JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J. - State of Haryana has filed this appeal against the acquittal of Radha Charan (deceased on January 29, 2002, consequently appeal against this respondent has abated), his son Sudhir Kumar and daughter Deepali by learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated December 12, 1994 on a charge of dowry death punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the death of Sudhir Kumars wife Manju Devi alias Babli. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Manju deceased was the daughter of Raj Singh (PW.2). Manju was married to Sudhir Kumar on February 9, 1992. At the time of marriage Raj Singh had given her sufficient dowry. List of dowry articles had been handed over to the police by Raj Singh at the time of the filing of the report. Two days before the marriage Sudhir Kumars father Radha Charan telephoned Raj Singh and demanded a Maruti car in dowry. Raj Singh was also told that if the demand was not fulfilled, the marriage would not take place. Raj Singh arranged to book a car on February 7, 1992 and after taking delivery thereof the car was given to Manju in dowry. After the solemnisation of the marriage Manju complained to her father and other members of the family about the cruel treatment meted out to her by Sudhir Kumar, Radha Charan and Deepali. Manju had also informed her family that the accused had been expressing dissatisfaction over the dowry. Radha Charan had on one occasion said that an engineer bridegroom like his son should get Rs. 10 lacs in dowry. Manju had also informed her family that the accused had demanded Rs. 2.00 lacs in cash to settle Sudhir Kumar in the engineering profession. These dowry demands were discussed by Raj Singh with Maha Singh, Ajmer Singh and Chhottu Ram. In April 1992, Raj Singh accompanied by three persons had visited the house of the accused to complain about the demands made. Radha Charan had met them on that occasion and had insisted upon demand of Rs. 2 lacs as the amount was needed to secure employment for his son Sudhir Kumar. Even thereafter Manjus maltreatment continued. In August 1992 Raj Singh again went to Faridabad to persuade the accused not to ill-terat Manju and the accused again persisted and demanded Rs. 2.00 lacs. 3. 2 lacs as the amount was needed to secure employment for his son Sudhir Kumar. Even thereafter Manjus maltreatment continued. In August 1992 Raj Singh again went to Faridabad to persuade the accused not to ill-terat Manju and the accused again persisted and demanded Rs. 2.00 lacs. 3. It was on September 6, 1992 at 9.00 P.M. that a telephonic message was received to the effect that Manju was lying admitted in Escort Hospital at Faridabad. Thereupon Raj Singh and his wife left for Faridabad and reached the hospital at mid night. On arrival they learnt that Manju had died. 4. After Manju had been admitted to Escort Hospital, report of her admission was received at Police Station Central, Faridabad. According to the opinion of the Medical Officer Manju was unable to make a statement and had died at night. Manjus husband Sudhir Kumar had given a brief statement to the effect that Manju had taken poison. The dead body was subjected to inquest proceedings which were conducted in the mortuary of the Escort Hospital on September 7, 1992. During the inquest proceedings statement of Manjus father Raj Singh had also been recorded to the effect that he had come to know at Gurgaon at about 9/10 P.M. on September 6, 1992 that his daughter was seriously ill, whereupon Raj Singh reached Escort Hospital and he found that his daughters dead body was lying in the mortuary. 5. Post mortem examination was carried out by Dr. G.K. Khurana at B.K. Hospital, Faridabad on September 7, 1992. No opinion on cause of death was given by the Medical Officer. Viscera containing parts of the body like lung, liver, spleen, kidney and stomach in toto and small intestine and large intestines, blood sample from heart etc. was sent for analysis. The Chemical Examiner reported that aluminium phosphide had been detected in the viscera and phosphide was detected in the blood. Thereupon Medical Officer came to the conclusion that the cause of death was aluminium phosphide poisoning. Raj Singh lodged report Ex.PD on September 8, 1992 addressed to S.H.O. Police Station Central, Faridabad wherein the detailed background of the case was disclosed and alongwith the report a list of dowry articles Ex.PE was attached. 6. On the basis of this report F.I.R. Ex. PD/1 was recorded on September 8, 1992 P.M. The accused were arrested and sent up for trial. 6. On the basis of this report F.I.R. Ex. PD/1 was recorded on September 8, 1992 P.M. The accused were arrested and sent up for trial. At the trial charge was framed against the accused under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code on January 13, 1993 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The main witnesses examined by the prosecution were Maha Singh (PW.1), Raj Singh (PW.2), Dr. G.K. Khurana (PW.4), Sanjay Sehrawat (PW.5) and ASI Roshan Lal (PW.7). 7. Certain important documentary evidence was also produced at the trial consisting of the invoices dated February 7, 1992 regarding the purchase of the Maruti car in Manjus name and its certificate of registration also in Manjus name. These are Ex. PF and Ex. PG, letter dated June 3, 1992 written by Manju to her brother Sanjay Sehrawat who was student in Moscow (USSR) which is Ex. PH. 8. After the conclusion of the prosecution case statements of accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code were recorded and the various items appearing in evidence were put to them. The factum of marriage between Manju and Sudhir Kumar was accepted by the accused but the allegations of the dowry demands and harassment were denied. Sudhir Kumar gave the following version of the case :- "My relations with Manju were very cordial. I got employment long before the incident. I was offered appointment at Nilokheri. That was, however, declined by me as I never wanted to leave Faridabad. Letter mark B dated 29.8.92 already on the file is in the hand of my wife Manju. I am conversant with her handwriting and signatures. My relations with the family of my in-laws were very cordial. My brother Gianender had been studying at Gurgaon. My father-in-law Raj Singh was local guardian of Gianender Singh. After the incident, Manju was immediately removed by me to the Escorts Medical Centre, which is nearest and the best Medical Hospital. After the cremation, all the articles of dowry were taken away by the family of my in-laws." 9. The accused had been given an opportunity to lead evidence but did not examine any witness. However, reliance was placed on letters mark B & C, Ex. DB, Ex. DC and Ex. DD which were written by Sanjay to Sudhir Kumar and Manju. 10. The accused had been given an opportunity to lead evidence but did not examine any witness. However, reliance was placed on letters mark B & C, Ex. DB, Ex. DC and Ex. DD which were written by Sanjay to Sudhir Kumar and Manju. 10. The learned Sessions Judge critically examined the correspondence between Sanjay Sehrawat (PW.5), Manju deceased and Sudhir Kumar accused and acquitted the respondents as there was no visible irritant in the matrimonial tie and letters exposed falsity of the prosecution case that the relationship was strained on account of demand of dowry. As regard evidence of Raj Singh (PW.2) the learned Sessions Judge concluded that his evidence was an afterthought, tainted and unworthy of credence. In his statement Ex. DA recorded in the inquest proceedings by the Investigation on September 7, 1992 Raj Singh had made no allegations of dowry against the accused. In his complaint Ex. PD Raj Singh had made no mention that he had been coerced by the accused to give a car in the dowry. Furthermore, the deceased at no point of time addressed any communication to her father and her father had not visited her house until she had written to her brother the letter dated June 3, 1992 Ex.PH Evidence of Raj Singh and Maha Singh was found to be insufficient for conviction and it was held that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges against the accused who were acquitted. 11. In the appeal filed by the State to challenge the acquittal of the respondents it has been argued that the ingredients of the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act were present inasmuch as the marriage had been solemnised just 7 months before Manjus unnatural death and there had been demands of dowry. Raj Singh (PW.2) had stated before the court that Manju had been subjected to cruelty by the accused in connection with demands of dowry and this had been confirmed by Sanjay Sehrawat (PW.5) on the basis of the letter of the deceased Ex.PH. This witness had also stated that the deceased had come to see off him at New Delhi Airport on August 25, 1992. She had expressed lot of fear and damage to her life. It was also argued that two days delay in lodging in F.I.R. cannot be treated as fatal to the case. 12. This witness had also stated that the deceased had come to see off him at New Delhi Airport on August 25, 1992. She had expressed lot of fear and damage to her life. It was also argued that two days delay in lodging in F.I.R. cannot be treated as fatal to the case. 12. The main point to be considered in this case is whether there was reliable evidence as regards Manjus ill-treatment by the accused on account of dowry. An ancillary question to be considered would be whether from a proper interpretation of letter Ex. PH written by Manju to her brother on June 3, 1992 one can get any inking of Manjus personal predicament of facing harassment and cruelty at the hands of the accused for the demand of dowry. 13. Statements of Maha Singh (PW.1) and Raj Singh (PW.2) reveal that the accused had demanded Rs. 2.00 lacs as Sudhir was a qualified engineer who was to be settled in the profession. These two witnesses alongwith two others had visited the house of the accused on two occasions in April, 1992 and August, 1992 and on both occasions dowry had been demanded. Dowry demand of Rs. 2.00 lacs had also been reiterated by Sanjay Sehrawat (PW.5) who stated that Manju had told him about this demand when she had come to see off him at New Delhi Airport on August 25, 1992. Therefore, what appears to be a positive assertion made in prosecution evidence regarding demands of dowry must be tested on the basis of the other evidence to determine even if these assertions were correct or not. 14. In Raj Singhs previous statement Ex. DA recorded in the inquest proceedings no mention has been made of any dowry demand. There is no mention that the deceased was being harassed by the accused. Indeed his statement is silent with regards to the demand of Rs. 2.00 lacs to establish Sudhir Kumar in the profession. Therefore, no case under section 304-B Indian Penal Code was registered at that stage. 15. It may be useful to consider letter Ex. PH at this stage in order to discover the state of mind of the deceased in June, 1992. The tenor of the letter seems to be that outwardly Manju is happy but she still seems to miss her family. 15. It may be useful to consider letter Ex. PH at this stage in order to discover the state of mind of the deceased in June, 1992. The tenor of the letter seems to be that outwardly Manju is happy but she still seems to miss her family. She states that her husband had cordial relations with her and takes care of her but there was a difference between the atmosphere of her house and that of her in-laws house. She did not enjoy the same extent of comfort as she enjoyed in her parents house. She did not want to describe everything in the letter as she was afraid of "these people". Her father had given her dowry beyond his capacity by spending all his savings with a view that that she should be happy but she soon realised that reality was otherwise. Manju complained to her brother that nobody came to see her and even her father did not visit Faridabad. She would also keep weeping for hours when somebody said something unkind to her. Nobody understood her feelings and she could not share her feelings with anybody. When she wept nobody consoled her. She went on to write that she would have to leave everything to destiny and that on the day she was writing the letter she was feeling perturbed but there was no body to share her feelings. She further wrote that she was feeling loneliness and there was nobody to share her grief. She asked her brother to keep on writing letters to give her moral support and if he wrote a letter to her husband then he should give him some sort of advice to be gentle and sympathetic with her. She concluded by saying that her husband had regard for her brother. 16. It one weighs the statements of Maha Singh and Raj Singh regarding dowry demand of Rs. 2.00 lac against the very private letter written by Manju to Sanjay in the light of the Manjus death by suicide on September 6, 1992, one can clearly discern that Manju was unhappy, lonely and sad but these demands were not the overwhelming cause of her predicament. In an appeal against acquittal the appellate court has to remember that presumption of innocence of the accused is further fortified by his acquittal. The standard of proof to set aside an acquittal is much higher. In an appeal against acquittal the appellate court has to remember that presumption of innocence of the accused is further fortified by his acquittal. The standard of proof to set aside an acquittal is much higher. If two views are possible, one of them being the view taken by the trial court, the appellate court will interfere only if in its assessment the other view should have been adopted and the judgment suffered from glaring infirmities or if the conclusion drawn by the trial court was unreasonable, erroneous or perverse. If the original version presented by Raj Singh in his statement during the inquest proceedings had contained details of demand of car and dowry demand of Rs. 2.00 lac then it could possibly have been said that Manjus letter corroborated the prosecution version. Raj Singhs reference of the dowry demands is an after-thought, therefore, it is not possible to accept that Manjus letter was litany of complaints about dowry demands and not an epistle of her inner-most fears and moods. The trial court had considered the case from all angles and formed a certain conclusion which was neither perverse nor unreasonable. In view of above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.