JUDGMENT 1. - The abovenamed accused appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.11.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 6/98 (76/97) by which he acquitted the accused-appellants of the charge for the offence under Section 406 Indian Penal Code, but convicted them for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them in the following manner : Name of accused-appellants Convicted under Section Sentence awarded 1. Mahavir Singh 304-B, Indian Penal Code Ten years' imprison-ment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo impri-sonment of six months. 498-A, Indian Penal Code Two years' imprison-ment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of pay- ment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one month. 2. Hari Singh 3. Smt. Sarjeet Kaur 304, Indian Penal Code Seven years' impri-sonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo impri-sonment for three months. 498-A, Indian Penal Code One year imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprison-ment for one month. The above substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows : On 18.6.1997, PW 6 Man Singh presented a written complaint Ex. P/1 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh against the accused- appellants for committing the offence under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code stating inter alia that his daughter Karnail Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was married with the accused-appellant No. 1 Mahaveer five years back and in that marriage, he, as per his capacity and status, gave so many articles in dowry, but since he did not give cash, therefore, accused-appellants were not happy. The relationship of the accused-appellants with the deceased is as follows : Name of accused appellants Relationship with the deceased (1) Mahavir Husband (2) hari Singh Father-in-law (3) Smt. Sarjeet Kaur Mother-in-law It was further stated in the complaint that after the marriage of the deceased, the accused-appellants used to demand Rs. The relationship of the accused-appellants with the deceased is as follows : Name of accused appellants Relationship with the deceased (1) Mahavir Husband (2) hari Singh Father-in-law (3) Smt. Sarjeet Kaur Mother-in-law It was further stated in the complaint that after the marriage of the deceased, the accused-appellants used to demand Rs. 15,000/- from the deceased and she used to tell them that since her father PW 6 Man Singh is a poor person, therefore, he was not in a position to satisfy that demand and upon this, accused-appellants used to beat and harass deceased. It was further stated in the complaint that before two and half years back, a son was born to the deceased and on that auspicious occasion, so many articles were given and, thereafter, when deceased went to her in-laws' house, she was beaten by the accused-appellants. It was further stated in the complaint that before one month back when PW 6 Man Singh went to Jandawali in her in-laws' house to meet deceased, at that time, deceased told him that accused-appellants used to beat her and further used to say that bring money otherwise they would kill her by burning and he also tried his best to satisfy accused- appellants and advised them not to harass and torture deceased, but the accused-appellants refused to accept his advice and told him first bring Rs. 15,000/-. What had happened in her in-laws' house, PW 6 Man Singh told every thing to his wife PW 8 Angrej Kaur (mother of the deceased) and, thereafter, PW 8 Angrej Kaur also went to her in-laws' house to meet deceased where deceased told her that she should be saved from the accused-appellants, but she also advised her to live there. It was further stated in the complaint that in the last month i.e. on 24.5.1997, D.W./4 Jaila Singh, Jeth of the deceased, came to his house and informed that deceased had been burnt by the accused-appellants and she was admitted in the hospital. It was further stated in the complaint that in the last month i.e. on 24.5.1997, D.W./4 Jaila Singh, Jeth of the deceased, came to his house and informed that deceased had been burnt by the accused-appellants and she was admitted in the hospital. Thereafter, PW 6 Man Singh went to the hospital at Hanumangarh and found her daughter (deceased) in burnt and unconscious condition and the doctor advised him that she should be taken to either Delhi or Jaipur, but since he was not in a position to take her to such big places, therefore, he took her to Ganganagar Hospital, where after 7-8 days, deceased told her father, PW 6 Man Singh that she was burnt by the accused-appellants by pouring kerosene oil on her body. It was further stated in the complaint that a report about the alleged incident was also lodged in the Police Station Hanumangarh Town and when he again went to Police Station Hanumangarh Town, Police told him to approach the Court and that is why, he has filed the present complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh.The said complaint was sent by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanu-mangarh under Section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code for investigation to the SHO, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction on the same day i.e. on 18.6.1997 and on that complaint, a regular FIR Ex. P/2 was chalked out on 20.6.1997 at Police Station Hanumangarh Junction for the offence under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code and since deceased died on the intervening night of 24-25.6.1997 in the hospital at Sri Ganganagar, therefore, Section 304B, Indian Penal Code was further added.It may be stated here that when the deceased was admitted in burnt condition in the hospital at Hanumangarh on 24.5.1997, she was got medically examined by PW 12 Dr. Vinod Mahawadiya and her medical report is Ex. P/5, where PW 12, Dr. Vinod Mahawadiya and her medical report is Ex. P/5, where PW 12, Dr. Vinod Mahawadiya found superficial extensive burns over the body of the deceased and in that report, it was further stated that accidental burn dangerous to life, Burns as a result of flame.It may be stated here that when deceased was shifted to hospital at Ganganagar from the Hanumangarh Hospital, at that time, statement of the deceased was recorded on 29.5.1997 by Kalyan Singh, ASI and the same is Ex.D/10, where deceased stated that when she was preparing food on stove and because of bursting of stove, her jumpher caught fire suddenly and she made hue and cry and upon this, her Jeth DW 4 Jaila Singh rushed towards her and by putting the cushion, fire was extinguished and at that time, accused-appellants were also there and she was not burnt by anybody nor she had any dispute with anybody. The same words which were narrated by deceased to Kalyan Singh were also put in writing in the police proceedings and, thereafter, that parcha Ex. D/10 was produced before the SHO, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction and after perusing the statement of the deceased Ex. D./10, SHO, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction Kailash Meena came to the conclusion that no case was made out and, therefore, he closed the case.Another striking feature of this case is that on 23.6.1997, Kailash Meena, SHO, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction also recorded the statement of deceased and the same is Ex. P/13, in which she has made allegations against the accused-appellants that she was burnt by the accused appellants by pouring kerosene on her body.After death of the deceased, post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted by the Medical Board on 25.6.1997 and the post mortem report is Ex. P/1, where the Medical Board opined that cause of death of the deceased was Toximia due to extensive burns.During investigation, site plan Ex. P/4 was prepared by PW 11 Durga Dutt, Dy. S.P. The accused-appellants Mahavir Singh, Hari Singh and Smt. Sarjeet Kaur were arrested through arrest memos Ex. P/10, Ex. P/11 and Ex. P/1, where the Medical Board opined that cause of death of the deceased was Toximia due to extensive burns.During investigation, site plan Ex. P/4 was prepared by PW 11 Durga Dutt, Dy. S.P. The accused-appellants Mahavir Singh, Hari Singh and Smt. Sarjeet Kaur were arrested through arrest memos Ex. P/10, Ex. P/11 and Ex. P. 12 respectively.In the above circumstances, after usual investigation, police submitted challan for the offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 406, Indian Penal Code against the accused-appellants in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanu-mangarh, from where the case was com- mitted to the Court of Session, Hanumangarh.On 19.2.1998, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh framed charges for the offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 406, Indian Penal Code against the accused-appellants, the charges were read over and explained to the accused-appellants. They denied the charges and claimed trial.During trial, the prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 12 witnesses and got exhibited several documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused- appellants under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code were recorded. In defence, eight witnesses were produced by the accused-appellants.After conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh through his judgment and order dated 16.11.2000 acquitted the accused-appellants of the charge for the offence under Section 406 Indian Penal Code, but convicted them for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them in the manner as stated above holding inter alia : 1. That learned Addl. Sessions Judge placed reliance on the statement of the deceased Ex. P/13 recorded on 23.6.1997 by Kailash Meena, SHO, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction. 2. That he did not place any reliance on another so-called statement Ex. D/10 of the deceased recorded on 29.5.1997 by Kalyan Singh, ASI. 3. That prosecution has proved, its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused-appellants for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A, Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 16.11.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, the present appeal has been filed by the accused-appellants. 3. In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants : 1. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 16.11.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, the present appeal has been filed by the accused-appellants. 3. In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants : 1. That in this case, alleged incident took place on 24.5.1997 and on the same day, PW 6 Man Singh, father of the deceased was informed about incident by DW 4 Jaila Singh; but no report was lodged by PW 6 Man Singh till 18.6.1997 and on 18.6.1997, a complaint for the offence under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code was lodged against the accused-appellants by PW 6 Man Singh in the Court and thus, there is delay in lodging the report and on this ground alone, the case of the prosecution should be rejected. 2. That when deceased was admitted in the hospital, she had given statement Ex. P/10 before the police in which she has clearly mentioned that when she was preparing food on stove, all of a sudden stove burst and it gave excess fire which hit her and she received fire burn injuries and, therefore, it was a case of accidental death and the case of the prosecution that she was burnt by the accused-appellants is an after- thought version. 3. That PW 12, Dr. Vinod Maha-wadiya, who examined deceased on 24.5.1997, the day she caught fire, has admitted in cross-examination that deceased told him that while preparing food, her clothes caught fire and thus, the statement of PW 12 Dr. Vinod Mahawadiya further strengthened the case on the point that it was a case of accidental death. Hence, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the accused appellants be acquitted of the charges framed against them. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh. 5. I have hard the learned counsel for the accused-appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. 6. In Shanti v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1226, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to explain the ingredients of Section 304B, Indian Penal Code. 5. I have hard the learned counsel for the accused-appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. 6. In Shanti v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1226, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to explain the ingredients of Section 304B, Indian Penal Code. His Lordship K. Jayachandra Reddy (as he then was) said "A careful analysis of Section 304B, Indian Penal Code shows that this section has the following essentials : 1. The death 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 been 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 for dowry." 7. What Section 304B, Indian Penal Code requires is that death of the woman should be unnatural. In Shanti v. State of Haryana, (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that for applicability of Section 304B, Indian Penal Code, question whether unnatural death of a woman was homicidal or suicidal is irrelevant. 8. Section 304-B raises a presumption of culpability against the husband or relative hitherto unknown to our jurisprudence. 9. The prosecution must prove with some positive evidence that there was material to show that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. 10. In the cases of dowry death and suicide, circumstantial evidence plays an important role and inferences can be drawn on the basis of such evidence, that could be direct or indirect. In this respect, conduct of the husband and other relatives also plays a very vital role in coming to the conclusion of the guilt. In this respect, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Guru Bachan Singh v. Satpal Singh, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 809 , may be seen. 11. Motive for a murder may or may not be. But in dowry deaths, it is inherent. And hence, what is required of the Court to examine is as to who translated it into action as motive for it is not individual, but of family. (See Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 2134). Point No. 1 12. Motive for a murder may or may not be. But in dowry deaths, it is inherent. And hence, what is required of the Court to examine is as to who translated it into action as motive for it is not individual, but of family. (See Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 2134). Point No. 1 12. Before discussing the point No. 1, some relevant dates and happening of this case have to be mentioned here. (1) That alleged incident took place on 24.5.1997 and on the very day, deceased was admitted in the hospital at Hanumangarh in burnt condition. (2) That on the very day i.e. on 24.5.1997, deceased was got medically examined by PW 12 Dr. Vinod Mahawadiya and her medical report is Ex. P/5. PW 12 Dr. Vinod mahawadiya states in his statement that on 24.5.1997 he was Medical Jurist in the Government Hospital, Hanumangarh and on that day, he examined deceased and found that her body was burnt upto 95% and prepared the medical report Ex. P/5, which bears his signatures. In cross-examination, this witness admits that when deceased was being examined by him, he enquired from her how she caught fire and upon this, deceased told him that when she was preparing food, she caught fire, but she was not burnt by anybody. This witness further admits that he informed the police. (3) That deceased died on the intervening night of 24-25.6.1997 and, thereafter, post-mortem of the dead-body of the deceased was got conducted by the Medical Board on 25.6.1997 and the post- mortem report is Ex. P/1 and to prove the same PW 1 Dr. O.P. Sharma was produced. PW 1 Dr. O.P. Sharma states in his statement that on 25.6.1997 he was Medical Jurist in the Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar and for conducting post mortem of the dead body of the deceased, a Medical Board was constituted and he was one of the members of that Medical Board. He has further stated that cause of death of the deceased was Toximia due to extensive burns. In cross-examination, this witness admits the following facts : (1) That deceased was admitted in Burn Unit and died in the same Unit. (2) That when deceased was admitted in the hospital at Sri Ganganagar, she should have been examined by the Medical Jurist of Ganganagar. In cross-examination, this witness admits the following facts : (1) That deceased was admitted in Burn Unit and died in the same Unit. (2) That when deceased was admitted in the hospital at Sri Ganganagar, she should have been examined by the Medical Jurist of Ganganagar. (3) That because of burns, virus known as Toximia appeared on the body of the deceased, as a result of which she died. (4) That virus known as Toximia used to yield after the body is burnt. 13. Thus, from the statements of PW 12 Dr. Vinod Mahawadiya and PW 1 Dr. O.P. Sharma, it clearly appears that deceased received burn injuries before her death and, thereafter, she died because of extensive burns and in these circumstances, death of the deceased can be classified as death otherwise than under normal circumstances. 14. The question whether the death of the deceased was homicidal or suicidal or accidental is concerned, that aspect would be discussed later on.Point No. 2 15. So far as the point No. 2 is concerned, there is no dispute in this case that death of the deceased occurred within seven years from the date of her marriage. 16. Thus, point No. 2 stands proved.Point Nos. 3 and 4 17. For deciding the point Nos. 3 and 4, evidence oral as well as documentary to be looked into and discussed. 18. In the present case, there is no dispute on the point that alleged incident took place on 24.5.1997 and deceased died on the intervening night of 24-25.6.1997. 19. There is also no dispute on the point that upto 18.6.1997, no report was lodged by PW 6 Man Singh. 20. PW 11 Durga Dutt, who was Dy. S.P. at the relevant time, investigated the present case after FIR Ex. P/2 was chalked out on 20.6.1997. 21. The first question that arises for consideration is whether after the alleged incident which took place on 24.5.1997, PW 6 Man Singh, who is father of the deceased, was informed about the same or not and for that statement of PW 6 Man Singh is relevant. 22. PW 6 Man Singh admits the following facts in his cross-examination : (1) That he was informed about the alleged incident by DW 4 Jaila Singh on the same day i.e. on 24.5.1997. 22. PW 6 Man Singh admits the following facts in his cross-examination : (1) That he was informed about the alleged incident by DW 4 Jaila Singh on the same day i.e. on 24.5.1997. (2) That on receiving the information from DW 4 Jaila Singh he and his wife PW 8 Angrej Kaur went to the hospital at Hanu-mangarh, where they found the deceased in burnt condition. (3) That when he reached hospital, police was also there, but police did not make any enquiry from him. (4) That deceased was being treated in the hospital. (5) That on the next day, deceased was taken to the Ganganagar hospital from Hanumangarh hospital and he and his wife PW 8 Angrej Kaur remained in the company of the deceased till she died in the hospital at Ganganagar. (6) That for 5-6 days at Ganganagar, no talks took place between deceased and him and after 5-6 days, deceased told him and PW 8 Angrej Kaur that she was burnt by the accused- appellants. (7) That when deceased narrated the incident to him and PW 8 Angrej Kaur, doctor and nurse were not called. (8) That as soon as the incident was narrated by the deceased that she was burnt by the accused- appellants, he did not go to the Police Station to lodge report against the accused-appellants, but he stated again that on the next day he went to the Police Station and narrated the incident to Kalyan Singh, ASI. (9) That his brother-in-law PW 14 Jeet Singh went to Ganganagar alongwith ASI Kalyan Singh and, thereafter, Kalyan Singh recorded the statement of deceased and returned back. (10) That he went twice to the Police Station Hanumangarh, but police did not take any action and he also gave a report in writing. (11) That when he prepared complaint Ex. P/1, he did not give the copy of the reports which were earlier produced by him before the police. (12) The Police of Hanumangarh took his statement, but he again stated that police did not record his statement. (13) That it is correct to say that accused-appellants got deceased treated in the hospital. 23. PW 8 Angrej Kaur is the mother of the deceased. She also admits that she and PW 6 Man Singh were informed by DW 4 Jaila Singh about the alleged incident that deceased had been burnt by the accused-appellants. (13) That it is correct to say that accused-appellants got deceased treated in the hospital. 23. PW 8 Angrej Kaur is the mother of the deceased. She also admits that she and PW 6 Man Singh were informed by DW 4 Jaila Singh about the alleged incident that deceased had been burnt by the accused-appellants. She has further stated that they have no enmity with the police. 24. PW 4 Jeet Singh, who is brother-in-law of PW 6 Man Singh, states that he never went to the Police Station to lodge any report about the burnt condition of the deceased. 25. DW 4 Jaila Singh, who is brother of the husband of the deceased has stated that when deceased was burnt, he went to inform PW 6 Man Singh and PW 8 Angrej Kaur, who are respectively father and mother of the deceased. 26. Thus, from the above evidence, it clearly appears that PW 6 Man Singh, father of the deceased and PW 8 Angrej Kaur, mother of the deceased were informed about the alleged incident on the same day by DW 4 Jaila Singh and this fact is very well admitted by PW 6 Man Singh and PW 8 Angrej Kaur in their statements recorded in Court. 27. From the statement of PW 6 Man Singh, one thing also comes in picture that Kalyan Singh, ASI recorded the statement of deceased at Hanumangarh and the same is Ex. D/10, as is evident from the statement of PW 11, Durga Dutt, who was IO in this case. 28. PW 11 Durga Dutt, who conducted the investigation in the present case, has admitted the following facts : (1) That when investigation in FIR Ex. P/2 was started, statement of the deceased Ex. D/10 which was recorded by Kalyan Singh, ASI before her death was in the police file and statement of the deceased Ex. D/10 bears the signatures of Kalyan Singh, ASI at place A to B and it also bears the signatures of Kailash Meena, who was at the relevant time SHO Police Station Hanumangarh. (2) That he visited the site and prepared site plan Ex. P/4. (3) That he did not make any enquiry from ASI Kalyan Singh. (4) That Kailash Meena has died. (5) That statement Ex. (2) That he visited the site and prepared site plan Ex. P/4. (3) That he did not make any enquiry from ASI Kalyan Singh. (4) That Kailash Meena has died. (5) That statement Ex. P. 13 of the deceased was recorded by Kailash Meena, SHO Police Station Hanumangarh during investigation, but he cannot say whether the statement Ex. P/13, was recorded by him as per the statement of the deceased or not. (6) That he cannot say whether permission of doctor was taken or not. (7) That it is correct to say that incident took place more than 20 days back before the lodging of the FIR. 29. Thus, from the statement of PW 11 Durga Dutt, it is very much clear that the statement of the deceased Ex. D/10 was recorded by ASI Kalyan Singh on 29.5.1997 and the same is further certified by Kailash Meena, who was at that time SHO Police Station Hanumangarh and during investigation, Kailash Meena, SHO also recorded the statement of the deceased Ex. P/13 on 23.6.1997. There is also no doubt that both the statements of the deceased have no certification by any doctor. 30. From the statement of the deceased Ex. D. 10, it appears that deceased has stated that while preparing food, she caught fire and nobody burnt her. While her statement Ex. P/13 is otherwise and statement of the deceased Ex. P/13 was recorded by Kailash Meena on 23.6.1997 and before that, complaint Ex. P/1 was lodged by PW 6 Man Singh and while statement of the deceased Ex. D/10 was recorded on 29.5.1997 by ASI Kalyan Singh, no report was lodged by anybody. 31. In this respect, the statement of PW 12 Dr. Vinod Mahawadiya is also worth mentioning here. This witness states in his statement that in capacity as Medical Jurist, he examined deceased on 24.5.1997 and prepared injury report. This witness has frankly admitted that he was told by deceased that while preparing food, she caught fire and nobody burnt her. 32. Thus, the statement of PW 12 Dr. Vinod Mahawadiya is in conformity with the statement of the deceased Ex. D/10 recorded by ASI Kalyan Singh on 29.5.1997. 33. This witness has frankly admitted that he was told by deceased that while preparing food, she caught fire and nobody burnt her. 32. Thus, the statement of PW 12 Dr. Vinod Mahawadiya is in conformity with the statement of the deceased Ex. D/10 recorded by ASI Kalyan Singh on 29.5.1997. 33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar, 2001 Cri LJ (SC) 2556 , has held that medical certification as to fit state of mind at the time of making a declaration would be primary element in the matter of dying declaration and in the present case, even in both the statements of the deceased Ex. D/10 as well as Ex. P/13, there is no certificate of whatsoever nature by doctor. Thus, both the statements of deceased Ex. D/10 as well as Ex. P. 13 cannot be regarded or termed as dying declaration in strict and true sense, as both of them are not certified by any doctor. 34. However, if a comparison is made between the statements of deceased Ex. D/10 and Ex. P/13, the statement Ex. D/10, which was recorded by ASI Kalyan Singh on 29.5.1997, few days after the alleged occurrence, will prevail over the statement of Ex. P/13, which was recorded by Kailash Meena on 23.6.1997, because of the simple reason that statement Ex. D/10 is further certified by Kailash Meena on the point that since deceased has stated that he was not burnt by the accused-appellants, therefore, he closed the matter in capacity as SHO, Police Station Hanumangarh. Apart from this, statement of PW 12 Dr. vinod is also in conformity with the statement of deceased Ex. D/10 as he has clearly admitted in cross- examination that he was told by deceased that she was not burnt by anybody and she caught fire while preparing food etc. PW 12 Dr. Vinod has no enmity with the complainant, PW 6 Man Singh, nor he has any relationship with the accused party and, therefore, his statement appears to be correct one. 35. In the present case, incident took place on 24.5.1997 and no report was lodged upto 18.6.1997 and from the statement of PW 6 Man Singh, father of the deceased, it has come in picture that Kalyan Singh recorded the statement of deceased and the same is Ex. D/10. 35. In the present case, incident took place on 24.5.1997 and no report was lodged upto 18.6.1997 and from the statement of PW 6 Man Singh, father of the deceased, it has come in picture that Kalyan Singh recorded the statement of deceased and the same is Ex. D/10. It means that he was aware that deceased had given such statement and that is why he did not lodge the report and, therefore, the possibility that because of the statement of the deceased Ex. D/10, he did not lodge any report cannot be ruled out. 36. No doubt delay in filing FIR cannot be ground to reject the prosecution case, if delay is properly explained. 37. In the present case, incident took place on 24.5.1997 and the complaint was filed by PW 6 Man Singh, father of the deceased, on 18.6.1997 in the Court. He has stated in his statement that he went to police Station twice and he also lodged report, but since PW 11 Durga Dutt, who conducted the investigation in the present case, has categorically denied this fact and stated that no report was received by the police except Ex. P/1 complaint through Court, therefore, the version of PW 6 Man Singh that he lodged the report in the Police Station Hanumangarh before 18.6.1997 cannot be accepted and it is accordingly held that before 18.6.1997, he did not lodge any report before the Police Station Hanumangarh. 38. Not only this, from the statements of PW 6 Man Singh and PW 8 Angrej Kaur, who are respectively father and mother of the deceased, this fact has also come in picture that they remained in the company of the deceased right from 24.5.1997 till death of deceased on 25.6.1997. Had there been a case as put forward in the complaint Ex. P/1 lodged by PW 6 Man Singh on 18.6.1997, the matter would have been reported by PW 6 Man Singh earlier and in these circumstances, present delay of about 23 days in filing the complaint is fatal to the prosecution case and the whole prosecution case comes under the shadow of doubt, especially looking to the contents of the statement of deceased Ex. D/10 recorded by ASI Kalyan Singh, on 29.5.1997 and statement of doctor PW 12 Dr. Vinod. 39. D/10 recorded by ASI Kalyan Singh, on 29.5.1997 and statement of doctor PW 12 Dr. Vinod. 39. Thus, it is held that delay in lodging the complaint has not been properly explained by the prosecution and thus, this delay is fatal to the prosecution case. 40. In my considered opinion, the statement of the deceased Ex. D/10, which was recorded on 29.5.1997 by Kalyan Singh ASI where deceased has clearly stated that when she was preparing meal, she caught fire and she was not burnt by the accused- appellants, will prevail over her statement Ex. P. 13 recorded by Kailash Meena on 23.6.1997 where she made allegations that she was burnt by the accused-appellants, because of the following reasons : (1) That statement of the deceased Ex. D/10 was recorded after few days of the alleged occurrence. (2) That PW 12 Dr. Vinod Maha-wadiya, who medically examined deceased on 24.5.1997, has clearly stated in his cross-examination that on being enquired, deceased told him that while preparing meal, she caught fire and nobody burnt her. Thus, statement of PW 12 Dr. Vinod Mahawadiya is in conformity with the statement of deceased Ex. D/10. (3) That the statement of deceased Ex. D/10, which was recorded by Kalyan Singh on 29.5.1997 is further certified by Kailash Meena on the point that since deceased has stated that she was not burnt by accused-appellant, therefore, he closed the matter in capacity as SHO, Police Station, Hanumangarh. (4) That there is delay in lodging the report. (5) That it is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits the accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. Vide Sharadad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1622. 41. Thus, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that there is delay in lodging the report and looking to the statement of the deceased Ex. D/10, the possibility that deceased died due to accidental burns caused from the burning stove when she was preparing meal cannot be ruled out and thus, in the present case death of the deceased appears to be accidental death and not homicidal or suicidal. 42. D/10, the possibility that deceased died due to accidental burns caused from the burning stove when she was preparing meal cannot be ruled out and thus, in the present case death of the deceased appears to be accidental death and not homicidal or suicidal. 42. In the above background, if the statements of PW 6 Man Singh and PW 8 Angrej Kaur, who are respectively father and mother of the deceased are examined, the case of the prosecution that there was persistent dowry demand on behalf of the accused-appellants cannot be accepted or in other words, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code. 43. The other witnesses of Panchayat PW 2, Balveer Singh, PW 3 Tuba Singh PW 4, Jeet Singh and PW 5, Joginder Singh have been produced and some of them are close relatives of PW 6 Man Singh and they all have been contradicted with their police statements on material points and, therefore, from the statements of these witnesses, the case of the prosecution that panchayat took place over the demand of dowry cannot be accepted. 44. For the reasons stated above, the case of the prosecution that deceased was burnt by the accused-appellants by pouring kerosene on her body and furthermore, that was done by them because of non-fulfilment of dowry demand, cannot be said to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts as from the very beginning, the prosecution case remains under the shadow of doubt and thus, the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 convicting the accused appellants for the offence under Section 304-B and 498-A, Indian Penal Code are liable to be set aside and the accused-appellants are entitled to acquittal, after giving benefit of doubt and this appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the accused-appellants Mahavir Singh, Hari Singh and Smt. Sarjeet Kaur is allowed and the judgment and order dated 16.11.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh are set aside and the accused-appellants are acquitted of the charges for the offence under Section 304-B and 498-A, Indian Penal Code. Since accused-appellants No. 1 Mahaveer is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh are set aside and the accused-appellants are acquitted of the charges for the offence under Section 304-B and 498-A, Indian Penal Code. Since accused-appellants No. 1 Mahaveer is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Since accused-appellants No. 2 and No. 3, namely, Hari Singh and Smt. Sarjeet Kaur are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand cancelled. Appeal allowed. *******