JUDGMENT Mr. B.P. Singh, J.- This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 29th March, 1989 passed by Sri P.C. Mathur, III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 92 of 1987, State v. Ranvir Singh and Another under Sections 302/34 and 498-A, Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, as was unfolded in the F.I.R. (Ex. 1(a.5) may briefly be stated as follows : 3. Smt. Devlata, daughter of Murli Singh (P.W. 3) was married to the accused Ramvir Singh on 28/29th April, 1986. After the marriage Smt. Devlata had accompanied her husband and her in-laws' house and immediately thereafter her husband and her in-laws had started harassing her on the question of insufficiency of the dowry. The accused Ramvir Singh had taken his wife, Smt. Devlata, to Hathras City where he was posted as Sub-Inspector in G.R.P. In Hathras City accused Ramvir Singh again beat, harassed and insulted his wife. On 16th June, 1986 Smt. Devlata had gone to her parents house in Aligarh City. While Smt. Devlata was leaving Hathras City, accused Ramvir Singh had again threatened her on the question of dowry. A list of the articles which wererequired in the dowry was given by Smt. Deviate to her father. On 19th June, 1986 Devlata's father-in-law came to Aligarh and asked the brothers of Devlata to send her to Hathras. Deviata's father was not present in Aligarh at that time and her brother, Dev Prakash, informed her father-in-law that the decision in this regard would be taken on the return of his father. 4. On 20th June, 1986 both the accused Ramvir Singh and Somvir Singh also came to Aligarh at about 12.30 O'clock in the noon and started abusing Smt. Devlata, her mother, brothers and sisters. During all this time demand of dowry was being made by Ramvir Singh. Shortly thereafter Ramvir Singh took Smt. Devlata inside a room and started manhandling her. After some time Devlata's condition became bad and she was taken to Civil Hospital, Aligarh. From Civil Hospital Aligarh, Smt. Devlata was sent to Medical College, Aligarh where she died at about 3.00 A.M. on 21.6.1986. When Smt. Devlata was being manhandled in the room some poison was administered to her as a result of which she had vomitted and subsequently died in the Medical College. 5. From Civil Hospital Aligarh, Smt. Devlata was sent to Medical College, Aligarh where she died at about 3.00 A.M. on 21.6.1986. When Smt. Devlata was being manhandled in the room some poison was administered to her as a result of which she had vomitted and subsequently died in the Medical College. 5. Dev Prakash Mukul (P.W.1) had handed over a written report (Ex. Ka.1) in Police Station Sanani Gate, Aligarh. The Constable Clerk, Brijendra Singh (P.W. 8) who was posted in Police Station Sanani Gate in June 1986, had scribed the F.I.R. (Ex. Ka.5) on the basis of written report Ex. Ka.1 which was handed over by Dev Prakash Mukul (P.W. 1) on 21.6.1986 at 8.05 A.M. and had also made G.D. entry (Ex. Ka.6) about the commission of the crime. 6. S.I. Raj Bahadur Singh (P.W. 7), who was posted in P.S. Sanani Gate in June 1986, was present when the crime in question was registered and he was entrusted with the investigation of the case. After recording the statement of Constable Clerk, Brijendra Singh, S.I. Raj Bahadur Singh (P.W.7) came to the house of the first informant and from there he proceeded to Aligarh Medical College. No one was available either at the house of the first informant or in the Medical College, Aligarh as the dead body of Devlata had been sent to mortuary. The inquest proceedings were carried out by S.I. Raj Bahadur Singh and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. 7. Dr. Rajiv Agarwal (P.W. 4) had conducted the post-mortem examination upon the dead body of Smt. Devlata on 22.6.1986 at 4 P.M. The result of the post-mortem examination was as under :- "The deceased was aged about 20 years; had died on 21.6.1986 at about 3.30 A.M., was of average built. Rigour mortis had passed off from all the four limbs. The abdomen was slightly distended and eyes were closed." The following injuries were found upon the dead body : 1. Contusion 4 cm X 1cm on front of Jt. elbow. 2. Contusion 5cm X 1cm on top of Jt. shoulder. 3. Contusion 3cm X 1cm on outer ? of Rt. Upper arm. 4. Contusion 4cm X 1cm on front of Rt. elbow. 5. Abraded contusion 4cm X 3cm on Rt. scapular region. Dr. Contusion 4 cm X 1cm on front of Jt. elbow. 2. Contusion 5cm X 1cm on top of Jt. shoulder. 3. Contusion 3cm X 1cm on outer ? of Rt. Upper arm. 4. Contusion 4cm X 1cm on front of Rt. elbow. 5. Abraded contusion 4cm X 3cm on Rt. scapular region. Dr. Rajiv Agarwal (P.W. 4) had preserved the vicera and had sent the same for chemical examination to chemical examiner. In the opinion of Dr. Rajiv Agrawal the cause of death could not be ascertained because the data available after the post-mortem examination was not sufficient to establish the cause. 8. The Dy. S.P., Sri R.K. Srivastava (P.W. 9), had taken over investigation of the case on 22.6.1986. He had inspected the scene of occurrence on 23.6.1986 and had prepared the site plan (Ex. Ka. 7). On the same day he wanted to record the statement of the mother of the deceased but could not do so as her mental condition was not stable. On 29.6.1986 the I.O. recorded the copies of Panchayat Nama, postmortem etc., in the case diary. On 30.6.1986 the I.O. recorded the statement of Murli Singh, Dev Prakash and Smt. Lakshmi Devi. Thereafter routine investigation followed on 10.9.1986 the I.O. submitted the charge-sheet (Ex. Ka. 9) in the case. 9. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 10. At the trial the prosecution examination nine witnesses i.e. Dev Prakash (P.W. 1), Smt. Lakshmi Devi (P.W. 2), Murli Singh (P.W. 3), Dr. Rajiv Agrawal (P.W. 4), Radhay Shyam (P.W. 5), Dr. H.S. Khan (P.W 6), S.I. Raj Bahadur Singh (P.W. 7), Constable Clerk Brijendra Singh (P.W. 8) and Dy. S.P. Sri R.K. Srivastava (P.W 9). The accused did not lead any evidence in their defence. Learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of P.Ws. and held that both the accused were guilty of offence under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code. Consequently, each one of the accused was sentenced to undergo seven year's R.I. as well as to pay a fine of 1,000/-. In case of default in payment of fine each one of the accused was to undergo three months' R.I. in lieu thereof. 11. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Ramvir Singh and Sombir Singh have come in appeal. 12. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 11. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Ramvir Singh and Sombir Singh have come in appeal. 12. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Before dealing with the witnesses of fact I may discuss the evidence which is more or less of formal nature because it is not disputed that Smt. Devlata died on 21.6.1986 in Aligarh Medical College at about 3.00 A.M. 13. Dr. Rajiv Agrawal (P.W. 4) had proved the post-mortem report (Ex. Ka.3), Constable Clerk Brijendra Singh (P.W. 8) has proved the F.I.R. (Ex. Ka.5) and G.D. entry (Ex. Ka.6), Dr. H.S. Khan (P.W. 6) has proved the case sheet (Ex. Ka.4) of Smt. Devlata which was prepared by Dr. Subhash Chandra in Medical College, Aligarh on 20.6.1986, S.I. Raj Bahadur Singh (P.W. 7) and Dy. S.P. R.K. Srivastava (P.W. 9) have deposed about the various steps which were taken by them during the course of investigation. The evidence of these witnesses has not been challenged before me. Furthermore, the evidence of these witnesses relate only to the official acts of these witnesses which were performed by them in the discharged of their official duties and functions. They are not connected either with the complainant or the accused in any manner and there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony. 14. The prosecution has examined three witnesses i.e. Dev Prakash (P.W. 1), Smt. Lakshmi Devi (P.W. 2) and Murli Singh (P.W. 3) as witnesses of fact. Both Dev Prakash (P.W. 1) and Smt. Lakshmi Devi (P.W. 2) did not support the case of the prosecution. They were declared hostile and were permitted to be cross-examined from the side of the prosecution. In his examination-in-chief Dev Prakash (P.W. 1) had categorically stated that the behaviour of the accused persons with his sister Smt. Devlata was very cordial and that no occurrence had taken place with his sister on 20.6.1986 and that his sister had died due to heat stroke. We could not give out any details regarding the demand of dowry in his cross-examination. He has also stated that he had lodged the report on the suggestion of his uncle, Babu Lal. We could not give out any details regarding the demand of dowry in his cross-examination. He has also stated that he had lodged the report on the suggestion of his uncle, Babu Lal. Smt. Lakshmi Devi (P.W. 2) has stated that she was not aware as to what was the behaviour of the accused persons towards her daughter Devlata as her daughter never informed her about the same. She has also stated that a motor-cycle was demanded by her son-in-law and the same was given in the marriage. She goes on to state that she had also gone to Hathras alongwith her daughter, Devlata, but her daughter had not told her anything. She has also stated that on 20.6.1986 the condition of her daughter deteriorated and she had also vomited. She is quite emphatic when she stated that Devlata was neither threatened nor beaten on 20.6.1986. In reply to a Court question she admits that when her daughter had vomited and when her condition had become bad both the accused persons were present in her house but were sitting outside of the room. Thus it is obvious that both these witnesses have not said a word against these accused from which it could be inferred that either accused had a hand in the death of Smt. Devlata or demanded dowry or had harassed her in any other manner. 15. Murli Singh (P.W. 3) has stated that Sikka ceremony of her daughter, Devlata, was performed with accused Ramvir Singh on 18.11.1984 in which a sum of 10,000/- was spent. He has also given out that Ramvir Singh and his family members were not satisfied with his performance of Sikka ceremony and a letter (Ex. Ka. 2) written by Somvir Singh was received by him. He has claimed that a demand of dowry was made by the accused and the marriage was postponed on some occasion. However, the marriage was performed but the accused did not take away the dowry articles as they were not satisfied. The accused were annoyed because the motor cycle, which was given in the marriage to Ramvir Singh, was not purchased in the name of Ramvir Singh. However, the marriage was performed but the accused did not take away the dowry articles as they were not satisfied. The accused were annoyed because the motor cycle, which was given in the marriage to Ramvir Singh, was not purchased in the name of Ramvir Singh. He goes on to state that his daughter was insulted and harassed for insufficiency of dowry and on 20.6.1986 both the accused persons had come to his house in Aligarh and had abused him and had threatened that they would abandon Devlata if the dowry was not completed. He has also claimed that on 16.6.1986 his daughter, Devlata, was sent to Aligarh by the accused and on the next day a list was also given to his wife. He has claimed that on 20.6.1986 both the accused persons had harassed and beaten Smt. Devlata in his house and when Devlata's condition became bad she was taken to the hospital. 16. I have examined the evidence of Murli Singh (P.W. 3) in the light of the argument advanced at the Bar. The evidence of Murli Singh (P.W. 3) on the question as to what happened at his house on 20.6.1986 is hear-say. He admits in para 13 of his evidence that he was told about all this occurrence by his wife. Regarding demand of dowry, his evidence does not find support in the evidence of his own wife and son. It may be that after Sikka ceremony the bridegroom's family was not satisfied and some negotiations had taken place between the two families but there is absolutely no direct evidence to show that any demand of dowry was made by the husband or his family members after the marriage. It is significant to note that Smt. Devlata had come to her parents' house on 16.6.1986 and had remained there till she was taken to Civil Hospital, Aligarh on 20.6.1986. It was highly unlikely that the husband and husband's brother would maltreat, beat or harass Smt. Devlata in her parent's house where her two brothers and other family members were present. The death of Smt. Devlata could not be attributed to any action of these accused persons. The evidence of Murli Singh (P.W. 3) on the question that Smt. Devlata was beaten by these accused persons on the question of insufficiency of dowry stands belied by the evidence of Dy. The death of Smt. Devlata could not be attributed to any action of these accused persons. The evidence of Murli Singh (P.W. 3) on the question that Smt. Devlata was beaten by these accused persons on the question of insufficiency of dowry stands belied by the evidence of Dy. S.P., R.K. Srivastava (P.W. 9) and Dr. Rajiv Agrawal (P.W. 4). No doubt in the post-mortem report five injuries i.e. four contusions and one abrated contusion were found upon the dead body but Dy. S.P. Sri R.K. Srivastava (P.W. 9) admits in his cross-examination that no injuries were seen by the Inquest Officer when the inquest proceedings were conducted upon the dead body of Smt. Devlata. Dr. Rajiv Agrawal (P.W. 4) had also admitted that marks left by post-mortem staining resemble the marks made by contusions. Thus, all the injuries of Smt. Devlata were the result of post-mortem staining. In this view of the matter no reliance can be placed upon the evidence of Murli Singh. 17. In my opinion the prosecution has failed to prove its case and the accused are entitled for acquittal. 18. The appeal is allowed. The appellants are acquitted of the charge of which they are charged with. They are on bail. They need act surrender to their bail bonds. Their bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged.