Judgment 1. This appeal by the State of Haryana is against judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, dated 7.9.1991 acquitting Kanwar Pal, Chander Pati, Smt. Bimla and Mahender Singh of the charge under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts of the case as set up by the prosecution is that Urmila, deceased was married with accused Mahender Singh on 3.6.1986. Her parents had spent about Rs. 40,000/- to 50,000/- at the time of marriage but it was stated that the accused were not satisfied with the dowry given to the deceased. Mahender Singh, husband-accused is serving in the Army and whenever he used to come to his village on leave, he used to bring Urmila from her parental house to his house and give her beatings for bringing less dowry and accused used to pressurize her for bringing more dowry. Urmila deceased visited her parents about 7/8 times and she used to tell her woe-be-gone story of harassment and cruelty. About six months prior to the occurrence which took place on 21.8.1989, Braham Dev, brother of deceased went to take Urmila from her in- laws house. At that time Chander Pati mother-in-law of the deceased gave her pen and paper and asked her either to bring dowry or to make a writing of divorce but Braham Dev took Urmila with him to her parental house after stating that they were poor and were not in a position to arrange for more dowry. Kanwar Pal, husband of Chander Pati accompanied Braham Dev and Urmila to the house of the parents of Urmila wherein the presence of Hans Raj, Surender, Jagmal, Chhelu and other family members, he asked Santra, mother of Urmila either to fulfil demand of dowry or keep Urmila at her house. Since father of Urmila was away to Delhi and therefore, on his return, he was told about the demand of dowry of the accused. The father even visited the house of the accused for reconciling the matter but demand for more dowry was made on 20.8.1989. Surender (younger brother of Mahender Singh) again came to the parental house of Urmila to take her but she was not willing to go apprehending danger to her life but on persuasion of her mother, she agreed and went with Surender to the house of her in-laws. Surender (younger brother of Mahender Singh) again came to the parental house of Urmila to take her but she was not willing to go apprehending danger to her life but on persuasion of her mother, she agreed and went with Surender to the house of her in-laws. However, 2-3 days thereafter, the parents of Urmila got news of her death and they came to know that she had been poisoned. 3. On 21.8.1989, S.I. Thawar Singh received a wireless message about the incident but nobody was available near the dead body. However, on the next day Kanwar Pal recorded his statement Ex. PL. Inquest report Ex. PK was prepared and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. While preparing inquest report, statements of Mahaveer father and Hira Lal grand-father of the deceased Urmila as well as that of Kanwar Pal were recorded. The Board of Doctors who conducted the post-mortem examination submitted the report. However, on the statement of Santra, as ordered by D.S.P. Bidwan, formal FIR was recorded and the accused were arrested. The Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination gave a report that death in this case was due to asphyxia. 4. In support of its case, prosecution produced seven witnesses and number of documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein they denied the allegations of prosecution and stated that Urmila used to live happily and she used to be brought from the house of her parents as and when her husband Mahender Singh used to come to his village on leave. It was stated that she was depressed for not having any issue. Even father and grand-father of deceased Urmila who were present at the time of inquest, have stated that there is no complaint of dowry demand. 5. We have heard Sh. D.P. Singh, Additional Advocate General Haryana and Sh. H.S. Gill Senior Counsel for the complainant and with their assistance gone through the records of the case carefully. 6. The inquest report was prepared on 22.8.1989 wherein the statements of Mahaveer father and Hira Lal grand-father were recorded. In the said statements, it is mentioned that Urmila used to remain depressed due to her being childless and they have no suspicion about the death of Urmila. 6. The inquest report was prepared on 22.8.1989 wherein the statements of Mahaveer father and Hira Lal grand-father were recorded. In the said statements, it is mentioned that Urmila used to remain depressed due to her being childless and they have no suspicion about the death of Urmila. Hira Lal grand-father has even stated that they have made secret inquiry and are fully satisfied that she has committed suicide and for that they do not want to take any action in the matter. It was only subsequently after eight days that a complaint was made levelling allegations of demand of dowry. Prior to lodging of the said complaint, there is no letter or document wherein there is even remote reference to demand of dowry. Immediately after the occurrence, the stand of father and grand-father of deceased Urmila was that it was a case of accidental death and not that of any demand of dowry. If there was any demand of dowry, the prosecution witnesses namely Santra, PW3, Braham Dev, PW4 could have brought this fact to the notice of Mahaveer or Hira Lal and such fact would have definitely found mention in the inquest report. It appears that the complaint on the basis of which FIR was lodged after eight days was an afterthought. 7. The post mortem report does not show any sign of injury and the report of the chemical examiner shows that it was not a case of death by poison, rather the cause of death is of asphyxia due to suffocation and other three forms of asphyxia hanging, drowning and strangulation are ruled out. The conduct of Kanwar Pal is natural as he immediately rushed her to hospital at Dadri, as soon as he learnt that Urmila had become unconscious after vomitting. The allegations of harassment and maltreatment could not be substantiated and therefore, the presumption under Section 113-A and 113-B of the Evidence Act, would not be attracted against the accused. The trial Court has considered the entire evidence in threadbare manner. It cannot be pointed out that any evidence has not been considered or that the finding recorded by the trial Court is either perverse or absurd. In appeal against acquittal, we do not find any reason to take a different view than the one taken by the Additional Sessions Judge and, therefore, we dismiss the appeal.