devi on 8.10.2010 at 10.45 PM that Anita had committed suicide. Rattni Devi reached the hospital with her son Rakesh Kumar (PW5) and found Anita dead. She reported the matter to the police. The statement (Ex. Pw1/A) was sent to the Police Station where FIR (Ex.PW10/C) was registered. ASI Kuldeep Singh conducted the investigation. He took photographs (Ex. P1 and Ex. P2) of the dead body. He prepared the inquest report (Ex. PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B). He filed an application (Ex.PW13/C) before the Medical Officer for conducting the postmortem examination of Anita. Dr. M.M. Marol (PW8) conducted the postmortem examination and found that the deceased had not suffered any injury. Her stomach and its contents had a foul smell. The viscera and clothes were preserved and these were handed over to the police after sealing them in different parcels. According to the Medical Officer, Anita had died due to the consumption of some poisonous substance. A postmortem report (Ex.PW8/A) was issued. The dead body was handed over to Rakesh Kumar. The case property was handed over to MHC Pawan Kumar (PW10), who deposited them in Malkhana and made the entries in the malkhana register (Ex.PW10/A). ASI Kuldeep (PW13) went to the house of the accused and prepared the site plan (PW13/D). He took the photographs (Ex.PW13/E1 to Ex.PW13/E4). The case property was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for analysis. The result (Ex. PA) was issued in which it was shown that phosphine gas was detected in the viscera and gastric lavage. Dr M.M. Marol (PW8) issued the final opinion confirming his initial opinion that the death had taken place due to the consumption of poisonous substance. Statements of remaining witnesses were recorded as per their version and after completion of the investigation, a challan was prepared and presented before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, who committed it for trial to the Court of Sessions.

3. Learned Sessions Judge, Chamba (learned Trial Court) charged the accused with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses to prove its case. Rattni Devi (PW1) is the mother, Kumari Nisha (PW2) is the sister and Rakesh Kumar (PW5) is the brother of the deceased. Budhia (PW3) is the Ward Member, who deposed about the harassment of Anita. HHC Gian Singh (PW4) proved the entry in the daily diary. Hans Raj (PW6) is the neighbour of the accused but he did not support the prosecution case. Raj Kumar (PW7) proved the statement made by the son of the deceased and accused Hem Raj. Dr. M.M. Marol (PW8) conducted postmortem examination of the deceased. Constable Vinod Kumar (PW9) carried the case property from Civil Hospital, Chamba to the Police Station. Pawan Kumar (PW10) was posted as MHC with whom the case property was deposited. Subhash Chand (PW11) carried the rukka from the spot to the Police Station and also carried the case property to RFSL, Dharamshala. Diviyanshu (PW12) is the son of the deceased and the accused. ASI Kuldeep Singh (PW13) conducted the investigation.

5. The accused Hem Raj in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. admitted that the deceased was married to him and one son was born to them. He also admitted that the deceased had committed suicide. He denied the rest of the prosecution case. He stated that a false case was made against him and the witnesses deposed against him falsely. Accused Sukh Dev also admitted the relationship between the deceased and the accused Hem Raj. He admitted that the deceased had committed suicide. He stated that a false case was made against him and he was innocent. Savita Devi also admitted the relationship between the accused and the deceased. She admitted that the deceased had committed suicide. She stated that witnesses deposed against her falsely and she was innocent. Statement of Deepak Kumar Verma (DW1) was recorded in defence to prove that Sukhdev was working as a Chowkidar and was on duty w.e.f. 1.10.2010 till 15.10.2010.

6. The learned Trial Court held that the allegations against the parents-in-law of the deceased were general without any particulars. The allegations even if accepted to be correct do not show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death. Rakesh Kumar (PW5) stated that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid to Hem Raj which was not stated by any person. The prosecution failed to prove the proximate and live link between the harassment and the suicide; hence the accused were acquitted.

7. Being aggrieved from the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the State has filed the present appeal asserting that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the matter on the record. Rattni Devi (PW1) had specifically stated that accused Hem Raj started bearing and maltreating the deceased after one year of his marriage. He used to demand Rs.30,000/- as dowry. This statement was duly corroborated by the sister and brother of the deceased. Independent witnesses Budhia (PW3) had also supported her version. One of the accused Savita was a member of Home Guards and the police might have tried to save her by leaving the lacuna during the investigation. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

8. We have heard Ms Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant-State and Ms Sheetal Vyas, learned counsel for the respondents-accused.

9. Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant-State submitted that the prosecution case was duly proved by the testimonies of the mother, sister and brother of the deceased. They were natural witnesses being the relatives of the deceased to whom the harassment would be narrated in normal course. Learned Trial Court erred in discarding their testimonies without any cogent reason. Therefore, she prayed that the present appeal be allowed, the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside and the accused persons be convicted for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC.

10. Ms Sheetal Vyas, learned counsel for the accused-respondent supported the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court and submitted that no interference is required with the same.

11. We have given considerable thought to the submissions and have gone through the records carefully.

12. The present appeal has been filed against an order of acquittal. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561, that the Court can interfere with an order of acquittal if the judgments suffer from patent perversity or there is some misreading of evidence or omission to consider the material on record. It was observed:

36. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging the acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial Court.

37. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below: —

“29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415]

“42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on the exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its conclusion, both on questions of fact and law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka 2023 (9) SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows:—

“8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;

8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;

8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;

8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and

8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.”

39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:—

(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;

(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record;

(c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.

40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.”

13. The present appeal has to be decided on the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

14. The accused were charged for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC. The ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC were explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paranagouda Vs. State of Karnataka, [2023] 15 S.C.R. 923:

14... The ingredients to be satisfied for convicting an accused for the offence punishable under Section 304B are:

“(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 the demand of dowry.

(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.”

15. This Court in the case of Bansilal v. State of Haryana, (2011) 11 SCC 359 has held that, to attract the provision of Section 304B of the IPC, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that “soon before her death”, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment “in connection with the demand of dowry”. It has been further held:

“20. Therefore, in case the essential ingredients of such death have been established by the prosecution, the court must raise a presumption that the accused has caused the dowry death. It may also be pertinent to mention herein that the expression “soon before her death” has not been defined in either of the statutes. Therefore, in each case, the Court has to analyse the facts and circumstances leading to the death of the victim and decide if there is any proximate connection between the demand for dowry and acts of cruelty or harassment and the death. (Vide T. Aruntperunjothi v. State; Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan; State of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram; Anand Kumar v. State of M.P. and Undavalli Narayana Rao v. State of A.P.”

16. In Sher Singh Alias Partapa v. State of Haryana, (2015) 1 SCR 29 it has been held:

“16. As is already noted above, Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC were introduced into their respective statutes simultaneously and, therefore, it must ordinarily be assumed that Parliament intentionally used the word “deemed” in Section 304-B to distinguish this provision from the others. In actuality, however, it is well-nigh impossible to give a sensible and legally acceptable meaning to these provisions, unless the word “shown” is used as synonymous to “prove” and the word “presume” as freely interchangeable with the word “deemed”. In the realm of civil and fiscal law, it is not difficult to import the ordinary meaning of the word “deem” to denote a set of circumstances that call to be construed contrary to what they are. In criminal legislation, however, it is unpalatable to adopt this approach by rote. We have the high authority of the Constitution Bench of this Court both in State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory AIR 1953 SC 333 and State of T.N. v. Arooran Sugars Ltd. [(1997) 1 SCC 326], requiring the Court to ascertain the purpose behind the statutory fiction brought about by the use of the word “deemed” to give full effect to the legislation and carry it to its logical conclusion. We may add that it is generally posited that there are rebuttable as well as irrebuttable presumptions, the latter oftentimes assuming an artificiality as actuality by means of a deeming provision. It is abhorrent to criminal jurisprudence to adjudicate a person guilty of an offence even though he had neither intention to commit it nor active participation in its commission. It is after deep cogitation that we consider it imperative to construe the word “shown” in Section 304-B IPC as to, in fact, connote “prove”. In other words, it is for the prosecution to prove that a “dowry death” has occurred, namely,

(i) that the death of a woman has been caused in abnormal circumstances by her having been burned or having been bodily injured,

(ii) within seven years of her marriage,

(iii) and that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband,

(iv) in connection with any demand for dowry, and

(v.) that the cruelty or harassment meted out to her continued to have a causal connection or a live link with the demand for dowry.

We are aware that the word “soon” finds its place in Section 304-B, but we would prefer to interpret its use not in terms of days months or years, but as necessarily indicating that the demand for dowry should not be stale or an aberration of the past, but should be the continuing cause for the death under Section 304-B or the suicide under Section 306 IPC. Once the presence of these concomitants is established or shown or proved by the prosecution, even by a preponderance of possibility, the initial presumption of innocence is replaced by an assumption of guilt of the accused, thereupon transferring the heavy burden of proof upon him and requiring him to produce evidence dislodging his guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems to us that what Parliament intended by using the word “deemed” was that only a preponderance of evidence would be insufficient to discharge the husband or his family members of their guilt. This interpretation provides the accused a chance to prove their innocence. This is also the postulation of Section 101 of the Evidence Act. The purpose of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC, in our opinion, is to counter what is commonly encountered—the lack or the absence of evidence in the case of suicide or death of a woman within seven years of marriage. If the word “shown” has to be given its ordinary meaning then it would only require the prosecution to merely present its evidence in court, not necessarily through oral deposition, and thereupon make the accused lead detailed evidence to be followed by that of the prosecution. This procedure is unknown to common law systems and beyond the contemplation of CrPC.”

15. The learned Trial Court had rightly held that the death of the deceased was not in dispute. The accused persons specifically admitted this fact in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr. PC. Dr. M.M. Marol (PW8) conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased and stated that the deceased had died due to the consumption of some poisonous substance according to the opinion of the Medical Board. The report of FSL also showed the presence of phosphine gas in the viscera of the deceased. Thus, the first ingredient that the death of the deceased was caused by unnatural circumstances was duly proved.

16. The relationship between the deceased and accused Hem Raj was also not disputed. The accused persons admitted this fact in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Statements of Rattni Devi (PW1), Nisha Devi (PW2) and Rakesh Kumar (PW5), to this effect, were not challenged in their cross-examination.

17. Rattni Devi (PW1), Nisha (PW2) and Rakesh Kumar (PW5) stated that the deceased Anita was married to accused Hem Raj five years before the date of deposition. Again, this part of their statements was not challenged in their cross-examination. Hence, it was also proved that the death had occurred within seven years of her marriage.

18. Rattni Devi (PW1) stated that the accused Hem Raj started beating and maltreating Anita one year after her marriage. The accused used to demand Rs.30,000/- as dowry alleging that he had to purchase some vehicle but being poor she (Rattni Devi) was not in a position to fulfil the demand. The accused used to send the deceased to her parental house after beating her. The parents-in-law of Anita also used to harass her. Six months before 8.10.2010, five-six persons including the accused visited her (Rattni Devi’s) house and took the deceased with them on the assurance that she would be treated properly. Nisha (PW2) went to the house of Anita on 8.10.2010 and she (Anita) informed Nisha (PW2) that Hem Raj had beaten her. Rattni Devi (PW1) received a call on 8.10.2010 at 10.45 PM that Anita was admitted to the hospital at Chamba. She went to the hospital and found that Anita had died. She reported the matter to the police and her statement was recorded by the police. She admitted in her cross-examination that the parents of accused Hem Raj were not willing to the marriage and had not participated in it. She admitted that Hem Raj took Anita to the house of his uncle Baldev where they had stayed for 2-3 months. She admitted that accused Hem Raj took a room on rent at village Mugla and lived there with Anita for 2-3 months. She admitted that Hem Raj took a room on rent at Mohalla Kasakara, where he had stayed with Anita for eight months. She admitted that Anita gave birth to a daughter, who died immediately after her birth. She admitted that the parents of Hem Raj had provided a separate room to Hem Raj and Anita when they had brought her to her matrimonial home. She volunteered to say that they had given a separate room to Anita but they did not allow her to live peacefully and they used to throw the luggage of Anita outside the room. She had narrated this fact to the police but the police had not recorded it. She could not protest it at the time of recording the statement because she was in shock. She was told by the deceased about the demand of Rs.30,000/- one year before the date of deposition. She could not tell the date and month of such narration. Anita told her that the accused used to harass her by demanding Rs.30,000/- to purchase some vehicle but no inquiry was made from Hem Raj which type of vehicle could be purchased with Rs.30,000/-. The deceased was not examined by any person regarding the beatings given to her. She had also not talked to any relative regarding harassment and she had not narrated this fact to the Panchayat. She volunteered to say that she wanted Anita should settle in her matrimonial home. She noticed ligature marks on the neck of Anita when the dead body was handed over to her. Hem Raj had performed a Court marriage and she had given a dowry to her daughter as per status; however, no list was prepared regarding the dowry articles, even though people used to prepare such a list. She had also not mentioned to the police that she had given a dowry at the time of marriage. She admitted that no demand for dowry was made at the time of the marriage. Nisha went to the house of Anita to know her well-being and thereafter she returned during the day time. Houses of Hans Raj, Reena Devi etc. are located in the vicinity but Nisha had not made any inquiry from them.

19. Nisha (PW2) corroborated her version. She stated that Anita was married to Hem Raj (accused). The accused treated her properly for about one year and thereafter he started harassing her by beating her and demanding dowry. One boy was born to Anita and her husband. Anita used to visit her parent's home and narrate the incident of beatings to her. The accused used to take her to her matrimonial home with the assurance that she would be treated properly. The accused demanded Rs.30,000/- from Anita by saying that he had to purchase a vehicle. Anita narrated this fact to her mother but she was unable to fulfill the demand due to her poverty. The parents-in-law of Anita used to maltreat her by using filthy language and by turning her out of their house. Hem Raj used to beat Anita for dowry. She went to the house of Anita on 8.10.2010 with a packet of ‘daal’ and Rs.100/- because Anita had insufficient money to maintain her. Anita revealed that Hem Raj had beaten her on the previous day. She was feeling suffocated due to this. She (Nisha) returned to her home after about half an hour. They came to know at about 10.45 PM that Anita had committed suicide. She stated in her cross-examination that the accused had not made any demand for dowry at the time of marriage. Colour TV, bed box, kitchen gas etc. were given to the accused at the time of marriage; however, no list was prepared. The demand of Rs.30,000/- was made by Hem Raj about two years before the deposition but she could not tell the date. No other demand was made by the accused. They used to say that they wanted to purchase some vehicle but she could not say what type of vehicle was to be purchased. Accused Hem Raj used to beat Anita when she (Anita) was not in a position to fulfil the demand of Rs.30,000/-. Anita used to suffer injuries due to beatings. She had injuries on her neck. Once she was treated by some Doctor in Chamba Bazaar about one year before the date of deposition. No injuries were seen before that. She did not notice any injuries on the dead body because she was shocked. She had not visited the houses of neighbours of Anita.

20. Rakesh Kumar (PW5) is the brother of the deceased. He stated that Anita was married to Hem Raj and a son was born to them. Hem Raj started harassing Anita after one year of the marriage by beating her. Parents-in-law of Anita used to abuse and taunt her for trivial matters. They used to find faults in the work of Anita. The accused started demanding a dowry of Rs.30,000/-. Hem Raj was in the habit of beating Anita and turning her out of her matrimonial home because of which she had to repeatedly take shelter in her parental home. They used to send the deceased to her matrimonial home after counselling the accused not to beat and harass Anita. Hem Raj gave beatings to Anita in March 2010 and she came to her parental home. The Panchayat was called and Hem Raj and his parents were called to the Panchayat. They assured them not to repeat any such act in future. Anita was sent to her matrimonial home after the assurance. Nisha had gone to the house of Anita on 8.10.2010 to know about her well-being. Anita informed her (Nisha) that Hem Raj had beaten her mercilessly on the previous day. The accused had not even provided proper food to Anita because of which Nisha had taken daal, chawal and Rs.100/- with her. She handed them over to Anita. When Nisha returned to her home, she narrated the incident of beatings to the family. A call was received in the night at 10.45 PM that Anita was seriously ill and taken to the hospital at Chamba. They went to Chamba with other villagers and found that Anita had died. Rs.10,000/- was given to Hem Raj when he was demanding money to purchase the vehicle. This fact was told to the police but police did not record this fact. He stated in his cross-examination that Rs.10,000/- was paid to Hem Raj by his mother and his wife in the year 2010; however, he did not remember the date. No complaint was made to the superior police officer regarding non-recording of payment of Rs.10,000/-. The accused started beating Anita after one year of the marriage. Anita sustained injuries but she was not treated anywhere for the injuries. The injuries were noticed 3-4 years before the deposition in the year 2010. Anita was thinking of reporting the matter to the police but she was persuaded not to do so, so that she might live happily in her matrimonial home. The earlier injury was on the neck and it was treated at home without taking a prescription from any Doctor. He used to bear the expenses of the mobile phone of Anita as the accused was not providing proper maintenance to her. Anita had not filed any proceedings for maintenance against her husband. She did not make any written complaint to the Panchayat or police regarding the harassment. He volunteered to say that deceased used to visit her parental home and the matter used to be settled after summoning the accused and properly advising him. The accused demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/- by saying that he had to purchase some vehicle; however, no inquiry was made regarding the type of vehicle that could be purchased with Rs.30,000/-. He denied that Hem Raj married Anita against the wishes of his parents. He volunteered to say that the marriage was settled with their consent but they retracted after six months. Hem Raj wanted to marry Anita by way of a Court marriage in which his parents were not present. He admitted that one daughter was born to Anita but denied that Anita became depressed after the death of her daughter. He admitted that the mess of the parents of Hem Raj was separate. He volunteered to say that Anita used to wash their clothes and prepare meals and tea etc. for them.

21. This is the evidence of the relatives of Anita, who claimed that Anita had narrated the incident of harassment to them.

22. A perusal of these testimonies shows that Nisha (PW2) and Rakesh Kumar (PW5) have materially improved upon the initial prosecution case. They claimed that Nisha had gone to Anita’s house on 8.10.2010 with food items and Rs.100/-; however, Rattni Devi (mother of Nisha) with whom she was residing has not mentioned that Nisha carried food articles and Rs.100/- with her on the day of the incident. Nisha claimed that she carried daal and Rs.100/-, whereas her brother stated that Nisha had carried daal, chawal and Rs.100/-.

23. Rakesh Kumar (PW5) stated that Rs.10,000/- was paid to Hem Raj but he demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/-. Significantly, Rattni Devi (PW1) or Nisha Devi did not mention this fact in their statements on oath. Rattni Devi (PW1) categorically stated that she was unable to fulfil the demand of accused because she was poor. This shows that the statement of Rakesh Kumar regarding the payment of Rs.10,000/- is an exaggeration that cannot be accepted.

24. Rattni Devi (PW1) stated that the accused used to demand Rs.30,000/- as dowry alleging that he had to purchase some vehicle. The accused used to send Anita to her parental home after beating her. She has nowhere stated that beatings were given for failure to meet the demand of Rs.30,000/-. It is the consistent version of Rattni Devi (PW1), Nisha Devi (PW2) and Rakesh Kumar (PW5) that beatings started after one year of the marriage. Rattni Devi (PW1) stated that Anita told her about the demand one year before the date of deposition which shows that the demand was made much after the beatings started. Thus, these appear to be two independent transactions unrelated to each other. Similarly, Nisha Devi (PW2) stated that the demand was made two years before the date of deposition. She also stated that the accused started beating the deceased one year after the marriage. Her statement also shows that the demand was made after the beatings. Rakesh Kumar stated that after one year of the marriage, Hem Raj started harassing Anita by beating her. Thereafter, the accused started demanding a dowry of Rs.30,000/. His testimony also shows that the demand of Rs.30,000/- and the beating were independent and unrelated to each other.

25. It was specifically asserted by Rattni Devi (PW1), Nisha Devi (PW2) and Rakesh Kumar (PW5) that Anita had visited her parental home and she was taken to her matrimonial home by the accused about six months before the incident. Rakesh Kumar (PW5) stated that a panchayat was convened in March 2010, wherein the parents of the accused Hem Raj assured that Anita would be kept properly, however, the accused started harassing Anita. No witness stated that the demand of Rs.30,000/- was repeated during the panchayat or any time after Anita went to her matrimonial home. Thus, there is no evidence that cruelty or harassment was meted to Anita soon before her death.

26. Much emphasis was placed on the fact that Anita had disclosed to Nisha that she was beaten during the previous date. Rattni Devi (PW1) went on to explain that a ligature mark was visible on the dead body, however, Dr M.M. Marol (PW8) specifically stated that there was no injury, fracture, bleeding, ligature mark, bruises or injury mark on the dead body. It clearly shows that the testimony of this witness that the deceased was mercilessly beaten one day before her death and she had sustained injuries or ligature marks is not correct. The prosecution examined Diviyanshu (PW12), who stated that his father had kicked his mother and thrown her from the cot. He did not say anything and remained mum to the questions asked in his cross-examination. This shows that his testimony is not acceptable. Even if his statement is accepted to be correct, it does not establish the version of these witnesses that the accused had mercilessly beaten the deceased one day before the incident.

27. Nisha Devi (PW2) stated that she returned from the house of Anita after about half an hour. This is highly improbable. As per the prosecution’s case, Anita was a victim of consistent domestic violence. She used to leave her matrimonial home due to domestic violence. She was sent to her matrimonial home after her parents-in-law assured her that she would be treated properly. It is difficult to believe that in such a situation, Nisha Devi would have returned to her home within half an hour and not done anything after the incident of merciless beatings was narrated to her by the deceased. It is also difficult to believe that the mother and brother of the deceased would not have taken any action when they found that the assurance given to them by the parents of the accused Hem Raj was being breached. They would have at least taken the deceased to her paternal home. Coupled with the fact that the witnesses have tried to improve upon their initial version, it is difficult to place reliance on the prosecution case that the deceased was harassed soon before her death.

28. The statement of Nisha Devi (PW2) shows that a demand of Rs.30,000/- was made two years before the date of deposition. Rattni Devi (PW2) claimed that the demand was made one year before the date of deposition. Rakesh Kumar (PW5) did not mention when the demand was made but stated that Rs.10,000/- was paid in the year 2010, which means that the demand was made before 2010. As already stated, there is no evidence that the accused had repeated the demand after the Panchayat was held in March 2010 and the deceased went to her matrimonial home on the assurance of her parents-in-law. Therefore, the essential ingredient that the demand was made soon before the death and there was a proximate and live link between the demand/harassment and the death is not established.

29. Budhia (PW3) stated that the accused used to demand Rs.30,000/- by saying that they had to purchase the vehicle and the parties had entered into a compromise 10-12 times. Rattni Devi specifically stated that she did not talk to her relatives regarding the beatings or harassment nor she reported any such fact to the Panchayat. Rakesh Kumar also stated in his cross-examination that the matter was not reported to the Police or Panchayat. Hence, the statement of Budhia (PW3) that the incident was narrated to him becomes doubtful. Further, he has made a general statement without giving the details of time and place. Hence, his statement cannot be relied upon to prove that the deceased was subjected to harassment on account of the demand for dowry soon before her death.

30. Rattni Devi (PW1) admitted in her cross-examination that Hem Raj had taken the deceased to the house of his uncle Baldev after the marriage and they stayed in his house for 2-3 months. He also admitted that Hem Raj took a room on rent at Village Mugla, where he resided with the deceased for 2-3 months. She admitted that Hem Raj took a room on rent in Mohalla Kasakara and he stayed in the house with the deceased for about eight months. She volunteered to say that though they had given a separate room, they did not allow the deceased to reside peacefully. This fact was not narrated by Nisha or Rakesh. In such a situation, it is difficult to believe the prosecution case that the parents-in-law of the deceased used to harass the deceased on account of dowry soon before her death. They were residing separately and had no occasion to harass the deceased. Learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while holding that the complicity of the parents-in-law of the deceased was not established.

31. Thus, the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view based on the evidence led before it, and this Court will not interfere with the same even if an alternative view is possible.

32. No other point was urged.

33. In view of the above, the present appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

********