JUDGMENT 1. - Mrs. Harpyari deceased, D/O Chandu Lal, PW. 8 R/o Bhusawar, was married to Rajgopal, appellant, who is R/o Mandawar, in the month of July, 1989. She is stated to have died of burn injuries in the month of November, 1990, to be exact on 5.11.1990. The prosecution case is that the appellant and other members of his family used to treat Smt. Harpyari for having brought insufficient and unsatisfactory dowry in her marriage. It is further stated that the appellant used to beat Smt. Harpyari and whenever she used to visit her parents' house at Bhusawar, she used to complain about the conduct and behaviour of the appellant. It is further stated that only three days before her alleged unnatural death, Smt. Harpyari had gone to her in-laws' house with her husband Ram Gopal from her parents' house but on 5.11.90 she was reported to have died of burn injuries. It was further started that though Harpyari's brother RW. 1 Budha Ram her uncle PW. 2 Sheodan Singh, her father PW. 8 Chandulal her mother and several other persons from Bhusawar had reached Mandawar yet Harpyari had been put to flames in their absence. The prosecution case thus is that the appellant had treated Harpyari with cruelty with view to force her to bring more dowry from her parents and that he caused her death within 7 years of her marriage and destroyed the evidence of crime in order to screen himself from legal punishment. 2. On November 8, 1990 PW. 8.Chandu Lal filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate with the allegation that police had not timely acted in the matter though they had been informed by him. The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint Under section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code to the police station, Mandawar where PW. 10 Sohan Lal. S.H.O., registered a case Under section 498-A 304-B and 201 Indian Penal Code against the appellant and his parents on 10.11.90 and handed over the investigation to PW.11 Surendra Kumar Dy.S.P. 3. In the course of investigation, conducted by PW. 11 Surendra Kumar, Dy. S.R, he inspected the site of occurrence on the third day and noted the places where a `torch' a `bhagona', a `stove' were kept. In the course of investigation, conducted by PW. 11 Surendra Kumar, Dy. S.R, he inspected the site of occurrence on the third day and noted the places where a `torch' a `bhagona', a `stove' were kept. He arrested the appellant on 15.11.90 at 5.50 p.m. and as is stated, on 18.11.90 at 10.00 A.M. the appellant had given an information Under section 27 of the Evidence Act which led to the discovery of a five litre tin container, a `danda' and an album, all buried in the open `pator' adjoining the room of the appellant. After completing the investigation the appellant was chargesheeted in the court of Magistrate. 4. The learned trial Judge tried the appellant, Smt. Sugni, Mangoo, Manohar, Brij Mohan and Mool chand on the charges Under section 498-A and 304-B. 306, 498-A r.w. Section 201 Indian Penal Code. By his impugned judgement and order dated 22.9.95 the learned Addl. Sessions judge held the appellant guilty of the offence Under section 498-A and 304-B Indian Penal Code, convicted him as such and sentenced him to two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- for offence Under section 498-A Indian Penal Code and 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence Under section 304-B Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted of the offence Under section 306 and 201 Indian Penal Code. All other co-accused were acquitted of all the offences they had been charged with. 5. Mr. Ghanshyam Brijwasi, the learned counsel for the appellant, led me through the evidence on the record of the lower court and highlighted that the theory as advanced by the prosecution was not plausible and acceptable and the evidence, adduced in support of such theory, was not only un-reliable and un-trustworthy but also miserably insufficient to connect the present appellant with the offences he has been convicted for. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, stressed that Smt. Harpyari had admittedly died within 7 years of her marriage with the appellant and, therefore, a presumption is raised in favour of the view that she had died an un-natural death for demand of dowry. 7. To prove the charges, framed against the appellant, the prosecution had examined 11 witnesses in all. Amongst these witnesses PW.1 Budharam, PW. 2 Sheodan Singh and PW. 8 Chandu Lal were the brother, uncle and father of the deceased respectively. PW. 7. To prove the charges, framed against the appellant, the prosecution had examined 11 witnesses in all. Amongst these witnesses PW.1 Budharam, PW. 2 Sheodan Singh and PW. 8 Chandu Lal were the brother, uncle and father of the deceased respectively. PW. 6 Mangi Lal was a neighbour of PW. 8 Chandu Lal. The statements of these witnesses were to effect that after her marriage with the appellant, the deceased used to complain of the cruel treatment meted out to her in her in-laws' house for bringing insufficient dowry. The witness have further stated that though an adequate and satisfactory dowry had been given to Harpyari in her marriage but the demand of the appellant for more and more dowry increased day by day and the appellant started haras Smt. Harpyari and ultimately caused her death by fire. On the face of it all these witness are not only highly interested in the deceased but are also her close relatives. Their conduct does not support their version. There is no other evidence on the record that the appellant or any other member of his family had ever expressed dis-satisfaction with the dowry given to Smt. Harpyari in her marriage. In fact PW. 2 Sheodan Singh, the real uncle of Smt. Harpyari, has stated in cross-examination that no dowry had even been demanded and that no dis-satisfaction on account of inadequate dowry was ever expressed by the appellant and/or his parents. The statements of these close relatives to the above effect have destroyed the very foundation of the prosecution case. Their conduct in not reporting the matter to the police or in not calling any Panchayat of the Biradari at the relevant time when the appellant and/or his parents used to harass Smt. Harpyari for demand of dowry, betrays their statements in the court. For the same reasons the statement of PW. 6 Mangi Lal, who claims to be an independent witness, though he is a neighbour to PW. 8 Chandu Lal, can also-not be believed. There is no evidence of any person from village Mandawar or any neighbour of the house, in which Smt. Harpyari used to live, to support the version that Smt. Harpyari was ever treated with cruelty or was harassed for bringing insufficient dowry. 8. In fact the conduct of the appellant and/or his father Ramji Lal, as is gathered from the statement of PW. 8. In fact the conduct of the appellant and/or his father Ramji Lal, as is gathered from the statement of PW. 3 Satnam Das is quite revealing and points out at the reality in the present case. PW.3 Satnam Das, a 40 years aged man, called `Mahatma' and residing in village Sarawali appears to be quite independent. He has stated that since the appellant's father Ram Ji Lal used to carry on his shop of repairing the fans at Mandawar and the witness used to visit his shop in connection of getting the agricultural implements repaired by him, he used to visit Ramji Lal for the purpose. On the fateful day when Smt. Harpyari died, he happened to go to Mandawar where he met Ramji Lal, who was sick at that time. Ramji Lal asked him to find out some person, going to Mahua so that he may convey to his uncle Nathu there, that his (Ramji Lai's) son's (Pappu @ Ramgopal, appellant) wife Smt. Har Pyari had died of burns so that Nathu may inform Smt. Harpyari's (deceased) parents there. The witness told Ramji Lal that he himself was going to Mahua and that there he would inform Nathu Lal. At Mahua the witness met Nathu Lal but Nathu Lal declined to go to Bhusawar as he was busy. The witness then himself went to Bhusawar and informed the parents of Smt. Harpyari (deceased) of her death. According to the witness the parents of Smt. Harpyari accompanied him in a Jeep up to Mahua. At Mahua the witness himself stayed but the parents of Smt. Harpyari went to Mandawar by bus. This version has also been endorsed by PW. 1 Budharam. PW. 2 Sheodan Singh and PW. 8 Chandu Lal. It is clear that had the appellant or his parents committed some offence in respect to the death of Smt. Harpyari, they would have been the last persons to have asked Satnam Singh to communicate Harpyari's death to her parents. The witnesses had in fact gone to the house of the applicant on that very day and, as stated by them, Harpyari had been put to flames though before their arrival. The witnesses had in fact gone to the house of the applicant on that very day and, as stated by them, Harpyari had been put to flames though before their arrival. If the witnesses had come to know of the commission of any offence or suspected the appellant or his parents to have burnt Smt. Harpyari, they would have not only called a meeting of the villagers and raised the issue there but would have also approached the concerned authorities and would not have kept silent, as PW. 8 Chandu Lal seems to have done. The conduct of the prosecution witness, therefore, does not support the prosecution theory. 9. In so far as the recovery of a five litre tin container, a `danda' and an album under the ground of the pator, adjoining the very room wherein Smt. Harpyari used to reside is concerned, it is unbelievable that a person, committing such sort of crime, would like to bury such articles, including the photographs of the marriage, inside the ground and that too in the very `pator' wherein he was living. Such sort of evidence of recovery simply shows the absence of imagination, competency and efforts on the part of the investigating Officer and is not to be accepted. 10. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the charges, levelled by the prosecution against the appellant, do not stand proved at all. The evidence produced in support of the charges was not reliable and was un-trustworthy. The theory, as advanced by the prosecution, was not plausible and gets no support from the conduct of the prosecution witnesses themselves. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an acquittal. 11. In the result, the impugned judgment and order are hereby set aside and the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence Under section 304-B and 498-A Indian Penal Code are set aside and he is acquitted thereof. The petition is allowed. The appellant, if in custody and not wanted in any other case, shall be released forthwith.Appeal Allowed. *******