Judgment Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.-Instant appeal seeks to challenge the Judgment dated November 20,1996 of the learned Special Judge (Sati Prevention) Rajasthan- cum, Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, whereby the accused appellant (for short the accused) was convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and three years R.I. with fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/-in default to further undergo six months R.I. with a direction that sentences shall run concurrently. .2. The prosecution story can be briefly narrated as follows: .(i) Accused was teacher and Anita (deceased) was his student. Their few tuition-sittings turned into deep intimacy. Resultantly on May 2,1995 marriage of the two had taken place. Allegations of dowry death of Anita were levelled against the accused by her brother Rakesh Gupta in an FIR instituted with the Police Station, Vidhya Dhar Nagar on June 28, 1995. According to FIR, the accused soon after marriage, started demanding dowry and used to harass Anita. She was burnt under suspicious circumstances on June 26,1995. Accused took her to private clinic and did not admit her to the Government Hospital despite suggestion of private doctor. Anita died on June 27,1995. Her parents were not timely informed by the accused. .(ii) Case under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC was registered against the accused and after his arrest investigation commenced. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. Thereafter case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City from which it was transferred to the Court of Special Judge (Sati Prevention) Jaipur-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City. Charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC, were framed. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses. The statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C. was recorded. The accused produced three defence witnesses. Learned Trial Court after hearing arguments convicted the accused as mentioned hereinabove. 3. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and carefully scrutinised the record. 4. Mr. Prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses. The statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C. was recorded. The accused produced three defence witnesses. Learned Trial Court after hearing arguments convicted the accused as mentioned hereinabove. 3. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and carefully scrutinised the record. 4. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the accused canvassed that conviction and sentences passed against the accused are patently illegal and perverse from the material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the learned Trial Court had committed error in not considering the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the accused is based on misreading of evidence. In the report Ex. P/3 facts in respect of demand of dowry and money had not been mentioned. Witness PW 2 Rakesh Gupta is the brother of the deceased. PW 3 Smt. Bhagwati Devi is the mother whereas PW 4 Shrikishan Gupta and PW 9 Sunita Gupta are father and sister. They are interested witnesses and there are material contradictions in their statements. PW 1 Dr. Man Singh Jain, recorded the dying declaration Ex. P/1 of the deceased. In the said statement deceased gave out that she sustained burn injuries on account of sudden flames from stove. PW 10, Kumari Brijesh Mathur had also supported the dying declaration and corroborate the evidence and she is an independent witness and she has not been declared hostile by the prosecution. It was under these circumstances it was proved that burn injuries sustained by the deceased were accidental and the accused attempted to save life of his wife and he also sustained burn injuries. PW 11 Lata is also an important witness being neighbour of the couple who also did not support the prosecution story regarding demand of dowry. Ex. D/69 is the injury report of the accused which shows that the accused sustained burn injuries in the course of saving his wife. The learned Trial Court also did not consider this fact that marriage of accused with deceased Sunita was love marriage which had taken place with the approval of the families of the parties and question of demand of dowry does not arise at all. The learned Trial Court also did not consider this fact that marriage of accused with deceased Sunita was love marriage which had taken place with the approval of the families of the parties and question of demand of dowry does not arise at all. The deceased was immediately taken to the nearby private clinic and if she was not shifted to Government Hospital no presumption could have been drawn against the bona fides of the accused. 5. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned Judgment and contended that the accused was rightly convicted. .6. While appreciating the evidence in criminal cases the Court should keep in mind two cardinal principles that the guilt against the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the burden on the accused is not so heavy to prove the plea taken by him as it lay on the prosecution. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the ingredients of Section 304-B, IPC in Shanti vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1991SC 1226=1 (1991) DMC 187 (SC). The essentials of the sections in the opinion of their Lordships are as under: .(1) Thedeath of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; .(2) Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage; .(3) She must have subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; .(4) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry. 7. Comparing Section 304-B with Section 498-A, IPC their Lordships further observed thus: “Sections 304-B and 498-A are not mutually exclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is true that “cruelty” is a common essential to both the sections and that has to be proved. The explanation to Section 498-A gives meaning of “cruelty”. In Section 304-B there is no such explanation about the meaning of “cruelty but having regard to the common background to these offences the meaning of “cruelty” or “harassment” will be the same as given in explanation to Section 498-A under which “cruelty” by itself amounts to an offence and is punishable.” 8. In view of the ratio propounded in Shanti vs. State of Haryana (supra), I proceed to consider the prosecution evidence. .9. PW 1 Dr. In view of the ratio propounded in Shanti vs. State of Haryana (supra), I proceed to consider the prosecution evidence. .9. PW 1 Dr. Man Singh Jain, runs a private clinic in Subhash Colony Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. He stated that accused took Anita to his clinic. PW 1 examined her at 6.30 p.m. on June 26,1995. He recorded the statement of Anita, who according to his witness was conscious. A statement of Anita was recorded in Ex. P/1 as under: .“When I was making tea, stove got burst and flame spread to then I cried and my husband came for rescue.” .10. According to PW 1 Anita put her signatures on the statement. This statement was also signed by the accused and his father Nandraj. After giving first aid Sunita was discharged. PW 2 Rakesh Gupta who is the brother of the deceased categorically stated that at the time of marriage accused did not demand any dowry. He also stated that initially the accused was engaged with Kamlesh, the real sister of deceased Anita, but because of intimacy with Anita Sambhuraj married her. He also admitted that in the FIR P/3 he did not specifically mention the fact in respect of demand of dowry. Though in the statement Rakesh Gupta averred that on June 22,1995 Anita came to his house and told him the fact regarding cruelty and demand of dowry but in the FIR no such fact has been mentioned. PW 3 Bhagwati Devi is the mother of deceased. She also admitted that deceased did not demand dowry at the time of marriage. She also stated that even at the engagement ceremony for Kamlesh accused did not ask about anything. Photographs of marriage were shown to her and she admitted that in the photographs Anita was wearing clothes purchased by the accused. A perusal of her statement also reveals that in the marriage she gave only five sarees and five utensils from her house and they were not purchased from the market. She further stated that in the marriage she gave to her daughter golden nose pin and golden ring and watch and few silver ornaments. She also admitted that she .did not attend the marriage of Anita and all the ceremonies were performed by her husband. PW. 4 Shri Kishan Gupta is the father of the deceased. She further stated that in the marriage she gave to her daughter golden nose pin and golden ring and watch and few silver ornaments. She also admitted that she .did not attend the marriage of Anita and all the ceremonies were performed by her husband. PW. 4 Shri Kishan Gupta is the father of the deceased. Though he stated that the accused demanded dowry but from his statement it is evident that his wife did not attend marriage of accused and few utensils and five sarees were given in marriage. Even they did not arrange for lunch or dinner in the marriage and only one breakfast was given by them. He has made certain improvements in the statement given in the Court and he was contradicted from his earlier statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. D/65. He also categorically admitted that before her marriage of daughter or at the tune or marriage of her daughter no dowry was demanded he also admitted that he had seen love letter written by accused to his daughter Anita and thereafter he arranged their marriage. In the statement under Section 161 D/65 he did not say that accused asked about fridge whereas before the Court he stated that Shambhu accused demanded fridge. PW 9 Sunita Gupta is the sister of deceased Anita. She was student of IX Class at the time of marriage. She also admitted in her cross examination that accused did not come to their house for demanding dowry. There are material contradictions in her statement recorded by the police and the statement recorded in the Court. PW 10 Kumari Brijesh Mathur was residing near the house of deceased and accused and she engaged autorickshaw and accompained accused and Anita to Ankur Clinic. She stated that in her presence Anita informed doctor that she sustained burn injuries on account of spreading of flames of stove. She also stated that Anita on being asked told her that she sustained burn injuries on account of flames of the stove. This witness is an ANM. In her cross-examination she stated that relations of accused with Anita were very cordial and the accused neither harassed her nor demanded dowry. In her cross examination she categorically stated that whatever Anita spoke the doctor wrote it. She also stated that accused also sustained burn injuries. This witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution. In her cross-examination she stated that relations of accused with Anita were very cordial and the accused neither harassed her nor demanded dowry. In her cross examination she categorically stated that whatever Anita spoke the doctor wrote it. She also stated that accused also sustained burn injuries. This witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution. Another witness Lata PW 11 was also residing in the nearby house of the accused and Anita. She stated that relations of accused and Anita were cordial and she was declared ho stile. 11. In the statement recorded under Section 313, CrPC the accused stated that Anita sustained accidental injuries and he admitted that in the process of rescuing her he also sustained burn injuries on his hands. In defence the accused produced Mahendra Singh DW 1 milk vendor. He stated that on June 26,1995 in the evening at about 7.30 p.m. he had gone to the house of accused and Anita for supplying milk. He found accused Sambhu standing outside his house having burn injuries on his hands. On being asked he told that his wife Anita sustained burn injuries while preparing tea and he also sustained burn injuries in the process of rescuing her. At that time brother and sister of Anita were present in the house. One Dharam Das asked them to took Anita to the Hospital and his brother refused and told that she was already treated by a doctor. DW 2 Mool Chand is the neighbour of the accused and he also confirmed this fact that after Anita received burn injuries her sister and brother were with her. 12. DW 3 Dharamraj Gupta also supported this fact that mother of Anita did not attend the marriage and wife ot DW 3 Dharamraj Gupta performed all the ceremonies in the capacity of mother of Anita. In his cross-examination he stated that after sustaining burn injuries Anita was conscious and in his presence he gave statement to doctor. .13. A look at the entire evidence reveals following facts: .(1) The marriage of Anita with accused was a love marriage; .(2) It was a simple ceremony and no demand of dowry was made at the time of her marriage by the accused. .(3) There is no specific allegation in the FIR in respect of demand of dowry by the accused. A look at the entire evidence reveals following facts: .(1) The marriage of Anita with accused was a love marriage; .(2) It was a simple ceremony and no demand of dowry was made at the time of her marriage by the accused. .(3) There is no specific allegation in the FIR in respect of demand of dowry by the accused. .(4) Anita was immediately taken to private clinic by the accused where her statement was recorded by Dr. Man Singh lain FW1 in the presence of PW. 10 kumari Brijesh Mathur. .(5) Theaccused sustained burn injuries on both hands which is evident from Exs. P/9 arrest memo as well as D/69 injury report of the accused. .(6) Dyingdeclaration was recorded by Dr. Man Singh Jain according to which burn injuries sustained by Anita were accidental in nature. PW 10 Brijesh Kumari Mathur also categorically stated that Anita told her that she sustained burn injuries accidentally. Kumari Brijesh Mathur was the neighbour of Anita and she was not declared hostile by prosecution. 14. All these facts and circumstances demonstrate that burn injuries sustained by Anita were accidental in nature and they were caused under normal circum- stances. 15. From the statements of the independent witnesses PW 10 Brijesh Mathur and PW 11 Latta, who were neighbours of Anita, it is evident that she was not subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused. Even from the statements of PW. 2 Rakesh Gupta, PW 3 Smt. Bhagwati, PW 4 Shri Kishan Gupta, PW 9 Sunita Gupta, it has been established that demand of dowry was not made by the accused either before or at the time of his marriage with Anita. All the four witnesses are interested witnesses and they made improvements in their statements recorded before the learned Trial Court. It appears that the case against accused was concocted. The fact that accused sustained burn injuries in the process of rescuing Anita in both of his hands, is an important circumstance which points towards the innocence of the accused. No doubt that the death of Anita had occurred within 7 years of her marriage, but I see no reason to disbelieve the statements of PW 10 Kumari Brijesh Mathur and PW 1 Dr. Man Singh Jain. The statements of defence witnesses also corroborate the version given by Kumari Brijesh Mathur. No doubt that the death of Anita had occurred within 7 years of her marriage, but I see no reason to disbelieve the statements of PW 10 Kumari Brijesh Mathur and PW 1 Dr. Man Singh Jain. The statements of defence witnesses also corroborate the version given by Kumari Brijesh Mathur. Had the accused intended to kill Anita he could not have sustained burn injuries on his hand. Even the fact of demand of dowry cannot be believed in the facts and circumstances of the case. More so when the accused had fallen in love with Anita and marriage had taken place against Will of the mother of Anita, whose absence from marriage was conspicuous. 16. The learned Trial Court did not properly appreciate the evidence and its finding is based on misreading of prosecution evidence. The statements of PW 2 Rakesh Gupta, PW 3 Smt. Bhagwati Devi, PW 4 Shri Kishan Gupta and PW 9 Smt. Sunita Gupta are full of contradictions and these witnesses cannot be said to be reliable witnesses. The accused after broken his engagement with Kamlesh had married with Anita against their wishes that is why they have implicated the accused after the accidental death of Anita. Under these circumstances the prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Sections 304 B and 498A, IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 17. Resultantly the Judgment dated Nov. 20,1996 of the learned Trial Court is set aside and the accused stands acquitted from the charges under Sections 304 Part B and Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. He may be set at liberty if not required in any other case. The appeal stards allowed